Yes, but because that sense of self is created by the brain this means it is NOT the real Self. That sense of self, which I call the small 's' self is only a concept created by the brain. You again used a word 'your' to refer to a self that owns the brain. That sense of self is just an individual person caused by a brain and who we think we are. This self is just made up of thoughts (and internal) feelings. This sense of self can not be the 'my' in "my thinking", nor the 'my' nor 'your' in "my brain" or "your brain", because this self is the thinking itself. 'My' implies ownership. The owner of all thoughts, thinking or brain activities is the real and True Self. This True Self is the 'I' in the question who am 'I'?
I don't think we have two selves. I think the sense of self is all we have since there is no need for Self. We need a frame of reference for our activities and that is it. I also don't think that brain can ever create a Self that think separately.
That is fine, you can think whatever you like. Whether it is right or wrong is another matter.
I am stating that seeing one's self as either a dualist or materialist does not make any sense. Truthful, correct and right answers are never found in one or the other. Truthful, correct and right answers are found in both dualism AND materialism, as I explained earlier.
How that could be true? Materialism and dualism oppose each other.
They do NOT oppose each other, people just think they oppose each other. Just like creation and evolution, nature and nurture, et cetera, also do NOT oppose each other. What is found in both of them is truths and falsehoods. Looking at them both from a particular way allows the actual and real Truth to be seen and understood very easily and quickly. The reason why some people want to choose to believe one over the other is the same reason why they believe that there could only be one or the other and that they oppose each other.
Have you noticed how many times you use 'our' or 'your' to put a 'thing' in reference to some thing else, which you are trying to explain. If 'our' is sense of self in "materialism" and it is 'your' spirit under dualism, then who/what is the 'your' in "your spirit"? You have not made anything clearer yet. You still appear very confused.
"I" is the sense of self in materialism that you experience it directly. It is construct of your brain. "I" is your self in dualism that you could experience its existence too. I have no idea whether this experience is only allowed by collaboration of body and spirit, or we can have this experience by spirit alone. I once had out of body experience.
You are again not looking at what I am saying and completely disregarding the issue that I posed, that is you say, the sense of self is constructed by the brain, but then you contradict this by using words like 'you' and 'your' in reference to this self, which implies there is another self beyond the sense of self. I am not saying this to necessary clear things up for you, I am just wanting you to notice that you are adding another self onto the sense of self that you are talking about.
Instead of using materialism and dualism to look at this, I suggest to just look into this from a whole new perspective, AND THEN use your already grasped knowledge to find the Truths. You will then discover and understand what needs to be discovered and understood. Obviously the written material that is already available is not that much good at helping to make things clearer for human beings in this day and age.
Maybe if we delved deeper into that out of body experience that you, 'your'-self had, then I could show you more clearly the actual Truth, which comes from noticing the contradictions in your explanations.
Are you absolutely positively sure of this?
Just because 'you' do not know some thing, that itself does not mean every one else also does not know that thing. Making wrong assumptions does not help you to become clearer.
There are many theories which claim that they can explain consciousness well but there is no consensus in the scientific community that what is the right theory.
The consensus, or lack of consensus, in the scientific community does NOT make something right or wrong. You said that no one knows some thing. I just queried you on this because even if the whole scientific community was in, or not in, consensus that in itself does not mean that there is not one person who does know that thing and is actually working on how to make that knowledge more easily explainable right now. For example a whole community was in consensus that the sun revolves around the earth, and each one of them would have said, "No one knows the right theory" especially if it was one that was opposing the currently held view by the people in that day and age. The fact was just one person did actually KNOW, the right theory, which was that the earth does revolve around the sun and not the other way around, as most, if not all, believed it was that way.
Some times one person does know,
what is right, even if everyone else believes that no one knows. But all the others will never find this out whilst they are assuming and believing otherwise.
You stated three completely opposing, confusing, and contradictory views:
1. "Mind is construct of your brain activities in materialism". That means there is a 'you', who owns the brain, which constructs a mind.
I stated that the sense of self is created by brain.
Yet you used the word 'your' to refer to the brain actually being a property of the a self. This is very contradictory. You can not say that the sense of self is created by a brain and also state that that happens in 'your' brain. Either 'you' created the brain, and thus the brain is the property of you, or, the brain created the sense of self, and thus the self is the property of the brain.
2. "Mind is your spirit under dualism." That means there is a 'you', who owns a spirit, and that spirit is a mind.
That is correct.
If you can not see the completely obvious contradiction here, then I think you are not prepared to see it.
3. "Your mind doesn't have any location." That means there is a 'you', who owns a mind, and that mind does not have any location.
I have stated why and how this is absurd.
You don't owe a mind. Mind, self or spirit is what you are and has a sense of itself under dualism. You have only a sense of self under materialism. For what regards the location of mind, as it was stated, we have no mind under materialism. You have a mind under dualism but that has no location since it is not physical.
Disregarding location all together for now because that is of no importance, the issue here is your use of words to describe, what you are admitting here, which is that really you are totally unclear of what actually happens and how the Mind and the brain actually work. I suggest just stop assuming that materialism or dualism alone will provide any meaningful answers to you. The Truth is in both of them, with both of them proving each other, by showing the true, right, and correct parts in the other one.
These writing would not really be that useful at all to all others.
The response in "your" opinion that the "Mind is the result of electromagnetic fields constructed by neurons firing" still does in no way clarify what the Mind exactly is and how the Mind works exactly.
The answer is obvious when people want to discover this by themselves, instead of trying to find answers in the abundance of confusing and contradictory written material available. This only leads to more and more confusion.
Also, if Mind is the result of electromagnetic fields constructed by neurons firing as in "your" opinion, then what is thought/s, and how do you distinguish between the Mind and thoughts?
By the way ALL the questions I ask for clarity here in this forum I already know the answers to. I just ask the questions to highlight to the readers how much the people actually do know, what they say they know.
Again, there is no mind under materialism. Our experiences including the sense of selves are created by brain. Our thoughts are the result of brain process on subjects matter when they are delivered to conscious mind.
If that is what you want to believe is right, then so be it. But if you can not make full sense of your thinking here and can not back up what you are saying with clear cut evidence, then it may just be the right time to think about changing the actual way you are looking at this.
If you do want to understand all of this more fully, then I would be glad to help you. But if that brain constructs thoughts that suggest that you know enough already, then feel free to pass up my offer.