There is I think, nothing to suggest that whatever this thing in here that is me, is any different to the thing in you, that is you, or anyone else. Physically we are the same but having a slightly different variation on the theme – so to say, a different looking machine is still the same thing, if it is doing the same things as the other different in appearance machine.
I suppose we could say that a female human is functionally different to a male, however, our consciousness sits inside the same kind of brain [think ‘brain-in-a-vat’ as per significance].
Rather than go with absolute answers, i’d say that there is enough similarity, and not enough dissimilarity to make an assumption that what is ‘you’ in there is not of the same ilk as me in here.
Variance between similarity and dissimilarity is the function of identity. Now, my brother, identity is on the loose, you’re afraid of looking in the mirror for that reason.
Who’se that? Me afraid of him, or he me? That’s the question. now.
After all he chuckling, we do come in alone, as go out, so he thinks.
Sounds schizophrenic. I take your point ~ if I understand correctly, as we are similar, we are also very different. To wit I would argue that the difference is in the content!
The in and out thesis, of being ‘in’ and ‘out’ of someone is also quite divided, by the degree. Agree up to now? That determination is based both on a subjective feeling, and an objective evaluation/appraisal.
It is by degrees that we can come to the degree of variance, and the functional attribute of that variance is based on finding. Simply put, the idea can be demonstrated by the idea of two circles , inter phasing, and creating a figure of a totally excluded middle to a totally included one= Where inclusion of unity or identity.
I have the concept, perhaps it should be further elucidated. Let me know.
It is indeed divided and incorrect. Here I am talking about the one thing in here, and the one thing in there – and not any transferral.
This is saying that you have two circles i.e. people/selves/minds to begin with such to compose a third. Why would you have that? A better analogy is where the consciousness is more shaped like a pyramid, and there is only one observer at its pinnacle ~ so say Osiris lol. There is no duality!
But a pyramid is the trigonometric equivalent of the inscribed triangle within a functional circle/sphere. In the last analysis, calculation has to made. Until then, there is a perceived duality. The question is not, whether there is an appearent duality, but one of an underlying basis for such an apprehension.