There is no "I" in "You"

[The Grand Nudger]

Way to fail at the art of the con..err...koan.  You're supposed to be establishing the inadeqeucy of reason....or are you unfamiliar with the purpose of a koan......? The very -last- thing you want to do, is acknowledge a reasonable answer.

-you're welcome.

[LadyForCamus]

Well, the only rational thing I could come up with is that this sense...or temptation to ask myself, "why am I me and not anyone else" is just a physiological byproduct of existing as a conscious entity.  The very nature of consciousness lends its self to a feeling of separateness from the rest of what is going on "out there."  (Rob is gearing up to scratch his solipsistic itch [emoji6]).  The urge to ask, 'why aren't I experiencing reality from my husband's point of view, or someone else's?' is just a guilty philosophical indulgence.  I think the idea that there is a "reason" for it is just an illusion generated by our humanness.

Good response. Is the self itself such a generated illusion?  What exactly is the self..is it the body, mind or some odd commingling of both?

For me, it's very similar in nature to asking, "why is there something rather than nothing?"  Being human, I think we have all been tempted by this question at one time or another, but then we remind ourselves that rationality must always rule over the egocentric nature of human yearnings.

Problems persist when we conflate the two though.

Well, I only mean similar in the sense that I think (strictly opinion here) that they are both nonsensical questions to ask. Asking 'why is there something rather than nothing' begs the question; assumes that a state of absolute nothingness was ever an option or a potential.

Similarly, asking 'why am I experiencing existence from this particular body's POV and not someone else's' begs the question in the same way. It's assuming there was a potential for me to be experiencing "me" as someone who is "not me". This is nonsense because...only I can be me.


This topic fries my brain, lol. [emoji13]

[Aoi Magi]

You honestly expect me list out an infinite number of factors like that? C'mon, just a basic combination of your parents, friends, relatives, and their interactions with you in any given moment makes that moment unique to you. Our lives are made up of countless such unique moments which makes us unique individuals.

No, I'm not...that's beside the point. Rather out of the roughly six billion permutations of what you just described above what multiplicity of unique factors came together to determine your particular self at this particular time in history? Could such not be contingent...if so, by what mundane factors?  If not.... how?

No they are not contingent on anything specific, or rather all of the factors can effect my existence. There is no specific subset of factors if that's what you are asking. I might not be understanding your confusion, but within this universe, every quark, every particle is unique, and we are formed by a collection of such unique particles so I don't see how you might even think of something non-unique.

[LadyForCamus]

Well, the only rational thing I could come up with is that this sense...or temptation to ask myself, "why am I me and not anyone else" is just a physiological byproduct of existing as a conscious entity.  The very nature of consciousness lends its self to a feeling of separateness from the rest of what is going on "out there."  (Rob is gearing up to scratch his solipsistic itch [emoji6]).  The urge to ask, 'why aren't I experiencing reality from my husband's point of view, or someone else's?' is just a guilty philosophical indulgence.  I think the idea that there is a "reason" for it is just an illusion generated by our humanness.

Good response. Is the self itself such a generated illusion?  What exactly is the self..is it the body, mind or some odd commingling of both?

Well, I think our resident atheists have done a good job approaching this question for you already. The consensus here in this thread is that our egocentric sense of self is the result of the experience of consciousness, generated by our brains. So, a combination of both. Maybe scientists will explore this subject sometime in the near future, as I do find it quite fascinating.

[Whateverist]

Genetics.  Chance.  My Father met my Mother - would have never happened if he had not signed up for a summer apprenticeship in Nashville.  Pure chance.  Human biology.  No "who or what" or any outside influence needed, and none in evidence.

Missing the point. 

What determined this particular gene pool as "yours"?

It was just a hunch.  Oh shit, am I in any trouble?  Whose self is this anyway?

[Whateverist]

Outa' sight, outa' mind?

Not sure yet. Right now I'm leaning more toward the latter than the former, but you may surprise me as I read on.

[Whateverist]

@quip I see we're starting to go off the religious rails...claiming that people are trying to sweep some undefined thing under a rug.  Par for the course.

That's the way it always starts. Next thing you know the FBI is bugging your fillings.

[Whateverist]

After a little less thought it came to me. Why the fuck would I want to know and what difference would it make?

I suppose, with a little effort, you may pare down that thinking process to the point of a self-induced coma.  Good luck.

It only seems self-induced.  The same FBI putting the transmitters in your fillings will be the ones inducing the coma.  It will only seem like it is your self doing it.

[quip]

Good response. Is the self itself such a generated illusion?  What exactly is the self..is it the body, mind or some odd commingling of both?


Problems persist when we conflate the two though.

Well, I only mean similar in the sense that I think (strictly opinion here) that they are both nonsensical questions to ask.  Asking 'why is there something rather than nothing' begs the question; assumes that a state of absolute nothingness was ever an option or a potential.

Similarly, asking 'why am I experiencing existence from this particular body's POV and not someone else's' begs the question in the same way.  It's assuming there was a potential for me to be experiencing "me" as someone who is "not me".   This is nonsense because...only I can be me.  

Perhaps, though nothingness is an abstraction, an ethereal concept....the very option of nothingness is a dubious idea at best. Ontologically unlike you or I ....we both exists don't we?

This topic fries my brain, lol.  [emoji13]

Me too....that's the appeal!

[Whateverist]

I'm simply asking atheists what mundane factor(s) determined their particular experience of self in distinction to roughly six billion alternate, extant possibilities.

There were many. All of them mundane. Wouldn't have it any other way, how about you? Are you satisfied or would you like something more?