• Technological limitations turn into styalized choices as time goes on. But if those limitations didn’t exist in the first place, than those styalized choices wouldn’t exist because we wouldn’t have had time to stop and force ourselves to make the best of it. Now we see the innate value in the styalizations that seemed outdated, but clearly had something more to it. (Stranger Things with 80’s influences)
• My responses aren’t my own. I respond with past experiences. When people are presented with completely new scenarios, we freeze. We figure out the best coarse of action by Mimicking something else: a line from a movie, an interaction that we observed. So my actions aren’t my own, but the sum of all the actions that i have ever experienced, whether it be from a person or nature. So since I’m constantly experiencing new things, I constantly changing. ~I won’t respond to the same exact stimulus twice in the same exact way. So if I just a sum of all experiences, then ~I am constantly changing. So this asks the question: if how we respond as a result of mimicry, what really defines me if I never do something original. Either we are the sum of our experiences, or there is something entirely different that makes me ~me. A whole greater than the sum of its individual parts.
Michael: (see picture 1 response)
• True. I think what I’m trying to find is the most present me. Because each new response i give instantly becomes something that I’ve experienced in the past. What is the part of me that is able to combine and create? This spark of creativity is what turned an empty void into something more. And that same creativity kept combing that something more with the void to create even more of the something. Since everything exists because of this creative spark, and new things are still being made because of it, that means everyone shares the same identity, because creativity -the power to make something new- comes from the same place. What makes me ~me is the sum of my experiences + that original creative spark. That creative spark is the only thing that is ever truly in the present. Creativity -this ability to create- is a unifying factor that binds all things. Creativity is what makes us ~us. Creativity is devine. Creativity is the closest thing we have to God, because without it, we’d still be in a void. God is not merely present in all of us. God is us.
• And after all that, I don’t know if I have an identity or I share an identy.
• If I am not solely God nor solely my experiences, than what am I? I am a screenshot that is gone the instant it is taken.
• Also, this thought stems from my philosophy class where the idea of permanence came up. My idea is nothing is permanent and that everything is constantly changing identity. Me right now is different than me from 10yrs ago, 5yrs ago, 1yr ago, 1 second ago. You are never talking to the same Noah. Noah didn’t change, Noah at a certain time will always be Noah. But a new being is created continuously. So this was my proof for that. But time is so confusing that it creates so many problems, haha
• What’s interesting that you say data on the internet is the possibility of describing identity and transforming it into data. Then that gets into a whole other topic of, if that’s possible, are we a simulation?
Topic: difference between self and identity.
• I kind of see identity like a doll that we manipulate.
• And I guess the self would be the strings.
If the doll is separated from the strings, it can’t move. But if there’s nothing attached to the strings, why are they even there?
• More than likely the strings would just get blown away in the wind.
• What’s holding the strings would be the creative spark. But that almost starts to bring into question a higher power. A creative spark that’s able to create a unique and separate creative spark. But now I feel like I’m all the way back at square one
• Existence just kinda turns into a paradox
I think where I’m tripping myself up on is I’m jumping back and forth between similar but different ideas, while using the same words since they fit both situations. Like mixing up a real tree with a family tree. They’re based on the same thing (a main part with things branching out from it), but are clearly completely different when looking at them
• The idea that movie making and video editing makes a unique world and consciousness that fits our design
• We would literally be creating an alternate timeline or parallel universe
• Possible technological idea about creating a device with infinite memory storage: if you are able to create a computer that could create/generate an alternate with computers in that universe that could continue the process.
• The way to imagine it is like this: think of a character in a movie that has no backstory. Now imagine his/her/its birth. In that moment, you created a new memory. That in itself would exponentially create space for memory. But now imagine the character(a) imagining a completely unique and original character(b) that he/she/it created in its own mind. Now imagine this new character’s(b) birth. This can go on forever.
• There’s another, less fully thought of idea. That the character(a) is still creating original characters (b) separate to the ones being created by us. This process would continue and the memory storage would grow exponentially.
♡Sugar☆World☮ 