我认为人类的想象力是虚拟现实机器的自然版本。在物质世界中，没有所谓的现在或未来，只有过去，而在我们不断膨胀的宇宙中，无尽的因果流将我们带到那里。大脑已经进化到能够解释它接收到的感官信息，这种方式增加了生存的可能性和遗传基因的机会。不多不少。These interactions with the environment and other life including our fellow humans has given rise, overtime, to this capacity for self awareness or full theory of mind that is unique to this planet.

The imagination is the sum of our recall of past experience (electro-chemical impressions along our neural pathways) that give rise to a sense of not only what but when those events occurred. The state of mind that prevailed (I.E. fight or flight, pursuit of potential mates etc...) at the time for each event would determine if the same was significant to 'remember' or not. The brain is a ruthless clearing house for events that do not render some memorable impression. otherwise it must retain scarce resources for the focus required to act in its on best interests at all times.

我们的行动和行为使他人能够理解我们的意图，因此这是我们物种的标志。从那时起，作为群居动物，我们不断地(毫秒之间)用个人的安全来换取群体的安全。因此，我们这个物种的第二个标志，合作的能力，在一个复杂的水平上，用我们的技术改变自然世界。这就引出了人类的第三个标志，语言。

通过对意图的解释，回到“自我”(完整的心智理论)，我们就有机会分配责任和责任，因此我们是自由意志的代理人的概念或感觉。当然，这种感觉对我们作为个人和群体的生存至关重要。事实上，自由意志的概念是如此直观，以至于除了在这样的讨论中，我们甚至不会考虑它。唉，这也是一种幻觉，还有现在和未来。所有这些都是由我们的想象或虚拟现实机器制造的，以进一步提高我们的生存潜力。在现实世界中，大脑的行为方式是唯一的(自我利益)。我们没有能力仅仅通过“思考”就能让事情发生。在现实世界中(无穷无尽的因果关系)，我们无法“选择”其他方式。

Finally as humans with a sense of 'self' we are capable of hope, or that the future might occur in a manner to the advantage of ourselves and those closest to us.

Zettmeister(或者，Zeitmeister?)很好地阐述了这一点，简要地说，它与过去20多年来神经科学和哲学的许多研究和推测保持一致。关于自我，我也做过自己的推测;意识;意识;正念、正念和心智充实。我并没有痴迷于所有这些，但我有自己的拙见，这对一些人来说可能过于简单，但对另一些人来说却很舒服:所有这些术语或多或少都是彼此的同义词。他们如何被单独考虑，取决于哪个学派的哪个专业人士在观看，以及她的观点是否在特定的时间以何种方式被谈论。这些理论或假设就像参与者创造的那样有用，它们可能只是一声呜咽就来了又去。在此之前，我曾评论过解释意识的努力。那些尝试过的人得到的大多是褒贬不一的评价，一般来说，他们在尝试了一次之后就放弃了这个话题。 Those who have talked about the topic, without emphasizing the "C" word have fared better (think: Thomas Nagel's The View From Nowhere)

Make no mistake though. If you wish to discuss The Self, or, Selfness, you are talking about (or at least, around) consciousness---whether that term is currently en vogue, or not. If there ever comes the time (and I think it will come) when consciousness is better-understood and somehow quantifiable, the pioneers who remain among us (if there are any left), will take their places---perhaps even saying: well, we told you so! In a particular theology I once studied briefly, the watchwords were: God is unknowable. I think this is still true, even truer than in its origin. But, I also now think that such things as consciousness are NOT unknowable, anymore than the relativity of space and time or human physiology were unknowable. But, I COULD be wrong...obviously... A bit of verse from the pen of HGN:
有人说我停滞不前。我不介意，我只介意我的事。“你必须要站起来，否则你会摔倒什么的。”
I can stand for that. Even when I stand alone. 'cause I'm still standing.

I think the infinite Universe is the chariot and I am just or equally a part of it. And surely I am such an infinitely small part of the chariot that I or myself is indivisible from the rest. And it is equally certain that infinity is indivisible and immeasurable, then I or myself are infinitely immeasurable too. Am I a piece of the chariot or the chariot, I or the Universe, selfish or whole, One is just immeasurably me. =

一位哈佛教授写了一本关于自我起源的厚书。他发现了三点:1)基督教的观念，即我们每个人都有一个独一无二的不朽的灵魂;(二)订立法律合同的必要性，以个人签字表示，使人承担义务;3)通过记忆的个人连续性。

我们并不是生来就有身份。最初，它是我们的父母给我们起的名字，我们的自我意识随着我们拥有一个独特的名字而发展。乔伊斯的《年轻艺术家的肖像》开篇是观察个人身份诞生的一个好地方，孩子的祖父给他讲了一个故事，并把这个孩子确定为故事中的男孩:“他是小图古。”这是男孩第一次意识到他是一个与周围人分离的人:他现在有了一个故事，一个“自我”诞生了。

Other comments above report instances in which one loses a sense of self and merges with some larger consciousness. This can be a rewarding experience, in that it gives one a different perspective and a more cosmic consciousness, in which we are no longer the center of our universe, which will die when we die. One merges with larger and longer-lasting ways of being, in which one's own personal existence ceases to be all-important. Of course the mundane details of life will soon return, as one operates a vehicle or shops for dinner. In society we are held responsible for our actions, and we are required to have an identity, a "self," of a thoroughly mundane nature.

There needs to be a way of acknowledging a reality to socially imposed categories or norms. We are not born with a "self," though even newborns exhibit traits of personality that can last for their lifetimes. Rather it is first given to us, from our family, and then developed by us as we grow older and both shape ourselves and are shaped by our experiences.

The "self" is not a fact of nature; rather it is a product of our interaction with the society in which we live, a social fact that we are required to possess and to maintain. Yet social facts are just as REAL as natural facts; by ignoring or denying their reality we tie ourselves up into hopeless knots, wondering how such a thing as a name or a personality can have status in a world of things.

"Philosophy Talk" habitually takes a kind of stance of naive realism, in which whatever is not physical and tangible is treated as a kind of illusion or mystification. It's perhaps a necessary starting-point for a philosophical discussion, but often it seems that the naivete persists throughout the whole discussion, and leads to an inconclusiveness that can be discouraging to listeners considering the problem being addressed for the first time. One likely reaction is to think that philosophers really don't do anything very important, and that philosophy is rather a frivolous pastime. Too bad.

In fewer than twenty-five words:
OUR 'SELVES' ARE WHO WE ARE. BUT THEY EMBODY FAR MORE THAN CAN EVER BE KNOWN. ILLUSION? I THINK NOT.

Mr. Crosman,
I concur with your assessment of the naivete of "Philosophy Talk" but see it more as a symptom or weakness of Western Philosophy as a whole. It was the shoulders of Greeks that we stand on that has given us this view of science, measure, and division. A lofty view that has taken us away from what truly matters, the truth below our feet.

It is grand to build castles of knowledge high in the sky, but without a solid foundation of wisdom, the self will always be in doubt.

Philosophy 101

And now that we are having a conversation about as you add to your post, bettering the philosophy blog, has any one else wondered why the people who put this blog together and write their essays rarely respond or talk? I would die for a conversation with Socrates in the Lyceum on truth, but alas philosophy has become mute and with that somewhat as you say, frivolous. "Too bad" to.

=

Hmm... I disagree with most of this... but to each their own.

没有西方意义上的自我，当然也不是这个节目或博客所讨论的那种意义上的自我。但每个人在时间和空间上都是独一无二的。

Crosman doesn't go far enough and is a bit off course to posit the roots of self in the family or a name. Certainly, we are social creatures. From there you and Crosman are a bit off the science as is... just saying.

MJA——我很高兴PT的博客和工作人员都不怎么发帖子。这对新手来说可能有点乏味。我很满意那些坚持不懈的海报。

Best to you and Robert.