The question of how the Western world does think about the mind and brain is interesting, although as far as I am aware there is underlying debate about idealism and materialism even amongst Buddhists. I am not sure how the brain and mind issue fits in relation to the perennial philosophy of Aldous Huxley.I know that you read this book, so do you have any idea about how it links in any way.

Perhaps, it is worth getting lost in the terms at times and stepping into the murky areas of confusion. Perhaps, it may be worth taking risks, rather than being 'careful', because it may be that rethinking leads to new possibilities...

A lot of fun and games in this thread today, and, perhaps this is how philosophy should be, including the ongoing ins and outs of the mind and body problem!

I guess that with regard to the unique parts of personal identity, a lot depends on the aspects which are most fundamental, including the genetic components and environmental factors. However, there is so much which comes down to subjective interpretations and meanings. In a way, each of has own sense of internal meanings and narrative stories, which comprise the whole nature of identity. I asked the question, 'Who am 'I', but this also is the 'Who am I? ', which Erik Erikson points to as being the essential part of identity and identity crisis, especially important in adolescence. The whole experience of exploration during adolescence is about experimentation, and even rebellion.

So, personal identity is about finding a unique path in life and links to the issue of 'Know Thyself' and authenticity. This involves the existential aspects of life choices. Also, it may be that one knows who one is more in retrospect than in an advance, because it may be that many of the acts which the person does may be spontaneous and may be different from the way they would have imagined they would have acted. So, while the question of the sense of identity involves the ongoing sense of becoming, this also involves assimilation of previous choices and integration of this as an ongoing fluid sense of the ''I' of existence.

The idea of the 'mind' involving a whole interaction with the environment makes sense in many ways, especially with regard to the whole body. After all we are not just heads, with other parts dangling on as extra parts. The whole experience of the body includes the whole relationship between the physical aspects of the environment, such as factors like being hot or cold, what food and fluid has been taken in, and these also affect the brain and thought processes.

It would also follow that social aspects affect the mind too, and the whole emotional aspects of life, which are interconnected with the brain. Human beings are affected by the quality of the relationships they have with others. Self worth and self esteem, even the will to live and purpose are based on aspects of interpersonal interaction and how this contributes to a sense of the quality of a person's life and sense of wellbeing.

I think that your post is particularly interesting as the way in which the brain gives rise to mind is the part which is not known. The human mind is so complex, even if the mechanics are based on the brain.

It would likely be a positive development if neuroscientists are able to enable less cognitive dissonance. My only hope is that any such attempt, rather than putting limits on human potential, open it up to the most creative ones possible for the individual and humanity.

I wonder to what extent 'inside' and 'outside' are real, or fabrications of the human understanding of the experience of consciousness.

It does seem that so much time and energy is spent in explaining and thinking about the nature of consciousness. Of course, I have read the thread about enlightenment and probably spend the majority of my time in unenlightened states of consciousness. It can lead beyond the question of who am I, to what on earth is going on?

This may be a large question which arises in the area between philosophy and quantum physics..I wonder to what extent the findings of the physicists will throw some clarity, or whether it will give rise to so much more uncertainty and the whole philosophical questions about the nature of consciousness and substances underlying the existence of 'mind'.

I do think that the question of what is matter is extremely important, especially in relation to the underlying one of mind and matter. It can be asked if matter is the foundation of mind, but how do the two aspects come together and where diid matter arise from in the first instance? To what extent are mind and matter similar as aspects of metaphysics, or ways of describing important aspects of human constructs about this?

We could ask what is physical and what is not. In some ways, this may appear as a stupid question, but, on an experiential level of existence in terms of living in a spectrum of living as embodied minds this may make sense. In other words, to what is do mind and matter come together in the realisation of embodied human experience?

We could ask is the physical the starting point for mind? I am not saying that they are not, but I do wonder about this, especially in relation to philosophies of idealism, such as those of Berkeley. Are these outdated ideas? The exact same role of matter and mind, or which is primary seems to be essential within philosophy. Is it possible that it may go beyond an either/ or? What is mind and matter and how are the two differentiated in the first place? Is dualism is an issue here, although I am certainly not clear where mind and body end or merge, especially in the realms of emotions.

It is indeed a puzzle and I imagine that 180 Proof may have something to say if he is not sick and tired of this underlying question in philosophy. I wonder to what extent it can ever be explored sufficiently or whether many of us could spend our entire lives wondering about the nature of consciousness, especially how it is bound up with the nature of matter, as the underlying basis of it, as one of the central philosophy conundrums.

We could ask about the whole nature of correspondences and causation in general. The brain may be the apparatus of the mind, but the exact nature of causal reality may be more complex, especially as to how the material gives rise to specific states of mind in terms of human experiences.

Definitely Buddhism, or its many writers, have a lot to say about ego consciousness and the way in which the 'I' can be seen as illusory in certain respects. This is probably most clear in mindfulness meditation. I have some limited experience of using these techniques and it is about being able to observe the flow of thoughts and, at this level, even the 'I' can be seen as a construct. It may be that the I needs to be seen partly as a construct, but on the other hand, without the 'I' there would be no identity as we know it. Each of us would have the inner experience of being like blobs of mind jelly.

I think that your point about the idea of inner 'voices' is important because the 'I' may be experienced as a range of voices of thoughts although most people do not hear voices literally. But, maybe those who do even speak of hearing voices may be experiencing the fragmentation of the 'I'. So, psychosis may be related to difficulty in establishing a cohesive identity of subjective identity.

As far as understanding that other people have a sense of I is probably based on hearing others refer to themselves and their subjective experiences. It is also likely to be related to the development of theory of mind, in the sense of the individual developing understanding that other human beings have subjective realities similar to their own. In terms of individualism, it probably does come into it and in Western society there is so much emphasis on the self and people may develop identity with varying degrees of a sense of being part of a group, or as being a separate entity from others.

You are quite right to speak of how a sense of'' I' is central to experiences, including the good and bad moments, because the ego consciousness is a central agent in interpretation of the events in life and, for human beings, it is the meaning of these which are essential, especially in the ongoing process of autobiographical narratives and the sense of one 's own 'story'.

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.

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.

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 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 you have raised such an important question and some may believe that 'enlightenment' is possible and others may remain sceptical of the idea completely. Personally, I am inclined to think that it may be possible to enter into peak experiences of consciousness, but such states of numinosity may not be the exclusive right of any particular 'religion' and, there may also be a danger of people who believe that they are 'the enlightened' seeing this as some form of achievement of 'superiority'.

This may throw a question mark on any who claim to have experienced 'enlightenment.' I am partly thinking of Krishnamurti, who was believed to be a future spiritual leader, and he had to step back from this and look at the nature of such a quest, rather than being drawn into the inflated ego consciousness of spirituality. There may have been so many who stepped into a sense of knowing, and as you say, Jung recognizes the way in which it may be a journey through darkness into light, with many perils along the way, and I believe that one writer, Alice Bailey, captures this in the idea of the 'dweller on the threshold'. Enlightenment may not be a simple idea but one with complex questions about knowledge of self and the glamours surrounding this, as well as the whole nature of responsibility connected to power of knowledge. However, many may even question the idea of 'enlightenment' in itself.

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 think that you are right to emphasise the power of music and how it can make someone do -'anything'. It has a hypnotic quality. I do wonder about the subliminal levels of music. Of course, this could go too far with the attempt to remove all 'negativity'. However, even though I like the music of Nirvana, my intuition is that it would probably not be a good idea to listen to that music all day. Even though I love the Doors, I do try to balance out what I listen to because music probably affects us so deeply, and getting the right balance may be essential. Sometimes, I just spend so much time thinking what music to listen to.

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.

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.

Hofstadter's idea of the 'strange loop' as a means of self reference in consciousness is fascinating. So, thanks for sharing that as part of the nature of how consciousness of the 'I' comes into being for human beings.

So, do you think that the continuity of memories, often formulated as 'identity', is illusory? Surely, this would almost be supportive of the idea that consciousness is an illusion. That is because 'I' and consciousness may even be identical with I being a way of reference to the stream of consciousness itself.

In that sense, it may be an emergent state of a way of organising consciousness. However, in some ways, it seems odd that each of us a sense of oneness within rather scattered aspects. Of course, in states of dissociation people lose their cohesive identity but, in most cases, each of us develops a coherent autobiographical 'I'. Only in unusual circumstances, this may fragment in some ways.

Definitely the sense of 'I' is partly learned within social environments. The whole distinction between the child and mother is recognised by psychologists as being central to ego integrity in development. 'I' and 'me' may be a bit different philosophically and psychologically because me may be as a point of reference while I is the starting point of subjectivity and sense of one 's own consciousness.

I am not sure to what extent the idea of 'I' relates to self, ego consciousness, and it is likely that these constructs have changed so much in accordance with understanding of human beings. It is so bound up with the nature of identity, of connection to others and as cohesive sense of identity between past, present and future. As far as I know, most people retain the sense of being an 'I' in dreams too.

Yes, the relationship between the construct of the self and the 'I' is not straightforward. It does seem to be an aspect of awareness arising in brain consciousness, but the 'I' is not simply the brain. The concept of I is probably used in different ways but the elusive sense of I is likely to have given rise to the idea of 'the ghost in the machine'.

Humour is extremely important in life and without it everything can become so heavy and dull, especially with all the big philosophy questions. I know that on a daily basis I have to be careful not to lose humour. Perhaps, laughing at at absurdities is possible and, it may be preferable to be able to laugh at oneself rather than others, to avoid causing offence. Maybe, life is a complex mixture of tragedy and comedy.

You are probably right that it is more in popular genres that people are inclined to stop exploring music after teenage or student years. Even though I am into rock and alternative music, I do like to continue to find new music and I will probably always continue to do so. That is because I read reviews in music magazines.

Of course, one other aspect which does affect the whole industry is streamlining as opposed to people buying records and CDs. I still buy CDs and find them to be the most durable form of music. Some people think that records sound better but this may just be because some CD players have such poor speakers and having decent ones is important. I even know of some people who collect vinyl who don't have a record player. But, what may get missed with online music is the culture and subculture surrounding music, but this does have an industry component.

I am sure that people who have more classical or jazz tastes find specific venues to share their interests. There are specialist stores for all genres and I love going to a punk music shop in Camden Town.

It must be great to perform in bands and I do know some people who do. Do you sing as well?

I read a book on logic recently, called'The Art of Logic: How to Make Sense in a World That Doesn't,' by Eugenia Cheng(2019). The author shows how logic, including the basics of maths, is a foundation 'to verify and establish the truth'. However, the following statement may be applicable to this thread discussion on music in relation to emotions:
'Emotions and logic do not have to be enemies. Logic works perfectly in the abstract mathematical world. But life is more complicated than that. Life involves humans, and humans have emotions'.

So, music helps soothe emotions and can be cathartic. I often find some really dark music can be cathartic and uplifting, although I do like 'The Logical Song', by Supertramp

It is probably true that there are more musicians who are not good at maths than those who are. I agree that music can be so experimental, 'like painting in tones'. I have often thought that 12 inches singles seem to give more scope than 7 inch ones, especially the ones on ZZT label, which include 'The Art of Noise' and ' Orbital. I also came across a CD by 'The Flaming Lips' which came with 4 identical discs. The idea was to play all 4 at the same time. I was able to play 2 at once and I think it did make the experience rather different from just listening on one player.

The relationship between dance and music or between music and prayer is an important aspect of music. I actually meditate to dance music, and when I tell some people this they often look puzzled, so I tell them I am dancing inside my head. I went through a phase of meditation to metal music but that is another story.

It is interesting that your partner and you appear to listen to certain music differently. I often wonder to some extent each of us hears music a little differently. One reason why I wonder about this I sometimes feel that certain music has sounded different if I am ill with a fever, or in an unusual state of mind.

It does often seem that those who are good at maths are also good musicians too and I have often wondered about why that relationship exists. Perhaps, the symbolic aspects of both involve the same aspects of the brain, including the reading of music.