Why am I me?

[bill]

That is some deep shit. All I know (and think is true) is what that one dude said: I think, therefore I am!

I prefer the line:

"I might think, therefor I could be."

10 points if you know where that is a quote from!

OK, I give up and no other replys..Who???

[leg4li2ed0pe]

That is some deep shit. All I know (and think is true) is what that one dude said: I think, therefore I am!

I prefer the line:

"I might think, therefor I could be."

10 points if you know where that is a quote from!

OK, I give up and no other replys..Who???

If I had to take a guess I would guess Heisenberg.

[JamieW]

"The only solution is that there is no "I" at all."

This is false. You've not given the arguments that don't have a clear answer sufficient audition. You also are seeking an answer which you understand and/or have experienced. Neither of which is required for the answer to be valid.

"Obviously the way I describe this whole thing is off, because there is no "I" sitting behind each of my friends or me for that matter."

Yes, there is. You are trying to create a singular "I" when you have said but missed your own point. "I" is a matter of perspective of which many can exist without making any other one untrue.

You also could not be someone else because then that someone else would become "I" and the same exact question would be asked.

[Bhairav]

That is some deep shit. All I know (and think is true) is what that one dude said: I think, therefore I am!

I prefer the line:

"I might think, therefor I could be."

10 points if you know where that is a quote from!

OK, I give up and no other replys..Who???

If I had to take a guess I would guess Heisenberg.

The Uncertainty Principle guy?

[dodecahedron]

The Uncertainty Principle guy?

LOL

[jase]

None of this is real. I just make it up in my spare time.

[leg4li2ed0pe]

"The only solution is that there is no "I" at all."

This is false. You've not given the arguments that don't have a clear answer sufficient audition. You also are seeking an answer which you understand and/or have experienced. Neither of which is required for the answer to be valid.

"Obviously the way I describe this whole thing is off, because there is no "I" sitting behind each of my friends or me for that matter."

Yes, there is. You are trying to create a singular "I" when you have said but missed your own point. "I" is a matter of perspective of which many can exist without making any other one untrue.

You also could not be someone else because then that someone else would become "I" and the same exact question would be asked.

My point about the only solution being no ego is that if an ego does exist than the ego it self must have an ego and that ego must have an ego, back to infinity. If not, then there was no necessity for an ego to begin with. This is really similar to the idea that the universe needs a creator so there is god, but nobody created got? That doesn't make sense, you would have to have gods back to infinity. So why not just make the universe doing things spontaniously on its own. So the same thing can be applied to individules, negating the need for an ego.

On your point that there is in fact an ego, and that I contradict my self, I admit to contradiction. Thats why its so complicated. If you really think about it no ego exists at all, there is no observer sitting in my head looking through my eyes and hearing through my ears. There is no disctintion in the brain between conscious and unconscious. And yet I feel as though I observe. This is my dilema.

Obviously I would be asking the same question if I was someone else. This does not, however, invalidate the question. What choses who "I" am? Thats my real question. I've sort of decided since writing the original post that asking this question is similar to asking who decides there is a computer monitor in front of me and a keyboard at my fingertips? I think its just part of the spontanious dance of energy. But I am still not totally satisfied by this answer.

[socheat]

My point about the only solution being no ego is that if an ego does exist than the ego it self must have an ego and that ego must have an ego, back to infinity. If not, then there was no necessity for an ego to begin with. This is really similar to the idea that the universe needs a creator so there is god, but nobody created got? That doesn't make sense, you would have to have gods back to infinity. So why not just make the universe doing things spontaniously on its own. So the same thing can be applied to individules, negating the need for an ego.

Can't really say much about the rest of your post, but what you said above is similar to the "What came first the chicken or the egg?" question. I was surprised to learn years ago that question was more than just elementary school entertainment. What came first, consciousness or physical existence?

[JamieW]

I still think you aren't prepared enough to accept that you may not understand the answers. The universe is a big place with lots of shit in it. I'm saying, there's a chance of there being things we don't understand and stuff. I'm not even talking about god, just limitations of man and comprehension at any given time.

I'm not saying that infinite supporting ego/god/whatever is the answer, but just because you don't understand it doesn't make it not the answer. You may also be seeking something you won't know what it looks like even if you find it.

This, and realizing that the questions are ultimately futile and currently unanswerable, is why I gave up on these pursuits. I wasn't getting anything out of it.

[leg4li2ed0pe]

I certainly know that I don't know all the answers. That was why I asked the original question. Theres just alot of things I don't know. I just ask the questions for kicks essentially. Its fun.