Personal Identity

[Cygnus]

In your opinion, what makes up one's personal identity? Are we merely beings of physical nature and chemistry? Is there such thing as an immaterial "soul"? Im not sure whether or not to propound any ideas at the moment, but I just wanted to see some of your ideas on what makes you you.

[profdunebastard]

I personally do not believe in a soul, I believe we-in the most basic terms, yes, just a product of physics, biology, and chemistry, with no supernatural soul involved. However, I believe genes, although important in laying out the framework for who we are, what we look like, and in some ways, how we think, are not the end all be all. Enviornment, how much we are exposed to it and how we were taught to respond to, is equally important. What we experience, what our DNA allows for, and the choices we make are what makes us who we are. I admit that yes, luck/chance/random occurrence is at play here, but I do not write off the power of human accomplishment simply because we are products of the biology and circumstance. I find meaning with this mindset by enjoying my life, enjoying my rights and trying to do my part to ensure everyone else has those rights-not universal rights, not neccessarily penultimately good or evil, but rights to live, think freely without repercussions, and pursue happiness in any way possible without encroaching on the wellbeing, life/health, and overall rights of others. Humans can do so much, even if we have no immortal souls, to make this one life, this one world, worth living.

[ebonywnd]

A very good question, and one that I ponder occasionally. In my opinion, we are beings of chemistry and physical nature. But then, that does include many things. Every memory shapes us, and everyone's memories are different. It is our past experiences that determine how we view the world and act in it. There is no need to bring up the idea of a soul. Often, it seems to me as if mankind glorifies itself too much in regards to things like that, and yet, not enough. Many people see our ability to think as a gift from god, and not an accomplishment of our species.

Sadly, this is all the time I am able to spend on this right now. Homework beckons.

And Grant, don't be so defensive......some of us don't care that you come from U of M.

-Laura

[Cygnus]

I understand what you are saying and agree with most of it, but your response is centered on causal relationships.. you are describing what affects the outcome of who you are. So just to clarify. You are saying that your identity is purely physical, but that experiences effect how the chemicals/impulses ultimately form?


(heh. thanks laura.. ive got so many friends at MSU who rag on me all the time.. it was more of a joke

[profdunebastard]

That is what I am saying for the most part, that the enviornment/experiences work(s) within the framework of our biology/physicality to create who we become and how we percieve. (my name is Ian by the way)

[Cygnus]

Ok, good. Now lets suppose you have an identical twin, and by some miracle of science and technology we are able to give Ian1 and Ian2 the exact same stimuli from the environment from conception to birth and through 25 years of life. As improbable as that scenario might be, lets assume it is possible. Would you "be" different people or the same person?

*nice to meat you Ian.

[Valvilis]

This will be short. Soul = no. Chemistry = yes.

While science may have demystified and slightly reduced the romance of human existence, it has at least cleared up this issue. The very fact that the brain can be probed and various thoughts, sensations, and emotions result don't leave much room for a soul. What would be it's domain if not our thoughts and emotions?

[profdunebastard]

I somewhat feel I am being set up, hypothetical questions are often traps, but I will definately give this an attempt. The hypothesis is that there is an Ian and an IIan (hehe) who are genetically identical and have undergone every exact same experience in the exact same fashion and made every exact same decision the other did. Then yes they are identical. Identical biological makeup plus exact identical enviornment=identical result.

This will never happen

The problem is there is no way to perform this experiment, no conceivable way to recreate every single event in ones life in the exact same way with exact same conditions-even as minute as temperature, and to determine that the IIan will make the exact same decision in every scenario. Any experiment will end in a failed attempt(ie the two Ians will make different decisions and thus be different individuals), the hypothesis is tested against.


This doesn't prove anything though(because it was based on a hypothetical, un-recreatable question
), nor does it detract from my belief that envoirnment(including decisions made concerning a stimuli) plus physical body yields who you are. If the two Ians result in two different people, ie alter from the experience of the other, it just means your genes do not wholly determine who you are,nor does the enviornment. Until my hypothesis is proven wrong according to the scientific method, I will believe it

[Valvilis]

Well, let's not be hasty... identical twins raised in sensory deprivation tanks would do the trick. Of course, all there would be to measure is whether or not they suffer identical dimentia.

[profdunebastard]

You would have to treat the twins exactly the same from the moment of birth, touch them exactly the same way in putting them in the identical tanks. Theyd have to emerge fro the womb at the same time. Put in and out of the tanks at the same time. Bubbles in the water would have to be identical. They would have to move at the exact same time and make the exact same movements. That seems a steep demand to replicate. That is why it was posed as a hypothetical question. I think twin studies would result in enough tiny alterations to create two distinct personalities. They may belief the same things and have a whole lot in common, but they result in two different people.

( I don't even know whose side I'm arguing for at this point, oh well)

[the anti-myrmidon]

It's an interesting question, but I would have to add that even if every single genetic and environmental factor were the same, the Ians would still be two separate organisms. They would be two separate clumps of molecules, so not the same, at least in that sense.

[profdunebastard]

yeah, i think that is what I was trying to illustrate-but I delved too much into the hypthetical-being able to ensure identicalness-which I was stressing was impossible for all intentas and purposes. Although I do not detract that opinion, I thank you Susan for helping me think a little more er...consisely. I agree with your point-being 2 seperate Ians in and of itself makes th circumstances automatically different

[Rama592]

Dear Professor Dune Bastard, I humbly request that you look up the definition of "penultimate".
Soul=no, obviously. As Valv mentioned before, we can alter the human brain to produce pretty much anything we feel like producing. It's even easier though. Ask anyone who's done E before, they'll probably tell you that one of the side effects is innapropriate emotional connections to random people (That raver chick is so hot, I'm going to ask her to marry me!). If the soul is the home of our emotions, then how is it that a little pill can so easily and effectively alter the performance of our noncorporeal soul which has no physical material manifestation in this plane of existance?
Someone mentioned the question of for what reason do we exist (and I love to sidetrack threads), and my response is "Why do we need a reason?"
It's all nature. Asking for a meaning to life is like asking "what's the meaning to that coin being flipped 500 times and landing 250 times on heads?!"
It's just what happens. There's absolutely no reason we should assume our presence here has any greater significant meaning. Otherwise you have to start questioning the meaning of ALL forms of life (And hell, why not non-life?)
I find absolutely no discomfort in the idea that we aren't put here with a purpose. In fact, that makes me feel all warm and happy inside. If I don't have a purpose, I don't have limitations. I don't have obligations, and I don't have a job. I'm here to do what I want to do and I'm here to follow my own agenda.
"But why do you wake up each morning?!"
Because I can. I have a very small number of years to exist in (Damn, would be nice if heaven actually existed!) and I intend to put them to the best use I can. My goals in life are rather ephemeral and at any given moment it might be something from "experience pleasure" to "defeat your enemies" to "help other people". The significance of my thoughts on life is that I make what I want of things. Having rejected the notion of absolute morality I can look beyond that, and instead of looking for good or evil I look for productive or destructive, desirable or nondesirable. Good or bad, not good or evil.
Personally, I find a hell of a lot more motivation to use my time wisely in the idea that there's nothing after this than I do in the idea that I'll spend all eternity in pure bliss.
By the by, speaking of eternity (hah! I divert your thread again!), I've always wondered why so many people have no problem with thinking of an infinite future but if you present them with the idea of an infinite past they start getting confused and paranoid. Really, if your premise is that all things need creation, and your premise is that god created all things, and your conclusion is that god created us...then who created god?
I'm a mix of my genes and my surroundings. Exactly what mix that is I will leave up to the neurobiologists and the sociologists. I don't have a soul, you don't have a soul, and nobody else has a soul. So lets use this information in a productive fashion, eh?

[profdunebastard]

whoops! my whole life I thought penultimate meant all inclusiv, best you can get, end all be all. That's not what it means at all. D'oh. Thanks rama for the information Now that I know the real def. I feel disillusioned though. My fake definition is so much better than the real one. Oh well, goes to show you...er...I'm sure there's some moral or point somewhere. Oh well. Everyone go to the Onion www.theonion.com. Between the Daily show and that it's all the news I need.( I found the squirrel editorial particularly hilarious)

[Rama903]

Heh, the only reason I actually know the exact definition of that word is because I did the same thing you did once long long ago.
As a side note, I think this onion's "What do you think?" feature is quite possibly the wittiest they've ever done.