Your identity

[Pushkatu]

This is the most interesting article I red in a long time. I will tell you something else now. When I was 10-12 years old someone told me that when I grow up I'm going to change, like completly. The person that told me that was trying to make me understand that it has no point what I am doing and that I should stop doing it, at least thats how I remember it. So he was trying to convince me that when I grow I will no longer like to do that. At that point I was devastated inside as I imagined that ME as I was back then it's going to disspear after I grow old. Now 8-10 years later, when I look back and see that little me with the sad face I had back then and when I try to remember those feelings it does feel like I was someone else then, but he did not dissapear, he just evolved like everything else, becoming me as I am today and evolving to what I'll be tomorrow and the day after that.

 

This is the way I understand this text.

[Sharkull]

Philosophical answer:

There is a fundamental difference between a human and a boat here, and it has been hinted at by a number of posters: Perception... consciousness. I have these things. A boat doesn't.

 

The question then becomes: what is the nature of consciousness, the entity that perceives? Is there a "supernatural" component, or is this entity completely natural (existing in or in conformity with the observable world)? The answer to the question is beyond human capabilities to reliably answer. The natural world (especially when considering the nature of life) is immensely intricate such that it is far from completely understood. No matter how much our knowledge progresses we will be unable to determine if there are knowable aspects of the natural world yet to be discovered. With this perpetual uncertainty a final determination pertaining to the potential existence of the supernatural is impossible.

 

The replacement of every molecule of the human body is not an assurance that all natural components of the human body have been replaced. It is possible that there are (theoretically) fifth dimensional components that are completely natural, but beyond current human understanding. The "supernatural" is also possible. We don't know.

 

Note: for the purposes of this response, consider "supernatural" as being in line with conventional meaning. I've omitted any thoughts I have to the contrary because they would be extraneous.

 

---

 

Practical answer:

Identity is a product of nature (physical, chemical, biological) and nurture (experience). I am a combination of my physical body, my rational thinking mind, my subconscious, and my emotions. In my day-to-day life I don't care about the philosophical building blocks of existence / consciousness... I am what I am.

[Birrii]

Technically:

You are the one and the same person. You will always have the same parent (biological parents) and you will always have the same DNA. Just take a look at your fingerprints. They are the same, even when you're 50 years old.

 

 

More emotional or philosophical or something:

It's all about the soul.

The soul counts.

Of course, the soul can get some rips on it or grow flowers, but it will always be the one soul. And every soul in unique.

[Germandeathkittiez]

Is this so? What is mental understanding really if it can be destroyed through physical injury? That proves our thoughts die with us, so are thoughts even real? Maybe our true reality is simply beyond understanding - we have to stop thinking to understand it; we have to feel it with our emotions and in our soul, but is our soul powered by an external reality or our brains?

[Vagrant0]

I don't believe the boat analogy really works past the conceptual. The boat is only identified based on what others call it, and has entirely no say in the matter. In contrast, although a person is also only identified based on what others call them, that person also normally gets to have a vote in the process. Even in the case of Soap Opera style amnesia, then the person often still has a role in defining themselves simply because they are included in the process of discovering that person (even if it is not who they were before). In a way, who we are is really just a constant argument between our own ego and the rest of the world.

 

Why is it that somethings identity should have anything to do with what another calls it? Didn't some thing that we now call oxygen exist even before things of its kind were discovered and then named? Didn't it have an identity then?

 

If we have a role in determining our own identity, would you agree that our identity can change based on how we choose to change it?

Even before we had a chemical definition, or even a word for it, we acknowledged that it was there and noticed when it was absent. Air has also certainly changed over time, yet we still call it air. The same is true for an identity. Although we may not give a person a formal name, we still do acknowledge it as a person (even if we don't admit it), and as either an individual, or part of an aggregate. Regardless, both establish some sort of identity for that person within the minds of those who are aware. Although our own definition of ourselves is certainly important, and we certainly can change over time, it is the definition others place upon us which often defines who we are.

 

Afterall, it was your parents who named you when you were born, your family which determines your heritage and culture, your physical appearance which determines how others respond to you, and who will be friendly or hostile (initially). Your plumbing which determines your sex, your identification with others, in relation to yourself that determines your gender. Going back to your boat example, the boat only has a name because someone has chosen to call it that name in order to be counted separately from other boats, as far as the boat is concerned, it simply is, and has no opinion on the validity of that name.

 

 

As long as there is some agreement on certain fundamental aspects between the two, there is an acknowledged identity. Other than that, everything else is pretty much transitory.

 

What agreement(s) are necessary for there to be an acknowledgment of identity?

Maybe you misunderstand. The agreement is not on the identity, but instead aspects of that identity. A better way to explain it would be by use of assumptions. Take this forum for instance. It is assumed that the people writing posts are infact living humans, who have their own thoughts, and emotions. Where there is an agreement between the poster and the reader on the poster being a living human, it infers an identity that the poster is a living human and should be treated accordingly. If the reader instead assumes that the poster is infact an automated script which is outputting text, and acts based on this assumption, there will likely be a conflict and subsequent correction made by one or both parties as to the identity of the poster.

 

You do this sort of thing subconsciously when dealing with telemarketers. If you identify the voice on the other end as belonging to a person, you often wait until they've stopped speaking before telling them "I'm not interested". If you identify the voice on the other end as belonging to a machine, you often just hang up the phone.

 

It's not the whole Identity, but rather "certain fundamental aspects" related to that identity that are agreed upon.

 

All I know is that I am now, and have always been myself, and as far as I know, I've always been living the same person's life and have not yet woken up with someone else's.

 

But you know that you have changed in many ways. Your body has changed, added and lost material that makes it up. Psychologically you have changed in many ways also. You have gained and lost memmories. How do you remain the same person from day to day, seeing as how from day to day you become something that you were not the day before?

 

Yes, certainly change happens, but it is not always acknowledged, nor is it always indicative of a change in your identity. People who knew you as a child will often have trouble acknowledging you as an adult, people who know you as an adult may picture you, as you are now, but performing the same things you did as a child unless they have some existing reference to pull from for negotiating between the conflicting images. Likewise, a person who has eaten nothing other than McDonnalds for the past 6 months is not identified as being the sum of their parts, mashed together, but instead is identified much the same as they might have been 6 months prior.

 

I could try to redefine that life as I see fit, but history, society, and practicality are not always as willing. Even if I were to become someone else, I would likely still remain myself simply for the sake of continuity. It is, afterall, rather hard to exist without some origin. Or atleast, that is the best explanation I can come up with as to why I remain myself.

 

Remaining yourself for the sake of continuity seems more like a matter of semantics than what is actually true. If you are something other than what you were before then that is the case regardless of how you or someone else chooses to interpret it.

If I were not myself, who else might I be? And who would be stuck with being who I was once I no longer am? To become someone else, someone else would have to become me, at which point it really can't be said that any exchange really took place. Afterall, if memories, and experiences, or a lack of, also make up who we are; as far as I would know, I would have always been that person, and as far as they would know, they would have always been me. Or atleast until there was a third party around to provide evidence to the contrary. Everything has to have some origin, even if it is just a footnote to an entirely different existence, it's kinda one of those unbreakable laws of physics.

[humanbean234]

A view on the question, as it pertains to the physical: http://www.xkcd.com/659/ (Not a rickroll, honest.)

[myrmaad]

Consider the case of Phineas Gage, who was the world's first traumatic brain injury survivor of record. Edited December 10, 2009 by myrmaad

[Pushkatu]

Consider the case of Phineas Gage, who was the world's first traumatic brain injury survivor of record.

 

That's an incredible story and a painfull one to. No wonder he has changed after that...

[hoshi23]

aslong as you think you are the doer there will be suffering involved

 

 

 

silence is golden