I'm going to assume that your illness has given you an insight into the workings of the brain. Even if the "self" is just an elaborate illusion created by a ball of neurons and fats in your head, one cannot deny that it exists.
Same as a theme park is just made up of rides, food stands, people, carny's, and vomit, one cannot deny that a theme park is more than the sum of its parts. To farther my point, a person exists as a self beyond the brain because the idea of self is "apprehended" (as you put it) just as the external perceptions are; these you labeled as part of an empirical reality. So, in summary, the self outside the brain exists because you perceive it with the same tool you use to comprehend external reality.
Also,in response to the "scandalously weak proponents of empirical reality", I believe Thomas Nagel described a fairly eloquent solution in his paper "What is it Like to be a Bat?"
Personally, I don't see how this experiment can even remotely call into question "free will." You see, free will and conscious rationality are very nearly the same. Now, when choosing between using the left or right button, there is little to no information to be considered rationally, or consciously, and so this experiment is only testing a choice that is already devoid of free will. The choice is, in effect, subconsciously decided making it easy to predict.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to assume that your illness has given you an insight into the workings of the brain. Even if the "self" is just an elaborate illusion created by a ball of neurons and fats in your head, one cannot deny that it exists. Same as a theme park is just made up of rides, food stands, people, carny's, and vomit, one cannot deny that a theme park is more than the sum of its parts. To farther my point, a person exists as a self beyond the brain because the idea of self is "apprehended" (as you put it) just as the external perceptions are; these you labeled as part of an empirical reality. So, in summary, the self outside the brain exists because you perceive it with the same tool you use to comprehend external reality. Also,in response to the "scandalously weak proponents of empirical reality", I believe Thomas Nagel described a fairly eloquent solution in his paper "What is it Like to be a Bat?"
Personally, I don't see how this experiment can even remotely call into question "free will." You see, free will and conscious rationality are very nearly the same. Now, when choosing between using the left or right button, there is little to no information to be considered rationally, or consciously, and so this experiment is only testing a choice that is already devoid of free will. The choice is, in effect, subconsciously decided making it easy to predict.
I don't see why we're even trying, the world will end in 2012 anyway. Apocalypse party anyone?