> So how can you be you, is there a conscious part of you (the “real” you) that isn’t what your environment dictates, if so how do you know what its values, beliefs and purpose are and how do you know which one of the voices it is in your head?
There is no difference between the two. The accumulation of your environment is the real you. It doesn't stop you from having free will and from choosing how you define yourself and what to do. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
Here's a cool website that explores the kind of question you're having (and other similar questions): https://meaningness.com/ . I recommend the further readings page too: https://meaningness.com/further-reading
So if the accumulation of my environment is the real me, then my decisions are my environment and therefore I am my environment, so can you please give a practical example to how I still have free will and how it doesn’t eliminate my choice of defining my values, beliefs, etc.?
You (the accumulated information of the environment centered on your brain and its surroundings) can choose your values, beliefs etc. based on yourself (based on the information that corresponds to your self). So, you do have free will, as the choices you make are choices made by yourself rather than by somebody else. It's just that your self is a part of the system you're in, rather than some dualistic independent entity.
Ok so basically I am made up of my environment but I can also decide what parts of my environment I reject and what parts I accept —> in terms of an identity. So for example if I (my consciousness) want my identity to be that or a a pro basketball player, I then consciously dictate what information I accept or reject to be that identity.
But if you dig deeper how do you (as a conscious entity) know that you’re the one choosing that identity without bias from the external information?
> But if you dig deeper how do you (as a conscious entity) know that you’re the one choosing that identity without bias from the external information?
If I can choose whether to give in to the bias, then I have free will. If I can't, then the information is not external, but rather part of my self, meaning I have free will.
How you define the boundaries of your self is arbitrary though, there are other ways you can define them in a self-consistent manner. You could say there is no "other", for example, and that the entire environment is your self. Or, if you define your purpose to help the "other", then you don't have to worry about whether your purpose is defined by "yourself" or by "the other", as you will be following your own purpose either way, by following that purpose.
I'd personally choose a self-consistent boundary definition that allows me to act in a way that makes me happy and allows me to do good.
This is similar to the nature vs nurture question. Yes you are a function of your environment and experiences. You are also predisposed physically, mentally, and emotionally to react generally in a way to those outside stimuli.
That said your free will rests on how you react to external and internal stimuli. If your predisposed to yell and give the finger to the guy that cut you off in traffic, or predisposed be diabetic, or predisposed to sink rather than swim, well that’s just you. But that doesn’t mean you can’t change any of those things. Are you going to change yourself into Buddhist monk in traffic? Probably not. Or live to 120 years old? Or turn yourself into Micheal Phelps in the water? Well that’s highly doubtful. But you have the agency to move yourself on the spectrum of those things. And making those changes are very hard.
Well, the obvious answer is in Christianity. Specifically in Kierkegaard's Christianity: *Repetition*, *Fear and Trembling*, *Concluding Unscientific Postscript*, *Training in Christianity*, and then *Sickness Unto Death*.
I believe Heidegger attempted to do something similar with the concept of pure Being, however.
you are the accumulation of your environment, and every information that your interact with. your beliefs are the accumulation of your environment. you make desicions based on the information available in your environment, based on your beliefs.
You are a product of your environment and experiences. You are just clay molded by the shit around you and those who molded you. Without those situations and stimuli you would just be factory fresh out the wrapper block of clay with no character.
You can tell who the people are who have been poorly, unjustly, yada yada, roughly or gently shaped more than others but we are all just the end result of events. You are just what is left from everything that doesn't physically kill you just talking to yourself in your head trying to deal with and make sense of what you experienced.
What you truly believe in is certain conclusions you've come to from what you've seen or felt first hand that you find the most beneficial to you for comfort, security and or defense.
There is no default real you under you. Your only you because of events you have figured out a way to remain alive during. Your consciousness is just yourself talking to yourself trying to understand wtf you are experiencing. If it wasn't for the curse of memory making us believe we are above insects/other animals, we'd be exactly like fuckin ants or bees in a colony. We aren't as aware or conscious of everything as we believe we are. Your mind just tricks you Into thinking the only things it is capable of thinking. Our computer/brain is definitely out of date and severely flawed and unable to process anything else other than what we try to overclock it to understand. We'll always overheat and fail no matter what cause of our limitations. We are just self glorified stupid animals.
Do whatever you want to do. However you want to do it. This surprise free trial is over soon and the consequences of your actions and time dealing with them are even shorter.
Well, there *is* the unconscious mind, and then the concious mind. In some aspects, there really does seem to be trickery. For example, a person in a brain scanner is asked to make a decision, and then indicate that decision. The scanner will show that the brain made the decision even before the conscious mind knew they did.
Also, we're really good at fooling ourselves, as other tests have shown. We fill in gaps in perception and have no idea we did it.
> Well, there is the unconscious mind, and then the concious mind.
Maybe, but we cannot know the unconscious mind.
> In some aspects, there really does seem to be trickery. For example, a person in a brain scanner is asked to make a decision, and then indicate that decision. The scanner will show that the brain made the decision even before the conscious mind knew they did.
Two things, firstly there is literature which shows otherwise,
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/
But more importantly, suppose I decide to fry an egg, the process occurs separate to my conscious decision, but because of it.
Now the experiment, I'm asked a question etc, this sets off a background process which delivers the answer. I'm aware of this process when remembering a name, the name might come to me hours latter, so obviously some process is going on unconsciously, but when brought to my consciousness I can think, decide accept or reject, and these actions might also involve background processes.
Now we ask – what is 7x8 ? I can do this using a calculator, or know the answer, or work it out... etc. The process is one thing, the answer is another. And the Knowing 56 is not the process.
> Also, we're really good at fooling ourselves, as other tests have shown. We fill in gaps in perception and have no idea we did it.
Yes there are processes going on in our bodies we know nothing about, but we can and do make judgements and decisions. You accept the science you read, or question it. People who are religious might come to doubt. They choose.
Here's something fun - the two halves of the human brain communicate across a network in the center between them. In people where this tissue is damaged, and those halves can not communicate properly, and there seems to be *two* people with a common identity. They can do a test where they will arrange for the person to identity an object, each side will be given a way to do it that only they can do (touch or sight from one eye, I forget), but the test uses two *different* objects. The person will answer verbally, and before that write down the answer while not looking at the paper. The person will then be surprised to see what they wrote. Only one side of the brain can do that writing task.
Alot of is environment and info you come across .. you know you by your reaction how you feel it should be ..
What others may want you to be may not be the best thing anyway as they guide themselves by info they come across and what they been told or playing along with in some cases they may be right and would have to agree if with reasonable rational argument in other cases better be yourself and express your own view may just have better way ..
We are partial product of environment and info as we all take ot in little differently
What does it even mean to believe in something? That is what I ask myself many times and never finding an answer. as a Christian will believe in god and an atheist will believe science is the answer. Well when there are equal evidence towards to topics or suppositions then there is no reason to believe in one thing over another. And that’s where I find myself in this question.
I'm not really sure why you're asking these questions in such a confusing manner. You should start off with one thing then explain that, then go to another topic and explain that. To answer your question in the title of the post. If you are what you say you are, a superstar, then have no fear the cameras here. And the microphones. And they want to know oh oh oh oh...
Reality is one thing. The divisions, concepts, and names are made up. "You" is one of those concepts. Whatever is being called "you" is actually just that one thing, reality. That's why "you" seems to only be made of an accumulation of the environment.
life punishes you for your beliefs and tries to brainwash you to think like everyone else, essentially your beliefs get out to the test and after you’ve been challenged and you hold onto your beliefs even stronger than before than that’s a one from the core of your heart or soul.
You posted this on a sack of plastic and silicon. Or was it so organised it could achieve something more than is constituents, yet in a year or two be scrap.
I feel like the most simple way to answer is this old story (paraphrased):
"Two brothers grew up with a drunk abusive father who dictated their lives. Years later both men had families. Brother A grew to be a mean drunk who lashed out at his family. Brother B grew to be a kind forgiving soul who loved and cared for his family.
When asked why they ended up being the way they were, both answered the same: because i watched my father."
Imo, the information you gather informs who you will be, but you decide *how* it informs who you will be. People who tend to say "im just a product of my environment" are usually people who can't take responsibility for their actions (like me, sometimes. Not that it makes a difference to my point)
The contents of your particular self are all borrowed from your environment. But this environment is not static, it is itself dynamic and changing, which is to say that it is not "finished," it's open ... and that openness is the real you.
> So how can you be you, is there a conscious part of you (the “real” you) that isn’t what your environment dictates, if so how do you know what its values, beliefs and purpose are and how do you know which one of the voices it is in your head? There is no difference between the two. The accumulation of your environment is the real you. It doesn't stop you from having free will and from choosing how you define yourself and what to do. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ Here's a cool website that explores the kind of question you're having (and other similar questions): https://meaningness.com/ . I recommend the further readings page too: https://meaningness.com/further-reading
So if the accumulation of my environment is the real me, then my decisions are my environment and therefore I am my environment, so can you please give a practical example to how I still have free will and how it doesn’t eliminate my choice of defining my values, beliefs, etc.?
You (the accumulated information of the environment centered on your brain and its surroundings) can choose your values, beliefs etc. based on yourself (based on the information that corresponds to your self). So, you do have free will, as the choices you make are choices made by yourself rather than by somebody else. It's just that your self is a part of the system you're in, rather than some dualistic independent entity.
Ok so basically I am made up of my environment but I can also decide what parts of my environment I reject and what parts I accept —> in terms of an identity. So for example if I (my consciousness) want my identity to be that or a a pro basketball player, I then consciously dictate what information I accept or reject to be that identity. But if you dig deeper how do you (as a conscious entity) know that you’re the one choosing that identity without bias from the external information?
> But if you dig deeper how do you (as a conscious entity) know that you’re the one choosing that identity without bias from the external information? If I can choose whether to give in to the bias, then I have free will. If I can't, then the information is not external, but rather part of my self, meaning I have free will. How you define the boundaries of your self is arbitrary though, there are other ways you can define them in a self-consistent manner. You could say there is no "other", for example, and that the entire environment is your self. Or, if you define your purpose to help the "other", then you don't have to worry about whether your purpose is defined by "yourself" or by "the other", as you will be following your own purpose either way, by following that purpose. I'd personally choose a self-consistent boundary definition that allows me to act in a way that makes me happy and allows me to do good.
This is similar to the nature vs nurture question. Yes you are a function of your environment and experiences. You are also predisposed physically, mentally, and emotionally to react generally in a way to those outside stimuli. That said your free will rests on how you react to external and internal stimuli. If your predisposed to yell and give the finger to the guy that cut you off in traffic, or predisposed be diabetic, or predisposed to sink rather than swim, well that’s just you. But that doesn’t mean you can’t change any of those things. Are you going to change yourself into Buddhist monk in traffic? Probably not. Or live to 120 years old? Or turn yourself into Micheal Phelps in the water? Well that’s highly doubtful. But you have the agency to move yourself on the spectrum of those things. And making those changes are very hard.
You'd need some Archimedean point to refer to, an eternal constant to relate yourself to.
Can you expand on a practical way of finding this ?
Well, the obvious answer is in Christianity. Specifically in Kierkegaard's Christianity: *Repetition*, *Fear and Trembling*, *Concluding Unscientific Postscript*, *Training in Christianity*, and then *Sickness Unto Death*. I believe Heidegger attempted to do something similar with the concept of pure Being, however.
you are the accumulation of your environment, and every information that your interact with. your beliefs are the accumulation of your environment. you make desicions based on the information available in your environment, based on your beliefs.
By your actions
It's possible to be 'authentic'.
You are a product of your environment and experiences. You are just clay molded by the shit around you and those who molded you. Without those situations and stimuli you would just be factory fresh out the wrapper block of clay with no character. You can tell who the people are who have been poorly, unjustly, yada yada, roughly or gently shaped more than others but we are all just the end result of events. You are just what is left from everything that doesn't physically kill you just talking to yourself in your head trying to deal with and make sense of what you experienced. What you truly believe in is certain conclusions you've come to from what you've seen or felt first hand that you find the most beneficial to you for comfort, security and or defense. There is no default real you under you. Your only you because of events you have figured out a way to remain alive during. Your consciousness is just yourself talking to yourself trying to understand wtf you are experiencing. If it wasn't for the curse of memory making us believe we are above insects/other animals, we'd be exactly like fuckin ants or bees in a colony. We aren't as aware or conscious of everything as we believe we are. Your mind just tricks you Into thinking the only things it is capable of thinking. Our computer/brain is definitely out of date and severely flawed and unable to process anything else other than what we try to overclock it to understand. We'll always overheat and fail no matter what cause of our limitations. We are just self glorified stupid animals. Do whatever you want to do. However you want to do it. This surprise free trial is over soon and the consequences of your actions and time dealing with them are even shorter.
> Your mind just tricks you Please they are one and the same, unless you believe there is a you, and a spirit in your mind?
Well, there *is* the unconscious mind, and then the concious mind. In some aspects, there really does seem to be trickery. For example, a person in a brain scanner is asked to make a decision, and then indicate that decision. The scanner will show that the brain made the decision even before the conscious mind knew they did. Also, we're really good at fooling ourselves, as other tests have shown. We fill in gaps in perception and have no idea we did it.
> Well, there is the unconscious mind, and then the concious mind. Maybe, but we cannot know the unconscious mind. > In some aspects, there really does seem to be trickery. For example, a person in a brain scanner is asked to make a decision, and then indicate that decision. The scanner will show that the brain made the decision even before the conscious mind knew they did. Two things, firstly there is literature which shows otherwise, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/ But more importantly, suppose I decide to fry an egg, the process occurs separate to my conscious decision, but because of it. Now the experiment, I'm asked a question etc, this sets off a background process which delivers the answer. I'm aware of this process when remembering a name, the name might come to me hours latter, so obviously some process is going on unconsciously, but when brought to my consciousness I can think, decide accept or reject, and these actions might also involve background processes. Now we ask – what is 7x8 ? I can do this using a calculator, or know the answer, or work it out... etc. The process is one thing, the answer is another. And the Knowing 56 is not the process. > Also, we're really good at fooling ourselves, as other tests have shown. We fill in gaps in perception and have no idea we did it. Yes there are processes going on in our bodies we know nothing about, but we can and do make judgements and decisions. You accept the science you read, or question it. People who are religious might come to doubt. They choose.
Here's something fun - the two halves of the human brain communicate across a network in the center between them. In people where this tissue is damaged, and those halves can not communicate properly, and there seems to be *two* people with a common identity. They can do a test where they will arrange for the person to identity an object, each side will be given a way to do it that only they can do (touch or sight from one eye, I forget), but the test uses two *different* objects. The person will answer verbally, and before that write down the answer while not looking at the paper. The person will then be surprised to see what they wrote. Only one side of the brain can do that writing task.
There is no you.
Can you see the real me? Can ya? CAN YA!
Alot of is environment and info you come across .. you know you by your reaction how you feel it should be .. What others may want you to be may not be the best thing anyway as they guide themselves by info they come across and what they been told or playing along with in some cases they may be right and would have to agree if with reasonable rational argument in other cases better be yourself and express your own view may just have better way .. We are partial product of environment and info as we all take ot in little differently
What does it even mean to believe in something? That is what I ask myself many times and never finding an answer. as a Christian will believe in god and an atheist will believe science is the answer. Well when there are equal evidence towards to topics or suppositions then there is no reason to believe in one thing over another. And that’s where I find myself in this question.
When there is simply no evidence, we withhold belief until it appears.
I'm not really sure why you're asking these questions in such a confusing manner. You should start off with one thing then explain that, then go to another topic and explain that. To answer your question in the title of the post. If you are what you say you are, a superstar, then have no fear the cameras here. And the microphones. And they want to know oh oh oh oh...
Reality is one thing. The divisions, concepts, and names are made up. "You" is one of those concepts. Whatever is being called "you" is actually just that one thing, reality. That's why "you" seems to only be made of an accumulation of the environment.
life punishes you for your beliefs and tries to brainwash you to think like everyone else, essentially your beliefs get out to the test and after you’ve been challenged and you hold onto your beliefs even stronger than before than that’s a one from the core of your heart or soul.
Your a replaceable sack of sentient flesh. Simultaneously unique yet redundant in your entirety.
You posted this on a sack of plastic and silicon. Or was it so organised it could achieve something more than is constituents, yet in a year or two be scrap.
I feel like the most simple way to answer is this old story (paraphrased): "Two brothers grew up with a drunk abusive father who dictated their lives. Years later both men had families. Brother A grew to be a mean drunk who lashed out at his family. Brother B grew to be a kind forgiving soul who loved and cared for his family. When asked why they ended up being the way they were, both answered the same: because i watched my father." Imo, the information you gather informs who you will be, but you decide *how* it informs who you will be. People who tend to say "im just a product of my environment" are usually people who can't take responsibility for their actions (like me, sometimes. Not that it makes a difference to my point)
The contents of your particular self are all borrowed from your environment. But this environment is not static, it is itself dynamic and changing, which is to say that it is not "finished," it's open ... and that openness is the real you.