In the room downstairs we sat and stared.>It’s very bold of you to assume that some "you" actually exists.<But I am here. I'm talking to you>How would you describe that "I"?<I don’t know, like. Like I’m young and maybe overanalyzing, and.. And I really like lemon soda, and I broke my knee when I was in kindergarten.>So you are your personality and your memories? Is that what you’re trying to say?<Yeah..>There’s a problem with what you just said.>Let’s pretend for a moment you’re right and you really are your personality, memories and so on. ...But isn’t the one listening to me right now - also you?>And the one seeing me is you. And the one feeling all the different things is you. Let’s call this you the perceiver.>We like to imagine the perceiver as a pupil of an eye. The perceiver may cast his gaze upon anything - colors or sounds, touch or feelings. But how do you imagine it looking at itself directly?<Alright, in that sense it really can’t. The pupil can never see itself. So what?>It means that whatever the pupil can perceive is not it. You can analyze your memories and your personality, yet the real perceiver always stays in the shadows.>For you - where do other people exist? I mean, their minds, memories and so on?<In their heads?>Wrong. You have no ability to see what’s inside someone’s head. To you people are a fictitious creation - a number of expectations generated from their actions. A phantom existing exclusively in your head.>And the funny thing is - your own personality is too. What’s the definition of imaginary?<...Something that exists just in my mind?>And where does your personality reside?
>>42344027so fucking deep bro...
>>42344027Metacognition was a mistake.
>>42344027>We like to imagine the perceiver as a pupil of an eye.Uhm speak for yourself maybe. I don’t imagine it that way at all.
