Self-Identity

[Wizard22]

From the thread: (viewtopic.php?t=40329)

I was told in a thread that shall not be named that Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" position was recently attacked and disproven.

I've done a fair amount of digging around in his collected works and have lots of research done on the question of consciousness. The individual for whatever reason won't give me the source. If this source rings in someone's mind, please tell me.

And no, I'm not a Cartesian. I'm just interested. Hard to extract info out of some people.

There are arguments against the cogito, but it hasn't been disproven. Proofs are for math and symbolic logic. There are some good arguments against it or saying that it is weaker than it might seem at first glance. I looked at the other thread and while both of you were confusing at times, he was a pest and calling you asking for a source for the debunking a cop out was very silly.

The first main problem with the cogito is that just because there is thinking or really cognition going on it doesn't mean there is an 'I' for example. There could just be this phenomenon. This experiencing, which either persists through some time or doesn't.

How can there not be an "I". Are you at this instant in which you are typing, not conscious? While I admit you could be an AI chatbot for all I know, I can attest to the fact that I exist at this moment, and that I am having what we conscious beings refer to as "thoughts".

I wanted to divert the Cartesian thread to a more generalized concept of 'Self' or 'I'/Identity.

How do people, as young children, begin to develop their "Sense of Self"? How did/do you? What is "you" or "I"?

For example, humans developed the literary concept of Naming one-another. You are known/identified by your name. Animals don't do this, at least, not in a literary/textual sense. Animals may make noises or communicate verbally, to call-out and identify their own kin, but their communication is crude and base level by comparison. It's not sophisticated. Human identity, however, is. So what's your take on this?

[Harbal]

Animals may make noises or communicate verbally, to call-out and identify their own kin, but their communication is crude and base level by comparison. It's not sophisticated.

I suspect I am not alone in thinking that is also a pretty fair description of you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All humans are programmed with the potential to manifest a basic "sense of self" which is embedded within their genes and DNA and represented by the appropriate PHYSICAL neural algorithm and correlates.
It is only those with damaged program that they are unable to progress to a sense of self.

The potential to a sense of self unfold progressively as soon as one is born and continue to be active till one's teenage year and slowly in the adult stage.
In this case, the basis sense of self develop into a unique self-identity as influenced continually by one's genes, psychological states, environment, social, culture, etc.

In later years when the appropriate PHYSICAL neural algorithm and correlates are damaged, the self of self can be lost, e.g. in the case of serious Alzheimer or other sort of brain damage that deactivate the self-sense.

Note the sense of self is also shut off when a person is asleep, under-anasthetic or is in a coma.

I want to draw attention to other potentials embedded in the genes and DNA such as the puberty potential and also the moral potential as a matter of fact that unfolds slowly in time.

[Wizard22]

All humans are programmed with the potential to manifest a basic "sense of self" which is embedded within their genes and DNA and represented by the appropriate PHYSICAL neural algorithm and correlates.
It is only those with damaged program that they are unable to progress to a sense of self.

The potential to a sense of self unfold progressively as soon as one is born and continue to be active till one's teenage year and slowly in the adult stage.
In this case, the basis sense of self develop into a unique self-identity as influenced continually by one's genes, psychological states, environment, social, culture, etc.

In later years when the appropriate PHYSICAL neural algorithm and correlates are damaged, the self of self can be lost, e.g. in the case of serious Alzheimer or other sort of brain damage that deactivate the self-sense.

Note the sense of self is also shut off when a person is asleep, under-anasthetic or is in a coma.

I want to draw attention to other potentials embedded in the genes and DNA such as the puberty potential and also the moral potential as a matter of fact that unfolds slowly in time.

How do you account for feral children? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvSMgi23F3o)

[Veritas Aequitas]

All humans are programmed with the potential to manifest a basic "sense of self" which is embedded within their genes and DNA and represented by the appropriate PHYSICAL neural algorithm and correlates.
It is only those with damaged program that they are unable to progress to a sense of self.

The potential to a sense of self unfold progressively as soon as one is born and continue to be active till one's teenage year and slowly in the adult stage.
In this case, the basis sense of self develop into a unique self-identity as influenced continually by one's genes, psychological states, environment, social, culture, etc.

In later years when the appropriate PHYSICAL neural algorithm and correlates are damaged, the self of self can be lost, e.g. in the case of serious Alzheimer or other sort of brain damage that deactivate the self-sense.

Note the sense of self is also shut off when a person is asleep, under-anasthetic or is in a coma.

I want to draw attention to other potentials embedded in the genes and DNA such as the puberty potential and also the moral potential as a matter of fact that unfolds slowly in time.

How do you account for feral children? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvSMgi23F3o)

I mentioned,
"In this case, the basis sense of self develop into a unique self-identity as influenced continually by one's genes, psychological states, environment, social, culture, etc."

In the case of feral children, their inherent potential for a sense of sense is not triggered and developed via the above necessary elements. My etc. will include parental, siblings and kin influences.

[Wizard22]

I mentioned,
"In this case, the basis sense of self develop into a unique self-identity as influenced continually by one's genes, psychological states, environment, social, culture, etc."

In the case of feral children, their inherent potential for a sense of sense is not triggered and developed via the above necessary elements. My etc. will include parental, siblings and kin influences.

So would then 'Self' be a matter purely of Nurturing rather than Nature, since it is not within Nature that a human develops a (considerable) sense-of-self?

"I" am purely Cultural? Purely textual? Purely literary? Even without the hyperbole, by matter of degree, the "Self" is a development of human civilization/domestication.

What are the implications then for "Self-Consciousness"? Can this be interpreted as "Cultural-Consciousness" directly?

[Harbal]

How do you account for feral children?

How do their parents account for them, that is the question.

[Age]

From the thread: (viewtopic.php?t=40329)

There are arguments against the cogito, but it hasn't been disproven. Proofs are for math and symbolic logic. There are some good arguments against it or saying that it is weaker than it might seem at first glance. I looked at the other thread and while both of you were confusing at times, he was a pest and calling you asking for a source for the debunking a cop out was very silly.

The first main problem with the cogito is that just because there is thinking or really cognition going on it doesn't mean there is an 'I' for example. There could just be this phenomenon. This experiencing, which either persists through some time or doesn't.

How can there not be an "I". Are you at this instant in which you are typing, not conscious? While I admit you could be an AI chatbot for all I know, I can attest to the fact that I exist at this moment, and that I am having what we conscious beings refer to as "thoughts".

I wanted to divert the Cartesian thread to a more generalized concept of 'Self' or 'I'/Identity.

How do people, as young children, begin to develop their "Sense of Self"?

An awareness of being 'different' is forming.

This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY', as "dontaskme" would say, then forms a 'sense of self', which AGAIN is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, but which ACTUALLY exists, though just in ILLUSION.

How did/do you?

ALL of 'you', human beings, who began developing their OWN 'sense of self' did 'this' the EXACT SAME Wrong WAY. Which was/is further EXASPERATED by adult human beings Wrong TEACHINGS and ENCOURAGEMENT of this False 'sense of self'.

What is "you" or "I"?

What IS 'you' is NOT 'I'. AND, is IN FACT VERY, VERY DIFFERENT.

What 'you' ARE are the non visible 'thoughts' and 'emotions', WITHIN the visible human body.

What 'I', in the non visible sense, is the Mind, Itself, WITHIN the visible Universe, Itself.

For example, humans developed the literary concept of Naming one-another. You are known/identified by your name.

'A name' is NOT 'YOUR name', but RATHER just 'A name', which has been denoted that A human body, and which then becomes associated WITH 'that physical body' AND 'person'.

Animals don't do this, at least, not in a literary/textual sense. Animals may make noises or communicate verbally, to call-out and identify their own kin, but their communication is crude and base level by comparison.

AND, just like OTHER past versions of communication among 'you', human beings, was PERCEIVED to be 'crude', by 'current standards', (whenever 'current' IS), SO TO WILL, and IS, the 'current' to when this is being written standard of communication between 'you', human beings, could be LOOKED AT and JUDGED AS BEING 'VERY, VERY CRUDE', if 'I' do say so thy Self.

It's not sophisticated. Human identity, however, is. So what's your take on this?

The 'ego', WITHIN that body, SHINES BRIGHTLY here. This IS 'my take' on what 'you' SAY and WRITE here. 'your' post here, and probably the reason for 'this thread', is so 'you' could in some way 'TRY TO' SHOW 'your superiority', and 'your human superiority', here. Which is REALLY Truly HILARIOUS considering the Fact that 'you', human beings, WERE STILL YET TO ARRIVE AT, and thus YET TO COME-TO-KNOW, the True 'self-identity' AND True 'Self-identity'.

'you' REALLY DO BELIEVE that 'you', and that 'current' form of human communication, is MUCH MORE SUPERIOR TO "others", RIGHT "wizard22"?

[Wizard22]

How do their parents account for them, that is the question.

Shush hairball, adults are philosophizing now. You know where the kid's table is.

[Age]

Animals may make noises or communicate verbally, to call-out and identify their own kin, but their communication is crude and base level by comparison. It's not sophisticated.

I suspect I am not alone in thinking that is also a pretty fair description of you.

Although "wizards22" ability at communication was NOT that much MORE CRUDE, NOR LESS SOPHISTICATED, then the 'general' human being's ability was, at the time and period of these writings, the fact that "wizard22" ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it', and 'its acquaintances', were MORE SUPERIOR THAN "others" were, just SHOWS how LITTLE "wizard22" REALLY UNDERSTOOD, and KNEW.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I mentioned,
"In this case, the basis sense of self develop into a unique self-identity as influenced continually by one's genes, psychological states, environment, social, culture, etc."

In the case of feral children, their inherent potential for a sense of sense is not triggered and developed via the above necessary elements. My etc. will include parental, siblings and kin influences.

So would then 'Self' be a matter purely of Nurturing rather than Nature, since it is not within Nature that a human develops a (considerable) sense-of-self?

"I" am purely Cultural? Purely textual? Purely literary? Even without the hyperbole, by matter of degree, the "Self" is a development of human civilization/domestication.

What are the implications then for "Self-Consciousness"? Can this be interpreted as "Cultural-Consciousness" directly?

The sense of self is both Nature and Nurture.
All humans are programmed with a sense-of-self potential via their genes and DNA, this is the Nature part of it.
However this self-of-sense potential can only unfold effectively with the right human nurturing factors.

As such, IF a human is nurtured by a pack of dogs [if that is possible], he is not likely to have a sense of self like the normal human person.
However, I believe because the feral child is basically and naturally a human being with a sense of self potential within his genes and DNA, he is likely to develop some sort of proto- sense of self which would be more aware than the dogs which nurture him.

[Wizard22]

This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY', as "dontaskme" would say, then forms a 'sense of self', which AGAIN is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, but which ACTUALLY exists, though just in ILLUSION.

If everybody and everything is the same, and "I" pinch "myself", then you should feel pain too, since you are no different than I.

How do you explain this?

[Harbal]

How do their parents account for them, that is the question.

Shush hairball, adults are philosophizing now. You know where the kid's table is.

Both you and VA are quite remarkable on your own, and I am very much looking forward to seeing what heights of stupidity you can achieve together.

[Wizard22]

he is likely to develop some sort of proto- sense of self which would be more aware than the dogs which nurture him.

You mean... even a feral child is more intelligent/cognizant than dogs?

[Wizard22]

Both you and VA are quite remarkable on your own, and I am very much looking forward to seeing what heights of stupidity you can achieve together.

You're just jealous.