Nobody is truly an individual.

Post Reply New Topic

Of all the people you've ever seen, how is it possible that all of them have different thoughts independent from each other?

I don't think everyone does have their own mind to be fair but that there is like a collection if information and everyone shares it or processes things in a similar way. All our brains are similar so they will work similar. We can only have certain types of thoughts and certainly perspectives and can't break out of that.

Sooo nobody really is an individual as such.
We really are more like machines.


What do you think?

Everyone has individual thoughts, what you are describing is a social norm IMO which can impact individuality but does not remove the fact that everyone has a choice and freewill. Also when you think about it, our minds don't work similar to one another at all, thus some people are autistic and some people are NT. Perhaps autism is a label they simply throw out there to describe someone who does fit in said box.

Hmm.

I can't understand such a thing. I find it strange if you meet someone who seems like somebody you met at another place but they don't know each other.

Idk I just find it strange how that most people seem similar.

True autistics are not similar but nt people usually are.

I've lived in a lot of places so ive met many many people and I'm always suprised by them.

I find, especially within "first world" countries, that people are endowed with a considerable amount of "free-will," especially when they are away from their working situations.

Humans, even autistic humans, are far more flexible than machines, and have far more "free-will" (even within totalitarian "third-world" countries, even though people in these places have less "free will," by and large, than those in "first world" countries.

I'm thinking though that an event will cause one of a few outcomes upon a person. Say for example if you ask someone if they want to hang out there might be like 5 ways they will react and how they react might depend upon other factors too. But in the end there is like a set system to all human thought and behaviour. Even if it is a very vast system it is still there.
.someone who is grieving reacts in certain ways.

Mhh, from my knowledge atoms react under the same conditions in the same way every time.

Something as simple as left/right handedness leads to assumptions and consequently results that are quite different.

Similarity doesn't compromise individuality. It is very much possible for two people who have never met to do at least one thing similar to the other and still maintain originality. You can view life and decisions as a bending stream with everyone being a boat set adrift in the stream free to meander through their own choice, but that limits you to what you can see and expect. When you've lived for long enough you can find the people who break away from the normal path and reach the strangest of conclusions. It's all very relative really

That sounds eerily much like communism to me

Jokes aside, I think we can say that people are a product of their environment more than they would like to admit.

Some people spend a significant portion of their lives actively trying to discern what are their own thoughts and what they just adopt, assume and regurgitate on auto-pilot. Others are not so concerned with it. This is why age is not always a factor in maturity, as you will see groups old people who have been members of an identity-forming group, be it a religious, political, or cultural group of any kind, who seem like different variations of the same stereotype.

Some people make their rebellion against conventions into something identity-forming and by that become homogenized within that particular group, and ironically, this becomes their new identity; something that categorizes them together with other people of the same opinion. This is often the phenomenon with subcultures defined by rebellion. The homogenization is an inevitable consequence of the members communicating together and arriving at a consensus. This "ideological peacemaking" is probably a survival strategy and can be thought to stem from our inherent disposition towards tribalism.

Language itself is a way of interpreting, structuring, observing and intellectually re-producing what you see around you. Beware of neologisms, the war on synonyms and linguistical precision and diversity! A nuanced language allows for more precise communication, and this ought to be a factor in how we perceive the world as well(!). As a native Norwegian speaker, I find the English language more suitable for expressing myself precisely as the Norwegian vocabulary is extremely limited. I often find myself perceiving and structuring impressions in English, for this reason. The limited Norwegian vocaulary is reflected in certain stereotypes of the population over here(Norwegians are known as the least hospitable and welcoming people), but then again you also find equivalents to these stereotypes all across the board, regardless of the richness of their primary language.

There are defining factors within a group. Cultural, political, religious, or other identity-forming variables that are accepted or rejected to various degrees by members of that group, and what they accept or reject ultimately forms the diversity of opinion within that group.

That last paragraph was my attempt to sum ut up in short, because I don't know if this wall of text makes any sense.

I think your last summing-up paragraph is mostly true. Excellent as a basis/foundation.

It's more "individual" than that, though.

Makes sense to me. I do not think ideologically about this as I see others do, but rather undetstand you the folliwing way: There exists a set of atomic information/ideas and we (re)act according to which subsets of ideas we have. Constraints on brain anatomy maps to constraints on which ideas and actions can occur to us. This makes sense to me. Though the attainable subspace is very large, and certainly allows more unique minds than there are people. This does not mean, however, that poeple cannot share concepts with others. Concepts which must here be understood as a combination or set of ideas, but much lesser sets than comprising a whole mind. Thus, my thought concepts, I believe, are likely very similar to others.

I would have to disagree as telepathy isn't a thing as far as we know yet. Therefore we are all isolated entities that have evolved to have the ability to communicate with one another. All living things die alone would be the flip side of that. Organic life really has very little difference from machines though, just a difference in what elements we're composed of, we're as complicated as an A.I. would be, while insects for example have the basic programming of a common computer these days. They can only follow basic tasks and can be easily tricked into a loop.

Last edited by Feyokien on 13 Oct 2015, 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mmmmmmm ... sorry ... no ... I can't say I agree with this premise.

Aspie brains for example are not similar to those of NTs' Neurologically we're wired differently ... as is everyone else on the autism spectrum.

We are also the products of:

* Culture - both national as well as ethnic heritage
* Social-economic class
* Our upbringing
* Religious orientation
* Education
* Political convictions
* Individual abilities (in sports, in careers, in creative artistry etc.)
* Peer pressure i.e. friendships
* Personal tastes (in food, clothing, music etc.)
* Life experiences

... and there probably are a lot more factors that affect how our individual personalities develop.

I am a unique individual he said waving his ray gun about and I will disintegrate anyone who disagrees with me for I am Martin the Martian ... Conqueror of Worlds, Scourge of the Galaxy, and Master of the Universe!

I think the brain is to hardware as individuality is to software.

Therefore our only options are Windows or some flavor of Unix....

Marvin is no match for Bugs Bunny.