does the self persist through time ?

Except.

If, it returns, again,
And again through this and other universes, on basis of accumulated world experience, as apparently a new field?

But appearances are so full of misgivings, and ingmfinite genetic mutation down the ages can make a difference, as it is equally valid to say: how can an apparently unique being arise out of the mass oh creation-of an intangible indifference that appears to narrow the gap between a final and human through the functional deconstruction that begs it’s own question? ( to be or not…)

If all things are considered, this question should sedate all cynics who are waiting for AI to self replicate, and godlike offer the key to this problem, but then, the only proof of autonomous identity will hang on simulation. That ‘they’ will think may be a general description , transcending space time.

Experientialism actually solves the mystery of the self.

Given what I said about “any source of thoughts infinitely retreats from the possibility of being thought about - to the point of impossibility”, the ontological existence of the subject undoes itself, giving way only to the absolute existence of the object, unsplit: better known as Continuous Experience. The artificial dissection of Continuous Experience into subject (self) and object (other) gives rise only to “functional existence” for the purposes of utility - founded on a fundamental error like all discrete experiences. Self is merely “useful”, even if in truth it does not exist - any existence attributed to it is purely for practical purposes as with all discrete experiences.

So the thread’s question, as with all questions, is answered by first clarifying within what flavour of experience the question is intended to be framed. Continuous or discrete?
In the context of the former, the answer is an absolute “no”, and in the context of the latter, the answer is a relative “yes”.

Silhuette said,

“Given what I said about “any source of thoughts infinitely retreats from the possibility of being thought about - to the point of impossibility”, the ontological existence of the subject undoes itself, giving way only to the absolute existence of the object, unsplit: better known as Continuous Experience. The artificial dissection of Continuous Experience into subject (self) and object (other) gives rise only to “functional existence” for the purposes of utility - founded on a fundamental error like all discrete experiences. Self is merely “useful”, even if in truth it does not exist - any existence attributed to it is purely for practical purposes as with all discrete experiences.”

{Utility for what>whom? That does not lead to a reduction to absurdum.
And neither to the supposition of absolute transference of matter into energy.
Teleology is stumped by cosmological fallacy, in the case.of black holes transferring matter .at the Schwartzchild limit, it is spewed back and not totally transferred.
At the metaphysical level the same may react , in principally a like manner of not demonstrating another type of effect, and that too makes sense in light of the latest finding in anthropic principals of quantum physics .

I will try to dig up the latest research done on that.
Why should methodology differ quantum/epistologocal assumptions?

Above and below limits similar effects should be observed. In cosmology, and quantum physics , not only is increasing capacity of observation change the object.of observation, but that object may not even exist. Light coming from thousands of light years away, are as in an uncertain position as the smallest of particles observed, and there is some unobserved equivalency between them

Heretofore, a constant was assigned to the consistency of the velocity of light, but that has changed as well.}

{ Functional variables change as well, with the use of required specificity

The self persists but its shape changes – even when a person dies. Schopenhauer’s corpse is Schopenhauer’s corpse, it’s not a corpse that belongs to someone else, or even worse, to noone.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

The question is answered by answering the following question:

What’s the meaning of the term “Ship of Theseus”?

Obviously, it has to be the ship sailed by the hero Theseus but to what extent? This is answered by the meaning of the term “Ship of Theseus” (the existing one or the extended one) and nothing else.

If the term “Ship of Theseus” refers to a ship sailed by Theseus at some specific point in time, e.g. on the first day of the year 800 BC at 13:00AM precisely, then what Theseus sailed a millisecond earlier as well as a millisecond later is not the ship of Theseus. But that’s not what the term means, right?

The problem is either that we don’t know what the term “Ship of Theseus” means or that the meaning of the term is not closed (i.e. that for certain things it is not yet determined whether they can be represented by that term or not.)

Relevant ILP thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185979

The physical self, as Magnus says, is a hammer->new-shaft->new-head->same hammer…? problem, ie. strictly materially no, symbolically, as in ‘this is my body’, yes.

The more ethereal ‘self’ hmm. Perhaps yes, as a recurrent theme embedded in a piece of music. However, anaesthesia. That’s a real stop button. Utterly lost time, as compared to the awareness of time passed during sleep upon awakening. However as we do regain consciousness aware that we are still ourselves and no other, something must have persisted throughout that dead time. Scary conclusion, our ‘self’ and our ‘consciousness’ are not the same thing.

The venerable impenitent says “are you the same as you were 5 years ago…?” And yes, parts of us are. Values, loves, likes etc. There is continuity.

It can, but it doesn’t have to.

The self is the state of experienced isness or being. What we can say about the self as something that can be explained is that it is the bedrock on which we construct identifying personae while experiencing becoming. The trinity of being is being, becoming and belonging. We name the self as experiencer of the dramas of changes, the I or me who is experiencing. There is something of the self that does not change through time. That is basic for our stability.

The self is a construction. What level o of reification inheres within the personality, is a matter of conjecture, but backwardly its mostly simulation.

The point is, though, the present architecture exists. That which enables consciousness to always build and reformulate the sense by which the architecture-or the natural process to construct a self is eternally a sine qua non
Now it the spatial temporal relative field, such requisite natural inference, is leading approaches to absolute necessity of the such aspect-( without which life as we know it presents an impossibility) , proceeds to prove hyperbolically the approa h to this absolute.
Within the relative field, this recognition from transcebdentally held objectivism( the belief in the Eternal God) to the non sensible reality acquired through modern science, completes the circle, by a need for a ‘grand assumption’ an assumption supported by the need of overcoming the uncertain, Jump from .999999999999999999>1.0v to necessarily presume the break in space time: to allow that infinitely small connection to turn the construction of that infinitessimal cognitive abstraction into reality.
Ting and Yang then become transactional as they are sensibly transcendent.
The question narrows down to the hypothetical : how close to the absolutely small does a particle can get toward non- existence, before it becomes a non particle?
Not to confuse the essential with it’s essence, for that would open up the inquiry to charges of semantic play-but does a real transfer. ( such as Fourier) play a key role ( Hilbert), for Von Neumann create a sustainable architecture that really reinforces a modern sense of a continuous process made up of partially differentials bits?

In some sense there is a nexus if uncertain states, I’m that connect with the interpretation, to sense data -, as incomprehensible it seems, and cosmological problems associated with black holes reaffirms this: the behavior of them at their horizon- .

Therefore, it is overwhelmingly becoming clear, that it is much more likely, that the very characteristic of a cognitively transcendental self presupposes it’s needed architecture and construction by description: only possible by a metaphors: a self fulfilling prophesy.
The self full fills It’s self , through an existential jump unto the eternal architecture, individually, by an act of fate that presents a gap in that faith- as small as the one which approaches zero.
A zero that never exists, but is always in the sense of becoming.

That is why faith is so overburdened by even a microcosm of doubt, upon a point on which a thousand of angels can dance!

Emotionally and intuitively: Yes.

Rationally: In comparison to what?

This is more a metaphysics question than science, just sayin’.

If it would not, we would not be able to have a notion of it.

Is not the self precisely that which persists through time?

The self wraps time around it like a cloak.

& if we stay within a modicum of current modern philosophy, the proposition that the self does not persist through time, but the only valid description of an existentially peristant self is a case of the misuse of the conceptual self: I.e. the self concept.
Rather the self conceived as It’s Self, is a wrapped sense-datum sandwiched between visually conceived images within a plethora or roles that needed to be played.

Its “attachments”

Which the venerable Buddha didn’t like, but we do.

‘Attachments’ and ‘sandwiches’ may but different representations of like processes. The self as ego as representation of the will ((Schopenhauer-Nietzche) are merely inverted congruence by which the neural apparatus functions.

Apropo, and as a sign of a strange form of. , thinking of these processes closely to the time You brought it up, leads me to assert that the coincidence -( of You bringing up the Buddha , while I am leading down the opposite but similar at path of 'sense-data~is more then coincidence.

Even within the micro-representation of this didactic, it becomes appearent that the analogy fits the pattern.

Here are some signs to verify the above:

Listed below are 10 signs of synchronicity you might have experienced or noticed in your life.
Synchronicity and numbers.

…
1Running into an old friend. …
2Radio or TV. …
3Something solves your problem. …
4Strangers are helping you. …
5Watching a movie. …
6Catching conversations. …
7Planning.

That said, I can point to 3, as valid response, when inversive analysis lead to a near simultaneous solution.

Inversive is more ‘intentional’ and objective seeking, and reinforces both: the Buddhic notion of attachment, and the conflicted idea of a synthetic-a-priori proposition being valid.

I think this observation. By Russell-Wittgenstein-Frege, repositiones the ground upon which the de-substantiation of Marx’s dialectics has to regress to an ideal, nominal manifestation.
The phenominal -ontic descent to ontological deconstruction becomes more probable then not.

Fix: these private musings may or may not parallel (inversely) the ascent of constructed semi-oriental-Buddhist/Zen koan-aphorisms, yet they draw inwardly from the periphery toward the core of the personality.

Psycho socially, the pandemic can be interpreted as the microbe invasion of laissez-faire social relations, ( Biggie’s objective-Dasein duality) .

Society may wish to operate under maximum functionally conducive processes toward maximum value utilization, but in fact the point has been reached decades ago that such projects are impractical.
The cyborg will not be able to implement a ‘rationally’ controlled hybrid.

Some thing HAS to give, and the present state exemplifies it.

I think the ideas propagated by the Pope are more credible , given these set types of arguments.

Yes, I see time as the circumference of valuing (timeless purity), and valuing correspondences as alignments within that circumference, rooted in the valuing center.
So valuing correspondences cause different time-lines to align with each other, and produce what is seen as miraculous correspondences.

The miracle is a reflection of the importance.

The circumstential paradox between space and time, where the differential derived from the Euclidean derived -conical matrix of the most probable (valued) conclusion.

The reflective miracle is grounded inversely between the acquired difference between the available ( thetic) and the synthetic programs. (Pro-positions)

You are still thinking in terms of space-time as the template.

At least so it appears to me, good Orb. Excellent Orb I should say. I cant entirely be sure of what you’re saying, as you intend it to be opaque enough to act as an oracle on investment.
Yet from the timeless Throne, time is not seen as line, but as a ring of light beset with infinite fractal-paths like a dog is beset with hairs. So the fractals, which are experienced time, radiate at right angles away from the ring, which goes around the centre of no-time, which is either “depth of last” or “depth of first”, I have yet to figure that out.