What is the true nature of 'I' in relation to sensations and thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nature
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the nature of 'I' in relation to sensations and thoughts, examining how self-identity is defined through personal experiences and perceptions. Participants delve into philosophical concepts regarding existence, awareness, and the relationship between internal sensations and external reality.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that 'thinking' and 'sensation-of-awareness' are essential for asserting existence, claiming that "I think, therefore I am" reflects this relationship.
  • Another participant challenges the notion that we see things within 'I', suggesting instead that we see things through 'I', using the analogy of telescopes to describe how our senses function.
  • Some participants propose the idea of two selves: an internal essence of awareness and an external amalgamation of consciousness, leading to the possibility of sensing a self within the self.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of awareness, with one participant suggesting that awareness may be singular, while another argues that the image of awareness can exist apart from the awareness itself.
  • One participant questions the ability of 'I' to make true judgments about the self, raising doubts about the nature of self-knowledge.
  • Another participant emphasizes that understanding of existence comes from within one's own being, through subjective sensation and reason, rather than from external reality.
  • There is a contention regarding the definition of 'I', with some arguing that it is undefinable if it is based on relative terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of 'I', the relationship between internal sensations and external reality, and the ability to make true judgments about the self. The discussion remains unresolved with no clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants rely on various philosophical frameworks and personal interpretations, leading to differing conclusions about the nature of existence and self-awareness. The discussion includes assumptions about the relationship between perception and reality that are not universally accepted.

  • #61
Originally posted by FZ+
You mean physical changes = God?
I wonder though if deities can in fact be consistent with an materialistic view...

Materialism did not include deities, cause materialism tries to explain the world without the help of deities. Consistent materialism therefore goes without any reference to a deity.


Just to be fair, I'll list some of the assumptions of materialism...

  • We can understand all things without the intervention of logical loopholes.
  • Logic applies to all existence.
  • Physical laws are universal.
  • Reality is not abolute (ok, kinda doesn't make sense, but...)
  • Existence is objective and separate from perception.
  • Observations are meaningful in respect to truth.
    [/list=a]


  • Some critique on this list of "assumptions" hold by materialism...

    You refer to "logical loopholes" and the "application of logic" in the context of materialism. It can be shown however that the aristotelian logic does not apply to matter. So it seems to me, you made the wrong list of assumptions, since clearly they do not fit materialism.

    To mention one item of logic, that does not fit the material world:
    the most fundamantal law of logic is the law of identity (A=A).
    This law of identity works well for abstract categories of the mind, like numbers. For the material world however, the law of identity has no application. Nowhere in nature you will find something that is exactly equal to something else, not even something that equals itself, cause everything is changing and moving, and is never the same. The only way of introducing the law of identity in the real world, would be to consider things without their inherent motion, thus by removing time. But this is just an absurdity, because things don't exist outside of time. Even a proton is never equal to itself, cause it is constantly interchanging the gluon force particles (mesons) with other nuclear particles, and changes from proton to neutron and then back to a neutron. And there is no way in which you can stop a proton from being in motion.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Originally posted by heusdens
I don't know what a perfect definition of God is, the only conclusion I make is that anything that is existing, can be explained in material terms, and therefore can do without defining a God.

The phenomena of "love" can be explained in such a way also, absolutely. The most important part is of course the explenation why human behaviour includes something like love. The kind of explenation that could fit in here, is to explain this in terms of evolution.
"Love" is then a "chemical" bond between partners, which is functional in the sense of reproduction and raising children.
greg says: if I have a partner and am raising chidren that is love?
 
  • #63
Majin says: No. Raising children isn't neccasiraly love. Some people raise children, but treat them brutally. Love is the result of a series of chemical reactions in the brain.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by heusdens
I don't know what a perfect definition of God is, the only conclusion I make is that anything that is existing, can be explained in material terms, and therefore can do without defining a God.

The phenomena of "love" can be explained in such a way also, absolutely. The most important part is of course the explenation why human behaviour includes something like love. The kind of explenation that could fit in here, is to explain this in terms of evolution.
"Love" is then a "chemical" bond between partners, which is functional in the sense of reproduction and raising children.
greg says: I see you know there is a God so you don't have to define him. sounds good to me
 
  • #65
Originally posted by greg
greg says: if I have a partner and am raising chidren that is love?

Human practices in the field of having partners and raising children, do not always include "love" I'm affraid.
 
  • #66
Originally posted by greg
greg says: I see you know there is a God so you don't have to define him. sounds good to me

You say so, all I do is look at the totality of things in a materialistisc way, and proceed from there.
As I said, nowhere in my reasoning I need to explain things by including God into the explenation. If I would need that, then it would be that I find myself being unable to explain things.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
676
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K