Exactly Where Am I?

[Gary Childress]

There is a lot of confusion regarding the term "I". When someone refers to "I", they could mean any number of things. So, if someone wants to discuss the nature of "I", they really need to define what exactly they mean by the term beforehand. And it will often be the case that, by defining it, they will, at the same time, be answering their original question about it.

"I" is certainly a difficult thing to define. I guess the best way would be in terms of identity. I am presumably not you and visa versa. There's presumably a different consciousness that is experiencing what you are experiencing. And you are not experiencing the same things I am.

A thing that concerns me is, if consciousness is an emergent property, then how does a particular consciousness 'attach' to a particular body in the world? Why am I experiencing the experience this body is having and not what some other set of eyes experiences.

The easy answer seems to be that "me" only experiences what the eyes attached to "me" experience. But then that must mean "I" has a spacial location for the eyes to attach to. So "I" am somewhere in the world and the world presumably contains many other "I"s as well. So you all have spatial locations too. Locations apart from mine.

[Harbal]

The easy answer seems to be that "me" only experiences what the eyes attached to "me" experience. But then that must mean "I" has a spacial location for the eyes to attach to. So "I" am somewhere in the world and the world presumably contains many other "I"s as well. So you all have spatial locations too. Locations apart from mine.

I presume that consciousness is created or enabled by the brain, and what it is conscious of is delivered to it via the brain. Beyond that, I wouldn't want to talk about its location in space. But when we say "I", or "me", we don't always mean the same thing. If you were to say, "I nearly got run over by a bus today", it wouldn't seem to be same "I" as if you were to say, "I was thinking about rainbows today", if you see what I mean. One "I" is a physical object, while the other "I" would seem to be immatereal. When you say "I", you could be referring to your shape and size, or you could be referring to your emotional feelings, and other people would understand what you meant by the context.

[Gary Childress]

The easy answer seems to be that "me" only experiences what the eyes attached to "me" experience. But then that must mean "I" has a spacial location for the eyes to attach to. So "I" am somewhere in the world and the world presumably contains many other "I"s as well. So you all have spatial locations too. Locations apart from mine.

I presume that consciousness is created or enabled by the brain, and what it is conscious of is delivered to it via the brain. Beyond that, I wouldn't want to talk about its location in space. But when we say "I", or "me", we don't always mean the same thing. If you were to say, "I nearly got run over by a bus today", it wouldn't seem to be same "I" as if you were to say, "I was thinking about rainbows today", if you see what I mean. One "I" is a physical object, while the other "I" would seem to be immatereal. When you say "I", you could be referring to your shape and size, or you could be referring to your emotional feelings, and other people would understand what you meant by the context.

Ultimately, wouldn't they be the same, though? The same "I" who gets run over by a bus presumably feels the pain (for the sake of argument) of a broken foot. Or are you suggesting straight up dualism? (Not that dualism may not be a valid position.)

[Harbal]

Ultimately, wouldn't they be the same, though? The same "I" who gets run over by a bus presumably feels the pain (for the sake of argument) of a broken foot. Or are you suggesting straight up dualism? (Not that dualism may not be a valid position.)

I don't know anything about "dualism". What I am saying is that when we say "I", we sometims mean our entire physical package, and we sometimes just mean our emotions, or our thoughts. There is no consistent, absolute, definition of "I".

[Sculptor]

I suppose in some sense I seem to be located in my body. If my body is not near the computer, then I am not near the computer.

Suppose I am now looking at my computer screen. If I get up and walk away from the computer screen, into the kitchen, I am no longer near it. I would then be looking at the refrigerator (for the sake of argument). What would happen if, instead of getting up and walking to the kitchen, my brain was (successfully) surgically removed from the rest of my body and (successfully) surgically transplanted into another body with a pair of eyes attached to it that was pointed in the direction of the refrigerator? Would "I" then still (equally) be looking at the refrigerator? Would "I" feel the sensations that were running through the other body?

Most of you would be in the new body.
However you also normally have a good deal of neural matter in your heart and digestive system.
This means that the things that most effect your heart and GI track would remain in the old body.

In the new body you might find that you had new aversions to some foods, and like for others and maybe you would be more interested in things that got you excited like a sports game that you never liked before. If you new body was gay, you might have a tendency to look at the same sex in ways you had not done before.

Heart transplant recipients give testimony to unusual new interests, and when compared with their donors can how remarkable coincidences.
cite:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31739081/

[Belinda]

The easy answer seems to be that "me" only experiences what the eyes attached to "me" experience. But then that must mean "I" has a spacial location for the eyes to attach to. So "I" am somewhere in the world and the world presumably contains many other "I"s as well. So you all have spatial locations too. Locations apart from mine.

I presume that consciousness is created or enabled by the brain, and what it is conscious of is delivered to it via the brain. Beyond that, I wouldn't want to talk about its location in space. But when we say "I", or "me", we don't always mean the same thing. If you were to say, "I nearly got run over by a bus today", it wouldn't seem to be same "I" as if you were to say, "I was thinking about rainbows today", if you see what I mean. One "I" is a physical object, while the other "I" would seem to be immatereal. When you say "I", you could be referring to your shape and size, or you could be referring to your emotional feelings, and other people would understand what you meant by the context.

"I nearly got run over by a bus today", it wouldn't seem to be same "I" as if you were to say, "I was thinking about rainbows today", if you see what I mean. One "I" is a physical object, while the other "I" would seem to be immatereal.

Spinoza said they (the physical and the immatereal ) are two aspects of the same.

[Dimebag]

There is a lot of confusion regarding the term "I". When someone refers to "I", they could mean any number of things. So, if someone wants to discuss the nature of "I", they really need to define what exactly they mean by the term beforehand. And it will often be the case that, by defining it, they will, at the same time, be answering their original question about it.

"I" is certainly a difficult thing to define. I guess the best way would be in terms of identity. I am presumably not you and visa versa. There's presumably a different consciousness that is experiencing what you are experiencing. And you are not experiencing the same things I am.

A thing that concerns me is, if consciousness is an emergent property, then how does a particular consciousness 'attach' to a particular body in the world? Why am I experiencing the experience this body is having and not what some other set of eyes experiences.

The easy answer seems to be that "me" only experiences what the eyes attached to "me" experience. But then that must mean "I" has a spacial location for the eyes to attach to. So "I" am somewhere in the world and the world presumably contains many other "I"s as well. So you all have spatial locations too. Locations apart from mine.

The confusion arises based on your assumption. That “you” are a “particular” consciousness. The particulars arise in consciousness, and you take yourself to be those particulars. Yet you are not. You are the general, and the unknowable. You are the light, not what is illuminated.

On some level you are also the illuminated, but not if you take the light and the illuminated to be separate. They are not separate, the mind has been seemingly divided into subject and object, yet, the reality is there is not division. The division itself, is part of the illusion.

[Gary Childress]

Ultimately, wouldn't they be the same, though? The same "I" who gets run over by a bus presumably feels the pain (for the sake of argument) of a broken foot. Or are you suggesting straight up dualism? (Not that dualism may not be a valid position.)

I don't know anything about "dualism". What I am saying is that when we say "I", we sometims mean our entire physical package, and we sometimes just mean our emotions, or our thoughts. There is no consistent, absolute, definition of "I".

By "I" I mean consciousness or experience, and it seems to be linked somehow to physical space (as in the ordinary, everyday view of 3d space time reality). But how? What makes me or you an "I" and not a (presumably) uncoscious automaton or machine?

But yes, "I" is a difficult concept to come to grasp if you really think about it.

[Age]

There is a lot of confusion regarding the term "I". When someone refers to "I", they could mean any number of things. So, if someone wants to discuss the nature of "I", they really need to define what exactly they mean by the term beforehand. And it will often be the case that, by defining it, they will, at the same time, be answering their original question about it.

"I" is certainly a difficult thing to define.

'I' am certainly NOT difficult to define at all, that is; once you KNOW who and what 'I' am, EXACTLY.

I guess the best way would be in terms of identity. I am presumably not you and visa versa. There's presumably a different consciousness that is experiencing what you are experiencing. And you are not experiencing the same things I am.

But who and what, EXACTLY, is the 'you' and the 'I'?

A thing that concerns me is, if consciousness is an emergent property, then how does a particular consciousness 'attach' to a particular body in the world? Why am I experiencing the experience this body is having and not what some other set of eyes experiences.

Well considering you are NOT experiencing the experiences of that body the rest is moot.

The easy answer seems to be that "me" only experiences what the eyes attached to "me" experience. But then that must mean "I" has a spacial location for the eyes to attach to. So "I" am somewhere in the world and the world presumably contains many other "I"s as well. So you all have spatial locations too. Locations apart from mine.

The easy answers are not always the right and correct ones.

[Age]

The easy answer seems to be that "me" only experiences what the eyes attached to "me" experience. But then that must mean "I" has a spacial location for the eyes to attach to. So "I" am somewhere in the world and the world presumably contains many other "I"s as well. So you all have spatial locations too. Locations apart from mine.

I presume that consciousness is created or enabled by the brain, and what it is conscious of is delivered to it via the brain. Beyond that, I wouldn't want to talk about its location in space. But when we say "I", or "me", we don't always mean the same thing. If you were to say, "I nearly got run over by a bus today", it wouldn't seem to be same "I" as if you were to say, "I was thinking about rainbows today", if you see what I mean. One "I" is a physical object, while the other "I" would seem to be immatereal. When you say "I", you could be referring to your shape and size, or you could be referring to your emotional feelings, and other people would understand what you meant by the context.

And this is why when 'I' is defined under the label "age", it is written and said:

'I', in the visible, or the physical, sense is...

And,

'I', in the invisible, or the spiritual, sense is ...

Also, who and what 'I' am is VERY DIFFERENT from who and what 'i' am, and 'you' are.

[Age]

The easy answer seems to be that "me" only experiences what the eyes attached to "me" experience. But then that must mean "I" has a spacial location for the eyes to attach to. So "I" am somewhere in the world and the world presumably contains many other "I"s as well. So you all have spatial locations too. Locations apart from mine.

I presume that consciousness is created or enabled by the brain, and what it is conscious of is delivered to it via the brain. Beyond that, I wouldn't want to talk about its location in space. But when we say "I", or "me", we don't always mean the same thing. If you were to say, "I nearly got run over by a bus today", it wouldn't seem to be same "I" as if you were to say, "I was thinking about rainbows today", if you see what I mean. One "I" is a physical object, while the other "I" would seem to be immatereal. When you say "I", you could be referring to your shape and size, or you could be referring to your emotional feelings, and other people would understand what you meant by the context.

Ultimately, wouldn't they be the same, though? The same "I" who gets run over by a bus presumably feels the pain (for the sake of argument) of a broken foot. Or are you suggesting straight up dualism? (Not that dualism may not be a valid position.)

But these sort of questions always comes back to who and/or what is 'it' that is feeling 'the pain'?

[Age]

I suppose in some sense I seem to be located in my body. If my body is not near the computer, then I am not near the computer.

Suppose I am now looking at my computer screen. If I get up and walk away from the computer screen, into the kitchen, I am no longer near it. I would then be looking at the refrigerator (for the sake of argument). What would happen if, instead of getting up and walking to the kitchen, my brain was (successfully) surgically removed from the rest of my body and (successfully) surgically transplanted into another body with a pair of eyes attached to it that was pointed in the direction of the refrigerator? Would "I" then still (equally) be looking at the refrigerator? Would "I" feel the sensations that were running through the other body?

Most of you would be in the new body.
However you also normally have a good deal of neural matter in your heart and digestive system.

'you', "sculptor', say and write here;

"Most of you ...", and, "you also ...", like who and what the 'you' is, exactly, is already known.

Who and/or what the 'you' is, exactly, is what is being sort out here.

This means that the things that most effect your heart and GI track would remain in the old body.

In the new body you might find that you had new aversions to some foods, and like for others and maybe you would be more interested in things that got you excited like a sports game that you never liked before. If you new body was gay, you might have a tendency to look at the same sex in ways you had not done before.

So, when 'you', the one known as "sculptor" here, call "another" 'gay', all 'you' really mean is that that physical body is gay and nothing else, correct?

Heart transplant recipients give testimony to unusual new interests, and when compared with their donors can how remarkable coincidences.
cite:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31739081/

So, the thinking, the likes, the dislikes, and the tendencies exist within the blood pumping hearts of 'you', human beings, correct?

[Age]

The easy answer seems to be that "me" only experiences what the eyes attached to "me" experience. But then that must mean "I" has a spacial location for the eyes to attach to. So "I" am somewhere in the world and the world presumably contains many other "I"s as well. So you all have spatial locations too. Locations apart from mine.

I presume that consciousness is created or enabled by the brain, and what it is conscious of is delivered to it via the brain. Beyond that, I wouldn't want to talk about its location in space. But when we say "I", or "me", we don't always mean the same thing. If you were to say, "I nearly got run over by a bus today", it wouldn't seem to be same "I" as if you were to say, "I was thinking about rainbows today", if you see what I mean. One "I" is a physical object, while the other "I" would seem to be immatereal. When you say "I", you could be referring to your shape and size, or you could be referring to your emotional feelings, and other people would understand what you meant by the context.

"I nearly got run over by a bus today", it wouldn't seem to be same "I" as if you were to say, "I was thinking about rainbows today", if you see what I mean. One "I" is a physical object, while the other "I" would seem to be immatereal.

Spinoza said they (the physical and the immatereal ) are two aspects of the same.

The same 'what', EXACTLY?

By the way, I have ALREADY answered what 'they' are the two aspects of EXACTLY, numerous times throughout this forum.

[Age]

There is a lot of confusion regarding the term "I". When someone refers to "I", they could mean any number of things. So, if someone wants to discuss the nature of "I", they really need to define what exactly they mean by the term beforehand. And it will often be the case that, by defining it, they will, at the same time, be answering their original question about it.

"I" is certainly a difficult thing to define. I guess the best way would be in terms of identity. I am presumably not you and visa versa. There's presumably a different consciousness that is experiencing what you are experiencing. And you are not experiencing the same things I am.

A thing that concerns me is, if consciousness is an emergent property, then how does a particular consciousness 'attach' to a particular body in the world? Why am I experiencing the experience this body is having and not what some other set of eyes experiences.

The easy answer seems to be that "me" only experiences what the eyes attached to "me" experience. But then that must mean "I" has a spacial location for the eyes to attach to. So "I" am somewhere in the world and the world presumably contains many other "I"s as well. So you all have spatial locations too. Locations apart from mine.

The confusion arises based on your assumption. That “you” are a “particular” consciousness. The particulars arise in consciousness, and you take yourself to be those particulars. Yet you are not. You are the general, and the unknowable. You are the light, not what is illuminated.

If one still does NOT YET KNOW who NOR what they are, or either BELIEVES that they are UNKNOWABLE, there therein lies CONFUSION, ITSELF.

On some level you are also the illuminated, but not if you take the light and the illuminated to be separate. They are not separate, the mind has been seemingly divided into subject and object, yet, the reality is there is not division. The division itself, is part of the illusion.

The 'division' is caused solely by 'you', human beings, through 'conceptual thinking'. But this type of thinking was necessary for 'I' to come-to-KNOW thy Self.

See, for 'you', human beings. to make sense of 'the world', or more accurately, 'the Universe', in which 'you' have found "yourselves", then 'dividing' thee One into 'conceptual things', and naming and labeling EVERY one of 'them', is HOW, through 'you', human beings, 'I' came to KNOW who AND what 'I' am, EXACTLY.

[Age]

Ultimately, wouldn't they be the same, though? The same "I" who gets run over by a bus presumably feels the pain (for the sake of argument) of a broken foot. Or are you suggesting straight up dualism? (Not that dualism may not be a valid position.)

I don't know anything about "dualism". What I am saying is that when we say "I", we sometims mean our entire physical package, and we sometimes just mean our emotions, or our thoughts. There is no consistent, absolute, definition of "I".

By "I" I mean consciousness or experience, and it seems to be linked somehow to physical space (as in the ordinary, everyday view of 3d space time reality).

'you', "gary childress", here are just PROVING, EXACTLY, what "harbal" was just saying and POINTING OUT. That is; 'you', human beings, provide completely DIFFERENT definitions, and that there is NO consistent, absolute, definition about 'I', among 'you', human beings.

And, as I continually say and POINT OUT, thus the continual CONFUSION among 'you', adult human beings.

But how? What makes me or you an "I" and not a (presumably) uncoscious automaton or machine?

But 'you', human beings, are NOT 'I'.

There is only One 'I'. There are, however, MANY 'i's'.

But yes, "I" is a difficult concept to come to grasp if you really think about it.

It CERTAINLY IS when 'you' use the concepts that 'you', human beings, have been using for MANY years hitherto, when this is being written.