I wonder to what extent the "I' is able to reflect upon it itself?
— Jack Cummins

It's a 'strange loop', or self-referential tangled hierarchical system (vide Douglas Hofstadter ... or Thomas Metzinger); the extent of self-reflection, I suspect, corresponds to the limits of the semiotic or symbolic systems available to cognition. — 180 Proof

Convenient fiction?
— TheMadFool
Yes. Without that fictional Self, we would not know where we fit into the story of Life. We are the stars of our own show, playing in the Cartesian Theater. :smile: — Gnomon

It's my suspicion that the apparent lack of a definitive referent for the "I" is more about hope mixed with fantasy than anything truly substantive in the sense there's a real problem. If there is an issue it's death and our denial of that fact.

It's a 'strange loop', or self-referential tangled hierarchical system (vide Douglas Hofstadter ... or Thomas Metzinger); the extent of self-reflection, I suspect, corresponds to the limits of the semiotic or symbolic systems available to cognition. — 180 Proof

:up: On target.

The brain is simply incapable of total self reflection. You can reflect your finger, your eye, your whole front (your back is harder) your visual system, two neurons, a potential running on neurons, etc. You can reflect the reflection. But with what use? You could reflect the reflection of the reflection reflected in the reflected reflection, but you will always be unable to reflect the total reflection, as it has to contain itself (Droste chocolate), which is impossible. The biggest reflection can never be reflected, since there is no reflecting surface still available. It's the question also what you wanna reflect. The reflection of a functioning neuron can be detailed as you like. But reflecting the neurons involved in the reflection is impossible.

The idea of the 'fictional self' may be so essential to human identity because the it is bound up with the autobiographical development of the 'I', which probably filters out a lot of information and chooses which memories to hold on to. The 'I' is likely to come with essential biases, which may be connected with its own preservation and importance.

Sstrange loops won't help to explain the perception of the I. — Cartuna

The notion of a "strange loop" is a metaphor, not a mechanical diagram. When you "see" another person, it's direct perception. When you see yourself in a mirror it's reflected perception. But, when you see yourself in your mind, it's a conception : a meta-physical reflection. The metaphorical loop begins from your internal brain, goes out into the world, then loops back to take a "selfie" without a camera or phone. In some cases, we call it "insight". :cool:

Self reflection is like looking into a mirror and describing what you see.

The metaphorical loop begins from your internal brain, goes out into the world, — Gnomon

I don't think this is what strange loops are. How can a conception go out in the world? It's the conception that loops internally. The conception conceptualized. Of which a conception can be made. Conceptions in conceptions in conceptions,.... Hofstadter gave the example of the image of a video camera on TV being framed by the video camera. An array of images in images develops. I have no idea what this has to do with consciousness. It's just a nice thing to play with.

You are probably right to interpret the 'strange loop' as being based on metaphor, but, in a way all thinking and construction of models is based on words and images.

You are probably right to interpret the 'strange loop' as being based on metaphor, but, in a way all thinking and construction of models is based on words and images. — Jack Cummins

I don't think it's a metaphor. It's a literal loop. Of thoughts or brain structures. A thought about a thought about a thought. Nested thoughts. Nested structures.

In part that is why I use "self-reference" (cognition) instead of "reflection" (meta-cognition) to describe how the brain generates – confabulates – "the I".

It's the conception that loops internally. The conception conceptualized. Of which a conception can be made. Conceptions in conceptions in conceptions,.... — Cartuna

Nested thoughts. Nested structures. — Cartuna

:up:

For self reference there has to be a self in the first place. The first self is the body. Telling you that I did something is just mentally conveying you the image of me doing something, like now. Speaking with myself is just me speaking with a mental image of me. If I feel depressed it's the body that feels depressed.

Why ditto me? What point are you making that I've not made already?

It is hard to know where metaphors end and the literal exists, especially in terms of the self and the fictions about this construct. In many ways, it may that human beings can fabricate all kinds of meanings behind the self and 'I', even on a narcissistic level, in trying to understand and live with ego consciousness. We could ask what is ego consciousness and, in particular what is 'ego' because that that term in itself has various psychoanalytic meanings ranging from the psychoanalytic to the philosophy of Stirner on ego. That may be where the nature of self becomes so complex and beyond psychology, into the nature of the philosophy of identity.

I had the impression you called the I (so me too) a confabulation.

If I look at you it's your body that I see. Dressed and spectacled but that's who I think you are. You experience more or less the same as me, act, have values, thoughts, feelings, etc. These are all part of your inside world but your body brings these stuff in practice. You can feel pain, even between the ears, like me. The body, so you, or me, or anyone, can live thanks to the brain. You hear or see thoughts and dreams, So it's not you thinking, but you noticing.

I wonder what would happen if it was concluded that 'I' is a complete illusion and whether as a matter of language it would even be possible to go beyond the possibility of the construct of 'I'. Would it help, or be meaningless in relation to how a person conceives identity in relation to the world and others?

I think that our posts may have been written at the same time. In relation to your latter post, one question which I wonder about is inner and outer aspects of the self, and how the 'I' is often about the meaning on an internal level, although it may be that splitting between the inner and the outer may be unhelpful and, it may be one of the problems going back to Descartes. The division between inner and outer may be real in some ways, but, in other respects it may be illusory and the sense of the 'I' may be important in dealing with the paradoxes of inner and outer aspects of human experience.

I would say that I is simply however you see yourself to be in that moment. Perhaps, in some scenario it would be much more efficient to describe yourself as a set of particles. Poof. There becomes I.

In other terms, I is like a joke that needs context to be understood.

Yes, I can even see myself as a set of particles and how the ''I' may fragment at times. I am not entirely sure how beneficial the 'I' consciousness is, although most people don't wish to have a 'jelly' self. Perhaps, the ability to see and think about varying constructs of ego consciousness and self may be most helpful, although it may be that identity has a certain amount of 'fragility' and can easily be torn asunder.

Personal identity may be interconnected with a sense of meaning in life and even though my thread is called 'Who am 'I' is with reference to the concept of 'I', this thread topic may go back to a youth club event which I went to as an adolescent, titled 'Who am I?' However, this was not about particles but about finding oneself in the social world.

Depends on who you want to be.

I find that a barbaric rationality, devoid of any logic or profound reasonings is actually the best weapon for attacking these sort of questions.

Keeps the response meaningful and simple. Something you can get behind.

It may come down to how we define ourselves, which may have profound implications for who or what we may become, metaphysically, and as social beings.

I don't exactly understand the metaphysical implications of defining yourself, but I'm inclined to agree.

I don't think this is what strange loops are. How can a conception go out in the world? It's the conception that loops internally. The conception conceptualized. — Cartuna

Apparently, you're having difficulty with my metaphorical language. The ability to imagine ideas as-if they are real is a faculty limited to animals with rational minds : e.g. homo sapiens. A concept is not a physical object, but an ideal mental (meta-physical) subject. So, it can perform feats that are impossible for physical things ; just as your avatar in a video game can throw Chi (Qi) from its hands as-if it was a flame-thrower.

For a more philosophical example, a self-concept can metaphorically "go out into the world", then turn around and look back at itself. But, if you prefer to imagine the self-concept as some mysterious "thing" rotating inside the brain, that's OK with me. It's just another metaphor, though. Unless, you have some empirical knowledge of what kind of material that looping "thing" is made of. :smile:

Subjectivity in a philosophical context has to do with a lack of objective reality.
Note -- the Subject is your imaginary self (Latin - ego ; self ; "I"), not your physical body (Latin - Id ; Greek - soma).

Ego :
1. the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.
2. (in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.

Note : Reasoning is thinking without actually doing. Once you have reasoned an appropriate behavior, you can safely perform the action in the real word. When reasoning, you can metaphorically project yourself out into the world to see what the results of that action might be. AFAIK, there is no actual "thing" that gets projected. or "loops internally".

Mirror Image vs Self Image :

That image freaks me out.

Q

You consider the ego as a mental thing. I don't. The ego is the body mediating between the non-physical mind and the physical world. So the ego is can look in the mirror and see the mirror reflection of itself (first photograph of the blond lady in blue), while others see the right image. In the mirror I see mmyself waving my left hand, while you see me waving my right. I can't split my body to step outside of it and look at myself turning around, like in that picture of a guy you posted who takes of his face, turnes it around, and looks at what's left (@john27 is freaked out by the blond mirror twin, but I'm freaked out by the image of that guy, taking your face off gives me the creeps, no matter if it's happening metaphorically).

So the strange loop is a metaphorical loop, but at the same time it has a material counterpart in the brain. Looking at yoursel mentally will lead to inwardly radiating droste effects. If you look mentally to your mind, you have to include the mental image itself, leading to a new image which must be included again, which leads to a new image, which has to be included again, etc. A strange loop. This loop has a material counterpart. Which means that if you look at the brain materialistically, there are patterns of spike potentials running on your neoron network which litterally show the droste effect. A pattern in a pattern in a patter. From a small one, to larger ones.

The idea of the 'fictional self' may be so essential to human identity because the it is bound up with the autobiographical development of the 'I', which probably filters out a lot of information and chooses which memories to hold on to. The 'I' is likely to come with essential biases, which may be connected with its own preservation and importance. — Jack Cummins

1. Ship of Theseus

2. Wittgenstein's rope analogy.

Identity is a sequence of overlapping stages and that's why we feel that there's some kind of connection/continuity between, say, the me of today and the me of tomorrow (correct my English please). It depends then, doesn't it?, on what we're looking at, the similarities or the differences. If we consider both, what emerges is a fuzzy sense of self - now you see it, now you don't.

I recommend looking into Rupert Spira’s teachings. Ultimately, “I” is something to be demarcated from the idea of one’s self, which is simply a mental construct created by the mind. “I” is rather pure awareness, prior to the concepts our mind attempts to impute onto it. “I” (awareness) does not have a sense of self, it is simply pure subjectivity.

I like the images you post. I wish we could do this for all of philosophy. Pictures have a certain quality to them that allows them to get a point across in ways that words somehow can't.

A picture is worth a 1000 words.

Some, I'm told, think in pictures/images. An Artistic turn, à la the so-called linguistic turn, in philosophy is a long overdue project. :grin:

Thanks. Likewise, I recommend The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger (or I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter). :point: :point:

objective — Gnomon

I can't tell the difference between mass delusions/hallucinations and objectivity.