To be or not to be, that is the question. But first let's examine "to be"... Twin Paradox: If two people were created exactly the same, would they still experiance one and not the other? If so, what determines who should experiance which body (take you and me as an example - even though we are not the same, the situation stands if we were). A straight, simple question. It is not a trick question, but a question that is meant to provoce thought. Disclaimer; If not the same, at least alike in the highest degree possible. Excuse; Yes, I know people around here has stumbled on the subject many times, Quantum Quack just being one of them (recently), but I think it is too important to ignore, and since we still haven't got any acceptable answers out of this one I think it is important that you face it once again. I think there are a limited amount of solutions to this one, and each one gives rise to something interesting. So please share your thoughts!
If two people were created EXACTLY the same, they'd have to be one person. But, being two people implies separation, which automatically applies differentiation. No two things are EXACTLY alike. Ever. Unless they are one thing.
Well even if if was possible to have two people created exactly the same, you have satisfied your nature criteria, but then nurture comes into it. So they would not remain exactly alike for long. Living things are not static they are contstantly changing and so if alike they would only remain alike at a genetic level. Meanwhile incase I've completely missed the point of the question as I'm not sure where the '2 be or not 2 be' fits into it? when something exists it is '2 be' ragardless of duplication.
When it comes to awareness, the "be" is absolutly you. If you go to a different place, you are still you, throughout time you are still you, you never end up being in another persons body. If I ask you this, why can't I be you? Why couldn't I have been in your body instead of mine body? Because we aren't the same somehow doesn't count. Could I have been in your body? Then by what selection process? If you don't understand the questions then you gotta ask cause then you don't understand what I mean.
Exactly alike to the highest degree possible (just to take the physical properties away from the question). Or are your uniqueness really based on cells that are replaced every couple of years? Your body change and transform, even so you are never away from your body, you never get inside another body. There must be something really unique that seperates each person. If not physical then what? Could anyone have been anyone else? Then what determines who you are? Why did you come to exist? Do everybody exist that can exist? How many potential existances can there be? Is it a loop? If your body were a bit different when you were born, would someone else have come to existance instead of you? Where do we draw the line? If identical twins were born (identical to the most possible extent without actually being the same) what determines who is to be in which body? Do you understand it now that I present it in context?
I may still not be getting it? I am me in my body, if I was in your body I would STILL be me in my body as your body would then be my body?
Some people do feel they are born into the wrong body, transexuals for example. If you see 'you' as being seperate form your body, are you speaking about a 'soul' and how this soul came to reside in that body?
You would STILL be you in your body! But if it could have been MY body, then the BODY really doesn't MATTER does it?
This has to do with identity and possibly personality, that is not what I'm talking about. If you had my personality, you would be the one experiancing it, not me. Thus what is unique about me that REALLY seperates ME from YOU isn't personality. (captitalisation needs not imply anger (and doesn't in this case either)). I want you to reach your own conclusions based on reason. If my reason is faulty then please give me reasons.
Nope I'm not getting it, if I have your personality and your body , I am you and not me, there is no me and no you outside of our peronalities/ego/Id/Soul and bodies or is there? If there is what is this third thing that makes you, you and not me, if not personality and body? Now I'm talking jibberish??
I get it. I've asked almost the same exact question. If ,when you are completely unconscious, an exact replica is made of your body, exact, memories and everything, and it's unconscious too, and both wake up at the same time, which do you wake up in? Why am I in this body? I get the question and I get the answer, but somehow the question still seems to be unanswered. It just takes a while to conceptualize the answer, which is that there is some consciousness created by a body, or however you want to say it, and that's it. It's the same as asking: Why am I perceiving this moment and not some other? Because you are perceiving this moment, and if you were perceiving another, you would be perceiving that moment instead. Any connectedness between perceptions is just a consequence of the perceptions themselves. There is no underlying 'I' that holds different moments of perception together. There is only the perception of being an 'I'.
Read some of the weird ideas about the universe splitting when a quantum event forces a potential to collapse into a real state. There are some really far out ideas that in the realm of quantum mechanics might actually happen.
I understand what you mean, and it makes sense, cause that is the way it works. If looked upon by a third observer (as your imagined scenario implies that you were). However, if I was you (with your personality and all that) then I wouldn't be me (with my personality and all that). This means that there was a selection. Some principle made me become in my body, and you in your body. What you are talking about is in a third perspective (science perspective let's say), you see each person for the product they are making, if you was me, then you would do what I do now (thus you see no difference), if I was you then I would do what you do now (thus no difference in the making). However if looked upon individually we see that there is something more, cause if you were me, then I wouldn't be me. I would be you, I would experiance what you are experiancing. That is the difference. Just the potential that I could have been you (with your personality and all that) and you in turn COULD have been me (with my personality and all that) shows that the body isn't in question here. It isn't the body that is either me or you. It is who is experiancing which, and what is experiancing? If I could have been you then there is something else than the body. And what was the process outside of the body that actually determined me to be in my body instead of yours? Was it just the way it happened? Or is it really the body that determines which should be in which body??
There is no thing apart from the body and the perception, awareness, or consciousness belonging to it, whatever they may be. The sense of self is just another perception belonging to your particular body. There is no thingness of it. It's like asking why a particular bicycles riding, or a certain planets spinning, belongs to it. That being said, I don't understand what I'm saying enough to really do away with the questions you are asking. I still understand things the way you do, but I know those are the answers.
Let's say that awareness is like light shining in a person (I know I'm thingilising it), the light is the same for each person, it is merely in the brain of the person having that light that the light shows the person for what he are. Thus that person becomes aware in the light, if the same light moved to another person then that person would become aware of himself. That is how I understand what you are describing. Now we know that that light must shine on both of us, the same light, the same awareness of ourselves. Different bodies. However what is it in the "different bodies" that seperate us? If I could have been you in your body, and you could have been me in my body, then what is I. What is it that "see the light and the nature of what I am"? Cause even though we explain awareness with light, the same for all, we still have "I" left! There is possibility that I could have been you, therefor it is something that can be inside both you and me, thus cancelling the physical out of the picture. Since it then couldn't be the physical that makes you be you and me be me. I understand the confusion, I was too for a moment, but if looked upon simply then it is clear. Two different bodies, one thing can be in either of them, thus the body cannot be the "selector" of "the thing". Or do you rather say that you necessarily had to be in the body you have now and couldn't have (for example) been in my body, saying that you and I are entirely physical and that it is the physical that seperates us?
I'm saying that I am the perceptions of this body, and apart from the body and the perceptions there is nothing else, no thing experiencing, no thing that is aware, just experience and awareness. I'm saying you can't say "you could have been me" because if there is only the awareness and nothing that is aware (as I am saying) then that statement is meaningless. How could you be me if there is only the body and it's perception? The perceiving thing is just an illusion created by the experience of the perceiving thing and the meaning of perception. It's the perception of being a thing perceiving is always present that makes us believe that this other thing, the self, exists, or that perception depends on it. I'm saying perception or consciousness or awareness is more like a movie than a person watching a movie. Whereas, you are saying it's more like a person watching a movie. In your case, yes, you can ask "why am I watching this movie and not some other," but that leads to paradoxes like "which body will I wake up in" or something like that. But, in my view one can't ask that question. "Why is this movie this movie" doesn't make any sense to ask. I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong.
The only thing that determined who you are or what you think you are is your enviroment and what knowledge you think you have of it, not your physiology, though it plays some role. Hence two people can be created exactly the same but think very differently given their enviroment. Enviroment determined everything. Since no two people cannot be at the same space at the same time its likely no two people can actually ever realy be the same.
I see, you say that we are what we see. No one can see the same thing as another one, in exactly the same time and space. Now you have given this a third perspective. You know that don't you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! lol I am the seen, what I see is I. I'll come back to this later.
