APPARENTLY DEEP PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS ARE NOT DEEP AT ALL – JUST WORD GAMES -AND HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES.
>>Wo are you?
Empty verbalism by substitution. Translation. “What is the name you that exists?” (meaningless) People call me by an identifier. Do you mean instead what preferences do I hold? Do you mean instead what abilities can I demonstrate? Do you mean instead, what actions have I taken? Do you mean instead, what memories I can recall? Any use of the verb to-be in a philosophical question is a form of deceit by substitution and suggestion.
>>>what are our ”selves” made of?
Do you mean, under what conditions would I no longer demonstrate expected behavior to others? Do you mean under what conditions would i begin to recognize a change in my behavior? Do you mean under what conditions would I no longer recognize a recording of myself as familiar?
I think the answer to both of these questions is (a) cognitive biases and preferences of genetic origin, and (b) experiences we retain in memory, (c) the means by which we process and act upon these biases and experiences. Because that is the evidence.
>>>example: if you would loose all your memories, who would you be?
Another phrasing that is an empty verbal trick or deception. “Who” refers to the criteria of demarcation by others: a name, a set of memories held by others, a set of memories demonstrated by you, a set of cognitive biases demonstrated by you, and a set of means (algorithms and rules), demonstrated b you.
One might say “I am not myself”, and others may say “he is not himself’ largely because something in one’s biases or means is inconsistent with those that one has habituated. (Habituation is a discount that does not require the effort of reason.)
>>> is it that we(our characters), are really just the result of the experiences we had in our life?
Our character consists of both biases and memories. At present it appears that biases are disproportionately influential in determining the experiences we seek and recall. The debate is whether these biases cause 80% of our behavior or less. The remainder is environmental (experiential). This is logical since there is an advantage to informational evolution (training), prior to its integration (genetic) through selection. But conversely, reason is weak, and greater environmental influence would increase risks of persistence.
>>> are we merely imitating what we experience?
We demonstrate through the information accumulated in our (very,very,very expensive)genetics, expressed in our (very expensive) biases, modified by our (expensive) algorithms(habits), and further modified by our(less expensive, but more fragile) memories, that we react to the evolutionary, inter-generational, inter-temporal, and temporal record of experiences. And it is this ‘knowledge’ accumulated in many forms that has allowed us to outwit the dark forces of entropy, time, and ignorance.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 09:44:00 UTC