who am I? - The answer to the riddle of the self | (step by step self inquiry)

Have you ever asked yourself: "Who am I"?
In this video, this eternal question finally gets an answer.
Complementary articles for this video:
Why is the self constant:
lucidthinking.o...
Why is the experiencer different of the mind:
lucidthinking.o...
Am I the brain?:
• Am I the brain? - ( W...
Help me spread this video to the world:
Translate the subtitles to your local language: bit.ly/1Qb9ggP
Share this video on Facebook: on. 1NTrdjH
Further background on the question of the Self you can find here:
• Who am I? A philosophi...
Summery:
Throughout the history, one of the deepest questions mankind has asked itself is the question of its true self identity: who am I?
Philosophers like Rene Descartes, John Locke and others, have tried to answer this question without success.
Yet the question “who am I” does have a clear answer. An answer that was known to several eastern philosophies, such as Advaita Vedanta and Jnana Yoga, and was presented in the past by people like Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj,
but this answer was reached through a meditative process of self inquiry, and therefore, couldn’t be easily explained to someone who hasn’t experienced this process by himself.
In This video, I am revealing the answer to the true Identity of the self with a step by step self inquiry, in a way that is comprehensible to everyone…
Who am I then? watch the video to find the answer...
Artwork attribution:
Crash sound - freesound.org/...
One ton weight - commons.wikime...

[@kimberlyohanlon7651]

The ego-ic self (identity simulation / model) includes a very strong sense of agency. So strong, in fact, that it can vouch for its own existence.

[@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone]

Terrance OHanlon How else could one know that anything in existence exists?

[@bike4aday]

We can go even deeper than this. With high degrees of clarity, concentration, and equanimity through the practice of meditation we can see that even the sense of "I" (called consciousness in this video) can disappear, yet somehow we remain.

[@mindfulnessasia1082]

Being in harmony with this ancient wisdom of our real identity and acting upon this wisdom makes us happy, satisfied and contented. We don’t look for anything else as the desire of our hearts as spiritual beings is fulfilled.

[@nelsonmcpal3414]

this is one of the best videos ive ever seen. thank you so so much for making it

[@Lucidthinking]

Thank you for the great feedback :)

[@user-ug6hf3sd4p]

@@Lucidthinking ت

[@ledaleda5017]

Great explanations! Thank you so much!

[@DekuStickGamer]

That was amazingly explained. Thanks.

[@Lucidthinking]

+DekuStickGamer You are very welcome :)

[@indigogobaby5088]

I love the insights you provide, I'm excited for future videos!

[@Lucidthinking]

+IndigogoBaby Thanks. I have at least 50 more videos planned at the moment.

[@jaaps772]

@@Lucidthinking I hope you are ok. You haven't posted anything new in six years. Can we expect something in the future? I think a lot of people are hoping you will.

[@Lucidthinking]

@@jaaps772 Yes Jaap, I have news. In the last year and a half I was working on a book covering most of the topics I wanted to talk about. The writing of the book is almost done. When its finished I will publish it and start making it's content into videos.

[@michaeljacobs8920]

Yes, there is something primordial to consciousness. To get to it, I suggest you investigate what the substance is of your thoughts and your feelings, because we generate those with the purpose of expressing ourselves. They belong to us and arise from us: by tracing them back, by following the production line in reverse, we can discover who we are. :)

[@I_Am_Midnight-i]

+Michael Jacobs No, there isn’t anything primordial to consciousness. Since to be IS to be perceived. That makes consciousness necessary fundamental, and the fundamental substance is who we are. Nothing exists outside of consciousness.

[@michaeljacobs8920]

As long as you refuse to acknowledge that you are the author of the distinction between 'something' (matter) and 'nothing' (spirit), you can't know who you are. What good is it to parrot theories about 'consciousness' when you don't actually know who you are? :)

[@gandhilegion]

I really liked this video for how it makes you question. John C. Lily talks about the self as a point of consciousness. An observer of thoughts/emotions/sensations. This point is like a reference, the constant. It's also really great how you redefine consciousness.

[@Lucidthinking]

+Lord Zero Thanks L.Z. :)

[@gandhilegion]

Thank you Sir. Please keep making videos, what you have already is wonderful.

[@truetypefont_]

There is no "thing" that sees the image. Theere is just seeing happening by itself. Everything is just happening by itself, no I anywhere! An apparent "you" believing in an I is part of the play of life.

[@LaureanoLuna]

However, it is not usually an anonymous happening but one we can then attribute to a self, ourselves. The question is why such an attribution is possible.

[@BeyondNonduality]

Laureano Luna the source created its self

[@LaureanoLuna]

@@BeyondNonduality The source? What source? If the self is created, then it is real? Is it an object? My point was that for a self to exist, it need not be a "thing", either subject or object; maybe, it is just the capability of self-recognition, of saying "I".

[@BeyondNonduality]

Laureano Luna the source would be consciousness that the false self resides in can we talk about the source no that’s what makes enlightenment so rare is because the false self devolves back into the source it created itself because it never began unlike the false self which is the thing that came out of your mothers womb which is inside consciousness

[@BeyondNonduality]

Desolves or transcends

[@followhealthyandwealthydan7149]

Love your view and I agree with it because I experienced it and still do

[@perryhenn2612]

If I lose my palm, my body has changed and so will my mind. For I would have to learn new ways to cope with life. Things that are new to me, what if I myself am a body full of emotions and I simply evolve through the experience I have throughout life and the palm didnt hold my world together but made it much easier to get by for that I'm grateful for my palm, and the way I can adapt as a human being. Peace and love

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey Perry, thanks for your comment. It is true that if you will lose your palm, your mind would also slightly change. But, as I see it, that won't be to the extent that you will feel that you are a separate person from the one who had the palm. Therefore, you will remain yourself.

[@ashutoshsingh7713]

Consciousness is both dependent and independent of mind! Dependent in the sense that we carry all the actions of our this body with us to our next body but independent int the sense that we don't are unconscious about those past actions!

[@Paseosinperro]

Wow, that's very clear.

[@NazninMac]

Simply and effectively explained.

[@TsurT]

+Naznin Mac Thanks :)

[@PennyForYourThought1]

The word Infinity means limitless, countless, endless. As soon as we try to describe infinity or apply attributes to it, we are no longer speaking of infinity. Anything you can understand or capture in a thought is by definition, not infinity. Likewise, consciousness is immeasurable. undefinable. And to stay true to the word and what it implies, we must not use it in any other capacity, or we are no longer speaking of consciousness. What we CAN speak of are states of awareness and levels of wakefulness, which involve sleep and attention.

[@Lucidthinking]

You are very welcome to comment and contribute to a productive discussion of the topic. I also like to refine the definition I use for the term "consciousness". I defined it as the "capacity to experience/to be aware of...". It will be more precise to use the word "ability" rather than "capacity" since the word capacity indicates changeable measure, yet the phenomenon I call consciousness is absolute. It has no degrees. It is explained in the video "what is consciousness?".

[@engineerguyvideos2552]

+Lucid thinking Consciousness would not be absolute because some are more aware and able to experience than others. Examples: "He was not conscious of the impact of his actions" "I'm not very conscious at the moment." This is a situation where someone is losing consciousness or just getting it back or are under medication or hypnotism or any other unconscious states. Variations of self-awareness examples can be found throughout life and societies of all sorts.

[@Lucidthinking]

+ConceptHut Hey ConceptHut, thanks for your comment. What you describe are not changes in consciousness but in attention. Attention is the connecting bridge between consciousness and the mind. consciousness experiences only the parts of the mind that are illuminated by the attention. Attention can be available in different quantities and qualities, and can be directed by external If you haven't seen yet the video "what is consciousness" I recommend that you see it since it explains why consciousness is absolute and unchanging.

[@engineerguyvideos2552]

Lucid thinking I watched your videos before replying. Attention is a function of consciousness. Your interpretations of the structure and such are close but require tweaks to match the system that is used for all conscious beings. Many people get close. Your videos are nicely animated with graphics. Guessing PowToons or a similar service. You are in a Facebook group I am a part of. Will try to talk to you more there. Your videos have been added to my AI playlist regardless of completeness of the work. Super close is better than way off.

[@markalgenon7451]

+Lucid thinking This video does well in approaching the subject of the presence of an 'I' and what it might be, but I believe you missed the last and most important step. Given the subjectivity of selfobservation I may well be wrong, but this is my take on it: Consciousness, being a process, has a function. It percieves, and does so by seeing in what relation anything is to everything else. Everything is relative, and it is by the relativity of something that we know it. That is the function of consciousness. Now, if everything is relative, how could such a process have begun (which it must have, as it was not ongoing before we were born) without a point of reference from which things can be relative? This is why the self or 'I' is not consciousness itself but rather the tool or point of reference from which everything else is percieved and consequently organized. As expressed by a quote in the comments: "If I percieve it, it is not I". A persons consciousness does change over time, as the mind is ever adapting it to best fitting our needs. We percieve most clearly those things we have learned that we need to percieve, while most everything else is a blur, but as you say, the self is a constant that is a part of all human experience. That is because it is the absolute by which everything else is relative in the human experience.

[@mondym.6765]

+Lucid thinking If the word "I" refers to consciousness", the concept would still not present a clear, definite and reasonable understanding of myself because consciousness varies from one individual to another. My consciousness (i.e. my experiences and my ability to experience) is different from others, much more it changes from time to time. Therefore, this negates your premise concerning "Me" or "I" must always be constant. No individual is constant. Only one entity is constant -- God. So, are you saying that when you ask yourself, "Who am I?" You would tell yourself that you are God? Now, if you say you are consciousness. You're not really being truthful and accurate with your answer. You're just inviting the same question from people's minds because people have no way of knowing about your consciousness (i.e. experiences and ability to experience things).

[@sivarajan7692]

I am a common man like who got confusion between spritual and science...now i am 50% cleared for my whole life searching

[@Lucidthinking]

Hi Siva, Thank you for your comment. If you like to share, I would be happy to hear how this video has helped you.

[@sivarajan7692]

@@Lucidthinking i am already shared in my fb account🌹🌹🌹

[@SaintGooch]

"I observe my consciousness" does have a meaning, in my oppinion. Its possible to refer to this as "higher consciousness" which is a state of mind where I observe the process of my consciousness and ask my self "why do I experience it this way". Something like meta-consciousness. Dont you think?

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey +Galia Shofman, Consciousness is really illusive. One of its attributes is that we cannot observe it directly since the observer is consciousness itself. We can only observe the mind, and conclude by that, what consciousness is. (I talk about it in my video "what is consciousness). Let us take the example you suggested: "observe the process of my consciousness and ask myself "why do I experience it this way" You are describing observing thoughts that their contents are an interpretation of other thoughts. Let me give an example: A thought or a sensation arises in me that says "I want chocolate". I (The observer) observes this thought, and in response, a second thought arises that says "I see I want chocolate", or "I want chocolate because I saw a photo of chocolate bar on the magazine I read". It seems like a second observer that observes the first one, but in fact, all of these are thoughts reacting to each other, giving rise one to the other, and are observed by the single observer. Yes, you are right to call it a state of mind. The phenomenon called states of consciousness, are in fact, according to my terminology. states of mind. It means that the mind becomes more sensitive and enables consciousness to experience a more subtle perception of reality.

[@exstazius]

This are just thoughts in consciousness

[@PhanteusZ]

Hi there! Have you ever read the book "I Am That" by NIsargadatta Maharaj or have you read any talks of Ramana Maharshi or other Advaita Vedanta, Zen, Taoist works? This is essentially the fundamental teaching of all of them. It's truly refreshing to see someone able to present these topics to the public in a simplistic manner. I found your answer on Quora and it caught my interest because it exactly matched my personal understanding of consciousness and reality based on the eastern philosophical wisdom. As a dedicated practitioner, and researcher of eastern philosophy, I'm very pleased that a channel like this exists :)

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey +Phanteus, Thanks for your comment. Yes, I did read "I Am That" by NIsargadatta Maharaj and several books of Ramana Maharshi and others (I'm also familiar a bit with zen and Taoism). They helped me better understand my discoveries. I Have found that the things that are so obvious for the writers of those books (and also to more advanced readers) are not simple enough for common people. For example, I remember reading N.M. saying to one of his students: "If you can observe something, it cannot be you..." .... so simple. Yet for many, this simple logic is based on an experience they don't possess, so they disagree or simply do not understand. So I had to find a way to translate this insight into common experiences so that everyone could understand.

[@PhanteusZ]

Lucid thinking Yes that is true about what N.M. spoke of. The truths are sometimes not so apparent at first sight and you did a fantastic job explaining them. I heard you read about Ashtavakra Gita, which is one of my personal favorite texts. Also if you haven't seen it, you should check out Devikalottara as well. My notable Zen pieces: What is this mind? Who is hearing these sounds? Do not mistake any state for Self-realization, but continue To ask yourself even more intensely, What is it that hears? ~Bassui It is as though you have an eye That sees all forms But does not see itself. This is how your mind is. Its light penetrates everywhere And engulfs everything, So why does it not know itself? ~Foyan The old zen master Huang Po's teachings are lot more like Ramana Maharshi and N.M. style: "The nature of the Absolute is neither perceptible nor imperceptible; and with phenomena it is just the same. But to one who has discovered his real nature, how can there be anywhere or anything separate from it?... ...Therefore it is said: 'The perception of a phenomenon IS the perception of the Universal Nature, since phenomena and Mind are one and the same." ~Huang Po "To awaken suddenly to the fact that your own Mind is the Buddha, that there is nothing to be attained or a single action to be performed - this is the Supreme Way…." ~ Huang Po

[@houava1299]

That was the question that was I was being asked one day. And I didn't know how to answer it. It was a powerful experience when you are spiritual awoke and you get ask that question to yourself. Who do you think is even asking the question.

[@gedoug]

Sounds like the age old dualism question. Does the brain equal mind? Can matter give rise to consciousness? Is consciousness unique as in "I" or is "I" "Us" as in universal consciousness? I think terms have to be identified. "I think therefore I am" (Descartes). Who is that behind your eyes? Turn around ...you may find out.

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey, +Gene E. Douglas Yes, these videos deal with the "age-old dualism" question, only that they try to explain that there are already answers. (At least for some of the questions)

[@navaehdevanshatrinity9558]

I LOVE...LOVE...LOVE...YOUR ANALOGY! GREAT VIDEO TSUR! KEEP YOU THE GREAT WORK!

[@Lucidthinking]

+Consciously Speaking Thanks :)

[@jullesmills8300]

We had a meditation session today asking just this question. I could not answer. Thanks for the insight.

[@Lucidthinking]

:)

[@djbeckstream]

Thank you for sharing these valuable videos! I watched it over and over again. Your video changed the way I think about the world and myself and consciousness. I've been waiting for your new videos and upgraded thoughts for years! Please come back :)

[@Lucidthinking]

Thank you very much for your feedback. For the last 4 years I've been working on a previous project that takes most of my time. But I do intend to continue Lucid Thinking in the future, once I have more spare time.

[@djbeckstream]

@@Lucidthinking I didn't expect the reply but thanks for the quick reply!! I'm looking forward to new videos.

[@cr-ic3qv]

This is the most important fucking video in the entire universe

[@Lucidthinking]

Thanks :)

[@bvssrsguntur6338]

Awesome way of explanation when my mind cannot comprehend the same topic from gnanis or learnt people. However still no one can see or perceive the I without mind and body. Isn't it?

[@PennyForYourThought1]

Consciousness is inseparable from the body /mind, yet independant of them.

[@amitashi]

I will save you a lot of time saying that You are not even individual conscioussness. First step is to understand that You are not the body, but second step is to admit that you are not conscioussness also. Individual conscioussness is one of many. But That Who You Really Are is One. You can be only what is One. And One is Everything.

[@PennyForYourThought1]

One is everything. Or nothing. (no 1 thing) : )

[@andyreacts]

"I am consciousness" is still a concept, an identification...a dream about a form that can be described in any way. Listen to the talks of Darryl Bailey. Like this one "There is no awareness": darrylbailey.net/audio/Darryl_Bailey_There_is_no_Awareness.mp3 He points to the end of all ideas of description and understanding by thought to the mystery that everything is

[@NuxNucisNuxer]

GREAT VIDEO! And regarding the brain... "Who is aware of the brain?" Things are made of awareness... or, better said, consciousness

[@NuxNucisNuxer]

When you see something you don't see the object. In seeing you notice the light that object reflect, your eye convert the light in electro-chemical signals for your brian and that goes to your awareness in a way your awareness can decode. You know the "knowing" of an object. Not the object. We think we se a house, but it isn't true. The object can also not be really there (like in in a dream) and you still think it is. We all are conscious only of modulation of awarness. Also an evidence exist only if someone is there being aware of it.

[@KripiMehra]

I totally agree with the concept of consciousness and I feel that sometimes situations influence our consciousness and then the universe tries its best to get us back to our consciousness by introducing people and situations accordingly.

[@PhanteusZ]

+Kripi Mehra if something influences you, that's the mind being influenced, not the consciousness. Consciousness is that unchanging factor, nothing will affect or change it.

[@KripiMehra]

Phanteus Well, you are right perhaps, thanks :-)

[@MarcoSanderCoaching]

I am consciousness

[@InefableTheo]

What a beautiful and clear video explanation. Even if your dont "get it", it will do smtg good for sure :)

[@Lucidthinking]

Thanks :)

[@kentheengineer592]

You Are The Making Sense Of Itself

[@MrCmon113]

Yes you are the experiencer of your thoughts and impressions, but you are under constant change. Your memories form you, the way you experience changes. You are more similar to me than you are to the "you" of twenty years ago. Your experience is might be more similar to the one of another person, than the one of you in the past.

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey +Taxtro , Thanks for your comment. You are right, memories do change, and this is what I call personality. Yet the experiencer is something else. it is not dependent nor affected by the experiences (memories). Watch the video: what is consciousness: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eIWYqmOEoMd4ncU I explain this concept in detail in that video.

[@nitinbhatt5040]

In our hindu philosophy it is said in ancient times they said when your body sleeeps and you see dream then the observer of dream is also you it is soul

[@gmarx5510]

Also you have explained well that the I is the consciousness, it is the experiencer & the observer. But is it also the decision maker and the do-er? Who is the boss? Who/What is accountable and responsible for all actions/inactions?

[@tisajokt7676]

It would seem to me that this all depends on the interpretation/definition of "I." I could very well say that "I" _am_ my thoughts, emotions, and senses, and the "me" of five seconds ago is no longer "I," but rather a past version leading up to myself.

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey +James Tisajokt, Yes, much is dependent on the interpretation/definition, but if you investigate deeply enough, you will find that in every thing you Identify with, there is a constant component. This component is a feeling that can be represented by the words "I am". When we try to find the source of this feeling, and it is possible through various meditative techniques, we can see that it is not a product of any thought. In fact, it is always there and it is seen especially when your mind has no thoughts at all. The following article explains it with more details: lucidthinking.org/why-is-the-experiencer-separate-from-the-experience/

[@charlesgodwin2191]

Awareness is a term that indicates identity. Consciousness is a term indicating function, as in awareness functions consciously and unconsciously simultaneously. The subconscious manages all of the involuntary unconscious functions of the body. The I or experience of being aware of being aware - that I am, as a self - aware presence employs conscious attention carrying free life energy that enlivens whatever occupies it, good or bad. The scriptures everywhere advise dwelling on all things lovely and of good report, to maintain the balance of inner wholeness.

[@roopaktaneja5656]

I only experience through the senses of the body and mind. When body is young and the mind has limited memory experiences are very different. If a part of the body is lost, I will stop experiencing through that part. For example if eyes are lost the a major experience is lost. So if body is lost then that I is lost too. So i is nothing but this body and mind. This is how I perceive. My perceptions may change if there is additional memory I get through experiences of life.

[@Nicochan88]

Consciousness is only a projection of the original nature. It’s still a dependently existing construction, ie it depends upon other elements for its existence. It is just a function of the original nature (God, or Self, however you call it). And because consciousness depends upon other things for its existence, it cannot be the ultimate state of reality. The Buddha Manjushri said, “It is not something that can be known by consciousness, nor is it an object of the mind.”, it transcends consciousness.You cannot find This Ultimate One with the mind of thoughts, so how do you find It? By no-mind, no-thought, by not attaching to thoughts but letting them just be there when they are, but never attaching to them while maintaining presence.

[@abh050]

nicely put and really valid question though :) may I suggest Rupert Spira , he asks the same questions and takes people into exploring reality.

[@Lucidthinking]

+abh050 Sure, I'll check him out :)

[@jorgevillacis8127]

THATs a great answer "CONSCIOUSNESS" - now where consciousness comes from ?

[@PennyForYourThought1]

"The hard problem of consciousness" is a common expression that refers to the fact that we can not locate consciousness and we don't know where it comes from. We are all wondering the same thing!

[@bronsonmcnulty1110]

​@@PennyForYourThought1 It is probably everywhere, and it is why we can't find it.

[@astrologyfit]

Great video.

[@Lucidthinking]

Thanks :)

[@KogaBrigaXTC]

When explaining the part we are not the body, he could have made reference to the hindu story that says that throughout the lifetime one replaces all of the atoms, meaning none of the atom he was born with is there when he dies

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey Ko Br, Thanks for your comment. Yes, the replacement of all cells and atoms is a good example to show that the body is not "I". Yet it still leaves to possibility that the structure of the body creates the "I", since the structure of the body don't change with the replacement of the cells and atoms. This is why I preferred the example of removing body parts, because it eliminates the structure of the body as a cause for the existence of the "I".

[@jellywizard]

Hi, lucid thinking. Great video! Currently I'm a high schooler looking into further understanding the philosophies relating to the self and the mind, and I was wondering if you had any advise on where to look to get a better understanding on these topics from a self study point of view?

[@Lucidthinking]

Hi, +Weaopif Xebekjynn Thanks :) Yes. First, start with western philosophy. They were studying this question for ions and haven't found an answer. But they did come up with some valuable questions: Study: *Descartes: I know therefore I am*: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gp7bnZaAe7mUj7c *John locke*: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ameVimtvbbWJpJo (There are two more parts) *The ship of Theseus*: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i3nah6ymobpmhsk kzbin.info/www/bejne/moqkoJyCnbSol9E Now, all the unanswered questions brought by these philosophers were, in fact, already answered thousands of years ago by several eastern philosophic traditions, like Jnana yoga and Advaita Vedanta. Try and read materials of "Ramana Maharshi". The only catch with the eastern answers is that they are based on advanced experiences made in a meditative process. So most of the time they will not give you a logical explanation, like the western philosophers do, since you don't have the necessary experience and any explanation would be in vain. For example, Buddhists claim that there is no "I". But this is only an apparent contradiction to my conclusion regarding the I. The sentence "there is no I" is not understood correctly since most people don't have a corresponding experience to understand what it meant to represent. So the third suggestion is to study meditation. Search for Zen meditation Or "Self-inquiry" meditation.

[@LaureanoLuna]

In stating 'I am consciousness', you are not answering the question 'who am I?' but the question 'what am I?'.

[@PennyForYourThought1]

I have contemplated the same thing. "Who" asks for an identity and consciousness is not an identity "What" would be more accurate.

[@emperorpalpatine6080]

"who am I " is a question that doesn't have an answer because it doesn't make sense . the "who" is an identity ... an idea , a concept . Something we use to divide our world into objects . And yet , consciousness isn't an object , it's only the "thing" , that allows to be aware of objects. The "who" is an idea . and "I" isn't an idea

[@TLVrapture]

Thank you for the interesting video. It is a topic I myself study for some time now with the aid of great thinkers as Krishnamurti and philosophers of Buddha's teachings. I think there is something missing in your video - who am I when I am not consious? who am I when I am unconsious or sleeping? in other words, what's there when "I" am not obsreving?

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey +TLVrapture, Thanks for your comment. I have addressed this issue in the video "what is consciousness": kzbin.info/www/bejne/eIWYqmOEoMd4ncU

[@maxd3028]

I am observing the observant that saw the image and I am observing the observant who observe the observant that saw the image and it will go on endlessly so in my humble opinion That at the level of the I that observe the observant who saw the image is consciousness aware of itself great video though 👏☝💯

[@Lucidthinking]

Thank you max, You are right in a sense. In the exercise when I've asked you to observe who is the one looking at the image, the thing you've observed is not your yourself, not your consciousness, but a special and fundamental emotion that say's "I". One cannot observe oneself. One can only observe a reflection of oneself, like when looking at the mirror. The emotion of "I" is not consciousness itself, but a reflection of it. The process you have described is true, but is explain more precisely the following way: 1) I (consciousness) observe/experience the house (a thought), and asks who sees the house? As a result I experience the emotion of "I". 2) I observe the emotion of "I" and ask myself, who is experiencing the emotion of I? As a result I experience the emotion of "I" again. 3) repeat number two endlessly... This is exactly the same as looking at yourself in an infinite mirror. You can see endless reflections, but never yourself directly.

[@SajayanKS]

This is exactly my thoughts about "who am I?".

[@Lucidthinking]

😉

[@bryan7300]

Hey Tsur, you should checkout the recent video titled "Who Am I?" by the channel "School of Life". it is based on John Locke's philosophy and uses very similar methods as you've mentioned here. However, it arrives at different conclusions, stating that the "I" is really just "character". I personally do not agree, as character must still depend on memory and can be changed. We also still are aware of ourselves when we engage in deep focus, thoughts, or simply by observing the house like you've mentioned. What are your thoughts on this?

[@ZsOtherBrother]

Very nice video. Two thoughts... first: the concept of a "block universe", which comes from physics, allows for a seemingly "changing I", as in the case of "baby I" vs "adult I", to be viewed as an unchanging PATH instead of a changing POINT on that path. Second: some physicists define an observer as essentially a specific point of view, (or in mathematical terms, a coordinate system). Following that definition, am "I" just a specific point of view? This actually brings up another thought: Is there a consciousness which is not bound by ONE view point, and the reason that we limit ourselves and our definition of "I" to this one (current) view point is simply because we cling to it? Defining "I" according to this limited view point is based on an unsubstantiated assumption. And if we let go of this view point what does that mean in terms of "I"?

[@angelarapuano1315]

Grazie per questa splendida spiegazione 🙏🏻 Peccato che ci sono pochi video con i sottotitoli in italiano.

[@Lucidthinking]

Prego :)

[@angelarapuano1315]

@@Lucidthinking Continua con questi video perché sono meravigliosi 🕉️

[@Lucidthinking]

Grazie. Presto finirò di scrivere un libro che tratterà gran parte degli argomenti di cui volevo parlare qui sul canale. Dopodiché continuerò a realizzare video basati sui capitoli del libro @@angelarapuano1315

[@angelarapuano1315]

@@Lucidthinking Magnifico, grazie per la risposta in italiano 🙏🏻

[@movelea]

I feel like when people talk about their "self", they are refering to their observer and the biases it experiences the world through. If everyone removed their emotions and memories and conceptions, leaving only their observer, then everyone would act the same way in identical situations. People want to distinguish themselves from others, and the difference between your observer and mine are our different biases, informed by our different memories. If that makes any sense.

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey +movelea, I totally agree with your thinking, and I have presented it in the video "what is consciousness". What makes you different than me is not who you are but what you have. You have memories, thoughts, emotions and sensations that are different than mine, therefore, you experience the world from a different perspective I do. In our essence we are identical.

[@movelea]

Lucid thinking The way I tend to think and speak, who I am is what I am. Without my memories, without my thoughts, without my emotions, I am fundamentally a different "who". Without my sensations, I cannot observe and so am no longer an observer. Thank you for responding. I had another comment on here with a question. I hope you will answer it as well.

[@movelea]

***** I was talking about the self, not what we are physically. Although it is something the maker of this video didn't really touch on. Somehoe, don'y think they believe that though. They seem to be more of a spiritual person than that.

[@movelea]

+And Whit it may seem unfamiliar, but unless you also have the ability to forget everything, you won't be objective.

[@odelyaasherov9318]

Great video. Thank you !! 🌹👍

[@Coimbatoreroad]

Congratulations

[@jaybirdcook]

remember that the experience of the "experiencer" is just an experience. It is not possible to see the "experincer" because it too would be another experience. We could say that the self is just an experience and can go away while watching a great movie or video game. The only thing that is available to you... is experience.

[@kellyhitchcock1407]

Who am I? Horizon - the sun rises Like consciousness Emerging from the unknown Here I am - this vessel - this vessel I call home Episodic attachments give me sense of self Sense of self gives me drive Am I an illusion of me? Me? Who am I? Internal voices flow freely Like fog rolling across a stream Floating without intention Without intention - so it seems When nature disrupts Anxious thoughts begin to flow The self determines the experiences Our neurology makes it so Prior neural pathways Like the river flow with ease Discern wisely Discernment is the key A new vision - clarity Perspective bright and clear We see who we really are The true-self appears No more false pretenses No need to be known I am enough Enough - I am whole Who am I? I am Emerging from the unknown The true-self - the new self - welcome home

[@souvikshome6261]

Brother, you are just quoting the basics of Advaita Vedanta philosophy, which starts here and takes it much much deeper. Check it out of you can please.

[@PennyForYourThought1]

Not "just". He is making Advaita Vedanta accessible to the average person, and that's no small thing.

[@shlomobachar4123]

If I cut my hand, I feel it the pain. And if you cut your hand I don’t feel nothing. Therefore I am my body. As I feel only things happening to the boundary of my body (and not other bodies or objects).

[@Lucidthinking]

Hi Shlomo, thanks for the comment. If parts of your brain are removed in a brain surgery you will not feel pain, nor anything else, as the brain has no pain nerves. By your criteria I should conclude that the brain is not you? Furthermore, if we connect to your brain an electrode and stimulate the end of it with electricity, you might feel pain, heat, see the color blue, etc. Should we then conclude that you are the electrode?

[@shlomobachar4123]

@@Lucidthinking I understand. Still why I don’t feel the pain of others? Still there is the localized sensation when “the brain is functioning”.

[@Lucidthinking]

I am not sure how the localized sensation is created, but it is probably some kind of interpretation we give to certain pains. For example, people who lost a limb may still experience pain "in" the limb, even though it does not exist anymore. This suggests that the pain is not "in" the limb, but is interpreted to be related to the limb. For example, we might interpret having pain in the finger since pressing the finger might enhance or reduce the pain. But if we didn't have the last feedback, we might not connect the pain to the finger. We can see that when it comes to internal pains. very often we don't know to pinpoint them exactly to a location of the body. @@shlomobachar4123

[@leandrosilvagoncalves1939]

Have you ever heard about a Dutch philosopher called Bernardo Kastrup? It seems his ideas resonate a lot with yours

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey Leandro Silva, Thanks for your comment. I didn't hear about Bernardo Kastrup. I will take a look.

[@verdigo1]

Wait, why can't 'I' change over time? Why do 'I' have to be a constant? The car bit was good at proving I am not a car, but doesn't fully establish that the 'I' (consciousness) can't change.

[@Lucidthinking]

+verdigo1 I in the video I linked to an article explaining this. Here is the link: lucidthinking.org/why-is-the-self-constant/

[@davidwhitcher1708]

I cannot exists without my body so my body is part of what I am. Try taking away your head.

[@Lucidthinking]

Hi David. A software cannot exist without a hardware. It does not mean they are the same. By the way, how can you be sure you cannot exist without your body? Let us say I remove my head and find that I continue to exist (for example as a spirit). I will know it, but other people will not. That is why we cannot be sure that the I cease to exist with the death of the body.

[@gautamtelang7491]

so eye opening!

[@Lucidthinking]

Thanks :)

[@OMindsstuff]

Amazing explanation. 🙏

[@Lucidthinking]

Thanks :)

[@toekstraatman]

Hi Lucid thinking, I enjoyed your video's very much. So well and clear explained. So introspection and logic comes to the conclusion that "I" am consciousness right? Yet the hylozoic esoteric explanation of reality claims that existence is a trinity of three equivalent aspects: matter, motion and consciousness. None of these three can exist without the other two. All matter is in motion and has consciousness. If this is true, then "I" am conscious matter in motion. However, I would not know of introspection experiments to prove this, since our ability to experience and see reality is very limited, so we lack the facts and context to draw any such conclusion. The material and motion aspect of our existence is obscured from our sensory abilities, yet, with a few more esoteric facts, we are able to see that it can only be so. matter, motion and consciousness.

[@Lucidthinking]

+toekstraatman Hey toekstraatman, you understood it correctly. I would like to add that in my opinion, introspection is the thing most western philosophy lacks in order to become more like science.  Science basically is composed of two elements: collecting data (observations, experiments etc') and interpreting the data (the creation of theories and models).  Most western philosophers who try to understand the human psyche, tend to construct their theories on the existing data they gathered in during their lives. I found that in order to understand certain mental phenomenon one have to gather more data that usually is not available in day2day experiences. This is done by introspection and the construction of mental experiments that enables to observe a certain aspect of a mental phenomenon the interests us. I the future I will create some videos explaining this, and I will also demonstrate how some philosophical paradoxes, which are considered unsolvable, can be solved by additional data that can be attained by introspection.

[@amitverma6921]

Very nice

[@Lucidthinking]

Thanks :)

[@harshdeeptelang127]

THIS VIDEO IS PRICELESS > THANKS BROTHER!

[@movelea]

Also, this video doesn't seem to answer why a consistent self must exist. I know that many people want one to, because that would make things simpler, but that doesn't mean it is the case. Isn't it possible that we are inherently dynamic beings that just use labels like "self" for convenience? I don't know how else to say this, but how can I know that I am the same observer now as I was a second ago? Normally I would trust my memories to tell if I were suddenly different, but the observer quality is distinct from memories. I have no way of knowing if I was ever an observer before this instant. I may be a series of different observers, but since they all share the same memories they all act the same and there is no way to tell.

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey +movelea, Thank you for your comment. There are two different questions here. First, why the self must be constant, is answered in the video with the example of the car. If one thinks a bit, one finds that the example of the car leads to this principle. Yet since some people won't do this thinking by themselves, I have created, at 1:55, an annotation linking to an article that explains why the self must be constant. Here is the link: lucidthinking.org/why-is-the-self-constant/ Your second comment is very interesting. It is true. Theoretically, I may be a different, yet identical, observer in each moment, since what define my experience of myself are my memories and the content of my mind. Yet what would be the meaning of this different observers. What is the thing that differs one observer from the other. From what I know at the moment, the observer has no individual properties. It is like space. Empty. We define space as nothing, yet at the same time, it enables the existence of all forms of matter. If it is nothing, then it cannot be changed. Consciousness is non experience anabaling all possible expreriences. From the point of view of different experiences, consciousness never changes. Yet if the latest discoveries of gravitational waves approve that space itself can be curved and changed, it means that space is something after all. I believe that consciousness is the same. It is not an experience. It is a void regarding experiences, yet, in some way it is something.

[@movelea]

Lucid thinking I have read the article and seen the car example and yet I still think those only show that if there is self, then it must be consistent, and not that a consistent self does exist. You are right about the seperate observers being basically identical. It wouldn't be a very meaningful difference, but I started thinking about it when I was shown the teleportation problem, which asks whether "I" would be the same "I" if dissasembeled at an atomic level and reconstructed at a different location perfectly. I thought that might result in a different observer, though with the same memories. Perhaps in that case the original "I" died, and went to an afterlife if such a thing exists, only for the newly reconstructed body to gain a new observer. It would be interesting if science can eventually look at conciousness alone, like it has done with space. Who knows what secrets lie within us.

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey +movelea, The question you raise cannot be answered with the current evidence and observations I have got. I tend to believe in a certain theory (that I do not know if it is true), that claims that there exist no different observers in the universe, but only one. This consciousness, which is equivalent to what religion calls god, can experience reality through infinite different minds, at the same time. So, in essence, you are not you and I am not I. You are the universal consciousness, experiencing itself as a unique point of view, we call you. I am the universal consciousness experiencing itself as a unique point of view I call "I". You are me. You are god. We are all one, since there is only one. If this theory is true, then the question of different observers is irrelevant. This theory is found in many esoteric teachings and scriptures around the world. Starting with ancient ones, like the Indian Advaita Vedanta, and even in modern ones, like in Conversations with god, by Neal Donald Walsch. Basically, almost all esoteric traditions (unlike religious traditions) claims that while in the 3d realm we are separated by our bodies, our core condition is of unity.

[@movelea]

Lucid thinking Yeah, so even if that hypothesis is true, the important difference between two people is their diffferent experiences. God experiencing different things at different times in different places. To distinguish one person from another, I, and most people I think, go to their differing experiences and/or memories. When I consider "who am I?", what I am asking is not "what am I?" which seems to be the question you attempt to answer in the video. Who I am is the collection of my actions and experiences in the world. When someone asks me "who are you?", answering with "this particular subset of the conciousness of God" isn't a very useful response. I tell them about myself like anyone else would.

[@Lucidthinking]

+movelea Yes you are right. Yet there is another very important aspect to the understanding that I am an observer (or the observer) and not my individual memories. This aspect is not covered in this video, yet this video can serve as a preparation for it. The answer in the video is not my discovery. It was discovered thousands of years ago by several eastern traditions like Jnana Yoga, Advaita Vedanta, and to some extent even Buddhism and zen. Yet the eastern sages didn't stop at an intellectual understanding that they are consciousness. They went through a process that enabled them to become that truth. This process, (which is achieved by various meditative techniques) lets you experience your experiences as different than *you*. You experiences yourself as a consciousness and not as an individual. You do not feel anymore that you are your body, your thoughts or memory. You feel that they are happening to you but are not you. One such a complete identification occurs (an event sometimes called enlightenment) they claim they start feeling one with everything else and start remembering that they are really god and not the individual human mind. They even remember who they were before entering this specific human mind. As I said earlier, for me it is still a theory, since I haven't experienced it from first hand. Yet this "theory" is found repeatedly in various, unconnected spiritual traditions, which might point that it isn't just an invention of someone's mind.

[@drosottera8741]

I'm not the body is a too quick conclusion: when u imagine loosing more and more parts of your body, at a certain time u can no more survive and die. So... I'm stuck now...

[@Lucidthinking]

Yes, it is difficult to imagine ourselves without some crucial life supporting organs. But eventually this only a thought exercise meant to help flex the mind and prepare it to the understanding that the "I" is not the body. It is not necessary though, to reach the final conclusion of the question "Who am I?". The exercise in which we imagine a house in the end of the video is sufficient for that cause.

[@dr.satishsharma9794]

Excellent.... thanks 🙏.

[@Lucidthinking]

You are very welcome :)

[@EarthlyDawn]

There might be the body, thoughts, consciousness, etc. But to say this or that is me is really just to entertain the thought and attachement :"this I am, this is mine", to cling to them in a certain way. It may have it's practical uses, such as when thinking that this car is mine, I can make certain actions in regards to it, but it adds nothing to the knowledge of the thing itself. It's a bit like saying "I like this car", or "the car is nice". It's building something on top of it, not revealing what is there. The framing of experience as "I experience thought/sensation, etc" may be an artefact of the way we conceptualize things in the physical world: there is a subject, which is acting upon(kicking) an object (a ball). But this logic might not apply to the mental phenomena; there might be a conscious stream of thoughts, sensations, etc, without someone that experiences them. Moreover, people are using the notion of the self in the ordinary life loosely, to their person as a whole, and not in an ultimate way. It would not make sense, for example, to say "my consciousness just got married" or "it has a new job". In my opinion the question "what am I" is useful in order to make people pay atention to the crucial problem of consciousness (after all, everyone is concerned about himself), but not because it will lead to the significant answer. Whether consciousness is really permanent or on the contrary it's the most ephemeral thing there is, clinging to it and holding the view "this is me" is conditioned action; it's an effort, it's stressful an not really fruitful.

[@EarthlyDawn]

+Dragos Badita In other words the self is a relationship, an identity-view, but not an identity. This is evident in the question itself, after all one does not ask "what apple is this apple?" There is the sense of self and there is consciousness, and their possible relationship. So the question might be :"what can I find that is worthwhile investing my sense of self in?"

[@Trip_mania]

But here is another thought experiment : how do you know "I" is not changing ? What do you investigate, where do you look to check that "I" has not changed over time ? How can you say that your consciousness is still yours and that you did not swap consciousnesses with someone else a minute ago ? Consciousness is not memory, so you would inherit the memory of the other person as if it was yours and you would not see the difference. You would be experiencing the memory of the other person and there would be no way to check if it is yours or not. Same thing if your consciousness died every second and was replaced by another one with the same memory, or if it disappeared for 2 years and your body became like a zombie, saying and doing exactly what you would say and do if you were conscious (and I would argue it is exactly the same because consciousness is not a thing). So worse than "changing" or "not changing", there is actually no way you could check that consciousness is changing or not because the result is exactly the same. I think "I" is not the body, nor the mind, nor memory, nor our tastes or anything else. It is rather the illusory experience that we are a bit of all these things at the same time. And yet, as you say, when we look at each of these things, we see we are none of them. To me it is only an illusion that makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. Then the typical question is "who is having the illusion then ?". My answer is that there is no who, there is a deterministic brain made of neurons, and through data processing, that brain drew some conclusions that are erroneous.

[@Trip_mania]

While some would argue that this seems very materialistic, it is very close (if not identical but perhaps I am mistaken) to the description of the illusion of self in buddhism, where the self is said to be an illusion made of five aggregates, "consciousness" being one of them. Ultimately there being no self but only phenomena happening.

[@Moomukshu]

The experiencer here would seize to experience under certain conditions like deep sleep & anesthesia. So this experiencer too is a product of the mind. It's the mind observing itself or the contents of the mind. Mind cannot reach consciousness because of the simple fact that mind can only operate in time & space, where there is not time, there is no mind. And as rightly said the real I would have to seperate from time and space to not change.

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey Omkar, Thanks for your comments. They made me curious, so I have two questions for you: 1) If the experiencer seizes to experience under a deep sleep, why does it necessarily means it is a product of the mind? If you enter a completely dark room, and your eyes stop transmitting neural impulses to the brain, does it mean the eye is a product of the light? 2) what does it mean that the mind can only operate in time and space? If I feel pain (let's say I've bumped my toe at a rock) why does the pain need space or time? Can I say "where" the pain is? (It is not in my toe. We interpret it as in the toe, but the same pain can be stimulated by other means.). Can I say "when" the pain is? (If you say "Now", then now is not a time. if time didn't exist, now would still exist. Everything would be now.)

[@UncoolPeak125]

Thanks for sharing! I have come to similar conclusions myself, and I definitely appreciate the methodical approach through examples and metaphors. There may be a problem. If “I” can only observe, then “I” cannot affect the processing mechanisms, as an observer of a movie can't change the movie. It is only the process within the brain that does that. And if that is the case, then how can the brain speak of the existence of consciousness? So the “I” must have some control of the brain as well. Perhaps consciousness is then like the captain of a submarine, with the brain being the radar, navigation, steering, etc. mechanisms. I would also have to add that experience and action do seem to be distinct processes which relate to each other but are not the same. I have experienced a delay between experience and action by altering my brain chemistry. In certain cases action will precede experience and create a feedback loop. Example. You experience something and react. But you are not aware of reacting. Then seconds later, you recall your reaction. Then you react to your recollection. So I might postulate that consciousness is like multiple people operating a submarine, rather than one. What do you think of this idea?

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey omary, you ask a very good question. You say: If “I” can only observe, then “I” cannot affect the processing mechanisms I asked my self the same question, and have found it is not true, yet my answer is still partial. Apparently, it may seem that consciousness is just a passive "sponge of experience", yet it can influence the world in at least three ways I know of: First, by merely observing something you change it. For example, we may walk barefoot for an hour, but only in the moment we feel that our feet are cold, the thought to wear shoes rise in our mind. It isn't that our feet weren't cold before. They were, but we only noticed it at a certain moment. So by experiencing the feeling of coldness, the action of wearing shoes can happen. Furthermore, This process doesn't have to be accidental. We have a special force inside which I call "will", that apparently is somehow connected directly to the self. In spite of what many believe, "will" is not equal to desires or needs. These are of emotional and physical essence. They happen to us, it is not we who creates them. They are not voluntary. But will is something else. will is the ability to direct our attention. For example, if we try to feel the toe, and then move our attention to the knee, and then to the ear. This movement of attention is not driven by desire, or need (such in the case of feeling the coldness in the feet) but by will. Attention is the connecting bridge between consciousness and the mind. Consciousness experiences only the parts of the mind that are illuminated by the attention. Will is the ability to direct the attention. Will is not an experience. you cannot experience it directly. you can only experience its results. For example, when you move your attention willingly from your toe to your nose, you experience the change of toe sensations into nose sensations, but you do not experience the force that moved the attention. Finally, by observing carefully how remembrance and movement work, I've discovered that all movement is in fact, a remembrance and that all remembrance is in fact observation. This is a very delicate observation, and it is quite difficult to observe this mechanism. I saw that when I try to remember something, for example trying to remember the name of someone, I move my attention to different locations in the memory. When my attention illuminates a memory its starts to "play", that is, I start to experience its content, but if the content doesn't match the memory I seek, the experience is disrupted, and my attention moves to another location in my memory, until there is a match. Most of the times the location is well known, (like remembering one's mother's name), so the answer is immediate. It is rather easy to understand that remembrance can be explained by the function of observation, but what about movement. Let's say I want to move my arm up and down. If consciousness is only an observer, how can it order my arm? I've discovered that movement is a remembrance. There is no "button" to be pressed in order to lift my arm, but there is a memory to be read. The memory of the orders of the movement. This memory is not a mental memory, but a sensoric one. So by moving my attention to the memory of movement and experiencing it, my arm moves. So I can explain remembrance and movement by the function of experiencing, yet I still can't explain will (That is, the ability to move one's attention). Regarding your other comment: "So I might postulate that consciousness is like multiple people operating a submarine, rather than one" Yes, definitely. Yet using my terminology, it is the mind that is multiple, not consciousness.

[@bamazed]

@@Lucidthinking Wow you gave a profound answer !

[@Lucidthinking]

Thank you :) @@bamazed

[@MsSynenergy]

thank you

[@theotherway1639]

A short and good read is "30 Days to Discover Who I Am" by Harper Daniels. Contains exercises with the lessons. Teaches how to detach from false identity.

[@sonmish]

Word conciousness is n approximate description of combined product of life force and body.

[@markishbasedgod5251]

Isn't consciousness also still an extension of our true selves. Consciousness is only what allows us to experience right? I think you answered the definition of what people mean when they say the word "I" because it is a key word in proving we are self aware (aka conscious) but what is the human being truly? Maybe a combination of everything you mentioned. Remember we are not only experiencers, we take action and mold ourselves based on those experiences as well.

[@markishbasedgod5251]

+markishbasedgod consciousness is really a key evolutionary trait. It's a feedback system in order to create habits we use to navigate the world around us.

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey +markishbasedgod, Thanks for your thoughts. The question I was an investigating, is "who am I", and not "what is a human being". There is an invisible assumption that we are human beings. Are we? My inquiry brought me to conclude that the I is consciousness. Consciousness is not limited to human beings. Animals have consciousness too - meaning they have experiences. You are right, a human being is something composed of body, mind, and consciousness. But we are not necessarily human beings. We may only be riding a human vehicle. My video, what is consciousness, talks about this subject.

[@bairagithor1]

Excellent!

[@Lucidthinking]

Thanks :)

[@saurabhraut6210]

Very interesting video....great effort....You may also read about the "Anatta" docrine of Buddhism

[@Lucidthinking]

Thanks :)

[@Lucidthinking]

The Anatta or "non-self" doctrine of Buddhism is not in contradiction with the conclusion of this video, as one may think. When the Buddhists say there is no self they refer to a specific experience that happens in the mind. If the mind does not label things as me and not me, the experience of being a "self" separated from the world, cease to exist. But the experiencer, i.e., consciousness, is still there. And thus the words "self" in the Anatta doctrine refer to a different phenomenon than the one I referred to in this video, using the word "self".

[@saurabhraut6210]

@@Lucidthinking Rightly said

[@swagmasterdoritos]

you claim in the comments to know for sure that as conciousness we are all the same, but i don't really think that's answerable, these experiencers could very well still be seperate and they're could be different conciousness' or something... if we dont know its origin it's hard to answer these questions

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey swagmasterdoritos , Thanks for your comment. When I say all consciousness are the same I mean that they are identical in all properties, but I don't claim they are the same one. I can't know that.

[@swagmasterdoritos]

@@Lucidthinking I seem to be missing something with your line of reasoning, how could they not all be the same one if they all have identical properties? what would be left to distinguish conciousnesses? also different question but... why can't multiple experiencers exist therefore that in it of itself necessitating a distinguishing property which alows it to be it's own different individual conciousness? that idea seems to be plausible which leads me to believe their can be different concioussness', selves, egos, thus different properties. idk i'm still new to this, i'd be awesome if you answered all of my questions :) thx for responding

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey swagmasterdoritos, Thanks again for your comment. First I would like to say that your logical thinking is very good. Yes, you are right. If all consciousness where identical in all properties they would be the same one. Yet there is no contradiction because when I say all consciousnesses have no properties and therefore they are identical, I refer to experiential properties (such as love, pain joy etc'). It doesn't mean consciousness doesn't have other properties that are not experiential. In fact, one of consciousness main properties is the capacity to experience. If it didn't have any properties at all, it would be "nothing". For example, think about two identical apples. They can be exactly the same in all internal properties, but still, be two different things, as they would exist in two different locations in space. In this case, they are identical in all properties, except the property of location. Consciousness may also have other, non-experiential, properties, we may not know about, and therefore the possibility of multiple consciousnesses remains. P.S. Many think that space is "nothing". Yet space has properties, such as dimensions. In 3 dimensional space you can move left and right, forward and backward etc'. Therefore space is a "thing" rather than "nothing"

[@GodemodeCL]

You say that the "I" can't change since it is not influenced by emotions, thoughts or sensations, but doesn't the "I" evolve through experience? Am I right, that you want to say, the "I" doesnt change throughout your life, therefor you are exactly the same person from brith to death?

[@PhanteusZ]

+UnallowedMethods The "I" he is referring to is different than what you are talking about. The "I" that he refers to can also be known as the "experiencer". It is what has always existed with you from birth to death. The thoughts, and emotions change, but not the "I". The "I" that you are referring to is the personality, which is a product of the mind. It is always changing.

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey +UnallowedMethods Phanteus gave you the same answer I would, so I have nothing to add. Thanks +Phanteus

[@gowrisankarijayaprakash9444]

fantastic

[@beaver-tails]

This is deep

[@prettyparadoxicalwoman8285]

I am the recorder. ...to whom am i recording events for. I died. I understand the observer. It does not have thoughts BUT when it does emerge a thought i was taken back to life...i was atheist. My thought then was" well God here i come" Very odd for an atheist...then seen white tunnel n bam getting chest shocks in an ambulance

[@SephirothVG]

If you use an instrument enough it actually becomes a part of you in the mind. Just like you feel the bicycle wheels under you or weight of your car if you are a racer. So you defining the body as a 'person' isint enough...which in turn renders your base premise fall and most likely your whole theory false. P.S What I am talking about is actually published cognitive science which you can experience yourself if you want to so its not. I am a bit short on time but will update my post later with more information

[@Lucidthinking]

+Sephiroth VG I agree with you point. Identifying ourselves with the body indeed is only a mental perception. We can identify ourselves with an instrument just like you pointed out, and this identification is achieved by the same process of identifying ourselves with our body. The part explaining we are not our body is, in this video, is only for didactic purposes, since the general thought is that we are our body. The philosophical discussion really starts from the question "Am I the mind", and it is not dependent on the previous question "Am I the body?".

[@urgulp]

I am that I am.

[@MrJustinTheory]

+urgulp circular reasoning at its finest.

[@urgulp]

How can you be anything else?

[@russjames7029]

+urgulp At least 90% of Christians go through their entire lives never understanding, or acknowledging, or even knowing what this means. Easily one of the most misinterpreted religions. If there wasn't such a huge misinterpretation Christianity would probably a pretty kick ass religion, and the bible a pretty kick ass book.

[@tonihamdan3411]

What about problem solving? Can I say I'm the interpreter which is the pre frontal cortex?

[@pavankrishna6109]

Deep thinking, I will appreciate it... Even I am much interested about these topics and I got my view on this video and it says as follows "Consciousness means I must be aware of it.. Then how you came to conclusion that I = CONSCIOUSNESS..." Hope You will find time to reply me....

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey pavan krishna, Thanks for your question. We define consciousness differently. You define consciousness as "I" being aware of it. So what is the "I" and what is the "it"? If by "it" you mean thoughts, emotions or sensations, then I call them the "mind". They are not consciousness itself but a temporary content that consciousness holds. I see consciousness or "awareness" as the ability to be aware of the mind. Most of our thoughts, emotions, and sensations are unconscious. We are not aware of most of them. The interesting thing is that I can be aware of the mind, but I cannot be aware of awareness. This is because I am this awareness. For further understanding please see my second video, "what is consciousness": kzbin.info/www/bejne/eIWYqmOEoMd4ncU

[@nubiaaldana1777]

Alguien ha leído el libro de urantia? Esta gratis en la Web

[@metatalk08]

Good! consciousness isn't brain & mind & thinking & that is another thing & isn't this world & that form controls happiness or unhappiness.

[@gmarx5510]

Really well explained and well made video Tsur. However I'm a bit confused about something. At around 0:28 you say that many people think wrongly that ""I" is an abstract concept, a product of our mind, it is not a real thing". To which you definitively claim "The truth is that I is not a made up concept, it's a real phenomenon, In fact it's the one most real thing in your life". But later in the video at 7:53 you say "This gives rise to new questions to which I don't have an answer to: "is consciousness a product of the brain as scientists believe today? Or is it independent of the brain?" So initially you refute the claim by many that "I" is a product of our mind/brain, but later you say you don't have the answer to the question whether it is a product of the brain as scientists believe today. Perhaps what you are saying is, "I could be a product of the brain/mind, but this doesn't make it unreal or an illusion. It is a real thing"?

[@theabhineshtilak]

You must watch sound of silence session by Sandeep maheshwari He described the sound of consciousness in our heads

[@Lucidthinking]

is it in English?

[@theabhineshtilak]

@@Lucidthinking it is in Hindi but here's another video of him in which he's talking about same! He's taking about the tinnnnnnnnn like sounds that we hear in our heads during silence and basically this ain't sound this is conciousness, he described well in anothers videos that this sound is the ultimate truth of our being. Here's his video! kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6fUpXlsbbieiK8

[@lifeiseasy4181]

@@Lucidthinking I think it's available in English also

[@peter.cerrato]

Hey Tsur, you wanted to know if there is something primordial to consciousness? Sure there is... ;))) Pure consciousness is the pure mind, the "I AM" without definition or identification. In the mental world it is called GOD. But the truth is that we are not the "I AM". The "I AM" is still dual. It has an oposite: "I AM NOT". Our real identity is the "I" in which spontaniously appeared the mental dimension with the appearance of the idea "I AM". This "I" is a stateless state, a transcendental reality that exists independent of the "I AM". It is called the ABSOLUT!!! The ABSOLUT exists independent of the "I AM", but the "I AM" does not exist independent of the "I". The "I AM" exist in relation to the "I" in a state of dependence. The "I" does not, it is INDEPENDENT!!! It is non-local and non-spacial because it is trancendental (singular). The trancendental "I" goes beyond the mental realm (duality). It is our "TRUE SELF" (PARABRAHMAN). Namaste

[@supermanuthomas]

this questiion can never be answered because conciousness can only be experienced , it cannot be explained.

[@ohnsonposhka9891]

to understand something, it must be explained in some way by oneself or another. You used the word "consciousness" because you understood it and therefore, consciousness can be explained.

[@dreamsofliving]

Why must “the thing that is me remain constant”?? Why can’t me be a changing evolving thing?

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey will, A good question, thanks. You can read my response in the linked article bit.ly/3aEJ11v

[@heavycurrent7462]

It has been said that the Mayans probably never predicted the end of the world, but the end of who we are. Too many people are compulsively reactive towards the tides of useless information, almost completely autonomous. Selfies are taken almost as if by necessity but the knowledge of self is a taboo. Lives are reduced to mere objects, everything is in term of financial value. Sentient beings are nothing as the world only sees it as digits, let alone ethics and morality. More material possesions equals more respect. More matter, more awe. The vastness of the material universe is spiritual, not the fact that we have found ourselves here, celestial.

[@sswise12121212]

+Branden Peter wow i think you might be right

[@INFINITE_AM_RADIO]

+Branden Peter You have taken the first step on your path to understanding, but you still fall into some ingrained pitfalls of human consciousness. Take solace in the fact that you are advancing well.

[@zoebarger6077]

I am the one who flows through all

[@bryan7300]

After wondering how one of my favorite video reached 29,000 views, It seems like a Reddit post in r/philosophy has given this video much sudden attention last week.

[@Lucidthinking]

+Bryan U Yes. That was it.

[@golan1289]

thank you! great video! it explains it very simple for peaple with very logic type of mind. i wander about who controls my body. specifically about decisions I make. do i choose to drink cofee or tea? or is that something outside of me and i'm just observing the desicion being made? i feel like I make those decisions, but it doesn't fit well with how you see consciousness, if consciousness is just a screen which life is projected on, then who controls my body? and if its not me who controls it, then how can anyone take responsibility for their actions?

[@Lucidthinking]

Hey +golan1289 Its is a very good question. I ask myself this very question. At the moment, I have only partial answers. Apparently it may seem that consciousness is just a passive "sponge of experience", yet it can influence the world in at least two ways I know of: First, by mere observing something you change it. For example, we may walk barefoot for and hour, but only in the moment we feel that our feet are cold, the thought to wear shoes rise in our mind. It isn't that our feet weren't cold before. They were, but we only noticed it at a certain moment. So by experiencing the feeling of coldness, the action of wearing shoes can happen. Furthermore, This process doesn't have to be accidental. We have a special force inside wich I call "will", that apparently is somehow connected directly to the self. In spite of what many believe, "will" is not equal to desires or needs. These are of emotional and physical essence. They happen to us, it is not we who creates them. They are not voluntary. But will is something else. will is the ability to direct our attention. For example, if we try to feel the toe, and then move our attention to the knee, and then to the ear. This movement of attention is not driven by desire, or need (such in the case of feeling the coldness in the feet) but by will. attention is the connecting bridge between consciousness and the mind. consciousness experiences only the parts of the mind that are illuminated by the attention. Will is the ability to direct the attention. Will is not an experience. you cannot experience it directly. you can only experience its results. For example, when you move your attention willingly from your toe to your nose, you experience the change of toe sensations into nose sensations, but you do not experience the force that moved the attention. To take responsibility of one's actions (including thoughts and emotions) he needs at least 3 steps: 1) He must realize that most of his actions are not voluntary. 2) He must *willingly* strive to be aware to his non-voluntary actions. 3) He must willingly intervene at moments where the non-voluntary actions don't lead to his pre-decided goals. If you do not set a goal in advance (for example, stop eating after 9 PM) on what basis will you make your choices?

[@miodragmilosavljevic1190]

+golan1289 +Lucid thinking Take responsibility vs be responsible - the latter implies that there may be an objective set of values establishing responsibility. You may not know that you are a father, yet you are responsible for your children, although objectively not being able to meet your duty. Who controls body - obviously: I. Decisions you make are one part reactions, one part free will. Reactions, since our acts are somewhat conditioned by the set of events in the world we live in. We think we make decisions freely, but in fact we are just responding to the previous set of global events, trying to fit in. The more self realized person is, more aware of this conditioning one will be. Will comes from action, seems like if immanent feature of the self is to be active, will is the mode of acting. Life is active, will comes from it. "First, by mere observing something you change it." - with this I agree, but not with the explanation. In your example observing sets will in a certain direction, but it is not mere observing that makes the difference. Direction of observing is from object to subject, it is the input, while action is from subject to object, the output, through body. The only thing that comes to mind about observing itself actually making the difference is the double slit experiment, where measuring/observing collapses the wave function.