Identity (The Concept)

[mikelegs]

First let me say I'll probably never make a single point in this thread. I just need to get some ideas flowing. Been reading some threads talking about 'genetic memory' and the like. It got me thinking about identity. Once you look below a certain level, nothing has any identity. As far as I know, all water molecules look and act exactly the same (as individuals). Even if I'm wrong there, I know that you can't take two protons, name one Fred and the other George, and expect to tell them apart the next time you meet. So who cares? Well we're made up of nothing but protons and electrons and water molecules, etc so how do we know who is who? When I die, at what point do you draw the line between 'poor old dead mike' and 'that mass of rotting goo'? None of my protons or electrons can take anything of me away with them. So with the classical teleportation question, is an atomically precise replica of me still me? What if the original is still around? Finally, one could say that protons and the like could be individualized based on their 3D position in the universe, but I'd argue against it, based roughly on the uncertainty principal. Whatever magical machine is measuring and keeping track of all these particles' locations wouldn't be able to measure its own absolutely. In fact, all measurements would have to be relative unless we convienently come across the universe's XYZ axes some day. Such relative measurements would have to be arbitrary, and consequently invalid (in my opinion). Anyone have anything to add or refute?

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Mike. It's 9.40pm in the UK as I start this, and I'm relaxing with a drink after a long day - so I'm probably not fresh enough in mind to do proper justice to your question.
All I'll say here to add to your observations is that the same issue of identity occurred to me a while back, when I first saw my - not common - name thrown up on Internet searches and evidently used by a whole bunch of imposters! Seriously though, it made me realise how dependent we are on names and other labels for ourselves to identify our own unique and temporary collection of atoms.
Take away the name (or name everyone the same) and what does that do to our identity and the way we function? We could rely on combinations of physical descriptions, job titles, abilities and interests - but there would still be considerable correlations in these details across such wide numbers of people that it would render the method impossibly confusing and impractical. A better solution might be numerical - to assign globally unique identifiers in the same fashion as computer object identification. But then we would then face the equally impossible task of memorising large numbers of random number sets - thereby forcing us back, I'm sure, to the adoption of friendly name terms again.
Perhaps the only way we are uniquely distinguishable is in the personality, character, spirit, soul - call it what you will? While it's evident that we all behave simliarly enough under given circumstances and stimuli, I have yet to find two people who were identical in their perception and outlook. The problem is, again, how could we use these nuances to clearly distinguish one person from another? I don't know.
Perhaps we should turn to American Indian-style imagery and symbolism based on combinations of nouns, verbs and adjectives: 'Rain in the west, spreading eastward, with light precipitation in the Tri-State area before dawn'? Or maybe 'poor old dead mike - that mass of rotting goo'? That would work too.

 

[rynner2]

Take away the name (or name everyone the same) and what does that do to our identity and the way we function? We could rely on combinations of physical descriptions, job titles, abilities and interests - but there would still be considerable correlations in these details across such wide numbers of people that it would render the method impossibly confusing and impractical.

Ohhh, I don't know, boyo. The Welsh have got by very well on Jones the post, Jones the Milk, etc, for ages!

Llareggub says it all (to those in the know).

Rynner (not Welsh, but I have a Welsh son)

 

[dot23]

THX1138 - very easy to remember!

The point of most 'mystical traditions' in religion seems to be the destruction of ego, i-ness or individual souls and recombination with the world-soul, universal I or chosen deity. CApitalist materialism works the other way, beseeching us to constantly define ourselves by our 'lidestyle choices': haircuts, jewelry, status symbols, clothes and personality (anti-social has become a byword for 'different perception of reality'?)

Amidst all this it's hard to see (as a pseudo-agnostic) where the soul fits into all this. In reincarnation theory and other systems, the soul is the individual, is the ego, and this remains constant throughout rebirth, or in the afterlife (although chrisitianity is pretty, well, hazy on this subject).

One could argue that the existance of the individual, whilst being the birth of modern consciousness, also can be equated with the fall from grace, and responsible for most of humanity's troubles. By creating a distinction between 'me' and 'other people/things' we simultaneously lost our 'oneness' with the natural world, and also started to see 'things as belonging to me', or 'belonging to others'. The protection of 'things belonging to me' as an extension of the ego and the desire to increase ones sense of self-worth through enlarging this, percieved, group of objects/ people (wives, children, slaves, friends) is a source of constant stress and division.

god, why didn't I do a(nthro)pology?

 

[intaglio]

The real problem is that we all use certain words without knowing what the hwll we mean by them.
Life - we call certain things life or alive. We know ourselves to be alive we have no written rule that allows us to judge who else or what else is alive. It's a good guess that rynner is alive, as are my cats. The fleas they had (the cats not rynner) were alive. But what about the protozoa? the bacteria? the virus'?? the prions??? and what about stars???

Intelligence - the mechanistic interpretation of this is the ability to do IQ tests. It doesn't work, I've met members of Mensa who had difficulty doing anything except pass intelligence tests. As for machine intelligence! Thats a can of worms that feeds a lot of programmers and hardware engineers.

Consciousness - same rules as life but start putting the question marks after the fleas and add the computer caveat.

Death - given the above we do not know what that is. Then look at the evidence of recovery from persistant vegetative state.

I suspect we're going to need one of those genius' like Newton or Darwin to sort the mess out.

 

[Anonymous]

Recovery from vegetative state? Well, recovery from being in coma yes, but I never heard of anyone coming back after having been braindead.

I think it takes a bit more than this to be a good anthropologist.

 

[intaglio]

The problem with PVS is it's definition see this bio-ethics site . You note that with the exception of brain metabolism all definitions are qualitative not quantitive.

Brain death is well defined - cessation of all brain function, the classic flat-line. and yes people do recover from it see this report of the recent NDE's. To quote
*It appears as if the memories of NDEs come from exactly the time when the brain is inactive. As the lead researcher, Dr. Pim van Lommel, said on @discovery.ca, "The only thing we could conclude is that there is consciousness during a flat EEG."*

You could say that metabolism has not ceased in these cases. But cerebral metabolism does cease in the case of dive reflex deaths, children frozen and immersed being re-heated and waking.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know if the NDE reports this article was about had anything to do with brain death in the sense I mean. I was more referring to the ones where everything but what controls the organs are dead. And they are lying in a bed just waiting for someone to pull the plug.

 

[intaglio]

The problem is that the plug can be pulled and not a lot happens - not often, but frequently enough to be noticed. Thats when the court orders start flying in an effort to starve the cadaver to death. I believe, tho' I don't have the cases to hand, that there are those who recover some degree of conciousness after this.

It seems the only workable definition of the cessation of life in *higher* animals is the destruction of the brain. Even that didn't work in the case of Mike the Headless Chicken .

To get back to the thread at what point can life be present in an agregation of matter? I don't know and despite what emient persons will tell you neither do they. We don't know whether life and some degree of awareness can be found even in quantum strings. Pagan and animistic beliefs will tell you that everything is to some degree alive and aware. Who's to say they are wrong?

 

[Anonymous]

With Mike it was the same case as the brain dead people. The brain stem is still working.

 

[intaglio]

With Mike it was the same case as the brain dead people. The brain stem is still working.

Interesting reply, except I'd say it was probably the brain stem still working. No-one actually knows, it is at best an informed guess. Mind you he did fulfill the classic definition of life - absorbing nutrients, eliminating waste, motility and having the potential to reproduce sexually.

It does lead to an interesting thought - what happens to the higher brain if you knock out the brain stem? I'm assuming of course that sufficient mechanical support is given to ensure nutrient and blood supply is maintained. Does the victim still have their life?

My reply is "I don't know"

 

[Anonymous]

Protons! Brains!
I'm convinced that it is your experience that makes your identity. You exist for others through their experience of you.
I will take this opportunity to quote Joseph Conrad.
From chapter 20 of Lord Jim:

"'He is romantic- romantic,' he repeated. 'And that is very bad- very bad.... Very good, too,' he added. 'But is he?' I queried.
"'Gewiss,' he said, and stood still holding up the candelabrum, but without looking at me. 'Evident! What is it that by inward pain makes him know himself? What is it that for you and me makes him- exist?'
"At that moment it was difficult to believe in Jim's existence- starting from a country parsonage, blurred by crowds of men as by clouds of dust, silenced by the clashing claims of life and death in a material world- but his imperishable reality came to me with a convincing, with an irresistible force! I saw it vividly, as though in our progress through the lofty silent rooms amongst fleeting gleams of light and the sudden revelations of human figures stealing with flickering flames within unfathomable and pellucid depths, we had approached nearer to absolute Truth, which, like Beauty itself, floats elusive, obscure, half submerged, in the silent still waters of mystery. 'Perhaps he is,' I admitted with a slight laugh, whose unexpectedly loud reverberation made me lower my voice directly; 'but I am sure you are.' With his head dropping on his breast and the light held high he began to walk again. 'Well- I exist, too,' he said.

 

[minordrag]

Damn. Now y'all are blowing my mind for real.

Broadly put, Oriental mythology embraces the idea of the extinction of self identity--Buddha asked us to not only transcend old age and infirmity, but the concepts of birth and death. Ego and ignorance lead to "samsara," the endless cycle of desire and dissatisfaction; the hamster's wheel of the physical world. I'm all for mindfullness and self-awareness, but am damned attached to my 69 Plymouth Fury.

Occidental mythology more or less embraces the obverse: the eternal existance of an immutable self in the form of a soul. This entity can be "saved" through the machinations of an external agent (Christ, &c.), but neither heaven or hell can obliterate it. Buddhism calls upon each of us to more or less save ourselves, and suggests an immanent "Buddha nature" in everyone. To me, this is much more plausible and comforting. Given the light of recent events, in which two tribes of Abraham (make that three) are blowing the hell out of each other, it's nice to not come up with any examples of Buddhist carpet-bombing.

It was alarming for me to learn several years ago that the body replaces all of its cells every few years. It's less disturbing to realize that I'm not the same person I was in my youth. Outlook, ambition, interpersonal relationships, and ultimately my own definition of self have changed as a result of my life experiences. My mind was substantially altered last night after viewing a marvellous documentary on the "secret life of the brain!" Naturally (as my wife and friends would be quick to point out), some aspects of my personality are maddeningly the same.

Anyway, it's late. I believe you and your environment are what you make of them. As for what happens after you shuffle off, well, that's irrelevant. Desire for reward or fear of punishment are not good enough reasons for proper behavior during your stay here. They are their own reward.

A friend of mine was killed in a car accident several years ago. It was tough going for all his friends. At the wake, I asked his best friend (to whom fell the unpleasant task of sorting out Eddie's estate) how he was doing. "I'm OK," he said. "I knew him so well and learned so much from him that I was able to internalize a lot of who he was, so I don't think he's really gone."

That made me feel a whole lot better.

 

[EnolaGaia]

First let me say I'll probably never make a single point in this thread. I just need to get some ideas flowing. Been reading some threads talking about 'genetic memory' and the like. It got me thinking about identity. Once you look below a certain level, nothing has any identity. As far as I know, all water molecules look and act exactly the same (as individuals). Even if I'm wrong there, I know that you can't take two protons, name one Fred and the other George, and expect to tell them apart the next time you meet. So who cares? Well we're made up of nothing but protons and electrons and water molecules, etc so how do we know who is who? ...

Part of the answer to this, the OP's original query, relates to the granularity or level of composition at issue. At the very beginning, Mikelegs states there is a lack of identity "once you look below a certain level." By the end, he is talking about a personal identity at a much higher level of granularity or composition (e.g., a whole organism).

If your context of reference is down at the molecular / atomic level, there is little to differentiate among the units of reference at that level. "Identity" isn't much of an issue when the population of objects is basically interchangeable and all of the same form behave the same in a given situation.

Things change when you move up to a higher level of granularity / composition, where the instantaneous state and dynamics of a far more complex composite object are determined with more specific regard to the rest of the system in which the constituent components operate. At this higher level of granularity / complexity, the higher-level objects are intertwined with each other and interact with other objects in ways that are dependent upon the manner in which they're organized and the way they already are at a given point in time. In other words, at the level of complexity where we operate as organisms, there are contingencies deriving from interdependency and historicality that aren't (so?) important at the molecular / atomic level.

These features of organizational particulars and historical progression are specific to the composite object, and hence impart a degree of specificity / uniqueness to that composite object, to a degree that simply isn't (or isn't operationally relevant) at the molecular / atomic level of reference.