The self. We talk about it as though it were a thing: a substance inside our minds, a stable object behind the flow of experience. We ask if it is real, if it persists, if it is unified. Philosophers, psychologists, neuroscientists, and poets alike have wrestled with it. Yet the question persists in a loop remarkably similar to debates about time, consciousness, and free will.
This post shows why — and why the relational ontology introduced in the origin story dissolves the problem rather than resolving it in the traditional sense.
The Question
“Is the self real?”
Presented sympathetically, this question is compelling. We navigate the world as if there is a coherent agent directing perception, action, and reflection. Everyday experience reinforces the sense of a stable self. Cognitive science and neuroscience often treat the self as a processing system or network. It feels obvious that a question about its reality should be answerable.
Why It Feels Legitimate
The question persists for several reasons:
-
Phenomenological experience: Our sense of continuity, memory, and agency seems to demand a persistent locus.
-
Scientific frameworks: Psychology, neuroscience, and AI often model “agents” as objects or systems with properties.
-
Social coordination: Recognition, responsibility, and interpersonal interaction rely on the idea of identifiable selves.
All these pressures make the self appear like a stable entity that exists in the world rather than a phenomenon arising from it.
The Hidden Commitments
The question silently assumes:
-
Substantiality: The self is an object, substance, or system that persists through change.
-
Unity: The self is coherent and singular, capable of explaining continuity and agency.
-
Independence: The self exists independently of the relational and social networks in which it participates.
These assumptions are rarely stated, yet they underpin the endless debates that haunt philosophy and cognitive science.
The Endless Loop
Once these commitments are in place, the debate cycles predictably:
-
Realists: The self exists, perhaps as a neural or computational system.
-
Illusionists: The self is constructed, fragmented, or illusory.
Both sides accept the same underlying ontology, which guarantees that the question cannot be settled definitively. The self is treated as either present or absent, rather than recognised as emergent and relational.
The Structural Diagnosis
The problem is not the complexity of psychology or neuroscience, but the thing-based framing itself.
From the relational ontology:
-
The self is not a thing but a relational event.
-
Continuity is produced by patterns of relational actualisation across interactions, memory, language, and social coordination.
-
Unity is perspectival: what appears as a coherent self is an actualisation of structured potential within a network of relations, not a pre-existing object.
In short, the self is real as a phenomenon, not as a substance. It exists in the dynamics of interaction, cognition, and social participation, but it is not “there” independently.
What to Ask Instead
Once the frame is shifted, new, productive questions emerge:
-
How do relational dynamics stabilise patterns that appear as a continuous self?
-
How does memory, language, and social coordination contribute to self-patterns across time?
-
In what ways does agency arise from the relational actualisation of potential rather than from an object-like “I”?
These questions describe the mechanisms and patterns that generate what we experience as selfhood, rather than demanding a verdict on existence. They are tractable and empirically approachable within the relational frame.
Closing
The question “Is the self real?” traps debate in a loop because it smuggles in assumptions about substance, unity, and independence. Once we adopt a relational ontology, the self is no longer a puzzle to be answered but a phenomenon to be traced: a relational event emergent from networks of interaction, perception, memory, and language.
In this light, continuity, coherence, and agency remain observable and meaningful — but they are produced patterns, not things-in-the-world. Just as with time, the ontological shift dissolves the classical problem, replacing it with questions that actually move inquiry forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment