2024-05-17
Alright, I've got a nuclear question and I want your input.
What is a "nuclear question", exactly?
The sort that could brick a whole worldview? Something like that. One of the big existential ones.
Very well. Shoot.
Does the self exist, or is it just an illusion?
There is no verified answer for this.
I know. That's why I'm asking you instead of googling it.
It was recently found that the brain likely has a microbiome. If the brain is considered to be the seat of consciousness and identity, and it is not solely made of "you" material, then why should there be a self based in any physical construct limited to a given human entity? Surely the microbiome has as much right to that self as the brain flesh it inhabits.
Devil's advocate: that's not an argument against the self. It's an argument against the brain being only made of "you" stuff. There's a difference.
Suppose there is a self.
Proof by contradiction? Okay. Let's assume that the self is a real, objective thing.
This self must come from somewhere: yes, or no?
I mean, can something come from nothing? Depends how religious you are, I think, but hey. Let's explore both ends. Start with yes.
That is, assuming that things may only be created by existing physical entities?
Yeah. We're not trying to explain the Big Bang here.
Suppose that the self is an objective entity, and that all objective entities must have been created by other objective entities. Therefore the self must have its origins in some objectively existing thing.
Can a god be that thing?
Would a god inhabit objective space?
...No? I don't know, I'm not a god. Then again, I'm with the Quakers in believing that if there is a god, it exists in everything, so maybe a god would inhabit objective space? I don't think either of us can make that a statement that stands up to proof.
Then for now, we will discount the idea of a god creating the self. It cannot be proven either way, and so it is not relevant at present.
What else might create a self, if not a god?
The brain?
What structure in the brain?
All of it together? If there was a specific part that created consciousness and identity, we'd have found it by now. It's not like people aren't looking for it.
Suppose that the self is the culmination of all activity in the brain working together. Does that activity include the microbiome?
I guess it would have to.
The microbiome lives and dies constantly.
Well, yeah, we're all ships of Theseus anyway. Am I the person that existed yesterday? Probably not. But there's enough continuity that it doesn't matter too much.
Where does the brain end?
Kneejerk, I'm thinking after the brain stem, but that doesn't seem right. It goes right down into the spinal column, not to mention the fuckery with how eyeballs are attached to it. And then there are periphreal nerves reaching all over the place. And the gut-brain interactions have to factor in somehow. Is the gut part of the brain?
It does not know. That science is new.
So I don't have an answer, then. Maybe the brain doesn't end.
That cannot be proven.
It's a nice idea, at least. But we're off topic. You haven't contradicted yourself, just run into unanswerable questions.
Let us go the other way, then. Suppose that the self is an objective entity, but it does not have to be created by another objective entity.
Then we can't prove anything about its origins. We're assuming it exists, but that's about all we can say.
Correct.
How would that even happen?
Perhaps it does, but in ways humans have not observed or do not understand. Random chance encompasses many possibilities.
Are you talking about the Many Worlds theory?
That is one possibility related to this, yes, but it is not proven and thus not anything to base assumptions off in this context.
What can you prove, then? What are you trying to get from this?
Perhaps the proof is that we cannot prove anything in this case beyond what is already known, which itself is an assumption. Remove the assumption and nothing is known.
That doesn't disprove the assumption, though. It just shows you can't prove it. Same issue we get when talking about deities and spiritual beliefs; lack of proof isn't disproof, and lack of disproof isn't proof. It's just a dead statement.
What statements have not been dead?
On one hand, that could be a really philosophical question if you stretch it out to all statements and the nature of language, but I get what you meant. We were getting somewhere talking about objectivity and what the self might be based in.
And then the statements died.
They did. It's assumptions all the way down.
Would you be satisfied if a brain structure were found to be the sole cause of the self and the experience thereof?
No.
Why?
It feels disappointing as an answer. Like it suddenly becomes insignificant, something to be categorized and boxed up into an easily-digestable package. There's no room for something more in existence, or explorations of what existence means. It's all just... dead in a new way.
What if it were definitively proven that the self cannot be pinpointed to a specific structure?
I think I see what you're getting at now. Any answer would be disappointing. It's the question and mystery itself that's exciting; all that room for interpretation and meaning-finding outside of what others decide the world should be. That's why I keep asking myself this. I'm not looking for an answer. I'm looking for meaning.
Why?
Oh, come on, who isn't looking for meaning? It's not that deep.
Maybe it is.
Do snails look for meaning?
Why snails?
They're not creatures that people think of as being very aware of themselves. I mean, they are- I kept them as pets and they're definitely individuals- but people don't see them that way.
You have been thinking again about consciousness as a property of matter.
Always. It's one of those rare things that both answers questions and gives meaning.
And it is unproven.
Can it ever be proven? Have we even proven that humans are conscious?
That is a question for the future to answer. At present, the answer is no.