No, because what’s missing is You. — bizso09

For me "You" is just a pointer to a specific mind

Does that mean that in fact You is globally unique — bizso09

Yes. Once 'you' has been stripped of particularity, and isolated from physicality and mentality,

I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together — Lennon,Mccartney

But my Cosmology is simpler:

P1. There is stuff.
P2. Stuff is related.
P3. Relations are not more stuff.

P3 explicitly forbids talk of "obj 1, 2, 3, and people A,B,C", because people are relations not more stuff.
One talks of three ducks in a row, not three ducks and a row. Thus a person is the (active) relation of a human body to the world, in the same way that 'a row' is the relation of the ducks to each other.

There is no need to wonder 'what happens to the row' when one duck moves sideways - the relation is changed from a row to a triangle; and when a human body dies, its relation to the world changes from active to passive.

Finally, 'you', and 'I' are the relations between two relations between two bodies and the the world, such that You are your I and I am your you. This is just like the fact that whenever the cat is on the mat, the mat is under the cat.

:up: "Goo goo g'joob!"

People are already objects, so why a Step 2? Addition of a mind makes a person no more or less an object.

Even if Step 2, because people have minds, why then Step 3? Minds are presupposed by Step 2, thus no need to add it. Plus, people without minds is a logical inconsistency at least, and incomprehensible at most.

Even if Step 3 already assigned a first-person experience by the assignment of subjectivity, then Step 4 implies a Me, not a You. “First-person perspective existence” and “You” are mutually exclusive.

Thus, from Step 3, Step 5 implies a plurality of Me’s, not You’s.

A plurality of Me’s implies multiple singularities, thus do not necessarily mutually exclude each other, hence Step 5 ceases to be a problem.
——————

when the world is observed, it exists from a single frame of reference — bizso09

I get what you mean, but this, as worded, is patently false, insofar as the existence of the world is determinable only by means of the observation of it, which makes explicit that antecedent to the human minds with which this treatise concerns itself, there was no world in existence, which is absurd. An exemplification of the Kantian premise that the pure conception, a.k.a., the category, of “existence” can never be a predicate in a synthetic proposition.

More suitably stated then, is, when the world is observed, knowledge of it is from a single frame of reference, the same frame in which the observation occurs.
—————-

If there are many frames of reference, then what tells you which one You are seeing right now? — bizso09

....“what tells you which one You...” makes no sense;
....one doesn’t see a frame of reference; one sees from a frame of reference.

There can be no “complete description of the world”, for such absolutely requires the unconditioned, the ideal, the irreducible. Neither logical syllogism nor pure thought can manufacture the unconditioned that is at the same time part of the very world it is meant to describe.

Constructive critique, not a rebuke.

You is not just a Mind, but it is purely a SELECTION or DETERMINATION of a point of view or frame of reference. While there can be many Minds, the point of view is single. It makes no sense to talk about multiple selections, because when the world is observed, it exists from a single frame of reference. If there are many frames of reference, then what tells you which one You are seeing right now? — bizso09

You are squeezing three relevant philosophies into two buckets. The consequence is platonic nonsense.

There is the philosophy of the subjective private One called I, and of the subjective public others with many of you. Third, we have the many but countable scientifically public arbitrary observer~observation complexes, called sciences, with designated scientific objects and scientific relations that have nothing whatsoever to do with experience.

"Who?"
Outis.

I would say "you" is like x in algebra. "You" could be anybody just as x could be any number.

P1. There is stuff.
P2. Stuff is related.
P3. Relations are not more stuff. — unenlightened

What do you mean by 'stuff'? Do you mean particles of matter/energy? Because isn't everything besides particles of matter/energy relationships between participles of matter/energy? (That is within metaphysical materialism).
Wouldn't then the definition of the world be "The collection of all particles of matter/energy"?

What do you mean by 'stuff'? Do you mean particles of matter/energy? Because isn't everything besides particles of matter/energy relationships between participles of matter/energy? (That is within metaphysical materialism). — Yohan

I try to be as vague as possible, but someone has to ask. Really, trot along to a physics forum, and when you find out what stuff is, come and explain it to me. I suppose if E = mc^2 and energy is activity, then it seems that stuff is pure active relation of emptiness to strings or quarks or fuck knows.

But I don't have to care about that. For the convenience of human understanding, light and matter is stuff.

Wouldn't then the definition of the world be "The collection of all particles of matter/energy"?

Absolutely not. It's the relations that matter, not the matter itself. Music is just vibrations in the air you think? No, I say, that's noise; music is vibrations in a relationship.

I try to be as vague as possible, but someone has to ask. Really, trot along to a physics forum, and when you find out what stuff is, come and explain it to me. I suppose if E = mc^2 and energy is activity, then it seems that stuff is pure active relation of emptiness to strings or quarks or fuck knows.

But I don't have to care about that. For the convenience of human understanding, light and matter is stuff.

Wouldn't then the definition of the world be "The collection of all particles of matter/energy"?

Absolutely not. It's the relations that matter, not the matter itself. Music is just vibrations in the air you think? No, I say, that's noise; music is vibrations in a relationship. — unenlightened

I guess I can agree with you? But I don't see how your two posts form a coherent picture of the world we live in. Are you a reductionist or aren't you? Am I merely a relationship of particles or am I a person? Is reality just a complex relationship of "stuff"? Or is reality some kind of meaningful relationship?

Am I merely a relationship of particles or am I a person? — Yohan

I am saying that a person is all relationship. we know for instance hat all the particles of the body are replaced over a few years by new particles. So what is maintained the same over years is the structure, the arrangement of changing substances.

Is reality just a complex relationship of "stuff"? Or is reality some kind of meaningful relationship? — Yohan

What's with the 'just' and 'merely'? Stuff is just stuff, merely stuff. Relations, arrangements, structures, are meaningful. just meaningful, merely meaningful.

I am saying that a person is all relationship. we know for instance hat all the particles of the body are replaced over a few years by new particles. So what is maintained the same over years is the structure, the arrangement of changing substances. — unenlightened

But if I meet another structure exactly like mine, but composed of different particles, I would be me and not them. That must mean my identity is rooted in the particles, not merely the structure. Further, how much change in my structure would constitute a change of identity? Surely I am different each moment, structurally. Does that mean I cease to exist every moment and a new self emerges each moment? Sounds like what we are talking about is the IDEA of self, rather than an essential identity. Which, depending on what we mean by identity, there may not be one.

What's with the 'just' and 'merely'? Stuff is just stuff, merely stuff. Relations, arrangements, structures, are meaningful. just meaningful, merely meaningful. — unenlightened

I don't consider arrangements necessarily meaningful. Not if they are essentially just composed of insentient matter. Only relationships between living things do I consider meaningful

I sense Heraclitus' river coming around the bend...

But if I meet another structure exactly like mine, but composed of different particles, I would be me and not them. — Yohan

:rofl: You both would say the same, who should I believe? But there can be no such exactitude because there must necessarily be a different relation to the world - you could not both be in each other's shadow for example.

Sounds like what we are talking about is the IDEA of self, rather than an essential identity. Which, depending on what we mean by identity, there may not be one. — Yohan

Sure. Let me know when you've made up your mind which you want to discuss.

Sounds like what we are talking about is the IDEA of self, rather than an essential identity. Which, depending on what we mean by identity, there may not be one.
— Yohan

Sure. Let me know when you've made up your mind which you want to discuss. — unenlightened

Well, I have been trying to go at identity from my limited grasp of eastern philosophy on the matter. Specifically stuff like what Ramana Maharshi talked about and similar people. I hope I don't misrepresent him or similar teachers, but they say stuff like (in my own words) "You are not the body, feelings, thoughts, or mind, which are always subject to change. You are the changeless, impersonal, uninvolved, neutral witness of these processes, the subject."
The thing is, I can't help but turn the "subject" into another concept. In a sense, I don't think a witness exists. But I kind of think there is something to what those guys have said too. I think it is possible to cultivate a witness sort of attitude, even if there is not some solid actual thing called a witness. I think a lot of people who followed this kind of path in the past got stuck in some version of eternalism of a conceptualized "Self". I think the Buddha recognized this problem and maybe its why he didn't put emphasis on any absolute self and instead focused more on emptiness and no self. I don't think he literally believed there is just emptiness though...its just he recognized that language is limited and didn't want to give anyone an idea of "self" that they could mistake for a concept and get stuck on. Maybe its not good that I am trying to find an essential self or bring it up. Maybe it only leads to confusion? What do you think? Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe the point is to look within and see for oneself, rather than accept any concept based only on theory

Maybe the point is to look within and see for oneself, rather than accept any concept based only on theory — Yohan

That sounds good to me. Mind you, I'm unenlightened.

Surely, your complex 4 step argument is simply saying that each one of us has to realise our subjective identity and viewpoint in a world of others with similar subjective internal world. Some people may have difficulty accepting the value of the validity of others' minds and of course this limits their ability in communication.

In particular, researchers into autism is points to people on the autistic spectrum as having limited ability to understand other people's inner consciousness. As autism is a disorder in development perhaps the ability to identify as one individual within a world occupied within a world of others with minds is a critical stage in brain development in childhood.

I think a key issue that you are pointing to is the need to see the self as an interior viewpoint rather and this leads to fluidity in self perception. The Buddha and other spiritual teachers knew this and perhaps this understanding of the question of personal identity can be aided by meditation.

the mat is under the cat — unenlightened

Mind blown. They keep this bit quiet.

P1. There is stuff.
P2. Stuff is related.
P3. Relations are not more stuff. — unenlightened

:heart:

I try to be as vague as possible, but someone has to ask. Really, trot along to a physics forum, and when you find out what stuff is, come and explain it to me. I suppose if E = mc^2 and energy is activity, then it seems that stuff is pure active relation of emptiness to strings or quarks or fuck knows.

But I don't have to care about that. For the convenience of human understanding, light and matter is stuff. — unenlightened

Yes to that. We know very little of what matter, energy, fields, space, time etc. 'really' are, so the term 'stuff' is adequate. It describes precisely what we positively know about 'what exists', i.e. very little.

Let’s describe the world we live in as best as we can. — bizso09

I guess you mean 'Let us discover the world we live in as best as we can'.

In this case, the most important thing, to me, to discover was my own nature/being; that is discovering the natural rules that define how its outputs (in my inner and to my environment) are related to its inputs (from my environment).

Meanwhile, I tried my best to discover the natural rules that define the nature of every person, I knew or met, (starting from his/her priorities in life since every person is unique) and the few objects in the world in which I am interested (scientific studies).

Dear people who replied. It appears to me that most people have not understood the question properly. It would be important to understand it because it leads to a direct contradiction about the self and the world. That means, all of us live in a provably contradictory reality. The only way to resolve the situation is to assume a singular "You", which directly means that "Other" do not exist. The goal of this discussion is to point out how Others can exist without creating a contradiction.

Replying to individual posts below:

You is a pointer, but the problem with Others is that the pointer must be exactly the same. Because the pointer is actually just the fact of having a pointer. Do you see?

I understand your argument about relations. However, in your world view, you describe relations objectively. But reality is subjective. You can still ask why are you this relation rather than other relation. Why the You is selected to be one of the relations.

The main issue is that "You" is a relation to describe "being observed from first person perspective". In case Others exist, that they would be the exact same relation "being observed from a first person perspective". The issue is about concept and entities. Two entities cannot be the exact same concept, because then they would be identical, but our presupposition is that Others are not You. This is a contradiction. Since You is the relation of "first person perspective" there is nothing else to distinguish You and Others, they are identical. All other parts of the relation, i.e. spatial orientation, particles, thoughts, are not part of You relation. In fact, You is both a relation and an entity, which is again contradictory. Do you see the problem?

Yes, the You can be called a Me. Is just semantics. The question is, if there's just stuff, then how can there be a selection? The fact is selection is not a stuff, but it still exists. So either, selection itself is a stuff, or Me doesn't exist. I know Me exists, because I am here.

A plurality of Me’s implies multiple singularities

This is a contradiction, because singularity is single, it's not plural. The problem is Me is a singularity, but there is only one of it, precisely because it's a singularity. So how can there be Others?

“what tells you which one You...” makes no sense;

It does make sense, because it is an undeniable fact that when I'm observing the world, I'm doing from person C not from person A's point of view. That fact has to be determined somewhere.

In all the descriptions I've read in the replies, there's no distinction between worlds where I am person C, or I'm person A, or I don't exist (but person C does). This is False and it's missing the whole point.

There can be no “complete description of the world”

How about, I'm just trying to explain the You? According to the logic so far, You cannot be explained and it doesn't in fact exist, which is curious, since I'm here right now.

My only requirement is that things exist or they don't exist. I exist, but according to all these philosophies, I shouldn't exist. Don't you think there's a problem? When you talk about experience and private I, does that exist or not exist? If it does not exist, then are you talking about nothing? If you're saying that the "private I" is not scientifically present in the world, then that means I should not be able to tell that I am one of the people, which can be clearly verified to be false, since I can tell right now who I am. The "private I" is scientifically verifiable to exist to me, due to the fact that I exist at all. If the "private I" didn't exist then person C would still exist and have their own mind, they just wouldn't be me.

Yes, "You" is the "X" in algebra. But the question is, how can X take on simultaneous values at the same time? X=1 and X=2 and X=3 are all true, but then 1/=2/=3 which is contradiction. It seems you understood the question the best so far.

If you don't think a witness exists, then what are You? Are you not witnessing? The key question is not whether or not a witness exists, but how can multiple witnesses co-exist, when the only distinction between witness 1 and witness 2 are that they are both The witness, meaning there's actually no distinction between them.

I think it's very interesting to talk about what stuff actually is. To me it looks like the Witness and stuff and the world are interlinked, in that there's no stuff without Witness and vice versa. Claiming that stuff exist without Witness is impossible because any claim can only be made by the Witness.

All so far goes to what is a who. I am predisposed to think whos are not whats; there isn't anything over there that corresponds to who. I offer instead Heidegger's "as-structure" formulation: what does it mean to be a who (when functioning) as a who? This would appear to be circular, but instead puts us into a hermeneutic spiral.

And I think a big clue is found in forgetting. We all forget and we all take it for granted, which is to say we do not usually either think about it or attach any significance to it. As akin to a sense of balance. The who, remembering, balance all reified as things. But they aren't, the significance of the "aren't" emerging on encountering their frangibility.

But reality is subjective. — bizso09

Is it objectively subjective, or is it merely subjectively subjective?

Is it objectively subjective, or is it merely subjectively subjective? — unenlightened

:heart: Well put. I'm gonna steal that.

All so far goes to what is a who. I am predisposed to think whos are not whats; there isn't anything over there that corresponds to who. [ ... ] And I think a big clue is found in forgetting. We all forget and we all take it for granted, which is to say we do not usually either think about it or attach any significance to it. — tim wood

:up:

Focus on this "Who are you?" (range of values) tends to block understanding the "What are we?" (variable function) that "who" presupposes.

:up: (stolen)

The "Who" is a "What", because it exists. If it wasn't a What, then what is it? In fact, the Who is Me. It is not my thoughts or perception but the Fact that one particular thought or perception is selected to be observed. The Who is merely a Selection, but it is as real as any "stuff", because it's everything that's Me.

Now you're getting it. The You is a subjective subjectivity. It is not an objective subjectivity. And you can think it through, that there can only be a single subjective subjectivity in the entire world, because if there was another subjective subjectivity, then the first subjective subjectivity would become an objective subjectivity from the second subjective subjectivity's point of view. Therefore, how could both you and I have different subjective subjectivities?

But you don't need to go two levels deep. You can just simply state that a subjectivity is not really a subjectivity if it is observed by another subjectivity, because then in fact it is objective. Now, people may say there are multiple subjectivities that are inaccessible to each other, but that's false, because what differentiates a subjectivity from an objectivity is purely the fact that is defines a point of view. There cannot be multiple subjectivities, because any differentiator between two subjectivities would necessarily have to be objective, which is NOT part of any one subjectivity. Hence, the two subjectivities would be necessarily indistinguishable from each other, meaning that they are in fact the SAME. As such, there is only really a single subjectivity.

Now, the most controversial part of this thinking is that, I know that I have one subjectivity, since I observe, and since there cannot be other subjectivities, that means I am unique in being an observer in the entire world. You can easily falsify this claim, by saying that you have a subjectivity too, but this then would imply that I don't have one, which leads to a pure contradiction.

The You is a subjective subjectivity. — bizso09

There we have it. Authentic nonsense on stilts.

There we have it. Authentic nonsense on stilts. — unenlightened

Care to explain, or just saying it's nonsense? How about forming an argument? I can also just say, you're stupid, and that's the end of my argument.

Care to explain, or just saying it's nonsense? How about forming an argument? — bizso09

No. Just saying. That's the thing about nonsense, it's not amenable to argument. I'll just mention that to talk of 'the you' is precisely to reify and objectify subjectivity. I'm very happy to be stupid for you.