Depends on how he defined river. If he swims in the river, then "the river" is defined as something that can vary. Hence he can swim in it again. Etc.

Refus,

Right on the mark sir,seems logical we should set up our definations to agree with our conclusion-----that is bassackward though isn't it.No doubt to come to the conclusion Heraclitus did,identity depended upon the same water being in the same place at the same time.My defination would be dependent upon the waters constant flow,constant change,yet in both cases when established,the waters state would be definative.His conclusion agrees with his defination but it does not agree with my defination.Being he is dead,he does not have much further to say on the topic.

With Heraclitus,the river he visited yesterday was not to be found the next day,it could not maintain its identity with a transient flow.How many variables are vital,for the nailing down and maintance of identity.Is two the magic number---surprizeing perhaps in a dual world?

Ah,you have an identity but you don't know what it is,do you,Mr Jones!

THE NEUROLOGY OF SELF-AWARENESS
By V.S. Ramachandran

Introduction

Five and a half years ago, Edge published a notable essay by neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran, entitled "MIRROR NEURONS and imitation learning as the driving force behind "the great leap forward". In the essay, he wrote:

"The discovery of mirror neurons in the frontal lobes of monkeys, and their potential relevance to human brain evolution ? which I speculate on in this essay ? is the single most important "unreported" (or at least, unpublicized) story of the decade. I predict that mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for biology: they will provide a unifying framework and help explain a host of mental abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious and inaccessible to experiments."

And, one year ago, we published a related essay, "Mirror Neurons and the Brain in a Vat", which further developed this set of ideas.

Here, for the EDGE 10th Anniversary Essay, we are pleased to present a new work, "The Neurology of Self-Awareness", in which "Rama" explores the concept of the self, tying in the ideas of researchers such as Horace Barlow, Nick Humphrey, David Premack and Marvin Minsky (among others), who have suggested that consciousness may have evolved primarily in a social context. This includes Minsky's ideas on "a second parallel mechanism that has evolved in humans to create representations of earlier representations" and Humphrey's arguments "that our ability to introspect may have evolved specifically to construct meaningful models of other peoples minds in order to predict their behavior. "

"Have we solved the problem of self?", he asks in concluding the essay. "Obviously not ? we have barely scratched the surface. But hopefully we have paved the way for future models and empirical studies on the nature of self, a problem that philosophers have made essentially no headway in solving. (And not for want of effort ? they have been at it for three thousand years). Hence our grounds for optimism about the future of brain research ? especially for solving what is arguably Science's greatest riddle."


V.S. RAMACHANDRAN, a neuroscientist, is Director, Center for Brain and Cognition, University of California, San Diego; Author, A Brief Tour of
Human Consciousness, and coauthor, Phantoms in the Brain.

V.S. Ramachandran's Edge Bio Page
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/rama.html

If what we tend to identify as ourselves is but our experience of moveing through the world,that seems simple enough.I have however had the experience of complete though temporal memory loss,my whole personal history wiped clean.In this state it could not be said that my sense of self was soley of my personal history.I did not know who I was,and I did not know who anyone else was.I was battered, bruised and disoriented,but I was alive,and that felt great,even in the condition I was in.A short time later I remembered one piece and it all came flooding back.I believe I had in that short time a sense of self,though no partiular identity,but self only knows itself as that which experiences.I had no personal history,only the experience of the moment,with no bagage.So,perhaps the Upanishads are correct when they say,"The Self In One Is The Self In All."--------or possiably not,what do you think?

Just an idea and a source:

THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL
ANOTHER STARTLING CONCLUSION FROM the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Consciousness turns out to consist of a maelstrom of events distributed across the brain. These events compete for attention, and as one process outshouts the others, the brain rationalizes the outcome after the fact and concocts the impression that a single self was in charge all along.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1580394,00.html

If this does not get some attention I think curiousity left the building with Elvis! What about our old ideas about the self? The buddhist idea of the no-self? If the self is indeed the result of a selective process in a maelstrom of events, self is then,a selected cluster of events---------a little scary no? No,this is not getting off topic for I believe the sense of personal identity is formed in the same way.

"The Self In One Is The Self In All." The Upanishads

Mirror neurons, it would seem, dissolve the barrier between self and others.

Quite an interesting article. To me trying to define identity is less daunting that defining one's own identity. If everyone were stripped of their past memories, experiences, etc., as you described in your experience then,at that point, everyone would be as close to identical as people can get. If, as some people say, it's a person's experiences that give them identity, then take these blank slates and put them in separate rooms and subject them to identical experiences we should have a bunch of people with the same identity. Of course, I don't think anyone actually believes this is what would happen since each brain has a different arrangement of neurons, concentrations of nuerotransmitters and hormones, different down to the subatomic level governed by probablistic functions. To me then, identity wouldn't be a defineable idea so much as this process, or like the article states, a selective process in a maelstrom of events. Defining one's own identity would be like trying to define "now," since the process of reaching a definition would change what the definition was before one started. At best, I think, one might be able to define their identity as persistent patterns, like self-referencing fingerprints, though I'm sure there's a better way to put it. It's a slippery concept to try a wrap oneself around, and for me I always seem to end up where I started.

I find little difficulty with your statements,I think the key word in your statement is process,it is all process."Like self-referencing fingerprints-excellent!"The truth as revealed by neurology will be profoundly distrubing to people at large,to religion in particular,though perhaps less so with Hinduism and Buddhism.Identical twins raised in different contexts although shareing many commonalities do develop independent identities.It is perhaps a limited topic in the sense we must wait upon neurology to give us further details upon which to form our conclusions.Then again perhaps there are some associates in our midst who can provide a new slant on this topic--------thanks for your most interesting response! Leave it to me to screw up the format!!!!!!! Sorry for the broken apparence of the post.

PS:Anyone coming across further scientific info on consciousness and/or self/identity please post it.

Hi all,

Lets expand the topic somewhat,for instance,I would maintain that personal identity is a highly functional illusion.From what nuerology has said lately it appears to be nothing more substantial than a cluster of thought.

What would it mean to society if science proves that there is indeed no one in charge[sure different societal role model---no?]. What is organized religion to do when science proves that humanity is the source of its own compassion.I am sure there would be a lot of consequencies following the revealations of nuerology, what do you imagine? Would the structure of civilization be greatly weakend, transformed,or what? Like most things of this world,close examination reveals a world of entangables,a dreamy moveing not quite thing.

Yes, it is true. The important part is: If we fight in the right way, happiness can be bound in the universe without dissapearing and then, if we are engaged enough, we can make the universe static, and forever have the happiness. It might be impossible, but that's what we have to do. Infact, it is impossible. Sadly enough. Unless you know better, that is. Have fun, and when this universe goes away, it will all be lost with equall pain. I can live with that, can you?

PS. I think it might actually might be possible that happines came first, and it will take more then an eternity for it to dissapear. Then we will win.

Refus,

You are going to have it translate your above post.Quote my complete post then piece by piece show us how your reply answers or addresses my post.I am not being difficult here Refus,I really don't get it.I am afraid I need a little help on this one.Happyness seems to be the main topic in your post,the title of the thread is identity.Clear the confusion up for us if you can----------thanks Boagie

The self is a chemical reaction, happiness is the bounds the reaction create. If this is true, not only a self can experience happiness, since to experience something, all you need is a self, and a self only enterpret, you don't have to interpret something for it to be experienced. If happiness was something we get from interpreting, the it would be undone at death.

Proving it is so would be like proving that sugar is sweet.

Ok I'll try.

To interpret something, there must be something to interpret. It is the feeling we interpret, thus the feeling is whether it is interpreted or not.

I am wondering exactly how much of societal behavior is based on natural neurological inclinations that have established themeselves as societal norms and how much is based on there being a "higher" reason for these behaviors. Those who behave a certain way and adopt certain principles because they think there are objective, elevated standards put in place by some higher being or other moral cornerstone will likely be much more affected that those who already subscribe to naturalistic explanations. I guess to put it another way is if the person's perceived reason for meaning in their life is removed then do they still have meaning? Does meaning come first or does the explanation? I think meaning comes first, since I don't think that someone who values their family, friends, etc due to non-scientific explanations would suddenly feel that these things are worthless if their rationale was proven to be incorrect. I think society may have ripple affects for those if it were shown to them that spiritual explanations for meaning are not necessary, but peronally I think it would work out for the better since people would still feel how they feel but the reason would be different and more accurate. And some people would just keep believing what they believe regardless of what is presented to them.

Gee, i thought I could keep the bounds in the beginning of the universe, that takes an infinity to break, but your post almost without any content there almost made me questioning if sugar is itself. (joke)

Dexter,Refus,

Interesting,I think in general our biology is expressed in the structures and technology we create in the world.I think what you are saying here though is something even more striking,that experience needs no interpretation in order to be real----------I agree! Perhaps it could be said that pure experience is truth,interpretation is always subject to error.Nietzsche again,there are no facts,only interpretations.With pure experience I believe---and this is a state or a stage----there is no separation of subject and object,in order for interpretation to occur some enstrangement of subject and object must take place--no enstrangement no interpretation.Enstrangement is relationship or relational when there is no divide between subject and object there is nothing to be relative too,your it!

To use the word meaning in the context in which you have I think incorrect,for meaning generally means something acknowledge cognitively.You have stated I think that meaning occurs on a more fundamental level -----I say it does not,the term is meaningless on this fundamental level,meaning would require interpretation,an enstrangement between subject and object----this enstrangement creates the objective world.Meaning cannot come first,but you can create another meaning for the same thing with a different interpretation.

That which most of us considered concrete,pillars and supporting structures which carry the weight of all our ideas and concepts will be transformed in a relative blink of an eye.Will the structure remain standing or shall we have to rebuild accordding to a somewhat different blueprint. Belief in the supernatural will be part of tommorow's reality don't think.Humanity has to have something to try to deal with the wretched human condition,and so,the ghost gods in the sky.Certainly belief in such things will be more difficult,but yeah,they'll be working on it.

The cracking of the concept of identity will make us all realize a much greater identity,and perhaps that will be more than enough to substain us and create a greater humanity.

"To interpret something, there must be something to interpret. It is the feeling we interpret, thus the feeling is whether it is interpreted or not."

Refus,You are scaring the piss out of me,I am understanding you.I think there is a logical kink here though "thus the feeling is whether it is interpreted or not"----------its at odds with,"there must be something to interpret.The feeling is the experience,and is in no need of interpretation unless you desire to communicate it to another,and then it is a least once remove from the reality of experience,therefore a secondary something.I am going back to my room now.

There are really a couple of issues here. The first is the argument that even in cases of extreme memory loss, the subconscious retains elemental "keys" to the reconstruction of self. If it didn't, than by extension, one would assume that motor functions, etc. will also suffer (as in the case of serious brain damage). I imagine that that moment of "here and nowness" can at once be liberating and stultingly terrifying.

Second:


It has been suggested that the neural patterns of the mind are like roads in relation to habits. The more you walk a path, the more worn it becomes. Less effort is required to walk the path, so to speak, which may explain why ingrained (or shall we say "engraved") habits are so damn hard to break. We are, in a very real sense, our habits. Which isn't to say that our identity is fixed.

I'm in the middle of grading mid-terms, so I can't give this the thought it deserves, but I tend to hold that we can't step in the same river twice (referring to another post ). Taking perception as an example, I see yellow as yellow, but the yellow I saw yesterday is different than the yellow I see today. I say it's different because a day has passed, my mood may be different, the object of my attention may be slightly different, my intentionality has changed. Yellow does remain yellow, but my orientation to it has changed, however subtly.

Passer Outre,

I have heard that there is a holistic approach to this,as if continuity was the rule rather than the exception.Possiably everything co-related,not independent but mutually dependent.When my memory came flooding back,perfect analogy by the way,all it took was recognizing one piece of information.Yes it is a wonderus experience,it did not last long enough for me to truley be terrified.When my memory returned however it came to me as a burden,for that short time I had no negative thoughts, no limitations,identity turned out to be anything but liberating.Perhaps that is what in essence it is,qualifications and/or limitations similar to the fact that all words are qualifications and/or limitations and that is what gives those scribbles meaning[identity].


"We are, in a very real sense, our habits. Which isn't to say that our identity is fixed."

I am not sure this is relative,but Hume in establishing the mystery of the relation between cause and effect attibuted our false assumption of knowledge to habit.

I'm in the middle of grading mid-terms, so I can't give this the thought it deserves, but I tend to hold that we can't step in the same river twice (referring to another post ). Taking perception as an example, I see yellow as yellow, but the yellow I saw yesterday is different than the yellow I see today. I say it's different because a day has passed, my mood may be different, the object of my attention may be slightly different, my intentionality has changed. Yellow does remain yellow, but my orientation to it has changed, however subtly.[/quote]

I agree with you here,it is perhaps like two great wheels of fortune which change themselves over time,coordinates must line up,and the judge must be incrediably flexiable.We tend to see the colour yellow,so,both wheels must be in some way co-ordinated,and must stay that way if we are to experience continuity---does that make any sense to you? I am going back to my room now.

Thanks Passer Outre,for a most stimulating post!!

Interesting posts. I agree that identiy isn't fixed if it's understood to be
something other than "that which is aware of itself" or some other base
concept. Since people are a constantly responsive system, they are of course not identical from moment to moment. Explaining when identity has changed to me is like saying when a sand box is full after filling it up one grain at a time. I'm not sure if someone would be able to say, "after this one lastadditional grain of sand, the sand box is officially full." In other words, defining identity this way is just saying "not what it was before." After reading everyone's post I'm starting to think of identity as a spectrum in the sense that every gas has a unique spectral pattern. You can very slowly add a different gas, an slowly, imperceptibly from moment to moment, change the spectrum. Instead of light, people are a set range of responses goverened by neurochemistry which remain fairly constant from moment to moment. Defining identity in terms of momements or experiences, for me at least, doesn't seem to work. It seems more like a distribution fuction. Of course none of this actually says what identity is, but it's how I'm starting to view it.

Dexter,

If it is generally agreed that what we consider continuity of self is not really continuity,simply misjudged as such, then I think we have to say that identity is illusion.Identity is a highly functional illusion,if an illusion has a function and it fulfills its function as identity--------what might we call it other than a highly functional illusion! "Dexter,I think you are on to something with the analogy of chemistry and perhaps even the stupid judge that says same, same,same,is also a chemistry function.One thing seems sure at this point, identity and/or the self are not what is the popular belief.Neurology is the watch word,as traditional philosophy after three thousand years of struggling with this topic is not likely to prove helpful.

Just an added thought as to what might move this topic along.Identity we are unsure as to what it is, but we all believe we have one.We did not come into the world with it,it is aquired----aquired from where? I say to a large extent,your constitution aside,that you aquire your identity from the world around you---------your context.Your context because you are the centre of the universe.When you opened your eyes at birth a world was born.There is something fundamental to be understood here,it is of the nature of subject and object.We may in a sense create our own world as object but that world also creates us as subject----------I am going back to my room now!

It's a dreamy moving not quite thing---identity.

Hi Everyone,

When the nature of something changes,everything it is relative to changes------that which is cold is nolonger cold,cold is relative to a particular state of being.With all things in constant change what does this tell us of uniformity,of personal identity,of duration ect.., If there is no constancy of either subject or object something must dictate, lie or create an illusion to deny this constent flux. Perhaps it is a process in sink with processes across the board---------seems unlikely.Any ideas out there?

Dexter78,

It sounds from this I am now on the same wave length as you,any further thoughts?

I believe so. Since things are always in flux, the change from moment to moment is too small to become apparent, and it seems that adopting the perception that thinks are static allows one to function. I often hear people mention how things for them haven't changed in ten years, when in reality in they had instantly gone from where they were ten years ago to the present the change would be quite dramatic. It seems we've evolved as beings where the concept of the routine, which often imposes the idea of constancy even on things that change rapidly by viewing it as constantly changing rapidly, is needed for a stable society.