Proof of my individuality.
My first name is Joel. Not everybody has a first name of Joel.
My middle name is Brandon. Not everybody has a first and middle name of Joel Brandon.
My last name is Saunders. Not everybody has the name Joel Brandon Saunders.
I’m a male. Not everybody is a male with the name Joel Brandon Saunders.
I’m 29. Not everybody is a 29 year old male, with the name Joel Brandon Saunders.
I live in Oregon. Not everybody is a 29 year old male, named Joel Brandon Saunders, who lives in Oregon.
I’m a Christian. Specifically the denomination of Catholic. Not everybody is a 29 year old male, named Joel Brandon Saunders, who’s Catholic and lives in Oregon.
I’m Caucasian. Not everybody is a 29 year old Caucasian male, named Joel Brandon Saunders, who’s Catholic and lives in Oregon.
I’ve never gotten drunk. Not everybody…
Well, OK, I think you get the point. Or would you like to keep expanding on my individuality? 
If your name were John Smith, or a more popular name than Joel, would you then be less individual? I think it’s the general concensus that the way people think signifies their individualism, but there are only so many trains of thought or opinions that can be had, regarding every subject.
People can always be lumped together in different ways according to how they feel about things, even if the way they’re lumped changes with what they’re talking about (or thinking about, etc).
Regardless of whether individualism is understood to be physical or mental, I don’t consider myself (or anybody else) an individual. It’s my feeling that the way we are is dependent on what we’re exposed to when developing, and is influenced by life events. Although there are different ‘personalities’, everyone can be categorised and fit a certain personality ‘template’.
Yes, we can be lumped into different groups. But there are so many of them. You can be defined by race, gender, age, health, religion, attitude, height, monetary status, societal status, and so on.
And while there are many others who may be similar to you, nobody else is exactly like you.
And now, having sounded like an after school special, I’m going to vomit 
To be precise, there are as many as there are brains.
I think that there is mighty little difference between one person and another.
But that little difference is a mighty one.
I’m pretty busy these days, and I don’t have time to follow many threads. I just quickly want to toss in my thoughts, for two reasons: First, because the OP reminds me of a prof I had in grad school, a self-proclaimed Marxist who lived like an elite among aristocrats, and insisted–I think mostly because he enjoyed the reaction of his audience–that there was no such thing as an individual. Second, because I don’t get that many chances to agree with Libertarian.
[sub](At least, I think we partially agree.)[/sub]
I’ve read a lot of postmodern quasi-philosophy about how we aren’t individuals, but to me the arguments always seemed twisted and tortured. We are individuals. If you disagree, or if you even ask the question, you’ve proven it. Or are you asking the question as a part of the “collective unconscious,” not as an individual? Well, I don’t know. If so, you are at least an individual manifestation of that collective.
We don’t all try very hard to develop our individuality, but we are individuals. Socially consructed, born from the union of two other individuals, but individual. Educated and in fact formed by our environment, and still individuals. All connected and interdependent, and still individuals. Possibly devoid of souls (the word is used in so many different ways), possibly stupid as bricks, and still individuals.
All through grad school, I found the question to be an annoying effort to shock people. I’m not annoyed anymore, since I don’t have to write papers on the subject, but I’m still not shocked.
Would a genetic clone be considered a non-individual?
As many here have tried to express, individuality does not necessarily imply uniqueness in every sense of the word. Nor does it prohibit one from having similar opinions or general experiences from other individuals at large. If it did, I don’t think the human species (as we know it) would evolve, let alone survive.
Okay, now that’s it’s the next day and I am not falling asleep at the keyboard…
What I wanted to say was something like:
greck, it seems to me like you shoot your argument in the foot when you say “we are connected.” There has to be some kind of acknowledged separateness between connected entities, or there is no point in “connecting” them. The thing I would respectfully disagree with the most is your contention that since differences are small, “individuality is (largely) a myth” because that part of us is “insignificant.”
While I acknowledge that biological/physical identity is not even necessarily the most important area of difference, it makes a good example of “mighty” little differences. Info from NOVA’s program on the Human Genome Project prompted these thoughts. (Watch the second and third segments in particular.)
The human genome has 3 billion base pairs, and 99.9% of yours are the same as mine - and every other human’s. So we’re pretty connected and pretty similar. But one letter out the those 3 billion pairs can create a disease if it’s the wrong letter. Not one gene. One nucleotide. Four atoms. In Tay-Sachs disease one wrong letter yields a defective protein, which causes fat to accumulate in the brain, which causes death by age seven. Part three of this series will break your heart ( because we are connected) and those individual babies won’t see their tenth birthday.
Four atoms. Life and death. The differences between us are not trivial.
Whoever reads these words is in a state of constant change. Consider the basics of biology: The body consist of millions of cells that are dying and new ones are replacing the dead ones. What you percieve as “you” is not what is “you”. This can be hard to wrap one’s (so to speak) mind around. I understand it sounds odd, but the question is not malformed. The physical nature of an individual is germaine to this issue, despite what folks with a personal and spiritual stake in the idea of a soul would have you believe.
Follow me for a moment. That which you think of as “you” consists of your body, feelings, memories, awareness and perception of self. These are all part of “you”. To be accurate, you must continue from here. You consist also of skin, bones, blood, muscles, hair, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and internal organs.
Suppose we could kill the body and place the entire memory of your life into another body with completely differant skin, bones, blood, muscles, hair, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and internal organs and maybe a differant sex. Would this be “you”? No, this would not be “you”. Why? Because it is a differant body. We all have a common sense knowledge that if we observe no change in an object then it is still that same object. If something changes in an object then it is no longer “what” we first knew it to be. It is something differant.
Since the body and all that it consist of: skin, bones, blood, muscles, hair, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and internal organs is in a constant state of change then we have to say that the perception of what the mind makes out to be as"you" is not what is truly “you”. You have a differant body every second that you live because millions of cells are dying and new ones are taking their place (i.e. differant body). The perception of self comes from the illusion that you do not change. The fact of the matter is we cannot notice the small changes taking place every second.
Self could quite possibly be just an illusion created when the machines that are our brains access data that has been stored in them. It creates the illusion that we are the same thing we have always been, but the reality is we are different. Feelings of self are borne from the brain keeping memories intact for the overall survival of the body. Memories consist of sensory input saved in packets of seconds of time stored in an ever-changing body (the brain). Your feelings and perceptions change daily also.
There just may be no real self. Every moment a new perception is born in a new body. Memories make it feel like it is the same body because such a trick it is useful for survival. It reminds me of conversations I’ve had about selfish genes. Humans are just a tool used by DNA for reproduction, or so the theory goes. Similarly, perhaps the illusion of self is just a coveinient tool for those conglomeration of cells (which can collectively be described as a human) to protect their best interests.
It is not a surety by any means, but it is a possibility. To be honest, I would prefer that self be a real thing. I would love there to be a “soul” that continues on. A greater thing than just flesh and blood. “Luminous beings” as Master Yoda describes us. But the evidence is non-conclusive in either direction on this issue, so I muist remain steadfastly perched on the fence.
Don’t even get me started about free will . . .
DaLovin’ Dj
In the words of an old German woman I once knew, “You think you’re me? Pay my rent.”
This is related to the question asked in several science fiction stories, including (believe it or not) a Star Trek novelization.
I thought the transporter unit converted the molecules of the body to energy, and beamed them to a remote location, where they were converted back.
Supposed that were not the case. Suppose your body was disassembled and stored as energy. Instead, you were analyzed down to the sub-atomic level (Heisenberg be darned for the moment), and an exact copy of you was created at the point to which you were transferred. Your memories, stored as electro-chemical traces, were all the same. Your personality, stored in your genes and your memories, was the same. All the distinguishing characteristics of your body were the same. You were just made of different molecules.
Are you the same person?
My belief used to be that no, you were a different person. Since I became a programmer, I thought of people more as patterns, and as long as the pattern persisted, it was the same person. Now I don’t know what to think.
Are waves the same, even though they are made up of different molecules as they pass thru the water? If I blow out a flame over here, and relight it over there, is it the same flame, or a different one? If the transporter copy of me is different on any level, am I still me? How about the Brownian motion of my blood cells? What if the same memory were encoded in a different way in my brain, but were still recalled the same?
I would still be an individual - but the same one as before?
Regards,
Shodan
I used to have the same problem with the transporter.
I still have the same problem with it, even after I became a programmer
I still think that, eventhough it produces a perfect copy of you, it is still a copy.
I think I’ll join Bones in the shuttle while you try out the transporter.
Another thing I never understood about the transporter:
If someone dies, why not restore them?
Their patterns are still stored in the transporters buffer, right?
We’re all missing something in the arguement. Greck is saying (seems to me anyway) that we are all non-indviduals because of our similarities. This is untrue from the start because two things must be identical in order to be…well, identical I guess.
It is just nonsensical to say that a number of things are identical because they are similar.
Oh, and ditto on the transporter questions Latro. I’ve always wondered the same thing. Could be a good ethical question though!
Identical?
no
too similar to call ourselves individuals is my opinion
further, calling ourselves individuals and accentuating this aspect of ourselves creates disharmony with nature and conflict between us.
now, I don’t deny that there are aspects of us that distinguish us from one another.
but to define ourselves by those aspects is a mistake.
they are small
wee
little
tiny
they are the jewels that make us sparkle so we can attract a mate.
I said before that individuality is the spice in the soup that makes it palatable
not the meat
not the potatoes
mmmmmmm…
where was I?
oh yeah, meat
I’m thinking that in order to call ourselves one thing or another, we’d at least need to be 50% in either direction.
my best guess would be, all things considered, we are about 99% the same.
I wasn’t born knowing any language. If I weren’t an individual, but part of a collective, shouldn’t I have been born knowing one? And while I do use it to think, just by the evidence of this board it is clear that I do not think the same thoughts as everyone else.
Maybe that’s true on your planet. Wherever that is. Here on earth, heck just in this country, there is a bewildering variety of dress, music and tv show preferences, etc.
The fact is, I am fundamentally made of the same stuff as everyone else…protons, neutrons, and electrons. But the pattern by which I am put together is not identical to the pattern by which anyone is is put together. Thus I am different. Hence unique. Hence, an individual.
Btw, the discussion turned briefly to Star Trek, yet no one made a Borg joke, in a thread about individuality? What’s with that?
Indeed, the transporter poses similar issues. Is an exact copy of you still you? Can I destroy a person, and then recreate a duplicate with the effect being that the first person never died. I would say no, the first person is dead. Similary, from one moment to the next we change. We are a group of cells of varying types. Some of these cells die and are replaced by new cells. We are different from every moment to the next.
The only thing these cells retain in common is that they collectively allow access to a common memory bank and are contained in the same skin (itself made up of ever refreshing cells). So if all there is to self is memories, suppose they could be recorded and grafted onto a different body. The first person goes on, but now there is another body accessing the same memories. That group of cells would now benefit from acting together, utilizing the data in the memories, and realizing they need to provide for things such as rent to survive. But it aint me.
I think a software analogy works well here, but I need to think about how I want to phrase. If you feel like you could make the analogy work, go for it. On preview:
Ahhh. For this the conglomeration of cells (which make up the poster known in these parts as Weird_AL_Einstein) use another trick. Memetics. The selish gene is a simpleton compared to the selfish meme. Gene’s use brute force and such to guide us in things loke sexual desire and hunger. But the meme is a far more complex animal resulting in politics, art , and quite often hatred.
Interesting and challenging questions tied to this issue . . . .
DaLovin’ Dj
DJ wrote:
No. Your experiences diverge from the moment the transport begins.
Similarly, you have a differant body every second that you live because millions of cells are dying and new ones are taking their place (i.e. differant body). Different matter making up new different living entities. They access the same memories but are different every moment. A transport is continually occuring, so to speak.
To tie in more science fiction let’s bring up Robocop 2. In it, a criminal is hurt terribly, and what remains of his body is hooked up to a giant robot. There is a little case that holds his spine his eyes and his brain which control the mechanical body. This brings up an interesting question. What is the most you can peal away from a person and have it still remain that person? If I lose a finger, am I still me? What about an arm? What about legs? How about my eyes? What if I lose everything except my brain? What if I transport my brain into another body? Is it still me? What if I just transfer the parts that store memories?
Again, what is an individual? I do mean physically. What is the least amount of matter it takes to still be you? If all of those cells died, but did so in a staggered way (being replaced by new ones as the old ones died), when the matter that is you has been completely replaced are you still you?
DaLovin’ Dj
DJ wrote:
A unique transport for each person, in fact.
As Eris said, that’s a malformed question if you mean physically. No one knows whether even the universe itself is individual.