The natural, or unnatural occurance of 'another person' living inside the original person. Like polar opposites. Ex. Happiness, then downright anger towards the world.
Is this just a mind game, or can this 'Other person' actully manifest itself to become it's own being?
I'm sure everyone is familiar with the ol' Angel-on-one-shoulder / Devil-on-the-other scenario. As innocent as this may seem, it's probably the best colloquial way to illustrate that we are all "split personalities" to one degree or another (in the Angel/Devil scenario, the person in the middle is the mediator or "executive" function). The difference between us and the extreme cases has to do with the level of need; ie, your Average John / Jane Doe hasn't suffered a trauma severe enough to warrant a repression of the executive function and a more complete dissociation of the Angel and Devil parts.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
the description is fairly vague. you cud be talking about a manic-depressive. or you could be talking about fuge or you could be talking about dissociative personality disorder. its quite possible in the psychologicla sense.
There are lots of negative events that could cause a "split" personality, and as leo pointed out, a split personality could be an interpretation for any number of psychological disorders.
Personality as a subject of study is one of the places where psychology still almost entirely resembles philosophy. One of the main reasons for this, as with consciousness, is that, as our ability to study things has improved, we have found that all of the most basic groundwork assumptions we have made about personality are wrong. As Sam Harris likes to point out, Western science has totally missed this part of human experience, and for the most part, Eastern philosophy has a much more empircal understanding of these things.
What I mean by that is: Much Eastern philosophy talks about the illusion of the self. Our inner "self" does not exist. The "thing" we attribute our personality to does not exist, and thus, all of our speculation based on that simple fallacy is not only errorous, but totally incompatable with real data. Personality is not a static construct. People will act "split" all the time, and given certain cognitive functions, we are able to ignore those times, and affirm when we act how we think we should as the person we think we are.
__________________ Kalash Ibn Al Fewdawiiah Bin Noor
"Most books about science that are said to be written for the layman seek more to impress the reader . . . than to explain to him clearly and lucidly the elementary aims and methods"
It depends how you define the "self". Eastern philosophy goes against the idea of a "soul", and instead Buddhist teaching claims that the self is composed of the Five Aggregates.
If someone took away my memories, all my prior experiences, etc. and manipulated the state of my mind to a clean slate, am I still the same person ?
Gender: Male Location: USA, Oklahoma. Pewpy balls.
Absolutely not. We will find this out when a human is successfully cloned. Even if a human is successfully cloned and every stimuli throughout that clones life is kept almost EXACTLY(Sub atomic interactions are impossible to control with this example) down to the millisecond (millions of other factors) of the original, I posit that the two will still not be same.
I would disagree. Genetics give us the blueprint for how our brain will store and interpret various stimuli. While the clone and the individual person would be very different, personality characteristics like aggression, or possibly even the "big 5" personality characteristics, will be very similar, depending of course on how affected the "big 5" are by genes.
Further, you are assuming that very small changes in the way a person interacts with the world can have profound changes on their personality. I am not disagreeing, but let us posit, for someone who is genetically identical to an individual, assuming that the individual has lived a reletively normal life, it is very likely that there will be similar interactions experienced by the clone as the origonal. Let us then suppose that a person's genetic make up might have an affect on how people treat them. For instance, an attractive person will be treated more kindly, and will thus have similar memories.
I don't see human varibility to be as enormous as most people do. I have no trouble believing that genetically identical people will have very similar personalities. AFAIK twin studies support me.
The disorder is know as Dissassociative Interpersonal Disorder, the existance of which is highly arguable.
What is most likely, with the disorder not the paradox, is that there are numerous things that can happen to the brain which produce the appearance of split personalities, which DID is more of a shorthand for until we understand it better. Kinda like schizophrenia.
__________________ Kalash Ibn Al Fewdawiiah Bin Noor
"Most books about science that are said to be written for the layman seek more to impress the reader . . . than to explain to him clearly and lucidly the elementary aims and methods"
Gender: Male Location: USA, Oklahoma. Pewpy balls.
I love those same exact studies about twins. It amazes me that they know each other so well that they can do things that border on paranormal.
Anyway,
Are there substantial studies done on twins that were raised apart? Being raised together plays a large role in their similarities...not just because they are exposed to the same stimuli, but also because of the social aspect of humans. (They become conditioned to be like each other because of what other humans do and say.)
I am saying that if we COULD clone and raise these two people apart with the same exact stimuli (As close as possible.) there will be differences. (By this, I mean they will not answer questions the same, they will react differently to specific situations..etc.etc..)
True that there may be many similarities based on biological influence (temperament due to matching hormone levels...etc.), but I do not, IMO, think that they will be the same "down to a T" like one would expect there should be.
If there are mistakes in the above post, it's because I typed it so abruptly.
This goes a little outside of my area of knowledge, but if you want I can look deeper into it (I have a midterm in 1h )
There are studies of twins raised apart. There are also VERY many similarities, many anecdotal, but I'm sure there are personality tests or whatever that have been given to them. There are many strong genetic (presumed) components to various axis of personality, but I'm not the one to say what they are.
I think we don't really disagree about the clone issue though. Taste, style, that kind of thing, you probably cannot delibratly recreate, but more basic things like aggression or IQ may be similar. Anecdoteally, we could probably say that they would have similar preferances, but I don't like anecdotally.
__________________ Kalash Ibn Al Fewdawiiah Bin Noor
"Most books about science that are said to be written for the layman seek more to impress the reader . . . than to explain to him clearly and lucidly the elementary aims and methods"
NO. your memories, coupled with your qualia are the most important things that give rise to YOU. the person you are is the psychological/spiritual {whichever you like} that gives rise to your conciousness. a clone isnt the same person just like an identical twin isnt the same person.
now if you were sumhow able to create a clone AND implant the memories of the original in him than for all practical purposes he would be the original person. but.... the original person wont be the clone{given that there is some sort of time difference in between what the clone can remember and what the original can remember}.
its like that arnold movie{cant remember the name}, the clone WILL be the original, but due to the fact that the original remembers a WEE BIT MORE in the time that the memories were being implanted into the clone. it means that the original ISNT the clone. {me[the clone] will be my original, but my original wont be me[the clone]}
__________________ Kalash Ibn Al Fewdawiiah Bin Noor
"Most books about science that are said to be written for the layman seek more to impress the reader . . . than to explain to him clearly and lucidly the elementary aims and methods"
oh, inimalist, you sly weasel you. {apu/indian accent}
memory=recollection of past incidences/expirience/emotions. basically all that you have[psychologically] built up based on past expiriences. which makes you an individual{ofcourse, genetic developmental variable/changes also account for a LITTLE of this }
qualia= subjective expirience of stimuli/conciousness. the way YOU feal/interpret the content of any stimulus or expirience. and the phenomenon of self awareness{i.e. awareness of your own "existance". n existance means ability to be aware of expiriences/outside stimuli/processing information.}
what if it could be shown that the way you remember something is based on who you are as an individual?
lol
god I wish I could post articles
__________________ Kalash Ibn Al Fewdawiiah Bin Noor
"Most books about science that are said to be written for the layman seek more to impress the reader . . . than to explain to him clearly and lucidly the elementary aims and methods"
its a lot more interactive than I sort of put out there, but ya, generally memory and how you remember things is subbordinate to different goals or personality traits.
depending on how you want to define the terms I guess...
__________________ Kalash Ibn Al Fewdawiiah Bin Noor
"Most books about science that are said to be written for the layman seek more to impress the reader . . . than to explain to him clearly and lucidly the elementary aims and methods"
KMC Community Forums
Nov 4th, 2007 05:23 PM
I play guitar, sing & write songs. Listen to my music 
)
