Buddhist teaching: There is no ego (anatta)

[Oliver Twist]

(Note: I use the terms "self" and "ego" interchangeably. If you dispute that usage, let me know. Also, if I use the terms "I" or "me," etc, such usage doesn't imply a belief in said terms, but is simply a practical manner of speaking. Refering to myself in the third person as "this form" would be confusing.)

I am a Buddhist. Do not quickly dismiss me as a new age spiritualist who finds solace in eastern superstitions and dogmas.

I am an atheist and I believe in what could be called "skeptical Buddhism." Skeptical Buddhists see Buddhism as a useful and truth-bearing philosophy, which has been corrupted or at least unnecessarily adorned by religious elements. See Stephen Batchelor's book, "Buddhism Without Beliefs." I see existentialism and postmodern philosophy as western re-discoveries of ancient eastern ideas, with psychology, sociology, and quantum physics giving such arguments scientific support.

With that out of the way, onto the main topic:

The most critical aspect of Objectivism is the ego. The entire philosophy is ego-centered. And so, if the ego's existence is disproven, the entire philosophy of Objectivism is swept away.

Buddhism has taught for centuries that there is no ego and many Hindus share fairly similar beliefs as well. I find the argument convincing.

The idea of self is an artificial concept created by the brain, which uses various algorithms to come to truthful conclusions about the world when faced with only a limited amount of data and processing power.

Logically, we cannot conclude any fact about the world absolutely, because of our mental limitations. Even if we had the most perfect means of reasoning, we have access to limited information and simply one piece of information could change everything. And, on the other hand, even if we somehow had access to all information, we have limited means of analyzing it, as we have natural tendencies towards irrationality. And even if we had god-like mental ability, having the ability to know all facts and reason flawlessly, our conclusions are still uncertain because we cannot separate ourselves from reality so as to grant a truly objective analysis.

As a result, we have created symbols, which are simplified abstractions of reality. The proof for this is abundant in the history of philosophy. Because in reality things lack intrinsic identity, when philosophers apply reason to reality, they come across the problem of universals. Because "mind" and "body" are mere abstractions, treating them as distinct objects creates the mind-body problem. And finally, because symbols are simplified abstractions of reality, there is the problem of induction.

The self is such a symbol.

When we talk about "me," there is no physical counterpart with which we can identify the self with. For instance, we can't say the self is the body, because the body is made up of molecules that change over time. The way we define "self" in relation to this change is arbitrary. For example, as I understand it, Objectivists identify death with the annihilation of the ego. However, the actual physical changes in one's body from life to death, in its initial moments at least, isn't any more of a substantial change than, for example, puberty or regular aging.

Most often, we define the self as the abiding feeling of personhood created by the brain. However, it is possible that this feeling may exist without a feeler. In fact, the distinction between "feeling" and "feeler" is yet another set of symbols which, while possibly useful, isn't actually found anywhere in reality. Our inability to escape the cage of symbolic thought has led many to accept "cogito ergo sum," as true, despite the fact that it clearly isn't a valid syllogism, as it has only two premises.

Since the self, then, is nothing more than a transient feeling created by the brain and since feelings can exist without feelers, there is no reason to believe that there is any abiding self, any "ego."

Lastly, central to my argument is the Buddhist concept of emptiness. The existence of emptiness (no pun intended) is implied in the above argument (as I said, above "things lack intrinsic identity"), but I didn't go into great detail because emptiness is such a broad topic that it would need another thread to cover.

A quick summary of the argument is as follows:

• In order to have an intrinsic identity, a thing must either be separable or abiding.
  
• All things are connected to all other things, with no part separable or distinguishable from the rest (holism).
  
• All things are in constant change.
  
• Therefore, all things lack intrinsic thing-ness (relativism).
  

Please don't mistake the above argument for an argument for nihilism. The law of identity stands. Objects can hold an identity, but such an identity isn't intrinsic to the object itself. Reality is acknowledged to exist, but thoroughly relative or, in other words, "empty."

Read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunyata

[softwareNerd]

I suppose there isn't any point replying to a post that was somehow caused by the movement of some molecules of the universe, which are now changed into some other form...etc. No point replying if there's nobody home to hear.

I say "I", but "you" probably don't understand that that means...but, then "you" don't even exist. Well... whatever: it's pointless trying to talk to a chair or to any other non-living conglomeration of molecules.

Edited November 24, 2007 by softwareNerd

[KevinD]

Logically, we cannot conclude any fact about the world absolutely, because of our mental limitations.

Can you conclude that fact absolutely?

[Clawg]

There is nothing wrong with Buddhism as long as you don't think about it.

But I think there are some points that can be discussed separately.

When we talk about "me," there is no physical counterpart with which we can identify the self with. For instance, we can't say the self is the body, because the body is made up of molecules that change over time. The way we define "self" in relation to this change is arbitrary. For example, as I understand it, Objectivists identify death with the annihilation of the ego. However, the actual physical changes in one's body from life to death, in its initial moments at least, isn't any more of a substantial change than, for example, puberty or regular aging.

An entity is not necessarily a set of concrete elements, an entity can also be seen as a system of (replaceable) entities. Just because some cells died and were replaced does not mean that you are suddenly a new entity.

I agree that a definition of 'self' is arbitrary, I can imagine special cases of biological nature where it would be hard to decide what self means.

But I think you are using a straw-man here, of relevance is self-consciousness, not 'self'. Before you can define 'self' you have to be self-conscious.

One point you have to keep in mind is that you have to agree on certain basic premises (that allow you to discuss those premises) before you can use arguments against them.

The idea of self is an artificial concept created by the brain, which uses various algorithms to come to truthful conclusions about the world when faced with only a limited amount of data and processing power.

Logically, we cannot conclude any fact about the world absolutely, because of our mental limitations.

Even if we had the most perfect means of reasoning, we have access to limited information and simply one piece of information could change everything.

This is contradictory to the basic axioms of Objectivism. Even with limited 'processing power' we would be able to conclude facts about the world absolutely.

A simple demonstration of a computer program that is able to do that:

main() {

print("I have reached the conclusion that I have written this sentence.");

}

Alone because of the fact that in order to conclude anything we have to exist, we have to assume that we exist when concluding anything.

And, on the other hand, even if we somehow had access to all information, we have limited means of analyzing it, as we have natural tendencies towards irrationality.

Compared to a rock we have a natural tendency towards rationality.

And even if we had god-like mental ability, having the ability to know all facts and reason flawlessly, our conclusions are still uncertain because we cannot separate ourselves from reality so as to grant a truly objective analysis.

The whole point is that because we have to include ourselves in our conclusions we can reach certain conclusions.

Your point here is rather relevant in the context of predicting the future - which we can't, even with a god-like mental ability.

As a result, we have created symbols, which are simplified abstractions of reality. The proof for this is abundant in the history of philosophy. Because in reality things lack intrinsic identity, when philosophers apply reason to reality, they come across the problem of universals.

Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy.

If you haven't already I recommend reading "Objectivism, The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (again).

Edited November 24, 2007 by Clawg

[Miles White]

I am an atheist and I believe in what could be called "skeptical Buddhism."

You might as well give up now because we don't take kindly to skeptics either.

The entire philosophy is ego-centered. And so, if the ego's existence is disproven, the entire philosophy of Objectivism is swept away.

The entire philosophy of Buddhism is altruist centered, so if altruism's existence was disprove then the entire philosophy of Buddhism would be swept away

Buddhism has taught for centuries that there is no ego and many Hindus share fairly similar beliefs as well. I find the argument convincing.

Based on what evidence?

Logically, we cannot conclude any fact about the world absolutely, because of our mental limitations.

So I don't know wether I'm making a post right now or wether your really alive or wether I have a bed to sleep on or a dog to walk.

Therefore, all things lack intrinsic thing-ness (relativism).

So, what if I want you to look like a big fat purple and yellow spotted dinosaur, according to you it would make sense if you somehow really did look like one, only of corse it still makes no sense because if nothing exists then I wouldn't even be making this post in the first place let alone laugh with the fact that I made you look like that. Just because things change in their composition over time makes no sense to disprove as unnamable, men and women change allot in physical structure and looks throughout the course of their lives, does that mean they are not human? What you need to understand is that humans have the ability to perceive things because we are suppose to learn from our environment and change our environment when we deem it necessary to do so. It is our tool or survival such as lions have their claus and teeth, humans have reason. To deny that is to deny humanity... PERIOD. So you can go about propagating your lack of philosophy some not-where else to try and not-convince some other not-people to join your not-religion of nothingness because this is a forum for reason not stupidity and insanity.

p.s. (For someone who doesn't believe in taking up space, you sure did take up allot of space with your post.)

Edited November 24, 2007 by Miles White

[Tenure]

This is not a post.

[Ender]

Did this guy escape from the Bandakar Empire? Nothing is real, nothing is real, nothing is real...

[softwareNerd]

Did this guy ...

Who?

[Ender]

Who?

The non-entity who didn't post this thread which may or may not exist, duh!

Edited November 25, 2007 by Ender

[avampirist]

Logically, we cannot conclude any fact about the world absolutely, because of our mental limitations. Even if we had the most perfect means of reasoning, we have access to limited information and simply one piece of information could change everything. And, on the other hand, even if we somehow had access to all information, we have limited means of analyzing it, as we have natural tendencies towards irrationality. And even if we had god-like mental ability, having the ability to know all facts and reason flawlessly, our conclusions are still uncertain because we cannot separate ourselves from reality so as to grant a truly objective analysis.

That's the problem with eastern philosophy. How do you know you don't know something? Knowledge is positive; not knowing is negative. You can only know what you know. (knowledge is finite) The question is: how do you know what you know. You posted this thread becuase you're trying to argue in favor of the existence of something that you know. If I have no means of knowing it, why would you post it? If existence doesn't exist, why are you acting as though it does?

I will add, though, that I do believe that Buddhism, unlike every other religion, understands something about the psychological and spiritualism. (By spiritualism I mean focusing attention in a certain way so as to achieve certain results. That's me paraphrasing Sam Harris) I've meditated before while focusing on the idea that "there is no I" and I experienced drastic psychological changes. When I say "there is no I," I mean that there is no fixed self. I found that that exercise helps remove prejudices about the self, and creates a mindset that is more conducive to acting rationally. I also experienced intense elation.

[Oliver Twist]

I suppose there isn't any point replying to a post that was somehow caused by the movement of some molecules of the universe, which are now changed into some other form...etc. No point replying if there's nobody home to hear.

And if I agreed with you, where would that leave Objectivism?

There are two ways of understanding existence ("Two truths doctrine"). Existence in the ultimate sense is absolute, holistic, indivisible, and empty. Existence in the practical sense is subjective, reductionist, distinguishable, and in physical form.

The reason two truths exist is because of the two different ways of going about understanding the world. A person can either blindly accept what seems to be true on the surface, or they can reflect deeply and courageously disassemble the axioms of their most basic beliefs.

Most of the time, most people understand truth conventionally. I can sense all kinds of physical objects, each which seem distinct. I can sense that I have the ability to reason and experience things as they actually are. And I sense that I exist as a distinct person. I understand all of these things, yet don't even need to actually think at all. I can simply take reality and existence for granted. In this regard, you could regard it as conventionally true that persons exist.

Ultimate truth, however, is understood by probing conventional truth, as pointed out in the original post. There is no method by which ultimate truth may be understood. If such a method were put forth, it would be inconsistent because an assumption of what truth is, is made when putting forth such a method.

Ultimately, you don't exist, nothing you do matters, and everything that has happened was bound by destiny, just as the future is unavoidable. These facts should not yield melancholy or despair, because acting in such a way signifies that the purpose of life is to be depressed over life's purposelessness... Far from it.

Conventionally, you exist, you can make a difference in the world, and clearly, in this subjective moment, you have free will. You decide to move your hand and it moves. Also, you have the freedom to create meaning in your life.

I say "I", but "you" probably don't understand that that means...but, then "you" don't even exist. Well... whatever: it's pointless trying to talk to a chair or to any other non-living conglomeration of molecules.

God doesn't exist either, yet billions of people speak to him every day and in the minds of those who pray, it is far from pointless.

Can you conclude that fact absolutely?

No, it's just an intuition.

There is nothing wrong with Buddhism as long as you don't think about it.

Is that a joke?

An entity is not necessarily a set of concrete elements, an entity can also be seen as a system of (replaceable) entities. Just because some cells died and were replaced does not mean that you are suddenly a new entity.

I agree that a definition of 'self' is arbitrary, I can imagine special cases of biological nature where it would be hard to decide what self means.

But I think you are using a straw-man here, of relevance is self-consciousness, not 'self'. Before you can define 'self' you have to be self-conscious.

One point you have to keep in mind is that you have to agree on certain basic premises (that allow you to discuss those premises) before you can use arguments against them.

I concede that an entity can be a system, but why define the self as a specific system?

As it seems to me, there is only one system. The Greeks called it the Logos, the Chinese called it the Tao. You could argue that there are multiple systems, with the "grand order of things" merely being the only closed system, with the self being an open system, but a distinct system nonetheless.

But still: Such a distinction would again be unfounded, because the definition of "system" would be arbitrary. You could theoretically construct a virtually infinite number of "systems" within reality.

Biology is exactly the point. Microscopic cells could be regarded as being distinct "selves." On the opposite end, you have gaia theory, which suggests the entire planet is essentially a single organism.

And if you agree the definition of self is arbitrary, how does it support the rest of Objectivism?

Self-consciousness is irrelevant to this point at least, because you don't need to be self-conscious to have a self. We're talking about the existence of self, in addition to how you might know you have a self. A dumb animal can't engage in philosophy, but that doesn't necessarily prevent it from having an ego.

I also don't think you can require self-consciousness as a prerequisite for defining self, since the definition "self" is included in the previous term (a circular argument).

I agree we need to agree on certain basic axioms.

This is contradictory to the basic axioms of Objectivism. Even with limited 'processing power' we would be able to conclude facts about the world absolutely.

A simple demonstration of a computer program that is able to do that:

main() {

print("I have reached the conclusion that I have written this sentence.");

}

I don't understand what the program proves? The program was written by an actual person. Also, this person certainly has their own assumptions about what truth is, what the program is meant to do, and what the words mean.

In order to nullify any argument, it takes only one erroneous premise.

For instance, let's take a deductive logical argument:

• Roses are red
  
• Violets are blue
  
• Therefore, roses and violets are different colors.
  

Now, let's say that mankind builds a spaceship and flies zillions of miles across the galaxy and he happens to find a blue rose. Even with the perfect ability to reason, anyone without an access to the blue rose wouldn't be able to know that not all roses are red.

Even stranger examples are better. In a distant corner of the universe, we may find that the color spectrum operates differently. Perhaps in such space, roses appear to be a different color, despite giving off the same frequency of light. Or perhaps colors work altogether differently.

The point is that even with the perfect ability to reason, one piece of evidence can nullify any argument, whatever the argument is. If you know any assertion which is absolutely true, put it forth.

Alone because of the fact that in order to conclude anything we have to exist, we have to assume that we exist when concluding anything.

As I said, "I think therefore I am" is an invalid argument because it's only two premises. Look closely at what you just said. There's a missing premise and the second sentence is essentially just a grammatical restatement of the previous sentence.

Cogito ergo sum, with the missing premise in bold:

-I think,

-The act of thinking and\or being a thinker implies existence,

-Therefore I exist.

If that is not the missing premise and cogito ergo sum is a valid syllogism, what would the three premises be?

Compared to a rock we have a natural tendency towards rationality.

Our intellectual superiority over granite doesn't remove the fact that we're heavily influenced by cognitive biases, on a daily basis. A person's rationality varies throughout their life, based upon their energy level, their emotional state, their health, their age, their diet, and their experiences (particularly their education).

The whole point is that because we have to include ourselves in our conclusions we can reach certain conclusions.

That seems like a non-sequitor.

Because we include ourselves in our conclusions is just one reason of many that we can't be certain of our conclusions. Conclusions can only be objective if they are made while not under the influence of the subject-matter at hand. If I am a drug addict, my opinion on drugs is not as likely to be as reliable as a cold, detached scientist with no involvement with drugs (and no other biases).

The entire philosophy of Buddhism is altruist centered, so if altruism's existence was disprove then the entire philosophy of Buddhism would be swept away

Buddhism isn't wholly centered on altruism.

In Zen, there are said to be several different paths to enlightenment or, to avoid the religious dogma, useful worldviews for improving one's quality-of-life. One way of going about it is the path of service. You can become a monk, shave your head, give away all of your possessions, and live as a beggar, in compassionate service towards others.

But this is not the only way. Another way is to focus on one's own life: the path of cultivation. It is to improve yourself morally, emotionally, even financially. It is a common misconception that Buddhism supports radical asceticism and opposes personal gain or large sums of personal wealth.

Then there's also the "path of no path," whereby a person does nothing in particular, but simply approaches life with continual mindfulness and diligence. Through mindfulness, effortless progress is made.

And so, of those three, only one is focused so heavily on altruism.

There is also a relevant Buddhist story: A man's brother was a gambling addict and he kept giving money to his brother, to keep him out of poverty. Frustrated, the man went to the Buddha and asked him what to do. The Buddha told the man to stop giving his brother money. Shortly after, the man's brother was killed by one of those he owed outstanding gambling debts to, the man went to the Buddha and asked him how he could let his brother die. The Buddha said simply that the man couldn't be helped and giving him charity would simply be a fuel for his own suffering.

p.s. (For someone who doesn't believe in taking up space, you sure did take up allot of space with your post.)

I try as much as possible, but it's unavoidable.

However, this should save space, Miles: If you're going to attack me personally, immediately following a paragraph filled with a handful of fallacies I can count and name offhand, along with very few actual relevant points (what's the relevancy of invoking humanity's need for survival?), I'm not going to respond to you anymore.

As for Tenure, Ender, and softwareNerd, as I've said above, emptiness is not nihilism and a recognition of the ego conventionally has no bearing on its ultimate existence.

That's the problem with eastern philosophy. How do you know you don't know something? Knowledge is positive; not knowing is negative. You can only know what you know. (knowledge is finite) The question is: how do you know what you know. You posted this thread becuase you're trying to argue in favor of the existence of something that you know. If I have no means of knowing it, why would you post it? If existence doesn't exist, why are you acting as though it does?

That's a genuine criticism, probably the most thoughtful post in this thread.

Knowledge and ignorance isn't black-and-white, but a spectrum of certainty and uncertainty. Pieces of relevant evidence logically interpreted support for a conclusion. The stronger the evidence -- the more pieces and the more relevant it is to the conclusion -- the more firmer a conclusion is. Hence, there is the distinction in science between hypothesis, theory, and law. As more evidence is gathered, a hypothetical conclusion can either be swept away by the evidence or solidify into a theory and eventually a law.

What I claim may be false, but I believe it to be true based upon the limited amount of evidence I've seen and my limited ability of analyzing it. I've put forth both here.

I did not say "Existence does not exist," but that the world is empty. Being that the world is thoroughly relative, in the absence of choosing a reference point, the world is a void. Asking, "What exists?" without asking, "Who is existing?" is like asking, "What time is it?" without specifying where and by what standard. Being thoroughly relative, absolute existence is as false as absolute time.

Also, why do you say that knowledge is finite? I am not disagreeing with you, but if you do not know every piece of knowledge in the set of "all possible knowledge," it is possible knowledge may be infinite.

I will add, though, that I do believe that Buddhism, unlike every other religion, understands something about the psychological and spiritualism. (By spiritualism I mean focusing attention in a certain way so as to achieve certain results. That's me paraphrasing Sam Harris) I've meditated before while focusing on the idea that "there is no I" and I experienced drastic psychological changes. When I say "there is no I," I mean that there is no fixed self. I found that that exercise helps remove prejudices about the self, and creates a mindset that is more conducive to acting rationally. I also experienced intense elation.

What you've described is the core of Buddhism.

Stephen Batchelor refers to Buddhism as a challenge to act in a certain way rather than a set of beliefs. I think his argument is weak, but his proposal makes sense based upon the Buddhist story about the poisoned arrow.

How consciousness works and whether or not subjective qualia implies individuality is unknown. In fact, I would go so far as to say that whether or not others have experiences is even more uncertain than whether we ourselves have egos. Because in the case of myself, I at least have direct experiences. In the case of others, for all I know, they are mere robots. An analogy between me and others establishes nothing, because a philosophical zombie could still share the same physical characteristics.

Whether or not the philosophical underpinnings of Buddhism hold true is disputable. Whether or not accepting its basic premises and practices are useful is not disputable. And it's because they improve our existential condition they are said to hold truth.

[y_feldblum]

The most critical aspect of Objectivism is the ego.

The most critical aspect of Objectivism is reason. Egoism follows from and is based on reason; reason is the cornerstone of the philosophy.

Logically, we cannot conclude any fact about the world absolutely

Obviously, it is here that you break with Objectivism. At the cornerstone.

The obvious retort to "we can't know anything for sure" is: "are you sure?" Your principal break with Objectivism falls flat on its face to a question with which, for hours on end, three-year-old children bug everyone they meet.

[DavidOdden]

I think your problem is that you've adopted some arbirtary statements as fundamental, which leads you into the swamp. For example you say that "The idea of self is an artificial concept created by the brain", but in fact there is no difference between a "natural" concept and an "artificial" concept. "Self" is a concept, period. Concepts are created by the mind, not the brain (that's a subtle but important difference). The basis of concepts is the sensory apparatus, which has a particular nature in humans, so that we cannot see UV radiation directly, but with gadgetry, we can.

We can conclude many things absolutely, and can also distinguish between actual knowledge and suspicion, but as you say "simply one piece of information could change everything". Specifically, it expands our knowledge non-contradictorily. We do have the ability to distinguish the certain from the uncertain, if we apply rational methods. Although it may be difficult for an individual to be mentally disciplined, it is quite possible to give a truly objective analysis to any fact.

Symbols, specifically concepts, are (as is well known) abstractions from reality: the simplification is known as "measurement omission". We don't need to look at the history of philosophy, just look at a dog. Humans have the capacity to abstract from percepts, by disregarding irrelevant questions such as size and hair length. That is, we focus on certain parts of the the identity of dogs, to form the general concept "dog".

You can apply the same process to "self".

[Prometheus98876]

I know one assertion that is absolutely true: This premises of this thread is a load of stupid nonsense.

Also this thread is a waste of time.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Prometheus98876

[KevinD]

I did not say "Existence does not exist," but that the world is empty. Being that the world is thoroughly relative, in the absence of choosing a reference point, the world is a void.

So Oliver, what's new and exciting in your life?

[RationalBiker]

The empty world which contains this empty thread may explain this empty series.

In Cass' camera the words of this Thread do not affect us. In Cass' camera, the words of this Thread confuse and obfuscate only those who abandon reason.

In Cass' camera, Cass looks really hot.

[DavidOdden]

Maybe we should move this thread here. How would we know?

[Thales]

So Oliver, what's new and exciting in your life?

Great line, Kevin.

[gags]

I am an atheist and I believe in what could be called "skeptical Buddhism." Skeptical Buddhists see Buddhism as a useful and truth-bearing philosophy, which has been corrupted or at least unnecessarily adorned by religious elements.

I'm curious, how did you come to the conclusion that there is no god? What specific facts of reality led you to that conclusion?

[KevinD]

I'm curious, how did you come to the conclusion that there is no god? What specific facts of reality led you to that conclusion?

He'll probably say that he doesn't know there is no God; it's an "intuition" to him — i.e., he feels it.

As the brilliant Ellsworth Toohey once said: Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes.

[softwareNerd]

Interesting. What do you think is accomplished by this particular folly? From your comment, I'm guessing that you're saying that being a Buddhist may free one up from the negative feelings that come from not having much purpose or "happening" in one's life?

Who am I? Am I what I do, or am what I am? If their isn't much "doing", then Buddhism can be a rationalization for celebrating "simply being".

Or where you alluding to some other purpose served by the folly?

PS: The danger, of course, is that this is probably psychologising.