A personality is a real physical thing developed genetically, whereby those genes make the design of our neurons [the general nature of our brains] and hence the primary nature of our personalities.
Most or all aspects of the personality are changeable.
Consciousness transcends personalities [regardless of spiritual or religious concerns].
3b. No matter what factors change [given no damage or transformation beyond human], there will be a consciousness and one that can transmigrates the personality and/or its elements.
That is; if you removed or changed factors of the personality the consciousness would remain, and hence exist beyond all sets of changes.
If you swapped brains with another person, the self you recognise in the mirror would be completely that of another.
Consciousness is distinct from specific physicality, or perhaps completely transcendent from such in that it probably transmigrates around the brain independently.
e.g. according to ones perceptions and focus different parts of the brain are used, then these may be experienced consciously OR not experienced subconsciously.
That is; there would surely be correlative informations which relate neurons to the consciousness. These maybe be physical in the sense of being neurons, dendrites and other physical elements which derive patterns the consciousness relates to. Assumedly its plausible that those specific elements could tie the consciousness, such to be removed and placed in a different brain/personality.
Religious and spiritual concerns must first relate to the physical setup of the brain and consciousness.
Personalities do not transcend the brain.
i.e. they are not who ‘you’ are as the living experiencer, nor the truer self in any other sense.
Note; I am NOT stating that there IS anything that transcends the physicality, that’s quite another debate. Here I am merely setting up guidelines for such potential if and where applicable.
Due to references to genes and neurons, the OP comes off as eugenicist, racist, sexist, ageist, and craniometric. That is in order to define an ideal personality, the OP seems to embrace that physical modifications are necessary upon “who” someone is.
Assumption 3 seems unfounded. While it’s nice to agree that personality and consciousness are separate, I’m not sure where consciousness originates from in the OP’s schematic. It’s just randomly included.
I believe he is saying that we all have (in the mind) a common basic image or impression of our world as long as whatever it is that formulates a personality is not involved. The human consciousness, it seems, is trying to produce a vivid picture of what’s out there and nothing else; a mirroring if you will. Not only that – the stimuli that is motivating the brain to respond with much alacrity to the senses is also affecting us in order to give us a ‘feel’ of our surroundings. This is the way we are functioning naturally.
Amorphos, are you saying that personality is not a part of an otherwise natural and neutral consciousness? You probably are saying just that and I agree in that personality comes about from the way a person is shaped and how one develops and takes on the conditions of his particular environment and culture.
I never expected that reply for sure, though I can see your concerns. I was thinking of it in the inverse context of all that, if say a racist says you are x,y,z because you are black or whathaveyou, this becomes fallacious because all aspects of what we are can be transcended.
Consider that race transcends culture and culture transcends race, then that people transcend both! The op firmly states that this can be taken further and entire personalities are potentially malleable.
Well my philosophies are somewhat holistic looking at the whole over the parts, so if you take the entirety you will see that I was writing that personality traits and indeed entire personalities can be transcended ~ physically [as well as spiritually ~ kinda like actors playing characters]. If you read and agree with that then 3, follows? - if I may.
Ps I don’t like to over explain as you just get a wall of text then and no-one replies. Equally I like people to have their own thoughts to add to the conversation, which is my main aim.
The whole refers to the collective in an overall sense ~ in the above manner.
finishedman
Yes indeed you have it right, a personality is a mechanism by which the 90 billion neurons in our brain are brought into singularity. There is no personality e.g. beyond the grave. Equally personalities can be manufactured/manipulated in a sense, I think it plausible that future tech could separate consciousness form personality ~ hence personalities are purely physical and can be transcended. I am sure you can imagine what questions this asks!
Nowhere does OP state that certain races, sexes, ages are inferior or superior, nor does he advise selective breeding rights; please be aware that your language is unnecessarily inflammatory and pejorative.
If your point is that he recognises that people are differentiable because of their age, sex, or race, that seems to be true by virtue of the fact we have different words for them. Even so, the concept of discrete genetic ‘races’ is largely a myth.
That’s not true. Are you familiar with haplogroups?
Sex and age are also definite physical indicators.
Eh…?
Racism, etc. doesn’t have to deal with superiority. The OP was about personality. All racism has to pertain to there is the notion that certain personality attributes correspond with certain races.
You see this consideration all the time when it pertains to stereotypes. It’s not necessarily that some people are good or bad. It’s that some people are corresponded with behaving certain ways.
Amorphos, It’s interesting to me that you say ‘personality’ is a “physical thing” separate from consciousness–or am I misunderstanding you? Imm, consciousness and personality aren’t separate. Consciousness, to me, is the ability to ‘see’ and react to our individually perceived world while ‘personality’ is how we individually react to our worlds. Both involve memory and both are formed in the brain as certain ‘proven’ neural pathways. Our personalities are formed based on the neural pathways that ‘work’ for us. For example, if you, as a child, learned subconsciously that being a happy child gave you ‘good’ strokes while being an angry child gave you negative strokes, your personality is formed by what kind of strokes you want, isn’t it?–assuming both types of strokes satisfy the need for attention.
Beyond this, are you saying a personality, whether or not it’s a physical thing, can go beyond what it is? Maybe, but I’m not so sure.
We had an alcoholic neighbor who stopped drinking over 30yrs ago. He did so by substituting one need for others and became a health freak. He’d swim at 5am, so he could be at work by 7. He skis, golfs, swims, goes fishing, works out–but has any of that changed his basic personality? Idk. What do you think?
As far as I know there are none, at least not in the brain. What I meant was that the personality is a composition of many millions or billions of neurons [etc], many of which are changing and have changed in the past. Thus I had assumed [in short] that the transient factors can naturally be transcended e.g. if you changed some of those neurons and replaced them. Secondly that the consciousness relates to different focal areas in the brain relative to ones activities, so assumedly you could change some parts intermittently preserving the consciousness whilst transcending the former personality. That I, if we change parts of the physical personality in steps we could eventually change the entire personality hence the consciousness would have transcended said personality!