Are You Still You?

[Loki]

(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]

(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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

sensation? be more specific.

what is conciousness?

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

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

 

[Ceicei]

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]

(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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[heretic888]

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]

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]

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]

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.