Ultimate questions: Is the examined life worth living?

[shnarkle]

I'm not sure they've figured out who they really are which is probably where one ought to start before examining their life. After all whose life is one examining? If one doesn't know who they are, why examine their life at all?

The question is: Have you discovered who you are, and if so; who are you?

If you haven't figured out who you are, why not?

This is not a question of identification. It isn't about the roles one plays, the persona presented to the world, your attributes, achievements,goals, etc.. It isn't a question of what you have or what you possess. This is not the question: "What am I?"

Can anyone answer the question; who are you?

Has anyone here asked themselves the question; "Who am I?"

Does anyone here know who they are?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

I am that which I am. Period.

I am the conscious living entity that is experiencing life.

That alone would have been sufficient and accurate. The rest was contradictory and had practically nothing to do with the question.

If the second statement I made is "sufficient and accurate": I am the conscious living entity that is experiencing life.

Then please explain to me how my conscious experiences would be contradictory and have practically nothing to do with the question?

Because they are the object of your consciousness. Pure consciousness has no object, and can be conscious of nothing. You are conscious of your experiences. You are the subject. Unless you are claiming to be the object of consciousness, but then that would be to claim you are the object of some subjective consciousness. You claimed you were an entity. Unless you are undergoing some sort of multiple personality disorder, you can't be both the subject and the experience itself. You can't be the one who experiences and the experience. You can't be the thought and the thinker. If you are thinking then you have thoughts. If you are driving, then you are a driver, but you are not the car you are driving. If you are the thought, then someone else is doing the thinking. Take your pick.

But wait a minute.

You're putting your speculative analysis out here as though it is some sort of proven fact that cannot be denied.

I simply disagree with your speculations here.

First off, let's take a look at the following item on your list of speculations:

You claimed you were an entity. Unless you are undergoing some sort of multiple personality disorder, you can't be both the subject and the experience itself.

I disagree that this is a "disorder". To the contrary, I hold that this is actually required for consciousness to even exist. I suggest that our biological brain is actually an analog computer that is indeed running in a constant feedback loop. Therefore being both and the experience and the subject of this experience simultaneously is the very thing that makes consciousness possible.

Thus what you are dismissing as some sort of "disorder" I see as being absolutely essential to consciousness.

You asked me "Who I am" and even rejected the question of "What I am" in the OP as somehow being irrelevant. So I only answered the question of "Who I am" in an effort to appease your disinterest in the question of "What I am".

But these are both valid question, and they both have valid answers.

So yes, my very consciousness requires that I am both the subject of my experiences and the experiences themselves. I am both of these things. I am that I which I am, remember? So focusing only on part of what I am (i.e. my subjective experience) without recognizing the I am also the entity that is this experience, is to refuse to see the whole picture.

I am necessarily both of these things simultaneously.

In short, if I did not have a physical body, and a physical analog brain, the consciousness that I have stated that I am would not exist.

In other words, you can't claim that I'm solely my consciousness whilst simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the very condition that makes that consciousness possible.

So yes, I am both the subject of my experiences and I am those experiences at the very same time.

How dare you call this a "disorder" when it's actually the only possible way to produce consciousness. It's not a "disorder" at all. To the contrary, it the "order" that creates conscious. There is nothing to be gained by "dissing" it. In fact, when you "dis" this order, all you have truly done is reveal that you don't understand the importance of this in creating consciousness.

You are the result of a "feedback loop" that is running on a biological analog computer.

That is "What you are".

The answer to the question of "Who you are", is a description of the experiences you are having due to this physical feedback loop that creates your conscious experiences.

Now the truly interesting question is whether or not this feedback arrangement in this analogy computer (which is what you are) has any "Free Will". In other words, can the consciousness this feedback loop create do anything other than just continually feedback based upon the physical arrangements that are creating it and causing it to exist in the first place.

In other words, does this analog feedback loop actually create a "Free Agent"? Or is it more like ripples on a sea that have no choice but to form the patterns of the underlying waters that cause them?

I believe I have already confessed that I don't know the answer to this latter question. My guess is that there is ultimately no free agent even though this process creates an illusion of one.

As I have said, I cannot say that I am responsible for "Who I am". You have dismissed this as being irrelevant. But for me it's an extremely relevant question.

Am I a "free agent", or am I just ripples on a sea of an analogy computer's feedback loop?

To be perfectly honest about it, the conclusion that I'm just ripples on the sea of a closed-loop analog computer is far more likely to be the reality of the situation.

But hey, if I could somehow take credit for being a "Free Agent" that would be GREAT. No one would be happier about that than me.

So the answer to these questions are indeed paramount.

You seem to have already drawn some sort of conclusions. But I don't see where your conclusions make any sense. If you dis-miss, your conscious connection with the analog computer which is your brain, then what causes you to be conscious at all?

Can you be conscious without your computer brain? If not, then why dismiss the computer brain that is creating your very consciousness? Insofar as I am aware you cannot have consciousness without a physical brain.

If you have any credible evidence to the contrary I'm open to hearing it.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

I am that I am. Period.

That's who I am.

In other words, I am that which I am. Period.

I am the conscious living entity that is experiencing life.

I have wants and desires. There's no question about that. And therefore my wants and desires are necessarily a part of who I am. There's no getting around it.

Your last sentence contradicts the rest. A pure receptor does not project.

A rock, is that it is.

How do you know it's a projection?

Because it is an act of will. A rock has no will.

It could just as easily be a reflection.

Ok, a polished rock, still not an act of will.

So you're making an unwarranted assumption.

In fact, isn't that the real question?

Am I projecting my desires? Or are my desires just a reflection of who I am?

It's an expression of who you are, unless you're inanimate.

Insofar as I can tell I cannot change my deepest desires. So if that's true, then neither can I change who I am.

People make profound changes in themselves all the time. I used to be a Democrat, but look at me now--I actually decided to think. Same for Christianity to agnostic deism. I used to think the Truth was whatever I wanted it to be, now I know it's more complicated.

[shnarkle]

Looking at it from your perspective of what you are with your analog brain will always lead people to believe in that as fundamental and along with that their free will. Again, this is all beside the point of my post which is why I pointed out I wasn't asking about these ephemeral "whats".

Most people have no idea how to jump from their subjective consciousness to the "real" world. Those who attempt to explain it just sound silly. This has always been the main problem of any epistemology severed from ontology. To identify them doesn't solve the problem either. Do you think consciousness is identical to reality, or does reality transcend consciousness?

If we don't identify consciousness with being, any experience is an immediate touch with reality and therefore beyond consciousness. When we speak of reality, we are already within the field of consciousness which is just a representation of reality, and reality is not a concept.

If we use the historical metaphor of the tree of knowledge of good and evil which gives us knowledge of reality, that knowelege belongs to consciousness. So while that knowledge can be quite powerful, it isn't the "tree of life". Life is life and not necessarily thinking, or as the Upanishads put it:

Into blind darkness enter those who revere ignorance
Into blinder darkness enter those who find satisfaction in knowledge

I get it. Life is coextensive with being; it's another name for being, for the whole of reality. The problem is that you keep lapsing back into the subject/object dichotomy. The solution is found in symbolism because symbols are neither just objective or purely subjective. Symbolic knowledge overcomes the subject/object split, but that is only within the context of accepted mythologies. Aside from the fact that most people tend to have an irrational loathing for the mythos, there is also the symbolic difference, which is to say the difference between the symbol and the symbolized which lies in the relation of the three: the symbol, the symbolized, and the symbolizer. The symbolizer is the "subject" for whom the symbol is really a symbol, yet the symbol has no external referent.

Ultimatly pure consciousness cannot be conscious of anything as it would no longer be pure consciousness. it would be conscious "OF" something.

[Bust Nak]

This is not a question of identification. It isn't about the roles one plays, the persona presented to the world, your attributes, achievements,goals, etc.. It isn't a question of what you have or what you possess. This is not the question: "What am I?"

who are you?

I am Bust Nak. I am a moderator here. I am a parent, an atheist, I wear glasses, I am logical, I work with computers, I aim to live a nice family life, I enjoy debate, video games and painting, I have lots of things high tech gadgets. I reject the notion that I am not asking the "who am I" question with this response. There is no "I" beyond the physical entity, the more identification, roles, attributes and so on I present, the more complete my answer is to the "who am I" question.

[jgh7]

This is not a question of identification. It isn't about the roles one plays, the persona presented to the world, your attributes, achievements,goals, etc.. It isn't a question of what you have or what you possess. This is not the question: "What am I?"

who are you?

I am Bust Nak. I am a moderator here. I am a parent, an atheist, I wear glasses, I am logical, I work with computers, I aim to live a nice family life, I enjoy debate, video games and painting, I have lots of things high tech gadgets. I reject the notion that I am not asking the "who am I" question with this response. There is no "I" beyond the physical entity, the more identification, roles, attributes and so on I present, the more complete my answer is to the "who am I" question.

I do respect the pragmatic approach. I think what the question is aiming for though is to stip away all of those things and then say who you are. Like if you got complete and utter amnesia. Your entire prior life may be erased from your memory, but there's still an unchanging Bust Nak that is the same even after your amnesia.

It may still be nothing more than your core personality and dispositions, but perhaps there are some deeper things that it may point to.

This actually reminds me of a very interesting movie that deals with this topic. It's called Dark City. I highly recommend it, very fun sci fi film (If you enjoy Inception-style films you'll enjoy this).

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 12 by ThePainefulTruth]

Your entire line of argument appears to assume that there is a "will" involved.

I'm pretty sure that I left open the question of whether there is any actual "will" involved anywhere in the process.

We have no conclusive evidence that any "will" exists. So you are basing your arguments on an assumption that hasn't yet been established.

[Divine Insight]

Do you think consciousness is identical to reality, or does reality transcend consciousness?

To begin with I feel that both of these terms are basically ill-defined. After all, if we had absolute precise and generally accepted definitions of these concepts there would be no questions to ask about them as we would already know the answers.

Having said this, (based on what I consider these terms to mean) I would definitely say that reality transcends consciousness. I see no rational reason to think otherwise. Conscious appears to me to be a function of a physical brain. And so without a physical brain there can be no such thing as consciousness. So "reality" (i.e. the physical world) must necessarily transcend consciousness.

If we don't identify consciousness with being, any experience is an immediate touch with reality and therefore beyond consciousness. When we speak of reality, we are already within the field of consciousness which is just a representation of reality, and reality is not a concept.

I disagree with this line of thinking.

For one thing, you seem to be assuming that conscious experience is an "immediate touch with reality". But why are you assuming that? It could very well be that the process of consciousness is indeed spread out over time. In fact, I highly suspect that it indeed is.

So I would already be accepting a different premise from the one you have embraced. I see no reason to demand that consciousness cannot be a process that is spread out over time. Especially considering that we know for certain that more events that we can even count can occur in time frames that we ourselves would consider to be unimaginably small.

There is simply no reason to believe that we are conscious of every imaginably small duration of time. To the contrary, our very thoughts require quite a bit of time to propagate throughout our brains. So the demand that experience or consciousness must be "immediate" is not a credible demand, IMHO.

If we use the historical metaphor of the tree of knowledge of good and evil which gives us knowledge of reality, that knowelege belongs to consciousness. So while that knowledge can be quite powerful, it isn't the "tree of life". Life is life and not necessarily thinking, or as the Upanishads put it:

Into blind darkness enter those who revere ignorance
Into blinder darkness enter those who find satisfaction in knowledge

Philosophical poetry can be fun, but it isn't necessarily representative of anything more than the creative poetry of the authors.

I get it. Life is coextensive with being; it's another name for being, for the whole of reality. The problem is that you keep lapsing back into the subject/object dichotomy. The solution is found in symbolism because symbols are neither just objective or purely subjective. Symbolic knowledge overcomes the subject/object split, but that is only within the context of accepted mythologies. Aside from the fact that most people tend to have an irrational loathing for the mythos, there is also the symbolic difference, which is to say the difference between the symbol and the symbolized which lies in the relation of the three: the symbol, the symbolized, and the symbolizer. The symbolizer is the "subject" for whom the symbol is really a symbol, yet the symbol has no external referent.

Ultimatly pure consciousness cannot be conscious of anything as it would no longer be pure consciousness. it would be conscious "OF" something.

I agree a concept of "pure consciousness" devoid of anything to be conscious of makes no sense.


So why should this even be a question?

Do you have any evidence of "pure consciousness" existing that is not associated with a physical brain that creates it, and with the physical experiences that it processes?

The very moment you introduce the term "Pure Consciousness" you are introducing an idealized philosophical idea that has no observable reality.

You'd need to show me where and how any "Pure Consciousness" can exist before you start talking about such an idea.

The only consciousness I have ever had any experience with has always been associated with a complex brain. I've never met a consciousness that exists without any physical paraphernalia. So the idea of "pure consciousness" seems to me to be nothing more than an invention of pure philosophical mumbo jumbo.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 12 by ThePainefulTruth]

Your entire line of argument appears to assume that there is a "will" involved.

I'm pretty sure that I left open the question of whether there is any actual "will" involved anywhere in the process.

We have no conclusive evidence that any "will" exists. So you are basing your arguments on an assumption that hasn't yet been established.

`

Wants and desires are the results of conscious will. A rock does not have conscious will, therefore it can not and does not desire anything. But a rock still "is that it is", which is what you said that you were, but that you have want's and desires. Be proud, you're more than a rock, ostensibly. Prove it. How are you different than a rock? unless you're actually gonna say that a rock is conscious and can will itself at a window.

Care to take a stab at this one, how are you different from an amoeba? An amoeba has a very primitive consciousness and can will itself to move or not...at will (heh). It can even be said to have free will, but not a moral free will. Why not? What's the difference between the primitive free will that amoebas and primates have, and human free will? There is an answer.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 12 by ThePainefulTruth]

Your entire line of argument appears to assume that there is a "will" involved.

I'm pretty sure that I left open the question of whether there is any actual "will" involved anywhere in the process.

We have no conclusive evidence that any "will" exists. So you are basing your arguments on an assumption that hasn't yet been established.

`

Wants and desires are the results of conscious will. A rock does not have conscious will, therefore it can not and does not desire anything. But a rock still "is that it is", which is what you said that you were, but that you have want's and desires. Be proud, you're more than a rock, ostensibly. Prove it. How are you different than a rock? unless you're actually gonna say that a rock is conscious and can will itself at a window.

Care to take a stab at this one, how are you different from an amoeba? An amoeba has a very primitive consciousness and can will itself to move or not...at will (heh). It can even be said to have free will, but not a moral free will. Why not? What's the difference between the primitive free will that amoebas and primates have, and human free will? There is an answer.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 18 by ThePainefulTruth]

You're still making the unwarranted assumption that there exists a free agent within a human that is "willfully" making choices.

This hasn't been shown to be the case.

Does a tree "will itself to grow leaves?"

In fact, does a human "will itself to grow arms?"

Forget about rocks.

Just because something is animate doesn't automatically mean that it then needs to have a will.

Does a volcano "will" itself to erupt? Does a hurricane "will" itself to spin?

Does a human "will" itself to think? Or can it simply not help itself but to think?

You need to forget about trying to compare humans with rocks. That comparison will only cause you to think that you are onto something that's "obvious" when it fact you aren't.

Just because humans can think (which they apparently have no choice but to do) doesn't automatically demonstrate that they have any free will choice in the thoughts they actually have.

So there's no evidence that humans constitute any free will agent. They may very well have no choice in the thoughts they choose and how they act on them.

Have you not been paying attention to the things I've said?

Even I can't say that I'm responsible for the thoughts I have and the person I have become. I would LOVE to take credit for that, but I see no reason to believe that I had any choice in the matter.

I certainly didn't need to "fight off temptations" to become who I am. And even if I had done that, who's to say that I would have even had choice in doing that?

The bottom line is that until you can demonstrate that humans truly have free will then your assumption that they do is unwarranted.

You need to demonstrate that humans have free will before you can use that as a basis for any arguments.