Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Since the concept of identity is so core to GD I figured I'd start a thread to explore this topic further. There is a small part of myself that hates myself for even going into this ambiguous territory of philosophy that will likely lead to tail chasing, but I still think GD has the potential to shed new light on this topic and hopefully move the concept further.

Instead of attacking this problem directly and asking "What is identity?" I would like to try and explore what are the requirements for an "identity" to form? To think about this from an engineering perspective: If we wanted to create an AI with a concept of identity what would it need to have? Is it even possible? What could even be controlled about it's identity?

Some starting requirements:
Isolation - any concept of identity requires so form of separation from some external reality, the "I" presupposes a distinction from everything else
A beginning - this kind of goes hand and hand with isolation but the identity must have a starting point, not only isolated "physically" but isolation in time but since time is a part of physical space this is a tad redundant
Self interest - Not per se a requirement but a "stable" identity in a scarce environment would need it
Preferences - Not sure about this one
Free will - not free of influence but rather the ability to make choices independent of reality(?), this is a big thing I keep circling around and I am not sure but think it is a requirement of identity and I'm not entirely sure an AI can be given this assuming it has its basis in a deterministic substrate.

It is said you are the result of your environment and your DNA. While I think this is true one fact that cannot be eliminated from the discussion is choice. Ultimately our choices are influenced by our environment and DNA but our choices are not wholly dictated by it and also come to shape our environment and our DNA. I'm not saying our choices are made in a vacuum but rather that we do have free will and that has an impact on our environment, our DNA, and ultimately in our identity. Choices we personally make come to shape our personal identity. Choices we make as a society shape our societal identity.

A little thought experiment for discussion:

Parts of Buddhist philosophy entail the practice of "eliminating the ego" or ones identity. If our identity has its basis in our physical reality then the only way to truly eliminate our ego would be to kill ourselves. What is at the other end of this spectrum? Letting our ego's grow without check. Letting our ego's run rampant. In this scenario our ego's become so inflated we start to think we are gods and our identity exists separate from and above reality itself. In this scenario instead of killing oneself you would kill others who stand in the way of your ego's growth. I would pose to you this is the real cause of crisis wars. While WWII Japan's leaders could be described as "sociopaths" that is an actual psychological condition and it is highly unlikely all of the leaders just happened to suffer from it. The likely answer is that they become so isolated and their egos so large that they thought they were gods. You're not a sociopath so much as a god directing your will upon your lesser subjects. Telling too is that Xi directed people to replace pictures of Jesus with him....

Winning a crisis war then becomes a careful balance of ego. Large enough to still think you can win but small enough that it doesn't cause mistakes your enemy can use to defeat you. In this case those in the "superior" race category are inherently at a disadvantage because they are past the point of even recognizing their ego.

When I think about even one of the most basic forms of life, the cell, ultimately it has a physical "identity" in that even though it exists as a part of reality it has a physical barrier that separates itself from the outside world. Much the same way our brains our physically separate from the rest of the world but in a sense of information and identity it is separate from the rest of the world. This is why we are all "alone" in a sense.... Probably repeating plenty that is already known at this point.

I personally look at this somewhat differently, and the analogy I've
used is throwing a rock into a lake. The rock causes ripples of waves
that spread out. If you look at the situation from the point of view
of an individual molecule of water, with its unique "identity" and
"free will," then it's just floating up and down and left and right in
its own individual way. But if you pull back and look at the lake as
a whole, then all the individual identities, they all act in unison in
an extremely organized way, so as to form the waves. In the case of a
population, the people may have different identities, but as a whole,
the population thinks and behaves as described by generational theory.

I like that analogy but I think it is an oversimplification when it comes to humans. There are constraints on our free will i.e. laws of nature, biology, GD, etc. but I think nonetheless we have choices within those constraints. I see choice permeating reality to the point where it may be hard to give one "example". When we look at molecules and physical objects they clearly don't have choice and are governed solely by their physical realities. Ultimately we have more constraints because we exist as a subset of the physical world, the biological world, humanity (psychology), societies (societal rules), etc.

I have come to view choice as the closest thing we will ever get to a "proof" of God should "it" exist. The fact that our universe has a starting point seems to indicate there is a creator. The fact that nobody will ever be able to prove it suggests the entity that created the universe wanted us to have free will. You cannot have free will if you know God exists and precisely what is good and bad. In the face of this uncertainty we as humans must make choices. We are not free choose what are our reality is but we choose to view it. Obviously there are more choices along the line but choice is fundamentally inseparable from our existence. Even in man's purest form of logical thought (math) we know it to be inherently limited and that we must make choices (assumptions) to be able to say or show anything. This follows from Godel's incompleteness theorem. We know from Schroedinger (QM) that we live in an indeterminate world. So what are we as humans to do when faced with an unfathomably complex world with an unfathomable amount of uncertainty? Make a choice. These simplifying choices (assumptions) are the only way we are able to exist in such a reality. These choices end up becoming a part of the identities, structures, and institutions we create. The way I see it there is no way to separate choice from our reality.

This is why fields like ethics are doomed to chase their tails till the end of time. You can't even separate notions of good/bad right/wrong from identity. That's why the societies in GD will always clash. They will always see the aspects where their choices and interests differ from the other society as "bad" and thus leading to conflict. In this sense the moral and cultural relativists are right.... I think

Well... in a sense yes and in a sense no. Ethics has always had flexibility around self preservation. Things that otherwise would be bad are acceptable when one's existence is threatened (i.e. killing people, "Just" war, etc.). But I think that from a GD evolutionary perspective morality is another aspect of "fitness" of the society/species. From this perspective a lot of "Christian" ideals seem superior to other alternatives because it is very inclusive and forgiving religion allowing for more people in the identity group and expanding compassion & understanding could help. For instance in psychological warfare you are first tasked with understanding your enemy.....

Even if we as a collective humanity knew everything there is to know about all possible states of the universe past, present, and future (clearly not possible but lets assume it) even then each individual human is inherently limited in what they can know (our brains have physical limitations). So from this we know we can't know everything and there will be areas of knowledge we know nothing about. Maybe we want to find out about one of those areas so we go find the person that knows about that area and ask them about it. They could choose to lie to us (idk why but they might) in which case we will never know for sure so we will ultimately have to choose to believe what they say or don't (this can also be a gradient because we can choose to believe them until we have reason to suspect otherwise). I'm not sure why I choose to frame it this way but ultimately in the face of uncertainty and our limitations (that both have always and will always be there) we have to make a choice and sometimes the absence of choosing to do something is the choice itself.

Probably more of what people have already said and more along the lines of fiction but I'll post so I can criticize later:

So far as I can tell there are only two "realms" or "realities" that we as humans inhibit: the internal and the external. The internal is the "realm of the mind" and the external is the "physical universe". Initially humans in the more primitive state were as animals. There was only a physical reality and only sparks or flickerings of the internal but we know from early cave paintings it was there. Slowly this internal world grew. The internal world exists of concepts and abstractions. Concepts are almost like objects of the internal world. Many of the initial objects of the internal world were representations of the physical world and we came up with sounds and shapes to describe them (words). It is important to note though that the objects (concepts) in the internal world are just simplifications/approximations of the physical world. Obviously there is no way for an object in the physical world to exist completely as is in the mental world. You also can't remember anything prior to learning language because the process is intertwined with creating these objects in your own internal world. If there are no objects there then nothing exists. Another thing to note is that not all objects have parallels in the physical world (see some concepts in higher math).

So there is this interplay between our two realities that we cannot escape. Our physical world shapes our mental world and vice versa. As time goes by more and more of humanity builds and extends the internal world. Everyone is going to have different internal worlds based on their experiences and what has been constructed in it. Our overlap between our own internal worlds represents some sort of shared common internal world. This can be demonstrated by similar concepts being discovered across time and societies. As time goes by it seems more and more of our lives will be lived in and shaped by the internal world.

Information plays a large role in this but I'm not sure of the specifics. I will note that IT serves almost as a proxy between the internal and external world. It will obviously play a large role in helping to develop and grow that internal world moving forward.

Identity some how ties in with this. maybe?

There is probably some metaphysical point about these being the two sides of the same coin

Not only do choices shape our identity, identity is a choice itself. We can choose how we define ourselves and who we associate with. Take for instance the quintessential "American immigrant". They make an active choice to leave their past behind in hope for the future.