Replying to yourself looks bad -- a bit like talking to yourself -- but I really need to add something here.
In message <+ek9AIAH2Ua3Ewzp@faichney.demon.co.uk>, Robin Faichney
<robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> writes
>My view -- and I think it's in accord with Buddhism -- is that, for some
>purposes, the self exists, while for others it does not.
That looks very vague -- *is* very vague, in fact -- but it can be tightened up. The reason the self exists sometimes and not others is that the meaning of the word varies. It should be possible, in principle anyway, to analyse every example and say exactly why the self does or does not exist in that case.
-- Robin Faichney Visit The Conscious Machine at http://www.conscious-machine.com