So this is your best argumentation? That when you see crying baby, you see, that YOU is existing somewhere in you?

I will tell you a secret - that crying baby doesn´t have concept of self like you. There is no "I" in that baby.

There isn't? Then what is being shaped and why is that baby fighting for life if he isn't aware of his own helplessness/dependency?

I am the thinker.

In what possible way could you reasonably suggest that the self is not real?

Please...for the love of zeus...do not say something you read in some book...read and dismissed them all.

Correct.

But that's not an "I", it's simply the experience of a pattern that suggests a relation between thoughts, memories etc. In the selfing process we relate these memories and patterns to an I in a way such that we say "I am present, I remember this event, I experience the memory, etc."

Yes, it's circular. An experience that appears and disappears and contains the pointing to an I, and the I exists only in and as that pointing. So there is an incessant movement that is never fulfilled (the I can never find itself). When we actually witness the appearance of that context, then we witness that it's literally like a story is being written anew spontaneously and instantenously each time it reappears.

I've never read Descartes except in interpretations, but the way I understand "cogito ergo sum" is that yes, he commited the fallacy because he was held hostage by the intuition. If he weren't then I think he would have concluded that there is "just thinking."

The other uses are ideas that make sense relative to practical purposes. Whether you believe them or not is irrelevant to the intimate intuition, which is believed regardless of your intellectual inclinations. For example you can have the intellectual understanding that there is no free will, but still you will experience life as though you do.

You do believe in the intimate intuition, but it's unreflected, you're viewing the world from within the sense of self and because you're too close to it it appears like it is essential to existence and you can't differentiate sufficiently to see that it is actually just another experience. Instead of relating the investigation towards yourself in the most intimate sense possible, you think about what it means to be a self from within intellectual models and thus don't address the intuition in an intimate sense. This is what I meant in saying that the intellect deflects you from the actual looking.

You lost me here. I don't see how you answered my question: "If you define self as a variable collection of events, things and experiences, then I wonder how there can be a way to falsify the claim that you are a self." In other words, if you say that self is about a variable collection of things, and that even if one thing goes out of existence, the self remains and can even expand towards other things that come into existence (I lose a part of my self when my milk teeth fall out, and gain a part of my self when new teeth grow) then it seems that I can't really ever falsify the claim that I exist.

There is awareness of fear, but the experience is so subtle that you don't notice it and thus can't articulate it. I'm not sure what the unconscious has to do with the topic. Are you saying that the "real self" might be hiding in there?

For phenomenological research it is required that we approach subjective contents without an agenda and let the content show itself without us imposing a premature interpretation. The task at hand is extremely simple. If anything, the goal should be to make it as simple as possible.

As a hypothesis you can try "the subjectively experienced self is an illusion created by a biological organism" and see if it's consistent with reality. But the thing is that this strategy will in itself not facilitate no-self realization. You might be able to convince yourself of the truth of the hypothesis, but the problem will remain, because this strategy is limited to the intellect.

I recommend Metzinger's work, which I think will satisfy your desire for a non-simplistic empiricism. His no-self is the same thing as I explain, but unfortunately it's not within his focus to point toward a realization of no-self that goes beyond an intellectual representation.

I have just realised why OP is full of ****. If he says self does not exist, then he is thinking he is the only thing that exists, for he must, obviously, and OP don't argue because just the fact you are arguing proves my point that you exist. (dont say some stuff about body existing but not you, wtf do you think a body is,,,,,,, 'somebody'!) is OP I guarantee you I am here and I am very real. I don't think its healthy going in that direction of philosophy thing where 'selves' or being is not real, it makes you start thinkin ****, such as you can commit a crime and be like, i dont exist, so there's no one to punish

Just came back to say Gorodeckyj adecleir you guys are confirmed correct and warlocks indeed. Let me never go blind again.

Its "argument", not "argumentation"......


What you tell us is not a secret, its basic developmental psychology.

There is no "I" in a 90 yr old, endstage Alzheimer's patient either.....
so what -
whats your point.

Splenda says when you hear a crying baby, you definitely react as a person...not a "nothing"

Again...you're both wrong. There is probably more I in that baby than there will be at any point thereafter.

Self is not real - prove me wrong. Do not post some random bulls... PROVE ME WRONG!!!

When you say "I am happy", describe that word "I". What do you mean by that? Where is that hidden? How does that change during life? Is that real?

And please just don´t post something you read in some book. Give me YOUR honest answer. Tell me the truth.

This thread is tilting me, I, MY, my SELF, my I, my ME, your ME, my inner I, my inner ME, and most importantly, the Me I that doesn't exist!





I
pronoun
Used to refer to oneself as speaker or writer.
n. pl. I's
The self; the ego.


dumbass version
I
whatever
Used to refer to something that doesn't exist

Ok my english is bad. Look at what I am trying to say and forgive my grammar mistakes.

My point was to show, that argument that YOU exist becouse you can see that on crying baby is bulls...

If there is no I in 90 yr old Alzheimer´s patient, does that mean, there must be "I" somewhere in you? Why is that?

When you say person, what do you mean by that? What is person for you? Are you saying, you are acting like you have concept of yourself in you? Are you saying, that when you hear crying baby, you act like you have concept of yourself in you? No problem with that. Is that concept something real?

Ehyeh asher ehyeh

This is just statement. You can say whatever you want. Is that true? Give me proof.

You didn´t answer my question before:
What is this "I" for you? Who you are? How do you describe word "I", when you say I am happy? Please focus and say only pure truth. You don´t need to write long posts, just basic truth, like if you describe something to 8 years old.

Instead of honest answer you post stupid picture. Can you answer my question, or are you just ****ing coward?

LOL, you are so wrong. Everything you write here is so wrong, you don´t know how far from truth you are right now.

If there is argument from this brain, it is just thought, that fingers wrote here trought keyboard of laptop. No proof about ME in that.

You guarantee you are here and very real. What do you mean by that? Body is real, thoughts are real, feelings are real. What about concept you call "I"? Is that real?

If you don´t think it is healthy going in that direction, it is just your opinion, which is wrong by the way. It is not healthy to live life throught concept in your head, which tells you what you like or don´t what you should or shouldn´t, when to be happy or sad.

This "I see" part of your sentence is strictly necessary for it's validity.

Your logic is like, the worst logic ever.

Why are you being like this. You know I am my body and thoughts, and within these thoughts is a perception of self, based upon opinion and fact and relativity. Are you trying to say that you have seen that you are deterministic? I can make decisions. I have decided you are levelling yourself.

I tell me what to do. I have instincts also which is a part of self but not concious self. You just have mild psychosis and confusion. The self is not 'one thing', there is not one aspect that defines it, and it changes so much you can never see it as information.

Who tells who what to do? What exactly do you mean by "I" and what do you mean by "ME"?

No, you can´t. In fact you are not making any decisions. Think about this: when I know what food do you like, I will know exactly what food will you choose from every menu. Every decision can be seen like that. You choose what to do only becouse of your past experiences. If I would have all your experiences, I would decide every decision same like you. If I would know you perfectly, I would know all your decision, before you will make them. I will know what you will choose in every situation. So the question is: Are there any decisions at all? Also look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i3AiOS4nCE

Ok, the self is not one thing - so what is self?
If you say it changes so much you can never see it as information, tell me, by what is that changing? What changes your self and how? Examples please. What is yourself now in this moment?

Ha, what is this nonsense, you coward!
Look at you defending something you dont even believe in yourself, its exactly that, a perception, something that aint real. "Within these thoughts is a perception of self", do you realize how much of a hippy you actually sound like there?
THOUGHTS WHIZZ AROUND BY THEMSELVES, YOU CANT CONTROL THEM.
Thoughts show you an image of pink elephant , but that pink elephant isnt real, its just an image. Thoughts show you an image of self, its called self image, but guess what man? THAT AINT REAL.
THoughts show an image of your car, now you can go look at your car, the car is real but the image of it isnt actually the car. Its just an image. Whats the difference between the car and that self? The car can be referenced with direct experience.



Hes not levelling himself , he cant. Decisions are made in that brain. STOP BEING STUPID AND BELIEVING THAT THERE IS AN EXTRA YOU IS ACTUALLY MAKING THEM.
They just pop up, there is no you to do squat. Its a belief , simple as.


puke, is there 2 yous now? As if one wasnt bad enough.

WTF is this ****, so now it changes and transforms and whizzes around so you can never catch it. Its a belief man, get over yourself and look at that one simple thing.
Check to see if the self is actually real by looking.

Nonsense, It was never there, it was always a belief. You cant even ignore it cause theres nothing to ignore.
You cant even find it and your still defending it.

The life just tips along living like any other life, so responsibility will always be taken. Unless you're irresponsible.
Next your gonna say "but but but .... you need self for happiness"

Why dont you stop being a chicken **** and actually look for yourself and see its not real instead of waiting for handouts from me?
Ill give you one handout, some instructions if you actually are interested in looking...
http://theselfisfalse.blogspot.com/p/what-do-i-do.html

I hate books, I get bored after 3 pages.

In the context I used... 'I' would be past/present and 'me' would be present/future. I can tell my future self what to do. I am my past. You cannot say self does not exist when you obviously have a history to prove so.



Well my desires are an aspect of my identity, and you acknowledging my identity causes you to be able to DECIDE which I would eat.

My theory in that you think that you have seen that you are deterministic is obviously correct, or your statement. This is much more complicated and ultimately the knowledge does not matter. I don't get how you can be more free though lol. Duality is the only rational conclusion. Which is paradox.


you cannot define this moment, it is so small it does not exist other than in light.

food. water. knowledge. stimulus. decision. chemistry. location. relativity. desire. Even how much spunk is in your balls or if you have a tattoo.

These are huge and obvious, now you want them broken down further, and past the point which you can no longer see, it is down to the ever shifting alignment of energy.

look at your won thoughts. Its not good to think like this and trust me I have thought like this many times. You might aswell just go with what you are given

Yes I can. I can also make them completely disappear.

of course it's real. I can see it.

The car is energy, the thought of a car is energy. Eenergy is real. obviously.

Well the rest of your post does not warrant any reply from what I see. Just going in circles.

The problem is, is that the depth of soul is infinite or at least might aswell be. Finding where you are is no different to finding where a cm ends, or drawing a perfect circle. You can't do it with binary.