Who am.'I'?

[JackDaydream]

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?

[JackDaydream]

I hope that my question is not too obscure for anyone to answer it all and being viewed as irrelevant for any philosophy discussion at all. I am thinking about the nature of ego consciousness, as recognised by the psychoanalysts and some philosophers who wrote about the idea of ego. This is bound up with the nature of being a human individual. So, I am asking about the nature of personal identity. It may be that as philosophy pursuit this may come in layers, and angles ranging from the perspective on ego of Max Stirner to that of the psychoanalysts on the nature of the to the 'self, including Freud and Jung. It can be asked, as expressed by some Buddhists, does the 'self' as apparent in the consciousness of 'I', as a construct of autobiographical identity, exist at all? When a person speaks of 'I' what does this refer to?

[JackDaydream]

As a final remark, before I leave this thread question I just wonder how much 'I' and the consciousness differ in terms of academic and practical aspects. There are so many scientific discussions about consciousness, but I wonder where does the experience of 'I'; as the basis of reflective awareness, fit into the picture?

[JackDaydream]

Also, each of us is a social being, with an entire history of acceptance or non acceptance, in relation to specific social criteria. We may be judged by others. What does this mean for the individual and the quest to find one's pathway in life?

[psyreporter]

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?

Descartes thinks, therefore he is... One would be obligated to translate that idea to "I myself think, therefore I am" and then 'by magic' assign meaning to the claim.

Why should another human, or empirical science, 'believe' Descartes his words? One would merely have his/her own meaningful conscious experience as a means to verify the claim and the philosophical zombie theory indicates that it is impossible to communicate that experience and thus that it is impossible for anyone - or empirical science - to know whether another human is conscious.

When it concerns what 'I' signifies within the context of conscious experience, at question is firstly: is meaningful experience to be considered of substance, i.e. does free will exist or is life and consciousness bound by determinism?

Free will sceptics argue the following with regard the possibility for free will to exist:

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. You just are 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

There are many people that believe that mind is merely brain processes. While some claim that they are not a determinist, the cited quote by free will sceptics indicates that only with a "primary role for mind in Nature" it would be possible to escape determinism.

A user on this forum:

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").

I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

When it concerns the question whether there is a (conscious) 'I' that is to be considered, one is required to establish whether there is 'meaning' for an I to be meaningful beyond the scope of physical reality. Such a meaning would be 'a priori' (before value) and it would necessarily precede physical reality.

Conclusion: when it concerns the existence of (meaningful) 'I' it concerns the free will vs determinism debate.

The determinism vs free will debate is not a settled debate, which is evident from the website debatingfreewill.com (2021) by philosophy professors Daniel C. Dennett and Gregg D. Caruso.

If you want to discover whether conscious 'I' has significance, it may be best to start with the free will vs determinism subject.

[JackDaydream]

@psyreporter
Thanks for your reply. Definitely, the topic is linked to issues of free will because I wrote this thread after creating one on chance I guess that the difference in the topic here I am wondering about the nature of self awareness. Of course, that is bound up with a sense of agency or autonomy and, I don't come from a materialistic perspective. I read lot in depth psychology and transpersonal philosophy, which is not a very popular angle. I do question the nature of ego consciousness and even read in the direction of Eastern approaches to metaphysics.

There is the question of how deep is the self? The 'I' is a central construct because it is the basis for organisation of autobiographical aspects of identity. But, in individuals, apart from those who are experiencing dissociative disorders, there is an ongoing sense of 'I' and this is important in the making of choices and the mindsets of self awareness underlying will and motivation in navigating freedom. Nevertheless, the issue of how free one is debatable and the nature and nurture issues of human limitations come into play in the so called free choices made.

.

[Pattern-chaser]

When a person speaks of 'I' what does this refer to?

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.

[Terrapin Station]

When it concerns the question whether there is a (conscious) 'I' that is to be considered, one is required to establish whether there is 'meaning' for an I to be meaningful beyond the scope of physical reality.

How are you figuring that?

[chewybrian]

When a person speaks of 'I' what does this refer to?

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.

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.

[psyreporter]

When it concerns the question whether there is a (conscious) 'I' that is to be considered, one is required to establish whether there is 'meaning' for an I to be meaningful beyond the scope of physical reality.

How are you figuring that?

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

The theory implies that one has two options available:

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.

With regard the term 'meaning' as qualitative differentiator within the concept free will. When it concerns the concept free will, one assumes that something of which it can be said that is meaningful must lay outside the scope of what can be termed 'physical reality'. Evidence for this, is the cited reasoning by free will sceptics:

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

I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

At question is (in light of the quote by free will sceptics), how can you argue that mind originates from the physical while in the same time maintaining that you are not a determinist? What factor allows you to claim that you believe in free will when meaning beyond the physical is impossible according to you?

[Nick_A]

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?

God defines itself: "I am that I Am" The alpha and Omega beyond the limtations of time and space.

Man who cannot say "I Am" without a defining adjective is obviously not God. Buddhism claims man is without a soul, without a unifying I but rather Man is many; a mixture of small i's. I then refers to which part of the tripartite soul is dominant at a given moment.

If true the goal of conscious evolution would be to become one: "I AM" rather than a mixture of small i's. The goal would be to create a soul or the conscious potential for Man which reconciles animal man with spiritual man as opposed to living in opposition. The answer to the question who am I could eventually become " I am."

[Terrapin Station]

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

So first, you're framing this as an epistemological issue. But this:

"When it concerns the question whether there is a (conscious) 'I' that is to be considered, one is required to establish whether there is 'meaning' for an I to be meaningful beyond the scope of physical reality."

Isn't phrased as if we're only talking about epistemology, it's framed as if you're saying something about an ontological requirement.

Aside from that:

The theory implies that one has two options available:

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.
(2) Determinism doesn't amount to consciousness being an illusion.
(3) Consciousness being an illusion doesn't amount to consciousness being "meaningless."
(4) Free will doesn't amount to meaning "beyond the physical."
(5) "Beyond the physical" wouldn't imply anything about temporal or logical priority.

All of that is a big problem, suggesting that you're reading stuff into what you're studying that makes no sense.

[Terrapin Station]

I should say for (4) that free will doesn't amount to meaning, and it also doesn't amount to "beyond the physical" (meaning or not).

[Terrapin Station]

To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes . . .

Re this in general, I'm not asking if you agree with it, but do you at least understand that not everyone believes that the physical world operates deterministically?

[JackDaydream]

@Nick-A
When I wrote the thread I was thinking how some people have used the expression 'I AM' to refer to the consciousness of 'God' or some underlying form beyond the individual consciousness. So, there may be the little 'I am' of subjective ego identity and the possibility of it being part of a larger reality. Of course, many within perspectives of cognitive psychology focus upon the subjective construct of the self but, probably Descartes was coming from the view of there being a connection between the inner reality with aspects beyond human consciousness itself.