Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

[Tamminen]

No offense Tamminen, but to me, you seem to be indulging in a bit of ‘fantasy’ or ‘feel-good religion’ rather than in logical reasoning. If “I” is just the experiencer, then it is just the thing (entity) that experiences. Period. Nothing more! Creating or adding to the storyline only seems to be departing from philosophy and entering (indulging in) religion/fantasy.

I don't wish to argue/discuss religion, as religious beliefs are based on "blind faiths", of which there can be no argument against.

I understand your standpoint, but we should still make a distinction between religion and metaphysical scenarios. There is a logical path that has lead me to these conclusions, and I have presented it in these posts, discussing with Greta. I do not have faith in the religious sense, but I like to make metaphysical hypotheses that try to solve some deep existential questions that have preoccupied mankind for thousands of years.

Even Wittgenstein had to admit that there has to be a metaphysical subject, a reference point to the world, which is not an entity.

[Wayne92587]

A metaphysicalo scinario simply exclude God as the cause of Everything.

Reality based upon speculative or abstract thinking.

Rationalization.

Big difference between Reason and Rationaliation.

Our knowledge of Reality like many definitions is basse upon repation, belief, blind faith.

Why is the number three the first primary number, when zero and One came first, by definition only.

Why should I have blind faith that three is the first Pirmary number.

[Sy Borg]

But from my understanding, I see no difference between the formation of thoughts and the formation of words, as "words" and "thoughts" are really the same thing. The only difference is that one has a 'name' given to it, and the other has yet to be named. The 'meaning' of the word/thought is established through the association of sensory experiences. As a small child, when your mother said "c-aaa-t", and showed you a picture of a 'cat' (or put a furry creature in your lap), then the thought of 'cat' was born!, ...as was the word; the name-of-this-thought. The audio sensory experience associated with the visual (and/or tactile) sensory experience created the 'meaning' (i.e. the 'thought') of "cat".

Yet, if no one gave the child language, she should still have a mental construct of cats if she encountered them - as "things that are like that".

Yes, but this “mental construct” cannot exist without being identified (recognized) somehow, either by ‘name’, or by the ‘names’ of the descriptive sensory pieces.

If no one gave this child language, then she would make up her own word(s) in which to identify this thought or thing that you and I call “cat”. Otherwise, she could just identify (name) the sensory pieces (soft, and fluffy, and purrs, and orange color, and etc etc) that make up this “cat”.

Words and thoughts are the same thing. One has a name, the other has yet to be named.

Other animals have thoughts. What do you make of their words?

[Sy Borg]

But from my understanding, I see no difference between the formation of thoughts and the formation of words, as "words" and "thoughts" are really the same thing. The only difference is that one has a 'name' given to it, and the other has yet to be named. The 'meaning' of the word/thought is established through the association of sensory experiences. As a small child, when your mother said "c-aaa-t", and showed you a picture of a 'cat' (or put a furry creature in your lap), then the thought of 'cat' was born!, ...as was the word; the name-of-this-thought. The audio sensory experience associated with the visual (and/or tactile) sensory experience created the 'meaning' (i.e. the 'thought') of "cat".

Yet, if no one gave the child language, she should still have a mental construct of cats if she encountered them - as "things that are like that".

Yes, but this “mental construct” cannot exist without being identified (recognized) somehow, either by ‘name’, or by the ‘names’ of the descriptive sensory pieces.

If no one gave this child language, then she would make up her own word(s) in which to identify this thought or thing that you and I call “cat”. Otherwise, she could just identify (name) the sensory pieces (soft, and fluffy, and purrs, and orange color, and etc etc) that make up this “cat”.

Words and thoughts are the same thing. One has a name, the other has yet to be named.

I almost agree, except that you overrate words. Words are only part of the abstract human eusocial meta-reality, like money. Just as words are a means of communication, money is a means of exchange - but words and money in themselves are not communication and exchange. There are more fundamental dynamics that give rise to words and money, ie. emotions based on acquisitiveness and fear.

[Tamminen]

I can look into my brain and see what happens there as I look into my brain, and I can see my eye as I look into my brain. I can see the physiological correlate of my looking into my brain. But I cannot see me. That is why the 'I' is transcendental. It is not an observable entity. An eye does not see. I see.

[RJG]

I can look into my brain and see what happens there as I look into my brain, and I can see my eye as I look into my brain. I can see the physiological correlate of my looking into my brain. But I cannot see me. That is why the 'I' is transcendental. It is not an observable entity. An eye does not see. I see.

A rock can tap many things, but never itself --- is the rock transcendental?

A knife can cut many things, but never itself --- is the knife transcendental?

No, there is no "transcendentalism" here, but only the logical impossibility of being in two places at one time.

A subject cannot be it's own object. The foot cannot kick itself. The finger cannot touch itself. The head cannot spin around fast enough to meet itself face-to-face.

[Sy Borg]

No, there is no "transcendentalism" here, but only the logical impossibility of being in two places at one time ...

... aside from photons and electrons.

[Tamminen]

If “I” is just the experiencer, then it is just the thing (entity) that experiences.

A knife can cut many things, but never itself --- is the knife transcendental?

A knife is not an observer or experiencer. It is a tool with no subjectivity.

I am an experiencer and you are an experiencer. How do I know that you are an experiencer? Because we communicate with each other and I understand you more or less. But one thing is lacking: I cannot see your experiences in the way you are having them. They are not observable entities. Only you can observe them in reflection. And therefore you are not an observable entity as an experiencer, only as a physiological organism that behaves like me and whose subjectivity is already presupposed in the fact that I understand you. So if you say that you are an experiencing thing, I must say that I appreciate you much more than you appreciate yourself.

[Sy Borg]

I can look into my brain and see what happens there as I look into my brain, and I can see my eye as I look into my brain. I can see the physiological correlate of my looking into my brain. But I cannot see me. That is why the 'I' is transcendental. It is not an observable entity. An eye does not see. I see.

Does that make the self transcendental or abstract?

[Tamminen]

I can look into my brain and see what happens there as I look into my brain, and I can see my eye as I look into my brain. I can see the physiological correlate of my looking into my brain. But I cannot see me. That is why the 'I' is transcendental. It is not an observable entity. An eye does not see. I see.

Does that make the self transcendental or abstract?

By 'transcendental' I mean something that is the precondition of the being of entities, something that is not itself an entity. But it is not abstract. It is me, or us, concretely.

[RJG]

No, there is no "transcendentalism" here, but only the logical impossibility of being in two places at one time.

... aside from photons and electrons.

Not so. Although the reflected photon and transmitted photon emanate from the same photon, they are two detectable photons in two places, (…and not actually a quantity of one in two places, unless of course you wish to redefine 1 as 2).

This particular usage of the expression “in two places at one time” is being misused by those who wish to hype-up the ‘spookiness’ of this quantum occurrence.

Logically and mathematically 1 is NOT 2; 1 is 1, and 2 is 2. …and logic/math (a priori) ALWAYS trumps science (a posteriori)!

A knife can cut many things, but never itself --- is the knife transcendental?

A knife is not an observer or experiencer. It is a tool with no subjectivity.

You are missing the point. The point is that one cannot be in two places at one time. A knife cannot cut itself; it cannot be both the cutter and the cutted. And likewise, an observer cannot observe himself; he cannot be both the observer and the observed. A subject cannot be the object of its own subjectivity.

This is simply a logical impossibility, and NOT attributed to some wishful mystical transcendental feature of reality.

[Sy Borg]

... aside from photons and electrons.

Not so. Although the reflected photon and transmitted photon emanate from the same photon, they are two detectable photons in two places, (…and not actually a quantity of one in two places, unless of course you wish to redefine 1 as 2).

This particular usage of the expression “in two places at one time” is being misused by those who wish to hype-up the ‘spookiness’ of this quantum occurrence.

Logically and mathematically 1 is NOT 2; 1 is 1, and 2 is 2. …and logic/math (a priori) ALWAYS trumps science (a posteriori)!

You appear to be trying to fit quantum phenomena into the logic and math of things ruled by relativity, which is invalid.

It is actually the same electron, but also in a different place. It's not as though the electron splits into two halves. It's the same one, present in more areas than expected. This violates the rules of relativity, which is why QM is so difficult to comprehend, yet application of its principles has foud it to be the most accurate of all theories. "Most accurate" = closest to how reality works.

[Namelesss]

The answer is always (Universally), ultimately, Here! Now!

Yes, I am here and now, but this here and now flows through all the bubbles.

There is no '-ing' in Here! Now!
No 'flow-ing', no do-ing... if anything, just Be-ing!
All moments of Universal existence are Here! Now! Simultaneously, synchronously! How much 'phenomena' that bit of Reality explains and predicts!

It cannot be everywhere at the same time, even though it can possibly be conscious of everything at the same time, if you are enlightened.

Consciousness is Universal! Of course Consciousness can be/is everywhere/everywhen at once!
Consciousness is Conscious of everything all at once! Here! Now!
All existence is a moment of Universal Self Awareness/Knowledge! Every moment is a unique Soul/Perspective/moment of Self! Knowledge.

Being and time cannot be separated.

Nonsense! As 'time' only exists in/as 'thought/ego', in a thoughtless state, a Zen state, there is no time to be perceived! Reality is a timeless state, by necessity!
Of course 'illusions/mirages' remain persistent, as Einstein mentioned.

[Namelesss]

You appear to be trying to fit quantum phenomena into the logic and math of things ruled by relativity, which is invalid.

It is actually the same electron, but also in a different place. It's not as though the electron splits into two halves. It's the same one, present in more areas than expected. This violates the rules of relativity, which is why QM is so difficult to comprehend, yet application of its principles has foud it to be the most accurate of all theories. "Most accurate" = closest to how reality works.

Hear! Hear!
Einstein, with all his relative genius, was incapable of the mystical state of mind necessary to comprehend the reality of QM!

"Quantum mechanics comes on as so off the wall that only a mystical state of mind can even begin to probe it's mysteries!" - Richard Feynman and Chuangtse

[Tamminen]

Reality is a timeless state, by necessity!

OK, let us turn the picture upside down: I am here and now, still and unmoved, but the bubbles come and go through me. But I can lose myself in the bubbles, lose my enlightened state and live my life as a rat, for instance. But that does not matter, does it? I only have the fate that Reality can offer me.