[Poll] Would You Erase All Of Your Memories For 100 Billion Dollars?
What if someone offered to give you a 100 billion dollars but they'd take away all of your memories. You'd lose your entire sense of self, everything would be a blank slate, you'd even forget your name. It would be as if you were "reborn". You'd still have your same level of mental capability...
incels.is
@BlkPillPres, I’ve been familiar with the forum for a while, but I decided to make an account to respond to your thought experiment. It’s a long response, but I have summarized it in the three points below.
Based on what I see, these are three key themes that concern the thought experiment by @BlkPillPres (this is the TLDR section if you don’t want to read the long essay that follows it):
1: The confliction between "ownership" and "placement" – It is virtually pointless to be the owner of something when you are made unable to consciously interact with what you own
2: The illogicality about the sense of “pride” – Depending on what you associate with your sense of “pride”, you may end up wanting to achieve pleasure or fulfilment through having the awareness of something that you would not actually be in the position to confirm its existence
3: The ambiguity of the connection between "consciousness" and "identity" – Essentially, there does not seem to be a known way to prove there is an absolute, permanent retainer of any specific identity or personality within the realm of consciousness
To summarize the proposition made by @BllkPillPres: Assuming the person has an identity comprised of memories, values and interests they accumulated in their existence, would the person accept the offer to lose all memory of their identity including the memories associated with the identity in return for a certain amount of a useful resource, and let a new identity be instated in the same human body that receives the asset?
1. The conflict between "ownership" and "placement"
For the situation that was presented by @BlkPillPres, the person would have two options: 1) Lose all memory of their identity in return for $100B, or 2) Retain awareness of the identity, continue life and potentially never acquire $100B in their life.
If the person were to choose the first option - To retain awareness of the identity and potentially never reach $100B in their life, it would be fair to imagine their reason for this decision would not necessarily be ridiculous or silly. Why? A person could choose to retain possession of something for a reason that concerns them more than having the ability to exercise their authority and influence over other people. There may be people who care more about having the possession of something other than the means to subdue and control other people, which is why they may choose to retain their identity despite the power and wealth they may miss out on in consequence.
But… If the person were to choose the second option - To lose all memory of their identity in return for $100B, a new predicament would arise: How can the original person be in the position to access the money that would be received by them, when their identity would essentially be formatted through the total removal of all previously existent data (like values, interests, memories) that comprised their identity prior to the agreement?
Can you really be the owner of a specific identity when you are completely removed from contact with said identity due to the total removal of any memory that you had about it? Can you really be the owner of a functioning body, when “you” of the body are essentially formatted and replaced by a new identity with no preliminary values, or interests or memories besides simple math? Can you truly be the "owner" of something when “you” are not in the position to interact with it due to forced separation?
Ideally, you could be the “owner” of something without being in the position to consciously interact with it. Maybe a kind of ‘contract’ can be formed to declare a non-existent person as the owner of a specific asset. Even then, what would be the point of having “ownership” when you can’t consciously interact with what you own? What would be worth owning under the condition that you cannot consciously interact with it? Personally, I think it would be pointless to own something you can’t consciously interact with to any extent.
Although this may not be realistic, I think it could be a solution to the situation where the ownership of something cannot be verified by the identity who made the agreement due to forced separation following the agreement: Maybe the lost identity can "re-become" of the consciousness that it was formatted in. You may have noticed I used the term “format” like in allusion to the process of “formatting” a device. I used this term because it refers to a process that involves the deletion of all perceivable data on the device. But the primary aim of the "formatting" process would not exactly be to completely remove all data from the targeted device, but to prepare the device for a first time use. In other words, the data lost through the process of “formatting” a device can be recovered through various methods (like backup data on cloud storage or external drive, data recovery software, system restore point).
In consideration of the fact that lost data can be restored on the same device it was removed from, I would suggest that the previous identity which was removed from the body could somehow be "reformed" and caused to "re-establish" contact with the body that eventually received the $100B, regardless of the new identity that became of the body upon removal of the previous identity. It may be unlikely, but not totally impossible.
If you watched the whole of Yu-Gi-Oh Arc-V, you may be able to understand how the idea relates to the situation with the character Zarc, the character Ray Akaba and their reincarnations who eventually “rebecame” them at a later point in the story. Maybe the chances are extremely low, but I don’t see any fair reason to assume it is totally impossible for a lost identity to be “restored” in the same consciousness it was removed from.
(A silhouette of Zarc, a silhouette of Ray Akaba and their reincarnations inside of their respective silhouettes)
If the person were to choose the first option - To retain awareness of the identity and potentially never reach $100B in their life, it would be fair to imagine their reason for this decision would not necessarily be ridiculous or silly. Why? A person could choose to retain possession of something for a reason that concerns them more than having the ability to exercise their authority and influence over other people. There may be people who care more about having the possession of something other than the means to subdue and control other people, which is why they may choose to retain their identity despite the power and wealth they may miss out on in consequence.
But… If the person were to choose the second option - To lose all memory of their identity in return for $100B, a new predicament would arise: How can the original person be in the position to access the money that would be received by them, when their identity would essentially be formatted through the total removal of all previously existent data (like values, interests, memories) that comprised their identity prior to the agreement?
Can you really be the owner of a specific identity when you are completely removed from contact with said identity due to the total removal of any memory that you had about it? Can you really be the owner of a functioning body, when “you” of the body are essentially formatted and replaced by a new identity with no preliminary values, or interests or memories besides simple math? Can you truly be the "owner" of something when “you” are not in the position to interact with it due to forced separation?
Ideally, you could be the “owner” of something without being in the position to consciously interact with it. Maybe a kind of ‘contract’ can be formed to declare a non-existent person as the owner of a specific asset. Even then, what would be the point of having “ownership” when you can’t consciously interact with what you own? What would be worth owning under the condition that you cannot consciously interact with it? Personally, I think it would be pointless to own something you can’t consciously interact with to any extent.
Although this may not be realistic, I think it could be a solution to the situation where the ownership of something cannot be verified by the identity who made the agreement due to forced separation following the agreement: Maybe the lost identity can "re-become" of the consciousness that it was formatted in. You may have noticed I used the term “format” like in allusion to the process of “formatting” a device. I used this term because it refers to a process that involves the deletion of all perceivable data on the device. But the primary aim of the "formatting" process would not exactly be to completely remove all data from the targeted device, but to prepare the device for a first time use. In other words, the data lost through the process of “formatting” a device can be recovered through various methods (like backup data on cloud storage or external drive, data recovery software, system restore point).
In consideration of the fact that lost data can be restored on the same device it was removed from, I would suggest that the previous identity which was removed from the body could somehow be "reformed" and caused to "re-establish" contact with the body that eventually received the $100B, regardless of the new identity that became of the body upon removal of the previous identity. It may be unlikely, but not totally impossible.
If you watched the whole of Yu-Gi-Oh Arc-V, you may be able to understand how the idea relates to the situation with the character Zarc, the character Ray Akaba and their reincarnations who eventually “rebecame” them at a later point in the story. Maybe the chances are extremely low, but I don’t see any fair reason to assume it is totally impossible for a lost identity to be “restored” in the same consciousness it was removed from.
2. The illogicality about the sense of “pride”
How does the proposition of @BlkPillPres relate to the illogicality about the sense of pride? If you were to accept the offer, the conditions in which you accept it would be pointless, unless you expect the lost identity to eventually regain contact of the human body that receives the $100B.
In this instance, let’s just say the lost identity would never be restored in the consciousness it was removed from. If this would be the case, the conditions under which this offer is accepted would be pointless, which means it wouldn’t matter whether you were offered $0, $100B or more than $100B to accept the offer. Why would the conditions under which this offer is accepted, be pointless? It connects back to the previous point of “ownership” and “placement”.
Why would you choose to be the owner of something that “you”, as in the version of “you” in this very moment, cannot interact with at all due to forced separation? Why would you want to own something that you can’t perceive to any extent? Why would you want to attain superiority over other people when you are not able to consciously recognize your own superiority? An irrational sense of pride – It’s the only reason. The thought experiment proposed by @BlkPillPres hints at the illogical version of pride. What is the illogical version of pride? To want pleasure or fulfillment from something that you are not in the position to consciously ascertain in regard to its existence. It simply does not make sense - To want the possession of something when you would not be in the position to ascertain that you actually have it. Why does it not make sense? Because you would not be in the position to consciously recognize the outcome of the thing that you expect to receive a sense of pleasure or fulfilment from.
If you have watched Itachi’s Story in Naruto Shippuden, you could understand how the situation of Shisui Uchiha relates to the illogicality of pride. Essentially, Shisui Uchiha committed suicide with the conviction that his actions would prevent the outbreak of civil warfare in the Konoha village. But his death was in vain, because the Uchiha clan refused to accept the story that Shisui committed suicide. Instead, the clan blamed Itachi for his death, which worsened the tension between the Uchiha clan and the rest of the village residents. From my point of view, Shisui may have had an irrational sense of pride that impacted his decision to perform an action that ultimately failed to bring about the outcome which he desired. Why did it seem that Shisui had an irrational sense of pride? Despite that he would not know the events that transpire in the aftermath of his suicide, he expected to achieve a sense of fulfilment through suicide. It pretty much meant his suicide was pointless, because his reason for committing suicide was invalidated by the events that transpired after his death, and Shisui himself was unable to know this (obviously due to his death). If Shisui had clairvoyance and learnt that his suicide would not bring about the outcome that he wanted to achieve through suicide (but instead cause the exact opposite outcome), it would have been the logical conclusion for him to refrain from suicide. There was no way for Shisui to know that his death would result in the restoration of peaceful relations in the Konoha village. The reason for his decision to commit suicide was based on mere speculation, and it turned out he was wrong, but it seems he never found out due to his self-inflicted death.
(Shisui with Itachi shortly before he committed suicide)
To possess something without being in the position to know that you possess it, is virtually identical to not even being in possession of the thing at all. Even then, many people seem to demonstrate this illogical sense of pride by trying to emulate their fantasies in the physical world. It seems there are many people in the world who expect to achieve pleasure or fulfilment through having the possession of something they would not be in the position to ascertain that they actually have.
Also, the illogicality about the sense of pride relates to my third point about the ambiguity between “consciousness” and “identity”. What would irrational pride have to do with identity and consciousness? To assume another person really has a certain personality or mindset and isn’t deliberately larping to illicit a certain reaction from you – It would necessarily concern your sense of "pride". The thought experiment proposed by @BlkPillPres hinted at the idea of possessing something without being able to confirm that you actually have it, and it is comparable to the supposed “emotional connection” between human beings. How can you be absolutely sure that another person actually has a certain feeling for you, and isn’t just larping on purpose to illicit a certain reaction from you? Can you actually prove that you possess the affection or hatred of another person? Assuming other people are conscious, how can you be absolutely sure that anyone actually feels any kind of way about you, when you are not in the position to examine their emotional state by reading directly into their consciousness?
The illogicality about the sense of "pride" is that depending on what you associate it with, you end up having the desire to achieve pleasure or fulfilment through having the perception of something that would not actually be what you perceive it to be
In the experiment proposed by @BlkPillPres, to lose all memory of your identity in return for wealth would be pointless in the condition where your only objective is to attain that wealth, because really and truly you would just be trying to achieve a sense of pleasure or fulfilment through having the perceived ownership of something that you would not even be aware that you own (relative to the identity that was of the consciousness in the instance when the offer was accepted).
If you were to achieve pleasure or fulfilment through the illusory perception of something that was not actually there, would it matter? Maybe not, but it would be the ultimate precondition for living a reality - A sense of "pride"... But only when it is attached to something that you are NOT ABLE TO ASCERTAIN you possess, even if you or your representative (which would be the human body that receives $100B) actually possess it.
Why would feeling proud about having the unconfirmable possession of something, be the precondition for a mindset? Because 1) Your pride would be based on something that you are not able to properly test for its validity outside of the abstract realm (which would be your exclusive thoughts and emotions), 2) You would have somehow deluded yourself into perceiving it as existent outside of your imagination, and 3) It would have to do with you achieving pleasure or fulfilment through your perceived possession of it, even though you haven’t proven (and may not be able to prove) that it exists outside of your own imagination
In this instance, let’s just say the lost identity would never be restored in the consciousness it was removed from. If this would be the case, the conditions under which this offer is accepted would be pointless, which means it wouldn’t matter whether you were offered $0, $100B or more than $100B to accept the offer. Why would the conditions under which this offer is accepted, be pointless? It connects back to the previous point of “ownership” and “placement”.
Why would you choose to be the owner of something that “you”, as in the version of “you” in this very moment, cannot interact with at all due to forced separation? Why would you want to own something that you can’t perceive to any extent? Why would you want to attain superiority over other people when you are not able to consciously recognize your own superiority? An irrational sense of pride – It’s the only reason. The thought experiment proposed by @BlkPillPres hints at the illogical version of pride. What is the illogical version of pride? To want pleasure or fulfillment from something that you are not in the position to consciously ascertain in regard to its existence. It simply does not make sense - To want the possession of something when you would not be in the position to ascertain that you actually have it. Why does it not make sense? Because you would not be in the position to consciously recognize the outcome of the thing that you expect to receive a sense of pleasure or fulfilment from.
If you have watched Itachi’s Story in Naruto Shippuden, you could understand how the situation of Shisui Uchiha relates to the illogicality of pride. Essentially, Shisui Uchiha committed suicide with the conviction that his actions would prevent the outbreak of civil warfare in the Konoha village. But his death was in vain, because the Uchiha clan refused to accept the story that Shisui committed suicide. Instead, the clan blamed Itachi for his death, which worsened the tension between the Uchiha clan and the rest of the village residents. From my point of view, Shisui may have had an irrational sense of pride that impacted his decision to perform an action that ultimately failed to bring about the outcome which he desired. Why did it seem that Shisui had an irrational sense of pride? Despite that he would not know the events that transpire in the aftermath of his suicide, he expected to achieve a sense of fulfilment through suicide. It pretty much meant his suicide was pointless, because his reason for committing suicide was invalidated by the events that transpired after his death, and Shisui himself was unable to know this (obviously due to his death). If Shisui had clairvoyance and learnt that his suicide would not bring about the outcome that he wanted to achieve through suicide (but instead cause the exact opposite outcome), it would have been the logical conclusion for him to refrain from suicide. There was no way for Shisui to know that his death would result in the restoration of peaceful relations in the Konoha village. The reason for his decision to commit suicide was based on mere speculation, and it turned out he was wrong, but it seems he never found out due to his self-inflicted death.
To possess something without being in the position to know that you possess it, is virtually identical to not even being in possession of the thing at all. Even then, many people seem to demonstrate this illogical sense of pride by trying to emulate their fantasies in the physical world. It seems there are many people in the world who expect to achieve pleasure or fulfilment through having the possession of something they would not be in the position to ascertain that they actually have.
Also, the illogicality about the sense of pride relates to my third point about the ambiguity between “consciousness” and “identity”. What would irrational pride have to do with identity and consciousness? To assume another person really has a certain personality or mindset and isn’t deliberately larping to illicit a certain reaction from you – It would necessarily concern your sense of "pride". The thought experiment proposed by @BlkPillPres hinted at the idea of possessing something without being able to confirm that you actually have it, and it is comparable to the supposed “emotional connection” between human beings. How can you be absolutely sure that another person actually has a certain feeling for you, and isn’t just larping on purpose to illicit a certain reaction from you? Can you actually prove that you possess the affection or hatred of another person? Assuming other people are conscious, how can you be absolutely sure that anyone actually feels any kind of way about you, when you are not in the position to examine their emotional state by reading directly into their consciousness?
The illogicality about the sense of "pride" is that depending on what you associate it with, you end up having the desire to achieve pleasure or fulfilment through having the perception of something that would not actually be what you perceive it to beIn the experiment proposed by @BlkPillPres, to lose all memory of your identity in return for wealth would be pointless in the condition where your only objective is to attain that wealth, because really and truly you would just be trying to achieve a sense of pleasure or fulfilment through having the perceived ownership of something that you would not even be aware that you own (relative to the identity that was of the consciousness in the instance when the offer was accepted).
If you were to achieve pleasure or fulfilment through the illusory perception of something that was not actually there, would it matter? Maybe not, but it would be the ultimate precondition for living a
reality - A sense of "pride"... But only when it is attached to something that you are NOT ABLE TO ASCERTAIN you possess, even if you or your representative (which would be the human body that receives $100B) actually possess it.Why would feeling proud about having the unconfirmable possession of something, be the precondition for a
mindset? Because 1) Your pride would be based on something that you are not able to properly test for its validity outside of the abstract realm (which would be your exclusive thoughts and emotions), 2) You would have somehow deluded yourself into perceiving it as existent outside of your imagination, and 3) It would have to do with you achieving pleasure or fulfilment through your perceived possession of it, even though you haven’t proven (and may not be able to prove) that it exists outside of your own imagination3. The ambiguity about the connection between “consciousness” and “identity”
Can the identity of a consciousness be fixed? As in, can a conscious being retain an unchanged set of memories, values and beliefs for any period of time? Ideally not, because the conscious would be continuously accumulating memories as they continue to exist. The values, preferences, beliefs and interests of the conscious may change or remain unchanged for any period of time, but the memories of the conscious would necessarily change when the consciousness continues to exist over time. This means the identity of the conscious would be in a state of constant change (even if it is just relatively miniscule changes), because: 1) the conscious would identify with the memories they possess, which means memories would contribute to the identity of the conscious, and 2) the memory state of the conscious would be constantly changing as the consciousness continues to exist.
For instance, a conscious being could have the exact same experience every single day for their whole life, but still have different memories. Why? Because the timing of each experience would be perceived as different, despite the fact it would be the exact same experience. The conscious being would know that they are having the same experience, but they would also know that the number of times they have the same experience would change for every day that elapses. This would account for the alteration in their memory state, because their memory of the number of times they have the same experience would change when they have that particular experience every additional time.
As memories partially contribute to the identity of a person, a change in the state of their memory would correlate with a change in the identity of the conscious being (even if just a relatively small change). As the being would have a memory of the number of times they have a specific experience, their identification of the number of times they had that experience would change in correlation with the number of times they remember to have had that experience. For example: If the conscious remembers having ‘X’ experience on only two occasions, they can claim to identify with this specific memory by saying, "I had X experience on no more than two different occasions". If the conscious remembers having X experience on only four occasions, they can claim to identify with this specific memory by saying, "I had X experience on no more than four different occasions". As the memories of a person would be in the state of constant change when the person continues to exist, the memories they identify with would also be in a state of constant change. As the identity of a consciousness would be in a state of constant change when the conscious continues to exist, a new predicament arises: Can a consciousness that perceives through a human body be the true "owner" of a body, when the identity of the consciousness is altered or totally displaced from the body? This is where the ambiguity about the connection between “consciousness” and “identity” would arise. What would it be? Basically, there does not seem to be a known method to prove that the identity of any consciousness is absolute and permanent.
There doesn't seem to be an objective criteria for validating the identity of a conscious, which means the identity of a conscious would be continuously liable to change or misinterpretation. This is why I prefer to say that the identity of the conscious is assumed and not actually owned. Can the identity of a conscious be validated through the use of an impartial criterion? If there exists an impartial criteria to verify a conscious identity, who knows the full description of this impartial criteria? Otherwise, would the validation of an identity have to depend on a subjective line of approach, like a succession of biased conclusions? Even if you are “yourself”, how can you actually prove that you are yourself with an objective method?
How can you prove that you are “yourself” without being biased? If you can’t, then it would be unfair for you to claim that you are "yourself” even if you are. Why? Because your assumed identity would be constantly liable to change as you accumulate more memories (and potentially experience changes in your beliefs, interests and preferences) as you continue to exist. How can you be absolutely sure that the version of you in the future, won’t have a different set of memories to the version of you in this very instant? How can you be absolutely sure that the version of you in the future, won’t have a different set of values or preferences to the version of you right now? You can’t, because by the time you ascertain that you are “you”, your awareness of this specific event would account for a change in the memories that you identify with. This means your identity would consequentially become somewhat different to what it was before, in the very instant that you confirm your identity.
This is why I prefer to say that the conscious would assume identity and not necessarily own it (at least psychologically). The values, preferences and interests of the conscious are constantly liable to change. Any person can claim to possess any kind of personality or mindset. But to prove with absolute certainty that a particular person is the true owner of said identity, and not just a larper who decided to feign a certain personality with the intent to deceive you, either on a whim or by the command of another authority – It’s not easy to do. Why would it not be easy to prove with total certainty that a person actually has a specific conscious identity and isn't larping? Because there does not seem to be a known method to prove there is an absolute, permanent bearer of any specific personality or mindset.
Personally, I find it easier to just assume people are what they claim to be. But from what I have seen in life, things do seem to change over time, from the physical appearance of biological creatures, to the way they behave. You never really know… Whether or not a person you met before, will continue to be more or less of the same conscious identity that they were when you met them. Through appearance or behaviour, people can give you a convincing impression about their supposed identity. But unless you could read directly into their conscious, it would be biased of you to reject the possibility that you may have a false interpretation of the other person’s conscious identity.
Basically, the point is that conscious person would be liable to self-deception and deception by others, because the identity of the conscious would be prone to change. People are capable of living their lives while in denial and self-deception about the reality of their situation, hence the. Also people can instill ideas into you through the way they behave when they are in your vicinity, leading you to think they are of a certain conscious identity. But really and truly, you can never be absolutely sure that you know the conscious identity of another person unless you had the ability to read and understand directly through their consciousness.
For instance, a conscious being could have the exact same experience every single day for their whole life, but still have different memories. Why? Because the timing of each experience would be perceived as different, despite the fact it would be the exact same experience. The conscious being would know that they are having the same experience, but they would also know that the number of times they have the same experience would change for every day that elapses. This would account for the alteration in their memory state, because their memory of the number of times they have the same experience would change when they have that particular experience every additional time.
As memories partially contribute to the identity of a person, a change in the state of their memory would correlate with a change in the identity of the conscious being (even if just a relatively small change). As the being would have a memory of the number of times they have a specific experience, their identification of the number of times they had that experience would change in correlation with the number of times they remember to have had that experience. For example: If the conscious remembers having ‘X’ experience on only two occasions, they can claim to identify with this specific memory by saying, "I had X experience on no more than two different occasions". If the conscious remembers having X experience on only four occasions, they can claim to identify with this specific memory by saying, "I had X experience on no more than four different occasions". As the memories of a person would be in the state of constant change when the person continues to exist, the memories they identify with would also be in a state of constant change. As the identity of a consciousness would be in a state of constant change when the conscious continues to exist, a new predicament arises: Can a consciousness that perceives through a human body be the true "owner" of a body, when the identity of the consciousness is altered or totally displaced from the body? This is where the ambiguity about the connection between “consciousness” and “identity” would arise. What would it be? Basically, there does not seem to be a known method to prove that the identity of any consciousness is absolute and permanent.
There doesn't seem to be an objective criteria for validating the identity of a conscious, which means the identity of a conscious would be continuously liable to change or misinterpretation. This is why I prefer to say that the identity of the conscious is assumed and not actually owned. Can the identity of a conscious be validated through the use of an impartial criterion? If there exists an impartial criteria to verify a conscious identity, who knows the full description of this impartial criteria? Otherwise, would the validation of an identity have to depend on a subjective line of approach, like a succession of biased conclusions? Even if you are “yourself”, how can you actually prove that you are yourself with an objective method?
How can you prove that you are “yourself” without being biased? If you can’t, then it would be unfair for you to claim that you are "yourself” even if you are. Why? Because your assumed identity would be constantly liable to change as you accumulate more memories (and potentially experience changes in your beliefs, interests and preferences) as you continue to exist. How can you be absolutely sure that the version of you in the future, won’t have a different set of memories to the version of you in this very instant? How can you be absolutely sure that the version of you in the future, won’t have a different set of values or preferences to the version of you right now? You can’t, because by the time you ascertain that you are “you”, your awareness of this specific event would account for a change in the memories that you identify with. This means your identity would consequentially become somewhat different to what it was before, in the very instant that you confirm your identity.
This is why I prefer to say that the conscious would assume identity and not necessarily own it (at least psychologically). The values, preferences and interests of the conscious are constantly liable to change. Any person can claim to possess any kind of personality or mindset. But to prove with absolute certainty that a particular person is the true owner of said identity, and not just a larper who decided to feign a certain personality with the intent to deceive you, either on a whim or by the command of another authority – It’s not easy to do. Why would it not be easy to prove with total certainty that a person actually has a specific conscious identity and isn't larping? Because there does not seem to be a known method to prove there is an absolute, permanent bearer of any specific personality or mindset.
Personally, I find it easier to just assume people are what they claim to be. But from what I have seen in life, things do seem to change over time, from the physical appearance of biological creatures, to the way they behave. You never really know… Whether or not a person you met before, will continue to be more or less of the same conscious identity that they were when you met them. Through appearance or behaviour, people can give you a convincing impression about their supposed identity. But unless you could read directly into their conscious, it would be biased of you to reject the possibility that you may have a false interpretation of the other person’s conscious identity.
Basically, the point is that conscious person would be liable to self-deception and deception by others, because the identity of the conscious would be prone to change. People are capable of living their lives while in denial and self-deception about the reality of their situation, hence the
. Also people can instill ideas into you through the way they behave when they are in your vicinity, leading you to think they are of a certain conscious identity. But really and truly, you can never be absolutely sure that you know the conscious identity of another person unless you had the ability to read and understand directly through their consciousness.
Last edited:
