What do you define as yourself? Your eyes? Your nose? Your ears? Your lungs? All of that mass of flesh together?

No, what makes you think I am every example of a truism?

If you are blind, are you not still yourself?

If your ears are cut off, are you not still yourself?

If you breathe with a lung machine, are you still not yourself?

If you have brain damage, are you still not yourself?

If you are in a coma, where is yourself then? In the bed?

Nothing makes me think anything. I am asking you

HOW DO YOU DEFINE SELF?

I am the product of a human brain. Just like running or walking is the product of legs.

That that does not mean, I think myself, or know myself. What is your point?

How do you define "self?"

A "product" of a human brain is a poor definition of self.

That's my opinion.

Its not only a poor definition it is absurd.

Now I gotcha.

There are three primitive categories of names.

Which can be defined and which cannot and why?

How do you define "self?"

You refuse to answer my question.

I know, it is an unfair question.

If you knew the answer, you could prove Einstein's theories wrong.

Forget I asked.

You have not answered my question.

Why should I answer yours?

No, I did not, I can bet good money, you don't know what a definition is. How it differs from a description.

Which is the most primitive, and why.

Wabi-sabi (侘寂?) represents a comprehensive Japanese world view or aesthetic centered on the acceptance of transience. The aesthetic is sometimes described as one of beauty that is "imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete".[1] It is a concept derived from the Buddhist teaching of the three marks of existence (三法印 sanbōin?), specifically impermanence (無常 mujō?), the other two being suffering (dukkha) and emptiness or absence of self-nature (sunyata).

I am always trying to explain this concept to people. There is the Wikipedia definition. I LOVE THIS CONCEPT. As a girl geek I love human beings ESPECIALLY THEIR FLAWS. That is what makes a person so wonderful. They are NOT A MACHINE. HECK, ERROR MESSAGES MAKE ME HAPPY. I means the code was made by a flawed human. I love it.

You evade my question with your silly mind games.

I don't care if you define it or describe it.

Self.

Have at it.

Know what you are talking about if you are going to talk about it.

When someone does not even understand the basics of assertion and denial, can you ever answer them, or they you?

John you used the term "self." You should have some idea what you think that means.

If you really think that self is a product of your brain, then okay.

I think you don't know what you are talking about.

I think it is best if you believe that.

John, This is your claim:

>>In order for me to perceive, or know myself, I would have to be other than myself. <<


I disagree.

Prove your claim.

Existentialism is a term applied to a school of 19th- and 20th-century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences,[1][2][3] shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual.[4] In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude," or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.[5] Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophies, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.[6][7]

The early 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard is widely regarded as the father of existentialism.[8][9] He maintained that the individual is solely responsible for giving his or her own life meaning and for living that life passionately and sincerely,[10][11] in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom.[12]

Subsequent existentialist philosophers retain the emphasis on the individual, but differ, in varying degrees, on how one achieves and what constitutes a fulfilling life, what obstacles must be overcome, and what external and internal factors are involved, including the potential consequences of the existence[13][14] or non-existence of God.[15][16] Existentialism became fashionable in the post-World War years as a way to reassert the importance of human individuality and freedom.[17]

Is proof possible when someone does not even understand the principles of the grammar they believe that they think in?

Take my advice, you win the argument.

Proofing is a demonstration of the compliance with the principles of a grammar system. I know, I post work with quite detailed proofs all the time.