G
- Status
S
STT
Guest
There could be a nonexistence tail inside us which we cannot not its end no matter how hard we chase it. We just cannot directly experience “I” so we cannot be sure.
S
STT
Guest
The person without “I” also can resist to the edge of sanity too.
The problem is that your body is different than “you” so the problem retains unless you could put a clear cut between “you”/inside and the rest/outside. Unfortunately we cannot do that.
S
STT
Guest
The problem is that we cannot experience the experiencer/“I”. We can experience everything but “I”.
Everybody’s brain. We just cannot deny that experience could be the result the process in our brains yet. In fact we know with certainty that we could adjust feelings, moods, even our state of consciousness by using drugs.
Tell me how. I believe that we can just deduce that “I” exist. But we could be wrong in our deduction.
G
GEddie
Guest
Your body is distinct from “you” only in the state of death. And even then, one could argue that your death negates “you” in any case.
While safely warm, breathing, muscle-toned and with mind energized, you are your body.
ICXC NIKA
While safely warm, breathing, muscle-toned and with mind energized, you are your body.
ICXC NIKA
S
STT
Guest
I don’t think that we could distinct between our bodies and “ourselves” even if there is a life after death. What does it mean to be without any body? Body allows form without that we are dealing with void.
S
STT
Guest
We believe that “I” is a nonphysical entity. This means “I” has no form or location. Hence we cannot experience “I”.
No the state of sentience is not the state of experiencing the experiencer but the state of experiencing only.
G
GEddie
Guest
No, “I” is just the reflexive pronoun used to refer to the conscious being, or thinking body; normally the self-referent of a human being.
Do we experience our own being, is really the question. Or are we limited to the thoughts in our minds and the support processes of our warm, breathing, moving bodies?
ICXC NIKA
S
STT
Guest
I agree.Indeed. Your body makes you somebody!
But while an embodiment of some kind is needed in a post-natural life, we can safely distinguish the person from his or her dead human body. Only then, however; never while living life.
ICXC NIKA.
S
STT
Guest
I use “I” to refer to self.
We simply have any sense to experience our selves. I am wondering what that could ever mean!?
S
STT
Guest
Self-awareness is an illusion. We don’t have any sense to be aware of our selves.
C
Cheiron
Guest
Sure there is. A good beating would cure any solipsist.
puts on boxing gloves
P
puzzledtoo
Guest
I am not this body, I am not these thoughts. I don’t believe the elusive I is all that elusive.
I is everywhere. I want. I need. I believe. I don’t want, don’t need, don’t believe. Me, me ,me. Mine, mine, mine. Ego run amok. What is so elusive about something that is ever present? What is elusive for most is the ability to let go of I.
I is everywhere. I want. I need. I believe. I don’t want, don’t need, don’t believe. Me, me ,me. Mine, mine, mine. Ego run amok. What is so elusive about something that is ever present? What is elusive for most is the ability to let go of I.
G
Glassjester
Guest
Totally.
If “I” was elusive, homes wouldn’t have mirrors in them.
People’s cell phones wouldn’t be full of selfies.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
I can say things like this: “Yesterday I had the experience ‘X’ in the ‘a’ mode. Today I am having the experience ‘X’ in a ‘b’ mode, which has certain similitudes with the ‘a’ mode, but it has some differences too. I also have had the experience ‘Y’ in a variety of modes, and many other experiences.” I realize that those are somewhat different experiences, but the subject is the same: me.
Also, I can listen to the descriptions that someone else makes of his own experiences, and some times I can understand what he says, because I share them. However, I distinguish between his experiences and my experiences, not necessarily because of their content, but because of the subject: There might be an experience of ‘X’ for which the subject is him, and an experience of ‘X’ for which the subject is me.
Now, there are a variety of experiences, as you might know: I experience colors in a very different way in which I experience temperature, or roughness, or sweetness, or emotions, etcetera. It would be preposterous to request identity between the way I experience colors and the way I experience happiness.
In all these cases it is me who has those various experiences, and I know it with such evidence that no writing or speech whatever can convince me of something else. But my knowledge of this facts is obviously based on experience (on what else could it be?). And, analogously, it would be preposterous if someone demanded that the experience I have of myself be of the same kind of experience that I have when I feel hot, or sad, or tired.
Do you want to convince me that I am elusive to myself?
So, it is your brain. The “elusive I” is always there. If you didn’t experience yourself, how would you be able of repeat “I this” and “I that” so constantly?
When you put your hand in hot water, you feel something in it. If you add cold water to the hot one, you will have a different feeling. So, it is possible to adjust your feeling by just adding cold water to the hot one, while you keep your hand in it. I can affect your feelings, moods, even your state of consciousness by using these kind of means, even by using “just” words. Do you think that the effects of drugs is peculiarly surprising?
Once again the “elusive I” pervading your discourse: “I can just deduce that I exist, but I could be wrong in my deduction”. How elusive the “I” is!
S
STT
Guest
I mean, you of course aware of your experiences but you cannot experience your “self”.
- Status