Who are we?

[michabo]

Who are we when separated from our bodies? What is left to go to heaven?


A friend had BPD. During his manic or his depressive phases, he would insist that those were his real feelings, his real self coming through. He took drugs to deal with it because the swings were ruining his relationships, but I think he felt that he lost something valuable.

Which one of these different sides of him would go to heaven, or would it be someone completely different? How can we possibly separate the biological and chemical influences on our personality?

Would you even recognize "yourself"?

 

[Plan 9]

Perhaps our mood swings would finally be integrated and that we would hardly recognise ourselves. If so, that's something to look forward to, I think, at least in my case.

 

[brightlights]

I have no idea. I tend to think along the lines of our bodies being big parts of ourselves. Like I'm not so sure there is a spirit separate from the body. I've no clue, though.

 

[D McCloud]

Who are we when separated from our bodies? What is left to go to heaven?


A friend had BPD. During his manic or his depressive phases, he would insist that those were his real feelings, his real self coming through. He took drugs to deal with it because the swings were ruining his relationships, but I think he felt that he lost something valuable.

Which one of these different sides of him would go to heaven, or would it be someone completely different? How can we possibly separate the biological and chemical influences on our personality?

Would you even recognize "yourself"?

This is a great question. Our personality is shaped by our sociology, environment, psychology, and to some extent our biology. All these things directly or indirectly make us unique. If you remove any one of these things, you change our personality. Eventually, if enough things are changed, you cease to be yourself.

 

[brightlights]

This is a great question. Our personality is shaped by our sociology, environment, psychology, and to some extent our biology. All these things directly or indirectly make us unique. If you remove any one of these things, you change our personality. Eventually, if enough things are changed, you cease to be yourself.

This makes sense to me because I kindof believe in an intended self. Like there is a me that God wants me to be. A me that he has created me to be. For an atheist, though, I don't understand how one can cease to be themselves. How am I not myself?

 

[jinkazama]

This is a great question. Our personality is shaped by our sociology, environment, psychology, and to some extent our biology. All these things directly or indirectly make us unique. If you remove any one of these things, you change our personality. Eventually, if enough things are changed, you cease to be yourself.

Nice quote, are you a sociologist?

 

[D McCloud]

This makes sense to me because I kindof believe in an intended self. Like there is a me that God wants me to be. A me that he has created me to be. For an atheist, though, I don't understand how one can cease to be themselves. How am I not myself?

If one is not themself, the only logical conclusion is that they are someonelse. If I were to take away everything that made you recognize how you and others percieve yourself, I would have no reason to think of you as being "brightlights." Instead, you would have become someone different; A person wearing a mask that cannot be removed. You may look like someone I know, but you're not.

 

[D McCloud]

Nice quote, are you a sociologist?

Nope, just a random person with an opinion

 

[brightlights]

If one is not themself, the only logical conclusion is that they are someonelse. If I were to take away everything that made you recognize how you and others percieve yourself, I would have no reason to think of you as being "brightlights." Instead, you would have become someone different; A person wearing a mask that cannot be removed. You may look like someone I know, but you're not.

This seems to imply that there is a self that outlasts us. There is a self that is beyond our organism. If I was purely a naturalist then I don't know if I would believe this.

 

[D McCloud]

This seems to imply that there is a self that outlasts us. There is a self that is beyond our organism. If I was purely a naturalist then I don't know if I would believe this.

No not necessarily, seeing as there's no reason to believe our personality would carry over after death anyway. However, i'm just saying if it was and even if it wasn't able to carry over, our personality would have to change dramatically, and thus we would still cease to be.

 

[brightlights]

No not necessarily, seeing as there's no reason to believe our personality would carry over after death anyway. However, i'm just saying if it was and even if it wasn't able to carry over, our personality would have to change dramatically, and thus we would still cease to be.

If my personality changes then my personality has changed. I am still me. Does the self hang on the personality? My personality, in many ways, is sometimes inconsistent. Which personality is me? If I were an atheist then I would probably view the self as the organism, not necessarily the personality. Then again, I don't know. I probably wouldn't be an overly-rationalist atheist.

 

[D McCloud]

If my personality changes then my personality has changed. I am still me. Does the self hang on the personality? My personality, in many ways, is sometimes inconsistent. Which personality is me? If I were an atheist then I would probably view the self as the organism, not necessarily the personality. Then again, I don't know. I probably wouldn't be an overly-rationalist atheist.

I'm not saying there is no room for change within your personality. However, there things that are crucial to it's makeup that cannot be changed. For instances, all of your past experiences have played a part in your personality. If all of those experiences are forgotten once you die (seeing as the brain ceases to exist), anything that would carry over would essentially be an empty shell.

I think the self, the organisim, and the personality are all eventually combined and inseparable.

 

[michabo]

If my personality changes then my personality has changed. I am still me.

What do you mean by "me" if it isn't your personality? Your memories are a component, I suppose, but more to the extent that they shape your personality.

I think.

I don't know.

Do you have a different view?

If I were an atheist then I would probably view the self as the organism, not necessarily the personality. Then again, I don't know. I probably wouldn't be an overly-rationalist atheist.

I have asked myself what I mean by "myself". Part of that is the shipbuilder analogy - replace the timbers, resew the sails, replace the decking, repaint, rework and after a while, nothing is left of the original ship. Is it still the same ship?

We animals are constantly changing. We take in nutrients, expel waste. Cells die and are shed; new ones are added. Just what is it about me that is essential?

At a deeper level, we are constantly changing. We grow and learn, the chemicals and hormones in our bodies ebb and flow. Is there a core which remains constant, or is this just a handy illusion?


When I think about heaven, about life after we leave our bodies, I ask: what remains when the body is removed? Can it possibly be sentient? Can it possibly resemble the person I am today?

 

[Plan 9]

What do you mean by "me" if it isn't your personality? Your memories are a component, I suppose, but more to the extent that they shape your personality.

I think.

I don't know.

Do you have a different view?




I have asked myself what I mean by "myself". Part of that is the shipbuilder analogy - replace the timbers, resew the sails, replace the decking, repaint, rework and after a while, nothing is left of the original ship. Is it still the same ship?

We animals are constantly changing. We take in nutrients, expel waste. Cells die and are shed; new ones are added. Just what is it about me that is essential?

At a deeper level, we are constantly changing. We grow and learn, the chemicals and hormones in our bodies ebb and flow. Is there a core which remains constant, or is this just a handy illusion?


When I think about heaven, about life after we leave our bodies, I ask: what remains when the body is removed? Can it possibly be sentient? Can it possibly resemble the person I am today?

um...I know this isn't addressed to me, but if it's okay, I actually may have something to add here. or not.
Personality theory is actualy within my field of study, from both the viewpoints of psychology and antropology, and our core personalities do seem to be basically formed by the time we master our native tongue: at ages 4-6, or thereabouts.
This isn't to say that we don't grow and change throughout life, or that we aren't affected by our biological processes, but as far as those go, I personally find that the experience of menopause, surely the most profound hormornal change for women, has the effect of regressing me to my teenaged years...or earlier yet, making me wish I did not show myself as having this "constant core".

What a fine writer you are, michabo.

 

[michabo]

Personality theory is actualy within my field of study, from both the viewpoints of psychology and antropology, and our core personalities do seem to be basically formed by the time we master our native tongue: at ages 4-6, or thereabouts.

I'm waaay out of my depth, here. It's just something that keeps bouncing around in my head, so I really appreciate answers like yours which make me think.


Yes, I remember hearing about that. Can you tell me what is meant by 'personality' in this context?

Just how mutable is it?


I was reading up on the MMPI (and Jungian, etc.) a while back and its scientific application. Until about age 16, I was a terrible introvert. I've worked to change that, and now my girlfriend (or ex, hard to tell right now) thinks that I am almost extroverted. I disagree but have to conceed that it is a fine line.

What I was wondering is: do tests like the MMPI (or Jung) indicate something permanent and fundamental? For myself, I am balanced at home, extroverted in the office, and unfunctioningly introverted in new situations. Sometimes I find myself thinking "oh, that's a very "thinking" thing to do, but once I realize that, I can change it.

Does this mean that I am willfully changing my personality? If the comments that our personality is fixed at a young age just reflect our introversion/extroversion (say), is this really a reflection of the permanence of our personality, or just that we've found a groove and are happy sticking to it?


Last, crowds tire the daylights out of me (introvert), but they jazz up my gf (extrovert). So how much of this is biological?

 

[Gracchus]

Is the vortex in a river a separate thing from the river? We are vortices in the fabric of space-time. When the vortex in a river dissipates, does it go to Heaven?

Why do religious people concern themselves with death? They pray and prate and parade their "faith" but huddle and scream and weep when death approaches. In their terror, they will commit any crime to save their own lives, let the poor starve when they could be fed, let the sick perish when they could be healed, and in general serve their own greed and lust when they think no one is looking.

The stench of hypocrisy so pervades this guilty land it is unremarkable that we bomb innocents, and elect cowardly, thieving, lying, murderers to lead us. But then after all, we based our civilization on slavery and genocide, so evil is unremarkable.

Most people had better hope their is no immortal, individual, soul, for if they have them, they have sold them to evil.

 

[SedjmNeter]

Is the vortex in a river a separate thing from the river? We are vortices in the fabric of space-time. When the vortex in a river dissipates, does it go to Heaven?

Why do religious people concern themselves with death? They pray and prate and parade their "faith" but huddle and scream and weep when death approaches. In their terror, they will commit any crime to save their own lives, let the poor starve when they could be fed, let the sick perish when they could be healed, and in general serve their own greed and lust when they think no one is looking.

The stench of hypocrisy so pervades this guilty land it is unremarkable that we bomb innocents, and elect cowardly, thieving, lying, murderers to lead us. But then after all, we based our civilization on slavery and genocide, so evil is unremarkable.

Most people had better hope their is no immortal, individual, soul, for if they have them, they have sold them to evil.

Wow!

No beating around the proverbial bush there.

 

[quatona]

I have no idea who I am, or better: what I am or what makes me me.
I just know that I experience myself as "me", it has always been that way, and I am inclined to think that there never has been nor will be anyone who perceived himself other than as "me".

The idea of determining the "me" seems to be based on the desire to have constants, where there are none. The only constant is exactly this feeling of "being me", plus remembering that there always used to be a feeling of "being me". The latter suggests me to assume there to be a constant other than this mere feeling of "being me". Whilst the way I perceived this "me" indeed is a different one every moment, and there is no compelling reason there to be a connection between the reminiscence of a former feeling of "being me" and the current one, other than that it´s a feeling of "being me".
All feelings of "being me" that may ever have been felt anywhere and that my current "me" cannot connect to by remembering them, are not part of "me". So should it be the case that the body that others identify as "quatona" has performed something I cannot remember having done, it wasn´t "me". Whilst I will interprete reminiscences of a feeling of "being me", that felt completely different than my current "being me" as a change of "me".
Or something.