/lit/ - Literature

>>22356891
we're both offshoots of the white race-consciousness, we are the same thing if you trace back far enough

>>22356891

You are me. I am you.

You are you because of a metaphysical necessity for differentiation as a condition of coherent perception. In other words, to perceive any arbitrary X, one first needs not-X. This, by the way, is what the Fall is about.

>>22356891
This is purely a semantics game and demonstrates the limits of language and/or abstract conceptualization and borders on absurdity.

As an example of the abuse/misuse of language, I will form an absurd hypothesis.

>This is my world and everyone that appears in my world are merely projections born from my sentience

Now this begs a whole slew of other spurious questions which are debatable:

>Is reality received or transmitted?
>Since this is my world when do I get to rule it?
>Why are people in MY world so entitled, as if it’s THEIR world?
>Why did I get thrown in jail for killing my neighbor who repeatedly let his dog shit on my freshly laid sod?

You see this line of hypotheses and questioning is usually fruitless and only leads men to ruin and delusion. This is not your world and there are natural laws which are apparent and do not need further examination by your limited conscious capacity.

>>22356891
without me there wouldn’t be a you because my awareness as me wouldn’t be aware of you. you’re welcome for letting you exist. dumbass frogposter.

>>22356891
Because A is A. If A were B, then it would be B.

>>22356953
As can be Bs is they feel that’s what they are chud.

>>22356891
What do you mean by 'me' and 'you'? Laws of grammar aren't laws of nature. It seems the things that make us one in the same are far more numerous than the things that make us distinct.

>>22356891
See John Duns Scot's concept of haecceity.

There are minds, but the question is why I have a particular mind instead of another. We can explain why a certain mind has a certain experience, and not another, but it seems harder to explain why a we have the subjective perspective of a mind, but not another mind.

I think it's like redness. Why does this particular instance of redness belong to this red object and not another red object? The redness is the same and posesses the same properties in both objects, but why does this instance of redness belong to this object instead of another object?

A tentative solution is probably to argue that particulars are more important than universals. The reason I have this mind, is becuase my particular subjective perspective was created in this instance and then conjoined to this particular body. The reason this object has this instance of redness is becuase this instance of redness was created when this object was created.

>>22356891
Meaningless language games are tackled by Wittgenstein. He explains why your question is nonsense.

>>22356891
Based clueless frognigger.

>>22356891
Because I am me

i did an elective course on philosophy of mind once and half the time I felt like I was far too dumb for these esoteric concepts and the other half I felt like the philosophers were all speaking worthless drivel

Pay no mind to the postmodern linguistic drivel ITT, those are merely puns and sophisms. The answer is unironically because it is God's will

>>22356891
It's an accident of some configuration of matter that we see ourselves as individuals. To a sufficiently objective outside observer, everyone and everything on the earth must seem like a huge, vibrating, homogenous mass of existence. Read the Vedas.

>>22357140
I've read Wittgenstein a lot and I don't think OP's question is meaningless. We know consciousness exists and simultaneously it doesn't seem to fit anywhere in physics or even by describable in the language of physical models, but if we assume that it is some type of physical process, (like, if, for example it is found somehow that measurement on quantum mechanics depends on consciousness, and a field theory is developed where consciousness has a measurable effect, then we could describe some of consciousness as physics phenomena) then it makes sense to wonder about the existence of the self as being guided by physical processes. One could meaningfully ask if the variables associated with consciousness exhibit any behavior around death or birth or conception, and then it could be meaningfully asked if these variables merge into a blob or wither away or are guided deterministically by another variable. We could then get theoretical tools which describe what happens, if anything, after or before death, and whether or not the self, as experienced, can be made to exist again with materials in the physical world. I don't think this is a mere language game. If the word "why" we're swapped for "how" in OP's prompt, then it describes something which may be turned into a repeatable scientific process (and if it's repeatable it must also be logically interpretable.)

>>22357194
Consciousness and identity are two different topics and you are carelesely mixing them up. OP's question is meaningless because it is inherently unanswerable. Ask yourself, what would be the properties of a possible answer in order to be recognized by OP (or by you) as a satisfying answer to his question.

Singular consciousness temporarily embodied in separate particular arrangements of shared matter. Souls bouncing between these bodies for eternity. A lot of cope answers ITT because "other" "people" are uncomfortable with this reality.

>>22357230
>Souls
How can there be multiple souls if there is only one consciousness?

>>22357205
Where are you getting the word "identity" from? Is it because OP said "I" and not "my consciousness?" I think it is perfectly sensible to interpret the proposition as referring to consciousness, similar to how the existential question is raised "why is there something instead of nothing?" (We can't ask early Wittgenstein if he rejected that question on its form, but he still addressed it in the Tractatus.) Removing unlikely interpretations, I see it fit to rephrase OP's question as "What causes consciousness to be placed in one body instead of another?" This question is potentially within the bounds of scientific inquiry, which means it is not a meaningless question to ask. The process for answering it was described in the previous post. Although I will grant that one caveat is that we would only have a set of hypothetical variables which strongly indicate the presence of consciousness. However that may be enough to measurably affect it. It's similar to the glass table analogy of mechanics at the end of the Tractatus. It's also similar to the field of differential equations, which are technically not allowed in Wittgenstein's logic, as they involve predicting the future, but that hasn't stopped us from developing workable models in practice, so long as it is logically admitted they are models.

>>22357241
Souls, identities, the ego, the self. The specific terminology you apply to the same illusion isn't as important as the principle behind it.

That makes me think of a magnificent little 10 minute cartoon:
https://youtu.be/KUXKUcsvhQc?list=FL9vQMRRiy-kfrmiynRd76xA
It is the story of a teleportation machine that destroys the original and reproduces it exactly as it was, so that the new person is convinced nothing has changed except their location.
No one would want to enter such a machine, right? Then what exactly is lost in the process?

Anon, there are a million 'entities' inside you with different awareness realms of your thoughts and body. Each of these 'entities' think they are the real you who oversees the most important parts and everything else is just 'subconscious' and a part of them, it's why sometimes you do things and you're not aware of the thought process, it was a different you controlling it and they are just as baffled by things 'you' think through and alter your body because of as you are of them.

>>22356891
John Locke

>>22357155
Philosophy has useful branches and useless branches. The useful branches (logic) flourished into natural sciences while the useless branches (metaphysics) remained philosophy.

>>22357284
my penis has never thought it was the whole me. only the whole me thinks its the whole me. so consciousness is not just awareness realms. its probably an emergent property of those realms but its clearly the more dominant than those realms.

>>22357244
Where are you getting the word "consciousness" from? OP never mentioned consciousness. If you're asking why some people are NPCs while others are conscious beings then that's a scientific question and partially answered by Penrose's OrchOR.

I sincerely do not believe that anything related to the answers that might come from the question you are posing is anything but inherent drivel that should just be ignored.
Existentialism as a whole is a flawed concept, matters of existence as you're trying to get into, has no truth or real meaning to anything that might come from asking these questions. Overall, a circlejerk of a bunch of morons that essentially capitulate on concepts that cannot be translated into any type of meaningful or valued concepts that benefit the individual other than intellectually stimulating tendencies among people that have lost their ways in their lives and are attempting to poison other people into following their defeatist and existentialist dread so prevalent among these questions and answers that might arise.
With just about any other question there could have been actual answers which have meaning and value, what you're asking is so vague that a million types of potential answers, all of which can be considered valid, end up losing its actual potential to reach a meaningful and worthwhile answer.
You could just as well have asked '''why?'', a question with no real answer, and you'd get the same speculation over the question you're asking.

Language is crucial, wording is crucial, vague questions such as the one you're posing seeks the opposite vague answer. Where is the necessity towards a valued answer when the question in itself is so vague? There's no actual point to what you're asking as there is no actual real true answer.

>>22357321
I thought my post explained where I got the word consciousness from but let me make it more explicit: the word "I" is ambiguous and can refer to many things. It could refer to the mind or the body. (For example, if someone believes in the afterlife, they may still say "I am gonna die" or "I will watch you from heaven." In the former they use I to refer exclusively their body, the latter exclusively a sense of self not described by their body ("soul" or "consciousness")) therefore "consciousness" could be equivalent to "I" if the proposition excludes the body definition but does not exclude the other definition. In other words, phrases which have multiple definitions can be assumed to have a particular definition if the context only allows one particular definition to be coherent. (However, I still wouldn't put a vague proposition into a contract. The rules of ordinary language don't apply there.)

>>22357324
>>22357335
To repeat, on the off-chance this nigga isn't a bot
>A lot of cope answers ITT because "other" "people" are uncomfortable with this reality.

>What Is It Like to Be a Bat?
UMMM EXCUSE ME? DO YOU EVEN SEMANTICS? IS THIS A LANGUAGE GAME?????
I stg allowing brainlets to have babby's first Wittgenstein phase has been a disaster

>>22356891
Law of identity states using first principles I come to know myself through experience.
Law of Noncontradiction states I can't be myself and you at the same time.

>>22356955
Not if a and b both have wills independant of eachother libcuck

>>22356891
Because you cannot be me since I am me, you can only be you since you are you.

>>22356891
I think, therefore I am not you.

>>22357403
>therefore I am not you.
Thank god I don't have a faggot being part of me.

>>22357461
>projecting own absence of thought
If nigger is a state of mind, you are the niggest

>>22357473
>he doesn't realize that the absence of thought is actually the most enriching form of thinking as you have the ability to materialize knowledge from the vast realm of pure knowledge that is also infinite
Read some more, retard.

>>22357492
I have nothing intelligent to say to that, because you are so god damn stupid.

>>22356891
"Me" and "you" are indexical words; their meaning depends on who says them. "Me" and "I" don't name a special entity. They are the words you use when you refer to yourself. Asking "why am I me?" is like asking "Why is the time always now?" or "Why is the place where I am always here?"

Because of the analytic a priori meaning of me and you. It is contained in the concepts of me and you that you are not me and I will never be you.

>>22357569
>>22357565
Are you autistically missing the point on purpose? You niggers are reminding me why I switched undergrad. The anglo-analytic-assburgers tradition is disgusting.

>>22357263
i'm sad no one answered this. it seems to me that this thought experiment pinpoints the problem and makes it clear it's not reductible to semantics.
If you're cloned with all your memory and die in the process, all will be lost for you even though an exact copy of you will still exist. It seems simple to understand why, but my brain glitches when I try.

>>22356891
Depends what you think:
>Universe is brought by chance
>Universe is brought by intention

If 1st then there is no why
If 2nd then ask supreme being

>>22357609
It's not our fault you are too stupid to ask a better question.

>>22357263
I love how this video BTFOs all the retards in this thread saying it is just semantics.

>>22356891
because I am based and you are cringe.

>>22356949
>arch-nordic
What’s next? Dire German?

>>22356891

From Schrödinger's book my view of the world

>>22357734
Doesn't answer the question.

>>22357734
He sounds like alien trying to make others think he is human.

>>22357734

>>22357962

>>22357968

>>22357962
>>22357968
>>22357973
that's an interesting read and quite reassuring because that's similar to what i confusedly thought. thanks anon

>>22356891
Plenty.
First, you have to answer the long time question: what is being?
Second, you need to be able to distinguish you and I are different by defining the limitations of being and then defining differences in being.
Lastly, you need to ligma balls.
Retards.

>>22357734
>>22357962
>>22357968
>>22357973
very nice read

>>22356891
I think what makes me me and you you is a difference in vibration, seriously though, I think we're different patterns of matter.
Think about consciousness and your identity from a materialist perspective, throughout your lifespan, it's like the Ship of Theseus. Different matter but a continuation of the same pattern, though it does change slowly.
This is why as an atheist I actually think our consciousness continues after death. We are matter, the matter is aware of itself, right now I'm this one particular pattern called me. But after this pattern ends, things will still exist and matter will still be aware of itself. It's obvious that my matter will go back to the earth and rejuvenate it in a complex pattern.
So; matter in a pattern=consciousness AND after I die there will still be a pattern to the stuff that makes me, and a pattern equals consciousness. Right now I'm this particular pattern, afterwards I'll be another thing (hopefully not a bug).

>>22356891
>why am I me and not you? any philosopher tackled this?
Benj Hellie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

>>22356891
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ709yH9NqY

>>22358903
What is this matter, and why do we need it to explain anything? I've never seen it. If you define it as "the stuff that's aware of itself" why can't we just call that mind?

>>22356891
I'll be the one person in this thread to actually answer the question. It's not about consciousness, it's about the presence of experience in a particular subject (as opposed to any other). It's not "what is consciousness?" but "why is *this* experience the one that is present?"

Read Valberg. Pic related is one of the few book-length works devoted to the question. He takes it further by exploring the puzzles that a consideration of the problem raises and their consequences for our ordinary intuitions about the self and its relation to the world. I think it is no exaggeration to call it one of the three seminal works of 21st-century philosophy. The writing is also deeply personal. The other books on this are Caspar Hare's "On Myself and Other Less Important Subjects" and Mark Johnston's "Surviving Death" which in some respects is an attempt to grapple with the implications of Valberg's work.

Nagel, Wittgenstein, and Zeno Vendler attempt to wrap their heads around this but not on a scale approaching the vast synthetic treatment that Valberg provides.

>>22356891
If you were me, you would still be asking the same question

>>22359177
I was meaning physical matter. The physical matter our bodies is made of, is aware of itself. So what I'm claiming is that physical matter can be aware of itself, right now I'm an isolated pattern of matter, but when this pattern ends the awareness will just continue and absorb itself into other patterns of physical matter. I literally just thought about this this morning and am kind of just having fun with the idea right now so bear with me.
Like what if the cosmos and everything that exists is essentially aware of itself. And when taken all together this physical matter that's aware of itself due to the complex patterns creates a mind we call God (the cosmos does actually resemble neurons when viewed at a massive level). From there maybe you get why I'd say when I die I'd continue on in a different way.
Idk this seems to make sense to me. It started because I was trying to think about consciousness is as an atheist. It seems supernatural, maybe it is? But if it really is just physical matter that's aware of itself then I think there are very large implications to what happens to our consciousness when we die.

>>22359365
>I was meaning physical matter
Still have no idea what this is and why it needs to be posited in the first place. Why can't everything be patterns in mind and leave it at that? Also, assuming you think the universe is composed of discrete units we refer to as "matter", is one of these discrete units aware of itself, or only aware of matter other than itself?

This thought fucks me up and it comes down to the ability to reincarnate into another body. It’s like if a clone was created of you, would that be you? What makes you you? It’s a bit of a mindfuck to think about. In the past I’ve come to the conclusion that we are interconnected in some way. Consciousness is bewildering.

>>22359555
No clue. Maybe my idea doesn't hold merit. To try and answer though I might say that it's the communion of the discrete units in a pattern that creates a mind, and there is a mind that is made from absolutely every discrete unit in the universe.

>>22359217
Holy deep, batman.

>>22356891
You are, but there are things that you perceive that aren't a part of yourself. To your perception, they are not (you). Why? Hell if I know. I just wanted to shill Descartes

>>22356891
If Open Individualism is true, the question is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism

>>22356891
non question without an answer, don't break your fragile mind against it

>>22356891
You are giving undue primacy to the function of an organ. Why do your kidneys filter your piss and not mine? The same reason your brain does you and mine does me. It only seems strange if you think there's something special about consciousness.

>>22359822
then explain this >>22357263
I would have no problem losing a kidney and getting it replaced instantly, but I sure wouldn't want to die and be replaced by an exact copy. My "unique consciousness" (ipseity, the fact that I'm me and not someone else) is by definition not replaceable, so yes it is special.

>>22356891
You're not you. I however, am me. And it is simply because I declare it.

>>22356891

I am you

>>22356891
I am you bro

>>22359131
>analytic philosopher
>doesn't actually answer the question but drowns it in pointless jargon and displaces the problem to the point anyone will lose interest in the potentially interesting original question
Like clockwork.

>>22356891
Who are you?

>>22360204
>didn't read the work and spergs about analytics
like clockwork- kys midwit

>>22360875
Wouldnt get half as much bile out of you if it wasn't an accurate assessment lmao

>>22356891
I think the neo-platonists tackled this question by saying that we are one form in soul but matter has flaws that lead to permutations and novelty in representing such forms and that the harmony between soul and matter is what we perceive as the ego. In other words you are you and I am me because we are separate aspects of the same form illuminating different matter.

>>22359217
>Why is the sky blue?
>Because of the sky was green, you would be asking why it's green.

>>22356891
nope, they just ask the question again in a more convoluted way.

>>22356948
> This is not your world and there are natural laws which are apparent and do not need further examination by your limited conscious capacity.
..look at this... and he was doing So good...

>>22356891
> any philosopher tackled this?
Literally the whole field is about that.

>>22356891
Actual answer: the principle of sufficient reason, or why things are the way they are and not otherwise.

>mfw metaphysical personalist
>mfw reading pringle-pattison
>mfw reading bowne
>mfw reading howison
>mfw my free will is so powerful i radiate an aura of excess freedom that partially liberates nearby jivas from their conditioning

>>22357609
I'm sorry that I gave an answer that dissolves the problem by showing it rests on a misuse of language, instead of a continental "philosophy" word salad like >>22356925

>>22356891
Well, good question. But someone has to be whoever they are. But thankfully NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die. And NDErs talk about how life is like a simulation or a video game and we chose to come here.
So we are who we are because our higher self wanted to experience this life.

But why are we our higher selves and not some other higher selves? Now that goes beyond what we can know about right now I think. But we will get the answers to it in the afterlife.

And NDEs are more real than this world, in every way. For instance, NDErs report expanded intelligence. One NDEr said that the greatest supergenius who ever lived, with the help of the greatest supercomputer of all time, would be immeasurably dwarfed by the intelligence she had access to while in the light, so much so that it would be closer and fairer to compare the intelligence of Einstein to that of an ant. Literally and seriously. And as another NDEr described their cognition during their life review:

>"I looked up, and saw four translucent screens begin to appear - and form a kind of gigantic, cubed box all around me. It was through this method that I was shown my life review. Without ever having to turn my head, I panoramically saw my past, present, future - and there was even a screen behind me that displayed a tremendous amount of scientific data, numbers, symbols and universal codes. I was in complete amazement because (as all of this was occurring) I realized I understood absolutely everything I was seeing - even in the most microscopic detail! There seemed to be no limit to the thoughts I was able to think or the ideas I was able to absorb. In this space, what we tend to think of as a limited comprehension or single-mindedness here on Earth, becomes truly infinite and limitless here! I kept thinking over and over how true it is what they say: that when we go back home - we all really are of one mind!"

From here: https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

Another way NDEs are more real is how one NDEr said that he saw more than 80 new primary colors in the NDE world, compared to the 3 primary colors we have here.

From here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So heaven is undeniably real. And NDErs talk about how everything is known already.

>>22356891
it's pretty simple actually. it's because you can piss with your own body but not mine

>>22356891
are we interconnected? sure. does that mean we are 'one'? sure. does that mean I am you and you are me? not in the common usage of 'me' and 'you', no. meaning is use.

>>22361621
in this life you can believe whatever you want to believe.

not trying to imply there's any free will in why you believe what you believe, however.

>>22357167
Based

If my leg goes completely numb it's like it doesn't exist to me. Why do I consider my "self" to be somewhere in my head? Is it the eyes? If my eyes were on my knees with the cranial nerves intact would that affect my point of view? Why do cranial nerves have such precedence? Yet if my brain was across the room with all nerves intact connected to my head and body, I'd feel like my "self" was in my skull, not my brain. Right? The "self" is probably a closely situated group of reactions to stimuli.

nice try doctor, I will not take my pills

the ONLY way there can be a you or me at all is metaphysical, which is also why neuroscientists will never solve consciousness and no scientist will ever replicate a living cell out of something unalive
countless arrogant fags itt have been derisive towards you for asking it because some other modern fag nihilist psued (all philosophers after Nietzsche are psueds) that spent his life in academia has claimed this question that has perturbed humanity since its origin is just "linguistic drivel" to quote some anons here
don't listen

the answer is either god or there is no answer
ultimately we cannot know

>>22356891
If things were not THIS way, they would be ANOTHER. If things were ANOTHER way, perhaps someone would ask "Why are things ANOTHER way?" and someone else might answer "If things were not ANOTHER way they would be THIS way".

>>22356891
Parsimonious view of identity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6fcK_fRYaI

>>22356891
Identity is not a meaningful relation once pushed to a certain point. Saying two things are “identical” only holds so far as they are similar to a high degree. Asking the question “why am I me” implies there is something over and above one’s physical body (including emergent consciousness). There is no architectonic reason, only a series of physical causes.

>>22357569
a priori meaning, and not just that but also analytic...anon, did you even graduate?

>>22356959
his shit is so hard to find.

A thought experiment: if your father had been a different man or you were conceived at a different time, would the resulting child still be you?

In one sense, of course not because that'd be a different body and mind that isn't this body and mind you have/are now. But at the same time everyone has the exact same basic feeling/experience of being "me" or "I"; so in this sense yes you would still exist because that alternate timeline child would still feel like you. There's something to this that I can't really express very well but hopefully someone else can do that, because the original question prods at an intuition which seems lazy to dismiss as merely misunderstanding language. It's also entirely possible that I'm irredeemably retarded.

>>22365096
Yes in that the particular discrete awareness which experiences the phenomena that make up your life would be yours, and would not experience the phenomena of someone else; no in that it would experience a different set of phenomena and thus the identity, sense of self, etc enjoining that awareness would not be yours as you are now.