Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Can I suggest that if the “I am” is not SELF, then what is it?

Of course, you can suggest whatever you like. But I wonder if you mean that the Self and the "I am" are the same thing? It would be great if you would clarify this, and not answer with another question., What do you mean by "I am"???

[Joshua10]

The “I am” experiences both due to thought type interactions.

[Joshua10]

Can I suggest that if the “I am” is not SELF, then what is it?

Of course, you can suggest whatever you like. But I wonder if you mean that the Self and the "I am" are the same thing? It would be great if you would clarify this, and not answer with another question., What do you mean by "I am"???

The “I am” is something separate from consciousness types.

Can I ask you what your definition of consciousness is if you believe that you are no more than it?

[Pattern-chaser]

The “I am” is something separate from consciousness types.

Can I ask you what your definition of consciousness is if you believe that you are no more than it?

I have not mentioned anything about what I believe.

Final attempt: When you type "I am", do you mean to refer to "the Self", or to something different from "the Self" (and if so, what)?

[Joshua10]

The “I am” is something separate from consciousness types.

Can I ask you what your definition of consciousness is if you believe that you are no more than it?

I have not mentioned anything about what I believe.

Final attempt: When you type "I am", do you mean to refer to "the Self", or to something different from "the Self" (and if so, what)?

I would say that the “I am” is a part of our being so yes could be termed self.

[Joshua10]

The “I am” is something separate from consciousness types.

Can I ask you what your definition of consciousness is if you believe that you are no more than it?

I have not mentioned anything about what I believe.

Final attempt: When you type "I am", do you mean to refer to "the Self", or to something different from "the Self" (and if so, what)?

I would say that the “I am” is a part of our being so yes could be termed self.

[Sy Borg]

The “I am” needs to see itself as separate from awareness/consciousness/thoughts/emotions.

That is the "I am" of a microbe, plant or other non-brained organisms. Their existence, as with all life, is inherently a separation from everything else. An organism's very being defies the environment that would otherwise claim it, and without any the mental functions listed.

I am = I am here now, whether I realise it or not :)

Umm an interesting point of view Sy Borg,I would suggest that the “I am” has far more complexities to it than just a mere microbe.

Jacob, could you please explain how "I am" is more complex in your mind.

Such dynamics are not cleanly separate (despite our tendency to use strictly separate terms). I suspect that your sense of "I am" also includes elements of "I feel" and "I think".

The whole concept of "I am" is simplicity, the basis on which greater complexity builds, with its complexity seemingly purely physical (as in organisms are physically complex) rather than conceptual.

[Joshua10]

The “I am” needs to see itself as separate from awareness/consciousness/thoughts/emotions.

That is the "I am" of a microbe, plant or other non-brained organisms. Their existence, as with all life, is inherently a separation from everything else. An organism's very being defies the environment that would otherwise claim it, and without any the mental functions listed.

I am = I am here now, whether I realise it or not

Umm an interesting point of view Sy Borg,I would suggest that the “I am” has far more complexities to it than just a mere microbe.

Jacob, could you please explain how "I am" is more complex in your mind.

Such dynamics are not cleanly separate (despite our tendency to use strictly separate terms). I suspect that your sense of "I am" also includes elements of "I feel" and "I think".

The whole concept of "I am" is simplicity, the basis on which greater complexity builds, with its complexity seemingly purely physical (as in organisms are physically complex) rather than conceptual.

Awareness and Unawareness are meaningless unless there is something that is either aware or unaware.I would suggest that the only thing that can make sense of anything and introduce CONTROL is the “I am”.The “l am” has simplicity in as much that no tags can be applied to it such as awareness;consciousness;thoughts;emotions because the “I am” experiences all those things but is not those things,In that respect there is complexity associated with the “I am” as well.

[Joshua10]

My view is that there is a hierarchy:

The “l am” sits above awareness/unawareness which sits above consciousness types which sit above thoughts types which sit above emotion types.

The “I am” experiences everything below it.

[Sy Borg]

Joshua, I see the hierarchy in the other direction, which is perhaps a reflection of your religious top-down worldview and my secular bottom-up worldview.

Logically, no organism can emote or think without already having a sense of being. However, plenty of organisms would have a sense of being, based on their attempts to stay alive, but they do not emote or think.

These dynamics, of course, are tendencies. There is no hard line between "I am", awareness, emotions and thoughts in animals that display all of those traits, but not all organisms are capable of them.

[Pattern-chaser]

My view is that there is a hierarchy:

The “l am” sits above awareness/unawareness which sits above consciousness types which sit above thoughts types which sit above emotion types.

The “I am” experiences everything below it.

The "I am", then, is the self, the whole self, body, mind and anything else that forms part of a whole person, maybe even spirit or soul?

[Joshua10]

My view is that there is a hierarchy:

The “l am” sits above awareness/unawareness which sits above consciousness types which sit above thoughts types which sit above emotion types.

The “I am” experiences everything below it.

The "I am", then, is the self, the whole self, body, mind and anything else that forms part of a whole person, maybe even spirit or soul?

I would say that if there is 2 separate elements to the “I am” which I am comfortable is separate to all the elements mentioned above, then I am not AWARE of it at this point.

[Joshua10]

Joshua, I see the hierarchy in the other direction, which is perhaps a reflection of your religious top-down worldview and my secular bottom-up worldview.

Logically, no organism can emote or think without already having a sense of being. However, plenty of organisms would have a sense of being, based on their attempts to stay alive, but they do not emote or think.

These dynamics, of course, are tendencies. There is no hard line between "I am", awareness, emotions and thoughts in animals that display all of those traits, but not all organisms are capable of them.

At least there is a sort of common hierarchy at the end of the day even if we can’t agree on the direction.

[Pattern-chaser]

The "I am", then, is the self, the whole self, body, mind and anything else that forms part of a whole person, maybe even spirit or soul?

I would say that if there is 2 separate elements to the “I am” which I am comfortable is separate to all the elements mentioned above, then I am not AWARE of it at this point.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that "the Self", the "I am", is separate to all the elements mentioned above, but those elements that I mentioned referred to the WHOLE person, body, mind, and the rest. How can the "I am" be separate from the Whole? If it is separate from the Whole, it is distinct, and presumably independent in its own right, or part of something other than this Whole.

I can only assume I have misunderstood (again), as this doesn't seem to make sense?

[Joshua10]

The "I am", then, is the self, the whole self, body, mind and anything else that forms part of a whole person, maybe even spirit or soul?

I would say that if there is 2 separate elements to the “I am” which I am comfortable is separate to all the elements mentioned above, then I am not AWARE of it at this point.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that "the Self", the "I am", is separate to all the elements mentioned above, but those elements that I mentioned referred to the WHOLE person, body, mind, and the rest. How can the "I am" be separate from the Whole? If it is separate from the Whole, it is distinct, and presumably independent in its own right, or part of something other than this Whole.

I can only assume I have misunderstood (again), as this doesn't seem to make sense?

Yes I would say that the “I am” is an independent part of the whole.