you are made of your experiences, so by implication "why" did you experience yesterday and the day before etc, the accumilation becomes you

>>220771834
That sounds flawed. There is something that contains all the experiences, and that something is the 'I'. The accumulation of experiences only explains behavior, not the foundation.

You are, because you are.
I am, because I am.

>>220771730
You aren't you though, you are (you)

>>220772085
(((you)))

>>220772027
no it does, because you don't actually have access to every thing you experienced, some are so ingrained you think it's nature

>>220772280
What about new born baby then?

>>220772691
there are psychology tests done very unethically with young toddlers, most human upbringing are basically factory-coded, mommy cooing, playing object permanence games, talking around baby, skinship, every culture following very close steps in babyhood, but in a stale enviroment the baby will be forever scarred to the point of being unable to function as adult, babies have innate blueprint but it still needs raw resources (experience) to build the individual

>>220771730
Because im not you