What makes me me

MooseJam

Easy question I'm sure but I don't know the answer,
What is it that makes me me, why am I me,
If I was asked this not so long ago I would have said my genes, but sure then I thought about twins, so it can't be my genes ?

2Scoops

You are the product of the unique interaction between your genes and your environment. Your genes are determined at conception; your environment is a constantly changing source of input that includes every event you've experienced since birth, including physical events and socio-cultural conditioning and learned behaviours.

MooseJam

it can't be my genes, sure what if i was a twin or triplets, triplets in the womb would each have their own sense of me, it wouldn't be fully developed yet but it would be there, so taking the triplets case, in the womb there are three babies each with a seperate sense of me and each having identical genes and environment
it must be something else

John

You mean it can't be just your genes but your genes play a huge role (huger than you think). Genes aren't blocks of stone that can't be altered, otherwise identical twins would act the exact same. The extent to which each of your genes acts on your personality depends on what has happened to you in your life. It's all a complicated feedback system, genes form the foundation and provide the bricks for your personality and your experiences shapes how the personality is built. Of course, sometimes genes acting in different ways can leave you prone to certain traits like depression or synaesthesia (the former is obviously bad but the latter is quite cool).

Twin studies are really interesting, identical twins separated at birth share 99.999% of the same genetic material (there are slight variations which I can't remember exactly how they work without looking them up but I believe they're negligible in the long run) but will be brought up differently. However, it's no myth about twins separated at birth and each having no contact with the other twin but both live very similar lives (marry similar spouses, get similar jobs, have similar IQ scores, etc.).

A lot of people dismiss genes because they feel that if genes played such a big role in personality that it somehow cheapens the experience. I totally disagree, genes are as natural as the society which also shapes how we are. I am me and you are you precisely because we have a particular cocktail of genes and have had experiences particular to our own time on earth.

MooseJam

John wrote:

You mean it can't be just your genes but your genes play a huge role (huger than you think). Genes aren't blocks of stone that can't be altered, otherwise identical twins would act the exact same.

but even if identical twins acted the same way they would each have their own sense of seperate identity. Absolutely my genes have a huge contribution in how I act but it comes after the fact, I am me first, then my genes come into play. They have zero contribution into me being me. Imagine if cloning was possible and you created a clone army of 10,000, each would have their own sense of self but with identicle genes.
Something else makes me me and it's not my genes so what is it

2Scoops

MooseJam wrote:

but even if identical twins acted the same way they would each have their own sense of seperate identity. Absolutely my genes have a huge contribution in how I act but it comes after the fact, I am me first, then my genes come into play. They have zero contribution into me being me. Imagine if cloning was possible and you created a clone army of 10,000, each would have their own sense of self but with identicle genes.
Something else makes me me and it's not my genes so what is it

You're making a massive assumption - with identical twins, the environment is not the same for both - different things will happen to each, different things will be said to each and with each novel bit of experience the two will become more and more different and form an independent identity - the exact same for any other set of siblings.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with 'me being me' stuff. Are you talking about your mind and personality, thoughts and feelings etc.? If so, then it's back to just being a complex interaction between environment/experience and genes. Perhaps you might want to post this on the psychology forum to get more theories on the origin of consciousness.

tallaght01

No-one can really truly answer the original question in an absoloute, authoritative way. Why don't YOU tell us what you think the answer is , OP.

It's an interesting topic, and the more views the better.

MooseJam

2Scoops wrote:

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with 'me being me' stuff. Are you talking about your mind and personality, thoughts and feelings etc.? If so, then it's back to just being a complex interaction between environment/experience and genes. Perhaps you might want to post this on the psychology forum to get more theories on the origin of consciousness.

I'm talking about my sense of self, which I always had, even I'm sure prior to birth. The complex interaction between environment/experience and genes that you mention shapes me but I'm me first. So something other than genes makes me me.

That probably doesn't make any sense

2Scoops

MooseJam wrote:

I'm talking about my sense of self, which I always had, even I'm sure prior to birth. The complex interaction between environment/experience and genes that you mention shapes me but I'm me first. So something other than genes makes me me.

That probably doesn't make any sense

Well, now you're firmly in the realm of hypothetical psychology. In a way, you're asking for an explanation for something that may not even exist.

Faith

I believe you're talking about your consciousness, which can't really be explained (yet).

John

Faith, we're getting there though

Moosejam, surely before birth, before your brain even develops (i.e. when the body plan is still forming and the embryo is a ball of cells) then it's all down to genes? Then whatever experiences happen in utero then builds on the developing brain child (like a mother taking in whatever chemicals both good and bad, behavioural interactions such as the baby kicking and the parents responding in whatever way)?

At the end of the day, everything about you is programmed in your brain through a combination of genetics and environmental interactions. There's a famous case of a railroad worker called Phinneas Gage who lost his frontal lobes in a serious accident involving a tamping iron sharpened on both ends and a piece of dynamite. Before the accident he was a respected and upstanding member of the community and after the accident he began lying, compulsive gambling and other activities that he didn't do before hand. His whole personality changed and he wasn't Phinneas like he was before. What I take from this (and lots and lots of other evidence that I won't go into) is that consciousness exists physically as an interaction between different parts of the brain. Each of these parts is put together, maintained and updated by proteins (the products of genes that do the genes' work). Genes are regulated by physical factors (like other genes, nutrients, disease, etc.) and by non-physical factors (like social interaction, cognitive activity, experience, etc.). Together these physical and non-physical factors shape the way the brain works and to me the bottom line is that what the brain does is who we are.

MooseJam

John wrote:

Moosejam, surely before birth, before your brain even develops (i.e. when the body plan is still forming and the embryo is a ball of cells) then it's all down to genes?

But the twins issue, identical genes but two seperate identities, it can't be genes so. My sense of self is a finite thing, I'm me and always have been, being me isn't a long drawn out process shaped by environment, the type of person I am certainly is but my sense of self, when I poke myself in the chest and say "me" that's not a process.

John wrote:

Then whatever experiences happen in utero then builds on the developing brain child (like a mother taking in whatever chemicals both good and bad, behavioural interactions such as the baby kicking and the parents responding in whatever way)?

Sure, I go along with this, the mind/personality which exists within the developing brain is shaped by the world around it

John wrote:

At the end of the day, everything about you is programmed in your brain through a combination of genetics and environmental interactions.

The way I see it is the programming takes place after the fact, first there was me, then my genes decide what type of person I am. Imagine a cloning machine that could make a 100% accurate copy of somebody, two people with identical genes, memories etc but two seperate senses of identities.

I don't know what it is that creates the sense of identity, that makes me be me and not somebody else but the twins issue makes me believe it can't be genes. It's biological I would guess but the exact process I don't know, every functional biological entity at some stage becomes imbued with a sense of self and genetics would seem to have nothing to do with the process ?

Zillah

Its your brain. Your sense of "me" comes from that lump of meat between your ears, its a vastly complex electrochemical processing unit, far more advanced than any computer ever designed. If the brain was seperated from the rest of your body, the body would then be no longer part of you.

As described, the brain comes from genes and environment.

John

MooseJam wrote:

The way I see it is the programming takes place after the fact, first there was me, then my genes decide what type of person I am. Imagine a cloning machine that could make a 100% accurate copy of somebody, two people with identical genes, memories etc but two seperate senses of identities.

I don't follow, what comes before your genes? Sperm fertilises egg, genetic material pairs up and fertilised egg starts to divide (a genetically regulated process). The only thing that can come in here is some sort of spiritual explanation which I would be highly sceptical of. If it's you first, then genes then surely for you to come along you have to wait for the right sperm and the right egg, a bit backwards.

I don't know what it is that creates the sense of identity, that makes me be me and not somebody else but the twins issue makes me believe it can't be genes. It's biological I would guess but the exact process I don't know, every functional biological entity at some stage becomes imbued with a sense of self and genetics would seem to have nothing to do with the process ?

Why would genetics have nothing to do with the process? Granted you can't go back and change a few genes and see if someone develops differently but to discount them fully just because it's not a comfortable thought is not the best course of action. Your brain is made from genes selected for over 4 billion years of evolution, it contains billions of neuronal connections (each connection being plastic and capable of change and context-related modulation), you honestly think that it isn't enough to make you feel like you?

MooseJam

John wrote:

Why would genetics have nothing to do with the process? Granted you can't go back and change a few genes and see if someone develops differently but to discount them fully just because it's not a comfortable thought is not the best course of action. Your brain is made from genes selected for over 4 billion years of evolution, it contains billions of neuronal connections (each connection being plastic and capable of change and context-related modulation), you honestly think that it isn't enough to make you feel like you?

Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting anything spiritual, the twins factor is what made me discount genes. Your's and zillah's suggestion that It's the brain dummy makes sense. I'm a brain. I can't be any other brain, just this one. Genes made the brain, Genes could make many many similar brains through cloning but I'm just this brain. I'm not a sequence of genes I'm a brain made by a sequence of genes.

Genes made the brain but what makes me me isn't the genes because they could make a thousand copies.

And this consciousness is tied to this brain, I couldn't have been someone else or a dog or a cat because they are all other brains. I'm just this brain and only this brain

yea I'm starting to ramble now, but I'm starting to make some sense of it, I'll think about it for a while

r3nu4l

I believe that complex interactions between chemicals, proteins and nerves in our brains define the sense of 'self'. I imagine that if there was a 'self' gene that we all had then this would give us that sense of 'me'.

We know that environmental stimuli act to induce gene transcription and subsequent translation for certain genes.

In the case of twins, triplets etc I believe that these genes may be switched on at different times during development. Perhaps these 'self' genes act to induce (directly or indirectly) further transcription of other genes and as we all know, timing of gene expression in early foetal development can have critical outcomes. Therefore if these genes in twins etc are switching on and off at different times then tehre will be a slightly different awareness of self.

Of course I have absolutely no evidence for any of the above, it's simply a hypothesis that can easily be shot down by anyone...including some reasons I can think of myself

There is no right or wrong answer for this yet but perhaps one day we will have a distinct neurobiochemical answer. Just not today!

mkennedy

ah the old consciousness chestnut. this used to puzzle me a bit as well when I was younger.

I think einstein said when everything else has been explained scientifically there'll still be the matter of the human mind/consciousnessto unravel.

tbh op I don't think your going to find an answer tonight on boards but still an interesting debate nonetheless.

of course put simplistically it's an exceedingly complex interaction between genes and environment that contributes to an identity/sense of self but I think a lot of people tend to minimise the impact of genetics. I tend to agree with john that genetics are important.

I get the impression people are afraid of genes because it feels a bit deterministic and maybe even a bit godless(?).

you might be interested in reading steven pinker's the blank slate where he defends the role of genetics and shows how this awareness of genes /human nature is beneficial rather than detrimental.

anyway, on topic, imho simplistically consciousness is obviously a function of the brain primarily.

this in turn is a function of your
1) basic genetics via translation of genes into protein/aa neurotransmitters/neuronal architecture etc in the brain.

and
2)how environment ie all experiences since conception might mould this template (via cognitive processes).

question is how important a role does each play. that remains unanswered unfortunately.

as for the (dis)similarity between sense of self that twins have: I wouldn't be surprised if under similar environmental circumstances it could be very similar. don't know why but near-identical sense of selves isn't something I would say is impossible. I get the impression that people get very precious when it comes to identity ie "nobody could possibly know what my experience feels like".
I wonder how true that is.

ultimately though at the moment for obvious reasons experientially you can't really make an assertion about differences/
sameness in people's consciousnesses.

so if you can't get a handle on that it's difficult to say exactly what contributes to it I suppose.

John

Great post mkennedy