who are you?

johnjames

im batman @maxx

MayCaesar

I am not sure what effect absence or presence of a creator has on the answer to this question. Personally, I see my sense of self as an observation on my part; whether it is an illusion or something more is impossible to tell from our limited perspective.

maxx

it seems that would equal the idea that we have something with-in us apart than a biological brain telling us that we are the person who is at the center of our being; this would almost be akin in thinking we have a soul. out brain must give the illusion that we have a sense of self rather than actually having one; probably for the purpose of ensuring this sense of self would benefit the survival of the organism. @MayCaesar

smoothie

I am a spongy slab of meat piloting a mech suit made out of more meat slabs

MayCaesar

@maxx

This difference seems purely semantic to me; whether there is an entity we can call "soul", or the brain is what fundamentally drives us, our consciousness is still what it is, and our experience does not change from this distinction.

Now, if you are looking at it from the perspective of the potential afterlife existence, then it is a different question no one has an answer to.

ZeusAres42

As a person we are the sum total of our brain cells @maxx

RickeyD

@maxx ; You are a created entity and you are constrained by Time for a specific purpose and death of the body is NOT the end but the beginning of true life, understanding, meaning, for those who have acknowledged God's dominion and providence over their life and trusted in Jesus as Lord for the mediation of sin.

xlJ_dolphin_473

Yes, I do consider my sense of self to be a mere illusion created by my brain. The outside world is nothing more than a simulation created by our brain. 
@RickeyD
What do you mean by the 'constraints of time'? As is well documented by Brian Greene, the difference between past, present and future is an illusion. This helpful video proves it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsw99SSwKc

xlJ_dolphin_473

Here is another interesting video about the non-existent nature of time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3tbVHlsKhs

RickeyD

@xlJ_dolphin_473 ; You are the "fool."

AlofRI

I always try to keep MY brain resistant to "illusions". That's why I don't believe in myths. ;-)

maxx

the way our brain perceives reality is an illusion, so good luck with that.@AlofRI

xlJ_dolphin_473

RickeyD said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 ; You are the "fool."

Perhaps so, but that does not rebut my earlier argument, about time not existing as a unidirectional, constraining thing.

RS_master

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

Here is another interesting video about the non-existent nature of time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3tbVHlsKhs

@xlJ_dolphin_473 Maybe time is physical in an other dimension. How could time be an illusion? It does not have to be...
Time can be twisted, how is it an illusion? I believe we are not illusions but bits of energy in mass.

RS_master

@xlJ_dolphin_473

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.3047/full/
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7oe7gx/cmv_time_is_not_an_illusion_it_is_real/

MayCaesar

@AlofRI

Any one of us believes in many myths which our irrational brain interprets as objective truth. For example, if someone you trust tells you that they went to McDonalds earlier, then, despite you having zero evidence of that happening, you will likely not even think of questioning it. Granted, you could logically justify it by saying that you do not remember them ever lying to you, hence it is statistically likely that this time they are not lying either - but you still lack hard evidence of it.

But, of course, there is a difference between believing in a myth as a result of basic statistical analysis, and believing in a myth just because someone made some random claim with no serious attempt to back it up.

AlofRI

MayCaesar said:

@AlofRI

Any one of us believes in many myths which our irrational brain interprets as objective truth. For example, if someone you trust tells you that they went to McDonalds earlier, then, despite you having zero evidence of that happening, you will likely not even think of questioning it. Granted, you could logically justify it by saying that you do not remember them ever lying to you, hence it is statistically likely that this time they are not lying either - but you still lack hard evidence of it.

But, of course, there is a difference between believing in a myth as a result of basic statistical analysis, and believing in a myth just because someone made some random claim with no serious attempt to back it up.

To me believing in a "myth" is believing in a thing that (allegedly) happened long ago and is still believable to some people. Not a recent happening. If I believed recent happenings were myths I would consider the White House "mythical" today. ;-)

AlofRI

Joltdebatinglegend said:

 ,zjxdv,znxcvbmzncvbzzvx cxv<KJ>L::"}\]p'['(P{_

OH! NO! Now we're talking in tongues?????????? (Or have you caught a virus?)