What am I?

Part 2 What am I?

Chapter 4 Three hurdles that disturb understanding of "self"

Have you felt some doubt about the common knowledge; "The world which is seen before our eyes is the material world", from the story up to now? What has been explained till now is neither a hypothesis nor "There is such a view". We reach the conclusion that the world, the body, and the mind which are seen before our eyes are "the apparent material world", "the apparent physical body" and "the apparent mind" respectively, by tracing the fact that the foliage plant which is seen before our eyes is green.

At Part 2, new facts are clarified from "the apparent material world", "the apparent physical body", and "the apparent mind", which have been led in Part 1.There are three hurdles for reaching the answer that "What am I?" They are all hard, but let's get through each one. The first is to analyze our conviction that "I am looking at"(Paragraph 4-1)。The second is to analyze the relationship between the objects, which are seen before our eyes, and the recognition (Paragraph 4-2)。The third is to analyze "the thought of self". (5-3)。By the way, the number in the parentheses shows the paragraph of the articles.

4-1 The trick 1; "I am here, and I am looking at an object"

The subtitle of this paper is "A hard trick set by the brain". We have strong convictions concerning the problem that "What am I?", just like a trick of card juggleries, and they disturb understanding of the true feature of "self".

The one is our wrong conviction about the existence of "self", which is explained in this paragraph 4-1, and the other is our wrong conviction about "recognition", which will be explained in paragraph 4-2. Let's correct these wrong convictions and clarify the important facts which are obtained from the results.

(1) The analysis about the thought that "I am looking at"

We have the thought that "I am here, and I am looking at objects which are seen before my (our) eyes". From the thought, we become to have a wrong conviction that "I” am looking at the coffee cup which is seen before my eyes, therefore, it must be "the object of looking at" and "matter".

In the material world, certainly, the light (electromagnetic wave) which reflects from the coffee cup reaches our retinas. Therefore, it is correct to express that "I am looking at the coffee cup" in the material world. There is no problem. It was explained in paragraph 2-3 "the inverted retinal image" that the verb "look" means “the act of looking at” in the material world. It shows this situation.

But when we say, "I am here, and I am looking at the coffee cup which is seen before my eyes", it is not the event in the material world but the one in the world which is seen before our eyes. And, the world. which is seen before our eyes is not "the material world" but "the apparent material world" which is created by the act of the brain.

In fact, when you see the coffee cup before your eyes and you say that " I am looking at the coffee cup", it is "an apparent coffee cup" as the apparent matter".

On the other hand, "I" showed by "I am here" is the thought concerning "the apparent physical body". Retinas do not exist in the apparent physical body, and it is not equipped with “the function of looking at”, of course.

You might make a rebuttal; "When we look at an intense light such as a lamp we are dazzled." But that is because intense light reaches the eyes of our physical body, not because it reaches the eyes of our apparent physical body.

You might also make a rebuttal "If I look at a mirror, I see my eyes there”. But they are "the apparent eyes" as "the result of looking at" in the apparent material world, not in the material world.

To begin with, in the apparent material world, there does not exist light (=electromagnetic wave). It doesn't occur that light transfers from a coffee cup which is an apparent matter to the retinas which doesn't exist originally. In a word, the act "I am looking at" doesn't occur in the world which is seen before our eyes. Nevertheless, we have the thought "I am looking at".

The fact that we think "I am looking at an object" though we are not looking at the apparent object leads us to an important fact when thinking about "What am I?" It will be explained in detail in the paragraph 5-4.

It would be not easy to accept the conclusion. Being summarized again, the coffee cup which is seen before our eyes exists there as a result of “the act of looking at”. In a word, it is "the result of looking at", and "the apparent coffee cup".

On the other hand, the body which we think is looking at is an apparent physical body. "The apparent physical body" is not equipped with the function of looking a. Therefore, it is impossible to look at "the results of looking at" once more.

It is possible to turn the direction of our eyes, which belong to the physical body, to the external world one after another. However, "the apparent physical body" is not equipped with the sight line. So to speak, it is "the apparent sight line" of "the apparent physical body". "The apparent external world" appears in response to "the apparent sight line". It must be one of the reasons why we have the strong, wrong conviction that "I" am located at the reverse direction of "the apparent sight lines".

(2) The analysis of the thought "I am listening to"

The same logic can apply to our thought of "I am listening to". For instance, when we are listening to the piano playing, the vibration of air from the piano reaches our ears. There is no problem with expressing that "I am listening to the piano playing", in the material world.

However, the sound of piano is located to the position of the piano in the world which is seen before our eyes. It is impossible to listen to the sound of piano which is "the result of listening". It is the same logic, that is, "It is impossible to look at the object which is "the result of looking at".

4-2 The trick 2: "I look at an object and recognize the existence".

In the previous paragraph, it was explained that our thought that "I am looking at" becomes a trick to cover the fact that the world which is seen before our eyes is the apparent material world. And, it was also concluded that the act, "I am looking at", doesn't occur in the apparent material world. This fact has an important meaning concerning the problem that "What am I?".

As well as it, our thought, "I look at an object, and recognize the existence", becomes a trick to make us misunderstand the true feature of recognition. It also becomes an important key about the question; "What am I?"

(1) Recognition

It is necessary for us to refer to "recognition" in order to clarify the problem that "What am I?" Until now, we have analyzed the act of looking at, and in addition to it, we must solve the problem, "How is the external world recognized by the act of looking at?".

Let's think about, for example, how a coffee cup is recognized by the act of looking at. If it is a machine like a humanoid robot, and it selects "a coffee cup" among some choices as a result of the information processing, it can be said that the machine has succeeded in getting a right answer.

However, if it is a human being who does conscious activities, the problem that "How is the coffee cup recognized?", remains unsolved.

The information from the external world is sent to the brain, and processed there, and as a result, a coffee cup appears in the world which is seen before our eyes as "the result of looking at". How the coffee cup which is seen before our eyes relates to the recognition of the coffee cup remains as an unsolved problem.

There is a word "Descartes' dwarf" which ridicules the dualism of Descartes. He is said to have had a view that the information of the external world was carried to the pineal corpus, which looks like a pinecone, and the external world was recognized.

However, his idea could not explain "recognition", because he only assumed that the information of the external world was carried to the corpus pineal. His idea was criticized because a person, who recognize the external world, is necessary in the corpus pineal. Considering the level of physiology at that time, it might be natural that his idea was such a level.

Even today when the system of the brain is gradually being clarified, the problem that "What is recognition?", still remains as a mystery.

(2) Definition of the word "recognition"

First of all, let's define "recognition" concisely. It is not such a precise definition as that of philosophy. It is only a proposal to classify recognition into two levels, and to pursue the subject. Namely, for convenience's sake let's pursue the subject based on the assumption that there are two levels on recognition; "the high-level recognition" and "the low level recognition."

"The high-level recognition" means that we can understand what objects or events which are seen before our eyes are. For example, we can understand who the person is, what time it is, and what the word "society" means, etc.

On the other hand, "the low-level recognition" means that we can know the existences of the objects which is seen before our eyes whether we can understand what they are. For example, when we see a coffee cup before our eyes we can know the existence of the coffee cup whether we understand what it is for. As another example, when we hear a certain foreign language being spoken, we can know the existence of the sound even if we do not understand what the meaning is.

In this paper, we are going to examine only "the low-level recognition". Though it is so, it surely leads us to an important result about recognition which is the subject of this paragraph.

(3) Two steps of recognition

As clarified in paragraph 4-2, our common view that "I am here and I am looking at an object" is a hard trick, and makes it difficult for us to understand that the body and the world which are seen before our eyes are the apparent physical body and the apparent material world respectively.

On the other hand, our thought that "I am looking at an object which is seen before my eyes, and I become to know the existence", becomes a hard trick concerning "recognition", and makes it difficult for us to realize the true feature of recognition.

As understood by the expression, we assume that we become to know "the existence of the object which is seen before our eyes" after "the information about the object which is seen before our eyes" is taken into "the apparent mind". From our thought that "the information about the object which is seen before our eyes" enters into "our apparent mind", we become to have the view that "recognition" is abstract.

Though there are certainly such abstract parts in the mind as intellect, emotion and volition, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, there are also such concrete parts in the mind as a coffee cup, a desk and a wall, etc., which are seen before our eyes. Similarly, there are also concrete parts concerning recognition.

Now, let's examine the following expression that "I look at an object which is seen before my eyes, and I recognize the existence."

There are two steps in this expression, namely, the first step is "I look at an object which is seen before my eyes", and the second step is "I recognize the existence". In other words, it means that "I can know the existence of the object which is seen before my eyes after I look at it". You would think; "It is natural. How can we know the existence of the object without looking at it?" However, a trick about recognition lurks in this conviction of ours.

(4) The first step: "I look at an object which is seen before my eyes"

Let's think about the expression in the situation where we are looking at a coffee cup. There is a coffee cup (the object of looking at in the material world. Light reflected at the coffee cup reaches our retinas, and it focuses on the retinas.

There is the relation of "the object of looking at" and "the body of looking at" between the coffee cup and the physical body. The first step that "I lam looking at a coffee cup" can be confirmed in this situation. It is undoubtedly correct.

However, what we must pay attention is that when expressed as "I am looking at a coffee cup", it is not the event in the material world but the one in the world which is seen before our eyes, namely, the event in the apparent material world. In a word, the object which is shown by "I am looking at a coffee cup " is the coffee cup which is seen before my eyes, not the one in the material world.

As it was explained in paragraph 4-1, "It is impossible to look at the coffee cup which is seen before our eyes", or as another expression, "It is impossible to look at the result of looking at".

In conclusion, the first step of recognition that "I am looking at an object" does not occur in the world which is seen before our eyes.

(2) The second step: "I recognize the existence"

Next, what does the second step, "I recognize the existence of the coffee cup.”, mean? It has been known that the information from the retinas arrives at the visual cortex at the back of the cerebrum and finally reaches the visual association cortex of the frontal lobe by tracing two routes. However, it does not explain "How do I recognize the existence of the coffee cup?"

Descartes assumed that the visual information of the external world is carried to the pineal corpus and the external world is recognized there. The visual cortex and the visual association cortex are certainly the areas which process the visual information, but it does not explain how the external world is recognized, because the pineal corpus is only paraphrased by the visual cortex and the visual association cortex.

Though it is a repetition, we think in common knowledge the coffee cup which is seen before our eyes as "the object of looking at", and the body which is seen before our eyes as "the body of looking at". Therefore, we think that we can define the relationship "I am looking at an object which is seen before my eyes" between them, namely, "the object of looking at" and "the body of looking at".

However, it is not true, as shown now. The relationship between "the object of looking at" and "the body of looking at" cannot be defined in the world which is seen before our eyes. That is because, in the world which is seen before our eyes, the coffee cup is an apparent object and the body is an apparent physical body. It is impossible that light travels from "an apparent object" to "an apparent physical body".

In a word, "the act of looking at", namely, "I am looking at an object which is seen before my eyes" does not occur in the world which is seen before our eyes. Nevertheless, we use the expression that I look at an object which is seen before my eyes, and I recognize the existence.” What does it mean?

I do not think that it is understandable easily. Let's explain it by using another expression.

The body which you are thinking to be your physical body is "an apparent physical body", and the coffee cup which you are thinking to be "matter" is "an apparent coffee cup". The causal relationship of "the body acting to look at" and "the object you are looking at" doesn't exist there. The coffee cup which is seen before your eyes exists there as "the result of looking at".

It is wrong to think that you are looking at the coffee cup which is seen before your eyes. In fact, as told in paragraph 4-1(1), it is impossible for you to look at "the result of looking at" again. The coffee cup which is seen before your eyes is "existence" and "recognition" as well, because you are able to know the existence of the coffee cup though you are not looking at it.

"A coffee cup does not exist before your eyes?"

"Yes, it exists there."

"You are looking at the coffee cup?"

"No, I am not looking at it."

"You do not know that a coffee cup exists before your eyes?"

"Yes, I know it."

Since you are able to know the existence of a coffee cup though you are not looking at it, the coffee cup which is seen before your eyes is "existence" and at the same time it is "recognition".

Our view that "I am looking at an object which is seen before my eyes" is one of the causes that lead us to the misunderstanding about "recognition". The low-level recognition might be different from the high-level recognition, but it is impossible to assume that "I am looking at an object which is seen before my eyes, and I recognize the existence", concerning the low-level recognition at least.

It would be possible to reverse the order of the expression, namely, "recognition is existence" as well in the world which is seen before our eyes". Of course, the meaning of existence in the world which is seen before our eyes or in the world of the mind would be different from that of existence in the material world.

4-3 The world of the mind which is viewed from the viewpoint of "recognition"

It is wrong to think that "I am looking at an object which is seen before my eyes, and I become to know the existence". The fact is that "The object which is seen before my eyes is the existence and at the same time the recognition". It would easily be understandable that the conclusion can apply to other sensations such as sound, touch, etc.

It is wrong to think that "I am listening to the sound, and then I become to know the sound." The fact is that the sound which is now being heard exists at the position where it is now being heard and it is the recognition of the sound at the same time.

For example, the sound of a piano playing is the existence, and it is the recognition of the sound at the same time. It is wrong to think that "I am listening to the sound of the piano playing which is being heard now, and as a result, I become to recognize the sound of the piano playing." The truth is that the sound which is now being heard is the existence and the recognition.

Our pleasant impression created by hearing a piano playing is the event in "our apparent mind", and similarly, the sound of the piano playing is the existence and the recognition in the world of our mind.

The same logic can also apply to the sensation of touch. It is not correct to think that "I feel the sensation of touch, and become to know it." The truth is that the sensation of touch itself exists at the position where our apparent body meets the apparent object, and it is the recognition at the same time.

We have the view that we can recognize the objects after the information about them are taken from the external world (the material world) into the brain. It is certainly correct. However, the problem is that we are wrongly convinced the world which is seen before our eyes is the external world (the material world). The expression, "I am looking at an object which is seen before my eyes, and I become to know the existence", clearly shows the situation.

Namely, we think that it is necessary to take the information from “the apparent external world" into "the apparent mind" once in order to recognize them, because we assume recognition is born in "the apparent mind". However, it is not correct. It is the recognition that objects exist in the world which is seen before our eyes.

The common knowledge that we can recognize the objects after the information about them is taken from "the apparent external world" into "the apparent mind" has influence on the wording. As for apparent objects and sounds existing outside our apparent physical body, we say "I am looking at an object, and I become to know the existence" or "I listen to the sound, and I become to know the existence of the sound." Namely, we think that the information about the apparent object in the apparent external world is taken into "the apparent mind" once .

On the contrary, as for our feelings which are thought to be the phenomena in "the apparent mind", we do not say "I feel my sadness, and I become to know my sadness", though we say, "I read a person's facial expression, and I become to know the person's sadness."

That would be because we assume feelings such as sadness and pleasure are events in "the apparent mind" and it is unnecessary to take them into "the apparent mind" again. In common knowledge, feelings such as sadness, pleasure, etc., are thought to be recognition, but a coffee cup which is seen before our eyes is not thought to be the recognition.

However, if it is taken into consideration that the world which is seen before our eyes is the world of the mind, it would not be strange that the objects existing in the world which are seen before our eyes are the recognition as well as the existence.

Chapter 5　What am I?

We have traced a long way up to now, and so let's show the answer to the problem that "What am I?" It is not enough to clarify all of it, of course. Though it is only a first step, it shows the core of the question "What am I?".

5-1　Reconsidering of the existence of "self"

We defined “self” as the following diagram [1] in paragraph 1-1. "I = my body + my mind" [1]

As it is under the common knowledge, it is just a common view. Therefore, the previous diagram can be defined as

"I = my physical body + my mind which consists of intellect, emotion and volition"[2].

Certainly. there is no problem in defining "self" as the diagram. It can be said to be a correct interpretation.

However, when comparing the diagram [2] with the results which we have obtained up to now, it is doubtful if we really think "self" as such an existence.

So, let's reexamine the diagram [2] from the standpoint of the analysis about the world of the mind which has been carried out up to now, not from common knowledge.

First of all, it is doubtful whether the body we think as "my body" is really the physical body. The body we think as "my body" must be the body which is seen before our eyes. It is not the physical body existing in the material world but the apparent physical body existing in the world of the mind, as had already been proved in paragraph 3-2. We wrongly assume that the apparent physical body is our physical body. We only know the existence of our physical body as just knowledge.

On the other hand, concerning "my mind", we have already known that the world of the mind is quite different from that of common knowledge, as it was proved in paragraph 3-4. The world which is seen before our eyes, including our apparent physical body, is the world of the mind, and it is just "my mind".

However, you would think that "my mind" exists behind the face of your body which is the apparent physical body. It is "the apparent mind" as common knowledge shows, which is located at the opposite direction of your sight line. The brain doesn't exist there, naturally.

As clarified in paragraph 4-1(1), it is impossible to look at "the result of looking at". Our thought that "I am looking at" is just located at the inside of "the apparent face". Therefore, it is only the mind of common knowledge, and it cannot be said to be the true mind. It is what should be named "the apparent mind" so to speak, though it has been used up to now. The apparent mind is also part of the mind, but it does not coincide with the world of the mind.

In conclusion, "my body" is "the apparent physical body" and "my mind" is "the apparent mind" which belongs to "the apparent physical body", which are the components of "self". Both of them are the existences in the world of the mind. Therefore, the diagram [2] which was shown previously can be defined as

"I = the apparent body + the apparent mind" [3].

Please be careful that the mind defined here is "the mind as the narrow sense", which was told in paragraph 3-3(2).

5-2　Answer to the question "What am I?"

We started to reexamine the problem that “What am I?”, from the diagram [1];

"I" = my mind + my body. [1]

"I” = my apparent physical body + my apparent mind [3]

I know it is certainly not appropriate to answer the problem that “What am I? under such a condition. However, considering the results of the preceding paragraphs, we will reach the following conclusion, namely,

"I am an existence which is created in the world of my mind."

Common knowledge says that "my body" is the physical body which exists in the material world and "my mind" is created by the brain which is located at the head of the physical body. In fact, it is true that we have our own physical body and the body including the brain supports us from the physiological side.

It is also true that "my mind" consists of both the information processing by the brain and the conscious phenomena which are the results of it. Therefore, it is possible to define "self" by the diagram,

"I" = my physical body + my mind, [2]

and it is not wrong.

It is correct that we think we have our own physical body. But which do we think our physical body is?, the body which is seen before our eyes or the physical body which exists in the material world. It must be the body which is seen before our eyes. But, it is the apparent physical body which exists in the world of the mind, not the physical body existing in the material world.

It would also be correct to think that the mind is created by the activity of the brain. Then, where do we think the mind exists? We would answer, "It seems to be behind our face." However, the face which we refer to is not the one of the physical body, but the one of the apparent physical body. Therefore, the brain does not exist behind the face of the apparent physical body.

Even if we examine the inside of the apparent face, we cannot find the mind which we are looking for. It is "the apparent mind" that is located there. It is certainly part of the world of the mind, but it is only part of it.

Our thought shown by such words as intellect, emotion and volition is apparently located there, but their high function does not exist there. The inside of the face of the apparent physical body is also part of the world of the mind.

In a word, it is true that we have our physical body in the material world, however, what we think our body is not the physical body but the apparent physical body existing in the world of the mind. And it is also true that the mind is supported by the brain, however, what we think our mind is "the apparent mind" in the world of the mind.

The coffee cup which is seen before our eyes exists in the world of the mind, being accompanied by the meaning of "a container to drink coffee". Similarly, "I" exist in the world of the mind, being accompanied by the thought of "self".

You would have felt some doubts against such a conclusion. There would be some reasons, but the most doubtful one would be the following: "You say that the body which is seen before our eyes is the apparent physical body, then, where does our physical body exist?"

We certainly have the physical body as it has been told repeatedly. We have pursued the subject based on the assumption that the material world exists whether we human beings exist or not. Therefore, our physical body surely exists in the material world. However, we must not overlook the fact that it becomes possible for us to talk about our physical body only after we recognize the existence.

For example, even if a coffee cup as matter exists in the material world, we cannot talk about it if we cannot recognize it. In this case, of course, it is also based on the assumption that a coffee cup as matter exists in the material world whether we recognize it or not. However, it is not possible to talk about the coffee cup if it is not recognized, though it is also a repetition.

What we recognize is not the coffee cup as matter existing in the material world. The coffee cup which exists before our eyes is the recognition of the very coffee cup, and the coffee cup which is seen before our eyes is not the one as matter but the one as "apparent matter".

It is the recognition that a coffee cup exists before our eyes through a series of process of "the act of looking at". The coffee cup which is seen before our eyes is not the coffee cup as matter but the one as the apparent matter.

The same logic can also apply to our physical body. Though it is also a repetition, our physical body certainly exists in the material world prior to our recognition of it. Though, even if the physical body exists in the material world it is impossible for us to talk about the body unless it is recognized. It becomes possible to talk about the body only after it exists in the world which is seen before our eyes because it is the recognition, and it is not the physical body but the apparent physical body.

In a word, what we can recognize as "my body" is "the apparent physical body" which is seen before our eyes, not "the physical body" in the material world.

At first, we defined "self" by the diagram;

“I" = my body + my mnd [1]

In this diagram, "my body" and "my mind" are expressed as if they are independent of each other. If it is the diagram,

"I"=my physical body + my mind which is composed of intellect, emotion and volition, my physical body and my mind are certainly different from each other. However, since "my body" is "the apparent physical body" and "my mind" is "the apparent mind", both of them exist together in the world of the mind.

It is not correct to think that "I" consist of the two different elements, "my mind" and "my body". Both of them are the same kind of existence. They exist in the world of the mind, and are harmonious with each other. In fact, we feel "my body" and "my mind" cannot be separated from each other. Our feeling of the unity of "my body" and "my mind" seems to originate from the fact that both of them exist in the world of the mind, and they are the same kind of existence.

5-3　Self-consciousness

Next, let's examine "self-consciousness" which is another important factor when we pursue the question; What am I?

The concept of "self-consciousness" is very difficult to define it clearly.　Therefore, as well as the definition of the mind and recognition, let's define it at the level which can endure the discussion here without going too far into it.

If we interpret it literally, it would mean "to recognize self" or "self is recognized".　But in other words, it would be expressed as "to recognize the existence of self" or as "the existence of self is recognized". It is the expression of "self-recognition", but "self-consciousness" might be treatable though "consciousness" is merely replaced by "recognition".

Then, what is the recognition of the existence of self? Does it mean to recognize the existing of my body? Or, is it to recognize the existence of the mind, which is thought to rule perception, memory, study, thinking, language, emotion, and the intention, etc.? It would be appropriate to think that it is to recognize both of them under the diagram,

"I" = my body + my mind [1]

So, let's define "self- consciousness" as "recognizing both of my body and my mind".

Let's pursue the subject under this definition, though I know it is not enough.

The self-consciousness is defined as being recognized both of my body and my mind. As they are clarified as the apparent physical body and the apparent mind, the self- consciousness means to recognize both the apparent physical body and the apparent mind.

It is easy to understand how "the apparent physical body" is recognized. As told in the previous paragraph, it is the recognition of the object that the object exists in the world which is seen before our eyes. When we turn our eyes to our physical body, "my apparent physical body" appears in the world which is seen before our eyes. Therefore, it means the recognition of "the apparent physical body", that is, the recognition of "my body".

Of course, the high-level recognition must be involved in realizing that the apparent physical body is "my body". Therefore, it will be necessary to study the high-level recognition in order to clarify how we recognize it as "my body". However, it would not be so difficult to guess that the existence of "the apparent physical body" leads to the recognition of "my body".

On the contrary, it is difficult to clarify how we can recognize "the existence of the apparent mind". That is because "the apparent mind" is extremely abstract and we can neither see nor touch it, though we assume it to be located behind the face of the apparent physical body.

On what is our assumption based?, that is, "the apparent mind" exists behind the face of our apparent physical body". As told in the previous paragraph, the opposite direction of our sight line must be crucial. Namely, since various apparent objects appear in the world which is seen before our eyes by following the movements of our sight line, if we assume "my mind", which is assumed to be looking at them, exists at the opposite direction of the sight line, it would be reasonable.

Our view, "I am here, and I am looking at an object", clearly shows the situation. "I" in the expression of "I am here" can be interpreted to mean "my body ", and "I" in the expression of "I am looking at an object" can be interpreted to mean "my mind". Therefore, our view, "I am here, and I am looking at an object", will be paraphrased into the view, "I have my body, and I who stay at my body am looking at an object".

But it is only our conviction as common knowledge, of course. We are wrongly convinced that the apparent physical body is the physical body and we are looking at the apparent material world from the inside of the face of our apparent physical body. Our thought that "I am looking at an object", which can be paraphrased as "the apparent mind", seems to belong to "the apparent physical body", and to be always dependent on "the apparent physical body".

Thus, "the apparent mind" seems to be an existence which cannot be directly shown without referring to "the apparent physical body". That is because the true world of the mind shown by the word "my mind" is originally the world which is seen before our eyes, including our apparent physical body itself. Therefore, the recognition of "my mind" must be the same as the recognition of the world which is seen before our eyes, including our apparent physical body.

It seems to be expressed only indirectly.

it seems to be able to be expressed only indirectly

But, as a matter of fact, what we think to be "my mind" as common knowledge is "the apparent mind". "The apparent mind" is not recognized itself, and it seems possible to express only indirectly, such as "I am looking at", "I am listening to", "I am feeling", "I am memorizing", "I am speaking" and "I am thinking", etc. Our thought that "I am doing such activities" would be "the apparent mind", and it would be the recognition of "the apparent mind" at the same time. These thought of ours about "my mind" depends on "our apparent physical body", and It seems possible to express it only with our apparent body.

It is just the same as a coffee cup which is seen before our eyes, which is accompanied by the meaning of "a container to drink coffee". "The apparent mind" also obtains the meaning of "my mind" and it is assumed to be located behind the face of the apparent physical body, and it is the recognition of "the apparent mind".

As known from the story up to now, it would be concluded that "the apparent physical body" existing in the world which is seen before our eyes is the recognition of "the apparent physical body", and such activities accompanying with the apparent physical body as "I am looking at an object", etc., are the recognition of "the apparent mind".

5-4 Why do "I" exist in the world of my mind?

The apparent material world, the apparent physical body and the apparent mind exist in the world of the mind. We wrongly interpret them as the material world, the physical body and the mind respectively.

Why is such a trick set by the brain, cheating even ourselves? Of course, even if it is said to be cheating ourselves, it is different from the trick of juggleries. It is not intentional. The truth is that we cannot see through the true feature of the mind, because the apparent material world and "I" are artfully constructed in the world of the mind.

The reason why the apparent material world and "I", who am composed of the apparent physical body and the apparent mind, exist in the world of the mind seems to be that they play an important role in the system which controls our behavior. Namely, when we human beings take the information from the external world, analyze it and decide our behavior, the apparent material world and "I" seem to play an indispensable role in the information processing.

Our behavior consists of conscious parts and unconscious parts. The former is very small, though the latter is far bigger. For example, when we are going to hold a coffee cup which is seen before our eyes, we do most of the acts automatically, though we are conscious of the key points such as the position of the coffee cup and the direction of stretching our hand, etc.

The apparent material world and "I" are phenomena of being conscious. There is surely the backup of the information processing of the brain behind our behavior, but the physiological process of the brain is not conscious.

The reason why the phenomena of being conscious, the apparent material world and "I", exist in the world of the mind in addition to the physiological process would be that they are playing a necessary and indispensable role as the recognition in the information processing.

One of the facts which support the assumption is that the world which is seen before our eyes is the copy of the external world, and the apparent physical body is that of our physical body. Namely, it will be very efficient in order to analyze and judge the information of the external world that the apparent material world and the apparent physical body exist in the world of the mind as the copies of their original.

For example, if it is a robot controlled by a computer and is trying to stretch its arm and hold a coffee cup, it will rely on the information converted into numeric data, and there would not be a conscious phenomenon, being different from our human beings.

However, as for us human beings, the copies of both a coffee cup and our physical hand exist in the world which is seen before our eyes, and they are the recognition of them at the same time. It would not be wrong to think that the existence of both an apparent coffee cup and our apparent physical hand in the world which is seen before our eyes is useful to stretch our physical hand and to hold the cup in the material world, though the mechanism is unknown.

Or rather, it would be almost correct to think that they themselves are useful in the information processing because of both existence and recognition, not because "I" am looking at the coffee cup, or "I" recognize the coffee cup. In fact, under the system of synchronization, the movement of our apparent hand toward the apparent coffee cup synchronizes with that of our physical hand toward the coffee cup in the material world.

We have only to turn our eyes to an object which is seen before our eyes when we are going to obtain the information about it. As a result, the apparent object itself, not the information converted into numeric data, will appear in the world which is seen before our eyes.

As for the utility of information such as the distance and the direction of our hand and the coffee cup, the copy of the external world exists in the world which is seen before our eyes and at the same time it is the recognition of the external world must be much more useful than the data converted into numeric form.

"I" that is expressed in the problem that "Why do I exist in the world of the mind?", is "I" who am shown by the following diagram,

"I" = my apparent physical body + my apparent mind [3].

Therefore, the one part of this question is related to "the apparent physical body". The answer, as it has been explained now, would be that it is very useful in the information processing that the apparent physical body exists in the apparent material world as the copy of the physical body.

The other part of the question is related to "the apparent mind", and it would be paraphrased as: Why does the apparent mind exist in the world of the mind? It would be because "the thought of self" makes our behavior reach a new stage which is quite different from the one in which "the thought of self" does not exist.

"The thought of self" exists in the world of the mind, being accompanied by various thoughts such as "I am looking at", "I am listening to", "I am feeling"

Nevertheless, there is a system which makes us assume that "I" exist in the material world and do such apparent acts, being accompanied by the apparent physical body. What can we obtain under such a system?

Let's think about the act of stretching our hand to a coffee cup and of drinking coffee, for example. If "the thought of self" is got rid of, a series of the acts will be expressed as follows.

A desire to drink coffee arises.

Based on it, a hand stretches toward a coffee cup.

The position of the hand and the cup is being recognized because they exist in the world which is seen before one's eyes.

The cup is drawn nearby.

Coffee is sipped.

The aroma of coffee arises, and a feeling of relaxation is induced.

Thus, the acts become extremely mechanical if "the thought of self" is erased.

Next, if "the thought of self" is taken into consideration, a series of acts will be expressed as follows:

"I" want to drink coffee.

"I" decide to stretch my hand to a coffee cup by my will.

"I" know the position of the coffee cup and my hand, because "I" am looking at them.

"I" touch the coffee cup.

"I" draw the coffee cup to my mouth.

"I" sip coffee.

"I" feel the aroma of coffee and relax.

In this way, our behavior develops to a new stage by having "the thought of self", in other words, by having "the thought of an actor" that does such acts as "I want", "I decide, "I" drink, and "I" feel, etc.

"I" have only to turn my eyes to the object which is seen before my eyes to get the information about it. As a result, "I" can get the information about the object. It is "I" that analyze the information. It is "I" that determine to act toward the object.

In this way, by the existence of "the thought of self", a series of our acts, such as collecting and analyzing information, determining and executing our behavior, become to be smoothly carried out.

Such our view is just the same as our common knowledge about the mind, the body and the external world. We believe the view without doubting, but it is wrong, as already told in the previous paragraphs.

The copy of both the physical body and the material world is created in the world of our mind, and we believe them the physical body and the material world without noticing them to be the copy. As a result, we become to think that "I" stay in the physical body, and am acting in the material world.

It is certainly the physical body that actually acts in the material world. However, the physical body itself can only behave mechanically. It is necessary for us to be equipped with a system of controlling our behavior so as to highly adjust ourselves to a complex environment.

The system would be composed of the following two functions. One of them is the neural network of the brain, and it supports "our behavior" from the physiological side. The other is that the apparent material world and "I", who consist of the apparent physical body and the apparent mind, exist in the world of the mind, and they support "our behavior" from the side of "recognition". Namely, the scheme as common knowledge that "my mind" stays in my physical body and "I" exist and act in the material world, comes to be established in the world of the mind.

Our behavior would be being performed by the system that "the neural network of the brain" supports the information processing from the physiological side and "the phenomena of being conscious" supports the information processing from recognition. Both the apparent material world and "I" would exist as part of the system that controls our behavior. Such a system would be expressed as "the evolution of the information processing" or "the evolution of the mind".

Epilogue

Many people would have been interested in the problem that "What am I?", for a long time. For instance, the artist Paul Gauguin left the words, "Where did we come from? what are we? and where do we go?" There seem to be a lot of people who feel sympathy for his words. However, this question is very difficult.

Though it might sound paradoxical, we cannot obtain any answer, if we try to consider it from "the existence of self", because such a strategy makes us fall into a trick. It is necessary for us to be away from "the thought of self", and to start from the problem that “Is the world which is seen before our eyes is really the material world?", though you would think it is far from the common knowledge.

The fact is that "The world which is seen before our eyes is not the material world." This paper is based on the assumption that "The material world surely exists", as having been mentioned in the text. And by tracing the subject logically, it reaches the conclusion that "I am an existence in the world of my own mind". The conclusion is neither a hypothesis, nor such a view that "There would be such an idea, too".

A lot of people are interested in the mind, the consciousness, and furthermore, "What am I?". As for the mind and the consciousness, a lot of researchers, not only psychologists but scientists whose specialty is the cognitive science and the artificial intelligence, etc., are advocating various ideas.

However, I always wonder what assumption these people stand on and how they pursue their ideas. Now it is the time to construct the basic knowledge about the mind and the consciousness everybody agrees with, I think.

I think the most important thing is the common view that "The world which is seen before our eyes is not the material world", and we should accept the results, which are obtained by being logically traced, as facts.

If I were asked whether I am living everyday life under the view I have talked up to now, I am not so. "The objects which are seen before my eyes are the apparent objects, my body which is seen before my eyes is the apparent physical body, the persons who are walking this way are apparent persons. They are all the existences in the world of my mind." I don't think like that.

As common knowledge, I think that the objects which are seen before my eyes are matter, my body which is seen before my eyes is my physical body, and the persons who are walking this way are the persons themselves.

However, when I think over the mind and the consciousness, it is another. I well remember when I noticed that I am an existence in the world of my mind, I was so shocked that I was quite at a loss for words.

However, it did not last so long. When seeing a beautiful and magnificent scenery, staying with people of a warm heart, and seeing animals living peacefully and bravely, and when I know that they are the existences in the world of my mind, I feel the wonderfulness of the world of the mind and the preciousness of lives.

Thank you for looking over my poor sentences. I would appreciate it if you have felt some doubts about the common knowledge; "The world which is seen before our eyes is the material world", though I do not think you would agree with my conclusion.

A more detailed explanation is in the paper, "Where is the mind?", which was introduced at the first page of this paper. I would also appreciate it if you would refer to it.

2021 September, by Shigeru Shiraishi