I am a bit of a caffeine fan, not much of a sugar freak though, although I am having a glass of red wine as I speak. It may not be relevant to the discussion, except in terms of states of consciousness, and, perhaps, in making thinking about philosophy more intense and enjoyable.

Mysticism may have an important link with aesthetics. I have been reading about the idea of the sublime, going back to the ideas of Kant on imagination, in 'Aesthetics and Subjectivity: From Kant to Nietzsche, by Andrew Bowie, (2003). In the history of philosophy mysticism may be traced back to philosophers who saw the transcendent in terms of the idea of God.

However, states of consciousness may be also compatible with the sublime, as being those of deep intersubjectivity, such as in core understanding of ethics, intelligence and wisdom which can be applied in human affairs in life. The parallel between the good in the form of its connection with the 'good' may be important. However, that is not to say that there are no conflicts and exceptions to the rule, because truth and fairness may sometimes be ugly, or uncanny aspects of life, ugly rather than beauty. There may be inversions of aesthetics and conventions of wisdom, which may involve startling aspects of intuition and imagination, going beyond traditional boundaries and ways of perception.

I am not sure that what I am saying is part of your philosophy. However, many Christian believers may see Jesus as the son as God; as having the share with God, the Father, in the source of omniscient knowledge. This may miss the way in which everyone is a Son ot God. Carl Jung spoke of the image of God evolving through human consciousness and understanding, which may involve human beings as consciousness, perhaps in conjunction with Schopenhauer's understanding of human consciousness and will, as an interpretation of Kant's 'thing in itself', as the transcendent, which may be what is deemed as the absolute source, as God.

It does seem that reductionist materialism is on the rise in popular philosophy. Aldous Huxley, with his emphasis on perennial wisdom was important at some point. It is hard to know what the current climate of thinking is, because there may be so much going on in people's minds, balancing the findings of the neuroscientists and the ideas of the ancients.

There is so much to be discovered in the realm of ideas in the information age Alongside the great sources of knowledge as information there is the experiential level of knowing and this may be the raw substance, useful for digging up ideas which have become buried in layers. Consensus may not prevail, but the ongoing search, like the quest for 'the philosopher's stone may fuel the need for careful and deeper understanding, whether it comes down to language or ideas.
,

I would say that I come from a basic gravitation towards the mystical, having read authors like William Blake and WB Yeats. I have a mixed approach to the mystical, and mysterious. This is based on the need for understanding and my biggest issue with mysticism itself is that while language may be limited, in philosophy, there is a need for words to articulate and the need for explanations. In that respect, I respect the insights of the mystics, but think that philosophy is important too, in looking at the experiences of those on the mystic path.

I have read your posts. As far as I can see death is a form of peace, a bit like sleep. It may be that each of us comes from a different, unique angle, making it difficult. I guess that it is that I do enjoy life providing it is not too painful constantly, with constant knockdowns. However, it doesn't seem that you come from that point of view and it your own position may be more along the lines of Camus's one, but I am not entirely sure of this. How do you find the thinking of the existentialist writers? Do you feel an affinity with them?

I am glad to see you back on site because I after reading your posts about death and you not being on the site for a long time I had worried that you had killed yourself. The reason why I say I was worried is because I do see suicide as being about the worst way to die. I do have thoughts of it at times, mainly when I feel that I have more stress than I can cope with, but I am glad that I have never given into such thoughts. I have known people who have killed themselves, often in extreme situations of panic and despair.

Death is probably the end, and I say that because I used to believe in life after death but, now, see it as unlikely. Life does seem harsh at times and it seems that some people have harder lives than others. The things which I think would just be unbearable are having to sleep rough on the streets or becoming blind. I don't know what your own reason for wishing to die is but everyone will die at some point.

Generally, I wish to make the best of what happens and cope with whatever happens to the best of my abilities. I think that I would be too afraid to kill myself whatever situation I was in. Even though I don't fear hell like when I was a teenager I know of people who have tried to kill themselves and ended up with all sorts of injuries, including not being able to walk.

One strange experience which I had in relation to forgotten memories occurred a few years ago. I was lying on my bed and accidentally bumped my head against the wall. In doing so, I got some memories from early childhood which I had completely forgotten come into my mind. I am reasonably sure that they are genuine memories because it was a series of memories, which made sense. It has made me wonder about the nature of layers of memory in brain storage in its connection with spectrum between consciousness and unconsciousness, with the brain being the hardware for the processes of it.

Perhaps, intersubjectivity is based on underlying consensus, like the group mind. Even though in the post above, I have just argued for a importance of intuition, rationality is the clearest foundation for thinking. However, while the intersubjective ideas may be the stepping stones it may be that individual thinkers' originality and creativity are central to the way in the understanding of underlying thinking moves forward, or evolves.

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you, as I have been busy dealing with the practical uncertainties in life. I am not exaggerating, I found out yesterday that all the people in the house where I am living will have to find alternative accommodation by the middle of next month. So, I am a bit shaken up by this unexpected news.

The reason why I am mentioning it because it does tie in with your own one on intuition. When thrown into difficult situations, while reasoning is important, intuition is likely to play a large role, especially in decision making. Often, in difficult choices and, finding a viable way forward, I have found intuition to be extremely valuable.

While critical thinking relies on logical analysis, intuition seems to sometimes almost contain another kind of way of seeing, which almost cuts through some of conundrums of logic. Of course, it doesn't mean that all intuitions are going to be all knowing, but, there againn, neither are all rational arguments reliable, especially as there are often contradictory ones. It may not that learning the art of intuition, which may be about gut responses, is one which can be learned as a form of spontaneous thinking, in the face of that which is uncertain.

The question of objectivity is a difficult one because human life is comprised of different subjectivities. Even intersubjective aspects of thought may be based on consensus assumptions and may be limited. In a way, it may be difficult to know of objective truth ultimately because it is not possible to step outside of one's subjectivity, which is bound up with sentience. Much of what is seen as objective may be based on shared understanding as opposed to soliptist thinking.

I do appreciate living in the age where doubt and skepticism are openly expressed and valued. However, as a teenager; remember being told by religious friends that I I should not doubt religious 'truth', like doubting Thomas. But, after time and trespassing into different approaches to thought I could not hold on to 'blind faith', and maybe blind faith is a philosophical sin.

Risk may be important for making decisions personally and in aspects of life. It was part of the basis for thinking in the pandemic, in juggling and weighing up factors. When I was working in mental health care, policies and decisions about individuals was based on assessing risks. In particular, risks to self, especially suicide and risks to others, in the form of aggression or violence was central. It was not exact because no one knows an individual's innermost thoughts, but there were generic principles for this, especially based on a person's previous history of behaviour.

As I understand it, risk assessment is a widespread approach for decision, including risk assessments of building, such as in the events of fire. The approach of thinking about risks may be one of the most rational ways of thinking in the face of uncertainty.

With regard to the nature of seeking truth it may be that it is worth trying to find aspects of it, through epistemological and empirical knowledge rather than giving up. But, the acceptance of partiality of truth and knowledge may be important, not forgetting Socrates' 'I know nothing.' Paradoxically, the humility of lack of knowledge and certainty may be better than the arrogance of being too certain. It is possible that those who try to assert their certainty are trying to convince themselves of this, in order to hide or gloss over their doubts and uncertainties.

I am not really wishing to make any evaluations of mental states. If anything, I would see uncertainty as being one which calls for weighing up the nature of risks, for self and others, in choices being made. Thinking about risks is important but it is often imprecise because there are often many variables which come into play.

Yes, you make some fair points. Vulnerable groups probably need to be able to feel reassured that behaviour is not acceptable. The problem of moral relativism is that it can become a viewpoint which enables people to justify almost any behaviour. It is all reduced to the norms. When I was a student I had to write an essay on 'Is there anything which is absolutely wrong?' I found it a hard topic because cultural codes vary and situations vary. I concluded that there was probably nothing that was absolutely wrong, with the possible exception of murder and rape. However, thinking about it these are the extremes and it would be dangerous to think that cruelty and bullying, physically and emotionally, should not be criticised outrightly. Fortunately, there are laws and human rights and support organisations which point to specific harms caused. A philosophy which says that all is permissible would be the extreme of relativism and uncertainty stretched beyond all proportions.

I had a look at the link on fallbilism. I had not even heard the term before, and, from what was in the link it seems a fair point of view. I am not saying that I am completely in favour of postmodernism, partly because it can become so theoretical. I have known a few people who are really into reading postmodernism and it almost becomes a language of its own.

However, I have read some writings on it including some on how history is dependent on who wrote it, for example, if a text written by a white male it may come from a very different angle than if it was written from a black female. It does seem an approach which links the nature of understanding to context, including social and political factors.

As far as cultural relativism is concerned, it was probably one of my own starting point for querying religious beliefs, because they are so variable, making the idea of one being completely 'the ultimate truth'. However, cultural relativism can become a rather wishy washy perspective, with everything being reduced to culture. It still seems that trying to weigh up ideas according to their merits or falsehoods is important in the ongoing process of philosophical examination.

Probability is important but it is not an exact scenario, because nature and people are unpredictable. It would be foolish to say that prediction and probability are not important. Even without it being done in a mathematical or systematic way, each person is likely to think about outcomes and risks of actions. But, it uncertain, and, that may be what makes human decisions difficult, because it is not possible to know the outcomes, especially as there are so many variables, including other people's subjective choices.

Apart from the uncertainty of the future, so much of knowledge is open to question epistemological questioning In addition, there are biases in the construction and transmission of knowledge. As Berger and Luckmann argued, in 'The Social Construction of Reality', all aspects of knowledge is connected to individual and cultural meanings and values. This awareness may be part of the reason why doubt and skepticism arise in many people's thinking.

You are definitely right to say that no one person can know everything, which does suggest the limits and partiality of what one knows. Cultural relativism highlights the way in which worldviews differ, and postmodernism points to the way in which all viewpoints are constructions, depending on how meanings of those who construct them.

Truth is interrelated with certainty. The nature of truth as a philosophy concept has been called into question by Julian Baggini in his book exploring truth. He says that it is not simply about what the idea of truth means, but that there are different kinds of truth, including eternal ones, moral and psychological ones.

In relation to certainty it is about the criteria by which truths can be verified. However, it is probably not simply about what postmodernists have spoken of as the construction or deconstruction of history, and the past, but about the unknown of the future.

Some people are more inclined to doubt or not being certain than others. I remember at infant school that I didn't put up my hand to answer questions because I wasn't certain that I was right. Even now, I don't think that there is life after death but I am not certain. I suppose too much uncertainty in life is about ongoing risks and diving into sea even though it is not certain that this will not lead to drowning. Uncertainty can also lead to indecision and a constant weighing of pros and cons of any choice made.

When I wrote my post earlier I had not looked at the news and seen that Boris is resigning. I wondered why a thread on Boris had popped up, but it is dramatic and may be England with no potential effective leader is a metaphorical representation of Britain at the moment.
.

I just thought I would share my little story. When I was on the tube yesterday a man got on who looked so much Boris. When someone was reading a newspaper with Boris on the cover, I just couldn't resist saying,
'He looks a bit like you. Do you ever get taken for him?'
He told me that he often does and it seemed that at times he finds it rather difficult. But, he is slimmer and less a look alike than one who looks like Ed Sheeran.

The man discussed the mess of British politics and during the conversation I remembered that it is voting day, because it is a local election in London today. However, I am telling myself that I should go and vote but feel tempted not to do so because the various leaders don't see to represent much hope for change in any positive sense.

I guess that the nature of family resemblances in physical appearances and character points to the way the unique is replicated in some ways. The family member who I was compared with most is my grandfather, who I never met because he died 6 weeks before I was born. However, it is possible to see aspects of oneself in many relatives. It is interesting to think of the aspects beyond the physical and I have read some suggestions that aspects of what used to be considered 'junk DNA' may point to aspects of psychological life.

Being mistaken for someone else can make one question one's uniqueness and it can be interesting or funny. I have been mistaken for other people on a few occasions. Fairly recently, I came across a woman I worked with a few years ago and I stopped and began talking to her. Some of what she was asking me seemed a little strange, especially when she asked how I was getting on in the theatre and choir. I said that I wasn't in the theatre and can't sing. She looked puzzled and, then, she realised she was muddling me up with someone else she knew, and I am not sure who.

The idea of looking similar to someone else may be less unnerving than to being like the person on a deeper level. It could have been that in the scenario above the woman could have asked different questions and the issue of mistaken identity would not have even become apparent at all. One aspect of similarity must also be of identical twins. I know one and she pointed to the way people get so confused and people who who know the other come up to her all the time and how awkward it becomes.

Thanks for the links and I will look at them because it is likely that identity has been approached in varying ways because it is bound up with subjective experience.

The idea of personas may be open to question. It does depend on an idea of the artificiality of social construction. Perhaps, there is too much generalisation and too much emphasis on construction of self. What would it mean to go back to the idea of self, especially in the idea of authenticity? Would it mean burdening others with all the useless clutter of identity and its management, or is there a way beyond this of finding oneself authentically?

It is probably extremely complicated because on one hand, each person is developing a persona, based on the attempts to fit into the social order and understand oneself in a deeper way. R D Laing, spoke of the difference between the false and true self, in 'The Divided Self', where mixed social messages may occur. His work may have pointed to the problematic nature of the persona in relation to authenticity, but the external and internal aspects of self and personal identity may be extremely complex.

In some ways, ideas may be constructed socially and, im other ways subjectively. So, it may beg the question of subjectivity in relation to objectivity which may be one of the biggest problems in philosophy. Can the self be understood merely in relation to other selves, or in a cosmic, or metaphysical way? This may be bound up with the idea of subjectivity, especially how inner reality is connected to the outer aspects, as understood in the objective understanding of the self and subjectivity.

How do you see identity? I know that you have read widely, so I am interested to know how you see the relationship between the individual, social contexts and how each person understands and develops an understanding of unique identity in relation to aspects which may be far beyond their own sphere. To what extent is human identity a matter of social meanings, metaphysics, or the constructs which may lie in the understanding of the evolution of consciousness and the various ways of understanding the evolution of culture self and how this is based on human constructs and meanings?

It does seem that consciousness and identity are so complex. Part of it is related to the social aspects of identity, but it is also connected to the nature of being. A person may think of themselves socially, in terms of meanings which are constructed intersubjectively, but this also relates to how people understand who they are, metaphysically, as beings who exist and have evolved in the context of ideas of what it means to be a human being.

In answer to your post about identity security and even credit rating, identity may be changing in the digital age. One's self online may be becoming an important part of identity construction, including the interaction on sites as this. It may be like a stage of performance because what we write may be read by many not known to us in daily life. It is a kind of disembodied voice and identity.

Your question about human identity and artificial intelligence is the problematic area I see with the idea of creating a humanoid. A being without a childhood with all its experiences like going to school, and family life, playing would all be missing and these contribute so much to human identity and the autobiographical self.

I am not sure to what extent Maths is the best help. There may be parts of us but I am not sure that 1+1= 2 in terms of human identity. Psychological truth is far more complex because it involves personal and social meanings. In that respect, I am arguing that the nature of identity may not be quantitative but about quality.

You are right about convictions being based on unique fingerprints. That is all about patterns. In the past, fortune tellers used to try to gather information on the basis of lines and patterns in the hand. I have extremely strange lines on my hands, especially the right one, with many branches, so I hope that they don't have any meaning...

1.Think consequences before actions
2. Value, respect people's needs
3. Examine conscience carefully always
4 Reasoned choice preventing suffering

I am getting a bit carried away with trying to define ethics in 4 words!

I am aware of strong links between childhood traumas and mental illness, not just from reading but talking to people, especially a couple of close friends. It may even go to the development of the brain itself and cognitive pathways. Also, the traumas or stress may have a negative effect psychologically in learning, including education and in the expression and understanding of emotions.

When people meet after say a 5 or 10 year time span of seeing one another it seems that some aspects will have changed and others not. It may be that some people change more than others, depending on critical life experiences, including fortune and misfortune. It probably does depend on what one wishes to see too.

Some people seem to change more in appearance than others and some of the changes to personality and outlook are subtle. Thinking of how one has changed personally is interesting too. I know that I was an anxious child but I am more rebellious than prior to adolescence. I would say that many of my own interests don't seem to change very much, such as art, reading and books. I have revised my ideas a fair amount.

Some people don't seem to alter their basic ideas in adulthood. It may depend whether people have reason to question and modify them. Attitudes can change a lot according to whether life has treated a person well or not, although it is likely that there is a biological or genetic component to mood, and factors relating to good or poor health probably come into this, as well as the socio-economic conditions which contribute to wellbeing or lack of it.

I have so little experience of knowing young children to know to what extent they appear as so unique. But, I can remember that when I was a child that the various children seemed unique at about age 4 or 5, although the years before that were likely to be great significance.

Another way of looking at it is that basic disposition and temperament, including whether one is sporty or artistic, and personality types may be draw certain experiences, which become the formative ones. All of this may happen in various stages and be cumulative in the shaping of a person. Of course, there are external events which may make a big impact, such as when a parent dies or leaves the family.

The idea of not being entangled with others subjectively seems very useful because it would be possible to not be able to step outside as an agent of perception. The sense of separation is part of this, especially the idea of the child being separate from the mother is meant to be a distinct development in children. The opposite to this development may be the difficulty finding connections with others, as seen in the various possibilities of those on the autistic spectrum. When I was doing some research on autism one main aspect identified was how theory of mind comes in. The people who are on the autistic spectrum can have great difficulty with empathy and imagining others' mental states. It may be that both seeing oneself alone and conceptualizing others' possible subjectivities are important for understanding.

Most people in the situation you are about to describe would remember their initial identity, although some people seem to remember so much more than others. I know someone who says that he can barely remember his experiences at university. I found that hard to believe but it seemed like he had just gone through the motions without paying attention. It may be that what is important to narrative identity is the thoughts and reflections because these are the fabric on which it is based in the internalisation process. I know that I remember most of my experiences from when I started school and before, but mainly in the form of the thoughts which I had.

There is also the opposite process, of selective amnesia. It is hard to know to what extent one has this because they may be buried in the subconscious. A couple of weeks ago, I met a woman who I had worked with in a couple of jobs. She remembered me straight away, but when I spoke about the second job she could not recall that I had worked there. She went on to say that she thought that she had blocked out all her memories of that job because she was unhappy there. I had not been happy there either but I can remember so much if it clearly. It seems strange to me to be able to block out such unpleasant memories and I was left wondering to what extent are people able to do this?

With the example of being the only person with blonde hair, it would affect a person but only as one aspect of many others. Such aspects as being even in a group and being the tallest, smallest or oldest are all significant. As it is, most people in many groups simultaneously, the first one being the family, which is likely to have a large consequence in shaping who one becomes. There are also those who are famous, such as singers, writers and footballers. Their experience could even lead to an inflated ego, or sense of being special.

It is all constructed subjectively, as you say. It is possible for there to be large discrepancies in how a person sees themselves to how they are seen by others. For instance, it is possible to feel ugly while being seen as attractive by others.

And, it is about the inner aspects of the self, going back to the 'I' of Descartes. That is about how one witnesses consciousness and is able to stand back and reflect. It is hard to imagine what it means to be another person, although, of course, people exchange their experiences and find common ground.

The culture of individualism was also important in the development of the sense of self. This may include all kinds of parts of life, including pursuing social markers of success and those through acquisitions. Social roles, like being married or divorced maybe crucial too. There are also the mythic aspects too, in the process of individuation. However, there may be opposite processes in the twentieth first century whereby individuals' identity are being diminished, with people being treated more as numbers.

With your thought experiment it may be that I, as the subject example would have many of the aspects of identity in tact, but some may change accordingly to the different experiences.

The reason why I say this is that it seems to me that aspects do change accordingly to perceptions of others. For example, I think that when I worked as psychiatric nurse, were different from now, when I don't have a job. I may even behave differently. One tutor I had spoke of how he behaved extremely differently when he was outside of work. He said that in the tutor role he was in his professional persona. I found his example a bit extreme, because when I worked it did not seem that I behaved entirely different on time off, except that I didn't share that much of my private life at work usually.

The way we are perceived by others affects us a lot. For example, I went through a stage of bad acne, which started before puberty and went on a long time. I did feel that I was shunned at times on account of it. This kind of aspect is described by Erving Goffman, in his book, 'Stigma', in which he speaks of how some noticable aspect of appearance can dominate social impressions.

The whole way a person appears can affect others' perceptions and a sense of personal identity. This may be the critical factor in the changes of adolescence. The core identity may remain though and memories. In the processes in older life, the life experiences and psychological, as well as aspects of the physical and social life may alter identity. As well, loss of memories in the various forms and stages may bring many changes in personal identity.