00:00
00:00
Kwing
Once upon a time, water taught itself how to feel pain.

Age 29, Male

Software engineer /

United States

Joined on 7/24/07

Level:
48
Exp Points:
24,602 / 25,580
Exp Rank:
565
Vote Power:
8.85 votes
Rank:
Police Captain
Global Rank:
4,253
Blams:
365
Saves:
1,734
B/P Bonus:
16%
Whistle:
Deity
Trophies:
3
Medals:
2,198
Gear:
5

Philosophy on Identity

Posted by Kwing - April 26th, 2010


A while ago I saw a video in which a comedian was talking about how we are not our bodies, and how we would never say "I am a body". He later went on to describe how we envision ourselves as being located somewhere between our eyes. This made me ask myself what a person really is. Who are we? How are we defined? For a long time I couldn't figure out what it was; we are not our bodies, nor any part of them; we are not equal to our intellect, our lives, or values, our consciousness, or even our personalities. So what are we?

After reading 1984 by George Orwell, I thought about O'Brien's speech in the Ministry of Love. What stuck in my head was mainly O'Brien talking about how Big Brother was omnipotent, and how he could float across the room like a soap bubble if he wanted to. The theory that reality exists only within our minds helped me to uncover the answer to what we really are.

To do away with all of the explanation and state it simply, every individual is the universe as they perceive it. That is to say, my world is only as big as I know of, and as I learn, my world grows. Additionally, a Puritan lives in a world where God is vengeful and life is centered around the afterlife and hell. Ironically, none of these perceptions are wrong... If the universe is contained within each individual's mind, then we all live in different universes in which each of us are always correct until proven wrong, at which point we either deny our fault or we learn and our universe expands. Even the afterlife is as we perceive it. According to Ethan Hawke from Waking Life, a dead body has six to twelve minutes of brain activity after death, meaning that you can dream even when you're dead. Since a dream second is infinitely shorter than a waking second, you can lucid dream the afterlife all on your own.

As for social interaction, I like to think of it this way: Every other person we meet is a window into another universe, and some of us take certain aspects of those universes and add them to their own universe.

.
/* */


Comments

There is a specific part of our brain that controls our sense of separation from the universe. Damage to this part of the brain or intense meditation results in a sense of one-ness with the universe. So, yes, meditating monk or brain damaged person may feel that he/she is the universe around him/her, but the reality is not so. We are not the universe we perceive. If we were, there would be no surprise.

Additionally, we would also never doubt or have reason to doubt our senses, but we do. I'll give you a little mental exercise to explain: suppose you are walking home from the store, and you see a tyrannosaurus rex walking around, eating people, smashing cars, and all around making a big ruckus. You run home so as to avoid being eaten/destroyed by the tyrannosaurus rex. And, as any normal person would, you turn on the telly to see what's going on. No news coverage. You walk back outside to where the tyrannosaurus was. No dino prints. Buildings are fine, no damaged cars, people milling about as normal. As if nothing happened. What would you think of your perceptions at that point?

I'm not saying that we're not individuals. We are each (literally) in our own world, and our only connection to others is by the people themselves, who are like windows into our existence. Because we can still interact, surprise can still come from other people, which builds to our universe. If you met a stunning woman, you might say she "came into your life". The same goes for anything else that could surprise you.

As for your second paragraph, when I said we live in a world in which we are always right, I phrased it like that quite carefully. We don't live in a world in which we always will be right; we live in a world in which we ARE right. Our universe changes constantly, and is always growing. Every time we learn something, our universe expands.

Next, your t-rex story seems to agree with what I'm saying. If I were the person involved in the situation, I'd think I was hallucinogenic. Someone who has schizophrenia or hallucinates is commonly thought to live in their own world, and a pretty unstable and dangerous world at that.

Though we could learn to accept we are the universe as we perceive it, we still have ceartain patterns which have become raw instinct within our nature and are apparent in all beings, so even saying we are dependent of our entity we are possibly all the same form of creators of our existance because there is an outside entity that without it we become the opposite of omnipotent; we fall in an oblivion of selfvalue.

How is it we exist even if there is nobody there to be aware of us? In the same manner, if a tree falls in the middle of the forest and there is no one around to listen, does it make a sound?

Why would we need some omnipotent entity to perceive us for us to exist? The only omnipotent force in the universe is the unity of all of us, which is impossible. In order for us to become omnipotent, we have to think independently and act together. Right now it's the inverse and we can't get anything done.

As for the second paragraph, I guess the tree doesn't make a sound, but it still fell and it's still possible to fall even if we don't know of it. For one, we are conscious that trees fall, and we are conscious of storms and wind, so a tree could fall as a result of our cumulative perspective. The real question is if it really fell? Someone can enter the forest and see the tree once it's fallen, and someone may have seen it before it fell... But if nobody heard it (which would be improbable because some insects would probably be around when the tree fell) then was there even a span of time in which the tree fell, or was it instantaneous? Or does it even matter?

You only perceive yourself as being somewhere between your eyes because both of your dominant spacial orienting senses are located on your head (eyes and ears). If you close your eyes and poke your foot, you'll notice that you exist down there too. The singularity your identifying is a limited consciousness that can only focus on one thing at a time. Focus is not equal to existence though...or is it? :3

Also, we do not live in different universes. If I make a realistic painting of something and show it to you, you will agree that the colors match and the shapes are correct. And even if something with a different sort of eyesight looked at the painting, the wavelengths of color would come to their eyes in the same way that they do on the thing that was being represented and they would agree the picture matches. However, they also might see a wider range of colors and details that we can't and might say the picture is missing something, or is oddly distorted. Still, the fact remains that a distortion is still recognizable as a representation, and we can understand intentional and unintentional distortions as errors, not alternative ways of actually seeing.

Our senses are a connection to the universe, yes, but the fact that we can compare them accurately means that the universe is the same for all of us, or we all live in the same delusion. Occam's razor makes me think the former is correct.

Your analogy works on a more metaphysical level, though. If you acknowledge that it's impossible to know the complete truth about anything, then even people who share an opinion will have different reasons for doing so. In this way people could be said to live in different "universes" of thought. Most rational people seem to believe this, all the while passionately arguing in defense of their opinions. It's actually pretty silly.

Anyhoo, all of this reminds me of Platonic Idealism, so if you're addicted to Wikipedia like me, that should send you on a 3 or 4 hour binge.

Well we don't live in entirely different universes. Because we socialize and commune, we live in similar (but not identical) worlds. We shape each other's universes as much as our own.

Also, there is no such thing as truth or ultimate reality. There isn't a limit to things more true or more false than others. Nothing is.

It seems you've sort of blended or confused two similar topics into one here, really you are talking about perceived reality, not identity.
I believe that self or 'I' is in the personality (and is what needs definition) as opposed to the physical being as you have mentioned. A good example of this is body reconstruction. If you have your body replaced by a bionic one you still feel your 'self'. A very real and common example of this would be with plastic surgery or hip replacements etc, the people who have these operations don't come out being a different person, proving that the body is merely a vehicle. Therefore to some extent you are correct that an individual is a sort of 'universe', as to take an empirical view point, the personality can only grow through the senses. Though this has been covered by many philosophers, the main quarrel remains around the elusive 'a priori' system. An internal logic, by which reality exists in ones head. I believe in the a priori system in conjunction with the empirical theory as it explains a lot of how we can see an object from two different angles and know they are the same object. Robert Pirsig goes into alot of this in the book i've listed below. It's a great introduction into the wide range of philosophical theories.

The main question to ask is, can the a priori system exist BEFORE the senses. The example I learned was; if a child was born without any senses, that is, no hearing, smell, sight, touch or taste, not having even one of these senses active for even a moment, would they be a person? would they have a world? and would they think? A total a priori system that comes before the senses would say yes, just not in human way, at least not to our comprehension of it.

A good book to read about such things in a unique structure and style would be 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance' It's a seriously brilliant book, i've just finished, I think you'd be interested in it.

Alright, I'll look into the book you recommended.

What I was basically saying was that our identity is a version of reality, so it's kind of hard to write about one without the other.

But I have to disagree with what you said about us being defined by our personality. While that was the closest I could get before I came up with the answer in my post, I think that a person's perspective of their existence shapes their personality, so it's kind of the root of their personality. I guess we are our personalities, but our personalities can change, and this is only possible through our experiences, which are interpreted through our perception. Savvy?

yea I guess that makes sense

YA DUDE

Fundamentally, It's against my principles to disagree with a philosophy, seeing as each one is rooted very deeply in each individual persona.

But I'd like to ask a question: if nothing exists until we're aware of it, how do we become aware of something that dosn't exist?

This gets more into cosmic philosophy as opposed to perspective or identity... I have an older post that explains.

Short answer is that the universe is a randomly swirling assortment of matter and energy, and our perception cements certain elements of the universe so they're less volatile and more stable.

Philosophy concerning self-identification is often coupled with theories of reality. Kinda awesome once you see the paradox. The basic argument is this: Reality itself comes from the individual people, and was no preset by some divine prescence. This is not to say that there is no god, it just means that his job was a lot easier. He just created us, who by design created reality. Supporting this theory is Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which not only states that space, time, and matter are all the same thing, but that all information ever process can differ depending on the individual observer. In relation to my case, it states that reality can be altered by the observer.

Now, in recent developments scientists have found something called the Quantum Zeno effect, I think it was called. What is is, is that on a quantum level, where the laws of physics don't apply, electrons appear and disappear like static. We can't see them, but when scientists do work out equations and tests, they find that every time we observe an electron, it freezes in place for us. Lemme give you a logic string. If molecule is studied at point A and then studied again at point B then it will immediately shift back to point A for absolutely no reason other than the fact that you looked at it in the first place. The research is a bit sketchy, but what that basically means is that the very fabric of our universe depends on our comprehension of it to remain to be something that we call "reality" That means that the apple the falls from the tree falls, not because gravity exists, but because we know that it will fall. We didn't even have to know about gravity, the molecules responded to our synapses(spellcheck)

Einstein concluded that in order for we and the universe to exist, there had to be one, omnipotent, intelligent being. Maybe God created the universe and we slipped into it. Maybe God created us and we did a little somethin. Maybe he created us both at the same time, i dont know. I'm not God.

As for personalities. What this basically is, is Psychology. Throughout out lives, different hormones and life experiences build up our psyche to what it is today. Nothing more, nothing less. I mean, it hasn't been proven that there is a universe beyond our own minds, all we have are the massive amounts of similarities between our percieved worlds. There are tons of theories I've heard of how we fit into the whole sha-bang, but if there's one thing I've learned over the course of my short life it is this. However it happened, I am me, and no one else, and I am proud of who I am. If not, I shall crush myself and rebuild.

On a last note, swimming in philosophy is simply not healthy. Thinking about all the good things you should do isn't the same thing as doing them. Philosophy shouldn't be a profession, or a degree. Neither should poetry, but that's not what I'm talking about here. Philosophy is the contemplation of what is the good, and what is, and is therefore good. If you walk this path you will come to find yourself right where you started, and you will know it's name.

Paragraph 1: Of course! Scientists' hypothesis's alter the actual outcome of an experiment.

Paragraph 2: Not only that, I heard of one experiment where scientists discovered certain protons reshape when we feel a certain emotion. Scientists took a sample of those protons out of the human body and noticed that the protons still reshaped when the person's personality changed... Even when the protons were a hundred miles away! And it was simultaneous!! Not a second's delay!

Last Paragraph: I disagree. Poetry can inspire or touch people, and philosophy can be fun, even if it doesn't have anything to offer us... Which of course it does. Meditate long enough and you might be able to sense emotions, move stuff with your mind, or best of all... ASTROLOGICAL PROJECTION!! OMFG ORGASMCAKE! But I agree it's too easy to get stuck inside your own thoughts and never get anywhere... Or just dig yourself into a pit of melancholy.

haha okay, you have the right to disagree. Philosophy is made up of theories building upon one another and questioning itself, it is the love of wisdom and therefore does not affirm one theory without accounting others theories to weigh up against or expand from.
I find that you are asserting your theory as being absolute, with such statements as 'The theory that reality exists only within our minds helped me to uncover the answer to what we really are.' which comes across as being rather arrogant and contradicts the idea of philosophical thought. You cannot expect to expand your understanding if you are so set on disagreeing with every point to prove your own, it becomes a thought trap, narrowing and weakening your own theory.

You appear to have misinterpreted what I was trying to say, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was not talking about personality in a general, social way. I did say that the personality was what needs to be defined.
If you were to think of it as a kind of pattern, neither matter nor form, it may aid your understanding of what I am trying to say. Primitive cultures would call these patterns 'spirits' or 'ghosts' and believe in them entirely, even worshipping them, and it isn't so absurd once you look into it in the way we have been discussing.
The 'I' cannot be in the perception, it must be the perceiver. In your dispute you have basically reiterated exactly what I had said about the personality developing and expanding through what it perceives. But what you have stated is that the 'I' is the senses, that are absorbed by the personality, and comes before the personality itself. Whilst that is true in some sense, it is too contentious, for example, what is then being produced as the personality, is it just a by product? or a bank to store memories and extract values in social or problematic circumstances?
I will try to use a metaphor to help explain my argument. The personality could be exchanged as a seed, the senses are the soil, water and sun light that give it the nutrients to grow, it would then become a flower and provide resources for insects, such as bee's, like nectar and pollen. In turn, that Personality would add to the general universe. See what I mean?

What I am trying to understand is where does this personality, or pattern, exist?
Is it in the mind? or is it in others or is it a mysterious 'spirit'?

I hope you don't take any offence to some from my words, I am aware that I have been a bit brash here and there and I want you to know that I am enjoying this debate, it's very stimulating. You are REALLY intelligent for your age, but it is important and healthy to question your own theories and try your hardest to find flaws in them like a good scientist will always try to prove his hypothesis wrong in order to build up the validity/strength of his theory.
- Shaun

There's a nasty paradox in making a good writing style. I have come off as being a bit dogmatic, but saying "I think" over and over would have been pretty annoying. I kind of like storybooks for that reason; they don't have to know everything. But something like this just has to fit a form that's... Well you named it: Arrogant. The only real way I can think of writing something like this in a different way would be to pose some kind of question, but there are problems with that, too. It's pretty hard to challenge people with a question without coming off as if you're stealing someone else's writing style. I was in a corner while writing this.

At the moment I'm replying I'm coming down with a cold so I'm kind of groggy. So you're trying to say that we can only be defined by something external from us?

Our personality is just another way of viewing the universe inside of us... So maybe we are our personalities. I'll give you that. I guess it depends on where you're looking at it. We see other peoples' personalities, and that's how we can understand the world they live in. The person in question, however, is within their own world. It looks as if there's some kind of infinite loop where our world builds a tiny bit of our personality, which builds a tiny bit of our world, which builds more of our personality, and so on.

When I read your argument, I'm not quite positive where you're disagreeing with me. I think we're looking at the same object from different angles.

Your metaphor seems to be dealing with where personality comes from, which wasn't really what I was talking about. It seems valid enough, though. I would say our personality is a cross between our brain chemistry, life experiences (especially early childhood experiences), and souls (if you believe in an eternal soul). The "genetics" of the resulting personality are only somewhat predictable... But I would think most people would agree on that.

Your second to last paragraph wasn't covered in my original post because I didn't think it was that important. I don't believe that there is a reality or truth, only that some things are more real or true than others. In that sense, personalities don't really exist anywhere... Because I don't think space exists. I think of space and time as being a way that we understand our environment. (When I say our environment, I'm basically referring to the world as most people agree on it... Geographically speaking, and entailing the gist of social obligation). I think it's really similar to the way I'm not seeing this computer screen; my eyes see how the light reflects off of it, but the visual image of my computer monitor is not the monitor itself.

And no, I'm not offended by your response. I wouldn't have posted this if I didn't want feedback... And I LOVE the idea of two young men stimulating each other ;)

Positive thinking can't break good sound logic, only good sound logic can. :3

Tell that to all the optimists. :/

penis

Damn you got me there. Maybe that whole post was utter shit... You just laid waste to a month's worth of thinking.

holy crap there is a lot of words on this page. o_O

Just read, goddamn it!

I CANT READ! AWW!!
damn you.. eyes... X_X

Thanks for the new profile pic! :O
Fuckin' ace.

I have feeling you would enjoy that.

;)

Almost as much as you would ;)

Too bad I'm a fucking 15 year old. >.<

five years is not much diffrent in age... ;)
after school is done, that is :P

I quit school because of anxiety. :'(