Really Heavy Existential Shit For A Saturday

[stromboli]

I'm going to leave this here while I go power rake my lawn.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... ce-of-self

Who are you?

The question may seem simple to answer: You are the citizen of a country, the resident of a city, the child of particular parents, the sibling (or not) of brothers and sisters, the parent (or not) of children, and so on. And you might further answer the question by invoking a personality, an identity: You're outgoing. You're politically liberal. You're Catholic. Going further still, you might bring up your history, your memories: You came from a place, where events happened to you. And those helped make you who you are.

Such are some of the off-the-cuff ways in which we explain ourselves. The scientific answer to the question above, however, is starting to look radically different. Last year, New Scientist magazine even ran a cover article titled, "The Great Illusion of the Self," drawing on the findings of modern neuroscience to challenge the very idea that we have seamless, continuous, consistent identities. "Under scrutiny, many common-sense beliefs about selfhood begin to unravel," declared the magazine. "Some thinkers even go so far as claiming that there is no such thing as the self."

The question of whether the self could be said to exist at all is just one of the major scientific questions that Ouellette takes on in her new book. Nearly as thorny is the question of what actually gives you your (apparent) identity in the first place. You might think of the two issues in this way: For modern science, the question is not just who we are, but also, if we are.

To determine who she is, Ouellette naturally started with her genes. Fortunately for the book (and perhaps for her), she was able to get her genome analyzed by the genetic testing company 23andMe before the Food and Drug Administration stepped in late last year to challenge its provision of health-related genetic analyses. In response, 23andMe stated in December that it would now only offer raw genetic data and ancestry information, while it awaits FDA approval for health-related products. In the meantime, Ouelette defends what she received from the company: "They're very careful, I found, in their results, telling you that this basically just gives you a sense of what risk factors might be," Ouellette says. "I never had a sense that it was an oracle in any way. They actually linked to relevant papers, they ranked how valid the studies were, if they were preliminary, if they were very robust with a high sample size."

From this inquiry, Ouellette learned that she might have a somewhat elevated risk of Type 1 diabetes, but also a lower than average risk of Alzheimer's. But it is crucial to bear in mind that all of these risks are relatively slight and merely statistical in nature. For instance, Ouellette's chance of getting Alzheimer's, based on this analysis, is only 4.9 percent, compared with a 7.1 percent chance for members of the general population. Which underscores one of the key through lines of the book: Your genes are very important, but they are far from everything.

[Solitary]

I have come to the conclusion, quite awhile ago, that what we call self is an illusion and emerging property of our memories and brain-body that are connected. I still don't understand how we as an illusion can feel pain unless it is because we are consciousness itself which is real and not an illusion.  :-s   #-o  :-k  I still think this is correct. I sure as hell don't think the we are a soul separate from the body. The body comes first, and then consciousness arises from our memories and experiences.  Get hit in the head hard enough and you don't exist mentally because you are not conscious, same when dead. :shock:   8-[   Solitary

[aitm]

If I understood correctly, people with some genes have a tendency to have some disorders or not. Hmm, so the genetics of everything is what makes it anything. And therefore the tendencies of some genes in anything tend to produce consequences of various outlier effects to the thing as a whole.........

ah, didn't we already figure that out with corn and wheat and soy, and chickens? Oy vey think of the chickens! And so because we are the product of genetics they are the composite of the self and ....yabba yabba do dah.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I think power raking the lawn is one of those genetic indicators of insanity.  :-k

[stromboli]

Or it could be my first defense against the never ending scourge of Crabgrass.

[darsenfeld]

hmm...Well IMO everybody has a distinct personality, whether based on nurture or nature,  but then we do and can choose our characters.  it's like if somebody chooses to be religious, or to be a hedonist, or to live in the woods and live in a shack.  so i guess the self can be chosen.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Or it could be my first defense against the never ending scourge of Crabgrass.

Jeeez stromboli,  you sound like some 1950s old coot.  
There's a song,  When the crabgrass blooms again.. It reminds me of you. It's from the album, Terribly sofisticated songs for unsophisticated people. I found it at a garage sale years ago.

edit: here's a link. http://www.allmusic.com/album/terribly- ... 0001154056

I had the title wrong.. Great album.  8-)

[stromboli]

Old school dude using old school methods. To the tune of Henry Mancini.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Power raking to obscure Henry Mancini songs.. I hear the young girls find that really hot these days.  :-$

[Solitary]

hmm...Well IMO everybody has a distinct personality, whether based on nurture or nature,  but then we do and can choose our characters.  it's like if somebody chooses to be religious, or to be a hedonist, or to live in the woods and live in a shack.  so i guess the self can be chosen.

Nature or nurture is a false dichotomy in logic because it could be both.  As to choices, they also depend on nature, nurture, experiences, intelligence, and a billion other things---where does freewill come into the picture if it is decided by all these different things? You have will power, but it is not free. Can you decide to become smarter, more knowledgeable, gay or straight, by just willing it?  :roll:  Solitary

[darsenfeld]

hmm...Well IMO everybody has a distinct personality, whether based on nurture or nature,  but then we do and can choose our characters.  it's like if somebody chooses to be religious, or to be a hedonist, or to live in the woods and live in a shack.  so i guess the self can be chosen.

Nature or nurture is a false dichotomy in logic because it could be both.  As to choices, they also depend on nature, nurture, experiences, intelligence, and a billion other things---where does freewill come into the picture if it is decided by all these different things? You have will power, but it is not free. Can you decide to become smarter, more knowledgeable, gay or straight, by just willing it?  :roll:  Solitary

er.. yes.

[Jmpty]

You are treading on Buddhist territory, Strom. Walk carefully.

[stromboli]

The only thing I'm treading on is my lawn. I posted the link for discussion, period.