(Part 2) Top products from r/StonerPhilosophy

This is definitely a philosophical question, so there is no certain answer. Clearly we don't know where we're going, but some argue that we're not the end goal of anything, just a piece of the path that will continue until humans are gone. I suggest you check out Ishmael by Daniel Quinn if you haven't read it before; pretty easy read and is driven by many of the questions you ask.

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Ishmael-An-Adventure-Mind-Spirit/dp/0553375407

What very interesting questions you ask. Fascinating, truly! If we are to take the scientific view, logic dictates that all the personalities are equal. The problem is that human societies also have instincts, emotions, and other irrational things for which logic can’t always account for.

As for myself, I tend to be a logical person. The problem is logic doesn't work very well with evolution. What I mean to say is, new things happen all the time, unknown things, unknown until the time of learning that is. Until then logic cannot account for them. Maybe multiple-personality disorders will play a part in our evolution and will be heralded as the next big adaptation to our environment in the next 100,000 years, maybe not. But one thing we do know is: We do not know. Until we figure it out we must remain open to any possibilities and tweak our behavior as needed.

I can't help but give a knowing smile at the last paragraph, because it is something most humans share. Or at least I feel we do. An irrational thought as to how we see people. Science has well thought of positions on these matters (most of the time), because of the imperatives of science. Humans on the other hand tend to be more sentimental about it. I'll try to explain how I see a person in front of me.

A person is a body, but a body is only a tool of the mind. It has tugs and pulls, no doubt about it. But with a sufficiently trained mind (and I don't know many people which do not share the capability of this affliction) one can control his/her body within reasonable limits. A person is his/her actions, feelings, and thoughts (the body never comes into view unless the relationship requires it: a touch of skin to increase bonding and feelings of warmth, etc.) So what happens when the new set of actions/feelings/thoughts intrude as a new persona? If my friend were to die in a similar fashion which you've described, I'd probably mourn my friend, and feel loss. A selfish personality interrupted the growth of another one. I would probably feel sad for my friend too if (s)he had to watch another personality do that to him/her. Alas, I think such consequences can only be dealt emotionally, because logic sees nothing wrong with an individual dying and the species continuing. The selfish gene is with all of us, and most likely everyone has their own semi-unique way in which they handle such situations.

Now, let us meld society irrationalities with logical thought. A “sufferer” of MPD will be given two options if his/her personalities have been deemed disruptive (this concept is so fucked up it sickens me sometimes). They can choose to live with it, or try to merge the personalities into the dominant one. I don’t know if the dominant one is the original, but I assume (big if) that if one can pinpoint the “original” personality they will, and consider it “original”, and the others insignificant byproducts. I put original in quotations because I have no idea how you’d make such a judgment. Also, society will react as it sees things best for it. If one of the personalities threatens to kill itself, doctors will take steps to stop this: Suicide watch. Any threat which is perceived from this entity will be dealt with in the best interest of the tribe. The word has significance because we delve deep into our survival instinct to make these decisions.

Notice how my own thought patterns change. It is no longer a single person acting under a single will. We must change our approach to that entity in a way to take account for the extra unknowns. Maybe that entity is never human the way we understand humans: Predictable from the high viewpoint but individually unpredictable. What happens when you increase the unpredictability factor? A new theory of the mind will have to be developed to account for the new psyches present in the same physical space? One second’s ally can be the next second’s enemy. How would you know? I think this might go beyond the realm of human. My own feel for it. I couldn’t bring any convincing arguments to bypass our first instinct: looks like a person, talks like a person but isn’t a single person. I must be weary of that one. Unless you’ve come to appreciate each person and there is a finite number of them.

Some of these questions are put in a sci-fi book called Blindsight. In it we had a character which had multiple personalities that were in contact with each other and had a sort of consensus as to how they shared the body. Never going beyond the metaphor of 4 distinct people having to share the same body.

I must admit, reading the above paragraphs again, it feels like I’m trying to grip something with oil on my hands. Very slippery. Sorry for the wall of text.

Diaspora is a fantastic read (and very relevant). I'm going to throw out A Fire Upon the Deep, as being fairly relevant but mostly just an awesome book.

You need to read this, it might well be the best book on stress ever written

If you're interested in reading more about this, Carl Jung (influenced by Nietzsche and Freud) wrote some about it.

https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Alchemy-Collected-Works-Vol-12/dp/0691018316

http://www.amazon.com/The-Matrix-Philosophy-Welcome-Popular/dp/081269502X

book study, anyone?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0861714407/

2 pages per day

Read this book.

If you thought your brain was fucked now...