Who am I?

Generally speaking... I find myself questioning why I ever chose one path over another—mostly because our accumulated experience, genetic makeup, and those random circumstances we can't control (essentially dictated by "everyone else's freedom") play such huge roles. It feels like true experience only stems from free will, since we use those experiences to build our identities over time... but if you trace everything back, you eventually hit that very first decision made before any experience existed, leaving nothing but genetics and circumstance to drive the choice.

The answer lies in how you operate—how you make decisions and how you actually live. If you’re living like an automaton, just a mechanism reacting unconsciously, then every single choice you make is going to be strictly conditioned by what you've learned and what's happened to you in the past.
However, if you occasionally step into a sort of—let's call it a—void with your mind, creating a momentary pause in that automatic behavior, you might find yourself making decisions from within that void. And since that space is infinite, it isn't bound by conditioning.
While this analogy might be a bit of a stretch, I believe it hits close enough to the mark.

Can someone please talk sense into me and explain MY role in all of this? Because looking at the variables of heredity, experience, and circumstance, it seems my role doesn't even exist.

Similarly, it could be that as long as your "role" exists, it remains entirely conditioned by those factors—meaning, in a sense, it doesn't truly exist. But those are extremes. Using terms like "mine" or "yours" implies a separation, and that void I mentioned—if it is indeed infinite—cannot be subject to separation.

Look, freedom is freedom. Period.
Your version of freedom doesn't follow some set pattern because you *are* that freedom.
There isn't some law of physics out there that can predict what you're gonna do next.
Asking "who am I?" is just a way of acknowledging that I exist.
So, I am who I am. Who's to blame? You are. Who can fix it? You are.

camaria, look, just think about why I said what I said. It’s obvious. Got it?

Atma said:humans aren't free, consciousness is just physical matter, everything that exists is stuck in some crazy determinism (there's no God and no free will), being is just a word, and philosophy is nothing more than a critique of language.

Nah, man. Humans ARE freedom, matter is just words, everything we see comes through our own free perception (God exists, and so does free will), being is real, and philosophy? It’s a matter of the heart.

That exact question—"who am I"—is what draws the line between us and the animals.
It all comes down to consciousness.
What actually drives that interpersonal intelligence, that awareness of existence, or even just self-awareness? Honestly, nobody knows yet (well, *I* certainly don't).

And this ties directly into the whole "what makes a human being?" debate that’s been floating around this forum somewhere.

If we were all dropped onto a deserted island as adults and forced to rely solely on our raw, innate abilities—our hands, our legs, our brains—that’s when you’d see people's true colors. That's where you find out who someone really is.
...but then again, does it all just boil back down to genetics?😉....

As for me, I am exactly who I am.
Someone once replied to a similar thought by saying, "Ha! Then it's either an answered question or some kind of absolute," though I don't even know what an "absolute" is, and that's a whole different conversation.

Just trust in nature.
You are a product of everything your ancestors were; you're part of a much larger whole.
We're all brothers and sisters in the end... live long and prosper.
Go out there and breed in the wild!

Perhaps consciousness and reason are actually detached from our environment and genetics, which might be where our freedom truly shows itself...

Atma said:Man is unfree, consciousness is just matter, everything that exists is trapped in some incomprehensible determinism (God doesn't exist and neither does free will), being is just a word, and philosophy is nothing more than a critique of language.

If you follow that logic, then absolutely nothing in this world—in this universe or any others—holds any meaning at all. Just look at the cosmos, at all that matter you're limited to seeing! Can mere matter really be its own purpose? There simply has to be a free will out there, existing beyond this matter and this entire universe... it has to exist, if only for the sake of meaning.

Hannah Thomas13 said:The cards we're dealt represent our genetic makeup, while the environment is shaped by the other players at the table—but ultimately, we are the ones who decide how to play our hand.

What a brilliant perspective! Honestly, whoever penned that deserves a spot in my personal collection of life philosophies.
👍

Wait, who am I?? Where even am I!?? What year is it!?!?! Who’s the President!!?!?? 🤣
Has anyone else here actually watched that series? 😁

coppereagle18 said:That's a great way to put it! Honestly, I’m adding that one to my personal collection of favorite quotes right now.
👍

Heh, well then I guess I better claim the copyright, since that idea just popped into my head late one night.

mellon said:Maybe consciousness and reason actually exist independently from our environment and genetics—maybe that’s where our freedom shows up.

If you follow that logic, nothing in this world, or this universe, or any other universe out there, actually holds any inherent meaning. Just look at the cosmos—all that matter you can see! Can matter just be its own purpose? Somewhere, there has to be free will existing outside of all this physical stuff and this entire universe. It has to, just for the sake of meaning itself.

But "meaning" is a human concept, not a feature of nature. We have this deep-seated need to find purpose in ourselves and everything else, and that drive is what makes us hunt for some kind of universal truth. Existence itself isn't looking for meaning; we're the ones looking for it. If we need it to get by, we can certainly invent something to serve that purpose, but that doesn't mean everything is required to have a point.

I honestly believe there’s a deeper logic to everything, though we’re usually too blinded by our own narrow perspectives to actually wrap our heads around it... because what feels meaningful to us on a human level doesn't necessarily align with the actual purpose of the universe.
When you really stop to look at the sheer perfection of the natural world, it becomes obvious that everything is organized with a specific intention, functioning exactly the way it was meant to—with absolute precision.
That’s exactly why humanity keeps turning back to nature to find those spark-of-genius ideas and blueprints for our greatest breakthroughs...

rustymaker5 said:I think everything makes sense, we just can't always wrap our heads around it. What feels meaningful to us doesn't necessarily mean it's the ultimate purpose of the universe.
When you look at how perfect nature is, it’s obvious that everything is arranged for a reason and works exactly the way it should—perfectly.
That's why humans look to nature to find the ideas and blueprints for their own discoveries.

Honestly, I’ve never actually seen anything "perfect." To me, it’s just a constant stream of imperfections constantly reshaping one another. Nature isn't some finished, flawless masterpiece; it’s in a state of non-stop evolution. We get this illusion of order because we're looking at systems that have been fine-tuned by millions of years of adaptation—an ongoing process where whatever doesn't fit simply gets weeded out. Everything breaks down due to imperfection, from the cosmic scale down to the organisms on Earth, all the way to the atoms themselves. Stars collapse and vanish because of imbalances; the entire universe probably pulses, appearing and disappearing. Species go extinct because they can't adapt, and atoms decay and reform in endless combinations. Is it fascinating? Definitely. Is it perfect? No.
Nothing is truly "set in stone." It’s just a continuous cycle of shifting, assembling, and breaking apart based on what's needed. Things function the way they do because if they didn't, they wouldn't exist at all. I think we only claim there's a grand design because, out of all the ways things could be, we happen to exist in this specific version. We have this deep-seated need to feel special, to believe there's a reason behind it all, rather than accepting that things just work because they *can*.

Hannah Thomas13 said:Meaning is a human construct, not a natural one.

🙏

I don't think free will exists, and there certainly isn't any need for meaning.

Who am I?

Sam Mellon argued on the previous page,
that if you trace the chain of events backward through experience and
genetics, you eventually reach a point where no experience exists yet.
At that point, there is no "me."
The "self" couldn't possibly choose what it would become before it even existed.

The "self" is merely the byproduct of an interaction
between genetics and experience.
And naturally, as such a creation, I have no choice
but to be exactly what I am.
I didn't choose my DNA or my initial environment,
and those two factors combined to forge my experience.

In other words:
if the "self," for example, possesses a conscience,
it isn't because I had enough character
to cultivate it, so now I act like a good person—bravo, bravo.
It’s simply that the circumstances aligned for me.
Then, depending on how strong that conscience is,
I have varying degrees of desire to reflect on my decisions,
and varying degrees of strength to act in accordance with what my
conscience dictates.
So, I will be more or less of a good person because that is essentially what I
AM, not because I am choosing to be.

Look, our environment and our DNA might set the stage, making us more prone to certain things, but at the end of the day, it’s still our call whether we lean into those tendencies or push back against them. Those choices are what actually define us, constantly reshaping who we are, which means we really do have some agency over our own lives. There isn't some genetic code or outside force out there strong enough to strip away your ability to say no to drugs. It's like being at a crossroads—whether it's a major life turning point or just a split-second decision on a street corner—you still get to decide whether to turn left or right. Of course, life rarely hands you such easy decisions, but the choice remains yours.

Hannah Thomas13 said:Our environment and genetics might make us predisposed to certain things, but ultimately, it’s our choice whether we act on those impulses or choose otherwise. Those choices shape who we become, giving us agency over ourselves. No hereditary trait or external pressure strips away the ability to refuse drugs or decide to turn right instead of left at a crossroads—even if those choices aren't always easy.

I disagree.
At what point in this logic does a choice actually become "ours"?
If we aren't just chemical processes in the brain, then what are we?
Experience and genetics dictate the variables; what is there left to choose?

Perhaps there are moments where a temporary imbalance of
certain chemical compounds influences a current decision,
making someone act differently than expected.
But we didn't consciously choose that imbalance.
(And when I say a current decision, I mean everything from the simplest
tasks—like deciding whether to tie my
left or right shoelace first—to the more
complex ones.)

Sure, our actions build our character and we influence ourselves,
but if the initial actions weren't born of free will,
then they can never truly be considered such.

Someone with a massive biological predisposition toward addiction
(which isn't a matter of free will)
will inevitably become an addict.
Those without the inclination simply won't.
It is the responsibility of society to address those tendencies if possible,
rather than hypocritically looking down on its fallen members,
who were essentially helpless to begin with when they made
some mistake.
Society should be providing them with a chance at rehabilitation.

Robert Wright10 said:I don't see it that way.
At what point does a choice become "ours"?
If it all boils down to chemical processes in the brain,
then isn't everything just experience and genetics making the calls?

Maybe there's a scenario where a temporary imbalance
of certain chemicals shifts our current choices,
making them different from what we’d normally expect.
But we didn't consciously choose that imbalance.
(And when I say "current choice," I mean anything from the tiny stuff
like deciding which shoe to lace up first
to the much heavier life decisions.)

Our actions shape who we are, and we definitely influence ourselves,
but if those initial actions weren't born from free will,
then they can never truly evolve into being acts of free will.

Take someone with a heavy biological predisposition toward addiction;
(which isn't really their choice to begin with)
they end up an addict.
Someone without that leaning won't.
It’s actually on society to try and change those inclinations if possible,
rather than just looking down on people who struggle,
especially since many were already at a disadvantage when they
made a mistake.
Society should be there to offer them a path to recovery.

Honestly, this whole debate about whether it's chemistry or willpower feels like the classic chicken or the egg problem. Are we capable of using our will to drive the chemical and electrical reactions in our bodies—the very things that create our consciousness—or is every single attempt just a reaction triggered by a previous one?
For instance, if you practice meditation, you eventually reach a level where you can almost tune out your thoughts entirely. You can willfully reshape the patterns of electrical and chemical activity in your brain (you can actually see this in brain scans of long-term practitioners), which seems to me like the ultimate proof that human will can override physical functions. Of course, some meditation gurus go to extremes and claim they can control autonomic functions too, but there’s no real scientific backing for that.
When it comes to addiction, the evidence is pretty clear. We see millions of cases where people in the worst situations—bad family history, poverty, social instability—stay sober, while people with every advantage imaginable end up struggling with alcoholism or drugs.
To me, stripping away individual responsibility doesn't make sense, nor is it necessary. If you're talking about the infant stage where, as you suggest, there is no free will—though I think that's debatable since we don't have hard data, just logical assumptions based on experience—that still doesn't mean a person can't develop free will later. Even if we assume a baby lacks it, you can't conclude they'll never acquire it just because their early actions were conditioned. The missing piece here is that human consciousness isn't static; it evolves dynamically. Even if someone starts without the capacity for free will, it doesn't mean they are stuck that way forever.

Hannah Thomas13 said:chicken and egg

🙂

It isn't quite just about the chicken and the egg.
I would argue that chickens didn't even exist at the start. 😬

Hannah Thomas13 said:Say, if you try meditating, you'll reach a level where you can completely ignore the flow of thoughts and intentionally shut them off, effectively reshaping the electrical and chemical activity in your brain (visually demonstrated by observing the brains of long-term meditators), which to me is ultimate proof of human will overriding physical functions.

Sure, but in order to—as you put it—consciously alter
electrical and chemical brain activity,
and directly take control of your bodily functions,
you first have to actually possess a brain.
Then we are right back to the question of where you got
that brain from—is it merely a product of nature and society,
or does your "free will" play a role here?
You didn't have any conscious influence over the formation of the brain itself
through meditation...
In my view, everything described above can be
explained without ever invoking free will,
so I see no reason to bring it into this.

Hannah Thomas13 said:Regarding the tendency toward drug use and such, it's easier to prove things there, since there are millions of examples where people in the worst possible circumstances... stayed sober, while those in ideal circumstances ended up as alcoholics or addicts.

We disagree there. A wealthy home and a good school don't necessarily mean
ideal circumstances—that's just the surface, and anything could be underneath.
If someone grows up to be an addict, clearly something went wrong with their environment
(or the intersection of environment and genetics?).
Conditions weren't ideal.
Similarly, those who grow up in poverty and broken homes,
surrounded by alcoholism and addiction,
sometimes show an absolute disdain for violence and substance abuse.
Because in those specific environments they were raised in,
certain factors aligned to allow them to do that.
They were, essentially, lucky.

Hannah Thomas13 said:...that again cannot serve as a basis for concluding that because certain actions were not the result of free will interaction, a person cannot later possess free will... ... The variable being ignored here is that human consciousness is not stationary, but develops dynamically...

That part holds up—human consciousness is definitely everything, just not static.

But then, regarding will and freedom, there are two possibilities:
Either free will is an inherent part of our existence from day one, or it manifests at some specific point in time.

Let's examine that first scenario: what does "from the beginning" actually imply?
Does a newborn infant possess free will? By that logic, does a fetus have it too?
Does that mean even basic reproductive cells possess it?😕
It seems to me that the first possibility requires the existence of
some sort of "soul" to act as the vessel for this free will, but
bringing a soul into the conversation feels like an unnecessary complication.

Or is it possible that freedom and will aren't present from the start?
Perhaps, as you suggest, free will arrives abruptly,
following a long stretch of actions that weren't driven by it.
However, I fail to see why, or specifically when,
(and more importantly, how?)
it suddenly makes its entrance onto the stage.
What kind of mystical mechanism is responsible for triggering it?

Every person enters this world free—only to spend every single day shackled by something else👎!

If our consciousness and everything else were contained within some subatomic sphere, and we all just drifted around without any biological drives—hunger, thirst, sex, reproduction, or whatever else—one could imagine a world purely dedicated to knowledge and dialogue, free from utilitarian needs, perhaps leaving only various religious concepts behind...

But humans aren't built that way; even a single piece of chocolate can shift someone's entire mood and behavior. There’s a center in the brain that dictates temperament, and depending on external stimuli, a person can swing from pure euphoria to crushing depression, potentially leading to suicide regardless of how healthy their other bodily functions might be. Brain architecture is such that the two hemispheres serve distinct roles; there have been studies where splitting those hemispheres resulted in subjects processing information entirely differently when viewed through a single eye or hand. The human soul isn't some invisible specter; it is the sum total of our physical existence—the food we eat, our experiences, our environment, and everything else.

Determinism is an interesting lens, but I maintain that no matter how similar the conditions, time, or space in which individuals are raised, countless unpredictable variables turn us into fundamentally different beings. Furthermore, while plants and many animals act according to programmed principles, humans are unique because of our awareness of our own ignorance—which breeds anxiety, fear, and the desperate need to partially overcome that unknown...

There’s a case in India involving girls who were raised by wolves; they growled, snarled, moved on all fours, and were covered in bite marks when they were finally found... It goes to show that people are constantly being shaped by their social environments. I believe that criminals and "evil" people are simultaneously victims of their circumstances, just as those girls wouldn't be considered criminals if they hadn't bitten the person who found them. However, for a legislator, rehabilitating a criminal is an immense challenge, much like how doctors struggle to cure certain mental illnesses because some brain processes remain irreversible to modern medicine—just as difficult as trying to regrow a limb. Human socialization remains a massive, ongoing, dynamic problem.

Is everything already predetermined? Mathematically speaking, given the sheer number of variables interacting in a life, only God knows. But it is worth remembering that we, along with the air we breathe, possess a spectrum of agency—driven by will, experience, knowledge, and ignorance—that is far wider than that of stones, trees, or animals...

philosopher28 said:The deterministic perspective is an interesting one. However, I maintain that even if individuals were raised under identical conditions, time, and space, countless unpredictable micro-variables would still shape us into fundamentally different beings first and foremost.

I agree; even within a deterministic framework,
the resulting chaos can still provide
endless possibilities. 🙂

philosopher28 said:Secondly, plants and many animals act according to various programmed principles, yet we humans are unique due to our consciousness...
...meaning our capacity for action—shaped by will, experience, knowledge, and ignorance—is far broader than that of rocks, trees, or animals.

philosopher28, I think we're on the same page!