> On Aug 14, 6:42 pm, "Theresa McCarty"
qx.net> wrote:>> Why am I me?
>
> It's a mystery.
>
>> Well, that is a consequence of being an evolved sentient
>> being as far as we know.
>> Nevertheless, being a "me" seems to be a common problem.
>
> I don't see why it has to be a "problem". Just enjoy it.
Hey, some people live in Darfur, and some have got some painful disease, and
some are depressed, and some are Ed McMahon. How do they enjoy that?
>> Indeed, being a
>> "me" is the only problem we have.
>
> It's not a problem for "me".
>
>> Without a "me", who gives a 'diddly squat'
>> whatever happens?
>> Now, "mes" [plural of 'me'] are the entire result of socialization
>> and
>> genetics [ unless you are some sort of religious wacko].
>
> What about consciousness? Are you saying consciousness is not part of
> "me"? Or are you saying consciousness is genetically based?
Consciousness is a creation of genetic predispositions and environmental
influences, alone.
>> "Me" devoid of all the material and events that constitute "me"
>> leaves
>> nothing... but considered as far as permissible for the sake of
>> discussion... is a perfectly natural result of biology and culture.
>> Why then is their so much resistance to generalizing about "me"?
>> ~~~Anxious in Tulsa :)
>> "IMUURI"
>> Some may wish to refer to my breathtaking original post in this NG of
>> 8/12/2008 6:19 PM.
>
> Perhaps "you" just don't know who "you" are yet.
>
> coo-coo ca-choo
Dude! Dat's a possubillity!
