# Are You Still You?



## Loki (Aug 27, 2005)

(Josh Groban came to mind after writing that title. Any fans out there, btw?)

 I'm sure you've all heard this before, but what the hell. My dad asked me this once and I didn't really know what to say, still struggling.

 My computer was constantly upgraded, having different parts of it replaced during different times. There is now not a single part of it that came in the original computer (not even the case or the screen). Is it the same computer? By no means, in my opinion.

 Since the day you were born, all of the cells in your body have died and been replaced. Are you the same person you were when you were born? Or even a few years ago? If not, who are you?

 I'll make this harder by assuming that there's no such thing as a soul.


----------



## ed-swckf (Aug 27, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> (Josh Groban came to mind after writing that title. Any fans out there, btw?)
> 
> I'm sure you've all heard this before, but what the hell. My dad asked me this once and I didn't really know what to say, still struggling.
> 
> ...


Well it seems that you are basing what is "you" on the collective cells that make you up, i tend to think with more fluidity, embracing the change that is constant as something that makes up the "you" that you talk of.  More like a journey, a constant evoloution, that is my nature and that is yours too.  Essentially you are your nature, and different points in the journey you will be in radically different places but still on the journey.  The starting point is known, the destination - not so much but it is accepted you are going to have one and arrive there in a radically different form from your starting point, it is however completely related to your starting point.  Sure cells have died but they have also contributed toward the ones that replace them, it all leads on to new things, more change, more of our inherent nature as an organism evolving toward its definite demise.  You could seperate things up forever and point out every instant of everything that changes or let it flow into one flowing motion that came from an initial energy that propels into new directions and is linked together as one.


----------



## Loki (Aug 27, 2005)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Well it seems that you are basing what is "you" on the collective cells that make you up, i tend to think with more fluidity, embracing the change that is constant as something that makes up the "you" that you talk of. More like a journey, a constant evoloution, that is my nature and that is yours too. Essentially you are your nature, and different points in the journey you will be in radically different places but still on the journey. The starting point is known, the destination - not so much but it is accepted you are going to have one and arrive there in a radically different form from your starting point, it is however completely related to your starting point. Sure cells have died but they have also contributed toward the ones that replace them, it all leads on to new things, more change, more of our inherent nature as an organism evolving toward its definite demise. You could seperate things up forever and point out every instant of everything that changes or let it flow into one flowing motion that came from an initial energy that propels into new directions and is linked together as one.


 So you're saying "you" is actually a sequence of changes made to biomatter? If I simply made your definition more technical, that was my intent. I want a solid definition.


----------



## ed-swckf (Aug 27, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> So you're saying "you" is actually a sequence of changes made to biomatter? If I simply made your definition more technical, that was my intent. I want a solid definition.


No i'm saying "you" is subject to change, its inherent to itself, with that accepted how is "you" no longer "you" when you look at you in different points of time?


----------



## Loki (Aug 27, 2005)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> No i'm saying "you" is subject to change, its inherent to itself, with that accepted how is "you" no longer "you" when you look at you in different points of time?


 What is that "you" which is subject to change?


----------



## ed-swckf (Aug 27, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> What is that "you" which is subject to change?


The collection of cells, biomatter etc, the sentient sensations and conciousness of said matter.  The simple awareness of self or to an extent, envoronment although i'd apply that differently.


----------



## Loki (Aug 27, 2005)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> The collection of cells, biomatter etc, the sentient sensations and conciousness of said matter. The simple awareness of self or to an extent, envoronment although i'd apply that differently.


 sensation? be more specific.

 what is conciousness?


----------



## ed-swckf (Aug 27, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> sensation? be more specific.
> 
> what is conciousness?


Yes sensations, for specifics:  http://www.answers.com/sensations 

http://www.answers.com/conciousness  thats conciousness.


----------



## Ceicei (Aug 27, 2005)

Your topic reminded me of a similar question used as an analogy.  I can't remember who it was that said this (was it Bruce Lee or someone else?):  With the water constantly moving, is it the same river?

 - Ceicei


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 28, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> (Josh Groban came to mind after writing that title. Any fans out there, btw?)
> 
> I'm sure you've all heard this before, but what the hell. My dad asked me this once and I didn't really know what to say, still struggling.
> 
> ...


Well for me it is very hard because I have a difficult time NOT believing that there is no soul. 
Yet if I were able to I think I'd still say yes you are you because what cells being regenerated are from the master copy cell and unlike a xerox machine the copies don't degenerate to a continual inferior copy. ... Age not withstanding. 
Physically you're always going to be you. The shape, even color might change (sometimes the sex :xtrmshock  ) but you are still ... you. ..... baaa


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 28, 2005)

The problem has been around since Antiquity... More commonly with the story of Theseus' Ship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/theseus.html


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 28, 2005)

I, for one, do not subscribe to a philosophy of materialism or naturalism. 

Honestly, I could'a sworn the 'Myth of the Given' put the kibosh on such things about 50 years ago. I'm surprised many still hold to such an intellectually bankrupt (not to mention intrinsically self-contradicting) ideology. I guess its just a carry-over from the Enlightenment paradigm (Age of Reason, not nirvana).

That being said, I most assuredly do not believe there is some immanent, immutable "self" to the human being. Any sense of "selfhood" a human being has is subject to continual change, transition, and a process of deconstruction followed by subsequent reconstruction. Buddhism, existentialism, developmental-structuralist psychology, and postmodern philosophy are all pretty much on agreement on this point. The rational, adult "self" you have now is not the "self" you had when you were five years old (and consequently incapable of pragmatic reason). The old, pre-rational "self" was "destroyed" or "broken down", followed by the "birth" or "reconstruction" of a new, formop "self".

Regarding "consciousness" as such, it cannot really be said to be a "self". The nature of Consciousness is more akin to the Buddhist ideas of _anatta_ and _shunyata_. It observes all things but cannot itself be observed. It observes anything you might call a "self", too, but is not one itself.

On a final note about the "soul"... it is probaby helpful to know that the word most commonly translated as "soul" from the New Testament is _psuche_ in the original Greek, from which we derive our English _psyche_. This probably shatters most people's notions about their "soul", but that's all it is: your ego dressed up in another language.

Of course, one may perhaps have some validity to speaking of the "soul" from the point-of-view of Christian mysticism (Meister Eckhart or John of the Cross, for example). But, this is not the context that "soul" is used in the Bible.

Laterz.


----------



## Loki (Aug 28, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Well for me it is very hard because I have a difficult time NOT believing that there is no soul.
> Yet if I were able to I think I'd still say yes you are you because what cells being regenerated are from the master copy cell and unlike a xerox machine the copies don't degenerate to a continual inferior copy. ... Age not withstanding.
> Physically you're always going to be you. The shape, even color might change (sometimes the sex :xtrmshock  ) but you are still ... you. ..... baaa


 What's the master copy cell and where is it? If I were exposed to radiation that caused mutation in my cells, even appeals to "same DNA" no longer work.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 28, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> What's the master copy cell and where is it? If I were exposed to radiation that caused mutation in my cells, even appeals to "same DNA" no longer work.



Whether we're talking about biology or psychology, the idea of some immutable, continuous, perpetual "self" just isn't supported. That idea originates squarely from a mythic-agrarian ideology, plain and simple.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 28, 2005)

i believe you are more than mere cells so to say "when you're cells die you no longer are the same person" is well, dumb.

former congressman and writer Bruce Barton once said, _"When you are through changing, you are through.  Nothing splendid has ever been achieved except by those who dared believe that something inside them was superior to circumstance.  If you have anything really valuable to contribute to the world it will come through the expression of your own personality, that single spark of divinity that sets you off and makes you different from every other living creature."_

we are creatures of change, that's who we are.

 :asian:


----------



## Loki (Aug 28, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I, for one, do not subscribe to a philosophy of materialism or naturalism.
> 
> Honestly, I could'a sworn the 'Myth of the Given' put the kibosh on such things about 50 years ago. I'm surprised many still hold to such an intellectually bankrupt (not to mention intrinsically self-contradicting) ideology. I guess its just a carry-over from the Enlightenment paradigm (Age of Reason, not nirvana).
> 
> ...


 Interesting stuff. Nicely describes my views on it too. Can you elaborate on the Buddhist concepts you mentioned?


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 29, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Interesting stuff. Nicely describes my views on it too. Can you elaborate on the Buddhist concepts you mentioned?



While I'm perhaps not the most qualified...

_Anatta_ means, literally, "no self" or "selfless". It is a concept found within Theravada Buddhism that, no matter where you look, you will not find anything at all that can be considered a "self". Rather, it is believed that what most people call a "self" is a collection of physical sensations, emotions, memories, and thoughts --- with no true underlying or essential identity to them. Mahayana Buddhism (which began with the sage Nagarjuna) qualified this position by claiming that the "self" has a relative and conditional reality, but not absolute reality (this is part of the Two Truths doctrine of Mahayana Buddhism).

_Shunyata_ means, literally, "emptiness" or "nothingness". It is a concept which originates with Nagarjuna (founder of Madhyamika Buddhism, the first Mahayana school), which states that the ultimate nature of reality is "emptied" of all particular phenomena, qualities, descriptions, and so forth. In other words, Formless. Emptiness is the nature of the Buddha Mind.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Dan G (Aug 29, 2005)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Your topic reminded me of a similar question used as an analogy. I can't remember who it was that said this (was it Bruce Lee or someone else?): With the water constantly moving, is it the same river?
> 
> - Ceicei


It was Heraclites (aka Heraclitus) who is sometimes quoted as saying: 

"No man can cross the same river twice, because 
the second time it is a different river and a different man."

(also have seen it quoted as "No man can step in the same river twice as other waters are flowing by" but great quote anyway...)

I can't remember who it is, but there is a regular poster on this forum who uses it as their signature, and it has stuck in my mind since reading it. Nice choice of signature, whoever it is!

Respectfully,

Dan


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 29, 2005)

Bruce Barton said:
			
		

> When you are through changing, you are through.  Nothing splendid has ever been achieved except by those who dared believe that something inside them was superior to circumstance.  If you have anything really valuable to contribute to the world it will come through the expression of your own personality, that single spark of divinity that sets you off and makes you different from every other living creature.



If Mr. Barton is here claiming that the personality is somehow immutable, or that it comes in some kind of fantastical infinite variety (making each individual "unique" from everyone else), he is sorely mistaken.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 29, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> If Mr. Barton is here claiming that the personality is somehow immutable, or that it comes in some kind of fantastical infinite variety (making each individual "unique" from everyone else), he is sorely mistaken.



Barton is not saying personality is immutable.  if anything he's saying the complete opposite.

and how is personality in infinite variety mistaken thought?  individuals are "unique" from everyone else, at least on the planet i live.

it's clearly evident you failed to understand the meaning behind that quote.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Aug 29, 2005)

I am not sure who I am, but I hope I am not the same person I was yesterday.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 29, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> Barton is not saying personality is immutable.  if anything he's saying the complete opposite.



Really? Despite the colorful wording about "change" in the first sentence, he goes on to say: 

"_Nothing splendid has ever been achieved except by those who dared believe that something inside them was superior to circumstance. If you have anything really valuable to contribute to the world it will come through the expression of your own personality, that single spark of divinity that sets you off and makes you different from every other living creature._"

What I got out of that was some immutable "divine personality" in each person. Perhaps you can point to where I am mistaken??



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> and how is personality in infinite variety mistaken thought?



Because that's not how the personality works. All personalities exist as varying degrees of the Big Five, with a finite number of possible combinations. Its even more finite when we're dealing with infants, in that there are only three possible temperaments that have been observed.



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> individuals are "unique" from everyone else, at least on the planet i live.



Sure, but the "unique"-ness of any given individual depends on much, much more than their personality traits.



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> it's clearly evident you failed to understand the meaning behind that quote.



Perhaps, but I'm still waiting for a specific explanation as to why this is so.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 29, 2005)

a disagreement of personal interpretation.  i see where you are coming from.  i just see it differently.  it doesn't matter. :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 29, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> a disagreement of personal interpretation.  i see where you are coming from.  i just see it differently.  it doesn't matter. :asian:



All's well that ends well. 

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2005)

Some people are just as annoying now as they were a year ago......
So there is obviously some consistency.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Some people are just as annoying now as they were a year ago......
> So there is obviously some consistency.




Hee hee. 

I was referring moreso to long-term changes in personality than those that could be discerned in a year's time, but point taken. 

*wonders _who exactly_ Tgrace is talking about*

 :supcool:


----------



## ed-swckf (Aug 30, 2005)

Dan G said:
			
		

> It was Heraclites (aka Heraclitus) who is sometimes quoted as saying:
> 
> "No man can cross the same river twice, because
> the second time it is a different river and a different man."
> ...


I think he was refering to either of the following:

"Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water my friend. Adapt!" 


"Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way round or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves."


----------



## Dan G (Aug 30, 2005)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> I think he was refering to either of the following:
> 
> "Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water my friend. Adapt!"
> 
> ...


That interpretation sounds more Eastern, but does overlap in a lot of areas.

I did a quick web search to see what is out there.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/heraclit.htm




			
				philosophy web site said:
			
		

> "According to both Plato and Aristotle, Heraclitus held extreme views that led to logical incoherence. For he held that (1) everything is constantly changing and (2) opposite things are identical, so that (3) everything is and is not at the same time. In other words, Universal Flux and the Identity of Opposites entail a denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction. Plato indicates the source of the flux doctrine: "Heraclitus, I believe, says that all things go and nothing stays, and comparing existents to the flow of a river, he says you could not step twice into the same river" _(Cratylus _402a = DK22A6).
> 
> What Heraclitus actually says is the following: On those stepping into rivers staying the same other and other waters flow. (DK22B12)There is an antithesis between 'same' and 'other.' The sentence says that _different _waters flow in rivers_ staying the same. _In other words, though the waters are always changing, the rivers stay the same. Indeed, it must be precisely _because _the waters are always changing that there are rivers at all, rather than lakes or ponds. The message is that rivers can stay the same over time even though, or indeed because, the waters change. The point, then, is not that _everything _is changing, but that the fact that _some _things change makes possible the continued existence of _other _things. Perhaps more generally, the change in elements or constituents supports the constancy of higher-level structures."


Cheers

Dan


----------



## White Fox (Jan 17, 2006)

I had to put my dog down Early one morning. At the exact second she was given the shot to kill her body I could feel her leave it. Not only that but at that exact second all the other dogs became restless in the kennel like when someone comes to your house and I could feel that someone else had entered the room. As if to come and get her. When I looked at my dogs face I could see that "she" was no longer there "she" had Left her body. Believe me or not I feel that there is an individual soul and that is who each of us as individuals really are. That is why when the body changes you are still the same person. Dig it!


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jan 17, 2006)

White Fox said:
			
		

> I had to put my dog down Early one morning. At the exact second she was given the shot to kill her body I could feel her leave it. Not only that but at that exact second all the other dogs became restless in the kennel like when someone comes to your house and I could feel that someone else had entered the room. As if to come and get her. When I looked at my dogs face I could see that "she" was no longer there "she" had Left her body. Believe me or not I feel that there is an individual soul and that is who each of us as individuals really are. That is why when the body changes you are still the same person. Dig it!


 
I had an instructor who used to say the same thing.  All in all I agree with your concept, even if you do change for someone else, you will come back to whom you really are eventually.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 17, 2006)

Personally, I tend to side somewhere between the existentialists (such as Kierkegaard and Satre), the developmental-constructivists (such as Piaget, Loevinger, and Habermas), and the Mahayana Buddhists (such as Nagarjuna and Kobo Daishi) on the issue of subject-constancy.

Laterz.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 17, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I tend to side somewhere between the existentialists (such as Kierkegaard and Satre), the developmental-constructivists (such as Piaget, Loevinger, and Habermas), and the Mahayana Buddhists (such as Nagarjuna and Kobo Daishi) on the issue of subject-constancy.
> 
> Laterz.


 
That's a lot of sides!  Or is it no sides at all?


(sorry, but it struck me as funny):lol2: :lol2: :lol2:


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 17, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> That's a lot of sides! Or is it no sides at all?
> 
> 
> (sorry, but it struck me as funny):lol2: :lol2: :lol2:


 
Personally, I think they all say pretty much the exact same thing about the "self". 

Laterz.


----------

