through in my personal life and can be he best pdf for possibly. (Korbin Hammes) In The Self Illusion, Bruce Hood reveals how the self emerges during. This intuitive sense of self is an effortless and fundamental human .. we are," says developmental psychologist Bruce Hood at the University of. Laddas ned direkt. Köp Self Illusion av Bruce Hood på mmoonneeyy.info PDF-böcker lämpar sig inte för läsning på små skärmar, t ex mobiler. Nedladdning: Kan.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Hindi|
|Genre:||Politics & Laws|
|ePub File Size:||18.67 MB|
|PDF File Size:||18.37 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
To cite this article: Jason A. Kaufman Ph.D. () The Self Illusion: How the Creates Identity by Bruce Hood, American Journal of Clinical. The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity and millions of other books are available for instant access. Start reading The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity on your Kindle in under a minute. Bruce Hood's the Self Illusion: How the Social Brain. The "self" is an illusion arising from our interactions with the environment. It happens partially due to the fact that our brains react to the.
Must of us, including myself have that experience but that does not make it real. However, unquestionable as that mental experience might seem to all of us, there can be no one inside our head considering the options. Laddas ned direkt. Circular argument. But then saying whether or not an abstraction is a real thing becomes an ontological argument that I don't necessarily care for. Hood's thesis is that the self is an illusion, but what this means is not clear.
So you can become aware of a thought, but you are not independent to that thought. Now that is a very unsatisfactory answer for most people because it simply does not accord with mental experience. We entertain thoughts. We consider options.
We gather our thoughts together. We play out scenarios in our mind. However, unquestionable as that mental experience might seem to all of us, there can be no one inside our head considering the options.
Otherwise, you would then have the problem of an infinite regress — who is inside their head, and so on, and so on. I get the sense that not all of your colleagues agree with your deconstruction of the self.
Some argue, in fact, that the self is a bit like a wristwatch. Just because a watch is a bundle of different parts doesn't mean it is an illusion. How do you respond to these critiques? For me, an illusion is not what it seems and for most of us, we consider our self as some essential core of who we are. Most of us feel our self is at the center of our existence responding to everything around us - that notion of an integrated entity is what I am challenging, not the experience of self.
Must of us, including myself have that experience but that does not make it real. For example, most us think that we see the world continuously throughout the waking day when in fact we only see a fraction of the world in front of us, and because the brain blanks out our visual experience every time we move our eyes in a process called saccadic suppression, we are effectively blind for at least 2 hrs of the day.
This is why you cannot see your own eyes moving when you look in a mirror! As for the comparison with a wristwatch CLearly, it is composed of many parts and the sum of the parts is the wristwatch.
However, a wristwatch is only a wristwatch by convention. An alien or a Neanderthal would just consider it to be some form of complex composite object. You could even use the wristwatch as a weapon to kill small animals. It's a bizarre use of this object I grant you, but there is nothing inherent or essential to the watch that defines what it is.
And even then, a microbe living on the watch face may not consider it an object. So a wristwatch is a wristwatch because of a recognized function and to some extent, a convention — both of which do not confer an independent reality to the mind that is considering it.
It depends on how you look at it. In the book, I argue that because we have evolved as social animals, those around us construct a large part of our mental life that we experience as our self. We can see the influence of others but often fail to recognize how we too are shaped. I am not denying the role of genes and temperaments that we inherit from our biology. After all, children raised in the same environment can end up very different but even these intrinsic properties of who we are play out in a social world which defines us.
If you think about it, many of the ways we describe each other, such as helpful, kind, generous, mean, rude or selfish can only make sense in the context of others.
So those around us largely define who we are. I hope this book will remind us of this obvious point that we so easily forget. View Comments. Sponsored Content Powered By Outbrain. Matt Simon Meet Blue: More science. Kevin Hartnett Kevin Hartnett. First of all this is not a dispute based on scientific truth since science as a method of verification rests on a fallacy the affirmation of the consequent.
Neuroscience, in another respect, amounts to the refinement of a particular set of opinions. It's even a kind of self-persuation, for example, that correlation is the same as identity.
But it never is. There it is.
I've made it half way to that sweet nugget of wisdom you keep hiding underneath your suit of armor. The scientific method is not based on cause an effect. It is 1 observation; 2 hypothesis; 3 implication; 4 verification. We hope for verification which is a superior kind of persuasion.
But verification depends upon the logical fallacy under discussion. Children are pre-logical until around seven years of age. There are also associative errors. Your friend Gomer sees rats coming from a heap of garbage and concludes the garbage is the cause of rats.
This is where neuroscience is at. It is simply a refined opinion that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain.
Still, there is no absolute certainty. The next phase is to use propaganda and censorship; maybe then people will believe that the brain makes consciousness. It's all about optogenetics. We're at a point where we can manipulate memory because we're able to identify neuron populations that encode specific memories.
Baby steps. That dichotomy is dated, to say the least. Biology accepts that causation flows both in a bottom-up and in a top-down fashion, in tandem. But science is not really saying this, you know. That would be scientism. Sure, its a fad right now, a consensus right now.
And its not entirely without basis. The brain does do stuff. A damaged brain will have an effect. The conversation of science will continue.
It will be interesting. It is the job of science not to become a sock puppet of the materialists they come with different names such as naturalists - it's their camouflage. And since science rests upon a fallacy it has to double its efforts not to be 'used'. But it is being used by neuroscience such that it is becoming ideological scientism.
And this needs to stop. This is more of a problem of scientism than it is of science. I call it false association. Scientism is a philosophical claim about science — and folks need to keep this in mind which I dare say they don't. Scientism is also a metaphysical claim. Not about science. Its not even framed as a hypothesis or a theory. Its an assumption and a conclusion that is ill formed, unexamined, and full of itself.
It probably will not stand in its present form. It only makes believers more adamantly uninterested in looking at alternatives. Kind of a time out on civil conversation.
The more restrictions put on science by the scientism ideologists, who are protecting their turf, the more we enter into another dark age. I always like what Feynman once said:. But nevertheless, we now have a much more humble point of view of our physical laws—everything can be wrong! Brains, in a manner of speaking, can store wrong information and bad ideas. As a result, we can easily deceive ourselves. In light of this, a closed mind as in this is a settled theory is not a good thing to have — still we encourage it especially in our universities!
More about the four statements can be found here Zen Master of the Month: Foyan Qingyuan Click: Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Become a Redditor and subscribe to one of thousands of communities. Want to add to the discussion? Post a comment! Create an account. This is just basic logic. Let's break it down. The author argues, however, that though the self is an illusion, it is one that humans cannot live without.
But things are changing as our technology develops and shapes society. The social bonds and relationships that used to take time and effort to form are now undergoing a revolution as we start to put our self online.
Social networking activities such as blogging, Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter threaten to change the way we behave. Social networking is fast becoming socialization on steroids. The speed and ease at which we can form alliances and relationships is outstripping the same selection processes that shaped our self prior to the internet era.
This book ventures into unchartered territory to explain how the idea of the self will never be the same again in the online social world. Supersense Bruce Hood.