The evidence of "the I"?

[leo-rcc]

I was thinking, I don't really believe the "I" exists.

That sentence alone is so contradictory it boggles the mind.

Not really. I explained I think, that obviously we need to use the word 'I' in general conversion otherwise we can't understand each other very well!

Why? If you think the terminology is wrong why use it? You are only confusing yourself that way and therefore others.

But what I mean is - I believe I exist of course, in a general sense. What I am saying is which part of me am I refering to when I say "I"?

Does it matter? "I" is your identity, no more no less, who cares where I is? It is scattered in the brain and can get damaged so we know it's there somewhere. The precise locations in the brain I will leave to the neurophycists to find since that is their job. Once they find it I would say, "ow, that's interesting" and go on with my life.

We change through time. What we are reffering to when we say "I" one moment may have actually changed slightly the next. And yes, as Dawkins was quoting about cells coming and going together.

Sound a lot like mental masturbation to me, completely irrelevant. It's the ship of theseus paradox which has no practical application.

When we SAY "I" existed five years ago then what I we talking about?

The same I as we do now, provided you didn't receive a blow to the head that might alter your personality.