[roosh]

Originally Posted by MisterEpicurus

There are many questions in philosophy which are worthwhile to pursue, however at the same time there are other invented questions which are needlessly asked and said for the amusement of philosophers.

I think the question of this thread is one such example.

I think questioning the nature of self is one of the more worthwhile philosophical and spiritual questions. As wylo says, it can be life changing.

[looksee]

Originally Posted by whythetyre

I know I exist. Do you? The limitations to reality could be explained by the existence of at least one consciousness other than my own. Is it yours?

'Do you' what? Is this 'do you exist' or 'do you know you exist' or 'do you know that I exist' or 'do you know whether I exist'.

Second sentence: 'Is it the existence of your consciousness, in addition to mine, that explains the limitations to reality?' Limitations to reality in reference to whom? Have we established that reality has limitations?

[MisterEpicurus]

Originally Posted by whythetyre

The limitations to reality could be explained by the existence of at least one consciousness other than my own. Is it yours?

What on Earth does this mean?

I can see myself if I look into a mirror, indeed I can see other people as well. This is satisfactory to assume by own existence with our without other people. Arguing about 'at least one consciousness' is making a premise which will and never has been the case.

[roosh]

Originally Posted by MisterEpicurus

What on Earth does this mean?

I can see myself if I look into a mirror, indeed I can see other people as well. This is satisfactory to assume by own existence with our without other people. Arguing about 'at least one consciousness' is making a premise which will and never has been the case.

What you see is a body, but can you define where the body begins and ends?

Presumably you take yourself to be the internal organs of the body, the bones, blood and everything else; presumably the oxygen in the blood is part of "you", the energy that "your" body derives from food, the vitamins you derive from the sun, etc, are all part of "you".

At what point though, do "you" end and does the oxygen which you inhale begin; at what point in the digestive process does the food you get energy from stop being food and start being "you"; at what point does the sunlight which your body processes stop being sunlight and start being "you"?

Is your vision a part of "you"; at what point does "your" vision end and what you see begin?


There is no actual point at which "you" end and something else begins; the universe is just one single continuum of which "you" are a part; but there is no point of separation; for there to be separate entities it would necessitate empty space in the strictest sense of the term; because if there is no empty space then there is no separation of objects.

Understanding this and relaising it are two different things; to be liberated entirely from attachment to the idea of a separate self is another thing entirely.

[MisterEpicurus]

Originally Posted by roosh

What you see is a body, but can you define where the body begins and ends?

Presumably you take yourself to be the internal organs of the body, the bones, blood and everything else; presumably the oxygen in the blood is part of "you", the energy that "your" body derives from food, the vitamins you derive from the sun, etc, are all part of "you".

At what point though, do "you" end and does the oxygen which you inhale begin; at what point in the digestive process does the food you get energy from stop being food and start being "you"; at what point does the sunlight which your body processes stop being sunlight and start being "you"?

Is your vision a part of "you"; at what point does "your" vision end and what you see begin?


There is no actual point at which "you" end and something else begins; the universe is just one single continuum of which "you" are a part; but there is no point of separation; for there to be separate entities it would necessitate empty space in the strictest sense of the term; because if there is no empty space then there is no separation of objects.

Understanding this and relaising it are two different things; to be liberated entirely from attachment to the idea of a separate self is another thing entirely.

Thanks for the mysterious post.

I don't think anyone can ever come to a satisfactory or agreeable answer on what 'you' or 'me' is defined as. So, the answer is ultimately subjective opinion. However, when referring to 'I', I'm referring to my own set of reflections originating from the mass neural network inside my body. I can do without a kidney, I can do without my spleen, I can't do without my consciousness. So as far as I'd use it, it would be in the conscious sense.

[roosh]

Originally Posted by MisterEpicurus

Thanks for the mysterious post.

I don't think anyone can ever come to a satisfactory or agreeable answer on what 'you' or 'me' is defined as. So, the answer is ultimately subjective opinion. However, when referring to 'I', I'm referring to my own set of reflections originating from the mass neural network inside my body. I can do without a kidney, I can do without my spleen, I can't do without my consciousness. So as far as I'd use it, it would be in the conscious sense.

"You" or "me" is just a concept, it is a belief to which there is attachment; it is the belief that there is a separate self which exists apart from everything else; but if we question that idea, we can see that it falls down.

"Your" conscious experience is largely dependent on "external" stimuli; so, again, the question can be posed; at which point do these "external" stimuli stop being "external" and start being "you"; at what point does "your" consciousness stop being just a part of the continuum of the universe and start being "you"?

There is no actual point.

[Unoriginal Choice3]

cogito ergo sum

[Black Swan]

Originally Posted by Unoriginal Choice3

cogito ergo sum

MOD NOTE:
Given that this is the Philosophy forum, you are encouraged to elaborate upon this statement by René Descartes.

[roosh]

Originally Posted by Black Swan

MOD NOTE:
Given that this is the Philosophy forum, you are encouraged to elaborate upon this statement by René Descartes.

the fundamental question which arises from this is, what precisely is meant by "I"; what is that exists and what is it that does the thinking?