Why was the "I" created?

　It is often thought that recognition arises from a separate stage beyond the world before our eyes, but rather, it can be said that being visible or being heard is recognition itself, which reflects the characteristics of psychological space.

Namely, there are two types of recognition. One is that the existence itself in psychological space is recognition (Stage 1), which is a type that is self-contained within psychological space. The other is the understanding of what it is (Stage 2), where information processing of the brain is involved, and the meaning is projected on it through the “superimposition system”.

　What is going to discuss here is not the existence of the “I” in the physical space as represented by the following equation,

　“I” = a physical body + an abstract existence indicated by intellect, emotion, and will. �A

but it is about the 'I' that exists in psychological space shown by the following equation.

The "I" = an apparent body + an apparent mind �B

　As shown in the equation �B, the components that make up the “I” are the two elements of an “apparent body” and an “apparent mind”, which are supported from the brain information processing by the “superimposition system” and the “synchronization system”. That is, the two elements are

　an "apparent body" and an "apparent mind"

and two systems that support those relationships are,

　the "superimposition system" and the "synchronization system".

　Furthermore, among these, it can be said that the core aspect of the “existence of the ‘I’” is carried by “apparent acts”.

Namely, the key to understand the “I”, which is composed of these two elements and two systems, is “apparent acts”, and what backs them up are the “superimposition system” and the “synchronization system”. Through “apparent acts”, the “apparent body” acquires the meaning of “my body”, and the “apparent mind” acquires the meaning of “my mind”.

　These two elements and two systems do not exist independently of each other; rather, they are in a complementary relationship and together constitute the “world of the mind”. In fact, I would like you to keep in mind that both elements exist in the same psychological space.

　I will explain about those from now on, but since they are closely related to each other, there will be some overlap in the discussion. Thank you for your understanding.

　The thought that "The world before our eyes is not the material world " may be difficult to accept, but even more difficult to accept is the interpretation of our own body before our eyes. As I have mentioned before, it is not a “physical body”, but an "apparent body" created by brain activity, which may be hard for you to accept.

　There are various reasons why the apparent body before our eyes is mistakenly recognized as the physical body. From a visual perspective, the apparent body seen before our eyes itself is existence and at the same time recognition. In addition to being visually recognized, the apparent body is further deepened in meaning as one's own body by being superimposed with sensations such as touch, pressure, and pain. For details, I would like you to refer to the relevant papers introduced in section (1-1) "The apparent World". However, one thing I would like to mention here is that the "apparent acts" that I will discuss later play a significant role in the interpretation of the "apparent body" and further the "apparent mind".

　As you know, a series of experiences from infancy play a significant role in recognizing the body before our eyes as our own body. From the stage where infants cannot roll over, they engage in actions such as staring at toys suspended above them and reaching out towards them, experiencing "apparent acts" where the apparent hand they see before them unfolds in coordination with their intentions. Furthermore, the sensations brought about when the apparent hand touches the toy further deepen their recognition as their own body. The apparent body itself is a passive existence, but as known from the current example, it becomes an active presence through apparent acts. What we are discussing here, of course, is based on the premise that the physical body exists and the apparent acts are based on the behaviors of the physical body. In this way, it is important to note that the apparent acts accompanying the apparent body play a crucial role in the apparent body acquiring the meaning of the physical body.。

　When it comes to how the mind is interpreted, for example, for relatively lower-level activities, they are such acts as looking, hearing, and moving hands. On the other hand, for more advanced activities, they are such acts as thinking, remembering, and making decisions.

　Certainly, it is an undeniable fact that these acts are based on the brain's information processing. However, at the same time, these conscious phenomena can be considered “apparent acts” in the world of the mind, which give rise to the “apparent mind”, and simultaneously seem to create the “thought of the ‘I’”.

　As I have mentioned before, the “apparent mind” is different from the “apparent body” and cannot be directly recognized. It is recognized according to apparent acts such as “I am looking at.”

For example, from the thought of “I am looking at,” through the “superimposition system”, a thought arises that “There exists the ‘I’ that is looking at” behind the apparent eyes of the apparent body, that is, in the opposite direction of the apparent gaze, thereby obtaining a place of the existence of the “I”. Furthermore, through the synchronization system, the thought that one can manipulate the apparent body leads to the acquisition of the meaning as an acting entity. It will be defined as an “actor”.

　It can be said that the "apparent mind" has its origin in the "apparent acts". Details will be discussed in section (3) of (3-2). The reason why I use the term the “apparent mind" is because, as we have already discussed, the true meaning of the “world of the mind" represents the entire world before our eyes, including our own body, which is different from the "apparent mind".

　The “apparent acts” refer to the ones that are seen on the apparent body in the world before our eyes. For example, the acts we experience in our daily lives, such as “I am looking at”, “I am moving my hands”, and “I am thinking”, are indeed apparent acts that are accompanied by corresponding activities of the physical body. Regarding “I am looking at”, the eyes of the physical body are turning towards an object. Regarding “I am moving my hand”, the physical hand is moving towards an object. Concerning “I am thinking”, the brain is processing information.

　However, the acts unfolding before our eyes, while being given meaning through the systems of superimposition and synchronization, are ultimately merely apparent acts and do not involve acts with reality. It seems possible to consider that these apparent acts, linking the apparent body and the apparent mind, lead to a sense of unity that cannot be separated.

　There is a strong notion that the body and the mind are separate entities. In fact, as shown in equation �A, common knowledge views them as distinct. However, in the world of the mind, the two are an integrated existence, and it seems that the “apparent acts” serve to create that sense of unity and connect the two. Through apparent acts, the apparent body acquires the meaning as the physical body, while the apparent mind acquires the meaning as the mind. Details will be discussed later in section (3) of (3-2).

　The superimposition system refers to the fact that one characteristic superimposes with another certain characteristic on the same object that exists within psychological space, as mentioned in section (2) of (2-1). For example, voices superimpose with the characters on the television screen seen before our eyes, or the feeling of cuteness superimposes with the kitten before our eyes, and furthermore, the thought "I am looking at a kitten" evokes the feeling of cuteness in our apparent mind. The superimposition system supports the coexistence of seemingly different characteristics in psychological space by allowing them to superimpose in appropriate positions.

　The synchronization system refers to the alignment that the apparent body and the physical body move in harmony, which was mentioned in section (2) of (2-1). For example, when our apparent hand is moving towards an apparent coffee cup, our hand as a physical body is also moving towards the coffee cup as a material object. This is the synchronization system. Here, the issue is which movement occurs first. Common knowledge suggests that the movement of the physical hand comes first, and it is then followed by the apparent movement of the apparent hand. Indeed, considering that the world before our eyes is a copy of the material world, this seems to be a very natural thought.

　However, a problem arises here. It concerns the role that what "being visible" plays. For example, when reaching our physical hand for a coffee cup in the material world, the issue is how we judge whether our hand is correctly aimed at the cup. Simply put, if we are not aware of the condition of the hand moving toward the cup, it must be impossible to control the movement of our physical hand.

Certainly,recent machines have excellent functions and can skillfully tackle tasks even without the human-like conscious phenomena. This must be because they are building a different information processing system than humans. However, the issue we are discussing here is about human information processing, and I will talk about this point in the next section.

　As I have already mentioned, this paper is progressing under the following three schemas regarding “I” or the “I”.

Namely, I started the story under the idea that the “existence of the ‘I’” consists of two elements:

　“I” = my body + my mind �@

And, in terms of common knowledge, it can be said that it is thought to be composed of the following two elements.

　I” = the physical body + the abstract mind as indicated by emotions, thoughts, and will. �A

　On the other hand, as the “I” is composed of an “apparent bod” and an “apparent mind”, this paper is proceeding with the following scheme.

the "I" = an apparent body + an apparent mind �B

　Let's proceed with the discussion using Figure 2 once again. Please take another look at Figure 2(c). It represents the state of the existence of “I” in the material world as shown by equation �A. On the other hand, Figure 2(b) depicts the situation in which the “I”, as indicated by equation �B, exist in the world of the mind. The schematic in �B suggests that the “I” is composed of an “apparent body” and an “apparent mind”, which may give the impression that the “I” exist independently from the surrounding world.

　However, that is not the case. Under the definition that “the world produced by brain activity is the world of the mind”, the “world of the mind” encompasses everything including the apparent body before our eyes.

From this interpretation, it is indeed a strange matter, but it means that the “I” consisted of an “apparent body” and an “apparent mind” and exists within the world of one’s own mind. In a sense, it presents the appearance of a nested structure. Therefore, the question “Why was the ‘I’ created?” must first answer to addressing the question “Why was the world before our eyes created?” I will discuss this point in the next section.

(2) The meaning of being a copy of the external world

　There is no doubt that various organisms, starting with humans, possess excellent information processing capabilities through their brains. However, we do not have the vast memory capacity as computers, nor do we come close to computers in terms of processing speed. Nevertheless, even under such conditions, we skillfully live in the external world. It can be said that creating copies of the external world and utilizing them is what compensates for the weakness.

　The world and our body seen before our eyes, in a sense, a copy of the material world and the physical body. Of course, it is not a perfect copy. In fact, if you place a photograph of someone's face before your eyes and look at it, it becomes immediately clear. Just by shifting your gaze slightly, the photo becomes blurred, and you can no longer tell whose face it is. One might insist that “The blurriness is due to the reduction in our eye resolution caused by the shift in gaze.” That is exactly right. It is the low resolution that causes this blurred image to appear in the world before our eyes. In other words, I think this will serve as one piece of evidence that the world before our eyes is not a material world, but an apparent world created by brain activity. What do you think?

Furthermore, how different the material world (the external world) from the world before our eyes are explained in Chapter 2, Section 1 of the paper “Where is the Mind?” in the section “Actually, the Strange Material World”, so I would appreciate it if you could refer to it.

　What is expressed here as the "copy of the external world" refers to the shape of the objects and their positional relationships in the two worlds. For example, as shown in figure 2(b), the coffee cup that exists in the world before our eyes represent the shape of the cup as a material object, and is positioned before the apparent body. Similarly, in the material world, as illustrated in figure 2(a), the coffee cup as a material object exists in front of the physical body. This relationship is referred to as the "copy of the external world".

　Even if we call it a copy of the external world, it is not just a mere copy. Behind it there are important elements such as the "superimposition system", the "synchronization system", and "recognition". First, through the superimposition system, the coffee cup seen before our eyes gains the meaning of a vessel for drinking coffee, while the hand before our eyes take on the meaning of a physical hand. Consequently, in relation to the "desire" to drink coffee, the coffee cup becomes the "inducement" for action, and our hand becomes the "means" to take the cup. It is important to note that the existence in the world before our eyes is also recognition, and it plays a crucial role.

　One of the advantages brought about by the existence of a copy of the external world can be cited as the efficiency of information processing through the synchronization system. In the material world, when a hand as a physical body moves towards a coffee cup as a material object, based on the synchronization system, the apparent hand before our eyes move towards the apparent coffee cup. By using the movement of this apparent hand as an indicator, it becomes possible to control the hand as a physical body in the material world.

“Existing in the world before our eyes is also recognition.” contributes to the simplification of the steps of information processing. For instance, when we reach out our apparent hand to an apparent coffee cup, if the hand is misaligned to the left or right of the cup, the misalignment will be recognized because of “being visible is also recognition”. It is assumed that recognition occurs by transferring from the situation before our eyes into another phase. However, it is completed in the world before our eyes.

　It will be discussed how the synchronization system is formed in section (4) of (3-2).

The Role of Words

　When considering information processing, one thing to note is the role of words. Namely, it is not necessarily correct to think that the activity unfolding in the world before our eyes cannot be controlled without the use of words. Let's consider again the example of reaching for and grabbing a coffee cup, as shown in Figure 2(b).

In a situation when there is a power outage due to a typhoon, and you must carefully bring your hand close to the cup relying on the light of a candle, you might think of the word “approaching”. However, it is not the word “approaching” that makes it recognized that your hand is approaching. Rather, the scene itself before your eyes, which is “approaching”, is the recognition, and as a result, the thought of “approaching” arises, and it becomes being verbalized. In other words, there is a temporal gap between recognition and its verbalization. In fact, when we consider our daily acts, most of them are not verbalized. Even in the case of animals that are considered to lack linguistic functions, they can control their behavior. It can be thought that animals that have reached a certain level of evolution control their actions within a framework of the apparent body and the apparent material world, like us humans.

　Indeed, in cases when advanced reasoning is employed, words are necessary, and it is undeniable that they play an important role. However, I want to point out that it is a mistake to think that we cannot control the act of bringing our hand close to a cup without words.

As can be known from such an example, existing in psychological space is simultaneously recognition. And moreover, because of the brain's information processing, various meanings are assigned to the objects before our eyes through a superimposition system. One part of the answer to the question posed earlier, "Why was the ‘world before our eyes’ created?" is that it is advantageous in terms of information processing to "create a copy of the external world in psychological space".

(3) Creation of the thought of the “I” from the apparent acts

　As it has already been mentioned, the “thought of the ‘I’” forms the core of the “apparent mind”, but it is not recognized directly. Rather, it is believed to arise from the idea of an ”actor”, that is, “one who acts”, which derives from “apparent acts”. To understand why this is considered so, let's think through the “apparent acts”, such as “I am looking at”, “I am moving my hands”, and “I am thinking”, discussed in section (3) of (3-1).

　The first example is about the act of "I am looking at". The apparent material world, including the apparent body, appears before our eyes by the act of "looking at". However, as mentioned before, the correct interpretation is that it is not the "I" that is looking at it. The truth is that it exists there because of the brain's information processing. Of course, it does not mean that the material world itself exists before our eyes. However, we do not think of it that way, but we mistakenly recognize the world before our eyes as the material world and hold onto the thought that "I am looking at it." As a result, the thought of "There is the “I” that is looking at" is created in the opposite direction of the apparent line of sight.

　Who is performing the “apparent act” of "looking at"? It can be said that the one responsible for creating that thought is the “actor”. In other words, based on the “apparent acts”, the thought of “actor” performing that act arises, which leads to the creation of the “thought of the 'I'” as a result. From another perspective, it can be said that the thought of the “actor” is created through the “apparent acts” via the “thought of the 'I'”. If it is shown in a diagram, the “actor" arises as an existence performing those acts, and as a result, this leads to the creation of the “thought of the ‘I’”.

　“Apparent acts" → "actor" → the "thought of the ‘I’"

or、

　Apparent acts" → the "actor" ← the " though of the ‘I’"
(Note: the direction of the second arrow is reversed)

When you think about it yourself, you might be able to truly feel its meaning, don't you think?

　As a second example, let's consider the case of moving your hand toward an object before your eyes. First, the thought arises to move your physical hand, and at the same time, your physical hand moves. This is reflected in the apparent movement of your apparent hand in the world before your eyes. As this apparent act is recognized, the thought "I am moving my hand" arises, and the apparent hand before your eyes acquire the meaning of "my hand". The thought of "I am moving my hands" forms the meaning of an "actor", and at the same time, it leads to the creation of the “thought of the ‘I’".

　In this case also, please try it yourself. When you try to type on the keyboard, you see your fingers moving before your eyes and you may think that “I am moving my fingers with my will.” From that experience, the meaning of an “actor” is created, and the “existence of the ‘I’” is confirmed, isn't it? However, there may be someone who thinks, “Someone like me who has typing skills can type unconsciously.” While it’s true that moving your fingers is unconscious, isn't it also certain that the content you type is based on the “thought of the ‘I’”?

　As a third example, let's consider the case of "I am thinking." In this case, unlike the first two cases, advanced functions are involved. For instance, imagine a spherical object made of stretchable rubber with a hole opened on it, and the scene when you flip it inside out. You might visualize the image of the sphere in your mind and think that you can widen that hole and flip it around. You might think, “It's a simple thing.” However, when it comes to expressing it in a way that is understandable, as shown in figure 6, it turns out to be difficult.

　Namely, the hole is widened from stage �@ to �A, the hemisphere is inverted from �B to �C, and the back surface is stretched from �D to �F.

It is likely thanks to the brain's information processing that we can create and manipulate images, but the created images are events within a psychological space. It seems unreasonable to think that they happen automatically, rather, it can be said that they are based on the apparent acts of “I am thinking.” From that, the meaning as an “actor” is created, and simultaneously the “thought of the 'I'” is created.

　Let's summarize the discussion up to now by using figure 7.

　�@ A command is issued from the ”apparent mind” to the “apparent body”.

　�A “Apparent acts” appear in the “apparent body”.

　�B Through �@ and �A, the thought of an “actor” arises.

　�C　From the thought of being an "actor", the “thought of the ’I’" arises in the "apparent mind."

　�D Through �@ to �C, a higher concept such as intention is generated in the “apparent mind”.

In summary, the various “apparent acts” create meaning as an “actor”, while at the same time, behind the apparent gaze, the meaning of the “thought of the ‘I'” is created./p>

In common knowledge, there is a strong belief in the "unity of body and mind" and that the two cannot be separated. This is also reflected in the "apparent body" and "apparent mind", they share a strong sense of unity. This unity is thought to arise from the fact that both are created in the same psychological space through brain activity and are connected by "apparent acts".

(4) The role of memory connecting two worlds

　It is not only the “I” that is created in psychological space by brain activity. Everything seen before our eyes is copies of the material world and the physical body created by brain activity. The role of the copies is thought to be for the efficiency and simplification of information processing, as well as for the judgment, decision, and execution of acts. In fact, when we take acts in the “material world”, it is undoubtedly true that we are utilizing the information obtained from the “world before our eyes”, namely the “world of the mind”. Let's examine this point next.

An act of avoiding a puddle

　For example, if there is a puddle before your eyes, you would probably avoid it. Now, when asked, “Why can you avoid it?”, how would you respond? You would answer, “Isn't that obvious? If I see a puddle, it's because I don't want to get wet.”

However, there is a problem with this answer. The world that you see right before your eyes is, as we have discussed many times, the apparent material world created by brain activity, that is, the world of the mind. The question is how the apparent acts in the apparent world relate to the movements of the physical body existing in the material world. Behind this avoidance behavior, there is knowledge about the water due to the superimposition system, and it can be said that there is control of the body through the synchronization system to put that knowledge into the act. It is important to note the fact that these factors enable the behavior of avoiding puddles.

　I think that memory holds the key to enabling these systems. You might say, “Isn't that obvious? It's because we have knowledge (memory) about water and we have the desire not to get wet.” However, I would like you to note that the issue being discussed here is about the relationship between the psychological phenomenon of not wanting to get wet and the physical phenomenon of avoiding a puddle. In other words, I am speculating that memory is what bridges the gap between psychological phenomena and physical phenomena.

　I don't know how the apparent world is created in the psychological space by brain activity, but there is no doubt that there is a causal relationship. There is a question, "Are psychological phenomena merely shadows of brain activity?". But I do not think that the brain would intentionally produce something unnecessary. This issue is important because the fact that “existing in the world right before our eyes is simultaneously recognition” has significant meaning, and it seems that memory is involved behind that. It is believed that the system where recognition and memory are related are formed through various experiences during the growth process. Let's consider a somewhat simplified case like the following.

The formation of memory through trial and error observed in the behavior of babies

　As shown in Figure 8, let's consider the situation where a baby, who still cannot crawl well, is reaching out the baby’s hand to grab a teddy bear before the baby’s eyes. In this case, we assume that the baby is not very accustomed to the way of moving the hands.

　If the direction of the apparent hand is misaligned with the stuffed animal, the desire to somehow reach the stuffed animal arises, leading to the will to correct the direction of the apparent hand. In response, the physical hand moves, and this result manifests as the movement of the apparent hand before the baby’s eyes. At this time, the acts which are memorized based on the recognition that “By applying force in this way, the apparent hand moves and can approach the object,” become successful experiences. Through the accumulation of these experiences, the way of applying force becomes established in memory, forming the synchronization system. On the other hand, the superimposition system leads to the acquisition of the meaning that the apparent hand before the baby’s eyes is a physical hand, and that establishes itself in memory.

　For the baby, what is recognized is not the actual scenes of the material world or the movement of the physical hand, but rather the plush toy seen before the baby and the movements of the apparent hand related to those toys. Furthermore, this kind of behavior does not work well from the beginning. It seems that through so-called trial and error, the relationship between the movement of the apparent hand and that of the physical hand is established through memory, leading to smoother acts.

　When trying to move the apparent hand closer to the stuffed animal through trial and error, all those acts are also recognition. At one point, when the apparent hand accidentally moves closer to the stuffed animal, that is also recognition, and that act is etched into memory. It may not be a direct relationship, but it seems possible to consider that recognition is indirectly connected to the apparent acts. In other words, I think that the connection between apparent acts and physical actions arises from the accumulation of the results of trial and error in memory.

　There may be a mechanism of interaction that directly links the apparent acts and the movements of the physical body. However, at this point, I speculate that a relationship is formed between the two through the mechanism of memory. Memory, if not activated, is merely like a trace, but once activated, it has the property of leading to recognition.

　Such a phenomenon, namely the act of being able to approach an object by moving one's hand, is a completely natural occurrence from the standpoint of common knowledge that the world before our eyes is the material world, and there seems to be no room for questioning it. However, when we consider that the world before our eyes is an apparent material world created by brain activity, it becomes clear that it is not such a simple matter. Furthermore, it is evident how effective such a system is when we consider our daily lives.

　The apparent body that can be seen before our eyes is recognition itself, and moving in accordance with our own thoughts leads to the acquisition of the meaning of “my body”. On the other hand, under the intention to move the body, movements arise before our eyes, and along with the apparent acts, the meaning of the “actor” is created, which is thought to lead to the acquisition of the meaning of “my mind”.

In other words, From the equation �B, the composition of �A will be formed as common knowledge.

　The "I" = apparent body + apparent mind 　�B

　　“I” = my physical body + my mind (knowledge, emotion, will) �A

(5) Why was the “I” created?

　The answer to the question "Why was the ‘I’ created?" can be found within the discussion from items (1) to (4) of section (3-2) that we have talked about. Therefore, as we proceed with the consideration, the points discussed in section (3-2) will serve as the foundation. There will be some overlaps in the content, but please understand.

　In section (1), it was pointed out that what is created in the psychological space through brain activity is not just the “I”, but the entire world that unfolds before our eyes including the “I”. Therefore, in response to the question, “Why was the ‘I’ created?”, we must first answer the question, “Why was the world before our eyes created?”

　In response to this, in section (2), I concluded that it is effective for us living organisms to create the copy of the external world, including our own body, to streamline and enhance the efficiency of information processing. In fact, it has been constructed so skillfully that it is hard for us to believe it is a copy. It is the reason why the subtitle of this paper is “A hard trick set by the brain”. It is believed that both superimposition and synchronization systems function effectively in the background of such systems. Additionally, the fact that existing in the psychological space is simultaneously recognition contributes to the efficiency and simplification of information processing.

　Furthermore, in section (3), I examined the creation of the core of one’s mind, the “thought of the ‘I’”, and concluded that it is created from the “apparent acts” concerning the “apparent body” that unfolds in the psychological space. In fact, the “apparent acts' are not mere static phenomena, but dynamic phenomena that act based on one’s thoughts, from which the creation of high-level psychological activities, such as “will”, can be inferred.

　In section (4), I examined the mechanism that connects the two different worlds, that is, the world of the mind and the material world, and it was inferred that memory may play a role in this connection. In fact, memory itself is a part of the brain's organization and is generally a static existence. However, once activated, it can create non-material phenomena in the psychological space. I suppose memory may be one key to solve the “Mind-Body problem”.

Summary of this paper

　The conclusion of this paper is that the copy of the external world, including the “I”, has been created in the psychological space to utilize the nature of recognition, which is a characteristic of psychological space. In other words, under the definition that the world created by brain activity is the world of the mind, the “I” is inherent in one’s own world of the mind. To reiterate, we are not aware of this fact, and that is why it is named as the “hard trick”.

It can be inferred that the fact that the “I” was created in our own mind leads to the formation of higher psychological activities, intellect, emotional, and will.

The evolution of life of the physical aspect is well known, having been achieved over billions of years. Similarly, there should be evolution observed in the psychological aspect as well, which could be referred to as the evolution of the mind, though the actual nature of this remains unclear. I feel that a glimpse of the path of that evolution can be seen in the development process of infants.

Addendum

　The word "why" in the title of this paper, "Why was the ‘I’ created?" has two meanings. One is "How did the ‘I’ created?", and I have explained it in the text. The other point is "What role does the ‘I’ play?" I speculated that memory might be involved, but I understand well that this is insufficient. I believe that the answer to that question requires obtaining a response to the inquiry “What is recognition?” In fact, I have talked that existing in psychological space is simultaneously recognition, but this leaves us the question: “What is recognition?” What does the series of phenomena of knowing, understanding, and recognizing mean? It seems necessary to clarify this from a scientific perspective rather than a philosophical one.

Afterword

　I would be truly grateful if you had read through to the end. Perhaps, the majority opinion would be something like, “That is impossible.” In fact, I have also had it read by former colleagues, and most of them had similar impressions.

As for myself, I have not been concerned with the question of "What am I?" From the beginning, I did not think I could answer such a vague question. My initial interest was in understanding the role of the apparent material world before my eyes in information processing. However, this seems to have been fortunate. If I had tried to tackle the question of "What am I?" from the beginning, I would have likely ended up in a dead end. In fact, I think it is impossible to approach the question of "What am I?" from the outset. It is because there is an overwhelmingly reasonable, and therefore unassailable, strong common knowledge prepared. To break this through, I believe we must first clarify the essence of the world before our eyes and realize that interpreting the world before our eyes as the material world leads to contradictions.

　The development of artificial intelligence is truly remarkable. What I am most interested in regarding artificial intelligence is what changes will occur when machines possess their own body and recognize it. As I discussed in this paper, I believe that for us humans, the recognition of our own body plays a significant role in the creation of the “I”.

　The French philosopher Merleau-Ponty is said to discuss the importance of the existence of the body. I am not sure if my thoughts align with his, but as you can know from the discussions so far, I also pay attention to the significance of “apparent acts” that emerge in the “apparent body”. I am currently considering re-examining his theory on the body.。

　Various hypotheses have been proposed with the advancement of AI. However, what is more important than the hypothesis is to clarify what a common understanding is. With all due respect, I believe that the foundation of that common understanding is the recognition that the world unfolding before our eyes, including our own bodies, is an “apparent world” created by brain activity.

。

　Since I live in the suburbs, various creatures wander into my room. This morning, an insect about 2 millimeters long was crawling on the inside of the glass window, trying to get outside. Even though it's only 2 millimeters long, its body structure is quite intricate. It skillfully maneuvers its six legs to walk around without slipping on the smooth glass and is also able to fly in the air by using its wings.

The ability to control that activity should not be underestimated. It has a visual function that can detect the direction of light, sensory organs with perhaps molecular-level detection capability to sense food, and it also has reproductive functions for leaving descendants. Considering the excellent abilities of such organisms, I imagine that the cognitive abilities of us higher organisms are surely superior and beyond our understanding.

　I do not know what the future for this small neighbor is but wishing it can live its life to the fullest, I opened the window and let it go. This was on a morning in autumn of 2025.

Self-introduction

　Since the content of this paper may sound like a story that is far from common knowledge, you might think I am a dubious figure in pseudo-science, so I would like to briefly introduce myself. I, Shigeru Shiraishi, completed the doctoral program in psychology at Waseda University (Tokyo, Japan), and thereafter have served as a part-time lecturer in psychology at a university in Tokyo for many years. I fully understand that having received specialized education does not necessarily mean that the person's thoughts are scientific. Although it may sound presumptuous, I believe I have trained myself to develop logic based on the accumulation of objective facts. I would appreciate it if you could read this paper critically and send your thoughts or rebuttals via “4: Opinions and Questions”.

Address of the papers

English version:　Where is the mind? 　A hard trick set by the brain

URL:　 https://www.where-mind-e.com　　（110pages on A4 paper）

(Note: Although the paper is quite lengthy at 110 pages in PDF format, I tried to provide an easy-to-understand explanation while introducing interesting topics.)

日本語版：心はどこにあるのか？　脳によって仕掛けられた難解なトリック

URL:　 https://www.where-mind-j.com　　（110pages on A4 paper）

English version: What am I? 　A hard trick set by the brain

URL: 　 https://www.what-am-i-e.com　　（30pages on A4 paper）

(Note: This focuses on explaining Chapter 4, Section 3 of the paper 'Where is the Mind?'. It is about 30 pages in A4 size and can be read on the website as well as downloaded as a PDF file.)

日本語版：私とは何か？　脳によって仕掛けられた難解なトリック　（A4版30ページ）

URL: 　 https://www.what-am-i-j.com　

English version: What is “being visible”? 　A hard trick set by the brain

URL: 　 https://www.what-visible-e.com　

(Note: The starting point for hard trick solving is to understand “What is ‘being visible’?''. It is aimed at a concise explanation by focusing on this point.)

English version: What is being visible? 　A hard trick set by the brain

URL: 　 https://www.what-visible-j.com　　（10pages on A4 paper）