have you ever experienced pain when you accidentally bumped something with your prosthesis while it was attached to your body and you were seeing this action taking place?

And there are no "things" per se. Everything is a process in that sense, including matter and all the laws governing it.

+Tomislav Ocvirek I see your point, although, I´m not sure met zinger believes in "quailia" in the sense that Chalmers refers to. He seems to take an approach similar to Dan Dennett and Churchlands (Eliminative Materialism). But I´m not sure, I haven´t read "Being No One", only "The Ego Tunnel".

+Tomislav Ocvirek I was expecting to be more convinced/threatened by this lecture than I was. There are all kinds of holes and evasions in his conceptual model. The experiment of the rubber hand and full body model are obviously fascinating and significant, but saying that human identity is 'virtual reality' with the body as avatar, as you suggest, merely defers the hard problem, since his analogy is a system of technology (virtual reality) that would be meaningless without a human subject anyway.

+Tomislav Ocvirek This is another one of his model's evasions. He says: "There's no such thing as a self; your self is a process." If he can say it's a process then presumably it exists. What his statement seems to mean or imply is, "A process is not a thing." Why not?

+Quentin Crisp the body exists as a process, impermanent and without a core, always changing, like everything else we call a 'thing', the self would be this avatar, as he calls it, the brain's interpretation...

Obviously the Chuangmeister was stoned or schizophrenic or both. He must have been a bit stupid too to believe that a butterfly would be sophisticated enough to dream that it was a human being. Buddhism is overrated. No wonder the East has dumped Buddhism in favour of Western materialism.

I think you have taken the metaphor too literally. You could intertwine it with Wittgenstein's quote, "The argument 'I may be dreaming' is senseless for this reason: if I am dreaming, this remark is being dreamed as well - and it is also being dreamed that these words have any meaning." Of course Chuang Tzu and his reality is not actually a butterfly's dream, but what can this "of course" be based on? What is the foundation of this knowledge? If we follow Descartes' methodological doubt then the root of that knowledge lies in his cogito (i.e. the "thinking I" in "I think therefore I am"). But that cannot get to the root of the knowledge because the cogito is the principle from which all experience is based. The answer to the question is "out of bounds". To answer the question in the way you did is to make a category error. The butterfly of the dream is not one that is able to be investigated through the experiential world of Chuang Tzu. It is not a question of the biological constitution of a butterfly but of the transcendental nature of experience in itself. This is because the knowledge of the material constitution of the butterfly already presupposes an answer to the question.

Obviously you're experienced in this line of argument but included in your initial post was this - "He did not know whether it was Chuang Chou dreaming that he was a butterfly, or whether it was the butterfly dreaming that it was Chuang Chou." which appears to be an argument against the certainty of of one's Self and of one's reality. I believe that the denial of the certainty of the (existence of ) Self is a colossal metaphysical error rooted in the subject's objectification of himself. This amounts to placing one's Self outside one's Self - an impossible operation that can only lead to confusing an irresolvable error in thinking with a mystery. The root of the knowledge of Self and experience is out of bounds but that doesn't contradict the knowledge of Self and experience. Knowledge needn't be metaknowledge to be valid.

I agree with you that "the denial of the certainty of the (existence of ) Self is a colossal metaphysical error rooted in the subject's objectification of himself". Although, I would probably label that Self as person-hood which would allow for a certain difference between the metaphysically certain "I" and the more malleable (perhaps narrative) self. However, I think the Chuangmeister was going a step further than Descartes. The Frenchman would say that even though the entire world may be thrown into doubt (i.e. everything fabricated by an evil demon) there is the one certainty: because I am thinking I assuredly exist. However, I think Chuang Tzu would doubt even that. For him the "I" becomes transient and unimportant. I think maybe the best way to understand his view is as a perspectivism where neither the perspective nor the content really matter. What matters is the reaction (i.e. the Way).

I don't understand how Chuang hopes to dispenses with the 'I'. Perspective and content are surely transient but they are evidence of an 'I' that experiences them - the 'I' that reacts to them. How can I have a unique perspective without being a unique 'I'? Even if the 'I' is just an organ of the universe that 'I' is differentiated from any other 'I'. But perhaps I am missing your point.

I've been meaning to ask someone this, and it might as well be you - some people love materialism, others loathe it. Why do you like it?

@@Firespectrum122 It depends on what you mean by "like". For me, I'm a materialist because that's what the evidence suggests, and evidence trumps subjective experience in terms of reliability.

There's already no doubt. Society just won't function properly if we accept that noone is really to blame for their failures/misbehaviours, just as noone really derserves all the praise for simply existing with a great brain.

the illusion is that you as an observer identify with the feeling of self, instead of seeing it as another property of the world

+CrazyFoxAstral From other talks of Metzinger I know that he has a high opinion of Buddhism and acknowledges its knowledge and wisdom.

CrazyFoxAstral so we're pretending our self. That crazy

Metzinger has talked in interviews about how he has been doing vipassana meditation for 40 years. He's making the same point using scientific and western philosophical concepts.

CrazyFoxAstral there is just universal digestion that only takes mask of our stomac

So is the body different from the ME(ego,self)? The body(brain and body) is the actual physical organism. The ME is the self,the thinking process. SO the ME THINKS that the BODY is mine because WE have a SELF awareness capability in the brain that has been slowly being created from thinking it is MY body (memory,experiences,language). So the me is attached to the physical organism and identifies it as his or hers.

It is physicalism/naturalism trying to explain away consciousness since they can not explain it ;)

Sorry, why of course?

My friend, when you go through this thought experiment you are generating an idea of self, a word "self, me, I", or an image in your imagination. Then you are saying that this mental object is "you." However, at no point is the mental object actually you/consciousnesses - that would be like saying that you can see your own eyes. You might be able to see a reflection of your eyes or to deduce that you have eyes, or to make an imaginary form of your eyes in your mind, but you cannot see your eyes through the medium of your eyes themselves. Even Descartes knew that, since he was able to use thought as an object to attempt to 'prove' that there was a subject, a self. As he says, if he were not capable of thought, he would have no way of verifying the existence of a self at all. A subject needs an object in order to know itself. Hence, the self (whether it exists or not) is transparent. This is Self Inquiry 201.

read lacan zizek. i is not you

The phenomenological experience of the self is the only valid method 'to proof' the existence of the self i think. The self accompanies al our thoughts and perceptions and is normallly not someting we perceive. Although some philosophers did perceive it as pure consciousness in meditation like Edmund Husserl or Rudolf Steiner and Omraam M.Aivanhof or POeter Deunov. This is very rare of cource and takes great focus and long preparation. Of course neuroscience can only measure the self as a physicall proces because of its methodologicall bias focused on the material world, but this is not a valid argument to state that the self as such does not exist or can be reduced to a matarial process. It can only say: we see a proces. No more. It only prooves that the method of natural science is able to percieve a proces in the brain. And this matarialistic reductionistic theory does not account for saints, initiates, near death experience or spirtual perceptions of real avatars that claim that perception without the senses and physicall brain is possible for any human being if he/she meditates long enough. Materialism and spiritualism...Both views are simaltanaeously true i think: science can tell us about processes on the material level , and no more, and spiritual science can percieve the self as spiritual substance that is relfected in the brainprocess, as an effect and reflection of the spiritual self or soul that surround an permeates the body. People like Rupert Sheldrake defend this view. I dearly hope both veiws will be in harmony one day for thee sake of knowledge and the real understanding of the self , one of the most important questions of our time.

+nimim. Marko Mikkilä like everyone having this attitude, you're either a virtuoso in these matters, expecting the sea (in my country meaning wanting much) or someone who didn't really understood the meaning and importance of the things in question. this is intended for a larger, naive, audience so it was very shallow; enough for me to understand. i think these matters are of enormous importance for our society and academia needs to step out into the streets more. we are still savages waiting to grow into our designation "homo sapiens sapiens": anywherein12seconds.tumblr.com/image/136120492696 anywherein12seconds.tumblr.com/post/130283696901/beware-of-brutal-content