Say "I exist." That "I" is the Self, the consciousness, the soul. As far as anyone reading this will ever be able to tell, this Self has several crucial characteristics.
The Self is axiomatic (self-evident or unquestionable). It is impossible to argue "I do not exist" even as an exercise, for who would be doing the thinking? There is nothing you are more directly aware of than your own mind, nothing you can be absolutely certain exists except your own consciousness, for to be aware at all requires awareness. All knowledge of any kind depends on your conscious existence and being able to process that information in some way. The Self, the mind, consciousness is axiomatic. "I do not exist" cannot ever be true, argued properly, or even conceived.
The Self is necessary. People often ask, "can you show consciousness without a brain?" The question is backwards, putting the cart before the horse, hoping to show consciousness is dependent on the brain. Only a consciousness/Self can recognize a brain, and without one's own consciousness/Self there could be no awareness of brains. If two brains were set in a locked room, they could not be aware of each other unless they were conscious, so it makes no sense to try and see "consciousness without a brain." The better question is how we can know of and about brains (or anything at all) without consciousness (we cannot). The Self is necessary to know or be aware of things, and we are axiomatically aware ("I exist"). The Self is necessary.Â
The Self is irreducible. You are absolutely, unquestionably certain of your own consciousness. The very existence of matter itself can be questioned and doubted as proven by Philosophical Skepticism,[1] brain in a vat,[2] or simulation theories.[3]Â It is unreasonable to reduce the certain to the doubtable, the known to the inferred, the thing we require to know matter at all to matter itself. But the same is equally true of trying to reduce the Self to a god or "All." The gods can be doubted, religious dogma must be interpreted by a conscious Self. The Self is irreducible and the center of all things.
The Self is immaterial. Material things (like trees) can be seen, touched, tasted, heard, and smelt. They are accessible to others. Their contents are objective. They are not "about" anything. They are deterministic.Â
The Conscious Self (consciousness) cannot be seen, touched, tasted, heard, or smelt. It is not accessible to others. Its contents are subjective. Thoughts are about something. Consciousness is autonomous (empirically supported by self-regulation, placebos without deception, cognitive therapy, etc.). The Self is immaterial.
The Self has no conceivable end. You can imagine the greatest splendors or most shocking horrors. You can empathize with illness, picture yourself in war, project yourself into the shoes of a horror character. You can fantasize about your most ultimate beauty, imagine a pristine afterlife even if you don't believe in one, and if not consciously then you can in dreams. Yet you cannot imagine the Self not existing, you cannot actually empathize with such a concept when you are the one doing the empathizing, you cannot have a dream with no dreamer. The Self cannot conceivably end.
Â
To summarize, the Self is the "I" in "I exist," and so far as we can ever tell it is axiomatic, necessary, irreducible, immaterial, and has no conceivable end. In other words, so far as you can ever tell you are, yourself, a god. For is an axiomatic, necessary, immaterial, irreducible, eternal being not a deity? This is so true that even all other deities are only known through the Self and consciousness. The idea of "you reduce to matter," or "your soul belongs to god," or anything of the sort takes far more leaps in logic, and far more faith, than simply recognizing that for all you will ever be able to prove gods certainly exist, because you are one. Our culture definitely does not share this view, as we have been discussing with the S/AT and WRHP. Â
[1]Â Which questions if we can trust our senses or the information they give us.
[2]Â Which says we may be nothing more than a brain hooked up to a supercomputer which is fabricating our reality through stimuli.
[3]Â Which compare our existence to that of characters in a video game who are unable to tell the game is not real life.