So you can fall asleep whenever you want? You never spend minutes lying in bed trying to sleep but being unable to? Otherwise no, you aren't in control of your brain, your brain is in control of you. It decides when you get to compute and experience things, you don't get to, if it wants you to work you work, if it wants you to sleep you sleep, you aren't in control.
Your mistake is considering "you" as just the part that consciously decides. There's no brain and you, there's just you (or just the brain, it's the same thing). You and your brain is one thing, not two.
In other words, I can fall asleep whenever I want. But "I" (and my brain) is not just my conscious/speaking layer. The whole layer stack needs to want it and put it to practice.
It's the same with any other activity, just that for most there's less disagreement between parts of the layer stack. E.g. we can usually speak anytime "we" want. But an autistic person going non-verbal finds that they can't speak, even if their (what-you-call "I") thinking/top-layer wants it.
>There's no brain and you, there's just you (or just the brain, it's the same thing). You and your brain is one thing, not two.
This is only true if you equate "self" with "body", which is a fairly narrow assertion that breaks down quickly when confronted with the complex reality of human experience (e.g. dissociation [0]).
Even the "conscious you" is not really a discrete entity when it comes to self-perception. There are many useful approaches in psychology that regard that "conscious you" as being a composition of a team of several things with differing motivations [1].
This is only true if you equate "self" with "body", which is a fairly narrow assertion that breaks down quickly when confronted with the complex reality of human experience (e.g. dissociation [0]).
Are you suggesting that dissociation involves something outside the body?
Because otherwise what happens --and it's clear in the [0] link you provide-- is that a part of the brain struggle to connect with the rest. That doesn't mean that there is more than one you, but that you suffer a condition that fragments your brain work.
That happens in serious mental illness, also in altered states, see "K-Hole" induced by ketamine. But it's more of "you" disconnected from the perception.
If you take a moment to review the whole thread, not just the immediate comment above the one you're responding to, you'll see that it was started with a mention to subconscious as described by Freud in his early works. The objection to that has been that it's not a concept that's commonly accepted now in that precise form, because it suggests that there is another personality inside your mind, similarly structured as the main consciousness.
The first comment says that the "subsconscious ask the conscious self", or something like that, that implies a rational actor following a strategy to confront the ego, a different structure.
We still know little of the brain working, but it seems to be a massively parallel computing process, with the perception being the glue that composes our reality and keeping us "sane" and focused.
>Are you suggesting that dissociation involves something outside the body?
No. I'm saying that a singular body does not imply or require a singular "self", which can be demonstrated via dissociation.
>That doesn't mean that there is more than one you, but that you suffer a condition that fragments your brain work.
If each fragment can have a discrete and unique experience of reality, then why can't each one can be thought of as a separate 'you'?
>That happens in serious mental illness, also in altered states
Maybe it's not about "suffering a condition" or mental illness at all, and more commonplace than we may realize. We pathologize far too much. The experiences we believe are the result of "altered states" may actually be quite common.
>We still know little of the brain working, but it seems to be a massively parallel computing process, with the perception being the glue that composes our reality and keeping us "sane" and focused.
Without delving into the debate around brain-as-a-computer, I think I get the general idea of what you're saying and I somewhat agree.
However, my argument is that even this overarching perception itself is not necessarily singular. We seem to mostly collect and normalize these discrete perceptions (or parallel processes) into what seems like a single stream, but delving deeper reveals that this composition is not nearly as seamless & continuous as one may believe.
However, my argument is that even this overarching perception itself is not necessarily singular.
We agree completely on that. I love when I catch some falling object on the fly and it feels instantaneous, asynchronous, as if someone else was doing it, specially when it's done through a series of very fast bounces. Or playing piano with both hands, each doing its part. It's possible to feel both or none.
But anyway, my objection is not to defend a monolithic self, but against more than one self. Actually, original subconscious theory seems less tollerant of a parallel, multithreaded mind: "if something can be done without the complete control of the ego, it must be because there is another consistent, self-contained structure in there with its own will" while accepting that the mind is not necessarily centralized could explain the same observations.
> You may feel the presence of two or more people talking or living inside your head, and you may feel as though you're possessed by other identities. Each identity may have a unique name, personal history and characteristics, including obvious differences in voice, gender, mannerisms and even such physical qualities as the need for eyeglasses.
That some experience this failure modality in how the brain/mind works does suggest in some cases there's more to consciousness than that reductive explanation you've given.
>As the other commenter states, are you not aware identity dissociative disorders are a thing?
These are irrelevant in the context of the discussion and the argument being made.
That "you may feel the presence of two or more people [or intelligences] talking or living inside your head" does not mean "two or more people" indeed live inside your head.
Same way as if you feel that your neighbor "is satan" or that "everybody is out to get you" doesn't make it true. It's a failure mode of one brain, not a proof of two (or more) brains.
So people who say "I couldn't fall asleep" are misleading? What they should have said is "I didn't want to fall asleep", is that what you mean? To me that seems to be very different from how most people think and reason about this. To most people "I" are the parts they control, the rest they talk about as if it was something else.
>So people who say "I couldn't fall asleep" are misleading? What they should have said is "I didn't want to fall asleep", is that what you mean?
No, I meant that whether they wanted it or not at the "top layer" (the conscious "I") is irrelevant, the whole brain stack needs to "want it" (or at least, a big enough chunk of it, so that it's put to action).
>To most people "I" are the parts they control, the rest they talk about as if it was something else.
Of course, but most people are not trying to be precise and reason about their brain workings, the way conginitive science or TFA does. They just use whatever simplified mental model is handy, accuracy be damned.
People also historically believed that "I" is the "soul" too...
So you can fall asleep whenever you want? You never spend minutes lying in bed trying to sleep but being unable to? Otherwise no, you aren't in control of your brain, your brain is in control of you. It decides when you get to compute and experience things, you don't get to, if it wants you to work you work, if it wants you to sleep you sleep, you aren't in control.