It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 'I' in I am

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Interesting topic.

Makes me think of Descartes' views on the separation of mind and body, including his famous "I think, therefore I am" phrase.

If we look at it from the language perspective, "I" functions as a pronoun to describe oneself, whereas "am" functions as a verb, indicating that the subject is living. But is it having a body that functions or a mind that functions that describes our state of being?

In my opinion, I believe the "I" refers to one's own mind/consciousness, not the body as a whole. The body can function biologically, but it cannot truly live without the mind.

[edit on 3/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 




I believe the "I" refers to one's own mind/consciousness


"One's own?"

How can I claim posession of my mind, my consciousness when it is very likely that the "I" that is writing this response is also perceived as in union with larger and other sets?

Does the grain of sand "possess" itself? Is it not also part of the beach?

There is likely a unified "human" consciousness, just as there is likely a unified "male" consciousness, a unified "living thing on earth" consciousness, and any of an infinity of other groupings that possess identity and consciousness of their own, of which I am part.

But the "I" that is perceiving me as a union of the heart, mind and body of one individual is not privy to the perception of "me" perceived by those other consciousnesses.

So is "my" consciousness really "mine?"



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
"One's own?"

How can I claim posession of my mind, my consciousness when it is very likely that the "I" that is writing this response is also perceived as in union with larger and other sets?

Does the grain of sand "possess" itself? Is it not also part of the beach?

There is likely a unified "human" consciousness, just as there is likely a unified "male" consciousness, a unified "living thing on earth" consciousness, and any of an infinity of other groupings that possess identity and consciousness of their own, of which I am part.

But the "I" that is perceiving me as a union of the heart, mind and body of one individual is not privy to the perception of "me" perceived by those other consciousnesses.

So is "my" consciousness really "mine?"


That all comes down to belief. If you believe that humans are innately all connected and part of the same creation, then what you say makes sense. I'm guessing you do feel this way?

A grain of sand is not a good comparison because it is not a living organism and does not have a sense of self-awareness. It does not have a conscience or a brain to reason with (as of our current understanding).

If the point you are making is that what we perceive to be a single entity might in reality be apart of a greater creation, and thus by extension the same entity and not a separate one, then I agree. We could very well be grains of sand in one big ocean to complement your analogy.

[edit on 3/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
The ego is the lower self, the body and its physical functions,

the higher self is the mind of the body, the YOU beyond all material forms.

The "I" is the consciousness we are taught to transcend. Once you surpass the I, there is nothing left, and you realize the infinite nature of your true self. Not nothing, but unlimited being, which is the cause of all lower beings.



new topics

top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join