Who am.'I'?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Who am.'I'?

Post by psyreporter »

Free Will Sceptics wrote: December 6th, 2021, 10:44 am To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. Your conscious 'I' is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion
Terrapin Station wrote: December 8th, 2021, 1:19 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.
psyreporter wrote: November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am
  1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
  2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?
Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").
psyreporter wrote: December 8th, 2021, 12:50 pm Your argument: Do you at least understand that not everyone believes that the physical world operates deterministically?

Is it merely about the 'believing' part for you, similar to people's ability to believe in a pink elephant on the top of Mount Everest?

My question is the following: On what basis can it be said that you can escape determinism in a purely physical world?

In short: can you escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

Perhaps the issue is that you are neglecting the question 'why' the world exists as basis for the idea that physical reality is 'all there is' (i.e. the ultimate really real)
Terrapin Station wrote: April 7th, 1992, 3:29 pm First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)
My reply: Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.
You need to answer yes or no. And sure, if there are people who believe that there's a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, then there are people who believe that, and you should be able to understand that, right? Simple question, right?

So do you understand that there are people who believe that the physical world isn't deterministic? Yes or no. We need to be able to get past this simple step in order to move on. You need to answer yes, you understand that there are people who believe that, or no, you don't understand that there are people who believe that.
I asked the first question. I do not see how it would be relevant to counter the question with a new question about whether I understand that some people 'believe' something that may not be possible.

The question is simple:

Is it possible to escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

Is your belief in free will based on nothing but faith? If so, what would be the origin of that faith within a 'purely physical world'?
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Who am.'I'?

Post by chewybrian »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 8th, 2021, 11:44 am
JackDaydream wrote: December 4th, 2021, 6:24 pm When a person speaks of 'I' what does this refer to?
Pattern-chaser wrote: December 5th, 2021, 12:23 pm Many of the questions you pose in this topic would require many thousands of words to consider them properly, and even then, the results may end up as purely speculative. But this 👆 one is more straightforward, I think. When a person speaks of "I", I think they normally mean to refer to their own conscious-mind. [Their nonconscious minds are rarely considered, and even more rarely included.] Depending on context, this might include their physical body too.
chewybrian wrote: December 5th, 2021, 7:47 pm I think you pretty well nailed it. What occurs to me is that this implies that just about everyone, just about all the time, is referring to the same "I" of Descartes. They mean their own ego or personality, their will, their opinions and preferences and prejudices, their faculty of choice. Even those who say that free will is an illusion or that they are part of one universal consciousness or whatever will turn right around and use "I" to mean just what Descartes or the existentialists would say it means, which is the essence that supplants mere existence as we gain the ability to choose for ourselves.
I wonder if this just tells us that Descartes used the same ill-defined "I" that we all use every day, with the same lack of consideration as to what "I" actually represents? 🤔🤔🤔
That seems to be a live possibility. We can take either stance and nobody can honestly say we are right or wrong. When we are thinking hard about it, many of us conclude that free will, and even the sense of "I" are illusions. When we are focused on other things, we tend to go with our senses rather than abstract notions, and we do all (I believe) have the sense of "I", whether the sense is real or illusory.

Either way, if we are being next level objective, I think we are likely to conclude that we must withhold judgement until (if ever) all the facts are in. I'd say the *real* answer is no answer, but I side with Descartes anyway.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Who am.'I'?

Post by Terrapin Station »

psyreporter wrote: December 8th, 2021, 2:20 pm
Free Will Sceptics wrote: December 6th, 2021, 10:44 am To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. Your conscious 'I' is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion
Terrapin Station wrote: December 8th, 2021, 1:19 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.
psyreporter wrote: November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am
  1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
  2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?
Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").
psyreporter wrote: December 8th, 2021, 12:50 pm Your argument: Do you at least understand that not everyone believes that the physical world operates deterministically?

Is it merely about the 'believing' part for you, similar to people's ability to believe in a pink elephant on the top of Mount Everest?

My question is the following: On what basis can it be said that you can escape determinism in a purely physical world?

In short: can you escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

Perhaps the issue is that you are neglecting the question 'why' the world exists as basis for the idea that physical reality is 'all there is' (i.e. the ultimate really real)
Terrapin Station wrote: April 7th, 1992, 3:29 pm First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)
My reply: Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.
You need to answer yes or no. And sure, if there are people who believe that there's a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, then there are people who believe that, and you should be able to understand that, right? Simple question, right?

So do you understand that there are people who believe that the physical world isn't deterministic? Yes or no. We need to be able to get past this simple step in order to move on. You need to answer yes, you understand that there are people who believe that, or no, you don't understand that there are people who believe that.
I asked the first question. I do not see how it would be relevant to counter the question with a new question about whether I understand that some people 'believe' something that may not be possible.

The question is simple:

Is it possible to escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

Is your belief in free will based on nothing but faith? If so, what would be the origin of that faith within a 'purely physical world'?
Simply put, either answer the simple yes or no question I'm asking you, or I have zero interest in interacting with you. Are you interested in interacting with me? If so, it should be easy to make an investment of answering a yes/no question. You can't do that, I've no interest. You're not cooperative enough or capable enough to have a conversation with.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Who am.'I'?

Post by psyreporter »

Terrapin Station wrote: December 8th, 2021, 8:12 pm
psyreporter wrote: December 8th, 2021, 2:20 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: December 8th, 2021, 8:12 pm So do you understand that there are people who believe that the physical world isn't deterministic? Yes or no. We need to be able to get past this simple step in order to move on. You need to answer yes, you understand that there are people who believe that, or no, you don't understand that there are people who believe that.
I asked the first question. I do not see how it would be relevant to counter the question with a new question about whether I understand that some people 'believe' something that may not be possible.

The question is simple:

Is it possible to escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

Is your belief in free will based on nothing but faith? If so, what would be the origin of that faith within a 'purely physical world'?
Simply put, either answer the simple yes or no question I'm asking you, or I have zero interest in interacting with you. Are you interested in interacting with me? If so, it should be easy to make an investment of answering a yes/no question. You can't do that, I've no interest. You're not cooperative enough or capable enough to have a conversation with.
Why did you pose a counter question? And what is the basis for the 'demand' of an answer to that question?

1. according to free will sceptics, it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.
2. whether people believe in free will or not within a purely physical world is therefore irrelevant.

I could argue that I understand that some people believe in all kind of things, which I already did with my suggestion of people believing that there is a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, which you confirmed to be a correct example with regard your question.
Terrapin Station wrote: December 8th, 2021, 1:19 pm And sure, if there are people who believe that there's a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, then there are people who believe that, and you should be able to understand that, right? Simple question, right?
The scope of our 'interaction' is the simple question how you can possibly justify a belief in free will while in the same time claiming that you are a materialist that believes that mind originates from the physical and that physical reality is ultimate and 'real'.

Terrapin Station wrote: December 8th, 2021, 1:19 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.
psyreporter wrote: November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am
  1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
  2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?
Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

...

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)
My personal opinion whether people could 'believe' in free will while in the same time believing that physical reality is all there is (that reality is 'real'), is irrelevant. It wouldn't help to discover an answer to the original question: how you are able to maintain a belief in free will as being a materialist.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Who am.'I'?

Post by Terrapin Station »

psyreporter wrote: December 9th, 2021, 4:30 am
Terrapin Station wrote: December 8th, 2021, 8:12 pm
psyreporter wrote: December 8th, 2021, 2:20 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: December 8th, 2021, 8:12 pm So do you understand that there are people who believe that the physical world isn't deterministic? Yes or no. We need to be able to get past this simple step in order to move on. You need to answer yes, you understand that there are people who believe that, or no, you don't understand that there are people who believe that.
I asked the first question. I do not see how it would be relevant to counter the question with a new question about whether I understand that some people 'believe' something that may not be possible.

The question is simple:

Is it possible to escape determinism in a purely physical world? If so, how?

Is your belief in free will based on nothing but faith? If so, what would be the origin of that faith within a 'purely physical world'?
Simply put, either answer the simple yes or no question I'm asking you, or I have zero interest in interacting with you. Are you interested in interacting with me? If so, it should be easy to make an investment of answering a yes/no question. You can't do that, I've no interest. You're not cooperative enough or capable enough to have a conversation with.
Why did you pose a counter question? And what is the basis for the 'demand' of an answer to that question?

1. according to free will sceptics, it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.
2. whether people believe in free will or not within a purely physical world is therefore irrelevant.

I could argue that I understand that some people believe in all kind of things, which I already did with my suggestion of people believing that there is a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, which you confirmed to be a correct example with regard your question.
Terrapin Station wrote: December 8th, 2021, 1:19 pm And sure, if there are people who believe that there's a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, then there are people who believe that, and you should be able to understand that, right? Simple question, right?
The scope of our 'interaction' is the simple question how you can possibly justify a belief in free will while in the same time claiming that you are a materialist that believes that mind originates from the physical and that physical reality is ultimate and 'real'.

Terrapin Station wrote: December 8th, 2021, 1:19 pmSo I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.
psyreporter wrote: November 28th, 2021, 2:18 am
  1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
  2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?
Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

...

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)
My personal opinion whether people could 'believe' in free will while in the same time believing that physical reality is all there is (that reality is 'real'), is irrelevant. It wouldn't help to discover an answer to the original question: how you are able to maintain a belief in free will as being a materialist.
Nope.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Who am.'I'?

Post by psyreporter »

You are dodging a simple question: how you are able to maintain a belief in free will as being a materialist?

The cited quote by free will sceptics indicates that it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Who am.'I'?

Post by Terrapin Station »

psyreporter wrote: December 9th, 2021, 10:57 am You are dodging a simple question
lol - what a jackass.
User avatar
GrayArea
Posts: 374
Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am

Re: Who am.'I'?

Post by GrayArea »

JackDaydream wrote: December 4th, 2021, 3:33 pm This may be an aspect of personal identity, in terms of subjective experience of consciousness. However; it is also about the nature of the subjective experience of self in relation to wider aspects of human experiences and the self. What is the self, and how may the basic constructs of ego be understood? Descartes spoke of the idea, ' I think, therefore I am.' What does this mean and how important may it be in the scheme of human identity and consciousness? How important is the 'I' of consciousness which and what does it signify, exactly?
My response is rather very simple: The fact that you use the word "I" signals that you, subconsciously, already know the answer.
People perceive gray and argue about whether it's black or white.
User avatar
GrayArea
Posts: 374
Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am

Re: Who am.'I'?

Post by GrayArea »

To add up to my previous reply, I believe questions with this sort of profoundness can only be answered on an equally profound plane of thought—that is, beyond thought—as in, just by existing as yourself.
People perceive gray and argue about whether it's black or white.
User avatar
GrayArea
Posts: 374
Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am

Re: Who am.'I'?

Post by GrayArea »

Or another equally interesting point of view would be that since we all exist as sentient beings, it means that we automatically know who we are.
People perceive gray and argue about whether it's black or white.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Who am.'I'?

Post by JackDaydream »

@Gray Area

It is interesting how we come to know who we are as sentient beings. Memories and retrospective knowledge on the basis of action may be important too. That is because it may be that identity is not static and even though people have a self concept, it is fluid with a sense of feeling tone, related to self esteem. It may be possible to use the term I with a sense of pride, or with shame and loathing. The I may be battling with these feelings like internal war.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Who am.'I'?

Post by psyreporter »

Terrapin Station wrote: December 6th, 2021, 12:13 pm
🦋 free will vs determinism wrote:
  1. determinism: consciousness being an illusion (i.e. meaningless) and mind originating from the physical.
  2. 🦋 free will: meaning beyond the physical, with 'beyond' indicating that it must precede physical reality.

(1) The p-zombie thought experiment doesn't at all imply those two options.

The claim with regard the philosophical zombie theory was the following:

The philosophical zombie theory indicates that it is impossible to know (empirically) whether a (conscious) 'I' exists in another person.

Inferred is that one is unable to communicate 'meaningful experience' on the basis of which significance of a conscious 'I' is to be established.

In a simplified perspective, which is justified given the situation, the question whether conscious 'I' is to be considered concerns the simple question whether there is 'meaning' that cannot be captured empirically, which essence is addressed in the 🦋 free will vs determinism debate.


(2) Determinism doesn't amount to consciousness being an illusion.

It was already established in the other topic Is consciousness an illusion? that the term illusion is used to denote the absence of 'meaningfulness', significance or purpose when it concerns conscious 'I', not that consciousness as it can be described to exist empirically, is non existent.

With determinism, life, intelligence and conscious 'I' is a product of the Universe (the laws of Physics).

"Your conscious 'I' is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest." ~ The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?


(3) Consciousness being an illusion doesn't amount to consciousness being "meaningless."

It was established that the term illusion itself involves the presence or absence of 'meaningfulness' when it concerns significance of conscious 'I'.


(4) Free will doesn't amount to meaning "beyond the physical."

Physical = anything of which it can be said to exist by empirical principles, which implies that in a purely physical world, one cannot escape determinism.

When it concerns significance of the concept free will, one is to establish whether meaning is applicable as precursor to the physical world. What precedes a perspective on a fundamental level lays beyond it from within the perspective, therefore, as seen from a human perspective, free will would concern meaning "beyond the physical" (while on fundamental nature level it would precede it but that would be difficult to grasp empirically)


(5) "Beyond the physical" wouldn't imply anything about temporal or logical priority.

From inside a perspective (subjective experience of life), meaning would appear to lay 'beyond' physical reality (the future or the arrow of time). On a fundamental nature level, that same meaning would precede physical reality.

The logic is very simple: empirical reality is by definition at most a retro perspective. Thus, when one considers anything empirically, one looks 'backwards in time' and looks in the direction of an origin. That origin itself therefore, must have preceded any possible empirical perspective, explaining that on a fundamental nature level, 'meaning' would precede physical reality while from within a perspective, it lays beyond it.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021