Who am I?

oceanic said:The only way we can ever grasp the universe and its "laws" is through our own uniquely human lens.
We have zero way of knowing what it actually looks like to some other intelligent species.
Everything we think we know—all our theories and data—is just a human construct.
There’s no such thing as objective truth for us; there's only intersubjectivity, which is just a fancy way of saying social consensus. We certainly don't have access to absolute truth.
We live in our own little bubble, interpreting things through our own specific perspective. That interpretation doesn't hold any cosmic or superhuman value. It's just ours.
Our practical knowledge might "work" in a functional sense, but from an epistemological standpoint, it could be totally meaningless.

Madman said:it’s nothing more than sophist nonsense.

Since you seem so content living in your little bubble, I can only wish you the best. However, I really don't think you should be posting on this philosophy board until you've actually cracked open I. canal (even if it's just the high school textbook version). 😉

Madman said:I think it’s better to just say: Interpretation Look, these laws... they're just human, you know? But at the end of the day, they’re basically just natural laws themselves. They make sense to us—more or less. We all try to wrap our heads around them, grasping them with varying levels of precision, and honestly? Our understanding of how they work just keeps getting sharper over time. At least, that's how it's felt so far.
Yeah, exactly. Like, Newtonian laws only get that name because he was the first one to actually pin them down. If that "apple" had left a more lasting mark on Sir's head, we’d probably be talking about someone else entirely. To me, the whole point of this idea hits on two things. First, there's the obvious reality that our understanding of the universe is super limited. But second—and this is what I really stand by—is the need to ditch anthropocentrism. Or any kind of "centrism," really. Think about it: if we somehow finally made contact with an alien civilization and realized our scientific findings matched up perfectly? That wouldn't mean we found the ultimate truth. It would just mean that on a higher level, the probability of our knowledge being right goes up. It’s like when two people agree on something—it makes you feel way more confident, sure, but it doesn't suddenly make the fact absolute. It's just a warning against that "centrist" mindset where we think we've reached some final, absolute conclusion. I'm not saying what we know isn't important or relevant; I'm just saying we shouldn't act like we own the truth, especially when compared to stuff that's been around much longer than we have.

Madman said:Man, I’ve been obsessing over this one thing lately—this whole pursuit some theoretical physicists are on. It’s wild. They’re basically trying to prove that we’re actually super close to uncovering a single, unifying law of the universe. Like, we’re right on the edge of understanding the absolute limits of existence. The idea is that if you look at current quantum states and speeds, you can actually map out the boundaries where matter and energy can go. It points toward this new kind of "atom" and sets these concrete physical limits that suddenly feel... reachable? It’s kind of like how they do things in high-level math theory. Instead of trying to tackle a massive claim head-on, they just hunt down the boundaries to see if the thing is finite or infinite, or what its constraints are. If you find the walls, you basically understand the room, right? I mean, look, it’s definitely a long shot. A total Hail Mary. But man, it sounds so cool. It actually gives me a little bit of hope that we might eventually wrap our heads around everything in this universe. Just imagine.

Nobody and nothing said:I don't have much to add here, but what follows sounds even weirder:
So, this whole idea that we’re "almost there" is an old story. It’s like in religion—that sense of being "just one step away." Whether it’s the coming of Christ or the end of the world, that "not quite yet" feeling keeps the tension alive and gives people something to focus on. Once they get bored of that, they just move on to the next "we're almost there" narrative.
Back at the end of the 19th century, physicists were absolutely convinced they had already uncovered all the fundamental laws. They felt so certain after unifying optics and electromagnetism in Maxwell's theory, and then linking mechanics and thermodynamics through kinetic gas theory.
The big names from that era wrote extensively about it... basically asking what they should do now that everything was discovered. Some thought they should pivot to solving social issues since the natural science questions were essentially settled, leaving only technicalities. Then, within twenty or thirty years, everything spectacularly collapsed.
So, I don't buy into that narrative.
Sure, just because it didn't work before doesn't mean it won't work this time. But I still don't believe it.
And my reasoning isn't irrational.
To truly grasp how the universe works in an absolute sense, you’d need to be a being existing outside the universe, yet somehow capable of receiving information from it.
You can't lift yourself up above yourself to see how you function—you can't crawl out of your own skin.
Epistemology isn't some collection of nonsense. In fact, Heisenberg's relations have a very clear epistemological foundation, and it seems like this whole discussion about "what we can and cannot know" does too.
Epistemology might actually save you from chasing your own tail, thinking, "I almost caught it, just a little bit further..." 😉

mellon said:It’s an interesting point, but if mutations don't happen with a specific purpose—meaning they're just random accidents—then there probably wouldn't be any living creatures on Earth right now. How could those same creatures adapt to new, more extreme environments through "random mutations"? A bird doesn't just accidentally grow a long beak, and a deer doesn't just accidentally end up with a long neck.

Mary said:everything is fine and you don't need to explain it to me, because I had genetics and evolution in school too. It's clear to me that evolution brought us here.
But doesn't it seem to you that this selection process in humans is either happening imperceptibly slowly (okay, it's always been incredibly slow) or isn't even occurring in a natural sense anymore? I mean, it's not just the intelligent, the attractive, or the resourceful who survive. Even though intelligence is inherited. Think about it—if you don't believe in science fiction and the idea that one day we'll turn green or have three arms and so on. I don't believe in that. I'm more inclined toward your "time bomb" theory. How much has a human actually evolved since, say, the ancient Greeks? Where is that selection? What stopped it?

Who am I, really?

Apemant said:Another way to look at it is believing everything was designed with purpose by some supernatural being—God. That’s what creationists believe. Are you a creationist? Just asking so I know where we're starting from...

Kenneth Hayes10 said:It seems like a simple question, but isn't philosophy's whole job just to provide complicated answers to easy ones? 🙂

When I ask myself, "Who am I?", I'm not really looking for a list of my traits... For instance, if you assume every single thing we do is just a result of our DNA and our life experiences, then things get weird. If someone had a perfect map of those factors, they could basically predict everything we'll ever do. That thought actually creeps me out a little... because it implies I don't have any real free will, just a series of cause-and-effect reactions. And if that's true, then who is "me"? Can we even say, "He's not at fault for being a criminal; his upbringing made him that way," or, "He's not to blame for being stingy; it’s just in his genes"? If there's no choice involved, who is that person, and where does the blame actually lie? 😕

vividbear5 said:reply from lara35zg:
"No man ever steps in the same river twice... because it's not the same river and he's not the same man."

You are essentially a collection of your current physical (tangible—perceived via the five senses) and mental (intangible—thoughts, knowledge, neural synapses) attributes and experiences within time and space.

Incorrect premises:
Premise 1: You are a copy of DNA material.
Premise 2: You are the sum of your experiences.
Premise 3: You are the sum of your thoughts.

If we look at physical things, you include genetics inherited from parents at birth.
However, DNA changes under the influence of the environment and aging, meaning the set of current attributes is always shifting.
Therefore, creating a 1:1 DNA clone of your organism at noon today wouldn't actually result in *you*.
Premise 1 debunked.

Regarding mental matters (if there's a better term)—this includes everything you've learned throughout your life.
If you learn French or karate and then someone clones your DNA 1:1, that new organism won't know a word of French or how to throw a punch. Thus, it isn't you.
You've simply created "a human shell" with an empty brain.

Even copying synapses doesn't guarantee you've copied the person.
For example, if you know karate (or how to ski, etc.) and those skills are hardwired into your brain via synapses, but your DNA clone lacks the necessary muscle development (try building a physique like Jean-Claude van Damme if you don't believe me) to perform that skill, it still isn't you.
Premise 2 debunked.

Most skills are developed through thought and training—neither Bruce Lee, nor Jean-Claude van Damme, nor Aristotle, nor Cicero, nor Napoleon, nor Janica ... were born knowing them.
Thinking relies on previously acquired experiences and knowledge.
If your mind and body aren't capable of new experiences, it's difficult to generate new thoughts.
Premise 3 debunked.

It’s a temporal perspective; the organism evolves over time, which inevitably alters mental capabilities.
Take losing an arm, for instance—suddenly, everything is done with the other hand.
Consequently, your original DNA-based organism is no longer "you."
Your experiences become new (writing, eating, drawing, or just scrolling through your phone...) using that other hand.

You are also a footprint in the memories of other "yous" (or "selves") within your immediate circle (direct interaction) and your broader social sphere (celebrities, public figures, hearsay).

If you were to make a 1:1 copy of yourself right now (not just DNA), and you went to a movie theater and then to a bar where you ended up getting into a fight, while your copy stayed home watching TV, opened a beer, and stubbed their toe on the fridge because they fell in love with Sopekic, you are no longer the same.

And when you meet the next day, that "copy" is no longer you.

Your copy has become a distinct human being with its own rights and obligations, its own body, its own knowledge, its own thoughts, its own experiences, its own ego, its own pride, and its own emotions—just without the biological parents.

I won't get into the concept of the soul.
That's the domain of religion.

Kenneth Hayes10 said:It seems like a simple question, but isn't philosophy's whole job just to provide complicated answers to easy ones? 🙂

When I ask myself, "Who am I?", I'm not really looking for a list of my traits... For instance, if you assume every single thing we do is just a result of our DNA and our life experiences, then things get weird. If someone had a perfect map of those factors, they could basically predict everything we'll ever do. That thought actually creeps me out a little... because it implies I don't have any real free will, just a series of cause-and-effect reactions. And if that's true, then who is "me"? Can we even say, "He's not at fault for being a criminal; his upbringing made him that way," or, "He's not to blame for being stingy; it’s just in his genes"? If there's no choice involved, who is that person, and where does the blame actually lie? 😕