Even if there is no real self or I, there is definitely an awareness of I. My sense of self is limited to what I can perceive, the same as your sense of self is limited to what you can perceive. My sense of self is not affected by what you perceive. Therefore, there is a sense of self that can be compartmentalized. I don't think that the sense of self is a part of the body, but the body is just the means by which we have a sense of self. The sense of self is completely independent of what you perceive, so the sense of self can be looked at as its own being. From the world we experience, this being cannot exist beyond the body and therefore relies on the body. I think that it wouldn't matter which body as long as there is a body, and that there cannot be two bodies. Therefore, it would be impossible for the sense of self to exist in two bodies, and regardless of the identical physical properties, the sense of self can only be present within one physical property. I will have to think more on the selection process, though. Max
I'm talking of that which is not seen, only by us. I adapted to my environment, what I have experianced has become experiance for me. Things I have thought of has become rules that I follow. I think different from you, but if I thought the same I still wouldn't be you. Children learn by imitation, so even if we have thoughts in us that was shared through someone else, we haven't become that person. I'm talking about the big 'why' here. Why couldn't I have been someone else? Why couldn't I have been in another persons body and he in mine? Also a important question, why was I born in this age, this time, this space and not any other one? What was it in this time that said "hey, this is where 'you' belong". The perception theory of noahfor can't solve that either, if it could I would have experianced any perception since the beginning of time (as long as there wasn't someone allready experiancing that particular scenario).
Thank you, the selection process is the most important part. No one has yet to give any answer to it (well the only "answer" I have heard is "because it is your body" and it don't count, really, what made it be "my body"?).
The "I" is nothing but an array and plethora of experiences, if you take all those things away from someone, they wouldn’t know what to do and who they are; think Amnesia. It’s an illusion. The person next to me in this library is just as real as I am, and nothing differentiates us but our differences; the "ID". When a baby is born they have no idea of who they are until their teachers and environment fed them with ideas of all sorts. Let me put it this way, if I died today and I came back to life will I be able to know if I was here before? It all depends on my memory, which simply conveys my experiences. Every baby being born today April 4th 2006 is another you over again, whether or not they look like you, until they start to interact. There is really only one "I" and like everything in society we are sharing it.
You say that: There is only one "I" that is shared by everybody. The body doesn't matter (it doesn't determine the "I" since there is only one "I" that is the same for everyone). Then please explain: Why are you there, Why am I here, Instead of somewhere else? I see what you mean, about the "I" being shared. But that doesn't explain the questions presented, cause then the "I" is being interpreted as something else. The "I" in your "definition" is like the "light" in my definition. Could be that when being in darkness we don't know of ourselves (because of lack of knowledge and lack of interaction - as you explained it) we aren't aware of ourselves. However, when that light comes, I find myself in my body. How come I find myself in my body and not (for example) your body? Or Henrich von Strutgers body?
There is a little bit of you in everybody, and there is a little bit of everybody in you. Otheriwise you wouldn't have survived to this point.
Imagine two Universes. They are exactly the same. From no perspective are they different. Aren't they the same Universe? Because to be two, they must be different. Otherwise, how two? To be two, one must be on the left, one must be on the right, but this is a difference. This is the meaning of one and two. To be two there must be a difference, otherwise one. Now, imagine two people, experiencing the same exact thing, not just the same visuals and sounds, but everything, they feel the same, everything. One of them is you. One of them is me. There must be a difference, since one is you and one is me. The selection process has put us each in one of these two bodies. But wait, is there really a difference. No, they are the same person. It's the same thing because it is the same experience. There is no I. It's just an illusion that there must be a thing perceiving perception. Perceptions are what they are. The sense of self is no different from the sense of red. Only, by the MEANING of the sense of self and because we experience the meaning as refering to ourselve do we come up with the idea that we must be a self, but we are not. It's a case of mistaken identity. You feel as though you are a self, so you naturally think you are one. It's a painting of a guy looking at a painting confusing itself for a guy looking at a painting.
Quantum entanglement has proven that if something is exactly the same then the copy vanish (in that case a photon, in the experiment of teleporting it, as soon as the other photon appeared the first was destroyed). The thing here, is that there is a difference in that I see all that I experiance, there is something 'clean' about it, something uncorrupted, we *know* that we are real! It is probably because of that that we are aware. Because, awareness is something (read this carefully now, it is a statement of trust) untouched, something pure, and something unique. It is all that by the very nature of it. You aren't what you see, but you identify with it. What is really 'you' can't be taken away from you and it can never ever change. It's your life. Your universe so to say (cause everything that you know of it, therefor must be with you, including those things that you can't really explain, but you 'know' it, the billion stars, you see them, not merely a imagination, but a imagination based on something that is absolutly real). Here comes what I wanna say: No two universes can be exactly the same since it would then only be one universe (as they are the same). Now, reconsider what you said, then look at this: Not everything needs to be the same, but exactly in the likeness of. So it is not the same atoms, but they are arranged the same. Unless you think what makes the difference is in the atoms themselves this shows that we can potentially have two bodies exactly in the likeness of eachother, though only the individual atoms differ (since they are taken from a difference source and are different than the atoms from the other body). Now, if the two bodies still wouldn't share their awareness, then this means that either the difference must be in the atoms themselves, and not the way they are arranged. The other possibility is simply that awareness isn't physical and the reality of it isn't corrupted (which is why it could be awareness in the first place (the realisation of real reality - and not fantasy reality)). Before we reason out the I, we must first know what the selection process actually is selecting. Does it select bodies? You are to be in that body and you in that. Then what is "you" if not "I"? Even if "I" is the same for each person, it is totally unique in that it is each unique person, where definition itself would be meaningless otherwise. If all awarenessess merge (which could be if it is all the same) then who would be "on top" actually aware? Are all you me? Is there then only me? But then I would be all of you too. Would you do what I do? Would you want the same? Perhaps, then we all do the same thing...all being aware of the same thing, with the same mission. I am naturally I since I am I. Would there be a spiritual war with those who claim to be "I"? Who is then to prove himself as the real "I"? I like to think that we are all unique individuals, even though we share alot, I really don't think we all share me. The "I" looking objectivly, sure we all share the "I", but individually we are all unique "I"´s. Where the light (awareness) being exactly the same for all. We all have the same sensation of being aware. That sensation is necessarily real (as it shows us that we are real). We don't have a "sense of self", self is sensing. Allways so. Who would sense the sense of self? Self must sense any sense. As such there is no sense without self, we must look at this naturally as we understand it. We can't say "there is no self without sense". It's logically false since every sense must be felt with self. It is the self that sense, the sense can therefor not by itself be given a sensing existance, without self sense is nothing. Without awareness, there is no knowledge of self. Who could ever prove me wrong? If I am then I am, it's amongst the simplest proofs. Confusing itself. How can a painting of a guy be confused and think it exists? No, not even think it exists, but actually exist, or don't we all of the sudden? Or am I the only one?
I'm arguing that this isn't the case. That's essentially what is going on here. Also, the painting thing wasn't meant to be taken literally. How can you say there is no sense of self? How are you even talking about a self without a sense of it?
The sense of self is anything that the self is sensing. Thus not a actual sense but a self that sense. How can you talk about a sense without no self to sense it? Aren't you rather talking about the feeling of seeing clearly? If I exist, then naturally there must be a I. The only proof for us that the I exist is because we are selfexistant, thus it is evident by itself. Without 'self' there is no sense, cause any sense would be meaningless and irrelevant.
You are going in circles. One is that you also argue from the third person perspective; the argument has no merit unless taken for granted that any consciousness exist outside the self. If another consciousness exists then yes, if I was you then I wouldn't be me, and if you were me you wouldn't be me, but so what? This does not follow: "Just the potential that I could have been you (with your personality and all that) and you in turn COULD have been me (with my personality and all that) shows that the body isn't in question here." To reach this conclusion, you have to presume that you can live without your body. It suggests that you are not your body. It suggests something outside the body that identifies who you are, something called a mind that exists independent of the body. I'm afraid your simplistic comments don't allow for that conclusion. You are you because you popped out of your Mom's pussy, and the awareness you have now, which was not there 2 seconds after your birth or 3 years after your birth, etc is the gradual building of your understanding of the environment you inhabit and you within it. If you had no legs, this experience will differ and so would your percpetion of yourself and who you are. More importantly, if I blew your head off, I'm sure you'd cease to exist as a conscious entity, or so says this conscious mind.
Well, I could take it much further, but first you have to acknowledge the first circle (and see why it isn't a circle, but merely appear to be since we can't see it all and can't understand it all. Of course I'm talking in circles when you don't understand what I say, I have to explain it all again in different angles thus producing a circle. It is however not a logical circle, as there is a break of the "circle" which is "out of the loop" and shows something that is bigger than the circle itself. Because if I COULD be you, then it shows that the mere potential shows that it isn't a matter of material properties that determine you to be you, and not me. Even if you had my personality you would still be aware as yourself, your existance, not mine (though with my personality). Or you could consider this, what if either you or me was in my body, thus one of us would have never existed (it's of course the same personality all along), would you still argue that you are you because of your personality then? Aren't you rather you because "you" then exist and not me. The potential that I COULD have been you, shows without question that the body is not what determines who should be in which body. If the potential exist that I COULD have been you then that is the same as this: "you OR I could have been in my body", thus the BODY isn't in question.
Your entire post makes no sense. If 'I could be you' does not translate to an existence independent of your physical characteristics. Part of being you is necessarily being your physical being, and when you suggest otherwise in the hypothetical without any rational behind it-- that I could be you, but still posess my physical being-- it is nonsensical. The argument is tantomount to saying I could be God, so this means that .....bla bla. The possibility exists for anything, but the argument is only realizable when logical/rational. YOU: I could you be, so this means that the body is independent of the mind. Core assumption: In the transfer of 'me to you', the body is not translated. The assumption is not governed by any rationalization; it is presumed a priori. You first have to show how the transfer is independent of the physical. How is it that I could be you and not be you in the physical? If I am you, then I am of your exact mold-- memories, body, thought, emotions, etc. The fact that I am you means I am no longer me, it means that my realization as is now in the physical or as a 'mind' is no longer a possibility, unless I somehow existed as myself, in which case I would no longer be you. If I could be you and am you, then myself no longer exists. So, I could not be you and still maintain my current phsyical properties, unless you show how the transfer is independent of the body.
Sure sure sure... There is alternative 1: The body is "the selection process". Consequences of alternative 1: That particular body is the only body that can bring you into existance. - if not exactly the whole body, at least some part of it, probably the brain. - if not exactly the whole brain, at least some part of it, probably the area that controls your sense of time and space. If two bodies were made exactly alike, not the same, but alike to the highest degree (let's say alike down to atomic level), then you would exist in two places at once. (remember, if the body is the selection process then it selects both since they are so alike). ...and there is alternative 2: Something else is selecting the body. Consequences of alternative 2: Anyone can become in any body. I COULD have existed in your body instead of mine, which couldn't be with alternative 1, since I couldn't have existed in your body if it is the physical material body that determines where I am to exist. Why I had taken away the body from the calculation was because the other guy thought that I COULD have existed in his body instead of mine, thus the body is out of the question as you said. However, if the body is in question then we have the "twin paradox", what if two people were "created" as alike as possible, wouldn't that make you BE in two bodies? If not, then what made you exist in one body instead of the other? Some don't understand this, but if you have any sense in you, then you will understand it. Simply because, before you were born, there were no preffered choice which body you would be in. So what was it? Random? If it is, like some other one said, the sensing ability itself that was you, then you would have sensed everything since the beginning of time that wasn't allready sensed by anyone.
So many issues with this particular suggestion, but whatever let's move on The highest degree is exactly the same, and when not possible, then you don't exist at two places at the same time. Differences at the atomic level are still differences. No, because it is not possible. Besides, I have no bloody idea what you mean by the "selection process". From Biology I don't recall anything deciding which particular sperm merges with the egg. How do you reach these alternates? What are you talking about? What is the selection process? Actually I'm quite confident I have more sense than you and that you are talking nonsense. Firstly, since it is not possible for you to exist at two places at the same time, the "paradox" does not exist. This is not calculus; we don't deal in limits. Additionally, you are probably attempting to reach at the idea of chance. If it is possible that I could have been you and that you could've been me, it means there is no predictable selection, it is means it is chanced. It in no way translate anything about a mind or a soul; that conclusion or argument has to be reached in a different manner.
Fancy words. If your body were recreated exactly alike after you died, would you live again? If so, then what in the alikeness in the body makes you exist there instead of in any other body? I speak english, you just have to stretch your understanding a bit. Where there is sense you say there is nonsense. What does that tell me? Do you at all understand even the concept of what I say? Do you think I purpously write blabberish to you? Do you think I don't have anything meaningful to say? Is that the excuse for ignoring it? Then do so, take your time. Ok, and you reached this conclusion based on what?? No predictable selection? What is that? Explain to me what a predictable selection is, then tell me if there do not has to be a selection even in pure chance. Can you explain to me what it means to be "chanced"? And tell me how that does not involve a selection process. Ignorationality.
