How do you answer the question, "who am I?"

[McCulloch]

How do you answer the question, "who am I?"

Bernee 51 has raised this question a few times. I believe that it is a difficult but fundamentally important question. What does it mean? Who am I? How do you approach this?

[Nick_A]

I am is an expression of inner unity acquired from the integration of the whole of oneself. It is the Trinity in Man comprising the head as consciousness, the heart as feelings and the body as actualizing potentials of mechanical laws.

Not everyone is so sure about segregating "mechanical laws" into a group of their own like this. Indeed if, for example, a "thought" of yours actualises a mechanical operation like the lifting of your finger through various amplifications there still needs to be an electrodynamic interaction between whatever constitutes the "thought" and the rest of the system. 20th century philosophy has generally rejected Cartesian Dualism on the basis of this basic system incomparability.

Quite true. As we are this is how it is. A thought can influence a conditioned emotional and or bodily reaction. An emotion can stimulate a conditioned thought and or bodly reaction and a bodily reaction can initiate a conditioned thought and or emotion.

The point is that they are all REACTIONS. But can they be reconciled consciously as a whole and function as ONE producing a conscious ACTION? Can the axiom of the included middle make it possible?

[bernee51]

Well, partly in anticipation of your kind of argument, I took care to put the "proof of the pudding" beyond the object by talking about the ability of others to predict on the basis of observations.

Displaying that the contents of consciousness are often common or familiar enough to predict and anticipate. To a degree it raises a question asked elsewhere - does consciousness exist independent of its contents? What happens to consciousness when we sleep? We can wake up and note that we dreamed or not. Or that we had agood night sleep - or didn't.

If we strip away (deny?) all predictive information and add Dennett's denials I still can't see how this necessarily leads us to any kind of collective consciousness -- other than through an inadvertent category error.

Indeed. I am not of the opinion that there is a collective consciounsess in the sense of a potential availability to be accessed.

Or one 'consciousness' that all tap.

Or some form of higher consciousness that has 'involved' to bring consciousness to sentient beings.

Sentient beings, however, are collectively conscious.

"Objects in awareness" implies (reinforces) something that common-sense tells us exists: the Cartesian I Am. An intrinsic inability to think of this as an illusion seems to be the main hurdle to understanding (qualifying thinking and understanding as abstract computational operations).

By 'Cartesian I Am' are you referring to the Cartesian Theatre idea Dennett put forward (and debunks) where there is some 'homonculus' in the driver's seat who views everything as 'theatre'?

[QED]

By 'Cartesian I Am' are you referring to the Cartesian Theatre idea Dennett put forward (and debunks) where there is some 'homonculus' in the driver's seat who views everything as 'theatre'?

This seems to be an inevitable consequence of whatever "trick" nature has come up with to make us feel aware of our existence. The homonculus as spectator obviously fails by simply pushing the problem one level deeper.

[McCulloch]

Indeed. I am not of the opinion that there is a collective consciousness in the sense of a potential availability to be accessed.

Or one 'consciousness' that all tap.

Or some form of higher consciousness that has 'involved' to bring consciousness to sentient beings.

Sentient beings, however, are collectively conscious.

What do you mean by that? I may have some idea what it means to be conscious, but I have no idea what it means to be collectively conscious. Are we talking about group think, tribalism or some kind of global OM?

[bernee51]

Indeed. I am not of the opinion that there is a collective consciousness in the sense of a potential availability to be accessed.

Or one 'consciousness' that all tap.

Or some form of higher consciousness that has 'involved' to bring consciousness to sentient beings.

Sentient beings, however, are collectively conscious.

What do you mean by that? I may have some idea what it means to be conscious, but I have no idea what it means to be collectively conscious. Are we talking about group think, tribalism or some kind of global OM?

How about bad phrasing. I read it afterwards and realized it didn't quite say what I meant.

Collectively (as a group) sentient beings are conscious. I as stating the bleeding obvious.

[bernee51]

By 'Cartesian I Am' are you referring to the Cartesian Theatre idea Dennett put forward (and debunks) where there is some 'homonculus' in the driver's seat who views everything as 'theatre'?

This seems to be an inevitable consequence of whatever "trick" nature has come up with to make us feel aware of our existence. The homonculus as spectator obviously fails by simply pushing the problem one level deeper.

The Self (as opposed to the individual self) is a 'metaphysical entity' - like a screen on which the movie of our existence is played out. The screen may show a raging fire or a wave torn ocean but once the movie stops the screen is neither burnt nor wet. The 'I' we know and love (or don't know and hate) is dependent on the objects it perceives for its very existence.

[Nameless]

Who am I?

I am one Perspective whereby/wherein Mind (a small portion) manifests as 'this' universe at this moment.
We are all unique Perspectives, blind men fondling an elephant.
We used to argue over who's Perspective is 'right' and who 'wrong' (ego).
We are begining to understand that all Perspectives are 'correct' though incomplete (to one extent or another), that understanding each others 'view' adds to the greater 'completer' understanding of the elephant.
All Perspectives inform Consciousness (which cannot otherwise know Mind/Self but by 'us'.
"God can only know 'Self' through us!" -Meister Eckhart

So, who am I?
One blind man dangling from an elephant...
*__-

[The_Spirit_of_Truth]

How do you answer the question, "who am I?"

In this way: I am a man = a formation of many cells (every of them is a microspace) which all together create what we in this universe call a human body in which an intelligent energy circulates that perceives this formation as itself and think about it that it is a human being.

To understand who you really are, please vitis my web site http://www.pkfreebooks.net/

[Sjoerd]

In my opinion, the concept of "self" is linked closely to that of "time".

Ajax, the soccer team that I used to support became World Champion in 1995. No blasphemy intended, but the team of those era used to be called "de Godenzonen" (the Sons of God(s)). But their glory waned: every year, some of the Sons would quit or go to another club, and the new players that joined were good but not that good. So after a decade or so they were no longer dominant in Europe or in the Netherlands and no one calls them "de Godenzonen" anymore.

Clearly, the present-day Ajax is not the same as the Ajax of 1995. But when did it cease to be the same team ? As soon as the first 1995 player left? As soon as the last 1995 player left? Or is it still actually same team, because of the continuity? And what about an Ajax team in a parallel reality, in which all players were killed in a plane crash ten years ago, but of which the present team contains exactly the same players as the present team in our reality? What about a second parallel reality, in which no plane crash happened but the Ajax team changed its name? What about a third parallel reality in which both the crash and the name change happened? What about a fourth parallel reality, in which neither crash nor name change took place, but in which exactly those players that are the present Ajax team were actually hired by PSV, Ajax' main competitor?

Regardless if you are fully material or immaterial, you are as much an amalgam of neurons, voices, thoughts and other properties as the Ajax team. You are derived from an origin consisting of a fertilized egg, which may or may not be considered human life, but most definitely wasn't you. Then, gradually, over several decades, it changed into you. At the age of three, were you already you? Or did that toddler die after all his/her recorded memories were forgotten? When you will be 85 and are suffering from severe dementia, will the you that you are now be still alive or dead already? Will the toddler that was you be dead then? Is the you that started reading this post the same you as the one who finished it?

The question of "who am I" implies a well-defined boundary, in space and in time, between self and non-self. There is no such boundary. There are no well-defined boundaries at all, neither in space nor in time. Only in the human mind.

Okay, there is one exception. If you believe "I" equals your soul, defining your soul as immaterial, constant, having no influence upon or by the material world, then you have an answer. Otherwise, forget it.

By the way, this is by no means an academic debate. It has serious implications on the issue of abortion (at what point does it become murder?) and on Heaven (if I die demented at the age of 85 and go to Heaven, will I be demented and 85 in Heaven, too?). I only recently joined this forum, and I would be really curious to hear what you guys and girls think about all these things.

[JoeyKnothead]

Good Topic

My opinions, I agree others may feel differently...

I'm just another short, chubby, average white guy. I got my good points and my bad. I got a great old lady, a son who is a model American, a grand daughter I'd kill for.

I don't seek to define myself in some kind of special idealistic terms or measures, and don't understand why others need to do so (I respect their right to do it, I just don't think about it much, nor understand why they would).