Personal identity

[Khainiwest]

Let's just imagine a world in which everyone shares the same atoms in the same pattern, amount and location. If there was nothing between people to make them unique, would that mean they are the same person?

But then it would become singular therefore one person because they are always occupying the same space

[Chiki]

But then it would become singular therefore one person because they are always occupying the same space

I didn't mean that the person was in the same position in space but that an identical atom was, for example, located in the same position in the person's arm.

What I mean by identical is that every person shares every single property. They have the same body, same personality, same everything.

[Khainiwest]

I didn't mean that the person was in the same position in space but that an identical atom was, for example, located in the same position in the person's arm.

What I mean by identical is that every person shares every single property. They have the same body, same personality, same everything.

I know what you mean but such a circumstance would never exist. It can't exist, any indifference including their very location would have a butterfly effect.

[Hawkeye]

I didn't mean that the person was in the same position in space but that an identical atom was, for example, located in the same position in the person's arm.

What I mean by identical is that every person shares every single property. They have the same body, same personality, same everything.

If the laws of reality were somehow bent in such a way that they could all have literally identical properties in every single way, then yes, so long as those constraints existed they would all be the same person.

What about someone with multiple personality disorder? If they have their separate person A and person B in their head, are person A and B the same person or no?

*Edit* Assuming from an outside perspective. There is a very good chance that the person in question would identify their individual personalities as separate people.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Hawkeye

[Sublime Manic]

I didn't mean that the person was in the same position in space but that an identical atom was, for example, located in the same position in the person's arm.

What I mean by identical is that every person shares every single property.

Why shouldn't the space a person is occupying qualify as a property?

[Chiki]

If the laws of reality were somehow bent in such a way that they could all have literally identical properties in every single way, then yes, so long as those constraints existed they would all be the same person.

What about someone with multiple personality disorder? If they have their separate person A and person B in their head, are person A and B the same person or no?

If psychological relations are what matter in identity, then one would say no. If it's the body that matters, then one would say yes. Or if it's the soul that matters, one would say yes.

Though I think it's intuitively obvious, for me anyway, that they aren't the same person--they're too different to be.

Why shouldn't the space a person is occupying qualify as a property?

Is position in space even relevant to being a person, though? If you think it is, then that's ok.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Olwen

[Hawkeye]

Hmm. Now see, I don't think of it that way. The way I view it is that person A (dominant personality) has certain characteristics to him/her, and part of this is that they are also person B. Person B is more of a subset of person A than a separate entity. Also just a slight note that they don't necessarily need to be very different, it's just that if it's not dramatic we're never going to hear about it in the news or anything.

[Khainiwest]

If psychological relations are what matter in identity, then one would say no. If it's the body that matters, then one would say yes. Or if it's the soul that matters, one would say yes.

Identity to whom?

[PresidentEden]

Is position in space even relevant to being a person, though? If you think it is, then that's ok.

It isn't relevant to what we typically consider "personal identity" because we typically have an implicit understanding about the abstract concerns you're raising and don't feel the need to re-explore them every time we use the term. Much in the same way that no one plays the "Am I sure I'm experiencing what I think I'm experiencing?" card every time they experience a new second of their existence, no one similarly revisits this.

And yes, it is relevant insofar as identifying something is concerned, because we're usually concerned with an existent object, and one property distinguishing an object from another is its position in space. (This even applies with "objects" that aren't actually physical; we make copies of data that contain all the same information but are considered distinctly separate entities because they occupy virtual space.)

So in short yes, it is relevant when we're pursuing the question this far down the rabbit hole, but in general it's not, because we conventionally assume this as understood when thinking about the question.

Edited March 27, 2013 by PresidentEden

[Rehab]

Stuff written before reading the better part of the thread:

My response to the basic premise of the thread is that identity, to me, is the sensations one feels, how one interprets those sensations to form one's thoughts, and one's interactions with others and the world around them, all cascading off of each other from the point in space and time those sensations begin for a given entity. One identity helps fuel the sensations felt and thoughts thought by others, who in turn again fuel those of the former with their feedback, constantly moving from one spot to another in space as time goes forward.

No two people are experiencing the exact same sensations, in the exact same location, at the exact same point in time. Given the whole planet is hurtling through space at some appreciable speed, and IIRC the ground itself is constantly moving beneath us (if verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slowly), I can't imagine a situation where it could be possible for two people to ever be in exactly the same place in space, much less at the same time, with the same stimulus being interpretted in the exact same way.

I assume that this definition of identity allows everything that can be given identity to be in at least some way unique to everything that has ever been.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Rehab

[Phoenix Wright]

Let's just imagine a world in which everyone shares the same atoms in the same pattern, amount and location. If there was nothing between people to make them unique, would that mean they are the same person?

What is the point of stripping away everything that gives a person an identity, then asking if a personal identity still exists?

An identity is a mental construct in that a "something," let's say a human, bears something to just itself--it's unique to that person. Because differing personalities, physical states, experiences, et cetera, exist, I think personal identities do exist.

So instead, I'll answer the question, "When does person A = person B?" This is when your stripping of everything comes in. It's when person A and B are atomically, physically, genetically, and consciously the same. So, essentially, it's when person A and B were already the same to begin with, really.

[Sublime Manic]

Is position in space even relevant to being a person, though? If you think it is, then that's ok.

It's relevant to person A being the same as person B and is ultimately the reason a lot of us are willing to argue that person A can't be person B. President Eden has already gone into this much more extensively.

[Chiki]

What is the point of stripping away everything that gives a person an identity, then asking if a personal identity still exists?

An identity is a mental construct in that a "something," let's say a human, bears something to just itself--it's unique to that person. Because differing personalities, physical states, experiences, et cetera, exist, I think personal identities do exist.

So instead, I'll answer the question, "When does person A = person B?" This is when your stripping of everything comes in. It's when person A and B are atomically, physically, genetically, and consciously the same. So, essentially, it's when person A and B were already the same to begin with, really.

To make discussion, duh.

Anyway, you guys define identity as something a person has that makes the unique compared to others?

But what can a unique thing be? Temperament? Memory?

It's relevant to person A being the same as person B and is ultimately the reason a lot of us are willing to argue that person A can't be person B. President Eden has already gone into this much more extensively.

You guys still don't understand what A and B mean. Think of A and B as person-stages. So A can be me now and B can be myself a second later. We tend to think that in this case A and B are the same person, so in this case they would be.

Let's say we had a time machine which brought back the me from an hour later. So it's 5 am now, and the time machine brought me from 6 am back. That's a case in which person A should be = person B.

You'd also think that me and myself 100 years later are the same person. But what if I'm psychologically nothing like my future self? And what if every molecule in my current self would have been replaced by then? According to the identity relation I'd be the same person, but that seems hard to believe since nothing of my younger self is left.

So what is it that matters in identity?

Edited March 28, 2013 by Olwen

[PresidentEden]

We "don't understand" because you're outright changing the definition of your terms, moving the goalposts or otherwise adding crucial details after the fact.

In answer to your one-hour time machine question (and all other time machine questions), no, those two "yous" aren't the same. Just as crucial to identity as occupying a given place in space is occupying a given place time. The experience that 6AM!You has that 5AM!You doesn't have does indeed change the identity of 6AM!You. The effect is likely not appreciable or practically discernible, but it is there.

In answer to your 100-year question, you're conflating personal identity with physical identity. Assuming no cloning shenanigans, you have always only had one given body. (The molecule-replacement issue is a ship of Theseus and is of no practical consequence to the discussion; since the replaced molecules are functionally identical, nothing has changed about your identity, anymore than my patching an old ship or computer up makes those objects' identities change.) But you experienced a lot during those 100 years and undoubtedly changed in your mental processes and personal development. Mentally, intellectually, you are not the same person. As an analogue, I don't consider myself to be the same person as I was 3, 2, or even a single year ago. I'm in the highest point of my formative years (don't care that a lot of people tend to say high school = formative years, it's the 18-25-yo block that does it) and my outlooks on a lot of things change substantially from year to year. I still take responsibility for actions I committed years ago (because while I've changed enough that I don't feel like the same person I was before, I still committed physical actions that have physical consequences for people, sometimes into the present), but I feel nonetheless that I, in the present, am not wholly the same as I, last year.

[Chiki]

Since we have a different experience every instant though, wouldn't that make us a different person every instant?

Edited March 28, 2013 by Olwen

[Phoenix Wright]

To make discussion, duh.

Anyway, you guys define identity as something a person has that makes the unique compared to others?

But what can a unique thing be? Temperament? Memory?

There is no proper discussion when the variables are stripped so as to favor one answer over another.

The way I see it, the unique thing can literally be anything. Whatever a person feels just belongs to them. Generally speaking, this means personality or experiences (or a combination of the two). No two people share the same personality, or experiences, and so within that we can assume that personal identities exist. After this point, we can nitpick until the two separate entities are no longer separate. But what's the point in that?

On the time point, I'd agree with PresidentEden.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[PresidentEden]

Since we have a different experience every instant though, wouldn't that make us a different person every instant?

Yes. Again, in practical terms these different 'iterations' of ourselves from instant to instant are not appreciably different. From the start of this message to the end of this message, I've changed, in that I've spent a marginal amount of time typing an answer I gave some semblance of thought to phrasing, but in terms meaningful enough to convey to anyone else, I haven't really changed, I'm still fundamentally the same, etc.

This entire line of questioning seems engineered to retread old ground while appearing to bring new questions and reveal new insight. The question of identity is complex and there's still plenty of area for novelty and innovation in examining it, but all we're doing is fleshing out what we already intuitively understand and use in our daily operations. As I previously noted, the goalposts keep shifting... with due respect, would you please get to the question it seems you're hinting at throughout this discussion? That you keep responding to clarify clearly indicates you have a question left unanswered, but we're not getting to it via this line of discussion.

[Chiki]

No need to be so hostile. I have no point I want to make.

[PresidentEden]

That wasn't hostile. Your questioning simply isn't going in any constructive direction.

[Chiki]

Are you going to keep dedicating paragraphs to criticize me? Whining about me is going off topic. And I think my questioning was fruitful.

And the issue with uniqueness as what matters in identity is that uniqueness isn't a one-one relation whereas identity is. Only one person can be themselves. But we could imagine a world in which everyone has the same things that make them unique, so it possibly can't be the criterion for identity.

If duplicates in the aforementioned world had the same mind and body and what made them unique, they could easily live separate lives and go on separately while still having the same mind, body and uniqueness. Now it becomes intolerable to admit that they're the same person.

Being in a certain position in space isn't a property. For if A was at space B in position C at time D, it would follow that person E would be equal to person A at space B in position C at time D if he used a time machine. This assumes that A and E have the same mind and body.But we know that's absurd. Space occupied has nothing to do with an object.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Olwen

[PresidentEden]

I wrote two sentences, and it's a valid criticism. You're raising a bunch of objections that are completely incoherent and then getting pissy when people start to get frustrated with it.

For example, take your supposed refutation of the "certain position in space isn't a property." You completely ignored that we'd already discussed that it's space and time that's relevant here. This is intuitively obvious, but not only are you expecting the intuitively obvious to be restated, you're also ignoring the intuitively obvious when restated. To answer this refutation, it follows that person A and person B, occupying identical bodies and minds, and occupying the same space and time, are the same person. If you tried to define person A as =/= person B, you've created an illogical paradox. If you don't try to force an illogical paradox by post-hoc movement of the goalposts, then you must conclude A = B.

[Chiki]

You completely ignored that we'd already discussed that it's space and time that's relevant here.

For if A was at space B in position C at time D, it would follow that person E would be equal to person A at space B in position C at time D if he used a time machine.

Let me develop on this intuition. Assume that A and E are absolutely equal in every way.

Say A was at space B in position C and time D, just like I did before. This is a person stage of A that we'll call A-D.

Now E decides to travel in time to an hour before time D and put A away in a box. Then E moves into the exact same space B in position C at time D, just like A was earlier. This is a person stage of E that we'll call E-D.

So person stage A-D = E-D, if space is indeed a property of identity. But that's clearly absurd.

Anyway, the whole notion that the particular space occupied by an object is a property is silly. An object at Earth would be the same if it was on the Moon, assuming no physical changes.

I hope you can go a single post without rhetoric.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Olwen

[PresidentEden]

I hope you can go a single post without rhetoric.

I haven't done anything but give a critical evaluation in meta-conversation. You interpreted hostility where it didn't exist earlier and are already seeking to discredit what I'm saying as "rhetoric" -- and you want us to believe you're interested in a discussion? I'll give one anyway, but frankly, your reactions to other posts have not been indicative of what you're claiming to seek.

Regarding the time machine situation, that's essentially like two clones running into one another, with the peculiarity that the time machine allows them to run into one another so completely that their atoms all occupy precisely the same space. We have no idea what this would look like or what the end result would be because we don't have the technology to run experiments, and consequently all attempts to theorize about it are nonfalsifiable and unscientific, so I'm not going to bother with that -- but abstractly we know it's like two clones running into one another. Even if they're as generically labeled as "Clone A" and "Clone B," they're still two separate identities.

As for your alleged rebuttal via Earth/Moon: I've been making the point this whole time that using space and time as distinguishing properties of an identity is usually of no practical value. Your Earth/Moon example illustrates this. It's already been asked and answered. That you can construct a scenario where information identifying something or someone is not always useful does not mean it is never useful, however. In the instance you're citing where you have two otherwise-identical objects/bodies which occupy separate positions in spacetime, that the two objects occupy separate positions in spacetime is essential to their separate identities. In the instance you're citing where you have one whose occupied position in spacetime changes, that its position in spacetime changes may or may not be essential to its identity. We covered the single-object example earlier when I mentioned my two examples: one where I do nothing but sit and type a message (where my position in spacetime changes and my identity changes with it, though the latter inconsequentially), and the other where I consider myself distinctly mentally different than I was years ago (where my position in spacetime changes and my identity changes with it, the latter now being a consequential change).

I realize that last paragraph was somewhat winding, so in summary, we've already discussed the objection you're raising earlier in the thread. The object Earth/Moon example is an illustration of what I already said (that spacetime position as a property of identity is not always practically meaningful) through a different example from what I used (me typing at the keyboard vs me growing and maturing over a few years).

[Sublime Manic]

I hope you can go a single post without rhetoric.

The depth President Eden's posts go to make his arguably the most insightful in this thread. Just about every point I've wanted to say, he's said and with much more generous explanations. You claim you're trying to bring about discussion, and when someone is doing a stellar job of that, you're unhappy about it?

And if people still aren't "getting" what you mean by person A and person B, perhaps you really ought to flesh out your OP to more than a couple of bare-boned sentences if you're just going to add more and more conditionals after the fact. In all honesty, the way you're handling this thread, it comes off like you have to write a paper on this topic and you're playing dumb to have Serenes Forest do the work for you. Or just trolling.

[Rehab]

What occurs to me is that the "same space, same time" thing is being taken way too narrowly.

Occupying the same space, at the same time as one person in one instance in time is very different from occupying the same spaces, at the same times from birth until death. Like, even if you did occupy the same space as one person did at the exact same time, and felt and thought exactly what they did, again for same exact periods of time, up until that point in your life you've developed completely differently.

Your experiences, which are the stimuli that act on you and the way your mind interprets them to form thought, constantly shape you. Nobody shares the exact same stimuli, in the exact same order, for the exact same amounts of time, (here's the crucial part) all at the exact same periods in time [and space]. The obvious reasons for this being that it's a practical impossibility for two different people to be so similar physically and mentally that they feel the same things [at every given point in time], and it's a physical impossibility for them to occupy the exact same space even if all of the above did manage to occur.

That would make for a hell of an existential horror story, though

The thing about space and time in relation to your identity is that where you are, and when, determines what you have a chance to experience, at what point in your life you can have those experiences, and how you react to them. In conjunction with your physical form, brain chemistry and natural disposition etc., this helps determines the manner in which you think and act bit by bit, because it determines what information the universe has to give you, what conclusions you can possibly draw from them at that moment, what you can do with what you've concluded, and how you can be affected later by what you've done up to and at that point. These experiences build up, affecting how you proceed through life, and how the world around you has opportunities to influence and react to you.

TL;DR, and I wouldn't blame you; Time and space occupied are basically just "whatever happens to you." No two people have had the exact same things happen to them, because that's physically fuckin' impossible, and thus no two people who share some similarity are both like that for the exact same reason. Given their separate lives (/experiences), they're probably also different in how they think about that similarity, in at least some respect, even if they agree on it.

DOUBLE tldr: no two identities overlap unless they share all the same atoms.

[rant about how A couldn't possibly equal E because A doesn't appear to have access to a time machine, thus implying very different existences (which totally misses the point, of course), omitted]

(huff, huff, huff)

Edited March 28, 2013 by Rehab