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"

No, I don't mean old age, sickness, and death become near. I mean it becomes a real thing as opposed to just an idea. Immanent, not imminent. These things aren't all that immanent when you're young and sheltered and believe on some level that you'll live forever. Rationally you probably know you won't live forever, but on a deeper less conscious level I think the tendency is to feel like these problems don't really apply to you. Until you actually get old or very sick and then you're forced to acknowledge their existence.

Though they literally worship buddha like an average god asking him for gibs. Religion is always for gibs.
In case of Dalai Lama they believe identity is maintained even through reincarnation.

fuck i actually wish a had stronger and more stubborn sense of self

A man from Kil Garad said so:
although surely I know that I know,
what I want to see is the I that knows me
when I know that I know that I know.

He's having a nervous breakdown because he blames himself for Myanmar because he once endorsed his favorite "Un-sung [hero]". Also you're a faggot for caring what a hollywood celebrity thinks and for asking for a spoonfed opinion.

thanks but i always agree with jim so you can't change my mind

Yes.

So you're saying he's contradicting himself? If there's no "hard kernel of a self" but there is a "me" then I believe that "me" is the hard kernel you're referring to. I'm willing to believe I'm not my body. Fine. I'm willing to accept that my "identity" is not a collection of philosophical or political or biological categories which myself and others ascribe to me for the purpose of describing me. Fine. But in the absence of all labels I am still me. I can't not be me. I can't not exist. I can't be an illusion. I am not a product of mass hysteria. There is no rationalization which defines me out of existence.

yes

I believe humans are no more conscious than animals
just animals don't have hands, basically

This is the reductionist trap. There's an assumption that because reductionism apparently works for most of our purposes it is the best, most descriptive way of understanding the universe.

This is despite the fact that If you look at almost every achievement in natural philosophy since Aristotle it basically came down to some smart guy pointing out that the current explanation for how things work, which sounded really nice and was useful in most contexts, was wrong. The most major problem in physics today basically comes down to the two most fundamental descriptions of the universe being logically incompatible. Maybe that should tell us something? The direction we are in was that causality will be an illusion.

Hands and the ability to form complex sentences, to word their inner dialogue. You can't have an idea of self if you can't define what the self is, and I don't think even the most complex of animals make noise that conveys enough information to word that.

Not him, but the point is "self" is like a cartoon fiction that gets told as a way to try to control and make sense of reality. There is no "self" thing in actuality beyond that story. There are thoughts, emotions, memories, habits, and body parts / organs. But this story gets built up every day and goes on for so long that it becomes very convincing to the point of seeming even more real than the reality of bodily functions. The big revelation of both buddhism and psychedelic substances is that this very powerful, real seeming idea is in fact just a story, and realizing that is pretty liberating since even though the body and mind will fall apart and die, there isn't any real "self" thing to worry about. Thoughts and experiences are new each moment and don't need to be tied down to the story of that cartoon "self."