Identity: How do you define it?

Ren said:
Yes, it changes.

To the extent that both facts and self-perceptions change over time, identity (however interpreted) changes also.

(Note that metaphysically, the concept of essence facilitates this idea of self-identity over time less smoothly than ouverture. :smileycat: )
Click to expand...
Interesting how physically, we really are not the same person too. The stem cells reduce, the baby teeth get off, the skin gets shed, we have literally already evolved into something other than the cells that composed the baby fetus version of us. The only thing left though is the genetic information stored within us. Our memories. Our souls. I wonder if identity is that space between the outside looking in and the inside looking out + the cells and biological molecules and atoms that decide to cling together a certain way to make us.

Perhaps it's our genetic material + the environmental stimulus that prompts it that makes us who we are. One cannot be without the other or then that's just death.
 
slant said:
It's a fusion of my words and the lyrics of hotel California. I don't know how anyone can expect a serious answer to this question. I feel like I would need to do 10 years of field research to even have anything coherent.
Click to expand...
Haha! It’s fun to play with it though - seriously or humorously.
 
@PapillonT great thread

If I may join the conversation...

So we begin at the conception of our zygote selves, right? At this point we are only just an egg cell and potentially one or two sperm cells. We multiply, some become fraternal twins. This stem cell decides to become us by the prodding of genetic material and information. When the zygote decides to split to become twins, that's genetic information. Our offspring and likewise our ancestors are our biophysical photocopies.

What made that zygote is the (hopefully) affectionate decisive union of two different individuals of the same organism. The things that pushed those individuals to have sex could be environment, desire, attraction via genetic information... the soul.

Our DNAs structure and restructure repeatedly throughout our lives depending on what our cells decide to be--- our hair, our skin, our thoughts? I wonder if our DNA has codes of our thoughts that become memories--- neurons behave this way exactly and they live in the brain and give life to thoughts. Sever the neurons that are responsible for thought and an individual is brain dead.


So maybe simply put as should be, our identity is the information contained in our DNA.

Okay so say, there are other intangible factors related to it. In the case of adoption when an offspring is acquired, we can most definitely clarify the example of identity as that which is the combination of the decisions of our genetic material in response to environmental stimulus so then generations and generations of offspring, which are theoretically physical photocopies of us acquire different identities for each generation because the environments change as well as the combination of genetic information from the sperm and egg cell.

So then, identity is the biophysical and environmental history of the adult organism from since it was a zygote and the perceptions of this organism on self and others, which are also likely to be results of genetic information reacting to environmental stimulus.
 
Damn, what a question! It is something I have thought of before - to an extent. I've talked about this with some friends of mine over the years, and something I have always found interesting is how differently 'identity' is measured for everyone. Some prioritise a more wide-swept view of things, incorporating everything from their values to their intellectual capabilities and physical attributes; then there are those that focus only on a minute aspect of themselves, as they deem it to be what defines them above all else. Undeniably, identity is a culmination of our life experiences and the consequential views and systems we create as a result of such alongside the genetic contributions of our parents.

Personally, I see identity as fluid only when one is finding themselves. Once a person recognises their potential, and has a comfortable grasp on who and what they are, it becomes a bit more solid and immovable. At least, that much has been true for me: in past years when I was figuring out who I was, where I fit in and what I valued, I was a different person to the one I am today; of course, maturity and experiencing life lent to that, but even the person I was a couple of years ago is someone I recognise, but do not agree with. Since finding myself in those two years, and recognising my ambitions and values alongside whom my true friends are, I have become quite unchanged. I have learnt and experienced new things, but my core sense of self has remained the same unlike any other time of my life.
Lending to that sense of my own identity though, is not just how I perceive myself, but how those closest to me perceive me. It is easy I think to fall into a trap of believing that you may be something which you are not, and it is for this reason I believe it is important for myself to take heed of what the people who know me well say about me. They are the ones who see how I act and behave; forming judgements as a result. It can be easy to lie to yourself, with or without conscious effort, but not so with ones you are comfortable in sharing yourself with.
My identity is a combination of not only my perception of self, but how those dearest to me perceive me.
 
Rit4lin said:
Once a person recognises their potential, and has a comfortable grasp on who and what they are, it becomes a bit more solid and immovable. At least, that much has been true for me: in past years when I was figuring out who I was, where I fit in and what I valued, I was a different person to the one I am today; of course, maturity and experiencing life lent to that, but even the person I was a couple of years ago is someone I recognise, but do not agree with. Since finding myself in those two years, and recognising my ambitions and values alongside whom my true friends are, I have become quite unchanged. I have learnt and experienced new things, but my core sense of self has remained the same unlike any other time of my life.
Click to expand...

Do you think this is lasting then? If we assume we pass through seasons of changes, could we expect this to evolve accordingly or do you think it'll really be constant?
 
PapillonT said:
Do you think this is lasting then? If we assume we pass through seasons of changes, could we expect this to evolve accordingly or do you think it'll really be constant?
Click to expand...
Oh for sure, change is inevitable and people will always 'evolve' and change to a degree. But to my mind, when someone becomes confident of whom they are and what they prioritise, it sets a 'foundation' that establishes a concrete identity which is indeed constant. There will be aspects that change such as wisdom, academic understanding, emotional development and the like - but at the root of it all, they will still adhere to the same belief and value systems - their 'being' - that influences decision making.
 
Rit4lin said:
Oh for sure, change is inevitable and people will always 'evolve' and change to a degree. But to my mind, when someone becomes confident of whom they are and what they prioritise, it sets a 'foundation' that establishes a concrete identity which is indeed constant. There will be aspects that change such as wisdom, academic understanding, emotional development and the like - but at the root of it all, they will still adhere to the same belief and value systems - their 'being' - that influences decision making.
Click to expand...
Yes, I like how you described it as a "foundation" of the process - or, it could be that we are just pondering this from possibly relatable personal perspectives/experiences lol
 
slant said:
It's a fusion of my words and the lyrics of hotel California. I don't know how anyone can expect a serious answer to this question. I feel like I would need to do 10 years of field research to even have anything coherent.
Click to expand...

The history of philosophy abounds with very serious answers to this question, slanty
 
John K said:
There are other possibilities that feel less plausible but worth playing with - for example that there is only one 'soul' that is sequentially living through the lives of each living thing and when we encounter them it is ourselves we meet, living out every single life
Click to expand...

I actually kind of like this view. I suppose it is related to panpsychism. If you think about it, open monism is kind of an "in-substantial" sibling of it. Replace soul with being and try to remove the substance-vocabulary and what you get is somewhat akin to OM at least in outline.

John K said:
Another is that our sense of personal identity is an illusion created by our mind from moment to moment - a useful fiction that helps our psyche govern itself in each moment, but this 'self' dies moment by moment and is replaced by a new one who is not the same self but who has the illusion of continuity.
Click to expand...

This is actually the view of self held by David Hume. It's certainly an interesting idea but I don't think it withstands deeper scrutiny. Basically I don't think it actually manages to eliminate the unifying self. What is it that gives the illusion of continuity if not a unified self or soul that brings together all the different self-episodes, in such a way that although separate, they are still our episodes? What is this 'our' if not our 'self'?

So I think the Humean argument removes the self only to let another one crop up underneath.

John K said:
It's interesting to do some thought experiments with the idea that we live within a virtual reality because that would no doubt offer some radical alternative ways of tacking things - it would be much easier then to see that both the objective and the subjective, mind and matter, are essentially expressions of the same underlying reality and the laws that govern it.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm quite sympathetic to this view. I think this is the right way of looking at the problem. If we haven't managed to account for the self with our traditional metaphysical apparatus, either the problem is badly posed or the apparatus itself needs to be updated.

Personally I think it's both!
 
mintoots said:
Perhaps it's our genetic material + the environmental stimulus that prompts it that makes us who we are. One cannot be without the other or then that's just death.
Click to expand...

I agree that this is a plausible definition of objective identity—not very different from @Korg's view which he expressed earlier in the thread. :)

mintoots said:
@PapillonT great thread

If I may join the conversation...

So we begin at the conception of our zygote selves, right? At this point we are only just an egg cell and potentially one or two sperm cells. We multiply, some become fraternal twins. This stem cell decides to become us by the prodding of genetic material and information. When the zygote decides to split to become twins, that's genetic information. Our offspring and likewise our ancestors are our biophysical photocopies.

What made that zygote is the (hopefully) affectionate decisive union of two different individuals of the same organism. The things that pushed those individuals to have sex could be environment, desire, attraction via genetic information... the soul.

Our DNAs structure and restructure repeatedly throughout our lives depending on what our cells decide to be--- our hair, our skin, our thoughts? I wonder if our DNA has codes of our thoughts that become memories--- neurons behave this way exactly and they live in the brain and give life to thoughts. Sever the neurons that are responsible for thought and an individual is brain dead.


So maybe simply put as should be, our identity is the information contained in our DNA.

Okay so say, there are other intangible factors related to it. In the case of adoption when an offspring is acquired, we can most definitely clarify the example of identity as that which is the combination of the decisions of our genetic material in response to environmental stimulus so then generations and generations of offspring, which are theoretically physical photocopies of us acquire different identities for each generation because the environments change as well as the combination of genetic information from the sperm and egg cell.

So then, identity is the biophysical and environmental history of the adult organism from since it was a zygote and the perceptions of this organism on self and others, which are also likely to be results of genetic information reacting to environmental stimulus.
Click to expand...

Oh my, you brought us into zygote territory.

This is far too concrete for me!

200w.gif
 
Last edited:
Ren said:
I agree that this is a plausible definition of objective identity—not very different from @Korg's view which he expressed earlier in the thread. :)



Oh my, you brought us into zygote territory.

This is far too concrete for me!

200w.gif
Click to expand...
Haha

There there. Philosophy thrives in the stimulus that pushes the zygote to evolve. Why the DNA pushes stem cells to differentiate is still unknown. For all we know, cells have their own philosophies. Or maybe even molecules. That's a good thesis! Philosophy in biochemistry
 
mintoots said:
That's a good thesis! Philosophy in biochemistry
Click to expand...

It's actually quite a hot field of research at the moment. There are many postdoc positions in the philosophy of biology, and I'd say it will only get bigger.

Another fascinating field is the philosophy of animal psychology.
 
Rit4lin said:
Lending to that sense of my own identity though, is not just how I perceive myself, but how those closest to me perceive me. It is easy I think to fall into a trap of believing that you may be something which you are not, and it is for this reason I believe it is important for myself to take heed of what the people who know me well say about me. They are the ones who see how I act and behave; forming judgements as a result. It can be easy to lie to yourself, with or without conscious effort, but not so with ones you are comfortable in sharing yourself with.
Click to expand...

This raises a problem though. If you can believe you are something you're not, then the subjective sense of identity isn't very reliable. It also suggests that there is a real, objective identity with which it can be compared. Also, the problem with how others perceive us is that they can also be wrong.

This is a more general problem with self-perception, i.e. that it is fallible. At the same time it would sound strange to say that identity itself is 'fallible'. It's more plausible that it should just be what it is (changing or not). I think this may be a good argument against the view that identity is purely based on perception.
 
Ren said:
This raises a problem though. If you can believe you are something you're not, then the subjective sense of identity isn't very reliable. It also suggests that there is a real, objective identity with which it can be compared. Also, the problem with how others perceive us is that they can also be wrong.

This is a more general problem with self-perception, i.e. that it is fallible. At the same time it would sound strange to say that identity itself is 'fallible'. It's more plausible that it should just be what it is (changing or not). I think this may be a good argument against the view that identity is purely based on perception.
Click to expand...
O_o Well damn, I didn't consider the implications of such a view. I'll reply to this later.
 
Rit4lin said:
Oh for sure, change is inevitable and people will always 'evolve' and change to a degree. But to my mind, when someone becomes confident of whom they are and what they prioritise, it sets a 'foundation' that establishes a concrete identity which is indeed constant. There will be aspects that change such as wisdom, academic understanding, emotional development and the like - but at the root of it all, they will still adhere to the same belief and value systems - their 'being' - that influences decision making.
Click to expand...
One thing that I've always thought is,

Nobody ever really changes. They just embrace the parts of themselves that they rejected before. They become more of who they always were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top