What ‘you’ ‘are‘!

[Amorphos]

What ‘you’ ‘are‘!

Some of you may be interested in this…

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb...28420#p2128420


I have been having some interesting debates at ILP forums, so I thought I would link you up with what I think is becoming a fundamental description of what we actually are ~ a description of the entity of mind. I would suggest going to page 2 or even beginning the last post which reads thus;

The quotes of from another poster attempting to put forwards the materialist solution.

There is not a 'you' separate from thought.

There is a you containing thought and that is thought, it’s a very dynamic entity [the ‘you’/mind].

When thought is utilized to get what is wanted, the 'you' is born at that moment and continues as long as it is using thought.

I would think there is something of a continuation, you get a few thoughts at a time and they tend to overlap and split off on tangents.
Even if we take your statement as so, we still have to talk about the you that is created and what that is and how it is made. it’s a far simpler solution to presume what we know about ourselves to be true ~ that we are and we continue.

When you want to know what you are, you have to use thought to take you there.

We have to use thought to ‘comprehend’ what we are, this is an act of bringing information into the conscious sphere. I don’t think it is needed to know what we are ~ without discerning what that is as an intellectual factor. Either way we are describing a non material object which acts as the sphere of mind, whereby all things are discerned within that. Information has no way of knowing what it is apart from by this.

A wave of light doesn’t know what it is, but we have no doubt that it is a wave of light because we have observed it as being such. When that hit’s the back of the eye and is turned into information ~ an electro-chemical impulse, it is still not a knowledgeable idea! The real ‘hard information’ is purely a construct of mind, and one that whilst supported by the material aspects, is itself fundamentally non material.

So far then we have to aspects of thought that are non material, the information composed in that thought and the sphere of consciousness that reads this information. To this we may add the qualia of lightness and colour, as these too are not to be found in the material [~in the em spectrum].

I would think those non material things are what life actually is, any creature without it is simply animated material.

We are using the neurons, our memory, constantly to maintain our identity.

..to maintain our persona yes, without this we are something of an actor without a script [or a theatre]. An actor can play an almost infinite amount of parts, non of which are the actor themselves.

You experience what you know. Without the knowledge you have no way of experiencing anything.

Without the knowledge of a thing we indeed have no way of knowing what that thing is. We can ’invent’ [!!!] knowledge about a thing until via others comparative observations, we draw an agreed upon idea of what that thing is. A blank mind would and to some degree does [I.e. from foetal birth] invent its world using both a set of instruments, and information that is available to it.
Beyond knowledge then, I feel the inner ‘you’ has also inner knowledge or gnosis, and this is not informational, but is the innate ability to invent notions concerning its surroundings. However it is not alone, it is always immersed in the fundamental universals of nature, and by these has the basic blueprint to ’see’ the world with.

When you tell yourself that it is a new experience, it is the old that tells you that it is a new experience. Otherwise, you have no way of saying that it is something new. It is the old that tells you that it is new. And through that it is making it part of the old.

I agree it is making the new old, and it is the old reading the new, though before we know a thing surely it is new. This is of course by the ordinary processes of the intellect, I do feel there are other ways the mind can draw information even utilising the infinite, such things as intuition for example. This is a whole other area though and I think we need to reach common ground upon the self before we can go further to deduce other mechanisms of mind.

I will agree with all you say if you can answer my concerns above. I do feel we are always left with something that sees thinks and experiences, and that electrical impulses don’t do that, nor do chemical interactions.

[Lupu]

Most of philosophy is about someone making up a word that everybody understands, so thousands of people can work their asses off trying to define it for no good reason.

[Amorphos]

No its about finding way to understand aspects of the world we have no other means of understanding, hence we change or create new words to define those things. What it is not about is well, everything you just said.

[Lupu]

You missed my point, I know what "you" and "I" means, trying to define it is very difficult and even more pointless.

[Amorphos]

You missed my point, I know what "you" and "I" means, trying to define it is very difficult and even more pointless.

I see your point but I totally disagree, as you see with the argument on the op, if we don’t scrutinise it down to the finest detail, then we don’t actually know what it is. Materialists think they have a complete answer, and one that denies there even is an ‘I’ or a ‘you’, therefore you don’t 'know' what that is until you have deliberated upon it.

once we define it, we can then go on to understand so many other areas!

[Lupu]

Maybe... I see your point, but I'm not interested.

[Bovril]

Perhaps the Witgensteinian answer would be pertinent. 'I' or 'you' are devices in a language game. The meaning orf the terms depends on context. They do not denote something outside of the context in which they are being used. Therefore, the only meaningfull debates one can have on the subject are how the terms are best (most authenitcally) used within the context one is operating in or, taking a step back, how they are used in the language game on is analysing.

[Amorphos]

I agree the linguistics are secondary to the case, however we are still left with certain non-material objects such as consciousness/mind. The language is there to portray meaning and it can do that metaphorically and even metaphysically, in fact that’s all it ever does one would think. For me there has to be a manner in which knowledge is understood and I don’t think the brain can do that, it can only perform the mechanistic functions thereof.

[Strelok]

I usually consider "myself" my consciousness, otherwise theres none of the "me" that is here right now. I'd be like any other animal on the Earth.

Nothing much philosophical about my view, but...

[Amorphos]

I usually consider "myself" my consciousness, otherwise theres none of the "me" that is here right now. I'd be like any other animal on the Earth.

How do you know other animals don’t have consciousness?

The way I see ‘you’ is that the human form can ‘appear’ to be like everything you are, but is not. The human being can be separated into what I call the sleepwalker [the organic robot] and the you, the sleepwalker necessarily has to be able to do everything that you can do in the world, and that is why it is so difficult for us to distinguish the two even if the you is primary unto ourselves.

[Strelok]

How do you know other animals don’t have consciousness?

It's not exactly clear yet, but

I'll limit myself to saying "just like any another animal/insect without one".

[Amorphos]

I'll limit myself to saying "just like any another animal/insect without one".

This is an interesting level for me, I don’t see any reason why other creatures shouldn’t have a consciousness, I don’t think it is limited by linguistic abilities, and if anything these are a layer on top of consciousness.

I don’t know where this would end e.g. at small animals, plants, germs? There seams to be different levels of consciousness relative to the complexity of being. I do wonder if there is a basic kind of consciousness that all living things have, but its kind of difficult to visualise oneself as a bug or something ~ maybe not so hard as a monkey or dog though.

maybe we should stick to understanding our own consciousness before we go there, although its an intersting digression.

the link i feel shows the typical mechanistic approach imho, one that fails.

[Strelok]

This is an interesting level for me, I don’t see any reason why other creatures shouldn’t have a consciousness

Well, I wouldn't say it's a matter of why, so much as a matter of what possibly is.

I do wonder if there is a basic kind of consciousness that all living things have, but its kind of difficult to visualise oneself as a big or something ~ maybe not so hard as a monkey or dog though.

Yes, it is interesting to think about. I'd say we're on a fair level on terms of complexitiy of our consciousness, we're definitely not god-like, but as observed, Humans have the ability to do many things at their current status.

To me, dogs and monkeys show many signs of some sort of consciousness level that is comparable to ours.

[Amorphos]

Above post edited, I meant 'bug' not 'big' typo ~ or wine .

Yes indeed it is a matter of what possibly is, and from that we have to travel down the evolutionary chain and ask at what point we would not be conscious. e.g. other human variants, apes etc.

To me, dogs and monkeys show many signs of some sort of consciousness level that is comparable to ours.

Indeed, and to go onto another level, some would say we have different levels of consciousness like the Hindus mention higher consciousness as apposed to sleep consciousness. I feel that any hierarchy with us is a layer on top of the basic consciousness that is ever present.

[Bovril]

I agree the linguistics are secondary to the case

I think I have not explained myself properly. What I'm sugesting is that the there is no refferent which exists in some aproachable/knowable form outside of the reference. By cutting up and defining experience with language, we create the parameters of our understanding. We cannot get beyond that. 'I' and 'you' are linguistic devices, situated in linguistic contexts. These linguistic contexts define our conceptual experience of ourselves. So there is nothing beyond the series of language games we play. Trying to access a 'neutral' description of he self simply means unwittingly entering into another sort of language game. In other words, language is our conceptual reality. We can discuss what influences it, but we shouldn't deny that the very ground of our thought is language.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I think I have not explained myself properly. What I'm sugesting is that the there is no refferent which exists in some aproachable/knowable form outside of the reference. By cutting up and defining experience with language, we create the parameters of our understanding. We cannot get beyond that. 'I' and 'you' are linguistic devices, situated in linguistic contexts. These linguistic contexts define our conceptual experience of ourselves. So there is nothing beyond the series of language games we play. Trying to access a 'neutral' description of he self simply means unwittingly entering into another sort of language game. In other words, language is our conceptual reality. We can discuss what influences it, but we shouldn't deny that the very ground of our thought is language.

A man can grasp a notion without even grasping or thinking or mentioning or even forming a word about it.

What did Einstein say? That his thought was too fast for words?

Language comes very late, long after there are notions in the brain. It can be stated for sure that animals have notions but no language.

[Amorphos]

We cannot get beyond that. 'I' and 'you' are linguistic devices, situated in linguistic contexts. These linguistic contexts define our conceptual experience of ourselves. So there is nothing beyond the series of language games we play.

Animals don’t have language but I am sure have self, equally in meditations one can separate self from linguistic processes.

A man can grasp a notion without even grasping or thinking or mentioning or even forming a word about it.

I agree with your entire post, there is definitely something primal that is prior to our linguistic reasonings ~ it is the very thing that is you.

[Lupu]

Intervention:
To take this a bit further, how do I know there is a "you"? Is there maybe only me, and you in my picture that is really God, a dream that has not become lucid . Umm, you know, it's possible
It is a valid question if anyone except me really is self-aware or just says so, but I have no reason to continue asking it.

[Megas12345]

I can't make a definite answer on what I am because what I might be to myself is definitley not what I might be to others and since there is no real scale on who or what view of what I might be is more valid, I nor others can have an answer. What YOU or I are is an entirely subjective topic.