Is there actually any more evidence for "I" than for "God?"

[Nick227]

I've been interested in this area for a while and wanted to put this question out to see if I could develop my understanding more.

It seems to me that there is an acute lack of evidence for "I," possibly putting it on a similar par to "God."

In considering the wider issue of "selfhood," of which I figure the "I" is an aspect, it seems that there is reasonable evidence for parts of it. Body-map and mirroring seem fairly well established as being the products of demonstrable brain processes. But it seems to me that the "I" is more elusive. I would also question subjective experiential evidence for "I" in that it seems a non-sequitur for one to state that he or she "experiences I," viz... "who is experiencing?"

So, I'm left thus far with "I" being purely a belief, with no more evidence for its existence than other unevidenced beliefs, such as "God."

As an ancillary question...if "I" cannot be demonstrated to be anything other than a belief, can objectivity itself, which seems to me to be acutely reliant on "I," be considered a valid tool for investigating the nature of reality?

Nick

[leon_heller]

"I" is generally considered to be associated with consciousness.

Leon

[Lanzy]

I know for sure that "I" is sitting right here.

[jimtron]

It can get tricky to define consciousness, but "I" can see myself in the mirror, and can take a photo of myself, and you all can see me if we meet or I post a photo. The same can't be said for god.

eta: there are many ways that I can show other people that I exist. I don't know of any direct way to show that god exists. Or am I missing the point of the OP?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

This is actually recognized by Buddhism.

Basically, what is referred to as "I" or "self" is really just a collection of non-self elements.

Well, it also has to do with where you are coming from in defining "I". The Buddha was responding to the idea that we have an eternal, independent, essential self, i.e. a soul.

[Apathia]

"I" as a metaphysical entity?
No more substance, no more evidence than God.

"I" as my experience of selfhood?
That's strictly anecdotal.

But speaking to my personal experience of self,
what Tsukasa Buddha cited above.

[Nick227]

It can get tricky to define consciousness, but "I" can see myself in the mirror, and can take a photo of myself, and you all can see me if we meet or I post a photo. The same can't be said for god.

eta: there are many ways that I can show other people that I exist. I don't know of any direct way to show that god exists. Or am I missing the point of the OP?

Well, the brain has the capacity to recognise the body's reflection, yes.

It's not so much that the body, feelings, thoughts and experiences don't exist, rather that none of these things demonstrate "I", and that the belief in "I" can't be substantiated.

Nick

[Civilized Worm]

What exactly do you mean by "I"?

[Nick227]

Well, it also has to do with where you are coming from in defining "I". The Buddha was responding to the idea that we have an eternal, independent, essential self, i.e. a soul.

An "experiencer," you mean?

Nick

[rocketdodger]

What, exactly, are you talking about, Nick? Are you trying to rationalize your particular brand of idealism again?

Here is my solution to the problem: There is no problem. I think I am just a biological robot. Any notions of "I" that I develop are merely self-referential data structures in my material brain.

The hard problem of consciousness is a trick used by armchair and keyboard philosphers. Nothing more. The problem does not even exist unless you make unfounded assumptions to begin with.

[jimtron]

Well, the brain has the capacity to recognise the body's reflection, yes.

It's not so much that the body, feelings, thoughts and experiences don't exist, rather that none of these things demonstrate "I", and that the belief in "I" can't be substantiated.

Nick


Yes, I see what you mean. I guess the "I" probably can't be substantiated.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

An "experiencer," you mean?

Nick

I guess. A common phrasing is there are experiences, but no one who experiences; there are thoughts, but no thinker; actions, but no actor.

Of course, we have to be careful with our exact definitions.

[JoeEllison]

You have to admit that the whole "god" concept is ready to be flushed down the toilet when one of the main defenses of the belief is to question the existence of everything, and claim that we can't know anything at all. When you have to reject all possible knowledge in order to maintain your belief system, it is in your own best interest to just give it up already!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I must admit to not knowing the opening poster, but if this is somehow an apology for believing in god, I don't see it working.

[Loss Leader]

My existence, at least, is not inconsistent with the known physical laws of the universe.

[Civilized Worm]

But you can't say Loss Leader exists right?

[paximperium]

But you can't say Loss Leader exists right?
Oh gawd...philosophy. This has been argued to death by the existentialist and just about every philosopher since Socrates. My philosophy is very rusty but:

Remember, "I think, therefore I am" by Descartes?
While this argument has its flaws(yes...circular reasoning is one of them), if someone is pondering about their own existence that is enough evidence of their own existence.

This is the only true thing that can be said about reality. The only truth that one can be sure of is that the "I" is real. Everything else could be an illusion. Everyone you know could be a big computer simulation(ie. The Matrix) or everything could be an illusion. However, this is irrelevant since this illusion is so "real" that you cannot tell it apart from reality or an illusion, why bother caring if what your experience is real if it is essentially real to you?

That said, the idea of a self appears biology. Various strokes can lead to a person losing the concept of self. They forget the right of their body even exist, they forget their face in the mirror etc.
Try using certain drugs and the concept of self disappears. Certain drugs can lead to out of body experiences.

[Civilized Worm]

Actually I was just making a joke referencing the quote in his sig.

[paximperium]

Actually I was just making a joke referencing the quote in his sig.

Isn't he suppose to be "Doctor" Loss Leader this week, Loss Leader PhD. next week and President Loss Leader next month?

Woah...is there one Loss Leader or many?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Nick227,
Is there actually any more evidence for "I" than for "God?"

Both are words ( that is what the quotation marks are for). No difficulty there.

It seems to me that there is an acute lack of evidence for "I," possibly putting it on a similar par to "God."

Same answer. Unless what you are implying is that any of us — Smith, say— can offer no better reason for believing in his (Smith's) existence than in the existence of God. I'm sure you can see what's wrong with that: Smith can provide all sorts of evidence about his own doings. Or we can hunt out the evidence for ourselves.

But in that case body-maps and mirroring don't come into it at all.

[drkitten]

It seems to me that there is an acute lack of evidence for "I," possibly putting it on a similar par to "God."

Nonsense. Drop a hammer on my foot. "I" am the entity that feels the pain.

If you don't believe me, drop a hammer on your own foot. You will have no more doubt about the existence of "I".

Now,... drop a hammer on God's foot. Go ahead. I double-dog dare you.

("Thus do I refute Bishop Berkeley.")

[JoeTheJuggler]

No one's quoted Descartes yet, so I will: Cogito ergo sum.

ETA: Sorry, pax, I just noticed you'd already quoted it.

[articulett]

I have unique DNA; god has nothing material.

I can type my own damn words; god apparently can only dictate via revelation and the like.

I'm visible; god isn't.

Lots-o-evidence for me aka "I"
Zero evidence for any gods

[rocketdodger]

I have unique DNA; god has nothing material.

Technically, you think you do.

I can type my own damn words; god apparently can only dictate via revelation and the like.

Technically, you think you can.

I'm visible; god isn't.

Technically, you think you are.

Lots-o-evidence for me aka "I"
Zero evidence for any gods

Techincally, you only think so.

My point here is to head off the expected equivocation that people like plumjam will attempt. Even if everything is subjective and solipsism is true, within our subjective experiences there is much evidence for ourselves and zero for God.

[Nick227]

What exactly do you mean by "I"?

I must admit that, on reflection, I find this a very challenging question to answer. Thanks for asking it.

It seems that in the action of trying to answer it, the "I" is so unavoidable that I cannot find a perspective from which to try and create a definition!

Nick

[Nick227]

You have to admit that the whole "god" concept is ready to be flushed down the toilet when one of the main defenses of the belief is to question the existence of everything, and claim that we can't know anything at all. When you have to reject all possible knowledge in order to maintain your belief system, it is in your own best interest to just give it up already!

I don't believe in God and I'm not questioning the existence of everything! I'm questioning the substantial existence of "I," that's all.

To be honest about "God"...I certainly don't believe in the orthodox Christian God. But if pushed I guess it seems to me that there is some innate organising power to the universe that operates through our experience of free will, when we don't get in the way, that is.

Nick

[Nick227]

I guess. A common phrasing is there are experiences, but no one who experiences; there are thoughts, but no thinker; actions, but no actor.

Of course, we have to be careful with our exact definitions.

Yes. "Is there an experiencer?" is another interesting question.

Nick

[Nick227]

No one's quoted Descartes yet, so I will: Cogito ergo sum.

ETA: Sorry, pax, I just noticed you'd already quoted it.

You're stating that thought is impossible without "I?" Does a machine need an "I" to process information?

It seems to me that Descartes is not making any statement about "I." He is creating a relationship between thought and existence.

Nick

[paximperium]

I must admit that, on reflection, I find this a very challenging question to answer. Thanks for asking it.

It seems that in the action of trying to answer it, the "I" is so unavoidable that I cannot find a perspective from which to try and give a definition!

Nick
Well among certain Buddhists philosophies, the "I" is nothing more than an illusion. The "I" is transitory. The person I am a milisecond ago is a different person from the I am right now. While there is an arbitrary/subjective version of "I", the "I" is an illusion made-up to give you something to hold on to when there is in fact...no "I". The sooner you come to that realization, the better.

There is one reason I keep away from such philosophy...it slowly drives you insane.

[paximperium]

You're stating that thought is impossible without "I?" Does a machine need an "I" to process information?

It seems to me that Descartes is not making any statement about "I." He is creating a relationship between thought and existence.

Nick

I believe that Descarte was arguing that the only 100% true thing that anyone can ever state is that "I" can think, therefore "I" am real("I" exist). Anything else could be false or an illusion.

[Nick227]

Same answer. Unless what you are implying is that any of us — Smith, say— can offer no better reason for believing in his (Smith's) existence than in the existence of God. I'm sure you can see what's wrong with that: Smith can provide all sorts of evidence about his own doings. Or we can hunt out the evidence for ourselves.

But in that case body-maps and mirroring don't come into it at all.

Well, I'm not disputing the existence of any of the experiential phenomena of life - objects around us, the body, thoughts, feelings, etc. My question merely applies to the "I." And, from this, to the experience of objectivity.

The "body map" and "mirroring" relate to selfhood. To me they are aspects of selfhood. "I" is another aspect of selfhood.

Nick

[Mobyseven]

Remember, "I think, therefore I am" by Descartes?
While this argument has its flaws(yes...circular reasoning is one of them), if someone is pondering about their own existence that is enough evidence of their own existence.

No, it's not. The argument is incredibly flawed - in its premises it uses what superficially appears to be a valid predicate, but is in fact not. That is an argument against it on syntactic ground - other arguments against it have been made to the effect that it is begging the question to assume that "I" am thinking - really all I can say is that thoughts exist, or that thinking is occurring.

This is the only true thing that can be said about reality. The only truth that one can be sure of is that the "I" is real. Everything else could be an illusion. Everyone you know could be a big computer simulation(ie. The Matrix) or everything could be an illusion. However, this is irrelevant since this illusion is so "real" that you cannot tell it apart from reality or an illusion, why bother caring if what your experience is real if it is essentially real to you?

Well, as I mentioned above, we really can't be sure that any "I" exists. But that aside, the point you make here is a very good one, and one I agree with. Take as a hypothetical that there really is no "I". Well then, it is by definition impossible for me to ever discover that there is no "I", because in order for that to happen the thoughts that created the illusion of "I" would have cease doing so, and therefore "I" would no longer even exist as an illusion to know anything!

My head's spinning now - at least I think it's mine. At least, I think I think it's mine. At least...I need to lie down.

[Nick227]

I believe that Descarte was arguing that the only 100% true thing that anyone can ever state is that "I" can think, therefore "I" am real("I" exist). Anything else could be false or an illusion.

Thanks for explaining. So, as I see it, he's coming from a quite different angle. I wouldn't personally bother disputing that many of the observable phenomena of life are real. I could, I suppose, but I flatter myself that I can think of better ways to spend my time! I'm more examining the nature of "I."

As a related question...if "I" is insubstantial, then how does this affect the validity of objectivity? Are other selfhood-related phenomena such as body-map and mirroring sufficient to validate the objective perspective, without an substantial "I?"

Nick

[Nick227]

No, it's not. The argument is incredibly flawed - in its premises it uses what superficially appears to be a valid predicate, but is in fact not. That is an argument against it on syntactic ground - other arguments against it have been made to the effect that it is begging the question to assume that "I" am thinking - really all I can say is that thoughts exist, or that thinking is occurring.

Yes, I agree.

Well, as I mentioned above, we really can't be sure that any "I" exists. But that aside, the point you make here is a very good one, and one I agree with. Take as a hypothetical that there really is no "I". Well then, it is by definition impossible for me to ever discover that there is no "I", because in order for that to happen the thoughts that created the illusion of "I" would have cease doing so, and therefore "I" would no longer even exist as an illusion to know anything!

Well, the presence of thought alone does not, to my mind, substantiate "I." What creates the sensation, or belief, in "I" seems to be the act of identifying the thoughts as "mine," rather than "Nick's." This is about as far as I can get!

My head's spinning now - at least I think it's mine. At least, I think I think it's mine. At least...I need to lie down.

Me too.

Nick

[paximperium]

No, it's not. The argument is incredibly flawed - in its premises it uses what superficially appears to be a valid predicate, but is in fact not. That is an argument against it on syntactic ground - other arguments against it have been made to the effect that it is begging the question to assume that "I" am thinking - really all I can say is that thoughts exist, or that thinking is occurring.
Oh well...that's what you get for being over a decade out from college. Yeah, I remember then that that argument in at by itself is apparently very flawed but it is still an interesting idea.


Well, as I mentioned above, we really can't be sure that any "I" exists. But that aside, the point you make here is a very good one, and one I agree with. Take as a hypothetical that there really is no "I". Well then, it is by definition impossible for me to ever discover that there is no "I", because in order for that to happen the thoughts that created the illusion of "I" would have cease doing so, and therefore "I" would no longer even exist as an illusion to know anything!

Exactly. This is a major argument against solipsism and existentialism. I call it the "Who gives a ****" argument.

[Darat]

...snip...

This is the only true thing that can be said about reality. The only truth that one can be sure of is that the "I" is real.

...snip...

This doesn't work either - and it's the flaw most solipsist and many idealists always fail to address. I.e Taking the assumption that their thoughts are "real thoughts" - when you get down to you could just be the imagination of another mind. That you think you think is, as you pointed, circular reasoning.

My view is a much more pragmatic one - I think I think that I exist so that's good enough for me, but I do realise that is just assumption.

To address the opening post directly - the question you pose is in fact unanswerable until you provide a definition for "god" and "I" as you are using them.

[paximperium]

This doesn't work either - and it's the flaw most solipsist and many idealists always fail to address. Taking the assumption that their thoughts are "real thoughts" - when you get down to you could just be the imagination of another mind. That you think you think is as you pointed is circular reasoning.

My view is a much more pragmatic one - I think I think that I exist so that's good enough for me, but I do realise that is just assumption.

To address the opening post directly - the question you pose is in fact unanswerable until you provide a definition for "god" and "I" as you are using them.

Woah there boss. I was just giving a textbook Descarte answer. There is a reason that existentionalists and other philosophies still came about after Descartes due to the multitide of flaws from this reasoning. Read the bottom of my post above as my thoughts on this issue.

[Mobyseven]

Oh well...that's what you get for being over a decade out from college. Yeah, I remember then that that argument in at by itself is apparently very flawed but it is still an interesting idea.

Only us undergraduates have the time to actually go through and look at this stuff. To be fair, I'm have an unfair advantage in that we actually went through and analysed the logical structure of Descartes argument last year when we were doing introductory predicate logic.

Exactly. This is a major argument against solipsism and existentialism. I call it the "Who gives a ****" argument.

In a manner, yeah.

[porch]

As sure as the sun rises and sets, "I" is a linguistic convenience that expresses our experience, but not the behind-the-scenes reality.

[Nick227]

My view is a much more pragmatic one - I think I think that I exist so that's good enough for me, but I do realise that is just assumption.

If I understand you right, this is not really the point I'm trying to make. I could be wrong but it seems that way to me.

I'm not questioning for an instant that you exist. I am more examining the nature of this "I." There is a difference.

I don't think the presence of thoughts does anything to ratify selfhood, so I can't see how it could ratify the more limited aspect of selfhood - "I." One can experience thoughts passing through the mind, unidentified with and unacted upon.

To address the opening post directly - the question you pose is in fact unanswerable until you provide a definition for "god" and "I" as you are using them.

Fair enough. I must confess that I am unable to define "I" for a start, (and don't feel much inclined to try and define "God.") When I wilfully try and seek this "I," in order to assess it in some way, I find no vantage point inside myself, no perspective from which I can do this. The I seems only to be created with a wilful act of self-examination or self-expression.

Nick

[Nick227]

As sure as the sun rises and sets, "I" is a linguistic convenience that expresses our experience, but not the behind-the-scenes reality.

Something I notice is that the act of identifying with thoughts or feelings - making them "my thoughts" or "my feelings" (as opposed to "Nick's thoughts" or "Nick's feelings") creates a sense of personal investment in them, an increased emotional intensity. Thus, whilst I partially agree with you, I think there is more to it than linguistic convenience. I also don't know for sure.

Nick

[Apathia]

Something I notice is that the act of identifying with thoughts or feelings - making them "my thoughts" or "my feelings" (as opposed to "Nick's thoughts" or "Nick's feelings") creates a sense of personal investment in them, an increased emotional intensity. Thus, whilst I partially agree with you, I think there is more to it than linguistic convenience. I also don't know for sure.

Nick

Sure, emotions are theater, Nick.
But sometimes its good to own them as oppposed to disassociation.

I'm reminded of a Tibetan Buddhist Lama who insisted in an interview that he never got angry. He claimed to be such an enlightened being that he was beyond anger.
However, he admitted that in circumstances of frustration he'd suffer upset stomach and digestive disorders.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Technically, you think you do.



Technically, you think you can.



Technically, you think you are.



Techincally, you only think so.



And what is the "you" that is doing all this thinking?

Also, when they say that the "I" or the "self" is just an illusion, that leads to the question, "What experiences the illusion?"

In other words, how can I be deluded into thinking that I exist if there is no me to be deluded?

[Nick227]

Sure, emotions are theater, Nick.
But sometimes its good to own them as oppposed to disassociation.

I'm reminded of a Tibetan Buddhist Lama who insisted in an interview that he never got angry. He claimed to be such an enlightened being that he was beyond anger.
However, he admitted that in circumstances of frustration he'd suffer upset stomach and digestive disorders.

Yes, I would agree. Part of my job is as a therapist, so I have quite an investment here!

My personal, pet theory with the "I" is that it arises as a means to try and bring unconscious dramas to the surface. In key life decisions people often make choices not based on rational evaluation but on which choice "feels right." It's particularly noticeable in choosing partners. Some people go for the same "type" over and over again, acting out the same drama, and never finding much happiness. When you unravel it in therapy it becomes clear that there was a unconscious attraction often relating to unmet needs from childhood. The unconscious dynamic is constantly trying to come to the surface.

It seems to me that the unconscious has a means to cause certain thoughts to be identified with, regardless of how rational they are.

Nick

[Dancing David]

I've been interested in this area for a while and wanted to put this question out to see if I could develop my understanding more.

It seems to me that there is an acute lack of evidence for "I," possibly putting it on a similar par to "God."

In considering the wider issue of "selfhood," of which I figure the "I" is an aspect, it seems that there is reasonable evidence for parts of it. Body-map and mirroring seem fairly well established as being the products of demonstrable brain processes. But it seems to me that the "I" is more elusive. I would also question subjective experiential evidence for "I" in that it seems a non-sequitur for one to state that he or she "experiences I," viz... "who is experiencing?"

So, I'm left thus far with "I" being purely a belief, with no more evidence for its existence than other unevidenced beliefs, such as "God."

As an ancillary question...if "I" cannot be demonstrated to be anything other than a belief, can objectivity itself, which seems to me to be acutely reliant on "I," be considered a valid tool for investigating the nature of reality?

Nick


i is an illusion just like god. there is a body, there are emotions, thoughts, perceptions and habits. that is all.

God lacks even that.

No self, no I , just the five heaps.

[Dancing David]

And what is the "you" that is doing all this thinking?

Also, when they say that the "I" or the "self" is just an illusion, that leads to the question, "What experiences the illusion?"

In other words, how can I be deluded into thinking that I exist if there is no me to be deluded?


there is the experience of the thought"what experiences the illusion?", it is a transitory stae of neurological association, verbal cognition.

So that is one of the five heaps body, thoughts, emotions, perceptions and habits.

there is no atman or transcendent self.

[Dancing David]

Something I notice is that the act of identifying with thoughts or feelings - making them "my thoughts" or "my feelings" (as opposed to "Nick's thoughts" or "Nick's feelings") creates a sense of personal investment in them, an increased emotional intensity. Thus, whilst I partially agree with you, I think there is more to it than linguistic convenience. I also don't know for sure.

Nick

that is the seed of attachment which feeds tanha (thirst) and help perpetuate dukka (suffering).

[Apathia]

Yes, I would agree. Part of my job is as a therapist, so I have quite an investment here!

My personal, pet theory with the "I" is that it arises as a means to try and bring unconscious dramas to the surface. In key life decisions people often make choices not based on rational evaluation but on which choice "feels right." It's particularly noticeable in choosing partners. Some people go for the same "type" over and over again, acting out the same drama, and never finding much happiness. When you unravel it in therapy it becomes clear that there was a unconscious attraction often relating to unmet needs from childhood. The unconscious dynamic is constantly trying to come to the surface.

It seems to me that the unconscious has a means to cause certain thoughts to be identified with, regardless of how rational they are.

Nick

Yup!
We are storytellers.
And we always want our fictional protagonist to be, if not the hero, the innocent who was done wrong.

[rocketdodger]

And what is the "you" that is doing all this thinking?

Also, when they say that the "I" or the "self" is just an illusion, that leads to the question, "What experiences the illusion?"

In other words, how can I be deluded into thinking that I exist if there is no me to be deluded?

Irrelevant to my argument. Although I agree wholeheartedly with what you are getting at here.

My argument was that if solipsism was true, and all we could say for sure was "I think <fill-in-the-blank>," then there is still overwhelming evidence for a subjective self and zero evidence for a subjective God.

In other words, moving the goalposts doesn't help the theists at all here.

[Autolite]

"I" have to file an income tax return every year. I know that god doesn't. If god existed then you can be certain that the government would be the first to find him and nail him for several millennium of back taxes...

[Mobyseven]

In other words, how can I be deluded into thinking that I exist if there is no me to be deluded?

You can't be. But that assumes that there is a 'you' to be deluded, which is already an assumption too far.

[Nick227]

My argument was that if solipsism was true, and all we could say for sure was "I think <fill-in-the-blank>," then there is still overwhelming evidence for a subjective self and zero evidence for a subjective God.

In other words, moving the goalposts doesn't help the theists at all here.

I think you are following Descartes in creating a relationship based on assumption. What if there is no actual "I?" Descartes assumed the "I" was a priori. He did not think to look at things the other way around.

If there is no actual "I" - is anything actually affected? Is anything sensorily different?

The action of unconsciously identifying with thoughts creates for the mind, which is essentially a machine, the conscious belief that it has an "I." But it does not examine the belief to see if it's true. It simply proceeds from assumptions.

Nick

[Nick227]

Yup!
We are storytellers.
And we always want our fictional protagonist to be, if not the hero, the innocent who was done wrong.

And the stories that we act out do have the potential to bring into our conscious awareness that which is hidden within us, to lead us into greater self-awareness.

There does seem to be an underlying motivation behind the unconscious action of identification with thought and feeling. It's to create a situation in the person's life where they could become more self-aware, more aware of unconscious patterns in their own mind.

Thus I would submit that there is an unconscious drive towards greater self-awareness constantly being acted out through identification with thought.

Eve bit the apple and Adam came to believe he had free will.

Nick

[Dancing David]

And the stories that we act out do have the potential to bring into our conscious awareness that which is hidden within us, to lead us into greater self-awareness.

There does seem to be an underlying motivation behind the unconscious action of identification with thought and feeling. It's to create a situation in the person's life where they could become more self-aware, more aware of unconscious patterns in their own mind.

Thus I would submit that there is an unconscious drive towards greater self-awareness constantly being acted out through identification with thought.

Eve bit the apple and Adam came to believe he had free will.

Nick

I think I can agree with some of this, except for the unconscious part. there are other terms which might add greater clarity.

I suggest because the term 'unconscious drive ' might lack clarity of communication.

I would argue that conditioning would be a better explanation.

Starting with "Whose a cute baby"

BTW I though A&E ate the apple and god clothed in the flesh of animals.

[Nick227]

I think I can agree with some of this, except for the unconscious part. there are other terms which might add greater clarity.



To me it's that the brain does process both consciously and unconsciously. It's therefore possible to have an unconscious process which provides for the conscious individual the apparent experience of having an "I" and of having free will. By creating an unconscious identification with certain thoughts and feelings the sensation will be that acting on this specific thought, as opposed to that one, gives a heightened sense of individuality. By acting on those thoughts which the unconscious process selects, the conscious sensation of "I" is maintained. If you could make a machine conscious and yet retain a portion of processing of which it is not aware, it should be possible to get it to believe in "I."

Nick

[aggle-rithm]

I don't know if there's an "I", but there's certainly a "me". I know, because he's thirsty for a beer.

[Beerina]

Jesus, you peeps make everything so difficult.


"Who wants free beer????"


I do!

[Jimbo07]

You have to admit that the whole "god" concept is ready to be flushed down the toilet when one of the main defenses of the belief is to question the existence of everything, and claim that we can't know anything at all. When you have to reject all possible knowledge in order to maintain your belief system, it is in your own best interest to just give it up already!

Strangely, this is one area where Christianity and science agree! They stand together in opposition to solipsism and the Matrix idea. Both scientist and Christian believe the world is objective and knowable... one just has an invisible friend running it! ;)

[Apathia]

And the stories that we act out do have the potential to bring into our conscious awareness that which is hidden within us, to lead us into greater self-awareness.
Nick

Write out, also. It's why I write stories, and many literature teachers like Carl Jung.