The problem with saying "I"...

[confused2]

This may not be true .. MR is getting at something deeper than grammar 101.

[Magical Realist]

The fact that grammatically the "I" is already embedded in our speaking means precisely what I said---that the "I" is a social function or placeholder, useful for relating to others, but not a thing in itself. Just like there are nouns, but no noun in itself. When we are not around others speaking, the figment of the "I" persists, like the phantom limb of the amputee.

[Syne]

I guess when your identity is largely wrapped up in things you do or external identifiers, you might not have a well-defined internal locus of identity.

[Magical Realist]

My identity isn't defined by what I can control. It's defined by my experience--what is happening to me in this moment. Like a waterfall..

[Syne]

Exactly, an external locus of identity. Which completely explains your lack of understanding a well-defined internal identity.

[C C]

My identity isn't defined by what I can control. It's defined by my experience--what is happening to me in this moment. Like a waterfall..

My identity is pretty much delimited by memory, and accordingly I'm almost always extended into the past and anticipating the future. Take long-term and short-term memory capacities away, and I'm gone -- both in terms of past identity and even forming a new one.

That includes semantic memory and the rest. Without information storage, there is no classification and understanding of what is even being experienced (or verification that change is occurring). My right "now" is never raw and pure and capable of denoting itself -- it's the drawn out sequence of cognitive states following right "now" that retrospectively evaluate it, after it has already been replaced.

Of course, due to the physical body hanging around, the outer world would still be formally attaching an identity to me even in a situation of absolute and continual amnesia. But society's insistence that "You are X_" would be perpetual, meaningless gibberish.

At least Clive Wearing can retain new memories for a few seconds or minutes, and then he reloads back to zero. Plus, he has a few fragmentary memories of his past.

[Magical Realist]

Exactly, an external locus of identity. Which completely explains your lack of understanding a well-defined internal identity.

Experience in the deeper sense of all phenomenal events, including sensory perceptions and bodily states as well as inner imaginings, thoughts, memories, feelings, etc. I am myself the common locus for all that. How could I not be?

---

My identity isn't defined by what I can control. It's defined by my experience--what is happening to me in this moment. Like a waterfall..

My identity is pretty much delimited by memory, and accordingly I'm almost always extended into the past and anticipating the future. Take long-term and short-term memory capacities away, and I'm gone -- both in terms of past identity and even forming a new one.

That includes semantic memory and the rest. Without information storage, there is no classification and understanding of what is even being experienced (or verification that change is occurring). My right "now" is never raw and pure and capable of denoting itself -- it's the drawn out sequence of cognitive states following right "now" that retrospectively evaluate it, after it has already been replaced.

Of course, due to the physical body hanging around, the outer world would still be formally attaching an identity to me even in a situation of absolute and continual amnesia. But society's insistence that "You are X_" would be perpetual, meaningless gibberish.

At least Clive Wearing can retain new memories for a few seconds or minutes, and then he reloads back to zero. Plus, he has a few fragmentary memories of his past.

I once experienced full blackout mode while in the Navy partying at a bar in Dubai. Ended up in my rack with all my clothes off with some guy I didn't know going down on me! lol But somehow I made it past the quarter deck, probably with some help from shipmates. Of course there's always the possibility that I was conscious during all that and merely suffered amnesia. But even then it was me who experienced it, if nothing more than as a lapse in time in my consciousness.

[Syne]

Exactly, an external locus of identity. Which completely explains your lack of understanding a well-defined internal identity.

Experience in the deeper sense of all phenomenal events, including sensory perceptions and bodily states as well as inner imaginings, thoughts, memories, feelings, etc. I am myself the common locus for all that. How could I not be?

You're the one arguing we shouldn't use "I." You tell me.

[Magical Realist]

And you're the one who said we can't speak without using "I". I proved you wrong. Case closed.

[Syne]

Oh, you think that's what happened, huh? 9_9
Just like you claiming you've proved all the UFOs, ghosts, big foots, etc. exist.

When you've really just contradicted yourself. Saying we shouldn't use "I" but then admitting all of your experience is only that of "I."