Does Veeky Forums agree with Jim Carrey's views on consciousness and the self?

>I cannot reject such an assertion, because if there was no "me" to reject the assertion, the assertion would simply stand.
What? If there's no you then the assertion there is a "you" would just be wrong. It doesn't require a "you" to reject it, it can be wrong without anyone rejecting it.

he's a follower of this guy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle

>describes existing personality
>tells it doesn't exist
wat

But seriously, he's fucking old.

>thinking sci can into philosophy
oh please stick to numberfiddling you autists

>we wuz proteins n shit
There's no benefit from taking on this definition...unless you want to be percieved as a an intellectual by other philosophical charlatans; unless you want to alienate regular people.

>There's no benefit from taking on this definition
I don't know user, there is that one obscure religious tradition with a modest cult following of 500 million adherents that teaches you to see things that way to solve the problem of human suffering, but that Siddhārtha guy probably just didn't have the benefit of your years of deep thought and wisdom because he lived in an era before anime discussion boards.

This is entry level buddhism, it's not that weird of a concept, and there definitely isn't anything contradictory about expressing that idea. It's part of the human condition to gradually build up a very compelling sense of self and to become very attached to it and anxious about all manner of things that appear to be happening to it or appear posed to begin happening to it in the future. So a lot of trouble can be avoided by learning to take some steps backward and deconstructing that sense of self, this process being a particularly useful thing to have worked through for when the body inevitably starts falling apart and old age, sickness, and death become an immanent reality instead of just abstract ideas.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha

I think imminent is the word you needed. Yes death is always immanent but near the end of your life it becomes more imminent without becoming less immanent.

Not really, what he's saying is that there is no substantial, hard kernel of a self you can point to, of course there's a "you" there, but that "you" is nothing but that which can always reject any determinate "you"