>there's a continuum of experience, regardless<
Similarly, there is a continuum of experience throughout the historical existence of human beings. No man, woman or society is an island. >In some ways, I have more of a continuum of experience with Laura Ingalls Wilder because I read her autobiographies when I was a child.<
Precisely the point, Cassy. "You" and so-called "Laura" likely share identical predilections (if not first names), hence your early identification with her work. No woman (or man) is an island.
Dominic
Yes, but I am NOT Laura. Nor am I Miles Vorkosigan, whom I also identify with on some levels, but who is a fictional character.
I can understand a person (to some degree at least) and identify with that person (to some degree at least) without being that person. You posit (it seems to me) a continuation of identity which I simply find lacking.
Cassy
Cassy,
>but I am NOT Laura<
And neither am "I". Nor am "I" "you". Nevertheless, you, Laura and I possess many characteristics that are the default condition of human beings. We each may not be the same, identical "person", but we are the same organisms (Homo sapiens).
>Nor am I Miles Vorkosigan, whom I also identify with on some levels, but who is a fictional character.<
In that case, "Miles Vorkosigan", as a creation of someone's imagination, could actually be you, as well as the many other readers who find something of themselves in the character "Miles Vorkosigan" (not to mention in the writer who cobbled together Miles in the first place).
>You posit (it seems to me) a continuation of identity which I simply find lacking.<
Likely because I'm not speaking of "a continuation of identity". Rather, I'm referring to a greater aspect of humanity that is common to and shared by all people, regardless of our individual identities.
That's where our failure to communicate is coming from, then. When I say "I" won't be around in 2800 CE, what I'm talking about is a continuity of identity.
>When I say "I" won't be around in 2800 CE, what I'm talking about is a continuity of identity.<
What I'm talking about is a continuity of human beings in 2800 CE, a few of whom may very well be just like you today, albeit without your given name of "Cassy". <s>
>"I" am made up of a relatively continuous string of memories.<
Correct. And these so-called memories extend far back into ancestral time, even before one's present lifetime. Carl Jung's "collective unconscious" comes to mind. (This concept is generally not included in most Western-style religions.) Similarly, our present physiological make-up is the current state of a continuous genetic evolution.
>Without a sufficient number of those memories, "I" am not "me".<
Which prompts the question: Who are "you", really? <s> Even our names (to which we attach much of our identity and upon which we construct our individual "selves") did not belong to us originally, having been "given" to us by parents or caregivers.
Correct. And these so-called memories extend far back into ancestral time, even before one's present lifetime.
Maybe for you they do. For me, they start around 1969.
Carl Jung's "collective unconscious" comes to mind. (This concept is generally not included in most Western-style religions.)
Has anyone ever actually found evidence of this?
Similarly, our present physiological make-up is the current state of a continuous genetic evolution.
That's the template on which the memories are laid down, not the memories themselves. I could say that paper is made by a process that has been refined over thousands of years... but that does not affect the contents of the book I am currently reading. It makes it possible to read the book, to be sure, but the book is the words, not the paper. "I" am my memories, not the brain structures that allow those memories to form and be retained.
Which prompts the question: Who are "you", really? <s>
The sum of my memories and experiences. Somewhat mediated by the memories and experiences others have of interacting with me. ("Do you remember when you....")
Some can be lost (I have no real memories from before four years old) with little apparent damage to "me". But if sufficient amounts are lost, I start ceasing to be me. (My mother died with advanced senility. A grandfather spent years in a nursing home after a serious stroke. I have some experience with this phenomenon.)
Even our names (to which we attach much of our identity and upon which we construct our individual "selves") did not belong to us originally, having been "given" to us by parents or caregivers.
The method of "postulating" what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil.Bertrand Russell
George,
Nope. Of course, notions of what constitutes evidence may vary widely. But in the sense of scientific evidence, or evidence admissible in court, no.
That's what I thought. And it doesn't seem to square well with what we're learning about neuroscience, either....
Hey, did you watch Ardi last night? Cool, huh?
Watch Ardi? On what channel? Which show? Maybe TiVo can find a rebroadcast...
Hi Cassy,
>For me, they start around 1969<
Would that be the year you were born?
>>Carl Jung's "collective unconscious" comes to mind. (This concept is generally not included in most Western-style religions.)<<
>Has anyone ever actually found evidence of this?<
Per George's post, the jury is still out. To the subjective eye, there appears to be no proof of a "collective unconscious". But objectively, one can see, hear and experience it through the world's art, music and varieties and blends of culture. As well, it can be observed in our behavor as human beings...mothers caring for their young, arrogance and combativeness, aspiration for a better life (in this world or in the hereafter), etc.
>>Similarly, our present physiological make-up is the current state of a continuous genetic evolution.<<
>"I" am my memories, not the brain structures that allow those memories to form and be retained.<
As you are free to believe..
>>Who are "you", really? <s><<
>The sum of my memories and experiences. Somewhat mediated by the memories and experiences others have of interacting with me.<
Do contributions that your parents, grandparents, etc. made to your existence (e.g., genetic physiological conditions, inherent temperament) count as parts of the sum total that you understand to be "you"?
>Some can be lost (I have no real memories from before four years old) with little apparent damage to "me". But if sufficient amounts are lost, I start ceasing to be me. (My mother died with advanced senility. A grandfather spent years in a nursing home after a serious stroke. I have some experience with this phenomenon.)<
Then perhaps we should ask ourselves, "Who is it that lies before us in the open casket?" (Or more appropriately, "What lies before us in the open casket?") And where did "he" or "she" go? Would you say that people are simply mindless containers that get filled up with personalities between the ages of 4 and 80? And then become devoid of it as their shelf life expires?
>I know several people who have taken names different from that which their parents gave them.<
So, are these folks now different people from the ones you knew prior to their new names?
>Names are not memories and experiences, except in the most peripheral of fashions. I remember my mother calling me by one name and not another. But the name itself is a label.<
Precisely. As you've probably guessed by now, I'm coming from the point of view of Buddhism. According to Buddhism, each lifetime (and its accrued identity) is a temporary "container" with a temporary label/name. That which carries on from lifetime to lifetime from the beginningless past to the eternal future is what "fills" each container. And "that" is not necessarily the "you" that you only started become consciously aware of at the age of four.
Sorry; I don't see how that follows. I'm pointing out that a label is not a person. The map is not the territory.
The parents give the name... the label. But the offspring is himself, not them.
You know, I've never quite understood what good it does to learn lessons in successive lives... if one never remembers the lessons from life to life. No offense meant.
Hi Cassy...thank you for continuing this quite interesting conversation!
>Do YOU remember the year you were born?<
It's on my birth certificate, passport and driver's licence. How could I forget? <g>
>No. That would be the year I first started retaining identifiable memories.<
Well, it's said each day is the first day of the rest of your life, so I guess you can start it anytime. <s>
>>To the subjective eye, there appears to be no proof of a "collective unconscious". But objectively, one can see, hear and experience it through the world's art, music and varieties and blends of culture. As well, it can be observed in our behavor as human beings...mothers caring for their young, arrogance and combativeness, aspiration for a better life (in this world or in the hereafter), etc.<<
>None of that requires a "collective unconscious".<
"Unconscious" may be misleading. Let's try collective consciousness. Society, after all, is a group effort.
>Similarity of neurochemistry and neurological structures is sufficient to explain the commonality of art and music. Adaptive utility is enough to explain our caring for our young and striving for ourselves.<
I have no issue with these findings. Over-reliance upon them just seems a tad myopic. It brings to mind the story of five blind men who are sent off to describe an elephant. Each comes back with a partial description after touching only one part of the whole animal. <s>
>I don't see how I have any choice but to believe that, actually.<
Do you not subscribe to free will? <s>
>Without the paper, there can be no book. But it is the book that is "me".<
And a book cannot exist in reality without paper for pages, binding, a cover, ink for text, a printer, publisher, etc.
>I have none of their memories<
But you have "paper for pages" similar to theirs, "binding" that they likely inherited from their ancestors, etc.
>what they do not have is a continuum of memory with themselves as an adult.<
In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins described the range of consciousness from an earthworm to a human being as something akin to coming out from under anesthesia. It echoes the continuum between a new-born (up to age 4) and the adult. Clear-cut memories may not be noticeable, but on some level "pre-conscious" experience is retained. The slap of the delivering doctor's hand on the baby's butt, for example. <g>
>I am willing to accept, however, that when the memory and life goes, the book is done.<
Where do memory and life go?
>I'm pointing out that a label is not a person. The map is not the territory.<
But a map is necesssary to locate your "self" in uncharted territory. <s>
>The parents give the name... the label. But the offspring is himself, not them.<
But without the body that the parents provided, the offspring does not exist in reality. Mind (consciousness) and body are two sides of the same coin.
>You know, I've never quite understood what good it does to learn lessons in successive lives... if one never remembers the lessons from life to life.<
Small wonder human beings still engage in war with their fellows! <g>
Dominic,
Heh. But you know that's not what I'm asking. Do you, personally, retain any memories laid down in the first year of your life?
Me, I consider "I" started when "I" first remember being "me".
Yes, but I don't share the conscousness of the rest of society. I cannot access you memory. Telepathy doesn't work, at least not for me.
So I don't really see how the conscousness is truly collective.
That's nice, but the description of the whole animal is verifiable and adds utility. I don't see that "collective unconscious" is either verifiable OR adds utility.
As the saying goes, "They laughed at Gallileo! They laughed at Einstein!... but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown..."
I don't honestly see how beliefs... any beliefs... are a choice at all.
And as for free will... I don't know how one could prove it one way or the other. I choose to act as though free will exists (or I am deterministically compelled to...) but that doesn't actually say anything one way or the other.
Sure. But with no words, it's no book. And the words are what make it unique.
But the words, for the most part, are my own. Nor can I truly "read" their books, nor they "read" mine.
Yes, but I'd be willing to bet that this is hypothetical, and that he nowhere claims that he can remember the memories of an earthworm...
Into the fire. <shrug> Memory is destroyed when the brain dies. Unless someone figures out a way to electronically download memories.
Ok, the metaphor is officially overextended. <grin> What does this have to do with the name that your parents gave you? How does that help you find yourself?
But without the body that the parents provided, the offspring does not exist in reality.
You were talking about names. Now you're talking about bodies. That's not the label metaphor, that's the book metaphor....
Mind (consciousness) and body are two sides of the same coin.
One certainly can't have consciousness without a body, that I've ever seen demonstrated. One can, however, have a body without conscousness. So there's a one-sided coin for you...
Are you suggesting, then, that humans do NOT learn from their previous lives?
I would not be surprised if God is part of that, or that is part of God.
Cal, from West Michigan
All generalizations are false, including this one..
