BothAndBlog Forum

Who am 'I'?
"The term 'I' may be the point of subjectivity but it may not be identical to the self."

I wonder why does each of have an 'I' as an aspect of consciousness, or self consciousness? Are human beings the only living beings with a sense of 'I'? — Jack Cummins

FWIW, here's my take on the self-concept, from the perspective of Enformationism theory. The Self is not a Real thing, in the sense of a ghost, but it is an Ideal concept. As such, it is as useful as your mental model of the Real World, which according to Kant is not the ding an sich. We can't ask animals if they have a sense of self, but like humans, they act as-if they do.


Self/Soul :
The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
1. This imaginary Me is a low-resolution construct abstracted from the complex web of inter-relationships that actually form the human body, brain, mind, DNA, and social networks in the context of a vast universe.
2. In the Enformationism worldview, only G*D could know yourself objectively in complete detail as the mathematical definition of You. That formula is equivalent to your Self/Soul.
3. Because of the fanciful & magical connotations of the traditional definition for "Soul" (e.g. ghosts), Enformationism prefers the more practical term "Self".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html

Animal self consciousness :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

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'. — Jack Cummins

Apparently, you think of "I" as something different from the psychological Ego, or Self-Consciousness. I agree that the Self-image is not simply the physical brain. But it is an imaginary creation of the brain. That's why I place the Self under the categorical heading of Meta-Physical. But I don't view it as a Soul or Ghost that can run around outside the body-brain complex. The link below is a discussion of Terrence Deacon and Jeremy Sherman's notion of Causal Absence and human Agency to explain the sense of an immaterial Ghost in a biological Machine..


The Ghost in the Organism :
So Sherman chose to expand upon the allied notions of "Selves" and "Aims" as meta-physical agents in physical reality.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page20.html

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.

A brain does not perceive itself to be a brain. — 180 Proof

That's true. A brain doesn't have internal sense organs to make a physical sense of itself (neuronal pattern). But it does have a mind, to create a self-image, which is our meta-physical sense of self. Douglas Hofstadter refers to that internal feedback as a "strange loop".


I Am a Strange Loop :
Strange Loop says that each of us is a point of view, and one's perspective – indeed our most intimate subjectivity – can exist in other substrates, outside of the brain. No, Hofstadter hasn't gone mystical, religious, or superstitious; but he has pushed the boundaries of science by thinking poetically.
Book by Douglas Hofstadter
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/I_A ... Hofstadter

A strange loop is a cyclic structure that goes through several levels in a hierarchical system. It arises when, by moving only upwards or downwards through the system, one finds oneself back where one started. Strange loops may involve self-reference and paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... 0x3000.jpg

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".

Self reflection is like looking into a mirror and describing what you see.
https://anupadin.files.wordpress.com/20 ... urself.jpg

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.

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 :
https://wl-brightside.cf.tsp.li/resize/ ... b1a05e.jpg

Anyway, do not be distracted by that example. For this thread is about change, not causation — Bartricks

Your example is quite a stretch, so it is not much of a distraction -- more like a paradox or riddle.
Note -- see Koan below

Since you want to separate Causation from its Effect (Change), how would you define a "Cause", or an "Effect" without reference to the other? If a cause makes no difference (change) what does it do?

Causation : the relationship between cause and effect; causality.
Effect : 1. a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

PS___Koan : If Aristotle's First Cause (principle of causation) had existed forever, without any real world effect, was it really a cause?

You reply by just stipulating that 'effect' and 'change' mean the same. — Bartricks

That's not what I said, or meant. I merely pointed-out that "cause", "effect", and "change" are inextricably (logically) linked in our experience. If we notice a Change in something, we look for the Cause of that Effect. Change, or Difference, is a clue that something happened. So, curious humans instinctively want to know how or why that happened, and the answer is in the Causation. The Cause is not the Effect ; the Change is not the Cause ; and the Effect is not the Cause, but merely a sign of Causation. Cause & Effect are the "causal relata" of Change.

Change is news; it could be good or bad for us. No-change is not interesting. Change is a Transformation from before to after. "Exchange" is the Cause of that new Form. Change is not a physical thing, it's a rational inference from experience with Before and After. For humans, Difference is the essence of Meaning. No difference, no significance. Meaning is the Difference that makes a Difference to me. Even the "change" in your pocket, is implicitly the result of a Cause or Action that exchanges one form of currency (paper money) into a different form (metal money). "Change" can be a noun ( referring to an Effect) or a verb (referring to the Cause).

The original Big Bang Theory appeared to imply a Change from Nothing to Something. But people instinctively began to ask about the Cause of that existential Conversion. A Multiverse would merely beg the question ; just a never-ending series of Effects. Likewise, Inflation tries to answer the Change question, without mentioning the Ultimate Cause. That's because, a First & Final Cause would be a Creator from scratch.

Does your Acausal definition of "Change", not somehow imply a Cause/Effect relationship? Or, are you talking about transcendent Change? That's a horse of a different color. In the real world, you can't have physical or metaphorical Change (Effect) without a Cause, unless the Cause is Absential, in which case, the Cause is not apparent.

PS__I apologize for going on & on about such an academic question. But the answer to "what is change" is essential to my worldview.

The Metaphysics of Causation :
Absences: The main argument for transcendence is that absences can be involved in causal relations. Absences are said to be transcendent entities. They are nothings, non-occurrences, and hence are not in the world.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/caus ... taphysics/

Power of Absence :
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page17.html