The Greatest Philosophical Problem of all time

Okay. So, let's take Admin, for instance. To everybody else's perspective, he's "Admin". However, to his perspective, he's "I".
I've always had difficulty trying to put this concept into words. It's the idea of the individual perspective. It's hard to explain, but there is literally no explanation to why it exists.
Am I making sense to anyone here?

Dassault Papillon: I'll take myself. It is known that there is Bubba. It is known that Bubba as a sentient life form has a perspective. However, what is unexplainable is why I am that perspective.

Dassault Papillon: Hmmm, this is some serious navel gazing stuff here...

I think that surely it's pretty simple? (Most things are)
The Individual perspective exists because we are Individuals.

By this I mean we are selfish and autonomous. I think it'd be fair to argue that the Individual perspective wouldn't exist to the same degree in a hive collective, say, in an Ant colony or something similar.

Is that what you mean? It was based off your first post. In your second post you seemed to be saying that the explainable part was why the indivdual perspective of "Bubba" was assigned to the life form of Bubba. If that was what you meant instead then I think you're presupposing that the perspective exists outside of the life form rather than existing BECAUSE of the life form. I'd contend that that is an incorrect supposition.

nzlockie: I'm not saying that the existence of a life form perceiving is the issue. The issue is that I am Bubba (my original DDO username). You perceive a person named Bubba, and that guy has the ability to perceive things as a sentient life form. But why is it that Bubba is I?

...Forget it. I don't think I'll figure out a way to explain it.

Dassault Papillon: I mean, I don't think that in this Universe there is any explanation as to why every human being perceives as "I". I'm not sure there even is an explanation.

Dassault Papillon: This isn't the greatest philosophical question of all time, but it is an important question.
I once read a book by some insane house wife pleasing guru who said the individual perspective is a result of the voices that exist in our heads.

When we talk to the voice in our head it is almost like there is someone else apart of you. Weird.

Blackflag: Scientology calls that a "thetan". It's basically the core of their philosophy.

Unfortunately for me, my brain is prodigiously empty. There are no "voices" there. I'm just me.

admin: So you never speak to yourself in your head? Before replying, did you think to yourself "I do not do that?"
That is the voice in your head.

Blackflag: It's like speaking to myself aloud. There's only one voice and it's mine.

admin: So you never speak to yourself in your head? Before replying, did you think to yourself "I do not do that?"
That is the voice in your head.

admin: The voice in your head is your own? Well aristotle once alluded to how your inner voice isn't actually you, but what you tell yourself you are.
It is a self manifestation. For example, everyone is a better person in their minds than they act in real life.

I bet you are no different.

Blackflag: Well, Aristotle isn't God. He might be wrong.

If you're taking this into the concept of self, that's personality. A persona is a mask - it's a face people put on in different contexts. As Shakespeare wrote all the world's a stage. The prevailing theory in behavioral management is the "parliament of selves" where different personas are eternally engaged in some debate in our heads as to what kind of a role we ought to play in different contexts.

There's other kinds of self of course - your projected self may well be different from your perceived self which may again be different from your reflected self, for example.

When I say the voice is "mine", I mean the voice has no personality. It's the same independent of context. It's just me talking to me, not my ideal self talking to me.

admin: Well, Aristotle isn't God. He might be wrong.
He makes logical sense that is backed by strong rhetoric and reason, which is why he is revered by so many. I think it is fine to disagree with him, but you should never forget the person you are disagreeing with are respected authorities in their fields.

I disagree with Kant on numerous levels, but I think it is fine when people appeal to him, because his important is still important and should be analyzed on even the smallest level.

When I say the voice is "mine", I mean the voice has no personality. It's the same independent of context. It's just me talking to me, not my ideal self talking to me.
Voices do not have personalities, but they speak to you in an embodiment of who you are as a person. For example, you probably wouldn't say in your head someone is ugly if you really thought they were beautiful. That is because the voice speaks what you are thinking, therefore embodying yourself.

There's other kinds of self of course - your projected self may well be different from your perceived self which may again be different from your reflected self, for example.
This was basically Aristotles point. Your "projected" self is your true form, while your "perceived" self is not really you, as much as you tell yourself it is.
For example, if a serial killer tells himself he is not a violent man and he is better than what he does, that would still not make him an unviolent man. At least until he decides to stop serial killing.

because he is still an important fugure and that should be taken into consideration on even the smallest level

Blackflag: But what does "who you are as a person" mean? Your personality, right?

This kind of reminds me of an episode of a hilarious chinese show I used to watch. So, there's this guy who wants to murder this other guy. Let's just call him "Mr. Chen" since I forgot the victim's actual name. Anyhow, Mr. Chen asked him to calm down for a while and sit down before he got murdered, and the guy grumbled after Mr Chen said something like "wait wait wait! You can't kill me yet! I have knowledge I can give you...great knowledge."
So, let's suppose the murderer was named Sir Gredgel. It doesn't really matter. Anyhow, Mr. Chen was like "You're Sir Gredget, right?"
"Yes, and I WANT TO KILL YOU RIGHT NOW"
"And my name is Mr. Chen right? The person you want to kill is Mr. Chen"
"THAT's RIGHT!! I want to kill you, Mr. Chen!!"
"Not so fast!! If you think about it carefully, through the cosmos and quantum theorums and God's likeness all around the world, we're all technically part of each other since the creation. And since we come from the same person, you could just as well be 'Mr. Chen' as I am 'Mr. Chen'. Think about it. I can address you as 'Sir Gredget' or 'You', but either way, you're the same person, Who knows? YOU could be Mr. Chen. I could be Sir Gredget, the one destined to kill Mr. Chen. Therefore, in the end, we don't really know for sure if I'm supposed to die. After all, you're me and I'm you and that makes you Mr. Chen!"

Sir Gredget: .....AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH IMMMM SOOOOOOOOOO CONFUSEDDDDD *kills self*

9spaceking: Even I had trouble following that. XD

Given my world view, my observation is that people generally like to think they are more complex than they actually are. This behaviour usually peaks during the late teens, but often progresses right through to later life.

If you hear a voice in your head, it's FAR more logical to assume that it is just you. There's sonically certainly just one of you. I consider myself pretty in touch with me, and I've never found myself to gave any significant depth...

If you hear a voice in your head, it's FAR more logical to assume that it is just you. There's sonically certainly just one of you. I consider myself pretty in touch with me, and I've never found myself to gave any significant depth...
I guess I'm trying to prove that the voice in your head is independent of your true self. Yeah, it is there, and it speaks, but it isn't your actual self.