Identity

[l0rd]

Each and every one of us has a name. We even devised a legal system of labeling the biological product of our complex and individualized body of life, known as the self. Why do we feel the need to have an identity? The self is merely the final product of our functioning body acting upon everything which composes it: nerves, fat, organs, electricity, bone, etc. All of this has been systematically chiseled and refined by billions of years of evolution. The product of this lengthy timeline results in you feeling and perceiving as an individual.

 

 

 

Evolution is a process of growth and development, and that is exactly what we have done since our earliest microscopic ancestors. Through the years our evolutionary ancestors have developed everything that we now know to be an attribute of an animal. We, however, are an undeniable milestone (or speed-bump, but that's a different story), in that we have reached a point where transformation and manipulation of the world around us is a realistic option: we have a deep sense have self-awareness, we have the ability to communicate, build, and think in ever-growingly new and/or advanced ways.

 

 

 

The soul, often thought of as an esoteric force individualizing each and every one of us, is also thought of as fictional, with all feelings of identity as traceable cognitive phenomena. I for one, do not believe in the occult, but I do believe in my own interpretation of the "soul". In this interpretation I label "the soul" as simply what prevents me from experiencing the thoughts of my neighbor; it is what makes us, us, rather than some other human or living individual on the planet.

 

 

 

In reality, we as humans are just flukes brought upon by very specific biological circumstance, so the belief that humans have a soul, or one superior to those of small insects, would sound a bit ego-centric.

 

 

 

Is it not lucky that you were not born as a raccoon? Meaning that since your perceptional presence is only able to be in one being, it would be almost objectively better to have that presence in a creature with higher intellect, self-awareness, etc. (although if you were a raccoon, its not like you would be jealous of humans).

 

In the past, and even now, I say that our consciousness is merely a product of our physical bodies; however, the way I'm approaching the consciousness is a little more philosophical.

 

What is your thoughts on the matter? Why are you, you?

[mmmcannibalism]

I am me because if I was someone else I would be them; of course then the "them" would be me so I would still say I am me.

[Howlin0001]

I might be missing the point totally but

 

Is it not lucky that you were not born as a raccoon?

 

No because a sperm and an egg will make a human, not a raccoon. It's biology.

 

But I think I may be missing your point (if so sorry)

[l0rd]

I might be missing the point totally but

 

Is it not lucky that you were not born as a raccoon?

 

No because a sperm and an egg will make a human, not a raccoon. It's biology.

 

But I think I may be missing your point (if so sorry)

 

You are missing the point; obviously a human won't give birth to a raccoon.

 

My raccoon statement is just pointing out the luck involved in the process of incarnation, or rather, the odds.

[PoorLepRecon]

We are who we are due to the events that have occured up until this present point in our lives. With our biological factors that we inherit from our parents, we are shaped by events early in life. If those events differed, then we would be someone else. We are our unique selves by chance and every person shows how a unique set of circumstances can come together to create who they are.

[l0rd]

We are who we are due to the events that have occured up until this present point in our lives. With our biological factors that we inherit from our parents, we are shaped by events early in life. If those events differed, then we would be someone else. We are our unique selves by chance and every person shows how a unique set of circumstances can come together to create who they are.

 

Is everyone "tl;dr'ing" and only reading the last couple sentences?

 

This thread isn't about personalities at all.

 

 

 

 

 

i'd say i pretty much agree with this, its important not over look our genetic factors, but the events in our lives, and how we deal with them is the greater factor

 

:wall: :wall:

 

I'm starting to think I was being too ambiguous.

[Stilev]

We are who we are due to the events that have occured up until this present point in our lives. With our biological factors that we inherit from our parents, we are shaped by events early in life. If those events differed, then we would be someone else. We are our unique selves by chance and every person shows how a unique set of circumstances can come together to create who they are.

 

 

 

i'd say i pretty much agree with this, its important not over look our genetic factors, but the events in our lives, and how we deal with them is the greater factor

[mmmcannibalism]

We are who we are due to the events that have occured up until this present point in our lives. With our biological factors that we inherit from our parents, we are shaped by events early in life. If those events differed, then we would be someone else. We are our unique selves by chance and every person shows how a unique set of circumstances can come together to create who they are.

 

Is everyone "tl;dr'ing" and only reading the last couple sentences?

 

This thread isn't about personalities at all.

 

 

 

Conciousness and personality are very similair in this instance. You can't be a raccoon because a raccoon can't consider why it is a raccoon in stead of a human. The mental structures that have evolved over time give humans the ability to wonder why they are human.

[Zierro]

You are missing the point; obviously a human won't give birth to a raccoon.

 

My raccoon statement is just pointing out the luck involved in the process of incarnation, or rather, the odds.

 

 

 

I used to think that way too, but it's like saying you had a chance to be a rock. Instead of being constructed from organic material, you had a chance to be composed of granite and not have a life at all. That being said, I am grateful that I am a human and not a raccoon or a rock.

 

 

 

I believe there's a purpose to being human.

[l0rd]

You are missing the point; obviously a human won't give birth to a raccoon.

 

My raccoon statement is just pointing out the luck involved in the process of incarnation, or rather, the odds.

 

 

 

I used to think that way too, but it's like saying you had a chance to be a rock. Instead of being constructed from organic material, you had a chance to be composed of granite and not have a life at all. That being said, I am grateful that I am a human and not a raccoon or a rock.

 

 

 

I believe there's a purpose to being human.

 

Well, a rock does not have the ability to perceive, so an existence as a rock would not be "anyone", and existing as one would be nothingness.

[Zierro]

That's the point. If you had a "chance" to be something lesser than a human then where does that line stop? According to evolution, we came from inorganic material.

[l0rd]

That's the point. If you had a "chance" to be something lesser than a human then where does that line stop? According to evolution, we came from inorganic material.

 

A creature with the ability to perceive has been the product of inorganic material, yes. But, that doesn't mean that inorganic material can perceive. The odds of being incarnated into a rock are zero.

[Stilev]

That's the point. If you had a "chance" to be something lesser than a human then where does that line stop? According to evolution, we came from inorganic material.

 

A creature with the ability to perceive has been the product of inorganic material, yes. But, that doesn't mean that inorganic material can perceive. The odds of being incarnated into a rock are zero.

 

well if you completely believe in evolution, why do you believe in incarnation lol

[l0rd]

That's the point. If you had a "chance" to be something lesser than a human then where does that line stop? According to evolution, we came from inorganic material.

 

A creature with the ability to perceive has been the product of inorganic material, yes. But, that doesn't mean that inorganic material can perceive. The odds of being incarnated into a rock are zero.

 

well if you completely believe in evolution, why do you believe in incarnation lol

 

You are confusing incarnation with re-incarnation. My interpretation of the word entails nothing supernatural; it is merely the act of a creature gaining the ability to perceive.

[Zierro]

A creature with the ability to perceive has been the product of inorganic material, yes. But, that doesn't mean that inorganic material can perceive. The odds of being incarnated into a rock are zero.

 

 

 

Well, yeah because by the definition of incarnated it means to be embodied in flesh. However, my point is that we're all made out of matter. There is just as much of a "chance" of being composed out of something organic as there is to be composed out of something inorganic. I think probabilities are pretty irrelevant when it comes to this though.

[l0rd]

A creature with the ability to perceive has been the product of inorganic material, yes. But, that doesn't mean that inorganic material can perceive. The odds of being incarnated into a rock are zero.

 

 

 

Well, yeah because by the definition of incarnated it means to be embodied in flesh. However, my point is that we're all made out of matter. There is just as much of a "chance" of being composed out of something organic as there is to be composed out of something inorganic. I think probabilities are pretty irrelevant when it comes to this though.

 

No, we can't "be" something inorganic. We can only "be" something if we are something that is capable of "being", thus the word being. A rock simply exists, a consciousness is part of a being.

[Zierro]

Like I said, that's my point. Why do you think I brought the rock example up in the first place? "We" wouldn't be that rock, but it would still exist in place of our human existence - just like with the raccoon. So how can you say "we" would be that raccoon, when the only "we" that is possible is our human form?

 

 

 

It's a paradox. You're saying "we" can be something else, when in reality we can't be anything else besides ourselves.

[Lateralus]

"Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short it is a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a self."

 

 

 

One of the denses pieces of writing I've ever come across. From Kierkegaard's "The Sickness Unto Death". His philosophy is too Christian for me, but I like this passage a lot.

 

 

 

Conciousness is just a biological function, I think. The self is the conciousness experiencing itself, the "you" is how much will you have perform any given action and so make choices. You're a set of experiences experiencing itself.

[l0rd]

Like I said, that's my point. Why do you think I brought the rock example up in the first place? "We" wouldn't be that rock, but it would still exist in place of our human existence - just like with the raccoon. So how can you say "we" would be that raccoon, when the only "we" that is possible is our human form?

 

 

 

It's a paradox.

 

We is not only possible in human form, anything perceives has the ability of "being". Just because both a rock and a mouse are made of atoms, doesn't mean the product of those two things are both have the ability to perceive. A perception is an individualized phenomenon only experienced by the being perceiving it. Without perception, we cannot "be" something, and using the word "we" isn't fitting either.

[Zierro]

We is not only possible in human form, anything perceives has the ability of "being". Just because both a rock and a mouse are made of atoms, doesn't mean the product of those two things are both have the ability to perceive. A perception is an individualized phenomenon only experienced by the being perceiving it. Without perception, we cannot "be" something, and using the word "we" isn't fitting either.

 

 

 

Perception =/= Existence

 

 

 

A rock exists whether it perceives or not.

[l0rd]

We is not only possible in human form, anything perceives has the ability of "being". Just because both a rock and a mouse are made of atoms, doesn't mean the product of those two things are both have the ability to perceive. A perception is an individualized phenomenon only experienced by the being perceiving it. Without perception, we cannot "be" something, and using the word "we" isn't fitting either.

 

 

 

Perception =/= Existence

 

 

 

A rock exists whether it perceives or not.

 

 

 

Of course it exists, I'm not saying it doesn't (Lol, "I don't believe in rocks").

 

But it is not in the realm of incarnation, as it does not perceive.

[Zierro]

I think we are talking about two separate things since neither of us seem to be budging.

 

 

 

What I'm arguing is that there is no probability involved when it comes to existence. You never had the chance of being a rock or being a different animal or person. Of course that's not to say there wasn't a chance of you not existing (your parents not conceiving you) but existing as a different thing is another ballpark. If your current organic composition was replaced with a whole new organic or inorganic composition, then that wouldn't be you - it would be something else. If you died and fertilized the grass and made it grow, that doesn't mean you are now the grass. You are you, and that's all there is to it.

 

 

 

I thought this concept was the whole point of your first post: We even devised a legal system of labeling the biological product of our complex and individualized body of life, known as the self.

 

 

 

If you were a whole new different biological product, wouldn't that make you a different "self"? I think it's a paradox - an extreme version of the Theseus Paradox.

[justcallmedaddy]

I yam what I yam

[warri0r45]

 

Conciousness is just a biological function, I think.

 

 

 

Indeed. This can be demonstrated when a brain injury significantly changes someone's personality or ability to perceive the world. There's a famous case of a man who had some kind of [bleep]e impaled through his head when working on a railway yard (if someone knows the name, please tell me). He survived, but his personality changed from being mild mannered to very crude. Other examples could include brain injuries which cause someone to go into a vegetative state; the person still exists physically, but their consciousness is compromised. In essence, it's almost as if their personhood is compromised - it's interesting ethical territory, that's for sure.

[l0rd]

 

Ah, okay. But what I'm getting at is that your "self" happens to exist within a human body. While of course their is no big hat that is chosen from determining our incarnation, I still do believe odds are relevant. The fact of that matter is that all beings with perception have a sense of self and individualization to them, whether they are aware of it or not.

 

I am merely remarking at the reality we live in, not challenging science. I look at my dogs, and it just boggles me that I do not exist as something of less intellect. But then you will say "you" can't be something else, because you are you; to which I will say, "yes, but why am I not you, or that mosquito I just killed."

 

Obviously there is a factual answer to "why I am me" but there is no factual answer to why I am not you, in the more interpretive sense.