Who are we really?

[Silveresque]

So I started thinking lately, who am I? Am I my memories, all the things I've done, thought, and felt up until this moment? Or maybe the only thing that matters is what I'm thinking and doing at this moment. Or could the self even encompass the future--all the decisions I haven't made yet but will at some point? And another thing, am I what I do, or am I something more? What is the "self", and how can it be defined?

 

[Sniffles]

The self is made of varying different attributes, both objective and subjective in nature. Yes you have your memories, thoughts, and your actions. You have an intellect, a soul, a will. The self is all these varying attributes put together in that particular form that is you. Sure you share many attributes with others, and communion with other selves forges an important part of the self as well - we're not just isolated creatures in a heartless cosmos. But at the same time, you have certain attributes and whatnot that are unique specifically to you and each and everyone of us as well.

My simplified answer to a complex issue.

 

[Nicodemus]

So I started thinking lately, who am I? Am I my memories, all the things I've done, thought, and felt up until this moment? Or maybe the only thing that matters is what I'm thinking and doing at this moment. Or could the self even encompass the future--all the decisions I haven't made yet but will at some point? And another thing, am I what I do, or am I something more? What is the "self", and how can it be defined?

The former.

 

[nanook]

i tend to go on about not really existing. peguy said some accurate enough words about "my self" or the "authentic self (term by ken wilber)" in general, but i feel i can't be this self, because all of this self grew, evolved or was conditioned by the world without me even understanding what was going on. now how could i be something, that really only presents itself to me piece by piece?

i can be the ego, if i define the ego as a glimpse in time, this observer of the experiences, noticing this and that, in somewhat linear fashion, like a reflection, a bright spot, capturing, absorbing focus, consciousness. a reflection that is created by elements (metaphorically: mountain, snow, sunlight, perspective/direction of observer) none of which "are" substancially this reflection.

so i can be the ego, but this ego is virtually nothing, it's none of the objects of my worldview, in particular. it seems easy enough to be virtually nothing, because there is nothing to know about nothing, so not knowing myself (as ego) doesn't imply that i am not it.

all of this reasoning depends of course on the assumption that being is knowing. but this assumption is just horribly deep ingrained into my ... what? my ego? thought-system? what if "being" can be/occur without knowing? but then i could be everything, without knowing. i might as well be nothing.

intellectually i get nonduality, i guess, insofar that is possible, intellectually, but there is no point in giving a bookish answer.

saying "i am nothing", while it's not proper nondual understanding, is the answer that honestly reflects my regular mode of comprehension.

some would not agree, but the witness of the deepest self (of the soul/causal) is in my understanding just the most bare-bone version/mode of function of the same ego, which witnesses the thinking or the feeling mind, or the body in regular waking stage consciousness.

and i have seen the deepest self, afaik, not all of it, i should say, i have seen the deepest "depth", as a sample, but always just seen it as this witness. and this witness is nothing, which was too obvious to it/me.

because all the substance in the deepest self is different stuff from all the substance in the waking self. so the witness isn't any of it. it's just a reflection, a spot without substance, somehow magically created by this self, by all known sides or corners of this self, created whenever i am there, not while i am dropped out. created by a self which happens to be one with the whole rest of everything, as far as i can see anything of that everything. so i am nothing, alone with, confronted with, and created by everything.

 

[Rasofy]

We're special people that try to categorize other people and ourselves with standardized combinations of numbers and letters.

 

[Munchies]

"i think therefore i am"

that's for egotistical people

" i am that i am"
for god and enlightened people

 

[Sniffles]

"i think therefore i am"

that's for egotistical people

" i am that i am"
for god and enlightened people

+1

There's also "I love therefore I am"

 

[Rasofy]

 

[Savage Idealist]

I'm going to be honest, my views concerning the self are somewhat bleak, in a certain sense, but they aren't entirely set in stone either, as I often keep pondering the nature of the human mind and what exactly it is.

Presently, I view all real things as being in part constructed of matter (i.e. I'm a materialist), with ideas of all sorts being completely illusionary (now this doesn't mean that one cannot beleive in certain ideas, just that they don't exist absent our ability to percieve them). Therefore all things concerning the self, the personality, etc., can be reduced down to processes that occur within the brain. Our minds aren't much different than computers (ok, they are, but our intellectual abilities and overall design framework are very different); we intake data, it's stored as memory, certain kinds of information and data become learned, influence the way we think, etc. I should also mention here, that while I do beleive that no one is born with any innate ideas or knowledge per se, the structure of our brains and how they function are determined from birth. Thus we may be born a blank slate but the slate itself is fixed before we're even born. Beyond that, our psychology is often in a constant state of flux, ever changing and altering through our lives; like the Ship of Theseus, we slowly piece by peice change in certain ways until we become a ship far different than what we were before; thus the 'self' is dynamic, sharing only a spatio-temporal location at any given time. In addition we are really, when you think about it, a cluster of psychological properties and sensory data; our memory is simply recorded data, our thoughts but an analytical process, our 'minds' are but completely mechanical mechanisms of the brain itself. Essentially, the really isn't a 'self', that is but a term we give to the cluster of psychological properties that occurs in out spati-temporal location. When we experince something, or we think something, or we are conscious of something, then what is occuring is simply matter itself that is aware of its surrounding enviornment. This means that the idea of a soul or non-physical mind is simply illusionary. We are but physical things that undo constant change and growth as the result of complex mechanisms, and all that is produced from such outward psychology is percieved by others and oneself as a 'self'.

Well, that's one theory anyway.

 

[Viridian]

" i am that i am"
for god and enlightened people

Like Popeye?

 

[Silveresque]

I'm going to be honest, my views concerning the self are somewhat bleak, in a certain sense, but they aren't entirely set in stone either, as I often keep pondering the nature of the human mind and what exactly it is.

Presently, I view all real things as being in part constructed of matter (i.e. I'm a materialist), with ideas of all sorts being completely illusionary (now this doesn't mean that one cannot beleive in certain ideas, just that they don't exist absent our ability to percieve them). Therefore all things concerning the self, the personality, etc., can be reduced down to processes that occur within the brain. Our minds aren't much different than computers (ok, they are, but our intellectual abilities and overall design framework are very different); we intake data, it's stored as memory, certain kinds of information and data become learned, influence the way we think, etc. I should also mention here, that while I do beleive that no one is born with any innate ideas or knowledge per se, the structure of our brains and how they function are determined from birth. Thus we may be born a blank slate but the slate itself is fixed before we're even born. Beyond that, our psychology is often in a constant state of flux, ever changing and altering through our lives; like the Ship of Theseus, we slowly piece by peice change in certain ways until we become a ship far different than what we were before; thus the 'self' is dynamic, sharing only a spatio-temporal location at any given time. In addition we are really, when you think about it, a cluster of psychological properties and sensory data; our memory is simply recorded data, our thoughts but an analytical process, our 'minds' are but completely mechanical mechanisms of the brain itself. Essentially, the really isn't a 'self', that is but a term we give to the cluster of psychological properties that occurs in out spati-temporal location. When we experince something, or we think something, or we are conscious of something, then what is occuring is simply matter itself that is aware of its surrounding enviornment. This means that the idea of a soul or non-physical mind is simply illusionary. We are but physical things that undo constant change and growth as the result of complex mechanisms, and all that is produced from such outward psychology is percieved by others and oneself as a 'self'.

Well, that's one theory anyway.

My thoughts exactly. While it would be nice to believe that there's some sort of spiritual/philosophical aspect of the self or consciousness, I've yet to experience anything that might suggest that. I'm open to new perspectives and theories about this, provided they make logical sense to me, though for now I'll stick with the biological/psychological perspective.

 

[Mole]

The Genii of our Genes

We are here to perpetuate our genes.

Our genes don't care who we are or what we do as long as we make more genes.

Our genes are pure genius.

The genius of our genes has created us to make more genes.

 

[Beorn]

WHOOOO ARE YOU?

 

[xisnotx]

You are the sum of your experiences. Or at least, I am. Or at least, I think I am.

 

[jcloudz]

you are also to some extent that which is defined by others as well. alone from civilization and in isolation, your role would be defined by the animals, trees and sky who would not care to recount memories of who you were, after you was. maybe sustenance for some other living organism after.

 

[Mole]

You are the sum of your experiences. Or at least, I am. Or at least, I think I am.

Are you experienced?

 

[xisnotx]

Are you experienced?

Not in experiences.

 

[redacted]

So I started thinking lately, who am I? Am I my memories, all the things I've done, thought, and felt up until this moment? Or maybe the only thing that matters is what I'm thinking and doing at this moment. Or could the self even encompass the future--all the decisions I haven't made yet but will at some point? And another thing, am I what I do, or am I something more? What is the "self", and how can it be defined?

I'm of the opinion that people are defined by the neural network currently implemented in their brains. Even if we view it as present-only, the neural network itself stores representations of the past and creates models of possible futures -- the conception of time can be explained by these models.

So yeah, you are your present (physical) self. Your present self thinks about the past and future. And souls, and good, and choice, and all that stuff that seems all hand-wavey -- it's just the way data is represented in our neural networks.

 

[Savage Idealist]

My thoughts exactly. While it would be nice to believe that there's some sort of spiritual/philosophical aspect of the self or consciousness, I've yet to experience anything that might suggest that. I'm open to new perspectives and theories about this, provided they make logical sense to me, though for now I'll stick with the biological/psychological perspective.

Indeed, to believe that there is a soul/spirit aspect of oursevles would be nice and comforting, and to ancient people whom were not aware of the truth concerning how our brains really work, this was but the logical and most sensible assumption they took concerning people and their identity; hence where the origin of the sould comes from.

 

[gromit]

"i think therefore i am"

that's for egotistical people

" i am that i am"
for god and enlightened people

I always get a little bit goosebumps from hearing that one, "I am that I am."