SELF

[Advocate]

[quote=popeye1945 post_id=635807 time=1681621846 user_id=21999]
[quote=Advocate post_id=635790 time=1681618398 user_id=15238]
[quote=popeye1945 post_id=635787 time=1681617141 user_id=21999]


What replicates is essence common to all organisms, in other words the only difference between organisms is structure and form not essence. When an organism is born it has no identity, it only formulates a said identity through its experiences of context/environment, these experiences are meanings relative to its biological constitutions'/structure and form of its essence. PS; What is elephant riding?
[/quote]

A person so has a self before they recognize it as such, memory loss aside,, because they have a unique embodied perspective which centers all of their experience. That internal map of external reality is as much an aspect of self as more chosen aspects.
[/quote]

What brings on the recognition if not the context/environment that it is born into? An organism that comes into this world imprints on the first organism in its context identifying with it. Structure and form indeed determine largely the niche an organism is precondition to inhabit but that was determined over eons of generations subjected to evolutionary adaptation. As I stated earlier, the essence of all organisms is one and the same, they differ only in structure, form and the niche occupied, and as the saying goes, context defines, as the giver of identity.
[/quote]

Yes but no. Just like children to their parents, the context may be unavoidable, but that doesn't say anything meaningful about how self actually expresses. It could be in conjunction with, in opposition to, tangential to, etc.

Because self is a spiritual (of the patterns in the mind, no woo) experience, phenomenology should be primary.

[popeye1945]

A person so has a self before they recognize it as such, memory loss aside,, because they have a unique embodied perspective which centers all of their experience. That internal map of external reality is as much an aspect of self as more chosen aspects.

What brings on the recognition if not the context/environment that it is born into? An organism that comes into this world imprints on the first organism in its context identifying with it. Structure and form indeed determine largely the niche an organism is precondition to inhabit but that was determined over eons of generations subjected to evolutionary adaptation. As I stated earlier, the essence of all organisms is one and the same, they differ only in structure, form and the niche occupied, and as the saying goes, context defines, as the giver of identity.

Yes but no. Just like children to their parents, the context may be unavoidable, but that doesn't say anything meaningful about how self actually expresses. It could be in conjunction with, in opposition to, tangential to, etc.

Because self is a spiritual (of the patterns in the mind, no woo) experience, phenomenology should be primary.

I think you are confusing constitution with the sense of self, it is true that exact twins having the same genes even though separated at birth, tend to live lives remarkably similar, but in the cases stated, they had to quite similar environments. Experience gives us identity but I think your right, constitutions if the same are molded into a highly similar sense of self, and live their lives in remarkable mirror-like ways.

[Dontaskme]

SELF is another human concept.

Outside of human conceptual langauge, there is no SELF except in this artificially constructed real conception.

[popeye1945]

SELF is another human concept.

Outside of human conceptual langauge, there is no SELF except in this artificially constructed real conception.

The word is not the thing. If we are to play with the concept of the self, there is nothing to prevent us from defining the self as the essence of life.

[Dontaskme]

SELF is another human concept.

Outside of human conceptual langauge, there is no SELF except in this artificially constructed real conception.

The word is not the thing. If we are to play with the concept of the self, there is nothing to prevent us from defining the self as the essence of life.

And that would be no thing defining.

No thing can define the essence of life, or every thing defines it..which is no thing.

[Agent Smith]

"We have a problem," said Tom, he looked worried. "Why? What's the matter?" asked Dick. Dick wanted to get the work done ASAP, he was a no-nonsense, you-always-get-yer-money's-worth-with-Dick was his motto. Harry, who'd overheard the conversation, looked at Dick and, with a wink, "this is, if memory serves, as per current dating techniques, an African problem, a 35000 year old African problem!" Dick's mind flitted through his memory palace, we all have one and if you don't you need to build one, he saw his fridge, on it the magnet holders ... a note ... from a Mr. Tucker ... "we found a match" it read.

[popeye1945]

SELF is another human concept.

Outside of human conceptual language, there is no SELF except in this artificially constructed real conception.

The word is not the thing. If we are to play with the concept of the self, there is nothing to prevent us from defining the self as the essence of life.

And that would be no thing defining.

No thing can define the essence of life, or everything defines it..which is no thing.

Well, the essence of life could be considered energy, but an energy that has become manifest to a preexisting energy form, biology, without which, there are no things.