Who's there, and are you aware?

The assumptions behind one of philosophy's oldest questions, "Who am I?" Are that are that one asks oneself and that the easy answers that first spring to mind are wrong. To doubt the first presupposition seems linguistically senseless, and if the simple answers suffice, the question would have been tossed into the dustbin with yesteday's papers ages ago. None-the-less, it must be pointed out that the subjectivity implicit in the I/not-I duality need not be bought into while those simple answers may be taken as crude brush strokes outlining a portrait requiring more detail rather than the red herrings usually wrapped in those old papers. To take this perspective is to say that there can be no evidence for your mind any more than an ultimate demonstration of free will or proof of life after death. These terms contain within themselves their own oxymora. For if will were free, then it would contain an element of randomness that kept it from being applied effectively whereas to speak of "after" death is to negate death's finality.