What are you?

welcome to A2K Robwill :-)

Robwill, WELCOME to A2K. Exactly my sentiment; I'm alive. What else do I need? c.i.

Fresco, I was afraid someone would ask that

Tuber, Kuv, a tuber . . .

Wy, coo-coo-ca-joo . . .

Hi rosborne979

You wrote:

[/b]

You might be correct and I agree our answers do not have to be restricted to the tangible or probable, but what I got from the question was that answers have to be 'something',... (if there is an answer). The assumption is that there are possibly answers that are observable, and knowable in some way or form.

What are you?

Like all questions points you in a specific direction, orients you, i.e. What’s asking this question? What's observing this question? What is this " I "...?

Is it this? Is it that? What is it?

It assumes it's an IT, a 'something', otherwise, what are you looking for apart from ‘something’,....something perceived or thought of ?

It assumes this "I " or “you” (in, What are you) is an observable in the observable universe of things and thoughts.

It assumes there is a you, and that this you has something to do with it’s ability to ask the question.




Why not?



I'm not sure what you mean. Awareness is generally understood to not be a link in the chain of cause and effect.

Although it might be those causes and effects if it is what it is aware of. All of them, not a specific one.

{note: couldn't get rid of the large type....}

roger wrote:




Well I believe others exist, it just cannot be proven, but then what can...?

fresco wrote;



What does, What does "what" mean?, mean?

What does, What does "are" mean?, mean?

What does, What does "you" mean?, mean?

It is fitting that this thread is in the "Philosophy & Debate" forum--that goes a long way to explaining the silliness here to any casual reader who just drops by and makes it this far.

I am what I write.
Does that make us silly?
Then by all means let us be silly or vapid or deep!
As long as we are the words, know the words,
and indulge whatever it is we find in our selves.

Today I am a pronoun.

"I" always be a pronoun, 'cept fer them as would quibble--i wish sometimes such-like folk would go back to arguing the number of angels capable of dancing on the head of a pin . . .

Hi Twyvel,

When I asked the question, I was looking for opinions more than answers. And I actually liked your first answer quite a bit; very creative.

In the followup questions, I was wondering what you would say if I asked you to break away from your usual interpretation of the question itself, and to find a way (of your own choice) to answer it from a different perspective which might make more sense in your world view.

For instance, suppose I suggested that awareness is just another emotion, like anger, or joy. Not an observer or an "I" at all, just a feeling.

Mirrors involve the physical world, and our ability to relate to it, and to our senses. The physical world is a limiting factor. Thought doesn't involve this at all, you can do it with your eyes closed in a sensory deprivation tank. Thought might be causal in itself, but I'm not sure time applies if only any given instant is all that ever matters.

Have fun

Best Regards,

Exactly Setanta, Philosophy and Debate. A category that just begs for a squishy question

Best Regards,

From that perspective, the only cogent answer is a sensory apparatus. That one might be incapable of demonstrating this to another does not alter that.

rosborne, What's a "squishy" question? c.i.

I am me - a jumble of questions and interests and worries and hang ups and insecurities ...

Doesn't anyone else like that "I am star stuff" response.

Carl Sagan sure would be disappointed.

The physical parts of us are definitely star stuff (assuming that the physical world even exists at all of course), and I love that

But the non-physical part of what we are is more like "Universe Stuff"; some crystalization of natural potential.

Best Regards,

ok Frank yes!


We are stardust we are golden ....