“I” and “Me”: The Self in the Context of Consciousness
Frontiers in Psychology September 4, 2018 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01656 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Citations | 41 |
| Key points | Argues that James's distinction between the self as "Me" and the self as "I" largely maps onto the distinction between the phenomenal self and the metaphysical self, which should be investigated separately using fundamentally different methodologies. Drawing on Metzinger's theory of phenomenal self-models, the author proposes that the phenomenal "I" can be interpreted as an object, rather than the subject, of experience, as an element of a hierarchical phenomenal self-model. |
Abstract
James (1890) distinguished two understandings of the self, the self as "Me" and the self as "I". This distinction has recently regained popularity in cognitive science, especially in the context of experimental studies on the underpinnings of the phenomenal self. The goal of this paper is to take a step back from cognitive science and attempt to precisely distinguish between "Me" and "I" in the context of consciousness. This distinction was originally based on the idea that the former ("Me") corresponds to the self as an object of experience (self as object), while the latter ("I") reflects the self as a subject of experience (self as subject). I will argue that in most of the cases (arguably all) this distinction maps onto the distinction between the phenomenal self (reflecting self-related content of consciousness) and the metaphysical self (representing the problem of subjectivity of all conscious experience), and as such these two issues should be investigated separately using fundamentally different methodologies. Moreover, by referring to Metzinger's (2018) theory of phenomenal self-models, I will argue that what is usually investigated as the phenomenal-"I" [following understanding of self-as-subject introduced by Wittgenstein (1958)] can be interpreted as object, rather than subject of experience, and as such can be understood as an element of the hierarchical structure of the phenomenal self-model. This understanding relates to recent predictive coding and free energy theories of the self and bodily self discussed in cognitive neuroscience and philosophy.
Citations in the library
Cited by 8
- Classic Psychedelic Drugs: Update on Biological Mechanisms Pharmacopsychiatry January 25, 2022
- When the Window Cracks: Transparency and the Fractured Self in Depersonalisation Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences June 6, 2020
- Mindfulness in the focus of the neurosciences - The contribution of neuroimaging to the understanding of mindfulness. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience October 17, 2022
- Forgetting ourselves in flow: an active inference account of flow states and how we experience ourselves within them Frontiers in Psychology June 3, 2024
- Understanding the sense of self through robotics. Science robotics October 30, 2024
and 3 more in the library
Cites 15
- On a confusion about a function of consciousness Behavioral and Brain Sciences June 1, 1995
- Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self Trends in Cognitive Sciences October 12, 2013
- An Interoceptive Predictive Coding Model of Conscious Presence Frontiers in Psychology 2012
- The default-mode, ego-functions and free-energy: a neurobiological account of Freudian ideas Brain February 28, 2010
- Minimal self-models and the free energy principle. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience September 12, 2013
and 10 more in the library