The Human Construct

[Paulclem]

I riginally posted this into the philosophy section, but the philosophers seem to sit around muttering in corners, and so I wondered if I'd get more thoughts on this here. I hope you don't mind.

I was thinking the other day - not a regular occurrence - about what there could be about a person that is actually unique or:

self generated
not reliant upon the influence of others
not influenced culturally
not influenced by tradition or religion
not a function of this time and place where we live

I couldn't think of anything in particular, and this raised the question about how individual we really are. We live in the expectation that we are a unique person, a one and only - which seems obvious as there's only one of each of us, but when you look at it, how does that individuality manifest - if at all?

I considered art - but that can be seen as a function or reflection of economy in Warhol's work, or society, or myth. Literature is the same, and poetry. Are we living under a delusion that we actually have an individual existence beyond our cultural and social place and time?

[Patrick_Bateman]

Although I agree with you that few things (if any) about a person aren't reliant on external influences. I also think that we are unique in how we respond to those influences, how we imbibe them. How we respond and use these influences generates our own unique make-up.

[Paulclem]

I think you're right in that it is this that gives us our sense of self and individuality. How we imbibe- good phrase - might be unique in our relatively small circle of friends, but can we really be sure that in a country of 62 million, our brand of uniqueness is not only shared by a substantial number, but that those factors which influenced us to imbibe in this way are also shared by many many others of whom we're not aware? How many actually unique people, thinkers, thoughts even, are there?

[Calidore]

The human brain has roughly 100 billion neurons, so there's plenty of room for variation.

[Paulclem]

The human brain has roughly 100 billion neurons, so there's plenty of room for variation.

I wouldn't dispute that, but is that the reality though? We don't live in societies of unique individuals, we live in societies where people form groups of thought and activity. We might think we're unique in that we are one individual, but we're influenced by similar things from mass moral judgements upon tragic occurences to consumer acceptance of certain products, to our choice of entertainment, to the foods we like, to the politics we choose. All these things are externally generated for a response - an aceptance or a rejection.

[YesNo]

One might consider a range of uniqueness from everything ultimately being "One" to an extreme uniqueness where any change during a quantum of time would imply a different and unique individual. That extreme uniqueness doesn't seem very interesting though and we would get lost in the One.

So we each seem to think we are the same person as we were when we were children, although the material part of our bodies have been totally replaced by the process of living. Still we would probably maintain that we are nonetheless different from each other. The evidence for this uniqueness is our mindfulness of our individual selves as we live.

Can that sense of uniqueness be carried past death or do we dissolve into the "One" upon death?

Because of near-death, shared-death, out-of-body and reincarnation experiences, I think there is evidence that the uniqueness does survive death at least temporarily.

If our individual uniqueness does continue, outside of time and locality, after death, what is it that continues? I suspect it is probably nothing in the material universe that originated from the big bang, but I don't know what to call it. Since the universe had a beginning, there is something outside it, and that is probably what our uniqueness is made of.

[Delta40]

Is progress indicative of uniqueness?

[Paulclem]

One might consider a range of uniqueness from everything ultimately being "One" to an extreme uniqueness where any change during a quantum of time would imply a different and unique individual. That extreme uniqueness doesn't seem very interesting though and we would get lost in the One.

So we each seem to think we are the same person as we were when we were children, although the material part of our bodies have been totally replaced by the process of living. Still we would probably maintain that we are nonetheless different from each other. The evidence for this uniqueness is our mindfulness of our individual selves as we live.

Can that sense of uniqueness be carried past death or do we dissolve into the "One" upon death?

Because of near-death, shared-death, out-of-body and reincarnation experiences, I think there is evidence that the uniqueness does survive death at least temporarily.

If our individual uniqueness does continue, outside of time and locality, after death, what is it that continues? I suspect it is probably nothing in the material universe that originated from the big bang, but I don't know what to call it. Since the universe had a beginning, there is something outside it, and that is probably what our uniqueness is made of.

I was thinking more in terms of our consciousness and motivators. I suppose you could labe every quantum particle as unique.

Reincarnation also adds to a lack of uniqueness. It means that each being is part of a continuum, and is reliant upon the previous being for their state.

[Paulclem]

Is progress indicative of uniqueness?

I wondered about that, but progress seems to rely upon the work done by previous scientists. Could Einstein have formulated his eqation without the work of arabic mathematicians, Newton and other developers? I know he formulated E=MC2, and perhaps that might be a unique thought, but weren't other physicists working on particle theory too?

he other thing is Einstein is one person, but what about the rest of us? I'm beginning to think that actually, individualism is a myth, and our conception of a person is far from unique but rather everyday.

(I did think this question would be more contentious).

[BookBeauty]

Oooh, I like this discussion! Thank you for a wonderful, thought-provoking beginning to a, what will hopefully be, many points of view pondering into the human psyche.

My own thoughts about individuality are varied. I normally think along the lines of nature vs. nurture.

If we look at identical twins, or even regular siblings, they will never be exactly the same. Either appearance-wise, or personality-wise, though they may be very similar.

The smallest things shape us-- Things we might not even think about. How about taste buds? Sense of smell ? Other senses, such as sight? Who even thinks about those? But, the fact that you hate brussel sprouts and your sister loves them, is that based upon genetics, or the fact that your sister just happened to have the masterfully cooked brussel sprouts for the first time, and you just happened to eat it when it was a bit burnt?

So many variables that accounts for so-called 'individuality'.. But, what about sameness?

We're all very alike, too. We all dream, some even experience the same kinds of dreams, and many people find that they can relate to each other. Many even try to fit into a mold so that they can belong. Some even try to belong to a group that is outside of that group, only to be 'belonging', in a different way!

Are we like a hive of bees? Bees are probably unique too, but they're so small that we don't understand. There are so very many of us, but there have recently been scientific experiments done upon the 'network', of a city. The growth rate can be predicted. People's social circles can be predicted. Overweight people cluster with other overweight people, etc.

If we look at ourselves holistically, it's amazing how very not-individual we may seem.

[YesNo]

If we look at identical twins, or even regular siblings, they will never be exactly the same. Either appearance-wise, or personality-wise, though they may be very similar.

I assume identical twins would have the same DNA but still each twin would think they were unique even though they share the same genes. So one set of genes could get translated into more than one unique individual. So uniqueness is not dependent upon genetics.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I think every 'mind' is unique even if people belong to a group with the same beliefs or the same school of thought, whether they be pantheists, existentialists, Marxists. Even these shared beliefs and ways of thinking have myriad variants and deviations. That's why philosophical schools of thought and unorthodox religions are hard to categorise or explicitly define.

When you spoke about Einstein your arguments were more on the subject of originality. You spoke of how much reliance there was on contemporaries and previous scientists and scientific discoveries, but Einstein himself was unique (at that period of time) because he was the one who made the discoveries, posited the therories and moved science forward. He was certainly aided in his accomplishments but it took his unique genius and cognition to use the external knowledge and come to conclusions he did.

[YesNo]

I was thinking more in terms of our consciousness and motivators. I suppose you could labe every quantum particle as unique.

Reincarnation also adds to a lack of uniqueness. It means that each being is part of a continuum, and is reliant upon the previous being for their state.
I agree that reincarnation, if it is what happens to us, would remove some of the uniqueness of our current lives. Who we are as a unique person would go across multiple lifetimes. Maybe at some level we are all just one anyway and our uniqueness is an illusion.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I was thinking the other day - not a regular occurrence - about what there could be about a person that is actually unique or:

self generated
not reliant upon the influence of others
not influenced culturally
not influenced by tradition or religion
not a function of this time and place where we live

I think such people are extremely rare, one in a million maybe. People like to think of themselves as individuals but I think the pull of the above factors are all but impossible to shake off. Wilde said it best:

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

[Veho]

Could the feelings we have for the people in our individual lives be what make each of us unique? Of course all (good) mothers love their child unconditionally, that's certainly not unique. But does anyone love THAT child like its mother loves THAT child? Does anyone love THAT woman like her husband loves THAT woman?

[smerdyakov]

I think such people are extremely rare, one in a million maybe. People like to think of themselves as individuals but I think the pull of the above factors are all but impossible to shake off. Wilde said it best:

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

Yeah but if most people are an amalgamation of other people/influences, then strictly speaking no two people are the same, therefore everyone can said to be unique. A bit like DNA strands combining, the outcomes are infinite.

[Delta40]

Could the feelings we have for the people in our individual lives be what make each of us unique? Of course all (good) mothers love their child unconditionally, that's certainly not unique. But does anyone love THAT child like its mother loves THAT child? Does anyone love THAT woman like her husband loves THAT woman?

That's an interesting point. As a mother of two I love both my daughters but I love them differently because of their uniqueness. However, there would be no difference in the measure of love of have for them both.

[Paulclem]

I think every 'mind' is unique even if people belong to a group with the same beliefs or the same school of thought, whether they be pantheists, existentialists, Marxists. Even these shared beliefs and ways of thinking have myriad variants and deviations. That's why philosophical schools of thought and unorthodox religions are hard to categorise or explicitly define.

When you spoke about Einstein your arguments were more on the subject of originality. You spoke of how much reliance there was on contemporaries and previous scientists and scientific discoveries, but Einstein himself was unique (at that period of time) because he was the one who made the discoveries, posited the therories and moved science forward. He was certainly aided in his accomplishments but it took his unique genius and cognition to use the external knowledge and come to conclusions he did.

The groups you mention generate theory from conditions - Marxism from the particular conditions of the working class in England in the 19th century. It wasn't a growth of thought that originated in a vacuum, but was perhaps a logical function of the conditions he found himself observing. There must have been a pressure towards som kind of intellectual protest.

I take your point about Einstein's uniqueness, and the same goes for Newton and Darwin and lots of other original thinkers - but that does illustrate the point somewhat. These thinkers of unique thoughts are just that. What about the rest of us, and all the contemporaries in-between? These people are perhaps exceptions to the general and startling rule that we are hardly individual at all but move with the tides of our culture and wherever the winds of current thought blows.

[Delta40]

I suppose we can take the ecclasiastical view that there is nothing new under the sun...

[billl]

I take your point about Einstein's uniqueness, and the same goes for Newton and Darwin and lots of other original thinkers - but that does illustrate the point somewhat. These thinkers of unique thoughts are just that. What about the rest of us, and all the contemporaries in-between? These people are perhaps exceptions to the general and startling rule that we are hardly individual at all but move with the tides of our culture and wherever the winds of current thought blows.

I think Einstein and Newton, and that sort of example, are in part cases of people involved in/concerned with something that is a rather specialized area of concern, but whose work ends up having a very large impact. There might very well be equally jaw-dropping creativity/originality happening in other areas, but we never hear of it, might never understand if we had heard, and might not care at all if we could understand. In regards to the moments of inspiration, I mean, some of the things I've seen done with paper-clips... And, as far as those rightly famous men having applied themselves for a long time, at a high level, dealing with great complexity--it's probably true that many people find their own, unique paths through unique circumstances quite often, but in areas much more easily classified into a mundane category (despite the differences in specifics), perhaps in ways that we discount because it'd be boring to consider, or all so much more subtle without the codification, expert-testimony, and study that sets us up for the wonders of Newton and Einstein.



These people are perhaps exceptions to the general and startling rule that we are hardly individual at all but move with the tides of our culture and wherever the winds of current thought blows.

I don't know if it's surprising all the way down to people following traditional cultural practices and the latest current trends--the first half of that is just part of belonging to a culture (and, in many of them, there's even the "rebel" figures that have traditionally been around), and the second half is something people commonly start rolling their eyes before their twenties. We might be blind to the complete extent of it, of course (I can imagine someone complaining about boring predictable pop music one moment, and then lecturing their friends about the price of oil, a strong dollar, and China the next, with the opinions being largely the result of the past month's news programs they were exposed to along with millions of other people), but this sort of phenomenon ends up being part of a large cultural conversation that's sort of enclosed. Here's some topics, here's some options, and here's a load of people providing ideas and opinions--it makes sense that the number of people in society would dwarf the "broadly relevant topics" and "really different options" available. It'd be strange if we all had extremely different opinions about the candidates, or our own brand of smartphone.

I think this can carry over to many smaller things as well: If a person is in charge of a small company concerned with a somewhat obscure corner of the economy, well, there are still probably competitors and expert books that might be sources of ideas (and assumptions). And also general management courses, texts, etc., as well as models of leadership from the person's own past. But if we look more closely, I think we would probably begin to find that the particular businessman had his own, unique style, based on the particular demands of his business, and the particular mix of other people he's interacting with who are, themselves, unique once we look closely at their individual/particular circumstances, and their relation to other people who are themselves unique in the same way.

Looking at this particular tree of individuals in the above example, I think it's easy (easiest, in fact) to comment on how half of them have a smartphone, half of them like the local sports team, half of them laugh at the same TV joke, 10% hate that show, and how none of them have a political opinion that can't be broadly ascribed to someone amongst perhaps two dozen particular political experts. And in their home garden, and in their family, we might recognize planting techniques and parenting methods that could also be found in other places. What's more difficult to comment on, and of great importance, is the individual histories of particular people with particular relatives, co-workers, friends, and rose bushes, and how all of those things end up presenting situations that are, to a significant degree (without performing some outside reduction, in order to make our comments or meta-opinions manageable, for instance) unprecedented. We are each significant, and unique, and I'll stop there before mentioning snowflakes--but the notion of "the self" is no illusion, not in any significant sense (unless one reduces oneself to a particular set of cells at some point in time, or holds some extreme regard for the idea that memory must be perfect, or whatever).

Our individual story/"history"/perspective has value, even if we might over-value it at times. On the one hand, "Rome falls every second"--but on the other hand, that's just a bit of wisdom, and it's a bit overboard to view everything through such a lens.

It's of course important to remember that we often fool ourselves, and often get things wrong about ourselves and our uniqueness or our originality. And we should also try to be aware of influences over what we buy, how we vote, influences over most all of our opinions--no matter whether the outside opinions and perspectives being found by or "sold to" us are to the empowerment of a business, a political institution, or a religious structure. But I wonder if a discussion like this might too easily overlook what we are not talking about when we generalize about our conformities. Maybe one of the most unique things about Einstein is that we all know and care about some of the unique stuff that he did.

[BookBeauty]

I saw an hour long lecture with Jacque Fresco as the speaker last night, which seems to fit well into this discussion.

He posits that we only become what we are, shaped by the people and things that we observe around us. We're all projections of experiences. We don't make inventions out of thin air, they are built through ideas and observations that we, and others have had before us. If we grew up in France, we would speak French and be a part of that culture. He says that there is no such thing as individuality. It's simply based upon environment.

Thoughts?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I saw an hour long lecture with Jacque Fresco as the speaker last night, which seems to fit well into this discussion.

He posits that we only become what we are, shaped by the people and things that we observe around us. We're all projections of experiences. We don't make inventions out of thin air, they are built through ideas and observations that we, and others have had before us. If we grew up in France, we would speak French and be a part of that culture. He says that there is no such thing as individuality. It's simply based upon environment.

Thoughts?

Yes I would totally agree. No one lives in a vacuum. It is impossible to shake off the cultural and social influence of our environment. We are all scientifically unique but at the same time all (boringly as Wilde said) very much the same underneath, with the same social drivers - avoidance of pain, pursuit of pleasure etc, etc, at play. I'm sure that are some very rare exceptions to the rule. I can think of people like Socrates, perhaps Gandhi, but maybe these cases aren't even that straightforward. The human creature is definitely a social animal who cannot (or very rarely) escape the social or environmental influence.

[cacian]

what does unique mean in relation to a human being?

[prendrelemick]

I saw an hour long lecture with Jacque Fresco as the speaker last night, which seems to fit well into this discussion.

He posits that we only become what we are, shaped by the people and things that we observe around us. We're all projections of experiences. We don't make inventions out of thin air, they are built through ideas and observations that we, and others have had before us. If we grew up in France, we would speak French and be a part of that culture. He says that there is no such thing as individuality. It's simply based upon environment.

Thoughts?


Can we tie in the phyisical construct of the brain here. Neural pathways are formed as a result of experiences, both empyrical and vicarious. However those pathways are unique to each brain, they differ in strengh and form and use, they interconnect with different other pathways and lead to different centers. For instance, a National Anthem may affect one person emotionally while his countryman is unaffected. The same experience results in different patterns in different brains.

So although Fresco is right to a degree, as other people have said on here, it is the interpretation of - and reaction to - our enviroment that is an individual thing.

[BookBeauty]

Can we tie in the phyisical construct of the brain here. Neural pathways are formed as a result of experiences, both empyrical and vicarious. However those pathways are unique to each brain, they differ in strengh and form and use, they interconnect with different other pathways and lead to different centers. For instance, a National Anthem may affect one person emotionally while his countryman is unaffected. The same experience results in different patterns in different brains.

So although Fresco is right to a degree, as other people have said on here, it is the interpretation of - and reaction to - our enviroment that is an individual
thing.

Are not our reactions and interpretations shaped by what we have learned, and has been taken from our environments? The people we surround ourselves with, our parents, and observations made in the world around us? No one individual will have the exact environment, but each will be shaped by it in a similar way.

In the case of twins, that I mentioned earlier, the mother picks up and dotes upon one as a child, the other becomes jealous. A rivalry develops. One becomes a preacher, the other a gangster. And it could very well have gone the other way, or perhaps had not happened at all. Entirely based upon environmental variables.

I conjecture that we are all conditioned by our environments, and that we are all projections of what has come before us.

This isn't necessarily negative-- In fact, I think that embracing this will help us to progress as a whole.

[prendrelemick]

Are not our reactions and interpretations shaped by what we have learned, and has been taken from our environments? The people we surround ourselves with, our parents, and observations made in the world around us? No one individual will have the exact environment, but each will be shaped by it in a similar way.

In the case of twins, that I mentioned earlier, the mother picks up and dotes upon one as a child, the other becomes jealous. A rivalry develops. One becomes a preacher, the other a gangster. And it could very well have gone the other way, or perhaps had not happened at all. Entirely based upon environmental variables.

I conjecture that we are all conditioned by our environments, and that we are all projections of what has come before us.

This isn't necessarily negative-- In fact, I think that embracing this will help us to progress as a whole.

I am utterly unqualified here, but I think there is a randomness in the development of the neural pathways and synaptic connections - an element of chance if you like. If those twins were doted on equally, one could still have become a gangster and one a priest.

[BookBeauty]

I am utterly unqualified here, but I think there is a randomness in the development of the neural pathways and synaptic connections - an element of chance if you like. If those twins were doted on equally, one could still have become a gangster and one a priest.

You're likely more qualified than myself. :D I'm merely putting my thoughts out there.

It all comes down to the eternal 'nature vs. nurture' argument, in this case. How much of an individual relies upon genetics, and how much is environmentally made?

Look upon the cases of feral children.

'
'A feral child (also, colloquially, wild child) is a human child who has lived isolated from human contact from a very young age, and has no (or little) experience of human care, loving or social behavior, and, crucially, of human language.[1] Some feral children have been confined by people (usually their own parents); in some cases this child abandonment was due to the parents' rejection of a child's severe intellectual or physical impairment. Feral children may have experienced severe child abuse or trauma before being abandoned or running away. Others are alleged to have been brought up by animals; some are said to have lived in the wild on their own. Over one hundred cases of supposedly feral children are known.

...

Feral children lack the basic social skills that are normally learned in the process of [acculturation]. For example, they may be unable to learn to use a toilet, have trouble learning to walk upright and display a complete lack of interest in the human activity around them. They often seem mentally impaired and have almost insurmountable trouble learning a human language. The impaired ability to learn language after having been isolated for so many years is often attributed to the existence of a critical period for language learning, and taken as evidence in favor of the critical period hypothesis.[4]
[5][2]''

Their personalities were shaped by their environment.

[YesNo]

I would add that there is "nature" or DNA, "nurture" or environmental influences and epigenetics, and then finally "consciousness", our lived experience of this nature-nurture reality.

Our consciousness within this nature and nurture reality is what makes us unique. No one else embodies it the we do since they are busy embodying their own nature and nurture reality.

[Paulclem]

I think Einstein and Newton, and that sort of example, are in part cases of people involved in/concerned with something that is a rather specialized area of concern, but whose work ends up having a very large impact. There might very well be equally jaw-dropping creativity/originality happening in other areas, but we never hear of it, might never understand if we had heard, and might not care at all if we could understand. In regards to the moments of inspiration, I mean, some of the things I've seen done with paper-clips... And, as far as those rightly famous men having applied themselves for a long time, at a high level, dealing with great complexity--it's probably true that many people find their own, unique paths through unique circumstances quite often, but in areas much more easily classified into a mundane category (despite the differences in specifics), perhaps in ways that we discount because it'd be boring to consider, or all so much more subtle without the codification, expert-testimony, and study that sets us up for the wonders of Newton and Einstein.



I don't know if it's surprising all the way down to people following traditional cultural practices and the latest current trends--the first half of that is just part of belonging to a culture (and, in many of them, there's even the "rebel" figures that have traditionally been around), and the second half is something people commonly start rolling their eyes before their twenties. We might be blind to the complete extent of it, of course (I can imagine someone complaining about boring predictable pop music one moment, and then lecturing their friends about the price of oil, a strong dollar, and China the next, with the opinions being largely the result of the past month's news programs they were exposed to along with millions of other people), but this sort of phenomenon ends up being part of a large cultural conversation that's sort of enclosed. Here's some topics, here's some options, and here's a load of people providing ideas and opinions--it makes sense that the number of people in society would dwarf the "broadly relevant topics" and "really different options" available. It'd be strange if we all had extremely different opinions about the candidates, or our own brand of smartphone.

I think this can carry over to many smaller things as well: If a person is in charge of a small company concerned with a somewhat obscure corner of the economy, well, there are still probably competitors and expert books that might be sources of ideas (and assumptions). And also general management courses, texts, etc., as well as models of leadership from the person's own past. But if we look more closely, I think we would probably begin to find that the particular businessman had his own, unique style, based on the particular demands of his business, and the particular mix of other people he's interacting with who are, themselves, unique once we look closely at their individual/particular circumstances, and their relation to other people who are themselves unique in the same way.

Looking at this particular tree of individuals in the above example, I think it's easy (easiest, in fact) to comment on how half of them have a smartphone, half of them like the local sports team, half of them laugh at the same TV joke, 10% hate that show, and how none of them have a political opinion that can't be broadly ascribed to someone amongst perhaps two dozen particular political experts. And in their home garden, and in their family, we might recognize planting techniques and parenting methods that could also be found in other places. What's more difficult to comment on, and of great importance, is the individual histories of particular people with particular relatives, co-workers, friends, and rose bushes, and how all of those things end up presenting situations that are, to a significant degree (without performing some outside reduction, in order to make our comments or meta-opinions manageable, for instance) unprecedented. We are each significant, and unique, and I'll stop there before mentioning snowflakes--but the notion of "the self" is no illusion, not in any significant sense (unless one reduces oneself to a particular set of cells at some point in time, or holds some extreme regard for the idea that memory must be perfect, or whatever).

Our individual story/"history"/perspective has value, even if we might over-value it at times. On the one hand, "Rome falls every second"--but on the other hand, that's just a bit of wisdom, and it's a bit overboard to view everything through such a lens.

It's of course important to remember that we often fool ourselves, and often get things wrong about ourselves and our uniqueness or our originality. And we should also try to be aware of influences over what we buy, how we vote, influences over most all of our opinions--no matter whether the outside opinions and perspectives being found by or "sold to" us are to the empowerment of a business, a political institution, or a religious structure. But I wonder if a discussion like this might too easily overlook what we are not talking about when we generalize about our conformities. Maybe one of the most unique things about Einstein is that we all know and care about some of the unique stuff that he did.

i think it does depend upon the part of a person you look at as you say. There is uniqueness in small details and histories as you point out. I can see that, and it is interesting - I started the thread "The everyday is interesting", and looking back I can recognise that it's the small uniquenesses that make us interesting. I agree that over the big questions 40% will think this, 20% will think that etc, and they will get form their opinions from the "large cultural closed conversation ". I like that idea - is it unique to you?

So what I'm thinking from your post is that we have fewer minor/ micro influences upon us that mean we diverge in small private matters and routines. The diversity of this might be what makes us interesting as friends and colleagues, and quite unique or eccentric in how we conduct our small matters.

In the big social questions and issues we will have more influences acting upon us - including the historical examples and memories and influences we carry with us - which may determine much of what we think - as you say, glossing over the many side issues that are present in people's experiences.

I must say that al the posts are very interesting.

[billl]

Are not our reactions and interpretations shaped by what we have learned, and has been taken from our environments? The people we surround ourselves with, our parents, and observations made in the world around us? No one individual will have the exact environment, but each will be shaped by it in a similar way.

In the case of twins, that I mentioned earlier, the mother picks up and dotes upon one as a child, the other becomes jealous. A rivalry develops. One becomes a preacher, the other a gangster. And it could very well have gone the other way, or perhaps had not happened at all. Entirely based upon environmental variables.

I conjecture that we are all conditioned by our environments, and that we are all projections of what has come before us.

This isn't necessarily negative-- In fact, I think that embracing this will help us to progress as a whole.

lots of people, and an environment that doesn't feature infinite good choices
I still think this is making a bit much over something that shouldn't be surprising. What else are we to be dealing with, beyond our environment? Not only will there be influences over how we respond to (often shared) experiences, there will also quite often be a limited number of useful responses (whether they are taught, or are learned on one's own).

To offer a gross over-simplification: if scientists were observing people approach a door with two handles, and noting which handle people tried first, would it be correct, after a few dozen people have passed, to remark upon how unoriginal all of these people were? I think that, once we have thousands/millions/billions of people in a culture or limited environment (a city or continent, say), a lot of actions and interactions end up butting into the sort of limitation that the people approaching the two-handled door are facing.

It's more than just two choices, quite often, but we can still generalize down to the point that we see numbers of people doing the same thing because there just aren't many (sensible) things to do that others aren't doing. It's sometimes exciting when someone offers a new useful approach, a new choice--but such things aren't always urgently needed, and even when they are, it can be expected that we will always end up with hordes of people available for each broadly useful option. And, as an example of where I'm heading, even if we take away any cultural restrictions, influences, or hints that we might want to about (for example) clothing styles and fashion "choices"--if we say the sky's the limit--we still might end up saying about such a person "there goes another hippie" or come up with some other category for them.

an unforseen opportunity (not necessarily unique, if that matters...)
If a person A arrives at an intersection, and there has been an accident, and an emergency vehicle has arrived, they might simply turn around and find another route. Another person B, however, might note that the emergency vehicle has blocked oncoming traffic, and a normally illegal move suddenly becomes absolutely safe, providing a shortcut that won't endanger anyone, and will almost certainly be disregarded by otherwise busy authorities. Person C would be next, and they might likely copy either person A or B. (Of course, they might have also been yelling at their windshield, cursing A and/or B for taking so long to come up with their own "obvious" plan.)

Is A, B, or C "unique" or "being original"? They all understand the rules of the road, and will tend to be constrained by them. A and B came up with different responses. C copied one of the others (though he may have anticipated them). That C, D, E, F, G, and H might all have "unoriginal" plans for the situation is no evidence against them being "unique" individuals, it's simply the result of the situation.

What about A, though? What a robot, right? Just turn around and take the next best route? Is that all you've got? Well, yes, it's a tried and true technique, he's probably had a lot of luck with it. Maybe a bit groggy on the morning commute, also, or is perhaps very sensitive to rules of the road (and perhaps for good reason). Is person A unique, out of the whole of humanity, in those ways? Arguably NO (if we ignore the particulars about the perhaps's and maybe's...), no let's not call person A "unique" on account of this decision. But how could we all be entirely different in those ways? And A is different than B, it should be noted.

What about B? His solution was "unique", we might say. Of course the nearly-exact configuration of road, laws, accident, emergency response, and traffic might have presented itself here and there across the globe, on more than one other occasion in the past, but it is very unlikely that he would have known of those occurrences. HOWEVER, he likely knew of some similar types of circumstances. ...Cutting across a corner gas station, mass U-turns by traffic on a closed road, breaking rules in the dark of night... leaves clogging gutter near the corner spout... etc. ... And so he comes up with something unique via perhaps the greatest shared "unoriginal" technique of all, METAPHOR.

metaphor
When we look at creativity, there might be some role for randomness in brain firings (I don't know), and it would be difficult for me to speak definitively about what might or might not be happening unconsciously on our way to a "eureka" moment. However, I think that, if we really want to point to human uniqueness as an illusion, we have to 1) focus on actions that are maybe herd-like in large part because there are more of us than there are options in particular regards (political opinion, smart-phones, traffic decisions, shoes), and 2) point to metaphor as some sort of unimpressive key to the unlocking of humanity's plodding and humbling unoriginality.

But metaphor is impressive, it's endlessly productive, it's marvelous, and we really would be in for a boring and undistinguished time without it. And we all have access to it (but let's not make a big deal about our "non-uniqueness" in this regard). It's not the only important thing (aspects of temperment, healthy memory, and many other things can make a person impressive), but when a person is good at using metaphor (and recognizing its application by others) I think they are likely someone who can, quite often, be referred to as "original" or "unique", at least to some degree, if we look closely at their circumstances--and resist the urge to apply our own powers of metaphor to reduce their overall behavior, and group it into something more general.

Metaphor is what gets us through a complex world, we use it every day (it's at the heart of the best jokes and jury-rigged fixes) and its fingerprints are all over my understanding of what Einstein came up with.

UNORIGINALITY DISCLAIMER: I forget where I first heard or read metaphor being highlighted like this, but I don't mean to present it as my own original idea--it just popped back into my attention while going through this conversation. I checked Wikipedia, and it's something that cognitive psychology and so on have been concerned with

[Paulclem]

We are each significant, and unique, and I'll stop there before mentioning snowflakes--but the notion of "the self" is no illusion, not in any significant sense (unless one reduces oneself to a particular set of cells at some point in time, or holds some extreme regard for the idea that memory must be perfect, or whatever).


This is an interesting statement Billl, but perhaps not one for this thread.

[Darcy88]

No man is an island, but a man may be more island than most - he may be a peninsula.

I completely went against the grain and influence of my surroundings when I got deeply into books and began to live more in my mind in the 19th century, in the 17th, the 5th. It was a couple of years before I made friends with like interests, and for those two years I was essentially on auto-pilot when around other people who talked about cars, movies, relationships, hockey, ect.

I've now found a niche here where I live and online in this place, and so I'd say I now belong to a culture, a society if you will. Before it was different. I was very autonomous, very self-determined.

Its all in degrees. No person is totally 100 percent individuated from their place and culture and time, but some are less sheep-like, more free and self-willed than most.

[billl]

i think it does depend upon the part of a person you look at as you say. There is uniqueness in small details and histories as you point out. I can see that, and it is interesting - I started the thread "The everyday is interesting", and looking back I can recognise that it's the small uniquenesses that make us interesting. I agree that over the big questions 40% will think this, 20% will think that etc, and they will get form their opinions from the "large cultural closed conversation ". I like that idea - is it unique to you?


As I point out at the end of the thing I was just working on (while you typed up this reply), a lot of the post you replied to probably was the result of a slowly crystallizing memory of metaphor's role in all of this. However, I can't think of where the notion of the "large cultural closed conversation " might have come to me. It's entirely possible that there's some very plain and straight-forward influence that fed me this in the past, but I think it might've just come (most immediately) just from thinking about how our non-uniqueness was being characterized in some of these posts. I began to think about smart-phones, pop music, etc. Maybe a little unique and original!

Hmm, I do have to say though, that the next step I might want to take after this sort of idea, though, would probably be in a direction that Jaron Lanier goes in You Are Not A Gadget, which I've mentioned in the forum before. For various reasons (system efficiency, profit-motive, tech-guru ambition/pride) is technology being set-up according to what it is good at, as opposed to what sort of development might best suit us? Might there be better set-ups/interfaces that might demand more of tech designers (and less of the businessmen), but better suit the human individual?



So what I'm thinking from your post is that we have fewer minor/ micro influences upon us that mean we diverge in small private matters and routines. The diversity of this might be what makes us interesting as friends and colleagues, and quite unique or eccentric in how we conduct our small matters.


When I encountered the words "what makes us interesting as friends and colleagues", I was struck by how it was such a great way of putting it. I could imagine someone writing a brilliant essay about Friends.

[billl]

This is an interesting statement Billl, but perhaps not one for this thread.

You're right, and I sincerely appreciate your handling of it, Paul. We could probably go on forever... :thumbs_up

[prendrelemick]

I'm not sure what you mean by metaphor here, but my understanding of it is useing something generally known to better discribe something else. A comminication technique that relies on shared experience and similarity of responce rather than uniqueness.

[billl]

I'm not sure what you mean by metaphor here, but my understanding of it is useing something generally known to better discribe something else. A comminication technique that relies on shared experience and similarity of responce rather than uniqueness.

Since we're communicating here, it's a little difficult to mark the distinction--but I was using metaphor (and I might just as well have chosen "analogy") to describe a process of thought, rather than a device of communication. Otherwise, it would be essentially the same, though.

In the more usual sense of "communication device", metaphor helps one person explain some particular concept to an audience by pointing to some other concept (the second concept being something familiar to the audience). In the same way (in an analogous way!), if we use metaphor as shorthand for a type of thought-process, it is the means by which a particular individual comes up with a new idea after consideration of some other idea that was previously known by him/her.

If someone from a country or state without toll roads suddenly encounters a toll road while driving through Pennsylvania, and they are approaching a line of busy toll booths, they might not need an explicit heads-up from a tourist guidebook or local friend to realize that they should immediately inspect which toll booth has the shortest line, and check to see if it or any other good options might be occupied by a special case (stopped car, someone struggling to find a purse in the back seat). The basic strategy would likely present itself in their mind based on past experiences with other drivers at single-lane checkpoints, and with experiences of checking out at busy supermarkets. Or something like that.

And, in the end, I think it is this sort of "mental power of analogy" that enables us to deal with variations as simple as building a wall with bricks or stones on this or that surface. (I don't mean the task is simple, I mean the difference in conditions might not normally seem worth the appeal to the word "analogous"). We can't (like an old-fashioned idea of a robot might) expect everything to exactly match past conditions, so we have to "make the match" based on our understanding of how the situation is similar, and how techniques can be flexible. (Bringing up robots in this more straight-forward sort of instance brings to mind how closely this seems related to "pattern recognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition_(psychology)#Prototype_matchin g)".)

Just as knowledge of plumbing/hydraulics might inform some aspects of electronics (or vice-versa) in communication, it might also have been responsible for some initial discoveries (in the minds of scientists or electricians, I suppose). Similarly, if someone fixes some minor disaster in an office by using bended paper clips, a hole-puch, rubber bands, or maybe just duct-tape, they might rely on memories of Boy Scout knot-making, Legos, or First Aid techniques more than on some past experience with the particular office equipment problem and the "tools" at hand.

[prendrelemick]

I see, transfering and adapting knowledge from one field, to another.

[prendrelemick]

You're likely more qualified than myself. :D I'm merely putting my thoughts out there.

It all comes down to the eternal 'nature vs. nurture' argument, in this case. How much of an individual relies upon genetics, and how much is environmentally made?

Look upon the cases of feral children.

'

Their personalities were shaped by their environment.

Here's an observation that ties in with this somehow (I'm not sure how though.)

My favorite colour is yellow, my Dad's is blue, my Grandaughter's is pink, my Grandma's was green, my Sisters is royal blue, my Son's is red and so-on. There seems to be a random element to this. I don't know why I like yellow better than red, people with widely different characters will have the same favourites. I don't think there is any evolutionary aspect to a favourite colour either. Is it a consequence of the way we are made, or the result of some experience?

[BookBeauty]

Here's an observation that ties in with this somehow (I'm not sure how though.)

My favorite colour is yellow, my Dad's is blue, my Grandaughter's is pink, my Grandma's was green, my Sisters is royal blue, my Son's is red and so-on. There seems to be a random element to this. I don't know why I like yellow better than red, people with widely different characters will have the same favourites. I don't think there is any evolutionary aspect to a favourite colour either. Is it a consequence of the way we are made, or the result of some experience?

The same question could be asked of taste buds. I've always had the theory that each person has a slightly different vision, view of colour and 3-dimensional space. Perhaps your yellow is different than your sister's. :)

Such small, simple things are fun to think about, wonder about, and admire.