• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

What Constitutes "me"?


  • Please log in to reply
190 replies to this topic

#181 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 18 November 2006 - 12:07 AM

Ah Brian, what do you mean by dividing it? and swaping 'em? like half? That's already.. hmm :S then i'll be non



-Infernity

#182 damen

  • Guest
  • 24 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Eilat

Posted 26 January 2007 - 01:40 PM

My opinion is that "Me" is all your memories, if you wont have memories or you'l have difrent memories it wont be you because those memories that you have they are your expirience of life and they makes all the difrence between the people. What I'm trying to say is that people are like... computers (sory about the comparison, couldent find anything bether),when the born\turn on at the first time they are empty, only have the basics to live or like in the computer comparison the only know how to turn on. The baby and the compyter are complitly depends on their owner\parent to instal\teach them and the difrence between the babys\computers are their basic abilities, one computer can have stronger prossesor then other computer but weaker video card or like in the people comparison one can understand math bether then some one else but that some one else is learning languages faster then the first one. Here comes the difrence, the man, unlike the computer, has free will that gives him the ability to change and make decisions by them selves, those decisions are made by the life expirience (based on memories).

#183 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 26 January 2007 - 11:16 PM

You are correct Damen. But it is a bit more complicated than that however. Feel free to dig up the thread ;)

-Infernity

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#184 vikingf

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Norway

Posted 28 January 2007 - 02:27 PM

My opinion is that "Me" is all your memories, if you wont have memories or you'l have difrent memories it wont be you because those memories that you have they are your expirience of life and they makes all the difrence between the people.



First, I must say that the question that is brought up in this thread ("What constitutes "me"?) is one that has been bugging me too for many years now, and I think it is very interesting. ;)

And then to your post:
I agree that if I had experienced something different than what I actually did in my past, then I would have been different than I am today. You can even say that I would have been a completely different person (seen from a 3rd person point of view), and this is the important part: The person that would have been different would still have been me. Different, but still the same being. Next week, I will have experienced other things than I have done up until now, but I can still look forward to something that will happen in my future, can't I(?), because I will surely experience it (if I survive and am conscious), even if I have changed a bit. From my 1st person point of view I will still be me.

The question is then, what factors are labeling my 1st person point of view (that is referred to as "me") to this body and senses, and not e.g. to my neighbour's body and senses? In the history before my existence, what factors occured that lead to my 1st person point of view, and not some other random child's potential 1st person point of view?

I think we should look more in that direction. What you talk about (if I haven't misunderstood you completely) is personality. What I (and many others in this thread) talk about is the fact that I (seen from everybody's own 1st person) exist, as an alternative to not exist.

I have actually read this whole thread, and to sum up, this is what different people think:

"I" am:
-The total of mass. But: The mass is not constant. I do not consist of the same atoms that I did last week.
-A pattern. But: What happens if two individuals with the exact same pattern happen to exist at the same time?
-A specific continuity. But: We do actually break this continuity many times between our birth and death, e.g. when we sleep or are unconscious.
-We die every planck second, and just believe that it was me that existed one planck second ago, because we share the same memories. But: That sounds wierd (which in fact is not the greatest argument in the world. [lol] )

So a conclusion is still hard to grasp. ;)

#185 halcyondays

  • Guest
  • 93 posts
  • 0

Posted 14 April 2007 - 06:40 AM

When you really think about it "me" is all a matter of perspective. If you made a clone of yourself I don't think it would feel like it wasn't you. It would be you but in another body. Not to original you but it would still think like you have have the same original memories up to the point of transfer. Who you are is more than just memories though, it's your thought patters which could be there with or without memories. You could have the same sense of humour and the same abilities to play the piano but you don't remember learning to play the piano and you don't have the memories that led you to develop your sense of humour. It seems to me that what constitutes "me" is more than just memories but is actually a mixture of memories and thought patterns developed over the years from the experiences of those memories.

#186 dimasok

  • Guest
  • 193 posts
  • 6

Posted 14 April 2007 - 11:28 PM

I was always wondering, what does it mean to say that a "self is an illusion"? Obviously right now I'm writing this post, being fully aware that this is *me* writing this post and not someone else and then I have all of you guys thinking of an answer to my question - you're all obviously not me. If that is an illusion, then aren't we all a single universal superself already? Or is the fact that our brains and bodies are localized in different physical spaces has nothing to do with with "self"?

So, if someone could elaborate on what exactly it means for self to be illusory, it would be greatly appreciated :)

#187 basho

  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 15 April 2007 - 12:18 AM

I was always wondering, what does it mean to say that a "self is an illusion"?

Maybe it means that the feeling of consciousness is similar to the sensation of a phantom limb experienced by many amputees, the feeling that the missing limb is still there, is moving, and is itchy or painful.

I've just started reading a book by Douglas Hofstadter, I Am a Strange Loop. If you're not comfortable with the idea of an illusionary "self", then Hofstadter's description of consciousness as an "hallucination perceived by an hallucination" may be a bit difficult to wrap your mind around. From a recent SciAm review:

Among this library of simulations there is naturally one of yourself, and that is where the strangeness begins.
"You make decisions, take actions, affect the world, receive feedback from the world, incorporate it into yourself, then the updated 'you' makes more decisions, and so forth, round and round," Hofstadter writes. What blossoms from the Gödelian vortex--this symbol system with the power to represent itself--is the "anatomically invisible, terribly murky thing called I." A self, or, to use the name he favors, a soul.

It need know nothing of neurons. Sealed off from the biological substrate, the actors in the internal drama are not things like "serotonin" or "synapse" or even "cerebrum," "hippocampus" or "cerebellum" but abstractions with names like "love," "jealousy," "hope" and "regret."

And that is what leads to the grand illusion. "In the soft, ethereal, neurology-free world of these players," the author writes, "the typical human brain perceives its very own 'I' as a pusher and a mover, never entertaining for a moment the idea that its star player might merely be a useful shorthand standing for a myriad infinitesimal entities and the invisible chemical transactions taking place among them."

...

Obviously right now I'm writing this post, being fully aware that this is *me* writing this post and not someone else and then I have all of you guys thinking of an answer to my question - you're all obviously not me. If that is an illusion, then aren't we all a single universal superself already?

If you want to dig into that philosophical path, see if you can get a copy of Perfect Brilliant Stillness.

#188 bwu910

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:NC

Posted 22 April 2007 - 09:21 PM

Let us clear away an age old misconception: We are not all equal, why? because we are all unique in character, pyscholgy, tastes and differences. The only equality we as human- beings have is the dynamics to take and give information for the growth and developement of eachother which all stems from our psychology, the mind( our brain). So the only equality we have is the ability to be progammed.

-BWU

#189 JohnDoe1234

  • Guest
  • 1,097 posts
  • 154
  • Location:US

Posted 23 April 2007 - 12:25 AM

Hmm... That's an interesting way to look at it bwu910... Not sure that is the only thing we are all equal in, but it could be one of them.

#190 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 23 April 2007 - 03:55 AM

Let us clear away an age old misconception:  We are not all equal, why?

In what context are you disputing equality? The concept of "equality" as expressed in the assertion, "All men are created equal" in the U.S. Constitution

http://en.wikipedia....e_created_equal

was a statement of equality of rights and treatment under the law, not a statement of physical equivalence. It is a form of equality to be upheld *despite* other obvious inequalities, such as the ones you cite.

#191 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 23 April 2007 - 04:10 AM

I was always wondering, what does it mean to say that a "self is an illusion"?

The way that statement has sometimes been used around this place is to mean that persistence of self over time is an illusion. For example, the belief that the person you remember being in your childhood continues to survive today as you is an illusion. Taken to an extreme, some argue that survival as a distinct self even from moment to moment is an illusion. Considering the tumult of our ever-changing mental states and material composition, such a view is understandable, even if most people choose not to be that nihilistic.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users