What is it that observes that I am?

[Royce]

"I think; therefore, I am."

I am, however, aware that I think.

I am also aware that I am without the necessity of thinking or being aware that I think.

If it is I who is thinking then what is it that is aware, observing, that I am thinking?

If I am then what is it that is aware that I am?

What part of me is aware, aware of self and of thinking, yet is not self aware of it's identity?

IOW Why must I ask, rather than already knowing, What is aware, what is doing the observing of, my thinking and being, yet is not aware of what it itself is or what part of me it is?

What is it that is experiencing "I am" and thinking, but is cognitively separate from "I am" and thinking.

Is it that it is the essence of me, an identity inseparable from and thus undefinable and unknowable from myself?

Or, is it that it is not an individual identity as I am but part of a One, a universal consciousness, a part of the collective "I am"?

 

[THANOS]

I think that we are all born into this world with nothing much but our awarness.

If I am then what is it that is aware that I am?

Some animals do not even have a sense of self until they look into the mirror. We arent ourselves until we figure out that we are in control of ourselves. We start by controllig our body, our arms, our legs. Until we can move around and walk. Then we Become aware that we can also control our surroundings. Then as we get older and socialize a bit more we then learn that others like us can be controlled. So we all are aware of ourselves but how much are you really aware of? Are you aware that you have control?

 

[phoenixthoth]

it's you in the form of what's known as aware mind. there is thinking mind and aware mind.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by THANOS
I think that we are all born into this world with nothing much but our awarness.

Some animals do not even have a sense of self until they look into the mirror. We arent ourselves until we figure out that we are in control of ourselves. We start by controlling our body, our arms, our legs. Until we can move around and walk. Then we Become aware that we can also control our surroundings. Then as we get older and socialize a bit more we then learn that others like us can be controlled. So we all are aware of ourselves but how much are you really aware of? Are you aware that you have control?

That's part of my question. There is a part of me that does have control of what I think about or if I think at all. I control my thinking but if I am thinking who or what is observing and controlling.

 

[olde drunk]

Royce:

it is my suspicion that it is our subconsciousthat we feel watching our thoughts and actions.

this bugger knows why we chose to be here and unless we slow down and listen, he will allow us to go off half cocked. everytime we have second thoughts, it is the sub-con saying 'wait', think a-bout it.

it also helps us to feel good when we just 'know' we did the right thing. the conscious mind may have made the final decision, but it is the inner self that creates the feelings.

peace,

 

[Mentat]

Royce, I think part of the answer to your question may lie in a realization of the redundancy of your principle statement: I think therefore I am.

The statement is redundant, since "I think" has presupposed that there is an "I" - doing the "thinking" - and so the phrase "I am" is a re-stating of something already implied in the first clause.

Thus, since the statement is redundant, then you could just say "I think", and - assuming that it's true - can deduce herefrom that you exist and think.

So, the new statement is, simply, "I think". Now, your question would be, what is it that observes that "I" am "thinking". And the answer would be that "I" is observing it's own thinking.

You see, the reason I mentioned the redundancy was to remove the phrase "therefore I am", because that statement turns the whole sentence into a proof that there is an "I" - and where there is proof, there should be a "prover" (leading to all the questions that you ask in your initial post). However, if the statement is not about proving one's existence, but simply taking it for granted while postulating a new "truth" (that "I" "thinks"), then the questions become "who observes that the entity, "I", can "think"?" which is logically answerable.

IOW, If you make a statement that is supposed to prove your existence, based on a certain observation (in this case, that you think), then you can ask "who is making this observation in the first place?"; but, if you make a statement about something that you do, then it can easily be you yourself that makes the observation.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[Rader]

Most of the thinking and awarenss of the I existence is automated.

Only with self aware effort do we think and are aware.

What is it that controls and observes the I to be, automated or not?

Its kind of like being the pilot of a plane but could set it on autopilot. What flips the switch, what knows when to.

 

[phoenixthoth]

wel, who do you think is "driving the bus?"

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by olde drunk
it is my suspicion that it is our subconsciousthat we feel watching our thoughts and actions.

this bugger knows why we chose to be here and unless we slow down and listen, he will allow us to go off half cocked. everytime we have second thoughts, it is the sub-con saying 'wait', think a-bout it.

it also helps us to feel good when we just 'know' we did the right thing. the conscious mind may have made the final decision, but it is the inner self that creates the feelings.

peace,

Is it our subconsciousor our super-ego to use Freud's terms? Or, is it what we call our heart and/or soul? Or is it something else entirely? Or, is it our conscience or just another property of consciousness itself.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
Royce, I think part of the answer to your question may lie in a realization of the redundancy of your principle statement: I think therefore I am.

The statement is redundant, since "I think" has presupposed that there is an "I" - doing the "thinking" - and so the phrase "I am" is a re-stating of something already implied in the first clause.

Thus, since the statement is redundant, then you could just say "I think", and - assuming that it's true - can deduce here from that you exist and think.

So, the new statement is, simply, "I think". Now, your question would be, what is it that observes that "I" am "thinking". And the answer would be that "I" is observing it's own thinking.

You see, the reason I mentioned the redundancy was to remove the phrase "therefore I am", because that statement turns the whole sentence into a proof that there is an "I" - and where there is proof, there should be a "prover" (leading to all the questions that you ask in your initial post). However, if the statement is not about proving one's existence, but simply taking it for granted while postulating a new "truth" (that "I" "thinks"), then the questions become "who observes that the entity, "I", can "think"?" which is logically answerable.

IOW, If you make a statement that is supposed to prove your existence, based on a certain observation (in this case, that you think), then you can ask "who is making this observation in the first place?"; but, if you make a statement about something that you do, then it can easily be you yourself that makes the observation.

Do you see what I mean?

Yes, Mentat, my friend. I agree completely. It is enough to say; "I am." Remember months ago I commented in one of your threads that Descartes had it wrong. He should have said; "I am; therefore, I think." This comment goes right along with what you and I are saying here.

Do you have any thoughts about the subject of this thread. What is it that is aware of being, being aware and of thinking. Who or what is actually in control of our thinking and awareness.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Rader
Most of the thinking and awareness of the I existence is automated.

Only with self aware effort do we think and are aware.

What is it that controls and observes the I to be, automated or not?

Its kind of like being the pilot of a plane but could set it on autopilot. What flips the switch, what knows when to.

Okay, I agree; but what is it's name. It is more like the autopilot flipping it's own switch on and off and being aware that it is doing so even in the off mode.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
wel, who do you think is "driving the bus?"

Well that's the question isn't it. If I am driving the bus then who or what is watching me driving the bus and is aware that I am driving the bus and thinking of something other than driving and is telling me to pay attention and quit wool gathering.
How many of me is there in here and what is their names or what do I call them? Who is observing the observer, watching the watcher?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
I

I'm having trouble keeping up with you. Which "I"?
The I in "I am" or the 'I' that is thinking or the 'I' that is aware of all the above. Will the real 'I' please stand up and be recognized?

 

[phoenixthoth]

it's name is I.

aka aware mind.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Yes, Mentat, my friend. I agree completely. It is enough to say; "I am." Remember months ago I commented in one of your threads that Descartes had it wrong. He should have said; "I am; therefore, I think." This comment goes right along with what you and I are saying here.

Do you have any thoughts about the subject of this thread. What is it that is aware of being, being aware and of thinking. Who or what is actually in control of our thinking and awareness.

Well, that's the point: To say "I am" is to recognize both your existence, and a unique ability that you have to recognize that existence...and, of course, the unique ability to recognize that you recognize that ability, and so on.

I guess what I'm getting at is that introspection is man's way of cutting out the middle-man, if you will, by answering one's own question.

According to Dennett, the ability for introspection evolved from the ability to ask and receive an answer; from which came the obvious necessity to be able to answer another's question, from which came the ability to - when cut off from others - answer one's own question, from which came introspection.

Also, there was a piece by Hume that dealt with the idea of "central self". In the end, he stated that, if you remove everything innate about a man along with all of the experiences that he had had up to that time, you are not left with a "naked self", but are rather left with nothing at all. So, no one's at the "driver's seat", but the bus has learned to drive itself, and has then learned to ask "who's driving me"...

Just a couple of thoughts that seemed relevant. What do you think?

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Royce
Okay, I agree; but what is it's name. It is more like the autopilot flipping it's own switch on and off and being aware that it is doing so even in the off mode.

Royce, from birth to death moment to moment, the "I" becomes more consciouslly selfaware and in the end returns from which it came. The "I" perceives a awaresness of a field of movement of consciousness. The "I" perceives, knows and is selfaware of its movement in different field levels of consciousness. The "I" knows that it is not the consciousness but part of it, it knows when it transends the "I".

 

[THANOS]

awareness should come first, before thinking. But it requires thinking to be aware that you are aware.
We are aware, all of us, some more then others. The more you are aware of your limitations the more you can do.

Awareness is almost limitless but the thinking part is a fraction of the limitless awareness which makes our awareness limited. Now i can't really say that you are capable of achieving full awareness but i know that the more you test your limits the closer you get to full control.

 

[Rader]

Read it

This is worth reading the whole thing.
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/BBSF14.doc

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat

Also, there was a piece by Hume that dealt with the idea of "central self". In the end, he stated that, if you remove everything innate about a man along with all of the experiences that he had had up to that time, you are not left with a "naked self", but are rather left with nothing at all. So, no one's at the "driver's seat", but the bus has learned to drive itself, and has then learned to ask "who's driving me"...

Just a couple of thoughts that seemed relevant. What do you think?

I'm not sure that I agree with that believing that we have a soul or super consciousness as I do. As for the "drivers seat", that's my point. I thi9nk there is some part of me that is in the drivers seat as that part is aware of what is going on, observes and controls both my thinking and awareness at times. My question is is this part my soul, super ego or part of a universal consciousness sometimes referred to as the One. I don't have a name for it. I can say that this is my thinking brain/mind and this is my aware brain/mind but I can't say what that is. Is it that it is the essence of me. It is the actual I of I am and therefore not named other than Royce and cannot be differentiated for I.
So many of the philosophers and scientist who study being and consciousness remind me of weather men who don't look out the window to see what is actually going on. They don't look within themselves, within there minds to see what is going on inside there head or heart. Hume for instance and removing all that is inate and no naked man; or, is he saying that our ego, super ego, soul, unconsciousness and that part of God within all of us is inate. If that is true then what is his point? It seem redundant to say remove every and all parts of me and there will be nothing left. Duh, Hello.

 

[olde drunk]

for me, the subconscious is the 'director' of my psycho-drama. and my conscious mind is the 'lead actor'.

we all want to act - perform in a certain way. at the time of actualization the actor makes the final decision (with the director watching). later, there is a critique, well that decision was good or bad relative to the goal.

peace,

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
I'm not sure that I agree with that believing that we have a soul or super consciousness as I do.

I hadn't anticipated that. So, where is the soul (to start off a completely different paradigm for possibly answering your original question)?

As for the "drivers seat", that's my point. I thi9nk there is some part of me that is in the drivers seat as that part is aware of what is going on, observes and controls both my thinking and awareness at times.

Please check out my new thread, when you have time.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by olde drunk
for me, the subconscious is the 'director' of my psycho-drama. and my conscious mind is the 'lead actor'.

we all want to act - perform in a certain way. at the time of actualization the actor makes the final decision (with the director watching). later, there is a critique, well that decision was good or bad relative to the goal.

peace,

"I think" that "I" have the perception of an infinite amount of sub-directors, that change the script for the director, so then the actor does not always act out what was in the original script. You follow me. The way you put it is deterministic only of the actors decision but his choice comes from an indeterminable amount of scripts. Interconnectivity has not been debunked, information exchange on subconsious level is perceived.

 

[Loren Booda]

Cetera sunt, ergo sum.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Cetera sunt, ergo sum.

What does "cetera sunt" mean?

 

[Loren Booda]

Others are, therefore I am.

 

[olde drunk]

no more latin-PLEASE

after 3 years of high school latin, i swore it was usless. i immediately decided to forget it all.

please, no more, it brings back memories of those terrible classes.

peace,

 

[Polly]

I have experience of yet another kind of awareness that is different from the awareness of "I think".

Not so long ago I was at home alone in the kitchen snacking on a corncob that I had steamed. I sank my teeth into it and the sweetness overwhelmed me. It was absolutely divine, All my senses and awareness zeroed into the corncob, I was grabbing and devouring it like an animal (like Golum devouring his fish) and I was perfectly aware of it. Suddenly there was another awareness rising from the back of my neck, it was part of me (because it arose from physical self) and yet so alien, it was giggling at me in a good humoured way, it was warm and kind and good natured. You will laugh at me but I was so absorbed in the cob I couldn't be bothered. And the awareness lasted for about 5 seconds.

Then a few days later one night when I was getting ready to go to bed having just brushed my teeth and got into my pyjamas, the awareness rose from the back of my neck again, just smiling in a good humoured way, and then I realized how automated I was in going through the whole drill, and even my ordinary awareness couldn't help laughing at myself.

I like to think the alien awareness is the "infinite wisdom mind" in us but I could be wrong.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Polly
I have experience of yet another kind of awareness that is different from the awareness of "I think".

...Suddenly there was another awareness rising from the back of my neck, it was part of me (because it arose from physical self) and yet so alien, it was giggling at me in a good humored way, it was warm and kind and good natured. You will laugh at me but I was so absorbed in the cob I couldn't be bothered. And the awareness lasted for about 5 seconds.

...the awareness rose from the back of my neck again, just smiling in a good humored way, and then I realized how automated I was in going through the whole drill, and even my ordinary awareness couldn't help laughing at myself.

I like to think the alien awareness is the "infinite wisdom mind" in us but I could be wrong.

I, of course, may be wrong, Polly; but, I think that this or something very similar may be the awareness that I am asking about, thanks.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Others are, therefore I am.

But how do you prove the first one? Or was that a joke...cuz I seem to have a really diminished sense of humor over this medium , and apologize for it frequently.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by olde drunk
after 3 years of high school latin, i swore it was usless. i immediately decided to forget it all.

please, no more, it brings back memories of those terrible classes.

peace,

LOL!

Was it really that bad? What about the stuff you learn about the grammatical structures that evolved from Latin...none of this interests you at all?

 

[Loren Booda]

Mentat,

It might be translated "There is other, therefore I am" (et vice versa). The conversion v. v. reduces the phrase to a koan, where we are what we are not - but aren't we, anyway? Old chestnuts are always good for more roasting. (That's a joke, son.)

Latin heped me more in English vocabulary than directly in that "...dead language, as dead as dead could be, first it killed the Romans, and now it's killing me."

 

[Philophysicist]

Awareness

I think awareness is a mechanical-electrical thing in the following way. You have seen,I suppose some, of these little robots that guys are building, for example the ones that have eyes and maybe a little arm or two and run around on the floor.
I remember one that someone built that ran around and looked for an electrical outlet to plug into and recharge its batteries.
If you sit this robot on the floor with its eyes functioning then if it doesn't move its parts even if the background is moving then it is not aware. However, if you move it and it sees its arm move or sees that it can influence the observed background, than it is aware.
In this case Awareness is due to Feedback with the external environment. So where is that machines awareness located? In its memory cells, but I suppose you can argue that is whole feedback circuitry is where the "Awareness" is. The same way with you.

 

[phoenixthoth]

why is it that since we can build machines with awareness that proves our awareness is electro-chemically based ie functions the same way?

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Philophysicist
I think awareness is a mechanical-electrical thing in the following way. You have seen,I suppose some, of these little robots that guys are building, for example the ones that have eyes and maybe a little arm or two and run around on the floor.
I remember one that someone built that ran around and looked for an electrical outlet to plug into and recharge its batteries.
If you sit this robot on the floor with its eyes functioning then if it doesn't move its parts even if the background is moving then it is not aware. However, if you move it and it sees its arm move or sees that it can influence the observed background, than it is aware.
In this case Awareness is due to Feedback with the external environment. So where is that machines awareness located? In its memory cells, but I suppose you can argue that is whole feedback circuitry is where the "Awareness" is. The same way with you.

Thats cool, how your memory cells work in robots. So are we robots too? If we are, some how the molecules in our memory, would know how to pass on the awareness we learned, to there new brother memory molecules. The memory molecules are replaced many times during one liftime. Maybe awarenss is what looks in not out.