X-Message-Number: 12580
From: "George Smith" <>
References: <>
Subject: Identity, thoughts and emotions.
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:52:10 -0700

I enjoyed much of John Clark's message #12569 regarding emotion and thought
and I am pleased to see these ideas expressed so very clearly.

There was one issue I wanted to discuss briefly which came up when he wrote:

"The bottom line is we don't have thoughts and emotions, we are thoughts and
emotions, and the idea that the particular hardware that is rendering them
changes their meaning is as crazy as my computer making the meaning of your
post different from what it was on yours."

This elusive (Illusory?) thing we call identity (the self) poses some
problems here.  When I attempt to determine what I AM as opposed to what I
am NOT, it alway seems to boil down to answering the question, "Am I able to
experience the item in question or not?"

If I feel an emotion and I ask "WHO feels it?", my identity (self) is
revealed to not be the feeling.  Same for any thought.  In essence, anything
you can know about can't be you (your identity).  You can ask of any
experience, whether emotion or thought, "Do I know about it?"

From this it seems there are only three possible conclusions to be drawn.

(1) Your identity is something which can't be experienced by you nor anyone
else.
OR
(2) Your identity is an illusion which results from such reflection in
thought (repeated as needed).
OR
(3) Some alternative(s) which truly escapes me!

In cryonics we wonder if the person revived will be the "same" person
depending upon what changes the person has gone through, or if there has
been duplication of subjective (mental/emotional) responses as in uploading
the personality into a computer for example.

This is why the issue of identity is considered so important.

I just want to point out that there is much more involved here than just
assuming that we "are" our thoughts and/or feelings and/or behaviors.  This
is especially important when it is quite simple to "separate" identity from
such experiences by asking the simple question, "Can I know about it?"

"You" are not what you experience, subjectively nor objectively.  Identity
is not experience.  If it "exists" at all, it seems to me that identity must
be the experiencer, or (at worst) the illusion of being the experiencer.

Frankly, we may NEVER get to the bottom of this issue (whatever the heck
"we" are!).  Just be sure to stick around long enough and maybe the answer
will be revealed!

George Smith
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12580