I wouldn't say that has anything to do with being right or wrong, anyway; it's a question that is directly about your perceptions and interpretations.

Right. Which only leaves one thing, really.

I don't agree that our bodies are part of us. Our bodies are nothing. You could have a different body, and you'd still be the same person. You could have no body, and you'd still be the same person.

You aren't a different person if you wear a different shirt.

Don't think that's true, the biological nature of personality itself isn't static. The countless factors that create an ever layered individual personality from pre birth to the moment we die cannot be credited to the mind alone.

Let's take the scenario of a human mind independent from a body. Ignoring the fact that the body itself helps produce the neuropeptides that influence emotion, the brain itself would develop a completely different thought process due to a lack of sensory interaction. It may not even recognize the concept of self.

You can't really use the example of changing a shirt in this case. If your embryonic mind was transplanted into a different physical body a difference as minute as skin color, or a physical disability would dramatically alter the development of personality based on social perception alone. And if yu were somehow able to meet this individual, they would indeed have a different personality.

TLDR: personality itself is built upon physical interaction with reality and is constantly layered upon different experiences.

Quote from: Jocephalopod on October 12, 2015, 01:31:30 AM

The countless factors that create an ever layered individual personality from pre birth to the moment we die cannot be credited to the mind alone.

Not if you exclude all those factors.

That's a bit disingenuous tbh

Quote from: Verbatim on October 12, 2015, 01:32:30 AM

Quote from: Jocephalopod on October 12, 2015, 01:31:30 AM

The countless factors that create an ever layered individual personality from pre birth to the moment we die cannot be credited to the mind alone.

Not if you exclude all those factors.

That's a bit disingenuous tbh

But that's what I've been saying, though. If you cut your self down to its root, excluding all environmental factors, leaving only the very concept of your individuality intact, then... there you have it. That's the "I".

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 12, 2015, 01:35:19 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 12, 2015, 01:32:30 AM

Quote from: Jocephalopod on October 12, 2015, 01:31:30 AM

The countless factors that create an ever layered individual personality from pre birth to the moment we die cannot be credited to the mind alone.

Not if you exclude all those factors.

That's a bit disingenuous tbh

But that's what I've been saying, though. If you cut your self down to its root, excluding all environmental factors, leaving only the very concept of your individuality intact, then... there you have it. That's the "I".

What I'm trying to say is that there is no root. There cannot be personality without interaction.

And the very concept of individuality is based on the fact that we can interact with reality.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no root. There cannot be personality without interaction.

And the very concept of individuality is based on the fact that we can interact with reality.

Then we fundamentally disagree. I say there IS a root.

Quote from: Jocephalopod on October 12, 2015, 01:40:49 AM

What I'm trying to say is that there is no root. There cannot be personality without interaction.

And the very concept of individuality is based on the fact that we can interact with reality.

Then we fundamentally disagree. I say there IS a root.

We can't disagree, because what you're saying is biologically impossible.

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 12, 2015, 01:42:02 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 12, 2015, 01:38:09 AM

Quote from: Jocephalopod on October 12, 2015, 01:36:12 AM

Then you would be excluding the development of personality itself.

Sure. Are people not predisposed to certain personality traits anyway?

Predisposition != inevitability. A predisposition toward alcoholism doesn't mean a confirmation that the person is guaranteed to become an alcohol, only that he or she should definitely abstain from it judging by family history.

I never said that. The predisposition is still there, regardless, lying dormant.

That doesn't mean that you'd be guaranteed the same evolution of responses, only that there's a possibility of some number of traits re-emerging.

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 12, 2015, 01:45:49 AM

That doesn't mean that you'd be guaranteed the same evolution of responses, only that there's a possibility of some number of traits re-emerging.

Exactly. So what's the problem?

Different circumstances, a same personality does not make.

It's not even a framework, they are simple yes or no questions like "do you like the color blue"? They mean something eventually, but they alone don't set any kind of foundation for your evolution. They just stake possible ground.

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 12, 2015, 01:47:52 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 12, 2015, 01:46:27 AM

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 12, 2015, 01:45:49 AM

That doesn't mean that you'd be guaranteed the same evolution of responses, only that there's a possibility of some number of traits re-emerging.

Exactly. So what's the problem?

Different circumstances, a same personality does not make.

I'm not saying it does, though. :-/ Refer to my edit.

Well refer to MY edit >:^(

Quote from: Jocephalopod on October 12, 2015, 01:44:41 AM

We can't disagree, because what you're saying is biologically impossible.

Got proof, or?...

Some fun stuff in here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_development

Along with the other wikipedia article I posted

Some fun stuff in here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_development

Along with the other wikipedia article I posted

I mean, like, proof proof. Some kind of research paper or something. I don't know if I really want to read a Wikipedia article on the subject, because Wikipedia isn't really great at the whole "concrete empirical evidence" thing.

Quote from: Cadenza on October 12, 2015, 12:30:59 AM

Are you really going to base the entire difference between us, the entire uniqueness of your existence, on the fact that you're having a conversation with someone who holds a different opinion? going up a level in abstraction, people talking to other people is not unique at all, everyone who can do so, does. Now while the specifics change from place to place and from time to time, the very nature of it all is just the same thing happening again and again. Think of it like molecules of water, regardless of whether or not it's in a cloud or a frozen comet or a pig's liver, it's always just two hydrogen's bonded to and oxygen. As long as you're a human, you're not terribly different from me or anyone else, and the differences that do exist are mostly superfluous.

The key part of your description is "not terribly different"; that implies that there is a difference regardless of the size.

People can act so similar that, just over text, it would be hard to distinguish them. Hatd, but possible, that is. If you add in the physical element, that completely changes the situation; you could tell two people who act a lot alike by simply seeing that they aren't the same person. "You" are the combination of memorable traits, whether they be physical or not. A combination, not one or the other.

That's why we aren't the same person. Even if we looked exactly the same, there are discrepancies in our personalities that can be seen in common situations such as this debate. If we had the same personality, we'd still be different people; we don't look the same.

That's my entire rational here; same != similar. If I had a different body, I might be similar, but I wouldn't be the same.

I'm not trying to imply that everyone is the same person, the odds of two people being identical down to an atomic level are so low that term infinitesimal doesn't even begin to describe it. What i'm saying is that if you look at the traits we use to identify how unique we are; our tastes, our relationships, our appearances, our histories, even if those are all different from one another, when you look outside of our species and at  another, suddenly we're all quite similar when compared to a protists or beetle. And going one step further when you consider what caused all those differences, predominately physical location, beyond that there really isn't too much of a difference.

Now you could make a case that those minute differences are all that matters, but my experiences make me think otherwise. Even in my short life i've met enough people and seen enough personality types that I've started to see repeats of certain combinations, and this isn't because i've been hanging around with the same groups of people, but because there's simply a limit to how different any two humans can be without either of them being fundamentally broken on some level.

That makes "I" incredibly vague; would that mean that evolutions from that initial plot are "I"s as well, or are they "you"s? At what point does an "I" become an "I"? The age at which memory begins, or with a solid understanding of self-awareness? When does it stop being "I", and start being something else? Is it always "I" so long as it started as one?

I'm not arguing against you here, I just don't completely understand what you're saying.

Well, if you want my educated guess on a few of these, I could give it a shot.

Evolutions from the initial plot would be considered just that. They're "I"s + environmental influence. You could say by the time you are self-aware, you've achieved a "super I". Otherwise known as sentience.

I couldn't tell you when an "I" becomes an "I". My earliest memory is when I was about one-and-a-half. Other people's first memories are when they were two or three. It varies. I don't know why it varies.

It never stops being "I"--that's kinda my whole argument from the beginning, ain't it? Shit just continually gets added to this "I". Leaves start growing on the branches, but it's all on the same tree.

The "I" stops being an "I" only when I die.

Quote from: Jocephalopod on October 12, 2015, 01:53:55 AM

Some fun stuff in here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_development

Along with the other wikipedia article I posted

I mean, like, proof proof. Some kind of research paper or something. I don't know if I really want to read a Wikipedia article on the subject, because Wikipedia isn't really great at the whole "concrete empirical evidence" thing.

Umm you can sort through the articles referenced within wikipedia if you want. The physical/mental development of the human body is proof within itself.


I'm just stating a general scientific consensus based on research and observation.

Look up some behavioral experiments or research a bit of embryonic development if you're really interested.


Do you have anything that supports your theory?