Identity

[mmmcannibalism]

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.

 

 

 

You are you because you wouldn't be you if you were me.

 

 

 

"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."

 

 

 

Do I get points for understanding that?

[l0rd]

 

You are you because you wouldn't be you if you were me.

 

That doesn't answer my question, and I'm not expecting an answer. Of course I'm me because I'm me, that's like saying that God exists because he does.

[i_love_burritos]

 

You are you because you wouldn't be you if you were me.

 

That doesn't answer my question, and I'm not expecting an answer. Of course I'm me because I'm me, that's like saying that God exists because he does.

 

 

 

I think what most people are not getting is, what you are asking.

 

 

 

Correct if Iam wrong, but what you seem to be wanting to discuss is --

 

 

 

What makes my feelings or sentiments different from those around me and why ? Why do I have different thoughts and emotions, even though I may be biologically similar or perhaps hypothetically "in their body".

 

 

 

In my opinion, conciousness and the ability to percieve are not out of this world, they mandatory functions. What makes people different, [this is what I think you are asking] or have differing reactions to different situations is simply because we are the sum of our experiences.

 

 

 

To ask why am I not you, can be interpreted in different ways.

 

 

 

Why am I not you as a person ? With a personality, a mindset, a number of values or beliefs or it can seen in the literal, as in why are you 10 inches when I'm only 8 ?

 

 

 

Again, this is purely biological, and to answer why people are different is asking the reason why we breathe. [Again, if you ask me to go into it -- I will. But it's one of my long winded, biology analogy lecture things]

[l0rd]

 

You are you because you wouldn't be you if you were me.

 

That doesn't answer my question, and I'm not expecting an answer. Of course I'm me because I'm me, that's like saying that God exists because he does.

 

 

 

I think what most people are not getting is, what you are asking.

 

 

 

Correct if Iam wrong, but what you seem to be wanting to discuss is --

 

 

 

What makes my feelings or sentiments different from those around me and why ? Why do I have different thoughts and emotions, even though I may be biologically similar or perhaps hypothetically "in their body".

 

 

 

In my opinion, conciousness and the ability to percieve are not out of this world, they mandatory functions. What makes people different, [this is what I think you are asking] or have differing reactions to different situations is simply because we are the sum of our experiences.

 

 

 

To ask why am I not you, can be interpreted in different ways.

 

 

 

Why am I not you as a person ? With a personality, a mindset, a number of values or beliefs or it can seen in the literal, as in why are you 10 inches when I'm only 8 ?

 

 

 

Again, this is purely biological, and to answer why people are different is asking the reason why we breathe. [Again, if you ask me to go into it -- I will. But it's one of my long winded, biology analogy lecture things]

 

 

 

I give up, my thoughts on the matter are too abstract to write down any further; everything that I can has already been written, and I don't want to be redundant. I did enjoy writing the ideas I could put words behind though.

[Knotch_Blade]

I'm not me, I'm you.

[i_love_burritos]

 

You are you because you wouldn't be you if you were me.

 

That doesn't answer my question, and I'm not expecting an answer. Of course I'm me because I'm me, that's like saying that God exists because he does.

 

 

 

I think what most people are not getting is, what you are asking.

 

 

 

Correct if Iam wrong, but what you seem to be wanting to discuss is --

 

 

 

What makes my feelings or sentiments different from those around me and why ? Why do I have different thoughts and emotions, even though I may be biologically similar or perhaps hypothetically "in their body".

 

 

 

In my opinion, conciousness and the ability to percieve are not out of this world, they mandatory functions. What makes people different, [this is what I think you are asking] or have differing reactions to different situations is simply because we are the sum of our experiences.

 

 

 

To ask why am I not you, can be interpreted in different ways.

 

 

 

Why am I not you as a person ? With a personality, a mindset, a number of values or beliefs or it can seen in the literal, as in why are you 10 inches when I'm only 8 ?

 

 

 

Again, this is purely biological, and to answer why people are different is asking the reason why we breathe. [Again, if you ask me to go into it -- I will. But it's one of my long winded, biology analogy lecture things]

 

 

 

I give up, my thoughts on the matter are too abstract to write down any further; everything that I can has already been written, and I don't want to be redundant. I did enjoy writing the ideas I could put words behind though.

 

 

 

You want to try and explain !? You are asking about the self-concious ? Or the will ? Or the mind ?

 

 

 

You didn't make it too clear, what you were wanting to discuss.

[l0rd]

I realize the biological product of a body results in perception, but I'm trying to discuss why we exist an this individual, as opposed to another.

 

I know the simple answer is that there is no secret thing possessing a personality, everything about us is simply produced by the body we have, but how and why are we the ones who we are.

 

I think we take it for granted that we are a human rather than an ape, or a raccoon. I know it is not very realistic to say that "we" would exist as something else, because "we" is defined by the very thing that makes us up, ourselves. But I'm saying it is lucky that we don't exist as raccoons.

[Knotch_Blade]

I used to think, that if I tried hard enough, I could read someone's mind...

 

 

 

I actually had an intelligent way of thinking of it...

 

 

 

All our thoughts etc are controlled on one plane. If someone gained the ability to access said plane consciously; then they could also access other people's thoughts.

 

 

 

This isn't really about identity though, this is about life. 200 years from now, will anyone remember you? Will you exist? Or will you end up looking at the gravestone that marks the former you.

 

 

 

It's why my parents think I'm depressed because I sit and think for hours about things like this, hoping to gain access to an upper level, and the ability to answer all these philosophical questions.

[Zierro]

This isn't really about identity though, this is about life. 200 years from now, will anyone remember you? Will you exist?

 

 

 

As unfortunate as it might sound, it's very improbable that your name will be remembered but I don't think it matters anyways. As long as you have affected the world you leave behind in a better way, all is good. Reminds me of the butterfly effect. One small and trivial action can have an extraordinary effect, so we should really just live our lives normally for enjoyment instead of worrying about establishing a reputation that isn't going to last because credit doesn't matter to somebody that's dead anyway. So the most you can do is start a ripple of positivity.

 

 

 

But I'm saying it is lucky that we don't exist as raccoons.

 

 

 

I just don't see how probability comes into play. I am grateful that I'm a human - I agree completely, but it's not like there was a chance of not being one and being something else instead. That implies that if something went differently on this planet, your "self" could indeed be a raccoon. How is that possible though, unless you were talking about what we're physically composed of which is why I brought up the example of rocks.

 

 

 

Sorry if I'm dragging this on for more than what it's worth. It's just something I find interesting.

[i_love_burritos]

I realize the biological product of a body results in perception, but I'm trying to discuss why we exist an this individual, as opposed to another.

 

I know the simple answer is that there is no secret thing possessing a personality, everything about us is simply produced by the body we have, but how and why are we the ones who we are.

 

I think we take it for granted that we are a human rather than an ape, or a raccoon. I know it is not very realistic to say that "we" would exist as something else, because "we" is defined by the very thing that makes us up, ourselves. But I'm saying it is lucky that we don't exist as raccoons.

 

 

 

First off.

 

 

 

By saying that we are lucky not to be born as raccoons or other such animals which in the first place :

 

 

 

Is impossible : you are human because your parents are human. Why they are human because, their parents are human. Why they decided to copulate and produce, you -- don't ask me.

 

 

 

But, possible if you are taking the view that you are insinuating possibly intentionally,

 

 

 

It seems to me that the only logical way to work through your "dillema" is to first assume that you assume that we as "humans" are only lucky to be here as "humans".

 

 

 

What we all posses to become, so luckily "human" is that fact that we have a -- some kind of soul, or out-of-body "life" that would enable to switch between different bodies such as between humans and raccoons.

 

 

 

Your point is moot in the first place as if we were to assume this were true, and I'm not saying it isn't, simply for the fact that none of us know. It means that for me to be a raccoon I must first posses :

 

 

 

i) The ability to be both a raccoon and a human

 

 

 

Then this again, as I mentioned, implies some degree of alternation or a cyclical pattern.

 

 

 

Lets just call this for easiness of it, this mysterious "force" that allows "us" to be "us" -- X

 

 

 

I can't answer your question. It is impossible.

 

 

 

You have to realize that our perception as individuals is something that is immeasurable. Everyone can see, feel, touch, taste and smell. But what you are asking is beyond physical, beyond description. You are asking for the reason for individual feelings or this sense of self. Ego, would you like to call it ? Is it within ourselves or does it change ? You said we were lucky not to be born as raccoons.

 

 

 

Tell me why. I think that way you will answer your own question. Because as it is currently, it's very - esoteric.

 

 

 

Type more : Just realized Zierro wrote something.

 

 

 

I am grateful that I'm a human - I agree completely, but it's not like there was a chance of not being one and being something else instead

 

 

 

Several sides to this.

 

 

 

Why are you giving thanks for being human, when you know it is the only possibilty. Perhaps you should be giving thanks for being alive, but that too was beyond your control.

 

 

 

What is the chances that you were not made -- then this gets hairy. You are speculating, and bordering on the fringes of mysticality and superstition, forture-telling and other crap. You can't say what has been or what will be. You cannot change it. You cannot simply change your decision halfway down your mother's uterus. You are human, it is not your fault, nor is it your responsibilty to be here. You for all I know, can commit suicide the very next day and go on -- none of us would know, and soon you will be forgotten. What I'm saying is, it's useless to comment on these matters because you cannot be certain about anything.

[Zierro]

Why are you giving thanks for being human, when you know it is the only possibilty. Perhaps you should be giving thanks for being alive, but that too was beyond your control.

 

 

 

Everything is pretty much beyond your control. Technically, we're all puppets to our environment and brain chemicals so *we* aren't responsible for anything we do. But then again, those other things aren't responsible either because something caused them to be that way. So where is the line drawn? Conveniently, we draw it at ourselves to give us a feeling of importance and happiness. I think it's just a delusion we use to make ourselves feel good. Life is only pointless to those who think it is.

 

 

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm happy to be me, and even if I was something else (which is impossible, but this is only rhetorical to make a point so let's not get into that again) then I would be happy to be them. So it's not like it really has any valid bearing, it's just something I use to be happy much like how people are proud of accomplishing something even though it wasn't *them* - it was their environment and brain chemicals. It's better than saying, "I wish I was a raccoon. It sucks being me." I choose to be more optimistic than that. And if someone wants to bring up Carl Sagan's quote then I'm going to be preemptive and say that is the stupidest thing I ever heard (bringing it up - not the actual quote itself).

[MC_Kejml]

Hehe. The thread reminded me of "My name is Legion, for we are many..."

 

 

 

Jeez, I'm pretty satisfied with my own identity and that I'm not one of the people in crowd.

[l0rd]

 

 

 

 

You're looking at my point of view as one that denies science as truth, it is not. I pretty much already addressed your counterarguments previously, but the gist of what I'm saying is that I am happy to be myself, despite the fact that I can only exist as myself. So I am glad that the "I" I'm talking about is not instead a raccoon.

[Zierro]

Then we agree. I enjoy being a human because I like being able to think about pointless philosophical concepts such as this one. :) I was mainly just arguing about the odds.

[Will H]

To me, the idea of incarnation as other being makes no sense. I am the sum of my experiences and abilities and ideas, even the strange innate ones. How then could I exist as another being, raccoon or otherwise, one who has not experienced the same things, does not have the same abilities, the same ideas? If I did, I would have to be considered as another being, since there would be nothing in common with Human-Will and Raccoon-Will. The separation of two individual selves is logically implied.

 

 

 

You can use terms like the soul if you want, but be very wary about it. It's more of a state than a thing, and defining it doesn't really work very well, it's a limit of our language.

[i_love_burritos]

Why are you giving thanks for being human, when you know it is the only possibilty. Perhaps you should be giving thanks for being alive, but that too was beyond your control.

 

 

 

Everything is pretty much beyond your control. Technically, we're all puppets to our environment and brain chemicals so *we* aren't responsible for anything we do. But then again, those other things aren't responsible either because something caused them to be that way. So where is the line drawn? Conveniently, we draw it at ourselves to give us a feeling of importance and happiness. I think it's just a delusion we use to make ourselves feel good. Life is only pointless to those who think it is.

 

 

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm happy to be me, and even if I was something else (which is impossible, but this is only rhetorical to make a point so let's not get into that again) then I would be happy to be them. So it's not like it really has any valid bearing, it's just something I use to be happy much like how people are proud of accomplishing something even though it wasn't *them* - it was their environment and brain chemicals. It's better than saying, "I wish I was a raccoon. It sucks being me." I choose to be more optimistic than that. And if someone wants to bring up Carl Sagan's quote then I'm going to be preemptive and say that is the stupidest thing I ever heard (bringing it up - not the actual quote itself).

 

 

 

That makes sense, but which Carl Sagan quote are you thinking about ?

 

 

 

You're looking at my point of view as one that denies science as truth, it is not. I pretty much already addressed your counterarguments previously, but the gist of what I'm saying is that I am happy to be myself, despite the fact that I can only exist as myself. So I am glad that the "I" I'm talking about is not instead a raccoon.

 

 

 

I'm still a little confused. :|

[Shinjula]

Dunno if this has been brought up as a perspective, but I'm buddhistic in nature, my answer to the question of self, is that I dont have one, its just an illusion. Any thoughts or questions?

[mmmcannibalism]

Dunno if this has been brought up as a perspective, but I'm buddhistic in nature, my answer to the question of self, is that I dont have one, its just an illusion. Any thoughts or questions?

 

 

 

That ironically enough if god doesn't exist you are entirely correct.

[warri0r45]

Dunno if this has been brought up as a perspective, but I'm buddhistic in nature, my answer to the question of self, is that I dont have one, its just an illusion. Any thoughts or questions?

 

 

 

That ironically enough if god doesn't exist you are entirely correct.

 

 

 

How so? The same question applies to shinjula.

 

 

 

I'm sure you can perceive a "self" if there's no god. It's not like you stop existing when god does.

[mmmcannibalism]

Dunno if this has been brought up as a perspective, but I'm buddhistic in nature, my answer to the question of self, is that I dont have one, its just an illusion. Any thoughts or questions?

 

 

 

That ironically enough if god doesn't exist you are entirely correct.

 

 

 

How so? The same question applies to shinjula.

 

 

 

I'm sure you can perceive a "self" if there's no god. It's not like you stop existing when god does.

 

 

 

I was thinking on the lines of atheistic fatalism; if there is no god then logically everything is predetermined series of events over which we have no control.

 

 

 

...man is that morbid.

[warri0r45]

Dunno if this has been brought up as a perspective, but I'm buddhistic in nature, my answer to the question of self, is that I dont have one, its just an illusion. Any thoughts or questions?

 

 

 

That ironically enough if god doesn't exist you are entirely correct.

 

 

 

How so? The same question applies to shinjula.

 

 

 

I'm sure you can perceive a "self" if there's no god. It's not like you stop existing when god does.

 

 

 

I was thinking on the lines of atheistic fatalism; if there is no god then logically everything is predetermined series of events over which we have no control.

 

 

 

...man is that morbid.

 

 

 

Lets say that's true. If life was predestined to develop exactly as it has and each and every one of us was destined to be because of collisions and attractions between particles, does that make me any less of an individual? Does that mean I have no self?

[mmmcannibalism]

Dunno if this has been brought up as a perspective, but I'm buddhistic in nature, my answer to the question of self, is that I dont have one, its just an illusion. Any thoughts or questions?

 

 

 

That ironically enough if god doesn't exist you are entirely correct.

 

 

 

How so? The same question applies to shinjula.

 

 

 

I'm sure you can perceive a "self" if there's no god. It's not like you stop existing when god does.

 

 

 

I was thinking on the lines of atheistic fatalism; if there is no god then logically everything is predetermined series of events over which we have no control.

 

 

 

...man is that morbid.

 

 

 

Lets say that's true. If life was predestined to develop exactly as it has and each and every one of us was destined to be because of collisions and attractions between particles, does that make me any less of an individual? Does that mean I have no self?

 

 

 

That is open to interpretation; you have a conciousness, but in a sense it is an illusion. While your self clearly exists, its not a soul or anything special; we could consider this an illusion of physics

 

 

 

Im playing devil's advocate for the record

[Promise]

I really like this thread. It's like a complicated way of saying, "I wonder what it's like being a bird."

 

 

 

I typed a big long nice wall of text. I deleted it all because I thought of something better, and its only once sentence.

 

 

 

How do we not know that other animals (birds) have the mental capacity to question life like us. How do we not know that they think they're "superior" to us or question their existence as birds?

[l0rd]

 

How do we not know that other animals (birds) have the mental capacity to question life like us. How do we not know that they think they're "superior" to us or question their existence as birds?

 

Birds aren't self-aware, meaning they don't have the capacity for introspection.

[Promise]

 

How do we not know that other animals (birds) have the mental capacity to question life like us. How do we not know that they think they're "superior" to us or question their existence as birds?

 

Birds aren't self-aware, meaning they don't have the capacity for introspection.

 

 

 

How do we know what birds know?