Perceptions Are Necessary But Never Accurate

Is there a separation between 'you'--however its defined--and your thoughts? (real or perceived).


From my point of view there is no difference to be made. We are a single biological entity with electrical impulses and chemical reactions as the engines of our selves (two words on purpose). Other than personal assertions made by individuals, there is no evidence that we are anything more. We don't have anything separate from our bodies and the things going on inside them. We can and do react to outside forces, but those reactions are still contained within us and are not acting upon any separate-ness we might feel.

There is a range of perceptions among different people that something "extra" is there, but it's only a result of the reactions of the human body. It can sometimes be helpful to some people to create a model of their self that includes a separate entity of some kind in order to have things make some sense. But an acceptance of a model, even one that "works" for the individual, is not an accurate reflection of reality. It's a tool and need not be accurate to be useful in some ways. (I would argue that this kind of tool ends up being detrimental if fully investigated and, if used exclusively, will produce all kinds of paradoxes and inconsistencies that will bring it crashing down.)

There is an interesting book that covers some issues relating to this point. It's called I am a Strange Loop, by Douglas Hofstadter. In it he puts forward the case that our existence requires these perceptions to emerge in order to simply survive and make sense of the world around us. It doesn't mean they are true in and of themselves, but they are a byproduct of human-ness. (I am paraphrasing, of course.)

What we are, in one sense, is a temporary congealing of matter and energy not able to properly interpret its surroundings due to its built-in limitations.