The evidence of "the I"?

[Edwardo Piet]

EDIT: Moved to OT because I accidentally started this thread in the wrong forum.
---

I was thinking, I don't really believe the "I" exists. I mean not as a constant thing anyway.

Its used obviously in general conversation (I've said it already in this topic as you can see), but what I mean is: when we say "I" did this. Or "I" did that. Which part of us are we talking about? What's the I?

Part of you might feel one thing, and part another. You think one thing and basically instantly think another, new thoughts are being thought all the time. Which one is the "I"??

Mustn't the "I" a second ago be different from the I afterwards? People change, cells rebuild.

Talking of cells, we are made of trillions of cells aren't we? So I'm thinking, which cell is the 'lead cell', i.e - which is the "I"?

I'd think one in the brain lol! But surely it would be the combination of several cells? Or all the brain cells? Etc, etc.

So its like a flowing river I think not solid. The "I" always changes, or there are several Is. The very moment you say "I" you are not the same "I" because you are thinking a different thought, feeling a different feeling, I think?

I am not the same as I was yesterday. If only because I've learnt things since then, however insignificant.

So I don't think in a serious literal sense the "I" exists. And I think sometimes "the I" can be confused with a soul when it is only meant in a general sense so you can actually just function in a converstaion.

Thoughts? I'm wondering, when we say "I" what part of us are we talking about? The I changes, yet we act like its a constant thing. We relate ourselves to our past and things we've done even when we've moved on. Even when we're not who we were - supposedly because the memories of the past are still there so it feels like part of our "I" now. Whatever "the I" is exactly. If you knot what I mean...?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Read Alan Watts, especially

"The Book On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts

[Demonaura]

theres a Dawkins speech where he brings up a similar point. If you think back to a point in your childhood you can remember is so clearly it's as if you were still there. The trick is you weren't there, not one cell of your body now was a part of that body.

Really I think it's in the simplest answer. What we define as the self is a collection of experiences and patterns in the mind. the cells change but, the information is saved so long as nothing interrupts the cycle. When we are born we start recording these experiences and when the mind dies they are lost to the sands of time.

[leo-rcc]

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

That sentence alone is so contradictory it boggles the mind.

Thoughts? I'm wondering, when we say "I" what part of us are we talking about? The I changes, yet we act like its a constant thing. We relate ourselves to our past and things we've done even when we've moved on. Even when we're not who we were - supposedly because the memories of the past are still there so it feels like part of our "I" now. Whatever "the I" is exactly. If you knot what I mean...?

Admit it, You've been reading Dennet again haven't you.

Okay, not hindered by knowledge on the subject:

"I" is what consists of all my parts, both conscious and unconscious, removed and regenerated, and what has formed me and continues to form me up to this point in the here and now.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think therefore I am ... I think!

"Of course you are my bright little star,
You're miles and miles of files, pretty files of your fore-father's fruit.
And now to suit,
Our great computer,
You're magnetic ink!"

But I'm more than that, at least ... I think I must be.

"There you go man,
Keep as cool as you can,
It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave,
And keep on thinking free ...."

Sadly ... I wrote that from memory!

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

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!

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"?

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.

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

What I mean by "I don't really believe that THE "I" exists. Is when I use the word I, it is not a constant solid thing but something that changes al the time. So I don't think there is THE I. Because the I am using now may be different from the one I will be using later. We change.

So I mean't I in two different senses, I so you understand what on earth I am talking about (like I'm using it now, and just then again). And THE "I" as in a constant concept, idea, thing or whatever that we refer to that we think of as "ourselves". I'm not who I was a few years ago. So when I say "5 years back I did this". Did I? What part of me is the same exactly?

Where exactly IS this "I" that I am reffering to right now? I don't think THIS "I" is always here, I think it changes to another "I". So there is no THIS I.

So yes I believe I exist. And I believe the word "I" that we use to refer to ourselves exists in the sense that it is used to help us understand, like I am doing now.

But I don't think I really believe THE "I" exist. Because there is not one I, because it changes and becomes completely different.

Where is THIS "I". "The I"? Exactly? That's what I'm reffering to.

The word I can be used in a general sense but it can also be used as a constant thing, spirit, soul, concept, consciousness that we think of as "me". I don't believe that exists because what we think of as "I" in one minute has already changed into another "I" in the next yet we refer to it as same.

If it really is one constant thing that exists and doesn't change, that's "the I", then where on earth IS it?

Obviously I need to use the word in converstation or else you won't know what I'm talking about!

What [i]I[/b] mean is when I say the word I what am I referring to exactly? The I I think one fraction of a second is different from the I that I think the NEXT fraction of a second. So what exactly are we reffering to? Where is "the I"? I don't believe it exists as a constant because it disappers and becomes a new thought as soon as we reffer to it. So the I we then reffer to has already passed and we are actually reffering to a new I that is mirroring it.

I don't think there really is one "I". The "I" does not exist, I think (), because its not one thing. Its different all the time - its just easier to think of it as one thing. And to say "I" did this, "I" did that.

Which part of ME is ME?? I don't believe I'm one thing. I don't think there is an "I". I'm a collection of cells that when work together form an "I" but I'm not really one thing and "I" does not really exist in reality as a constant, its just used in that way because its easier for us to understand and relate to each other that way!#

That's what I think anyway. Whatever this I we refer to is?? Where is it? I think my "I" has already changed from the "I" saying "That's what I think anyway" to "I think my "I" has already changed from the "I" saying "That's what I think anyway" to......"

And so on. I think that if the I exist then it exists for a fraction of a second and yet we act like its a constant thing! If you aware of your thoughts regually I think you might start to notice that all these thoughts are you! There is no one "I". And they all happen extremely fast! In reality there is no one "I".

And you have to disagree with one thought in order to do with something else. And you disagree with that thought with - guess what - another thought! Another "I"!

I don't think there is one "I". There is no "The I". There is no single "I". If there is it lasts for such a fraction of a second that it seems instantly gone as soon as it's there I think! IF you're aware. My "I" now is different from my "I" when I started this post. And I do actually believe that it has just changed BEFORE I justs typed "I do actually believe that it has just changed BEFORE..", etc. However small, that change is.

And when you become aware of your thoughts more often!: The so-called small changes seem a lot bigger! Its like you don't control your thoughts but your thoughts ARE you. But they change as soon as they start - so you are constant. There is no "you", there is no "I", because you have changed as soon as you have refered to yourself!

Thoughts?

[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.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

.

Just because I don't know how to NOT use it? How can I talk about "The I" without also using the word "I" when I'm reffering to myself? It's only because I don't know an alternative way.

I know its confusing, but that's the point. I think the whole concept of "the I" atogether can be very confusing, if you think about it.

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.

Well because believing that "I" is a constant thing makes you less aware of the fact that it's not. Understanding that it changes and isn't the same one moment from the next, and believing that, can be very confusing and hard to escape sometimes in my experience.

I catch myself not being able to do what I'm not thinking. I'm not in control of my own thoughts because I have to control thoughts with thoughts! When you're aware of it all the time, I see there is no constant "you", its like you're not captain of your own brain anymore. It steers you. And Which part of it is you?

You think thoughts. You either agree with them or you think of another thought that disagrees with them and you do that instead, and agree with that.

And this "YOU" is just another thought that you can't control.

If the "I" is the current conscious domiment thought at the time for example, and it can only be understood and controled through other thoughts - then you can't control it because you can't control these other thoughts either!

How do you control thought with thought? This "I" is not a constant thing you have control over I think, but something that just morphs and bounces about and can only be controlled by another thought that morphs and bounces about - that you also can't control. Because this "YOU" is also another thought you can't control.

How exactly can you control thought with thought when that thought also needs to be controlled with thought? The dominant thought is on autopilot I think. But it only doesn't seem that way when you are not aware of it, and when you get used to thinking their is a constistent constant "I", that is "you".

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.

Well if your "I" just changes and morphs and there is no constant and consistent "you", then how can you deliberately choose to practically apply anything unless one of your "I"s makes "you" ( which is another one of your "I"s, i.e; thoughts").

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.

But this "I that I am reffing to now in this sentance; is the "I", the thought, that represents the self-image (mental and physical) that I am reffering to now that I think of as "me".

But it changes all the time. The thought and self-image that "I" think of as "Me" changes over time.

So know I do not think it takes a head injury. I think what you think of as "Me", as "the I" - your self-image in other words I guess - changes all the time.

And since it is made up of thoughts, particularly the dominent most conscious ones, I think that every thought is kind of a new "I" that changes or at least helps to build up your ever changing self image that you think of as THE "I".

EvF

[Tiberius]

I lost you at "I was thinking".

[leo-rcc]

I disgree with your premise EvF. You are confusing thoughts with personality and you throw in some (in)determinism in the mix hoping you can make sense of it all.

So lets borrow some definitions from the most reliable source on the planet:

Personality can be defined as a dynamic and organized set of characteristics possessed by a person that uniquely influences his or her cognitions, motivations, and behaviors in various situations.

Thought and thinking are mental forms and processes, respectively ("thought" is both.) Thinking allows beings to model the world and to deal with it according to their objectives, plans, ends and desires. Words referring to similar concepts and processes include cognition, sentience, consciousness, idea, and imagination.

(yes that was sarcasm)

The way as I see it: the first, personality, is what defines the "I" as me. Your personality changes over time due to past experiences but as a whole the definition of what and who you are doesn't change that radically.

The thought process is what governs what actions we do based on the situation we find ourselves in and events we encounter.