Does "I" Exist? Or, Just a Concept?

[Iacchus]

From this thread ...

I must ask if you consider a concept a real thing. Is it? Is it as real as a material quantity, such as matter, energy, a force, etc.? Do you have (require) any qualifiers between the two?

To the degree that "things" affect us, yes they are real ... whether they affect us internally or, externally.

So I will again ask if concepts are real things -- or must they be given qualifiers that differ them in some way from other real things?

Our id-entity arises from the same place that concepts do by the way. So in that respect concepts are just as real as "we" are.

Maybe not. Perhaps concepts are just a product of our id-entity -- I would not be so quick as to assign them equal status.

Yes, but there are certain folks -- around here even -- that would contest that "I" doesn't even exist. So, which "I" are we referring to then? The one that exists as a concept? Or, the one that exists in the "id?" Of course when referring to the former, we would have to ask how a concept is capable of conceptualizing itself? Very strange. But then again, if both do arise from the same source (the id), that would satisfy the notion of conceptualized "I," as well as the realized "I." In which case we have to ask, however, if there is another continuum, that exists beyond the realm of our senses and, time and space?

 

[Mojo]

Yes, but there are certain folks -- around here even -- that would contest that "I" doesn't even exist.

Can you provide an example (i.e a link to the relevant post) of someone "around here" asserting this?

 

[Iacchus]

I must ask if you consider a concept a real thing. Is it? Is it as real as a material quantity, such as matter, energy, a force, etc.? Do you have (require) any qualifiers between the two?

Yes, in answer to this question, concepts are just as real as that which conceptualizes them. In which case we have to ask, is "I" merely a concept?

 

[Bone_Vulture]

[Prior nonsensical drivel omitted]

In which case we have to ask, however, if there is another continuum, that exists beyond the realm of our senses and, time and space?

Is Iacchus making any "sense"?

 

[Zep]

Here, I'll finish this one up quick.

Iacchus, you DON'T EXIST!

Build a bridge and get over it.

Next!

 

[Iacchus]

Here, I'll finish this one up quick.

Iacchus, you DON'T EXIST!

Build a bridge and get over it.

Next!

With what, mental constructs? Am merely asking if "I" is just a mental construct? And if it is, then what constitutes mental? If it were just mental, as if it didn't mean anything in and of itself, then what would be the point? And yes, "I" do exist by the way. So get over it ...

 

[Zep]

With what, mental contsructs? Am merely asking if "I" is just a mental construct? And if it is, then what constitutes mental? If it were just mental, as if it didn't mean anything in and of itself, then what would be the point? And yes, "I" do exist by the way. So get over it ...

Then haven't you just answered your own question? However your refusal to listen to yourself is not MY problem!

Ta ta!

 

[Iacchus]

Can you provide an example (i.e a link to the relevant post) of someone "around here" asserting this?

In how many words? Or, perhaps if I brought up the notion that "I" were somehow "special." Would that make a difference?

 

[Iacchus]

Then haven't you just answered your own question? However your refusal to listen to yourself is not MY problem!

Ta ta!

Yes, and all you need to do is tell me where the notion of "you" comes from? As merely a by-product of the physical processes that exist around you? Or, is there actually more to it than this?

 

[Mojo]

In how many words? Or, perhaps if I brought up the notion that "I" were somehow "special." Would that make a difference?

What I was aking for was for you to provide a link to a post that substantiates your claim that someone "around here" has asserted that "I" does not exist. Since you have, as usual, retreated into waffle and smilies, I think it's reasonable to assume that you can't.

 

[Zep]

Yes, and all you need to do is tell me where the notion of "you" comes from? As merely a by-product of the physical processes that exist around you? Or, is there actually more to it than this?

Check!
YOUR!
Medication!

 

[Iacchus]

What I was aking for was for you to provide a link to a post that substantiates your claim that someone "around here" has asserted that "I" does not exist. Since you have, as usual, retreated into waffle and smilies, I think it's reasonable to assume that you can't.

Could you tell me what you did at 2:00 o'clock PM two weeks ago last Thursday?

So, what do you think? Is there an "I" that exists outside of the physical processes of the brain? ... Or, is it as you and other folks around here would contend, that it is merely a construct of said process? If so, then how does "it" differ from any other so-called constructs that exist within the same parameters ... concepts in other words?

 

[Iacchus]

Check!
YOUR!
Medication!

So when are you going to get rid of your stupid signature? It really is difficult to differentiate between this and/or figure out what it really is you're trying to say.

 

[Mojo]

Could you tell me what you did at 2:00 o'clock PM two weeks ago last Thursday?

This is beside the point. You have asserted that someone on this forum has claimed that "I" does not exist. Please provide a link to the post. Try using the forum's search function.

So, what do you think? Is there an "I" that exists outside of the physical processes of the brain? ... Or, is it as you and other folks around here would contend, that it is merely a construct of said process?

Saying that it exists as part of the physical processes of the brain is not the same as saying that it doesn't exist. Try again.

 

[Iacchus]

Check!
YOUR!
Medication!

Yes, and as if there was some kind of "special" implication behind those words? Why should "I" be affected by it in the least if not? Why should concepts have feelings, right?

 

[Ryokan]

Can you provide an example (i.e a link to the relevant post) of someone "around here" asserting this?

Check out the Skeptical criticism on Buddhist beliefs and observances thread, if you have the stomach for it. Early in the discussion, the topic is Buddhists and the concept of 'self', which Buddhists reject.

 

[Iacchus]

This is beside the point. You have asserted that someone on this forum has claimed that "I" does not exist. Please provide a link to the post. Try using the forum's search function.

I barely remember what I did yesterday, let alone what anyone else did. That isn't to say I'm incapable of acknowledging things in principle, however. The river flows ... and, albeit it retains its form, it's forever changing.

Saying that it exists as part of the physical processes of the brain is not the same as saying that it doesn't exist. Try again.

So, at what point would you say it does or does not exist as part of the physical process of the brain? And again, if other things of said process are not considered "real" in and of themselves, why should "the self" (that which "thinks" through these processes) be considered any more real?

 

[Mojo]

So, at what point would you say it does or does not exist as part of the physical process of the brain?

There is no evidence that my consciousness exists as anything other than the processes of my brain. But saying this is not the same as saying that it doesn't exist.

 

[Iacchus]

Check out the Skeptical criticism on Buddhist beliefs and observances thread, if you have the stomach for it. Early in the discussion, the topic is Buddhists and the concept of 'self', which Buddhists reject.

The "self" exists in principle, albeit much like a river, which is affected and impressed upon, it is forever changing.

 

[Ryokan]

The "self" exists in principle, albeit much like a river, which is affected and impressed upon, it is forever changing.

Wow, this new year is loking good for you, Iacchus. I (and the Buddha) agree completely.

Of course, this is the foundation Buddhists use to go further; to reject the permanent self that some people call a soul.