I hope you lot choose the same thing

[Violet]

This is a poll for me to find out which of these subjects you lot think I should write an essay on (and present it to the class in 5-8 minutes).

Notice: you can chose more than one thing. I mostly want to know what is not liked

[Rob]

I would write about the "Sickness, pain, and discomfort as it relates to ones' desire to work" option, as when I have a bit of experience with working to excess to meet a deadline. However, I think you might have a more informed view of "Person's Identity".

[KichigaiNeko]

Age lines??? Really Sae!!!

IF one's identity changes over one's lifetime then one NEVER had an identity to start with
my2c






EDIT* gotta get some new batteries for this &^%$#&^*(^ --ing klkeyboard!! * sorry peeps

[Violet]

Age lines??? Really Sae!!!

Yes really. And quite relevant to one's lifetime (assuming they live within common current human society). By "age line", I mean to refer to age as a discriminatory point on which a thing can be decided (in example, this wine is aged 50 years: it can be sold. This wine has aged 49: it cannot). For humans within our current societies a similar process takes place.

For example: In the united states, it is common for a human to be designated as an adult after having aged 18 years. In contrast... female humans in Iran are designated as having crossed this "age line" at half that (9 years). Still others (such as Egypt) set this line to 21 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority

To my knowledge... I am the only person who harshly criticizes age lines

IF one's identity shnges over one's lifetime then one NEVER had an identity to start with
my2c

Why would that be? Let us say I have a cup full of water. By the laws of logic: this must be a cup full of water. This is it's identity.

Say now that I create a fracture in the glass, and half of the water pours out. It is now a fractured cup half full of water. "It"'s identity has changed... but has it changed so greatly that we should stop thinking of it as the same cup?

This last question is of incredible philosophical importance... and it has applications in every field to which you might name... especially in psychology... where there arise such very practical questions as "after 40 years in prison... has this person indeed changed enough to the point that the reason they were put in jail in the first place is no longer sound?"

To illustrate how I mean this in another way. Say you have a simple circle, which we will call "A". Now advance in time a little and distort that circle a bit. When you compare this 'new' circle to A, it is almost imperceptibly different, perhaps to the point one might question how it is indeed not "A" at all. Then go with this new circle, distort it a bit, and compare once again to A. It is now perhaps somewhat noticeably different... but overall you see it as A and after not a second of consideration you declare it to be A. Now, continue the aforementioned process repeatedly some number of times... and compare it to A again. Say that it has changed to the point where there are a number of distinct differences between it and A... and rather hesitantly you call it A. Repeat this process another good few times... and compare it to A again. Say it has changed so significantly from A by now, that it is rather a stretch to still refer to it as A... so that one might after a long while of uncertainty call it "A...?". Finally... continue the process from there... and you will eventually get to the point where even remotely considering it "A" could well be considered insanity by any definition.

Lots of intriguing things about this... I worry that it is beyond base college level though... :S

[Tiberius]

I'd choose the person's identity one, mainly because mine has changed so much in only a couple of years

[Violet]

I'd choose the person's identity one, mainly because mine has changed so much in only a couple of years

Hehe An interesting thing to learn would be precisely how much this rate of change differs between the old and young... I think it would be easily defendable that a younger person's identity changes at a much faster rate than that of an old person... though I don't have any data to back up that hypothesis other than what I've reasoned to myself

And what adrian just said brings right home a ton of practical implications should the hypothesis hold true.

[Paul the Human]

The 'Age Lines' thing is entirely cultural. Not much mystery to it, really. I can understand questioning these lines, but they are set by the culture in which they exist. In the U.S. (most states) you must be 21 to drink alcohol, but you must only be 18 to fight and die in war (or do any other job, for that matter). You only have to be 17 to watch fighting and death on a movie screen, though. These lines do not make much sense to me, but I know that they can be changed if enough people are convinced they should be.

As for identity, I totally agree with most of what you said. However, I think I might have a different definition of 'Identity' than you are using. I am me. That is my identity. Over time my physical mien may change, but I am still me. With experience and knowledge, my convictions and beliefs may change, yet... I am still me. My identity hasn't changed, but my 'self' has. I do know what you mean, though. I just wouldn't use the word identity.

[Violet]

The 'Age Lines' thing is entirely cultural. Not much mystery to it, really. I can understand questioning these lines, but they are set by the culture in which they exist. In the U.S. (most states) you must be 21 to drink alcohol, but you must only be 18 to fight and die in war (or do any other job, for that matter). You only have to be 17 to watch fighting and death on a movie screen, though. These lines do not make much sense to me, but I know that they can be changed if enough people are convinced they should be.

They make a great deal of sense if a: what the separator means is not really well understood, and is open to much interpretation (ie: 'what is an adult', 'what is an old person', 'what must a person be able to do before they can drink'), b: little significant change occurs by passing said line (ie: mostly conceptual changes, few actual changes to the rights/responsibilities/etc.), c: it is cheaper than being accurate, and close enough in many cases.

Otherwise... there really is no sound reason that I'm aware of for them.

As for identity, I totally agree with most of what you said. However, I think I might have a different definition of 'Identity' than you are using. I am me. That is my identity. Over time my physical mien may change, but I am still me. With experience and knowledge, my convictions and beliefs may change, yet... I am still me. My identity hasn't changed, but my 'self' has. I do know what you mean, though. I just wouldn't use the word identity.

There is more to identity than just the identity of the self

That really is the question though... how much change is necessary before you really aren't "you" any more? And what used to be you is no longer you... how can that really be considered to be you when you are demonstrably much different from then?

[Paul the Human]

I will always be me. My identity, as me, will never change. I definitely do not have the same thoughts or beliefs I had once upon a time... but I am still me. I look quite different than I used to... but I am still me. When compared to the me of time gone by, I have changed almost to the point of being unrecognizable... but I am still me. Since the me from then and the me now can't exist at the same point in time, the comparison is nothing more than an observation that I have changed. It doesn't mean I am no longer me.

[KichigaiNeko]

Age lines??? Really Sae!!!

Yes really. And quite relevant to one's lifetime (assuming they live within common current human society). By "age line", I mean to refer to age as a discriminatory point on which a thing can be decided (in example, this wine is aged 50 years: it can be sold. This wine has aged 49: it cannot). For humans within our current societies a similar process takes place.

For example: In the united states, it is common for a human to be designated as an adult after having aged 18 years. In contrast... female humans in Iran are designated as having crossed this "age line" at half that (9 years). Still others (such as Egypt) set this line to 21 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority

To my knowledge... I am the only person who harshly criticizes age lines

Hmmm so by "age lines" we are looking at a false barrier set by society that dictates the behaviour of it's members, that is geopolitical?

mk
Never believed in them myself. Never taught my children to adhere to them either. "If you are old enough to do the deed, you are old enough to cop the consequences." The only 'Age Limit' I set on them was up to the age of 10-13yrs.

IF one's identity changes over one's lifetime then one NEVER had an identity to start with
my2c

Why would that be? Let us say I have a cup full of water. By the laws of logic: this must be a cup full of water. This is it's identity.

Say now that I create a fracture in the glass, and half of the water pours out. It is now a fractured cup half full of water. "It"'s identity has changed... but has it changed so greatly that we should stop thinking of it as the same cup?

It is still a cup no matter what you do to it. Water is still water, it does have the property of forming itself into whatever container it finds itself in.

My point is YOUR IDENTITY will never change. You will always BE you. Your attitudes?? AHHhhhhhh NOW we are talking about change. In fact they are THE ONLY thing one CAN change permanently. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.

This last question is of incredible philosophical importance... and it has applications in every field to which you might name... especially in psychology... where there arise such very practical questions as "after 40 years in prison... has this person indeed changed enough to the point that the reason they were put in jail in the first place is no longer sound?"

Only IF this person's attitude has changed, will the reason for them being where they were put be no longer sound and should be reviewed.

To illustrate how I mean this in another way. Say you have a simple circle, which we will call "A". Now advance in time a little and distort that circle a bit. When you compare this 'new' circle to A, it is almost imperceptibly different, perhaps to the point one might question how it is indeed not "A" at all. Then go with this new circle, distort it a bit, and compare once again to A. It is now perhaps somewhat noticeably different... but overall you see it as A and after not a second of consideration you declare it to be A. Now, continue the aforementioned process repeatedly some number of times... and compare it to A again. Say that it has changed to the point where there are a number of distinct differences between it and A... and rather hesitantly you call it A. Repeat this process another good few times... and compare it to A again. Say it has changed so significantly from A by now, that it is rather a stretch to still refer to it as A... so that one might after a long while of uncertainty call it "A...?". Finally... continue the process from there... and you will eventually get to the point where even remotely considering it "A" could well be considered insanity by any definition.

Lots of intriguing things about this... I worry that it is beyond base college level though... :S

So was evolution when Darwin first thought it through. I don't think the circle is a good example to use with psychology ...for biological sciences it is perfect and yes you would have a new 'species' of circles.

Sorry Sae

Are we talking about people or biology here??

---

here ya go girl!! somehting for the sore throat!!