Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What makes me Me?

  1. Oct 1, 2004 #1
    Scientifically explain to me how I am me, and not you, even though we have the same properties and systems of science, we're still seperate observers. How does this work and why is it seperated into bodies? Why do I exist in my head?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 1, 2004 #2
    If your eyes are put in your ass. you will exist in your ass.
    seriously, I think I me is just some reaction made by the chemical in your head.
  4. Oct 1, 2004 #3
    Chemical thing going on my head, granted. Why am I experiencing it?... lol.
  5. Oct 1, 2004 #4
    Why is a big question, science just describes how.

    Some believe in undifferentiated reality, the idea that everything is one. Science really has nothing to say about such things, except to note that people are capable of any number of distinctive awarenesses of the world around them. The more introverted we are, the more withdrawn we can become even from our own bodies.
  6. Oct 1, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is a perplexing question indeed, and currently there is no accepted answer. Some philosophers argue that it is impossible even in principle to explain subjective experience purely in terms of physics (for a good introduction, see for example David Chalmers' http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html [Broken]). This explanatory problem is called, appropriately enough, the explanatory gap: even once we have described all the physical processes of the brain, there still seems to be a conceptual gap-- it is still not clear how such processes could ever wind up accounting for something like conscious experience. Chalmers has also dubbed this problem 'the hard problem of consciousness.'

    Issues surrounding the explanatory gap / the hard problem of consciousness are notoriously controversial; there is nothing really resembling an accepted wisdom on the subject. Some philosophers reject that an explanatory gap or a hard problem of consciousness even exists in the first place. For a range of views on the problem, see http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online1.html#gap [Broken].
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  7. Oct 2, 2004 #6
    You are just you....
    to safeguard me...
    and many of me and you to come
    You are not me
    and can't be me
    until such time as
    when I can be with/without....
    you and others?
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2004
  8. Oct 2, 2004 #7
    A little too poetic Philocrat. :p

    Are you confused about reality? Are you doubting reality?

    You exist because you live in reality. Whether or not you believe you live in reality or a non-reality, you remain existant. As long as your freedom is intact, you exist. As long as you continue thinking, you exist.
  9. Oct 3, 2004 #8
    True...it's a bit poetic, but it's a summary of a philosophy. It does concern reality, even if it does not explain it.
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2004
  10. Oct 3, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    There is not a process going on, and a separate you that experiences it. You ARE the process, and the running of the process IS your experience. This expanation satisfies many, including many deep thinkers, and it seems to me that those who don't accept it are positing a separate "Feeler" - technically termed a humonculus - however they disguise it.
  11. Oct 3, 2004 #10
    You do! Of course, in life, we are all influenced by things, and others, in our environment that has a direct bearing on "who we are".
  12. Oct 3, 2004 #11
    The same thing that makes you You!

    More so, a lifetime of experiences and respect for the not-me.
  13. Oct 4, 2004 #12
    Since there is no way I can observe what you (or others around me) are observing (from their prespective) do they really exist in my reality, if my reality is actually my own, as suggested by some Many Worlds Interpreters? Maybe we can only have one observer at a time, and my interactions with people on this board are just to "shadows" of other observing viewpoints, perhaps existing in other locations in time (or worlds). This to me would explain why even if we make a perfect clone of myself, there is always a separation in observering viewpoints. I guess we can all share a same timeline, but my soul(?) is paying attention to only one distinct thread in all that happens in time (which is a collection of events (collapsing of wave functions) that I see as my reality.)
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook