Who are you?

Originally posted by RANDOMguess
No no I most definitely did not take offence to your comments. Enjoyed them actually.

It might not be 'cool' for you, but for me it works just fine. Just because I believe in a rather detached notion of love, does not mean I am not capable of it and nor does it mean I cannot enjoy it or appreciate in just the same manner as someone who does not believe as I do.

I will have to disagree here being that I have come from not believing in the soul to the complete opposite. And had loved with the belief and without, and for me, well you know what I'm going to say(this is obviously my opinion and am not trying to take away from you).

I can see neither one of us will change our minds here especially with your science background. You have changed my opinion on one thing, I used to think all people eventually if they lived long enough would believe In a soul but maybe not.

"3. As do I" hey your not allowed to hope you find your soul mate, that goes against your argument

Only kidding

Thanks for the thought revoking reply's.

I'm only 22 - if all goes to plan, I should still have a few years ahead of me

3. I was referring to soul mate in a more colloquial term. Should have perhaps thought of that before I posted it.

And no problems! Same can be said to you my friend. It's always interesting to have such discussions with people of such differing beliefs to that of my own.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


Let me state again these are Not beliefs.... Not Beliefs.... as in your case in the form of trusting what some others educate you with... No offence intended but never the less is true concerning the education of the human species..

What I have shared with others on ATS is the findings resulting from being involved with others Full Time in R&D developing Interfaces with the Mind.

I hope this will clear up your misunderstanding...

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

Let me state again these are Not beliefs.... Not Beliefs.... as in your case in the form of trusting what some others educate you with... No offence intended but never the less is true concerning the education of the human species..

What I have shared with others on ATS is the findings resulting from being involved with others Full Time in R&D developing Interfaces with the Mind.

I hope this will clear up your misunderstanding...

I fail to see how your faith in your theory is any more or less a belief than is my trust in science. Nevertheless, I shall agree to disagree on that point and move on.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

I fail to see how your faith in your theory is any more or less a belief than is my trust in science. Nevertheless, I shall agree to disagree on that point and move on.

It doesn't involve "belief"as you put it, but is the result of observations made while using Interfaces with the Mind...
But anyway I guess you know best....

Good luck with your theories and beliefs.

I will continue to watch your thread with interest...

I would like to see though, the proof of your statements, and not just quoting other “Primates” you believe in or follow after.

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

I fail to see how your faith in your theory is any more or less a belief than is my trust in science. Nevertheless, I shall agree to disagree on that point and move on.

It doesn't involve "belief"as you put it, but is the result of observations made while using Interfaces with the Mind...
But anyway I guess you know best....

Good luck with your theories and beliefs.

I will continue to watch your thread with interest...

I would like to see though, the proof of your statements, and not just quoting other “Primates” you believe in or follow after.

You believe them to be fact, hence belief. People used to 'know' the earth was flat once too. I'm not trying to discredit you there either. So, good luck with yours too

You claim to be involved in R&D, so I can only assume you have access to various journal search engines as I do. That being the case, feel free to search for the proof yourself. I don't feel it to be particularly necessary to proove it as it really wasn't so much the point of this thread.

Finally, I wish you'd stop taking so much offense to everything. Calm down and let live.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

You claim to be involved in R&D, so I can only assume you have access to various journal search engines as I do.

You are so far away from the mark...

No it involves “Optical Interfaces” with the Mind, a little out of your league I guess.

I spend very little of my time on the net., but in my part, involves the hardware design (hybrid) of the Interface, as well as Software design regarding Communication Systems with the Mind Doesn’t involve much on the net…. LOL

But anyway I think it will be a little over your Head…

Good Luck with the thread. I say this with sincerity…

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller

You are so far away from the mark...

No it involves “Optical Interfaces” with the Mind, a little out of your league I guess.

I spend very little of my time on the net., but in my part, involves the hardware design (hybrid) of the Interface, as well as Software design regarding Communication Systems with the Mind Doesn’t involve much on the net…. LOL

But anyway I think it will be a little over your Head…

Good Luck with the thread. I say this with sincerity…

Hey, I never claimed to be a neuroscientist. I'm an organic chemist. No reason to be so snippy and arrogant. I do not particularly appreciate you inferring I lack intelligence, but anyway. I simply trust in the power of the brain by virtue of the quantity of evidence out there. If I see quantified evidence to the contrary, I will adjust my views alongside the scientific community.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

Sorry I was just responding to your accusations based on ignorance, No worries.... No hard feelings...

Good Luck anyway you will come across all sorts on ATS from all sorts of occupations so it pays not to leap into things. Many are Not from the West and have much different ideas...

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

Sorry I was just responding to your accusations based on ignorance, No worries.... No hard feelings...

Good Luck anyway you will come across all sorts on ATS from all sorts of occupations so it pays not to leap into things. Many are Not from the West and have much different ideas...

Mm, yes I know. It's part of the reason come here. The conversation is always interesting.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

By the time he returns to Ithaca, he has replaced every part of the ship. My question is, is it still the same ship?

No, its a different ship. But whats in a name? but that which you call it.

If you were to take half of your brain and placed it inside another person, we can make the assumption that by each having one half of the same brain, they had the same neural connections generated by the same past experiences, so their memories, the way the process information, etc. would all be the same. And so the question is, is that person another 'you'?

No, it's a different person, because its in a different body. Or in such a case it would become a different person in truth over time even if everything down to the atom was the same, because it would be in another frame of existence ie another body another life, another path. Therefore it would not be another you, it would simply be another.

Twins are not the same, and neither are clones, for all there outside appearances, the inside would be different there mind's will differ and they will have different wills, and so forth. And even on appearances they would be different if you were to look deep enough, or close enough at them, eventually you would spot the differences because you would have come to know them more.

And in observing something you change it, or it changes. At best they would be alike, or similar, but not the same thing or person.

My final question comes by considering your answers to the previous two. It is simply this. If you were to take you as you are now and place it next you as you were say, 10 years ago, are you the same person?

No, he would not be me. But it all depends on how you look at it, or in how you perceive it.

In a very real sense, you might argue that you are a different person from who you were 10 years ago. This being the case, how are you the person you define yourself to be now?

I am not the same person I was yesterday, and not only that I am not the same person I was a moment ago, and in a another moment I will be another person. How you define yourself is what makes you who you are, and how the world defines you makes you the person they see you as. All those are completely different persons, in fact you might as well just call them different personas who think they are the same person. In different situations one turns off and the other turns on and vice versa.

Observer and observed, is a constantly changing paradigm, and it is how we constantly change our and others definitions of ourselves. In a lot of ways it really is like asking! Is the water in a constantly moving river, the same water that was there days ago, or hours ago or even moments ago? So is it the same water? IT would be something like that, only much more complicated because humans are much more complex and complicated then a bunch of constantly in motion H2O.

Is it not in part because of 'you' from 10 years ago?

Only if you keep the frame and roll of film from that long ago, everybody is exactly like that, a different frame for every-moment of there existence. And frame by frame we come to life. So that part of you, ie that frame from 10 years ago is in relation to the whole of the roll of film, and the moment is the frame your in right now, and in the next moment you will be in another frame. Basically it's all an illusion, not unlike a roll of film that they use to project a movie onto the screen. The synchronizing is what gives it the illusion of movement, and movement is really what we call life. Change is constant.

So then, if the modern version of yourself were to stand next to yourself from 10 years ago, how is that person not 'you'?

Only by definition of relation to me my memories and the path of my life which my mind has strung together to make a coherent and understandable over all picture, and to keep the film and show rolling. In reality it would not be me. I would just think it would be me, but if I were to think it was not me at all. It would conform to that thought and become somebody else.

And the same could be said to the other version of me from 10 years ago. he to would go trough a like process.

Thus, the question still remains: who are you?

Cant tell you its super top secret, but it all depends on who do you want me to be. But anyways I am who I perceive myself to be, and I am who others perceive me to be....But mostly I am what I want others to perceive me to be. All in all I am none of the above, I am nothing, no one, nobody, no more.

Nah just messing with you, I am just some dude on the internet. You may call me that internet dude, from that one thread.

Interesting responses in the thread so far. I attempted a discussion like this on another website last yr, it lacked ATS though

There are so many ways to approach the concept of identity. But i tend to associate what we are as incapable of being defined (which sounds like a cop out, i know) and you do essentially undergo the discussion of what something is before associating an identity or who.

I still think as the human race progresses their will be new developments that answer certain question on consiousness. A lot of members on here believe we are all just energy or consiousness (also a cop out) because elaboration is often circular and vague, granted i can't disagree with not wanting to specify yrs of research and intuitive understanding that will likely be misconstrued and taken out of the correct context.

Talks of the sprit and soul are almost unavoidable on this topic. Mainly because when you are taking the information that permits your brain to sense or become aware of understanding (the feeling of knowing). That rationale and method to communicate how it is knowledge, is based off previous knowledge and comes the question of what drives the feeling of trusting information? This might start to tie into the emotional connection we have with information, which can then generate a connection between what you want and how you know. If this is evident, then knowledge is subject to an apperance and perception. I guess how i was trying to tie in the mystical was by in the spiritual sense, i think it is believed that your being is not an appearance and the will to define may come from wanting communicate your being or that part of you that is aware beyond the scope of your body. And as soon as there appears a distiction between the physical and non physical in respects to being, the soul has a definition that fits the communication.

Thank you both so much for your replies! I had almost completely forgotten about this thread's existence. I'll have to try get myself back into a philosophical head-space, so excuse me if I get a little convoluted as I reply to you both.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


It's more than simply a ship with the same name - it has the same form, which was my point (and one I see you've addressed below). It looks the same, it acts the same, etc.; it's merely had it's constituents slowly replaced over time. Perhaps one could argue that with each adjustment and with each plank of wood you replace, the ship becomes ever so slightly, yet noticeably different. However, from the perspective of the people on the ship, it is still the same as it was when it set sail.

When you think about it in a broader sense, it's a perfect analogy for a person as they develop. Over time, cells regenerate and personalities are slowly changed as one gathers more human experience. If you, for instance, grow up with a person and live with them constantly, you will almost never notice the growing changes without the benefit of retrospective tools such as photos, etc. or simply by reminiscing. However, If you take that same person at age x, go away and come back to them at age y, you will undoubtedly notice a culmination of years worth of subtle differences.

It's quite a bizarre realisation to come to, when you think about it. I agree with you that the person you were 10 years ago is different to the person you will be now, both in form and in contents. Despite this though, you both still share the commonality of being fundamentally and irrevocably, 'you', albeit a different version thereof.

Only if you keep the frame and roll of film from that long ago, everybody is exactly like that, a different frame for every-moment of there existence. And frame by frame we come to life. So that part of you, ie that frame from 10 years ago is in relation to the whole of the roll of film, and the moment is the frame your in right now, and in the next moment you will be in another frame. Basically it's all an illusion, not unlike a roll of film that they use to project a movie onto the screen. The synchronizing is what gives it the illusion of movement, and movement is really what we call life. Change is constant.

I wanted to point that quote out because I think it is a wonderful analogy to my above point. Every frame is different, yes, but it all comes from the same roll of film.


In any event, I think we've made ourselves a solid case for if we ever get charged with a crime; can't possibly be charged with anything if the person who committed the crime wasn't 'you', now can we?

reply to post by juveous


The soul argument has been both a fascination and an annoyance to me. Fascinating because, well, I'm always fascinated by what people believe and how they come to their conclusions and an annoyance, because I've always found the argument to be something of a philosophical scapegoat.

I am very scientifically minded, perhaps to a fault, and have always struggled to come to terms with these sorts of arguments. It's not so much that I cannot comprehend the fact that something like that could exist, it's more that I cannot perceive what logical reason could lead to its existence; everything has to have a reason. The concept of a soul or spirit, etc. has always struck me as being a blanket explanation for what I view as the apex of nurture and nature - a combination of genetic predisposition and the experiences we can as we progress through our lives.

But i tend to associate what we are as incapable of being defined

Perhaps not incapable of being defined, but certainly a matter of opinion.

Thank you both for your comments. They were very insightful and I enjoyed reading them.

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
reply to post by juveous

 

The soul argument has been both a fascination and an annoyance to me. Fascinating because, well, I'm always fascinated by what people believe and how they come to their conclusions and an annoyance, because I've always found the argument to be something of a philosophical scapegoat.

lol, I also think it is somewhat of a philosophical scapegoat, but for the reason that people categorize it under what is "supernatural" - I believe that there is no such thing as the supernatural, because it too would have to have a natural order, its as if by calling it supernatural you are omitting scrutiny because it cannot be produced for experimentation.

I am very scientifically minded, perhaps to a fault, and have always struggled to come to terms with these sorts of arguments. It's not so much that I cannot comprehend the fact that something like that could exist, it's more that I cannot perceive what logical reason could lead to its existence; everything has to have a reason. The concept of a soul or spirit, etc. has always struck me as being a blanket explanation for what I view as the apex of nurture and nature - a combination of genetic predisposition and the experiences we can as we progress through our lives.

And I believe the discussion will continue. I think it is unfortunate that past art and writings have influenced our own expectations of we are tying to understand, mixing and matching two different schools of thought and genetic development (not that I really know how that is a problem, just seems so). It appears that if you were to separate the 2,000 years of experiment and understanding, you also have a vast difference in semantics and how much more accurate we are willing to describe and explain today. Far much more time is spent in interpretation, than in demonstration. But if you are the type that extends on the idea we are apart of nature (evolution) and some part of us is essentially the same as a rock or a gas, such says as our atomic structure does, then maybe in the expression of awe in complexity, we are demonstrating what it means to be the current conclusion of what we are and what we can be. It is confusing to distinguish, so if we clarify what we are by introducing what everything is, you get the circular cop out discussions I said earlier

I am who I am,but I'm not who I was,though If I'll be who I was aim to be who'm I'm not,because who are we that to be who we were when we're not!!!

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

I cannot possibly know, except to say that I am the one who creates the person I am choosing to be at any given time, but I am not that person, even though I sometimes think that's who I am. I know that I am someone, just not who in particular, which to me is absurd to think that I would know precisely who I am as someone in particular.

I know, I am the smile on my face, for no reason at all, and if for any reason to begin with, at my own absurdity in terms of who I thought I was, because I am not that person, not really, and they weren't really having much fun any more anyway, that guy. Lack of enthusiasm, and gratitude in the space of nothing that is everything (fomain of all possibility), that was my problem, that and a lack of courage, as the couage to laugh at myself, because I was really somewhat pathetic and absurd, even ridiculous. There's a lot of humor there, enough material surely to last a lifetime, provided I can make it funny again, from the perspective of who I REALLY am, which can only be who I am becoming in the creative space of nothing everything, or the eternal I guess, as the only thing left when every "thing" in particular, is taken away. So it's smiles all the way then, that's the only thing which makes any rational sense or is based in reality as it is. It's the only thing I can "know" with any degree of certainty, that I do not know, and can't, as a purely "rational" argument. It's not based in reason, it's not in the head, it's just a way of being, as an experience, an ongoing present moment experience, deep inside, making of the unknown unknown, at the very least a known unknown, which is amuzing, to say the least, but strangely it's not confusing, it's about taking resonsibility for my own life as my own creation, nothing more nothing less. Freedom, the freedom to really live, be and love. It's got to start there, imho, since it cannot be coerced. A free invitation, from eternal being with a smile, that's what it is, to me, something playful and loving and creative, right there, now, here. If anyone or anything, that's where I want to live from, as something worth living for, even dying in and to, to be born again. Why not get it over with, that's my thinking, while we're still alive!? Start again, just start all over again, like a child, but with the learned maturity of an adult. Why not? There's nothing else worthwhile imho worth choosing, except this love at the end of time happiness, joy, and peace. Nothing else is humorous or creative, in the final analysis, and therefore cannot be considered "real life". We were absurd. It's ok though, now that we realized it, and smiled again, as if for the first time, restored to sanity I guess you could say.

you are still you. The boat was still a boat, my car is still a car even though i have had it for five years and i have replace plenty pieces and added some bumps and scratches.

An xgf of mine didn't see me for five years. when we ran into each other and took some time to talk she said I was different then she backtracked and said i was not different, i was still me but it was me with more knowledge and experience. she said I was still me.. when you start out in life you are fresh and knew. you start out with certain aptitudes and talents, genetics and such. By the end of the road you are still you. you cannot change what you started with. what you do with it is a different story but at the end of the day you are still you. even if you had paralelle universes and had five of you with the same everything start out fresh in a world, and happen to take different paths you would still be you except you took different paths. at the basic level you are you. You can strip down all you have learned and experienced through out life till your starting point and you will find YOU is still the same you cannot change that.

you are still you. it would be silly to even question it.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


The technical aspects of Identity are pretty complicated, but I think I can help you with the basic premise. The easiest way (for me) to do this is to offer an analogy, and from there you can configure the concepts to address whatever situation you want - be it a pair of half-brain step twins, or an impossible relationship between one person from two different points in time.

The following concerns the identity of a note that was played by a violinist, but the concepts are applicable to anything that exists - including people.

When we look at just a short list of unique physical components that came together as the music that was created – the brain-nerve-muscle coordination of the violinist, his hands and his fingers acting upon the strings, the bow drawn across those strings, the strings vibrating and resonating against the bridge of the violin itself which caused the wood to resonate, the sound waves pushing through the open air of the hall, the reverberation of the walls and ceiling that smoothed out the harsh tone of the raw sound of the strings and made it sing as it did, the ears of the listeners, and finally, the minds of each listener at that instant that the sound became music as interpreted by each mind – we have to accept that if we took away any single stage of this list of contributing aspects alone, the result would cause the music in question to either be radically altered, or destroyed entirely.

Then there are the preparatory components. When the violinist struck his first note of the evening, that note was a C#, but to simply state that it was a C# is to lose sight of all that this single note presented to the unique identity of this particular moment. This C# note did not, does not, exist in a vacuum. It didn’t simply appear from nowhere to launch this specific performance.

As the first note of a composed symphony, it was selected and placed by that symphony’s composer. That choice imbued this C# with all that came about, as historical context, to create that choice. What historical context? Let’s see.

This composer lives (or once lived) a life that contributed to the notion of choosing and placing that note in that specific part of the composition. In fact, it stands to reason that the composer spent some time and thought about which note to place in that specific part of the piece, and likely spent considerable time deciding how long the note should last, how loud it should be played, and whether it should be physically manipulated by the musician in such a way as to provide it a specific expressiveness at any point within its existence as a performed musical note. All this thought came as a result of study and experience, as well as the direct impact of those specific events on the inimitable human expression that separates that composer from any other composer – or any other human being, for that matter.

As the definite result of such a causal chain of events – education, experience, consideration, and even the invention and establishment of notes and staff as a form of written musical documentation (if one wishes to run the history of that note all the way back to its origins) – this C#’s historical context becomes a primary identifier when selecting it from any such expression suite for precise examination.

In this case, history is not the only progressive chain that brought this C# to lead off this orchestral arrangement. There is also the direct contribution from the author’s own intellectual continuum to consider. That composer provided a full level of intellectual context to that note, and that context grants a distinction to that specific note that is not shared with any other C# note in that or any other musical piece. The identity of that note is affected by that very specific context, and makes that note unique before it is even performed.

Of course, on this particular night, that note was performed, and this isolated it even further as its singular identity was further amplified with the additional impact of the performer. After all, this was an audible note, and not just a conceived note, within this particular composition.

When the violinist struck that note, he added his own contextual contribution to that specific note on that specific evening. This piece was not composed by him, but the creation of that C# note as sound – the physical interpretation of that note by way of the violin as a sound generation tool – was accomplished solely by the violinist. What flowed through the hands and fingers of that violinist as he struck that C# note, represented all that had been his life to that point in time, and the whole of it caused that C# to suddenly belong to him as an artist who had taken the composer’s suggestion and had had his way with it – for good or ill, as the case may be.

continued.....>

more on that note's inimitable identity, and how it developed....

The years of study, practice, and personal sacrifice; the career that he’d already had, or still envisioned; the surging elements within his own body and brain; all coming together as he hit that first C# and gave its execution his own unique signature. This is the historical and intellectual context that the violinist provided, which combined with the historical and intellectual context that the composer had already provided, to further distinguish this first C# note as a contextually isolated unique whole that expressed the unique identities of both artists in a manner that is both actual and logical.

But there are other contextual layers to consider. There is the instrument itself.

The musician’s violin is a rare and valuable model that was produced by a celebrated craftsman who died hundreds of years ago, and since its creation, it has been played by a line of brilliant musicians who’ve carefully preserved its beauty, its tone and its overall utility. The very fact of its unique excellence, and the history behind that excellence, contributed its own level of context to the sound of this first note, as well as the causal impact on the violinist’s psyche (again, flush with critical context) as he skillfully honored this rare treasure with his committed effort to produce that sound.

This blend of circumstantial and intellectual context – somewhat different in nature than the blending of purely intellectual context that two artists in tangential collaboration would contribute to the identity of the piece, but just as powerfully isolating in its impact – was yet another contribution to what had already come together to distinguish this first C# of this particular musical piece.

Then, we must include the actual event and physical environment into the contextual whole, since the note did reach into a real environment during a real moment in time. For this, we must include the environmental aspects of the concert venue itself, the relative humidity of the atmosphere and its impact on the violin’s tone and the “carry” of the note within the structure of the hall, the impact of competing and sympathetic frequencies from the other notes filling the hall, and whether people were buzzing among themselves as this note was struck, or even if the hall was full or whether people were still finding their seats. From there we can continue to add contextual qualifications until we run out of atoms and quarks and strings to pick over.

So, where does the artist end and the art begin? I don’t know. There may not be a point where one ends and the other begins, and that may be exactly the point. Context identifies and isolates, but it can also unify and relate one unique with another. Our violinist – as he struck that C# – became forever associated with that composer through the contextual confines of what both men contributed to that one note, even as that C# broke free and isolated itself from the whole of reality with its full load of inimitable context, never to be duplicated again as the fact of its existence lives on into eternity.

The artist adds to the whole, while establishing his or her art as both contribution and identification. Of course, as humans we each experience reality in relation to ourselves and to our own need for unique identity, so we focus on the identifying-isolating aspects within the artistic expression, and we look for that point where the art itself becomes released from the artist. After all, that release must exist if we are to take from the artist what we see as beautiful and claim it as part of our own identity.

excerpt from Taking Down the Curtain

Like I said, this analogy concerns universal tenets of how Identity emerges. The application to whatever you're questioning is worth putting together on your own - if only for the value of the work involved.