Yet there is something that is the same in all possible worlds. Perhaps it is something like the DNA. — schopenhauer1
I also want to add, that the implication is that there is no being born "as something else". You could only have been born as you. — schopenhauer1
Why do we experience different things then? — khaled
Why do we experience different things then? — khaled
I think what you’re trying to get at is the relationship of consciousness and experience. The “you” you’re referring to is essentially this, a particular consciousness experiencing a particular environment with particular DNA. If I’m right, then I agree with you. But it depends on what you mean by being a different being. If you’re asking whether or not a being could be born of different parents, in different circumstances, location, time, etc. with different DNA than you, yet retain your consciousness, the answer is no. Your consciousness (and therefore your identity) is entirely dependent on your DNA and your environment. — Pinprick
However, if you mean could I, literally, with the exact same DNA and consciousness have been born in a different time and under different circumstances, then the answer is yes, theoretically. — Pinprick
Unlike contingencies of different outcomes in a life, that life itself could not have been contingently different, without not being you anymore. — schopenhauer1
There is no you prior to your birth that could have been something else. — schopenhauer1
Are you sure about this? Many children are born highly developed - Mozart, Picasso, child geniuses etc. — EnPassant
But still, when are you most truly you? At birth? At death? Somewhere in between even? — apokrisis
And this means? — schopenhauer1
I keep bringing this up when people ask “would you rather not have been born”? There is no situation in which I get to choose between existing and not existing, because that would require me existing to choose. — khaled
Some people will just be born with the right genes for the right environment to be considered geniuses. There is no need for past lives or spirits to explain that. I tend to favor the metaphysics that “creates” the fewest things and makes sense. You don’t need spirits to explain differences in intelligence and performance so I don’t believe in them. — khaled
Tell me exactly what you mean by “character” and why you think it takes so long to develop. I don’t know what young Mozart was like so I don’t know what you think is so special about him that the only way to explain it is by saying he is some kind of “old soul” or something — khaled
But still, when are you most truly you? At birth? At death? Somewhere in between even? — apokrisis
The senescent you is too fixed, too stereotyped by habit, and so has lost something that was essentially you - a capacity for continuing personal growth. — apokrisis
none of what you are sending requires the existence of spirits. It could still be explained in terms of genetics and nurture. I don’t know why you think those two aren’t enough. — khaled
Doesn’t take long to develop at all you already have qualities that make you distinct from birth. — khaled
What problems are there with many individual bobs in many individual rooms rather than one universal Bob — khaled
In a way, Kripke's Naming and Necessity might be informative here. — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.