So, to spice this forum up a little (no the nexus isnt boring *wink*) i thought to bring up a very interesting topic. Lately i was reading through Thomas Metzingers - "The Ego Tunnel", a book which tries to sum up recent insights in neuroscience and tries to link them with spirituality and philosophy. This wording doesnt isnt satisfactory to the content of the book but should give an idea.
The book focuses on how the "I" in our lives is an illusion, and delivers many interesting thought experiments which dilute the feeling of self, enabling to think outside the box. Metzinger claims, that the human is just an "Ego-Machine", an organism able to identify itself with itself and experience agentivity in a world it perceives a fraction of with their limited senses.

If you are on this forum you probably know that Metzinger is onto something here.

He asks the reader what would happen if theres a perception shift in population, people accepting their conciousness and living in a selfless, predetermined world. He also mentions that this might be happening already, despite science lacking the needed evidence. He guesses, that when science could prove it, humanity already had moved on and accepted this through experience.

A very interesting thought. I mean, this is happening on a scale already, you just need to find where to look.

So what would happen?

My question would be is it that there is no self, or is it more appropriate to say that the self can be unrealized and it appears we have no self? Is it more apt to say that it may not be what we think it is?

One love

There comes in the part what science cant explain. We are able to experience "selfhood" in many different ways. Its the abscence of a self, like an entity looking out the windows so to speak metzinger is putting into question. I do believe in an all circumventing conciousness that every particle and every energy comes from the same source. Thinking about ourselves is a trait that mustve been beneficial for us in the past, we wouldnt have evolved if it wouldnt have. So every state of "self" is rather an interpretation, a model, about ourselves and our surrounding world about a specific state of mind.

My understanding is that ego thrives on identification with mind/body, from which then self can separate itself from other-than-self.
In truh there is only unity, you could call this the true self, if you will.

I tend to see things in a layered polyvalent manner. That brings many things to a paradox.

As an example, there is "reality" to separation, but equally so to unity. It depends on the vantage in a given moment of assertion.

One love