The "I" of consciousness is not any of your thoughts. The thoughts are just bits of ideas and memories, in which many are apart from each other, in which some seem in more control of the others. some act on impulse, such as habits. However, none of these thoughts are in control of the actual "I" part of the self. You may think that one thought has more solid control, more discipline, such as the one who keeps you going to work, chores, and the numerous things that it exerts it ideas to keep one living in a normal matter. However, that too, is just another independent thought that simply has more discipline over the others. All these thoughts are based upon memory patterns, from how we grew up and how specific memories solidify themselves with in the brain. However, none of these thoughts are the actual "I". For instance, if one could suddenly erase all thoughts and memories; even the ability to create new thoughts, This "I" is still present, the awareness " the self itself" still exist independently of all thoughts and memories and ides. Day to day we live our lives, thinking the self is in control, but it is just the thoughts and memories that are in control. The actual "I: is simply an observer, it utilizes no action on its own. it is simply there. Now this is just a off spring of a philosophical idea and i am sure many some will not understand the gist of what i am saying; however those who do, i am curious on what you think of the idea.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Is my reasoning flawed?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The "I" of consciousness is not any of your thoughts
As usual I take Maxxs very first assertion ( below) and ask him to demonstrate how he knows such , I just bet he flies into yet another rage
OK, prove it? How did you conclude the " I" is not also a thought? What tests can you run to conclude this?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You made a statement you cannot back up so yet again invent an excuse to flee. If you make a statement at least have the balls to back it up.
this is philosophy; so there is no proof.
Ah right got it so that's why you refuse to answer questions.........MAXX THINKS ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IS UNFAIR AS PHILOSOPHERS NEVER ASK QUESTIONS........THAT ANOTHER NEW MAXX EXCUSE TO FLEE WHEN HE'S CALLED ON HIS NONSENSE
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
But I never said any of that I clearly.stated .....
OK, prove it? How did you conclude the " I" is not also a thought? What tests can you run to conclude this?
So do you wish to carry on running?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
done told you; one does not prove a philosophical debate
That's not true, how do you prove you cannot prove one?
. The logic however is in my opening statement;
But you just said " Done told you; one does not prove a philosophical debate"
That's avoiding answering what you stated....The "I" of consciousness is not any of your thought........so talk me through the " logic" of that assertion?
in continuing the debate, you must show me the flaws and use explanations.
I'm asking you repeatedly to defend your opening opinion, can you at least try?
A baby is not born with thoughts, yet still has awareness and this awareness is the "I",
Please stop making stuff up babies think from the time they are born these first thoughts are called protothoughts.
Babies have awareness, so you're now defining the "I" as awareness, how do you prove its not a thought?
for it needs no thoughts
Well prove it then?
. thoughts are just what keeps the brain talking with each other, to dictate action and ideas and such. With out those thoughts, that "I" is still there. It performs no action , dictates no course; it is just in the back ground so to speak.
Prove that the "I" is just bot another thought?
If you wish to actually debate the issue, then fine; but do so correctly. Use other posts for your circle talk.
Maxx still trying to avoid answering a question on his first opinion and still running.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do not meditate, but my understanding of meditation is that it calms your mind and allows you to focus better on something (including the sense of thoughtlessness). It does not really stop your thinking: humans are thinking every moment that they are alive, their thoughts just might be more vague when they are mentally more relaxed.
Would you also not agree that the ability to think is exactly what separates an intelligent being from a non-intelligent one? If we erase our thinking completely, then what is left but basic instincts? When you touch a hot stove, your hand jerk reaction is automatic, it does not require thinking - however finding the causal connection between you touching a stove and experiencing a burn does. Without thinking, it seems to me, you could keep touching the stove repeatedly and jerking your hand afterwards. Such existence does not seem to be more complex than that of a tree or a mushroom. And I am not sure what "self" would mean for a mushroom.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Maxx still refuses to prove his assertion below despite being asked several times .......
The "I" of consciousness is not any of your thoughts.
How did you conclude the " I" is not also a thought? What tests can you run to conclude this?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Smell without a label put on it, indeed, is just a feeling, one you might not even notice: try going on a hike on a rainy day while thinking about something, and the smell of dewy grass (quite strong objectively) will completely elude your senses. Only once you think about it, "Wow, the dewy grass smells good!", does the feeling become acknowledged.
It sounds like what you are describing is something like a Python program which contains no commands. You can run it, but it will produce absolutely nothing. In order for it to generate anything, there have to be some explicit processing done, and without that processing there is nothing there. And just like there can be no empty Python program producing any output, I do not understand how there can be a human being not having any thoughts - no such human beings have ever been documented, and they appear to be a biological impossibility. And if that is the case, then, however much you would like to separate thoughts from something else (I still am not sure what that something else exactly is), this separation does not reflect any physical phenomenon. You can no more separate thinking from being than you can separate an electron from its charge.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
There is no "self" you're constantly redefining what you claim is self and making unhelpful analogies like "Consider it this way. Take a chess board minus the pieces. The board is the self. There is nothing on it yet it will remain the self. "
Thats a typically vague piececof New Age sounding clap trap and void of meaningful mplications.
David Humes thinking on the subject to me ends the whole debate , I've yet to see an argument that comes close to refuting his opinion on the topic.......
According to Hume, if we carefully examine the contents of our experience, we find that there are only two distinct entities, “impressions” and “ideas”:
IMPRESSIONS—Impressions are the basic sensations of our experience, the elemental data of our minds: pain, pleasure, heat, cold, happiness, grief, fear, exhilaration, and so on. These impressions are “lively” and “vivid.”
IDEAS—Ideas are copies of impressions, and as a result they are less “lively” and “vivid.” Ideas include thoughts and images that are built up from our primary impressions through a variety of relationships, but because they are derivative copies of impressions they are once removed from reality.
If we examine these basic data of our experience, we see that they form a fleeting stream of sensations in our mind and that nowhere among them is the sensation of a “constant and invariable” self that exists as a unified identity over the course of our lives. And because the self is not to be found among these continually changing sensations, we can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists. Hume goes on to explain:
“I can never catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.” Even when we actively look for the self, Hume contends, we simply can’t find it! All of our experiences are perceptions, and none of these perceptions resemble a unified and permanent self-identity that exists over time. Furthermore, when we are not experiencing our perceptions—as when we sleep—there is no reason to suppose that our self exists in any form. Similarly, when our body dies and all empirical sensations cease, it makes no sense to believe that our self continues to exist in some form. Death is final. And what of people who claim that they do experience a self in their stream of perceptions? Hume announces that “I must confess I can reason no longer with him. . . . He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me.” In other words, as an empiricist, Hume cannot do more than provide an honest description and analysis of his own experience, within which there is no self to be found. But if Hume is right, then why does virtually everybody but Hume believe with certainty that they do have a self-identity that persists through time and serves to unify their life and give it meaning? After all, it’s not enough to say to the rest of the world: You’re wrong, and I’m right, and I’m not going to discuss the issue if you insist on disagreeing with me. Let’s examine Hume’s explanation of the self that most people would claim they experience.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
i think i will wait for may or someone else; you will end up back to your constant insults.
What a dreadfully poor excuse for avoiding debate , there is not one insult in my piece. Actually you are the one that always flys into a rage when questioned.
You are confusing identity; the "make-up of our selves as self itself.
I'm confusing nothing as there's only impressions and ideas , if you disagree tell me what is self as in are you your ideas or impressions if not what are you?
The self is in the back ground and is the spark of our consciousness
What is the " background" you're explaining nothing?
. Our thoughts, ideas and so on are just based upon external perceptions, which in turn, leads to introspection;
I know what thoughts are what is self if not impressions or ideas?
The music on the record so to speak. the record is the self, the music is the identity of the record.
That makes no sense at all , what is this so called self that's different from mpressions / ideas?
So If we examine these basic data of our experience, we see that they form a fleeting stream of sensations in our mind and that nowhere among them is the sensation of a “constant and invariable” self that exists as a unified identity over the course of our lives
If you disagree what is this unified identity you appeal to over your entire life?
. And because the self is not to be found among these continually changing sensations, we can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists.
The "I" of consciousness is not any of your thoughts.
I've asked you this question above several times you refuse to answer whys that?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thats right because there are actually a100 insults in every 1 of your peaces.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thats right because there are actually a100 insults in every 1 of your peaces.
I see your "ability" at simple math is on a par with your "ability" at spelling .......have a look at this folks ....... your peaces.....LOL
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The switch that starts the car is the human being. It is not the "self" of the car. A car cannot start itself (yet).
Similarly, a chess board without pieces is just a bunch of wood. The pieces and the chess rules are what make it into something more than that. In fact, you can play chess without a wooden board - online, for instance, or even in your head. The board is not an important part of the game.
I do not understand what you mean by "the background of our consciousness". What background? What does it look/feel like?
I am sorry, but I am still failing to understand what exactly you are talking about. You are not the first one talking about things, and a lot of Buddhists and other meditation practitioners talk about something like this - but it is always extremely vague and fuzzy. Have I experienced states of consciousness characterized by laser-sharp focus on something without the usual verbal chatter in my mind? Sure; the moment I fell in love at the first sight (which also taught me that "love at the first sight" is not a fantasy, although an extremely rare phenomenon) my internal voice was silent. I was still the same human being as I am now though, there was no some weird entity inside of me that took over. Is that what you mean by "self": the state of consciousness characterized by laser-sharp focus on something to the point of near complete obliteration of the internal monologue? In that case you would be mistaken to assume that it is characterized by absence of thought. Human mind is working all the time and producing thoughts, some of those thoughts simply might not be clearly verbalized, or even verbalizable.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Idenity, our thoughts, ideas and memories, are what makes ud different than others.
Yes , and?
Yet all these perceptions, are simply imprinted upon the self.
That makes no sense at all. What is this unified identity you appeal to over your entire life?
The selfhas no identity, no awareness, it is like i stated, it is just the background of our consciousness.
So self awareness is what exactly?
What is this unified identity you appeal to over your entire life?
It is the motherboard of the computer .
What is this unified identity you appeal to over your entire life?
Thos is the self in which we all are born with, the spark behind our identity. Another anology tTake a book, the blank pages are the self, and were there from its beginnings. The words, ideas, beliefs, and so on that are in the book is the i
What is this unified identity you appeal to over your entire life?
The self is in the back ground and is the spark of our consciousness
What is the " background" you're explaining nothing?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Self awareness are just thoughts identifying themselves.
So you're admitting now that the experience of one's personality / individuality are just thoughts, right?
"Thoughts identifying themselves" what does that even mean? How does a thought " identity itself" talk me through it?
Dont start running circles dee
The only one doing that is you as you refuse to answer either May or me regards this mysterious " background " that you cannot define.
Here is the latest question your running in circles from .....What is this unified identity you appeal to over your entire life?
. We LEARN identity
But you cannot even define this unified identity you're constantly appealing to.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
All ofvthis are external stimuli. The self and identity are separate what you are aware of, are your thoughts, in other words, i think therfore i am. But you are still AM without those thoughts. Our thoughts use our perceptions to be aware, but not aware of self. The motor of the boat is the AM, the self @Dee @Dee
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I agreed that awareness is iur thougts and ideals and memories manifestating in the brain. I also said that is. not the self .
But I'm still asking you what is this unified sense of identity you claim we have? The self is not to be found among these continually changing sensations, we can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists.
Idenity and personality .are partially developed at birth due to specific traits the rest is learned and developed as we grow by other people
No they're not , so called personality developes over time.
how they perceive us, how they treat us, by the environment and so on
All ofvthis are external stimuli.
And, how is this relevant to what im asking?
The self and identity are separate what you are aware of, are your thoughts, in other words,
You're still, not answering what I'm asking , lets try this way , what is this permanent underlying state you call self?
i think therfore i am.
The Cogito is flawed its based on the assumption that the self is a fixed unchanging entity as the so called " self" cannot be pinned down or defined in a simple statement.
Several more equally valid criticisms have being made of Descartes Cogito.
But you are still AM without those thoughts.
So you still, are without thoughts ? Do explain?
Our thoughts use our perceptions to be aware, but not aware of self.
If you're not aware of self how can you even talk meaningfully about it.
The motor of the boat is the AM, the sellf
That yet again is avoiding my questions what is this permanent underlying state you call self describe it please?
Are you anger?,love? hate, your emotions? Your feelings or a combination of all? These are ever changing so what is this permanent underlying state you call self?
You cannot meaningfully say what it is and saying chessboard and pieces etc , etc is not convincing at all.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
A blank page is a blank page, it is just a piece of material. Do you then by "self" mean just the material structure of the brain, without all the electric signals transmitted by neurons? And does it make sense to talk about the former without the latter? It seems like talking about the electron, but not its charge - it is not clear what in this case we are even talking about.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Uh yes I said personality develops over time already.
You actually said babies dont have thoughts until I corrected you by claiming correctly they have proto thoughts everyone knows that.
Here is what you still refuse to address ....
Are you anger?,love? hate, your emotions? Your feelings or a combination of all? These are ever changing so what is this permanent underlying state you call self?
No doubt your reply will be the bowl and the soup or some other Deepak Chopra sounding tripe.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Please learn to spell.
It's not a philosophy debate as you don't even understand the Cogito.
Even if it was so what?
So our ever changing personalities are our self?.Man oh man,
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Forget it dee. I done told you im not going to run in circles with you.
But that's all you're doing as you refuse to answer ......What is this permanent underlying state you call self?
If i wanted a debate on cognitive function, i would have created one
And you still couldn't answer ......what is this permanent underlying state you call self?
You just said our ever changing thoughts are our self , thats your final answer it seems.
Now its this mysterious part of the brain thats unthinking it seems. Whereabouts in the brain is this located exactly?
Your buddy Descartes had ideas on this but he used the ridiculous term " soul".
. The philosophy, is that we need no identity, to have a self
Who's philosophy exactly give me a name? You're just making stuff up now.
. It exists independently.
Prove it?
I gave you many examples and you keep asking same questions.
Book / page , Chessboard/pieces, Bowl/ soup ......seriously?
The part of the brain, that keeps itself functioning, with out the thinking process, is the self.
Ok where is it located in the brain exactly?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
No where, and i mean no where did i say that our ever changing thoughts are our self. No where did i say our thoughts or emotions are our self.
OK now we are getting somewhere, you said .....The part of the brain, that keeps itself functioning, with out the thinking process, is the self.
Ok where is it located in the brain exactly? How do you locate this "I " that you claim exists as you say it exists in the brain so where exactly ?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
What i am calling the actual self, is the life of the brain, the spark behind it all. @Dee
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Where? I don't know.
Good , that's what I'm getting at, no one knows yet claim it's existence. Its again like saying " I believe in god but cannot prove he exists"
Its just the brain running. Its just the brain operating. The brain needs to thoughts to function. You may as well ask, where is the identity, our thoughts located in the brain. The self is the brain functioning. It can fo sobwith out identity
Hume famously stated below and you have admitted " I don't know" which is the intellectually honest answer so why do you keep attempting to answer when you admit you dont know, no one knows.
I'm not out to say " gotcha" or " I've won" I'm pointing out all talk of self is meaningless in any significant way.
"If we examine these basic data of our experience, we see that they form a fleeting stream of sensations in our mind and that nowhere among them is the sensation of a “constant and invariable” self that exists as a unified identity over the course of our lives. And because the self is not to be found among these continually changing sensations, we can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists"
David Hume
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Again dee this is but a philosophy debate
What has that got to do with anything.
. Its not about proof, but ideas.
If you're going to claim something exists you need proof if you wish to convince others, I don't believe in this thing you call " self" as I see no evidence for it, you admit you don't know like where it's located like everyone else yet keep claiming it exists which is exactly what a believer in a god does.
Scientifically, i would be right
Scientifically you're totally wrong as a tiny bit of research would have demonstrated to you. Scientists are mostly agreed that the individual self is more akin to a fictional character than a 4eal thing. You really need to wind that ego in as in constantly saying you're right , is that so important to you?
Why are you still arguing when you admit you don't know?
fot the brain is like a biological computer, it still able to function with out data. The data is but the identity.
But you cannot locate the self nor can anyone because the " self" is fictional.
However, i am trying to contain this debate to a philosophical point of view
Really? By crowing "scientifically I would be right?" , seriously Maxx?
Also you seem to think proof is not required in philosophical discussions for assertions made without proof , whys that , where did you get that notion from?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you wish to create a debate from a biological point of view, be my guest.
Why would I do that when science agrees with me there no self despite you saying saying " scientifically I'm right" when scientifically you were wrong?
You havent created a debate in god knows how long.
I created one this morning.
Perhaps you should not reply on a philosophy debate if you think its about proof
Pay attention you always totally ignore points made when I provide answers to your questions by pretending they weren't I asked ......I said....... Also you seem to think proof is not required in philosophical discussions for assertions made without proof , whys that , where did you get that notion from?
So can you attempt a response without pretending I didn't cover this?
. Do you consider philosophy a science? Of course not.
Why are you answering for me? Philosophy is an empirical yet abstract science that is concerned with wide-ranging empirical patterns instead of particular observations.
So how can it possibly be about proof.
Yes it can unless one adapts a position of extreme scepticism which is a pretty useless pursuit.
Its an exchange of ideas about people and the nature of things.
It's much more than that, you keep avoiding answering yet again......... you seem to think proof is not required in philosophical discussions for assertions made without proof , whys that , where did you get that notion from?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You keep using these "empty bowl"-like analogies, but I am afraid they are not doing it for me. An empty bowl is an empty bowl: if the soup is there, then it is a meal, and if not, then it is a piece of wood or ceramic or plastic and little else. If we remove emergent brain functions from the human body, then we will only have a shell running on very basic instincts, a pure nervous system of the kind trees or mushrooms have - is that the "self" you are talking about?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Ah, so you are talking only about the initial spark, the moment the first electrochemical reaction occurs at the brain? Well, first, I do not think that this is how it works at all: brain does not just pop out of nowhere and gets started, but it is forming gradually, and when the first electrochemical reaction occurs, the brain is too undeveloped for anything even remotely resembling consciousness to be there. And second, if it is only the initial spark that occurred a long time ago, then in what sense this "self" can exist today, in my already well formed brain?
I am still not getting it.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
philosophy is an abstract science?
Yes.
This from someone who refuses to accept psychology as one.
Yes, where I live people are allowed have different opinions without others constantly stalking them and arguing otherwise.
well i guess we are done with this debate, for you are straying from the subject anyway
I haven't strayed once I said the self is a fiction you agreed it cannot be located yet you keep coming back trying to convince me it exits , why is beyond me.
. ""Philosophically speaking""( in which this debate is) there is a self.
OK then prove Hume and me wrong as he to my mind was the greatest ever philospher. , so go ahead prove us wrong?
Why do you make stuff up like " scientifically I'm right" when scientifically you were wrong, you're also wrong philosophically.
I don't think you even know what philosophy is to be honest.
I have answered your questions many times and gave you several analogies.
Yes you admitted the self couldn't be located just like god cannot be located yet here you are again trying to convince everyone that something you admit cannot be located exists , pretty ridiculous really.
If you think soup is the self and bowl is the rest is somehow convincing you're mixing with i-iots , that's like something a bible thumper would say which no doubt you call credible evidence.
I do not know, from this point, what it is you are after. Oh and by the way..
I'm after nothing you're the one who admitted the self cannot be located yet you still stalk me post after post trying to prove a self exists , why.?
I know what proto thoughts are they are still, defined as thoughts something else you denied babies have incorrectly as usua.l
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra