How the brain produces self awareness

I would like to raise the question as to what people mean by the concept of "self" and why it is that some feel it cannot be explained by physical means.It is my understanding that,since the brain does not have a feedback nervous system as the body does,this is sufficient to explain the impression that we have of a disembodied mind unconnected to said body.
Our body is something we are aware of as a physical entity precisely because of our nervous system being mapped in the brain as a feedback loop to allow us to respond to the world around us and let us know how we are doing within the parameters of our senses.It follows that the activity of the brain operating without sensations to give a location of that activity will be interpreted by the brain as a seperate entity residing in the brain. Since the self is directly affected by conditions occuring in the brain {hormones,drugs, concussion,emotions all of which are are physical in nature}what would be the basis for continuing to say that the self is seperate and of a non-physical nature?This message has been edited by sidelined, Fri, 2006-02-24 12:14 AM

---

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams

I'm not sure where to put this. Coffee house? It could, to me, do with some rewording.The mind/self/physical/immaterial discussions seem to me to have suffered from being very fuzzy and not crisply defined.Shouldn't this one start off being much clearer?

Worthless topic title.Duke Adminnemooseus(Note: Topic title currently "Sliipery details". Yes, with a "ii" in there.)

---

some recent similar topics are: Message 1
and
Message 1

AdminNosyCoofee house would be fine if the new draft meets approval

AdminnemooseusI agree about the title. I was rushed to have something to begin with before I left to work. Thank you for the help.

AdminJarI hope the reworked version narrows the field down sufficiently to qualigy as a seperate topic. If not I will further refine my draft and make it worthwhile

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

You're saying that the self is physical? Where is it? How big is it? How much does it weigh? What color is it? Is it a wave or a particle?

"Self" is an artifact of language. We speak of "water" and we speak of "wetness". Where is wetness? How big is it? How much does it weigh? What color is it? Is it a wave or a particle?"I" is a syntactical reference it points at the speaker. "You" points at the listeners the conversation is directed at. "He,she, them" points at others the speaker is discussing.I demand my God given right to divide by zero! Why am I not allowed to divide by zero??? If God is omnipotent and omniscient then division by zero is simply a matter of faith. Believe!lfen

"Wetness" is an abstraction. It doesn't exist. If you want to say the same about "self," I do not disagree.

I was hoping that the implication that self in the context of my post would be obvious.The self for the purposes of this thread will be considered the notion of our consciouness as an entity seperate from our body.

I thought you said it wasn't separate from the body.

That's a funny position to take. "Wetness" is a measure of the surface tension of a fluid and therefore its tendancy to, among other things, travel via capillary action; detergents work by decreasing that tension and making solvents - like water - "wetter."Wetness might be an epiphenomenon of water molecules, certainly; just as "temperature" is an epiphenomenon of the kinetic motion of atoms. But I don't think it's appropriate to conclude from that that wetness and temperature don't exist.Similarly, the "self" is an epiphenomenon of neurons in the brain. The fact that we can't find an atom of "self" somewhere in any one neuron isn't any more suggestive of anything than the fact that we can't stick a thermometer into an atom and measure its temperature.

I was speaking of the idea that is prevalent among some that the consciousness or "self" cannot be explained physically.
I put forth the arguement that it is not seperate. I also laid down my arguement for the physical origin of the self.What I am seeking is the other points of view to rebut this arguement.