Hacker News Reader

Comment by galaxyLogic | Hacker News Reader

I don't want to sound mystical or religious, but 'self' really is an illusion. It is a word that pops up in the LLM of our brain. It is a word that describes what we perceive as happening. What "we" really are are our thoughts and especially memories. And they can live on beyond our physical death. But does that make us happy? Of course everybody wants to go to Heaven, but no-one wants to die. But rationally thinking, 'self' is an illusion.

StarTrek taught us that you can transfer Kirk and Spock to a different place by re-assembling their atoms in a different place. But is it really the same Spock that pops up there? Or a copy? A copy obviously. Such a copy cam then live on practically forever because they could always re-assemble a younger Spock. But since it is aa copy would Spock really be happy that his copy lives on forever? Yes I believe if he thinks about it rationally. And Spock does.

View on HN

I don't identify my "self" (or consciousness) with memories or anything the supposed LLM in my brain might babble about. If you took those things away, I'd still be here. Rationally speaking, self is the only thing that certainly isn't an illusion. Anything you perceive could be a hallucination, memories can change or disappear, and thoughts are mere dust in the wind, but you can't have any of those things without something to perceive them. It's the only thing you know is there, whatever it is.

The feeling off "self" is not an illusion, we all or most of us have it. But it is just a word and one whose meaning is not very well defined, it is like you say "whatever it is". Which kind of hints at that we don't really have a good definition for it.

I am "me" and the definition of "me" is what I am. Somewhat cyclical right?

If you lost all your thoughts and memories, what would be left? You can call that "self" but is it the same "self" as what you thought of yourself as before losing all thoughts and memories?

There are people suffering from schizophrenia who alternate between different "selves". At least to their experience those are totally different "selves" which need not be aware of the other selves at all. So would it mean there are multiple "selfs" within one brain?

I'm only talking about myself, since I'm talking about what I can't deny rationally, i.e. the fact of my own conscious experience. I can't speak for schizophrenics. I don't think you need a definition for your self in the sense that I'm talking about. Like you said, how would such a definition work? Definitions aside, I can't deny the fact of that self, even though I could by a slim margin doubt literally anything else.

I'm talking about the essential process of experiencing whatever comes to pass in my mind and senses. That process would surely continue if my memories disappeared. If all thoughts, memories and senses disappeared, well I can hardly say what would happen. All I can say for certain that my experience is happening right now, and it's not contingent on any particular thought, memory or sense.

A copy living on is meaningless to the original consciousness, since the subjective experience of the copy is decoupled from the original. There is no more connection than between you and me. You can dress this arbitrarily in grand words of leaving a dent and so on, but no matter the phrasing: once you’re gone, you’re gone. I don’t care if people remember me, if I cease to exist, I cease experience the world, and it’s all void.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com