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?

[ThePainefulTruth]

[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?"

Free will does not involve the ability to violate physical law. Regeneration is a function of genetics. Free will is about the ability to make moral choices.

Forget about rocks.

They aren't my problem, they're yours.

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?

Humans, when conscious, do not choose to think, but they do choose what to think about, and make decisions.

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.

But it is obvious, and measurable.

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.

We either have free will, or we have the illusion of it. Our only response has to be to treat it as real. If this is all a sick joke or our minds are meaningless and empty, we'll never know it. The ironic humor in all this, the ultimate last laugh if you will, is that deists will never know they were wrong, and atheists will never know they were right.

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.

So, is your self-awareness is an illusion, or a deception? In either case, you could have no purpose, no fulfillment, no meaning, except as a mental construct. Same for your choices to do good or evil. But does that mental construct not exist in and of itself, sitting there as the object of your contemplation? If the construct is the result of the interaction of matter and energy, that implies substance, whether it was the result of will, or whether will was the result of it.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 4 by ThePainefulTruth]

Given a little thought, the question is actually a good one.

Without a doubt or even a single thought, it is an even better question.

Who we are is a function of what motivates us beyond the animal instincts for our basic needs for survival--and if you don't have even that, you'll be dead in a few days, or minutes.

As I stated in the OP, "This is not the question: "What am I?"" To say you are a function of what motivates you is to make you a "what". If you are motivated by power then you are a function of power. If you are motivated by the material world, you are a function of the material world. Whatever you are, it isn't the answer to the question of who you are.

Look to the other end of the spectrum, what are your most important desires and wants. What is your god or gods. Many are driven to achieve material success desiring money, power, sex and status; either with or without regard for the violation of the rights of others in their acquisition--are they achieved honorably, that is, morally, or not. For many, these are enough, especially the quest for status or power. I consider those who are nothing more than this, to be shallow individuals.

This also doesn't answer the question of who you are.

Then there are sentient beings who are more than this, those for whom Truth is God and who pursue it through its aspects: knowledge, justice, love and beauty--from purely objective Truth to purely subjective Truth. For us in this universe, whether a supernatural/spiritual God is the embodiment of Truth or not appears to be unknowable, deliberately hidden even, and is thus irrelevant for us here and now. I believe these are the only paths to truly profound fulfillment--that which the shallow can never achieve.

While I can see that a sentient being could respond to the question of who they are, a sentient being is also a thing. If we ask the sentient being who they are rather than what they are, what is their answer going to be?

That is who I am, or at least who I want and strive to be.

What you have posted tells me things about you. It tells me aspects, a desire for fulfillment or who you want to be and those things you want to be are also things, but I didn't see who you are. For example, let's say that the answer to my question was that you are a human being, you could have answered the same way without ever mentioning that you were a human being.

Your subjective/objective point is interesting.

[Divine Insight]

Free will does not involve the ability to violate physical law. Regeneration is a function of genetics. Free will is about the ability to make moral choices.

But you have absolutely no clue whether or not you can make moral choices via free will. All the choices you make that you consider to be moral choices may very well be determined by your brain.

In short, unless you can demonstrate that a "free agent" is actually "running your brain", then you cannot say that you are anything other than your brain.

Also, if you are familiar with how analog computers are programmed, then you'll understand what I'm saying. Because there is not "software" on an analog computer like there is on a digital computer. The actual wiring of an analogy computer is its programming.

Therefore in order to demonstrate free will you would need to be able to demonstrate that you have the ability to control the wiring of your brain. And then the question of "Who are you?" really becomes interesting, because you would need to be something other than your brain. An that hypothesis becomes extremely problematic and simply isn't defensible.

Forget about rocks.

They aren't my problem, they're yours.

Rocks aren't by problem buddy. You're the one who brought up rocks, not me.

The existence of rocks doesn't don't violate anything at all that I have proposed.

So the existence of rocks are not my problem.

This is a fallacy that you have created.

Humans, when conscious, do not choose to think, but they do choose what to think about, and make decisions.

Prove it. Prove that you can choose what you think about. And good luck with that one.

You are working under the assumption that things that you take for granted represent some sort of verified facts, when they don't.

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.

But it is obvious, and measurable.

Yes, there's an obvious and measurable difference between rocks and humans, but that fact does not support you non-sequitur conclusions. Just because rocks have no active brains, and humans do doesn't support any of your conclusions.

So it's your conclusions that are utterly absurd.

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.

We either have free will, or we have the illusion of it. Our only response has to be to treat it as real. If this is all a sick joke or our minds are meaningless and empty, we'll never know it. The ironic humor in all this, the ultimate last laugh if you will, is that deists will never know they were wrong, and atheists will never know they were right.

We certainly have the illusion of it, that much I'll grant you. But an illusion is no proof of anything. When you see an illusion of water on a desert that doesn't prove there is water on the desert.

Think about this just for a few seconds and you should instantly see the problem with the idea of free will. Consider the following questions:

Do you have a desire to molest little children?

If yes, did you choose to have the desire?

If no, did you choose to not have that desire?

If you don't, and you believe that you have chosen to not desire to molest little children, then I can only suggest that you haven't truly given these questions sufficient thought.

Allow me to give my own answers to these questions:

For me, the answer to the first question, is no. I do not have a desire to molest little children. And that takes me directly to the third question. Did I choose to not have that desire? And the answer is no. I didn't choose to not desire to molest little children. I simply never had any desire to molest little children from the get go. It just not something that I would even remotely care to do. In fact, I wouldn't want to do it even if I was told that it was ok to do it.

So what's going on here? Clearly I didn't make this as a free will choice. Apparently this is just the way my brain is wired. As I had stated before, I consider myself very lucky to have accidentally been born with a very well-constructed brain.

I most certainly never had any free will choice in that.

So if you are under the illusion that you are personally responsible for every desire you have, then I can only ask you why you believe that?

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.

So, is your self-awareness is an illusion, or a deception? In either case, you could have no purpose, no fulfillment, no meaning, except as a mental construct. Same for your choices to do good or evil. But does that mental construct not exist in and of itself, sitting there as the object of your contemplation? If the construct is the result of the interaction of matter and energy, that implies substance, whether it was the result of will, or whether will was the result of it.

You've left "desire" out of the equation.

I don't get up every morning and ask myself, "Would you like to do some good or evil today?" And then make a free will choice to that question.

I do good things because that's what I WANT to do, not because I'm making moral choices.

I don't do bad things because I don't LIKE doing bad things. I simply have no desire to do bad things. Again, no moral choices required.

In fact, I basically never make "moral choices". Think about it. I was born and raised in Christianity. According to that religion is immoral to question the authority and reality of God. It's immoral to refuse to accept that Jesus was God's son who supposedly died to pay for my poor moral choices.

And yes, I put the rolling eyes emoticon at the end of that because I have since come to see that entire theological doctrine as being an obvious man-made religious fable. It's ridiculous IMHO.

Was it a "Free Will Moral Choice" to reject Christianity and it's Christ?

No, absolutely not. That choice had nothing at all to do with morality. It was a purely logical choice based on pure logical reasoning. The religion is utterly absurd, period. It's not a question of morality at all.

Can I think logically? Well, apparently this is one property that analog brains provide (at least for some of us). In fact, we even know that not all brains think alike. Some brains think more logically than others. Is that a free will choice too?

Finally, could I choose to believe such an obviously false religious doctrine?

No, I cannot chose to "believe" something that is obviously false.

Could I choose to "pretend" to believe it for some alternate twisted logical reason (like possibly to pacify the society I live within). Sure. But that pretense wouldn't amount to true belief anyway.

So the bottom line is that I cannot even choose to believe in a religion that is so obviously false. Even that is beyond the reach of "Free Will Choice".

You can't force yourself to believe something once you know it's obviously false.

So our choices are indeed quite limited. And we don't really have nearly the free will choice that many people have come to believe that we have. They just haven't thought this through to it's obvious conclusions.

[Divine Insight]

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.

Actually Bust Nak has answer the question "Who am I?"

Apparently what the OP is really interested in is the question of "What am I?"

The answer to "Who am I?" changes dynamically throughout our lives. It's the "What am I?" that remains the same.

Edited to add:

Actually even the answer to "What am I?" can change. After all, if we truly are our brains, (which appears to be the case), then if our brains change, what we are changes as well.

In fact, our brains do indeed change over time. Some clearly more than others. And brains can also be changed due to physical damage or disease. So even the answer to "What am I?" changes over time.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]

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.

You are free to disagree and deny it, but it is easily refuted. As I stated before, I am not asking what you are, but who you are. Therefore, whatever the object of your consciousness may be, is still a "what", and has nothing to do with my question. The fact is that if the object of your consciousness is a door knob, you are not the door knob. This isn't speculation.

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.

Your biological brain, analog computers, feedback loops, and "the very thing" are all things. You are effectively claiming to have located consciousness within your brain. It's a claim that doesn't really tell me who you are.

my very consciousness requires that I am both the subject of my experiences and the experiences themselves. I am both of these things.

You're still referring to yourself as things. I'm not asking about things. Your very speculative claims are the only things you are requiring.

I am that I which I am, remember?

No, this is a different articulation from what you stated previously. e.g.

I am that which I am. Period.

Perhaps a comma or semicolon would have been more appropriate?

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.

Focusing on what you are is ignoring who you are which is the focus of the question.

I am necessarily both of these things simultaneously.

Thanks for sharing both of those things.

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.

You're still focusing on these things you have, and have now included your consiousness as something you have. If your consiousness is something you have, who are you? Who are you with this consciousness that you have?

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.

I'm not claiming you are solely your consciousness. You are claiming that your consciousness is something, and this thing is something that you have just like you have a brain, a physical body, etc. Are you a brain? Are you a body? These all answer to what you have, not who you are.

How dare you call this a "disorder" when it's actually the only possible way to produce consciousness.

I didn't call this, whatever this is; a disorder. I just don't see what else it could be.

all you have truly done is reveal that you don't understand the importance of this in creating consciousness.

Very true, which is due to the fact that you haven't explained how this would necessarily be the case.

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

That is "What you are".

Thanks again for answering a question I didn't ask.

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.

And once again, you are back to answering the "what" question rather than the "who" question. Experiences you are having tells us that you are having experiences. These are things that you have like your brain, your body, your home, etc. They tell us that you are having these experiences, but they don't tell us who you are. Who you are is not what you have.

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".

That might be an interesting question for another topic, but I'd like an answer to who you are before proceeding on to whether or not you, whoever you are; has free will.

I cannot say that I am responsible for "Who I am".

That would seem to follow if you can't tell us who you are in the first place.

You seem to have already drawn some sort of conclusions.

Yes, there is a difference between who you are and what you are. There is a difference between who you are and what you have. I'm not interested in what you are, or what you have.

what causes you to be conscious at all?

I'm also not asking what causes you to be conscious. I'm just asking: "Who are you?"

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]

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.

These terms are precise enough, and already have generally accepted definitions which in no way preclude asking the question.

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.

To transcend means to go beyond anything and everything that can be experienced, thought, articulated, or understood. Therefore for all intents and purposes you cannot be conscious of reality.

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.

Evidently you believe that reality hasn't yet transcended consciousness then. Therefore reality isn't transcendent, at least not yet.

Quote:
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.

No, I'm not assuming that at all. I clarified my statement.

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.

Spread it out over time, or don't; makes no difference to me. Regardless, you're just pointing out that you're not conscious of reality. Although given your previous statements where you identify with your consciousness, it then follows that whoever you are; isn't connected to reality. I would have to disagree because I am connected to reality, and if I'm connected to reality, you are as well.

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

At least it's creative. If one is able to comprehend what it is saying, then it is also intelligible, meaningful, etc.

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?

I wasn't referring to concepts of pure consciousness. Concepts aren't conscious. Why would what 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.

No, I'm simply pointing out that pure consciousness necessarily can't be conscious of anything. It's logically irrefutable.

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

Obviously I don't need to pretend that these ideas need rules of engagement to be discussed. You can't even prove that you exist, or that you are what you say you are. Even with that, you still haven't answered the question of who you are. Your claims aren't proofs, and they don't answer the question. Ideas exist as ideas. QED You are essentially claiming that your consciousness of things can't be conscious of nothing which is easily refuted with any number of anesthesias. Take a nap, and tell us about all the things you were conscious of while you were sleeping. The fact is that the entire world disappears, and you are conscious of nothing when in deep sleep.

The only consciousness I have ever had any experience with has always been associated with a complex brain.

Again, you're still talking about these experiences of consciousness which you've had. The only difference is that you are now referring to things which don't even exist anymore.

I've never met a consciousness that exists without any physical paraphernalia.

How do you know that? You are able to detect physical bodies, but your consciousness detects all sorts of things that aren't physical e.g. concepts, abstract constructions of the mind, etc. According to your logic, you're also those things as well, and they are not only not conscious, they have no physical paraphernalia.

So the idea of "pure consciousness" seems to me to be nothing more than an invention of pure philosophical mumbo jumbo.

Ideas are inventions of the mind, regardless of whether they be comprehensible or not. If you are unable to distinguish between consciousness and what one is conscious of, then you not only haven't addressed the question of who you are, you can't even begin to understand the question.

[mgb]

There are two modes of being; ego-centred being and soul centred being.

Ego is counterfeit being. Which 'I' are you referring to when you say 'Who am I?'

True being or ego centred being?

[mgb]

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 am not so sure about that. If you say 'I wear glasses' you are talking about two things; the 'I' that wears glasses and the wearing of glasses. You might respond saying that 'wearing glasses' is what defines the I, but I don't think so. When Descartes said 'I think therefore I am' he was referring to a centre from which thoughts originate. That is, thought is being. Wearing glasses etc. is not necessary. All that is required is thought. We are what we think; that is, we evolve according to what we think.

In answer to the OP; I am what I think. (that does not mean 'what I think I am'. It means I am the sum total of what I think, because to think is to be)

[mgb]

Did I choose to not have that desire? And the answer is no. I didn't choose to not desire to molest little children. I simply never had any desire to molest little children from the get go. It just not something that I would even remotely care to do. In fact, I wouldn't want to do it even if I was told that it was ok to do it.

So what's going on here? Clearly I didn't make this as a free will choice. Apparently this is just the way my brain is wired. As I had stated before, I consider myself very lucky to have accidentally been born with a very well-constructed brain.

I most certainly never had any free will choice in that.

So if you are under the illusion that you are personally responsible for every desire you have, then I can only ask you why you believe that?

I what I said in my previous post is correct - and I think it is - then the desire to do this or the other is a result of thought; something that has grown in our minds through thought. And I we are born with desires, which I think we are, we must have been thinkin before we were born. This is one reason I believe in preexistence.

[shnarkle]

In answer to the OP; I am what I think. (that does not mean 'what I think I am'. It means I am the sum total of what I think, because to think is to be)

Then you cease to be when you stop thinking. Most people do this every night when they go to sleep.

You're getting close to answering the question though. Who are you when you stop thinking every night?