This essay in the following link describes this very condition in which we *seem* to have the same basic self, and follows it to a very important implication. However, this self is something that we'll likely never get to know conceptually - so whenever someone says something positive about this self he/she's bound to talk nonsense. medium.com/@rares_mircea_82/is-it-possible-for-us-to-become-immortal-with-the-help-of-science-3934df78ffa8

What if there was a Man who was born normal and healthy in Every way except none of his senses developed (couldn't hear, see, smell, taste or even touch)?!? He would have an Identity that would be wholly derived from the opinions of others!!

David Belcher I agree and would put it this way: The folks around such a being would place labels on it and identify it that way. The being itself, I think, would not be conscious nor have a sense of self.

Maybe he got super-drunk one night.

Because he was a Nazi with a time machine. This the more obvious answer I can give.

English, wasn't he

@@dalegolden8012 Scottish

How do you know?

What Louis said.

that´s like asking: how do you know that you´re conscious? You just know, because you are. The self is an illusion created by the brain. It´s a distortion of reality. You can not explain it, but if you experience it there won´t be any doubt.

Lots of people have trouble understanding this. They say: but *I‘m* seeing all the colors, tasting all the smells, hearing all the sounds, thinking all the thoughts, etc., so where is that *me* that is aware of all these things? This is the trap of the hard problem. Rather than accept that spatially and temporally speaking these things are being processed all over, they want there to be a place where all of these things come together to get directly presented to “them.” If you take this idea as your indubitable starting point then you will never understand a thing about consciousness.

@@lenn939 and that's why Dennet calls consciousness an illusion or a trick fo the brain. But Searle doesn't accept that pov, contradcting himself, apparently

Cogito ergo sum.

Fun fact, Descartes used that justification to torture dogs as he declared they weren't conscious.

I wonder if you understand that when you use the word "we" that indicates means or points to, the user of the term that is*you*and his immediate interlocutor and since you have no immediate interlocutor that just leaves*you*. You can no more observe yourself than a mirror can reflect itself. When you say "my hat" You do not suppose yourself to me that - presumably but you do say "my self"; which is the possessor and which that possessed? All I can experience in a number of different experiences arising out of a number of different functions of whatever it is that I am - which remains a mystery, but for some reason I have been conditioned to suppose that because I have a question now must necessarily be what is called "an answer".. The father of a master once tAdvised his son as follows: "become yourself, then God and the devil matter". That rather raises or forces the question exactly how do I become myself? Do I wish to kill that question with an answer? The more pertinent question is*what*am I that whoever my is trivial Relative to the fundamental question*what*am I? - How to remain awake in front of that question? -*Without*killing it, because answer is no more than the Dead body of a question

So, genetic/DNA code in combination with the retention of memories mean you are the same self? You are somewhat inferring that a self is made up of those things. Can you point to a self, like you could point to a table? Since you cannot, how can you say what a self is other than your opinion of what a self is.

"The Rediscovery of Mind" and "The Mystery of Consciousness" are good if you're interested in consciousness, intentionality, AI, etc.. Yes, Searle, despite the controversial nature of many of his philosophical positions, is an excellent expositor of topics in the philosophy of mind.

ThisCannotBeTheFuture Thanks. My interests are in consciousness, free will, language, not so much AI. Who else do you recommend with regards to contemporary philosophers?

I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, so I don't keep up with the latest research, but I suppose I would recommend... 1. David Chalmers' "The Conscious Mind", something of a modern classic and the book that arguably made (a form of) dualism respectable again and popularized the notion of philosophical zombies amongst interested non-experts. 2. Dan Dennet (arch nemesis of Searle!) for a purely physicalist/functionalist approach. 3. The Churchlands, for a "neuroscientific" approach. 4. If you're really dedicated, whatever intelligible papers you can find from Ned Block, Jerry Fodor, Hilary Putnam ,Saul Kripke, etc. Fair warning: a lot of this stuff is not easy and requires multiple readings, discussion, etc. 5. Listen to back episodes of the podcast "Space Time Mind" P.S. You may not be interested in AI per se, but understanding and appreciating Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment is essential to any serious study of consciousness/intentionality/grounding of semantics. In fact, you might want to start with Searle's very short and readable "Mind's Brains and Science." P.P.S. Douglas Hofstadter's "Goedel, Escher, Bach," which adorns many a bookshelf, is often viewed as some sort of mystical treatment of the commonality between the titular figures. In fact, it is a book on how consciousness can emerge from complex patterns. (Hofstadter and Searle also aren't exactly crazy about each other.)

Many thanks. I've read a few of Dennet's religious books as well as all of Sam Harris's (which is how I learned of Chalmers). I've also read some of David Deutsch's work. I will definitely check out that podcast and see which papers I can find from some of the other authors you mentioned. With regards to free will, I find it odd how confident each side is of there position.

Searle himself conisders, Intentionality :An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind as his best book.

Human language evolved to handle human scale experience. For the convenience of thought, human language chops up our experience of the universe into bite sized chunks and gives each chunk a name. The self is just one of those chunks. It exists only as a concept. There is no "who" in the real world. Now, for people who find this hard to swallow, "Who is having the experience?" makes a very good koan. You can't lose either way (except that, either way, "you" don't really exist as an independent definable entity).

no one or everyone and everything. Nothing separates you from the world around you except the actual illusion of the self. It feels like this separation is an obvious fact, but it´s not. You are not (and never have been) a creature inside reality, you are reality. There is only reality experiencing itself thru human beings or consciousness experiencing different realities, whatever floats your boat. Not only does it make sense scientifically, it can also be experienced.

@@bobaldo2339 Neurons aren't having experiences. Something is having experiences.

@@thekingofisrael5203 Nope... Experience is just happening, nothing is having experience

Adding to your comment, various external factors and decisions have influence on the DNA expression (epigenetics). But, I dare to ask, in your point of view what is really ours (and what is us)?

What about twins with the same dna them? One or two (sometimes even more) selfs? So can't relay on that apparently simple solution.

It's also how other people see you. If I think I am really handsome and everyone else thinks I am ugly, which am I??

It's not a good example 'cause they're talking about a different meaning of identity.

@@pustygrob5837 that’s OK, there’s more than one way to scale a fish.

is Searle intellectualy honest? There's at least one chinese room negating that...

Yes!!!

Who is asking the question?? Who is it that wants to know the answer??

A loser. Not like me, an Immortal from Galaxy @·1903j39ds#