There is no "I" in "You"

[quip]

The ones you're so desperately seeking rational answers for.

Which are........?

Universal.

There are a myriad of was to say nothing. In the spirit of the koan...I offer you something by way of nothing.

That should give you a brain cramp to work out.

Except that it doesn't.  You're really bad at koans, man.  Perhaps you should stick to the traditional ones?

If you say so.  Keep bangin'!

---

Can anyone answer why you're you.....and not me?

---

By what method of determination do I experience existence separate from your experience; more to the point, what determined both our particular experiences and could one have been shunt in place of another (by what alternate means could I have experienced existence through your perspective or vice versa)?

Why here, why now...why not exist a thousand years from now or a thousand years past?

Can this ever be coherently approached or determined materialistically/scientifically? Or, is metaphysics a fundamental necessity?

---

Late to the party again. My sig sums it up nicely, cutting through any Descartesian uncertainty:

Sum ergo sum, I am therefore I am. The facts of my existence are the evidence and explanation of my existence. My identity and 'conscious', self-referential faculties are emergent properties of my physical existence, the qualia of my brain functions.

All robust evidence demonstrates this and though the experrts don't have a full picture of how 'I' arise from my brain (far from it!), I clearly do because I'm here and there are no other mechanisms working that could produce such an effect.

Though Descartes has been historically, thoroughly questioned that's not what's being question here.