Who am 'I'?
The term 'I' may be the point of subjectivity but it may not be identical to the self. That is because it is more of an observer, as in Descartes' perception of, 'I think, therefore I am '. But, it is possible to ask what is'I' in the sense of it being the cohesive centre of experiences and it appears to exist throughout life, as the central focus in human identity. I wonder why does each of have an 'I' as an aspect of consciousness, or self consciousness? Are human beings the only living beings with a sense of 'I'?
Comments (93)
FWIW, here's my take on the self-concept, from the perspective of Enformationism theory. The Self is not a Real thing, in the sense of a ghost, but it is an Ideal concept. As such, it is as useful as your mental model of the Real World, which according to Kant is not the ding an sich. We can't ask animals if they have a sense of self, but like humans, they act as-if they do. :cool:
Self/Soul :
[i]The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
1. This imaginary Me is a low-resolution construct abstracted from the complex web of inter-relationships that actually form the human body, brain, mind, DNA, and social networks in the context of a vast universe.
2. In the Enformationism worldview, only G*D could know yourself objectively in complete detail as the mathematical definition of You. That formula is equivalent to your Self/Soul.
3. Because of the fanciful & magical connotations of the traditional definition for "Soul" (e.g. ghosts), Enformationism prefers the more practical term "Self".[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html
Animal self consciousness :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness
context.
“ For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception…. If any one, upon serious and unprejudic'd reflection thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continu'd, which he calls himself; tho' I am certain there is no such principle in me.”
Some argue that ‘I’ is synonymous with self, and self is constructed as a new self in every new moment of experience. Others go even further in a relativist direction, claiming that the ‘we’ comes before the self , which is socially constructed. Others suggest that consciousness always implies self-consciousness, and self-consciousness rests on a self that is immutable and accompanies all experiences of the world as a feeling, the feeling of what it’s like to be the unique self that one is. All animals that can be said to be conscious are self-conscious.
For my part, I believe the self is a comparison between my past and my present. The ‘I’ is not a persisting identity but an ongoing self-similarity. But there are different sorts of selves in different contexts. The notion of self that implies a distinction between individuals will arise only in those contexts where an awareness of others is prominent. In other situations, this sense of self will not be present. Instead, a sedimented background of habits and goals will mark the ‘self’ that maintains itself as an ongoing style or theme.
As for what 'I' is... spit and you'll hit a new definition, but mine is along the Kierkegaard-to-Kahneman trajectory. It's the brain talking to itself about its environment. I am not you, because you're in my environment.
Unless you happen to be schizophrenic, in which case the I and you inhabit the same ‘person’. In this case, agency or lack thereof may be a better articulation of the ‘I’ than self vs environment.
The brain talking to itself about itself and girl will it give itself a piece of itself's brain talking to itself about itself and girl will it give itself a piece of itself's brain talking to itself about itself and girl will it give itself a piece of itself's :cry:
Yes, the relationship between the construct of the self and the 'I' is not straightforward. It does seem to be an aspect of awareness arising in brain consciousness, but the 'I' is not simply the brain. The concept of I is probably used in different ways but the elusive sense of I is likely to have given rise to the idea of 'the ghost in the machine'.
I am not sure to what extent the idea of 'I' relates to self, ego consciousness, and it is likely that these constructs have changed so much in accordance with understanding of human beings. It is so bound up with the nature of identity, of connection to others and as cohesive sense of identity between past, present and future. As far as I know, most people retain the sense of being an 'I' in dreams too.
Definitely the sense of 'I' is partly learned within social environments. The whole distinction between the child and mother is recognised by psychologists as being central to ego integrity in development. 'I' and 'me' may be a bit different philosophically and psychologically because me may be as a point of reference while I is the starting point of subjectivity and sense of one 's own consciousness.
:up:
Quoting Jack Cummins
It's only a self-reflexive indexical for claiming – declaring – first person (possessive) singular, discursive agency.
In that sense, it may be an emergent state of a way of organising consciousness. However, in some ways, it seems odd that each of us a sense of oneness within rather scattered aspects. Of course, in states of dissociation people lose their cohesive identity but, in most cases, each of us develops a coherent autobiographical 'I'. Only in unusual circumstances, this may fragment in some ways.
So, do you think that the continuity of memories, often formulated as 'identity', is illusory? Surely, this would almost be supportive of the idea that consciousness is an illusion. That is because 'I' and consciousness may even be identical with I being a way of reference to the stream of consciousness itself.
Apparently, you think of "I" as something different from the psychological Ego, or Self-Consciousness. I agree that the Self-image is not simply the physical brain. But it is an imaginary creation of the brain. That's why I place the Self under the categorical heading of Meta-Physical. But I don't view it as a Soul or Ghost that can run around outside the body-brain complex. The link below is a discussion of Terrence Deacon and Jeremy Sherman's notion of Causal Absence and human Agency to explain the sense of an immaterial Ghost in a biological Machine.. :smile:
The Ghost in the Organism :
So Sherman chose to expand upon the allied notions of "Selves" and "Aims" as meta-physical agents in physical reality.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page20.html
I don't know if is an illusion or not. Our condition is especially good at fusing experiences with accounts given about them. A thoroughly skeptical point of view does not start from a more objective point of view, free from this problem of singular perception. The view requires accepting our experience is outside of what is really going on.
And that seems unlikely. Why would such a condition be more possible than others?
It all depends on how you look at it.
The most well-known philosophy that rejects the reality of a self is Buddhism but do keep an eye on how Buddhists define the I in particular and everything else in general: in Gautama's view, ontology is pointless/meaningless if not eternal (the anicca-anatta duo). From such a perspective, true, there's no I for it ceases to be at death.
However, a less demanding or more relaxed definition of the self - one that allows for its dissolution when we perish - admits of the existence of an I albeit only as long as we draw breath.
:up: Convenient fiction?
Quoting 180 Proof
:up:
Or actual memory impairment, e.g. can still narrate an autobiography but all the elements are missing/false.
Who am “I”.
....which reduces to nothing more than a metaphysical object querying itself.
I can say that, express it objectively, because “I” thought it up.
Not much point in asking about that for which the answer is contained in the question.
A brain does not perceive itself to be a brain. This is due to it lacking internal sensory inputs (re: medial neglect ... e.g. viewed only from one end, a spring coil seems merely a circle). In other words, brain functioning is transparent to its own functioning. Thus, throughout its life a brain tells itself (and other brains) stories in the form of answers to the question "Who am I?" updated episodically from lived experience. In fact, "you" are – no more a brain than a video game avatar is a player – just a shadow dancing on a cave (skull) wall.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
The single most important line in your post. A brain fails to recognize itself even when all the evidence points to that simple truth: I/self = brain.
Why do you suppose this happens?
It's kinda like mirrored-self misidentification, not an exact match but good enough for government work if you know what I mean.
It is a delusion nonetheless.
If you'd read "the single most important line" in my post you wouldn't need to ask.
:roll:
I am that which thinks, the brain is that which thinks. Thus, I am the brain!
That means if I'm unable to, or if I'm unwilling to, accept the argument above, either I'm suffering from a delusion or there's a good reason why I reject the argument.
Which is it? Please elaborate. Thanks.
Hasty generalizations (at least).
:point:
Where? I haven't made any generalizations unless you mean to imply that there are some among us who have a nonphysical self, something other than our trusty wetware.
Yes. Without that fictional Self, we would not know where we fit into the story of Life. We are the stars of our own show, playing in the Cartesian Theater. :smile:
That's true. A brain doesn't have internal sense organs to make a physical sense of itself (neuronal pattern). But it does have a mind, to create a self-image, which is our meta-physical sense of self. Douglas Hofstadter refers to that internal feedback as a "strange loop". :cool:
I Am a Strange Loop :
[i]Strange Loop says that each of us is a point of view, and one's perspective – indeed our most intimate subjectivity – can exist in other substrates, outside of the brain. No, Hofstadter hasn't gone mystical, religious, or superstitious; but he has pushed the boundaries of science by thinking poetically.
Book by Douglas Hofstadter[/i]
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/I_Am_A_Strange_Loop_by_Douglas_Hofstadter
A strange loop is a cyclic structure that goes through several levels in a hierarchical system. It arises when, by moving only upwards or downwards through the system, one finds oneself back where one started. Strange loops may involve self-reference and paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop
Hofstadter's idea of the 'strange loop' as a means of self reference in consciousness is fascinating. So, thanks for sharing that as part of the nature of how consciousness of the 'I' comes into being for human beings.
But it can sense other brains by taking looking at them from the outside in other people. Or taking them out of bodies and touching them. Working brains can even touch themselves, and look at themselves in the mirror. What they can't make sense of is the conscious experiences it gives to it's possessor. Sstrange loops won't help to explain the perception of the I. If you consider the I to be the body the brain is in, a certain level of self representation is needed to be aware of the I. If you consider the brain as part of the I and materialisticly only, which it undetachable is, but only insofar the inside of matter is concerned, strange loops become apparent. The notion of the brain being structured dynamical material is bound to give rise to such loops, as the material brain can contain structures simulating other structures but never the structure that does the simulating. Such loops though don't have any impact on the perception of the I or consciousness.
It's my suspicion that the apparent lack of a definitive referent for the "I" is more about hope mixed with fantasy than anything truly substantive in the sense there's a real problem. If there is an issue it's death and our denial of that fact.
:up: On target.
The brain is simply incapable of total self reflection. You can reflect your finger, your eye, your whole front (your back is harder) your visual system, two neurons, a potential running on neurons, etc. You can reflect the reflection. But with what use? You could reflect the reflection of the reflection reflected in the reflected reflection, but you will always be unable to reflect the total reflection, as it has to contain itself (Droste chocolate), which is impossible. The biggest reflection can never be reflected, since there is no reflecting surface still available. It's the question also what you wanna reflect. The reflection of a functioning neuron can be detailed as you like. But reflecting the neurons involved in the reflection is impossible.
The idea of the 'fictional self' may be so essential to human identity because the it is bound up with the autobiographical development of the 'I', which probably filters out a lot of information and chooses which memories to hold on to. The 'I' is likely to come with essential biases, which may be connected with its own preservation and importance.
The notion of a "strange loop" is a metaphor, not a mechanical diagram. When you "see" another person, it's direct perception. When you see yourself in a mirror it's reflected perception. But, when you see yourself in your mind, it's a conception : a meta-physical reflection. The metaphorical loop begins from your internal brain, goes out into the world, then loops back to take a "selfie" without a camera or phone. In some cases, we call it "insight". :cool:
Self reflection is like looking into a mirror and describing what you see.
I don't think this is what strange loops are. How can a conception go out in the world? It's the conception that loops internally. The conception conceptualized. Of which a conception can be made. Conceptions in conceptions in conceptions,.... Hofstadter gave the example of the image of a video camera on TV being framed by the video camera. An array of images in images develops. I have no idea what this has to do with consciousness. It's just a nice thing to play with.
You are probably right to interpret the 'strange loop' as being based on metaphor, but, in a way all thinking and construction of models is based on words and images.
I don't think it's a metaphor. It's a literal loop. Of thoughts or brain structures. A thought about a thought about a thought. Nested thoughts. Nested structures.
In part that is why I use "self-reference" (cognition) instead of "reflection" (meta-cognition) to describe how the brain generates – confabulates – "the I".
Quoting Cartuna
Quoting Cartuna
:up:
For self reference there has to be a self in the first place. The first self is the body. Telling you that I did something is just mentally conveying you the image of me doing something, like now. Speaking with myself is just me speaking with a mental image of me. If I feel depressed it's the body that feels depressed.
It is hard to know where metaphors end and the literal exists, especially in terms of the self and the fictions about this construct. In many ways, it may that human beings can fabricate all kinds of meanings behind the self and 'I', even on a narcissistic level, in trying to understand and live with ego consciousness. We could ask what is ego consciousness and, in particular what is 'ego' because that that term in itself has various psychoanalytic meanings ranging from the psychoanalytic to the philosophy of Stirner on ego. That may be where the nature of self becomes so complex and beyond psychology, into the nature of the philosophy of identity.
I had the impression you called the I (so me too) a confabulation.
If I look at you it's your body that I see. Dressed and spectacled but that's who I think you are. You experience more or less the same as me, act, have values, thoughts, feelings, etc. These are all part of your inside world but your body brings these stuff in practice. You can feel pain, even between the ears, like me. The body, so you, or me, or anyone, can live thanks to the brain. You hear or see thoughts and dreams, So it's not you thinking, but you noticing.
I wonder what would happen if it was concluded that 'I' is a complete illusion and whether as a matter of language it would even be possible to go beyond the possibility of the construct of 'I'. Would it help, or be meaningless in relation to how a person conceives identity in relation to the world and others?
I think that our posts may have been written at the same time. In relation to your latter post, one question which I wonder about is inner and outer aspects of the self, and how the 'I' is often about the meaning on an internal level, although it may be that splitting between the inner and the outer may be unhelpful and, it may be one of the problems going back to Descartes. The division between inner and outer may be real in some ways, but, in other respects it may be illusory and the sense of the 'I' may be important in dealing with the paradoxes of inner and outer aspects of human experience.
I would say that I is simply however you see yourself to be in that moment. Perhaps, in some scenario it would be much more efficient to describe yourself as a set of particles. Poof. There becomes I.
In other terms, I is like a joke that needs context to be understood.
Yes, I can even see myself as a set of particles and how the ''I' may fragment at times. I am not entirely sure how beneficial the 'I' consciousness is, although most people don't wish to have a 'jelly' self. Perhaps, the ability to see and think about varying constructs of ego consciousness and self may be most helpful, although it may be that identity has a certain amount of 'fragility' and can easily be torn asunder.
Personal identity may be interconnected with a sense of meaning in life and even though my thread is called 'Who am 'I' is with reference to the concept of 'I', this thread topic may go back to a youth club event which I went to as an adolescent, titled 'Who am I?' However, this was not about particles but about finding oneself in the social world.
Depends on who you want to be.
I find that a barbaric rationality, devoid of any logic or profound reasonings is actually the best weapon for attacking these sort of questions.
Keeps the response meaningful and simple. Something you can get behind.
It may come down to how we define ourselves, which may have profound implications for who or what we may become, metaphysically, and as social beings.
I don't exactly understand the metaphysical implications of defining yourself, but I'm inclined to agree.
Apparently, you're having difficulty with my metaphorical language. The ability to imagine ideas as-if they are real is a faculty limited to animals with rational minds : e.g. homo sapiens. A concept is not a physical object, but an ideal mental (meta-physical) subject. So, it can perform feats that are impossible for physical things ; just as your avatar in a video game can throw Chi (Qi) from its hands as-if it was a flame-thrower.
For a more philosophical example, a self-concept can metaphorically "go out into the world", then turn around and look back at itself. But, if you prefer to imagine the self-concept as some mysterious "thing" rotating inside the brain, that's OK with me. It's just another metaphor, though. Unless, you have some empirical knowledge of what kind of material that looping "thing" is made of. :smile:
Subjectivity in a philosophical context has to do with a lack of objective reality.
Note -- the Subject is your imaginary self (Latin - ego ; self ; "I"), not your physical body (Latin - Id ; Greek - soma).
Ego :
[i]1. the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.
2. (in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.[/i]
Note : Reasoning is thinking without actually doing. Once you have reasoned an appropriate behavior, you can safely perform the action in the real word. When reasoning, you can metaphorically project yourself out into the world to see what the results of that action might be. AFAIK, there is no actual "thing" that gets projected. or "loops internally".
Mirror Image vs Self Image :
That image freaks me out.
You consider the ego as a mental thing. I don't. The ego is the body mediating between the non-physical mind and the physical world. So the ego is can look in the mirror and see the mirror reflection of itself (first photograph of the blond lady in blue), while others see the right image. In the mirror I see mmyself waving my left hand, while you see me waving my right. I can't split my body to step outside of it and look at myself turning around, like in that picture of a guy you posted who takes of his face, turnes it around, and looks at what's left (@john27 is freaked out by the blond mirror twin, but I'm freaked out by the image of that guy, taking your face off gives me the creeps, no matter if it's happening metaphorically).
So the strange loop is a metaphorical loop, but at the same time it has a material counterpart in the brain. Looking at yoursel mentally will lead to inwardly radiating droste effects. If you look mentally to your mind, you have to include the mental image itself, leading to a new image which must be included again, which leads to a new image, which has to be included again, etc. A strange loop. This loop has a material counterpart. Which means that if you look at the brain materialistically, there are patterns of spike potentials running on your neoron network which litterally show the droste effect. A pattern in a pattern in a patter. From a small one, to larger ones.
1. Ship of Theseus
2. Wittgenstein's rope analogy.
Identity is a sequence of overlapping stages and that's why we feel that there's some kind of connection/continuity between, say, the me of today and the me of tomorrow (correct my English please). It depends then, doesn't it?, on what we're looking at, the similarities or the differences. If we consider both, what emerges is a fuzzy sense of self - now you see it, now you don't.
A picture is worth a 1000 words.
Some, I'm told, think in pictures/images. An Artistic turn, à la the so-called linguistic turn, in philosophy is a long overdue project. :grin:
I can't tell the difference between mass delusions/hallucinations and objectivity.
Quoting TheMadFool
Mass delusion is when all your followers kill themselves, expecting the world to end as you told them. Objectivity is when you find out who your cell-mate is.
:lol: So it would seem...so it would seem...
A lot of people feel that something is wrong with their face in photographs, because they are more accustomed to seeing a reversed image in a mirror. For some, it gives them a creepy feeling of looking at a clone or doppelganger. :gasp:
Yes. Ideal metaphors usually have some concrete counterpart in the real world that it refers to as a crude approximation of the abstraction in the mind. That's how we communicate images in our minds to other minds. They can look at the concrete object and form an approximate idea of what I'm imagining. However, if I show them a brain "gyrus" (something that loops back on itself) they won't understand what I mean by "self" or "ego" or "i".
The metaphorical object is not the mental image, but merely has some essential similarity : e.g. a physical thing that loops back on itself to represent by analogy the concept of a mind looking back at itself.. The Ego is an especially difficult notion of metaphorize in concrete terms :cool:
Analogy :
1. An analogy is a comparison made to show how two different things are similar, especially in limited ways.
Mind/Brain problem in Psychology and Philosophy :
https://www.simplypsychology.org/mindbodydebate.html
Apparently, you think of the Ego as a material object. Where is the Ego in this picture of a "physical thing"? Hint : there are lots of "strange loops" (gyri) in the picture. :joke:
THE BALLOON IS NOT THE EGO
This image is not the pipe
Yes. A picture is worth a thousand philosophical metaphors. :smile:
The only difference is in the metaphorical interpretation of the mental image : i.e. what it means to you.
Unfortunately, abstract mental images & metaphors are too easy to mis-interpret, due mainly to pre-conceptions. So who deludes who? :chin:
[i]But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion[/i]
___Moody Blues, Late Lament
The image is not the ego indeed. If I think about myself I don't see myself like I see other people. I think about situations as I saw them when I did the thing I was doing (i perspective). Thinking about Eddy Murphy I see him talking to me or others. It seems pretty unnatural to look at yourself from the outside (like taking your face off and turn it towards you.. A mirror helps but mirror. Magritte has painted some nice philosophical stuff. Like that man seeing his back in the mirror. Seeing yourself from the back can only be done wìth video. :smile:
I think the ego is neither material neither mental. It lies at the boundary between them. So in a way it's both. Strange loops I see! :joke:
Interesting! How would you describe that "strange" neither-here-nor-there "boundary" -- metaphorically, of course. That's the beauty of metaphors, they help us to form our own personal images of the imaginary objects in other minds. Sometimes, the communication solution is to assume that a coin has two sides that we can't see simultaneously, That ambiguity requires us to do some mental (metaphorical) flipping. :smile:
neither fish nor fowl :
[i]of indefinite character and difficult to identify or classify
to seem partly one thing and partly another,
not belonging to any suitable class or description.[/i]
NEITHER FOWL NOR BUNNY
:100:
I see it like a fuzzy sphere that can vibrate and take all kinds of forms. That fuzzy sphere contains mental stuff and around the sphere is material stuff. The inside takes stuff in from the outside. Untill it gets inside it was both matter and mental. No boundary yet. When arrived inside the sphere (you) it becomes part of the mental inside. Looking to the outside stuff, you look at the matter part of the unity. Inside you the matter gives rise to consciousness. And in between are you, the fuzzy sphere. :smile:
Or with mental imagination. :joke:
How the artist sees himself
Great post! That's the one! Weird stuff he painted. That's exactly why I like him. If thats a self portrait, how did he know what to paint? :razz:
Aggh! That mental image makes me dizzy. :gasp:
Whow! The afterimage freaks me out! Woooow! I meant a spherical shell for sure! :love:
No. Someone else from another forum has borrowed that label. But Enformationism is the title of my worldview website. :smile:
Enformationism :
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
:up:
:monkey: :point: Me
WHOOOOOO AAAAAAAM IIIIIIIII?
It seems to me a sense of I is necessary for enjoyment. Is it a metaphysical substance? That doesn't matter. We are all made of of the truly free moments we have experienced and that karma (good and bad) gives you as much identity as anything could
You are quite right to speak of how a sense of'' I' is central to experiences, including the good and bad moments, because the ego consciousness is a central agent in interpretation of the events in life and, for human beings, it is the meaning of these which are essential, especially in the ongoing process of autobiographical narratives and the sense of one 's own 'story'.
What is "I"? It's the mind. The mind that receives your bodily sensations in the form of vision, pain, sound and etc. and in about 50% of the population also engage in silent self-talk called thinking.
What is the mind? The mind is a process inside the biological machine called brain. It's very easy to prove this by looking at Alzheimer's plaque buildup in the brain which is positively correlated with a reduce in consciousness/mind. No brain cells, no consciousness, no mind.
How exactly the brain produces mind is so far explained by science as synaptic transmission between braincells, identical to a computing processor although science has a lot more to unravel, nevertheless, that's as close as we are to thoroughly explain what is "I" if we are using reason.
If we are not using reason, then we can chalk it to some magical universal, everlasting source of God, soul or whatever.
I am hoping against reason for the latter albeit I know I am most likely to be disappointed when I die.
Quoting Jack Cummins
That's one use. Very rarely used though. For one, this use doesn't allow possessiveness. By this definition: "I own a car" makes no sense. Neither do most other uses. "I thought about X" also doesn't make sense by this definition, etc.
Quoting Jack Cummins
By the definition of "I" you're using, you wouldn't know if each person has an "I" in the first place. Much less anything else.
I think open, closed, and empty individualism also ties into this topic.
I think that your point about the idea of inner 'voices' is important because the 'I' may be experienced as a range of voices of thoughts although most people do not hear voices literally. But, maybe those who do even speak of hearing voices may be experiencing the fragmentation of the 'I'. So, psychosis may be related to difficulty in establishing a cohesive identity of subjective identity.
As far as understanding that other people have a sense of I is probably based on hearing others refer to themselves and their subjective experiences. It is also likely to be related to the development of theory of mind, in the sense of the individual developing understanding that other human beings have subjective realities similar to their own. In terms of individualism, it probably does come into it and in Western society there is so much emphasis on the self and people may develop identity with varying degrees of a sense of being part of a group, or as being a separate entity from others.
Some say the I is imaginary like [math]i = \sqrt{-1}[/math] but then something extraordinary happens: the imaginary I has to realize that it's imaginary (not real). Isn't that like a hologram of a person finding out it's a hologram? An illusion coming to know it's an illusion. Basically a nonexistent thing discovering it doesn't exist. How does that work? Something smells fishy...Buddhism?
Definitely Buddhism, or its many writers, have a lot to say about ego consciousness and the way in which the 'I' can be seen as illusory in certain respects. This is probably most clear in mindfulness meditation. I have some limited experience of using these techniques and it is about being able to observe the flow of thoughts and, at this level, even the 'I' can be seen as a construct. It may be that the I needs to be seen partly as a construct, but on the other hand, without the 'I' there would be no identity as we know it. Each of us would have the inner experience of being like blobs of mind jelly.
The I has to be unique.
In the real world, there are many Jack Cumminses but in TPF, there's only ONE :point: YOU!
An aside: Our world cannot be a simulation. Computers can't handle two/more people named Jack Cummins unless...the computers simulating the world are a notch above what we have today. This reminds me of Wittgenstein's language games and its relation, if such exists, to computer languages. The latter can't handle ambiguity i.e. if we name a variable (a word in language), that variable (word) can't be used for anything else. Buddhist Maya? :chin:
I guess that with regard to the unique parts of personal identity, a lot depends on the aspects which are most fundamental, including the genetic components and environmental factors. However, there is so much which comes down to subjective interpretations and meanings. In a way, each of has own sense of internal meanings and narrative stories, which comprise the whole nature of identity. I asked the question, 'Who am 'I', but this also is the 'Who am I? ', which Erik Erikson points to as being the essential part of identity and identity crisis, especially important in adolescence. The whole experience of exploration during adolescence is about experimentation, and even rebellion.
So, personal identity is about finding a unique path in life and links to the issue of 'Know Thyself' and authenticity. This involves the existential aspects of life choices. Also, it may be that one knows who one is more in retrospect than in an advance, because it may be that many of the acts which the person does may be spontaneous and may be different from the way they would have imagined they would have acted. So, while the question of the sense of identity involves the ongoing sense of becoming, this also involves assimilation of previous choices and integration of this as an ongoing fluid sense of the ''I' of existence.
Such language as this (being used here) can be used in a way that seems cut off from any ‘other’ but in all seriousness this is an impossibility as we cannot actively use such language completely independent from how it has come to establish itself (ie. communication among and between persons).
Self has specific meanings specific psychological theories.
Language, and the terms used therein, are ‘actions’. The term ‘I’ is an action of referring to something just like ‘walking’ is the act of marking out another action (walking) without necessarily doing said action.
There are so many ways to get lost within terms. Be careful.
Perhaps, it is worth getting lost in the terms at times and stepping into the murky areas of confusion. Perhaps, it may be worth taking risks, rather than being 'careful', because it may be that rethinking leads to new possibilities...