Organisms Are Not Made Of Atoms

“What am I?” is one of the oldest questions in philosophy but we may have been asking the wrong question this whole time. We are dynamic processes moving through time, informational aggregates predicting our future selves, but we are not made of atoms.
Twitter: / subanima_
Instagram: / subanima_
Website (and mailing list): subanima.org
#individuality #philosophy #organism
SOURCES + FURTHER READING:
www.subanima.org/organisms/
Special thanks to Melanie Kent for playing chess with me.

[@haldanebdoyle]

If you are trying to be the Vsauce of biology then you are going about it the right way. Looking forward to seeing this channel grow.

[@EnlightenedMinarchist]

This guy is NOT the Vsauce of biology. Vsauce actually makes good points.

[@Wizznilliam]

​@@EnlightenedMinarchistLOL... What?! What a ridiculous statement to make. Which of the MANY researched points in his videos are not good or valid? This comment is CLEARLY just you being a hater.

[@Salim-ll6vi]

Definitely NOT the Vsauce of biology. He's unique.

[@MikeTooleK9S]

Vsauce is more artist-entertainer than “educator”

[@marca9955]

@@Wizznilliam How about the clickbait title?

[@shushpuppai]

There’s so much noise in the world, and sometimes I get overwhelmed by how much meaninglessness is being shoved into my brain all the time. Then I come across a video like this and it doesn’t feel so bad to be alive in this day and age.

[@DenisaNastase]

Exactly.. this is how it felt for me as well to find this video.

[@willambthommo]

18:20 ANDDDDD this touches my soul. I've worked with plants all my life and I do Bonsai by the same means. By bending, twisting, applying pressure to and sometimes binding the young tree's branches, you can influence its future growth and transform it farther into an individual plant. We have much to learn from organisms that behave differently to us. Thank you for making videos like these. You make use of your mind very effectively sir!

[@edmundozaragoza1453]

Its not an individual plant. Your manipulating it to your own will. Its self gratification…

[@SofaKingShit]

It's the same with children. Inflicting bending, twisting, applying pressure and binding the young person's dreams

[@cordlefhrichter1520]

​@@SofaKingShitSo you should... what? Just not raise your kids? Let them do whatever they want? Give them no guidance? Teach them nothing about the world and how you should behave within it?

[@animo9050]

@@cordlefhrichter1520 "today we observe a 1 year old toddler in it's natural environment as it hunts for prey" in all seriousness though humans need to be raised to actually survive, that's the point of social groups it's in our evolution after all, just look at our ancestor species

[@jantjarks7946]

You cannot raise kids. You can only live by example. If you don't, they learn all your misbehaving traits. Kids learn by observing the people around them, not by some stupids waving their fingers talking nonsense. If you steal, they learn how to steal. You can talk for the whole next decade about not stealing and that it's wrong. They saw what you really do, that's what they learn. That doesn't mean they become thieves as adults, as they too have the ability to choose their fate by themselves. You can talk from the chalkboard about responsibility as much as you want. Kids sitting still in a classroom learn to sit still and nothing else. And if you think you are your kids authority, you lose their friendship for life. You are supposed to care for your kids, not to rule them. 👀😉

[@trebuchette633]

Wow - this video is really beautiful, I honestly don't have another word for it. You tied together the big-picture philosophy, the biology, and the day-to-day experience of being an individual so well! At the end, the idea of others becoming part of your individuality and flow of self hit me hard, I wasn't expecting that ❤️

[@nesquix926]

susie pfp :O

[@nazgulXVII]

Thank you very much. This video gave me a new way to appreciate the bond between me and someone very dear to me who recently died. I am not spiritual, and I was struggling, but the ideas in this video are something my excessively rational brain can accept. So, thank you for making this video!

[@bugjams]

Well, that makes sense, since it's all gooey-mushy feel-good psuedoscience. It's barely deeper than those tumblr nonsese posts about how "you're made of stardust, so you're one with the universe!" or something similar. Unfortunately this video is useless in any real scientific sense, in fact it's pretty antithetical to most models of biology, since it attempts to deny categorization altogether. We don't have categories because we don't understand the concepts explained in the video - we have them because, without _some_ form of categorization, there's no meaning to anything, and words might as well be gibberish. I'm glad this made you feel better (which is the point), but don't be fooled into thinking this is rational or scientific in any real sense. It's more "nebulous" than that! 😅

[@Ith4qua]

​@@bugjamswow. i dont like you.

[@stephflomx]

HAHAHAAH that's literally what Newton though; whooops, here comes all general relativity! Science is about searching for the truth, anyone who thinks they achieved ultimate truth and can efortlessly make the distinction between "valuable" and "useless", that's a true acientific point of view! Categorization is extremely useful but depending the focus you give something it can also be polivalent (light is both a wave and a particle), categories are not meant to be ultimate, and there is a fundamental flaw in thinking science and categories gave birth to "meaning" and organization. No. Human language and it's intrinsic capacity for abstraction is what gave and gives "meaning", "value", "sense" or "direction" (used here as almost synonims) to life since the origin of "humans" (wether you think that is the first civilization, the development of consciousness, language, or something in between/simultaneously). Science is just A KIND of organizational and methodological approach to life problems (the best one for sure!), but you are waaaay off if you think that without "categorization" or a scientific approach, life is meaningles. One last thing, "rational", "scientific" and "logical" are completely different things. False things can be logical, objective things can be non-rational (like tradition, say, eat dinner on the table and not on the kitchen countertop), and science can be rethought, contested, and even eventually be proven wrong -usually but not exclusively by that same scientific thought-@@bugjams

[@MrReesh]

@@bugjams I think you are missing the point. Categorization and the information theory of individuality are not mutually exclusive. Consider digital objects in a simulated world such as a video game. Both software engineers and players can categorize objects into classes such as structures, avatars, weapons, etc --- but what are they all, really? They are just mathematical constructs.

[@MrReesh]

Having experienced loss, I thought you might find comfort in the following poem, which to me seems to have many parallels to this video: Memory is not enough... I do not recollect. What I am is alive in me because of you. I do not reinvent you at sadly cooled-off places you have left behind. Even your absence is filled with your warmth and is more real than your not-existing. Longing often meanders into vagueness. Why should I throw myself away when something in you may be touching me, very lightly, like moonlight on a window seat. Rainer Marie Rilke, Uncollected Poems

[@dan0_0nad76]

Your videos are amazing!!! I am sure your channel will blow up soon if you keep posting such high quality content

[@SubAnima]

Thanks so much, I really appreciate it! Glad you enjoyed them :)). Jake

[@fedorkochemasov4533]

It's a rare gem to find correct interpretations of Buddhist teachings

[@nathanmartin3274]

Incredible video! So interesting and thought-provoking, felt like prime Vsauce :))

[@SubAnima]

Thank you

[@benjaminjohnson5372]

Absolutely great video. These described processes apply to individuals in reality as well as the entirety of existence itself. The material was wonderfully lit, I appreciate the illumination.

[@SubAnima]

Thanks for the support Benjamin!

[@borkabrak]

I have done some thinking similar to this and reached the conclusion, similar to yours, that we are not objects but events. We don't exactly exist so much as we occur. We happen. It's nice to see that I'm not the only one thinking about things like this. And you've explained it here in a manner more lucid than I think I might have been able to. Very well done. Thank you.

[@Ithirahad]

Any reasonably thorough analysis leads here. Otherwise you have to make some very weird and arbitrary distinctions that probably break down somewhere.

[@nealesmith1873]

We can create too.

[@TheScreamingFrog916]

I've had some of these ideas/questions, floating around in my head, for a long time. This video, did a good job, of connecting the dots, and adding clarity to the subject of who/what we are, and how connected/changing, we are.

[@andrewlee7797]

Fantastic! As a student of Buddhism and Western philosophy I feel like you are finishing my sentences. Really good content expertly presented!

[@marasmiusgoldcrow6746]

I've been noticing this most of my life and have been trying to put it all together for myself and friends and family to understand but it's always been piece by piece. You've done a great job putting it in a very digestible fashion. Great job 👍

[@birkuantumkubiti2422]

I've stumbled upon one of your videos by chance and I wish I could've found your channel sooner. (Past me, or the person from the past that has no recollection of memories i've picked up recently would've also like this lol) The topics you choose and the way you present them, everything is great- keep at it!

[@StrangeCornersOfThought]

This is a really well done video. Good job.

[@SubAnima]

Thanks! Your channel is pretty cool too - subscribed.

[@rafaelarevalo8047]

this is an absolutely beautiful video. what an encapsulation of so many ideas. can't believe i didn't find this sooner! excited to see more from you!

[@garethsmith3036]

I think this approach of analyzing non philosophical fields through the lens of philosophy is really interesting and cool

[@Raydensheraj]

It's just mumbo jumbo through. Pretty talk without empirical basis.

[@gLitCheRR44]

he's just recycling stuff that has long already been talked about by other channels (like the ship analogy), and then using such things to come to his own conclusions (which aren't exactly accurate)

[@suaemp4488]

​@@gLitCheRR44 what have you noticed that he concluded wrong?

[@Ryzeke]

Loved the video! I have a somewhat similar philosophy that I didn't know had a sefinition put to it like the one you've explained. I have mine simplified as 'Our purpose is to qualitatively measure internal and external states' which I feel captures some of the 'continuous' nature of identity like you highlighted. That being said, thank you for the entertainment and enlightenment!

[@SubAnima]

Thank you so much for the kind words! That sounds interesting, similar to Alan Watts philosophy of continuous energy. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aqrEc32Mm96sZpI If you’d like to read more there is also a sources/further reading doc in the description. Jake

[@DenisaNastase]

"A qualitative measuring of internal and external states" = a relation. We exist by relating. Everything relates and is changed - permanently - by everything else.

[@KingOfTheDerp]

Amazing video! I’ve been wondering about this for a bit and I was surprised to find a great explanation for it

[@bubbashrimp]

I cant thank you enough for the way you cited all your sources on your website :) I love this very much thank you for the further reading ❤

[@junipermeadows4112]

This is a wonderful, elegant explanation of process ontology and its implications for our everyday life! Well done!

[@alexrodriguez4883]

A very interesting video! Good job👍 As a matematician interested in the foundations of mathematical biology, I would love to see more videos like this one. Thanks!

[@SubAnima]

Thank you! More are certainly on the way :))

[@4bidden1]

@@SubAnimabut the wolf does not control its genetics or environment and is just as subject to the determinism of the universe as the cloud is..

[@I.Reckon]

@@4bidden1The wolf is a more stable entity than the cloud. The wolf has the will to live and therefor tries to continue to exist.

[@4bidden1]

@@I.Reckon right, but that will is determined by its evolutionary programming

[@I.Reckon]

@4bidden1 Determinism ensures cause and effect, but choosing the best survival strategy steers Determinism along the path of choice.

[@heinzgassner1057]

‘Who am I’ can definitely not be answered by rational thought alone. Spinoza outlines this very beautifully and so did Greek philosophers and Advaita Vedanta as well as the Mahayana Buddhists. Our rational thought is like a small boat on the Atlantic Ocean, reality is so much bigger than our rational mind. There is so much more to reality. Mystics are therefore developing knowledge by applying and honoring Rational Thinking, Practice and Experience. The world ‘beyond’ space, time and matter is not accessible for the dissociated human mind, we can only access our ‘real I’ when we gently fall back, in ever widening rings, into the unthinkable and unspeakable here/now, the ONE. Thank you for addressing these key-topics so beautifully and accessible.

[@VanLightning900]

I love little hidden gems like this channel 😊

[@goatmeal5241]

Holy crap, what a great channel! I'm just discovering you (first the genetics misconceptions, now this), and you deserve way more subs. I hope my experience is representative of the algorithm starting to favor you. Maybe this comment will help strengthen that =)

[@readjordan2257]

Yeah

[@mrpolomar7251]

This was very well done and really enjoyable. Well done! First time I've encountered your channel - will be digging in more. All the best.

[@Spudmay]

This was phenomenal. This is exactly what I've been trying to put into words. Keep thinking and teaching my friend ❤️

[@Nick-mq6iq]

Thought provoking! I love it!

[@TheBtmfdr]

Great job!!

[@SubAnima]

Thanks!

[@jeffreyflynn5746]

You are are awesome bro! Keep up the videos! You explain things so well and put it all in an a way I can understand and get interested inn

[@kangarht]

your totally new perspective on scientific and other concepts are mind blowing, subscribed

[@67kemo]

So, I've become a bit of a KZbin snob, i.e. if I can tell you're AI talking, I immediately dislike, close, and block the channel. I've also found presentation styles and keeping the conversation linear are very important to me. You do all these things beautifully, Jake. I look forward to more content from your channel. This one did break my brain a bit. One thing on consciousness I've never seen explored, though, (at least, in a non-fiction way) is the possibility that it exists in some point of quantum flux or alternate dimension, and the human mind was the only one that evolved to tap into that state/dimension/whatever? At least, on our planet? I won't even pretend to get the math, so I'm not sure if that's even a logical road to explore, but it would be nice to find if it's gotten any treatment. I haven't been able to find anything, so far.

[@Sepeario]

Your room's background is very cool

[@SubAnima]

Thank you!

[@anhleroy]

Enjoying the video. I generally don’t like music behind people talking but you did it well. The pace of the speech went well with it and you changed it up. Maybe that’s the trick.

[@levicarr8345]

I've been hoping to stumble across a channel like yours for years. I feel like Minute Earth is the closest I had found prior. Love the content (this is the 3rd vid I've seen, just subscribed)

[@anthonyrispo1229]

This is excellent. Process ontology works beautifully in the context of neuroplasticity. Neuroscience is in a great position to help demystify this way of thinking about things.

[@AnkhAnanku]

This is one of many reasons I call biology “the squishy science”

[@gernotensinger4318]

this channel is amazing. I never saw someone communicatr the most modern ideas in theoretical biology as well as you! As a biology major I am quite frustrated with the mechanistic, deterministic and reductionist lines of thought which are even in academic circles quite present but should not be the proper way of thinking when discussing the mechanisms of the most complex systems we know. Thank you for your contribution to science!

[@nickmagrick7702]

love your analysis, glad I stumbled upon your videos. I share many of the same perspectives, but I think you articulate them better than I can

[@kryt7955]

This is hands down the best philosophy video I've ever seen. It wasn't just a long rant of random philosophical ideas (which most other philosophy videos, IMHO, are), but actually shared very meaningful ideas in a very structured and scientific way. Keep up the good work!

[@mirrormirage0]

Beautifully done and a great conclusion. Thank you! Was just pondering about "every interaction being information exchange"... and KZbin recommended this video. Looks like Google has invaded minds too... 😊

[@lizzyrush4205]

I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS SO MUCH!!! ❤ they are so fascinating and are just the right level of “indepthness” that I’m looking for while still easily understandable while also discussing things I can see throughout my life. Your videos match my brain very well :) so thank you so much for all your hard work!! I can tell how much effort you put into each video and I can’t wait till more and more people keep finding the amazing content you make. Keep it up! 🫶

[@SubAnima]

Thanks!!

[@luisdmarinborgos9497]

I came to watch a Biology video and ended up seeing one of the deepest philosophical questions I could never imagine. Superb video

[@AJCEJ]

back at it with the bees

[@avidachs4434]

great video! thanks for sending me here. I fell in love with the idea of interacting humans becoming their own organisms in 2021 so it’s validating to see someone back it up with some actual literature 😂. as one small point of criticism: something this video underrepresented is the sense of self from a psychological perspective. the psychological conception of self doesn’t care about replacement of cells and has temporal longevity despite changes in characteristics. i concede that if you try to break down our built in sense of self logically then it gets messy (which i understand is what this video is trying to get at) but i still think it’s the best definition of self out there (almost tautologically lol) my point is: the best/most practical way to define the individual is the way we have already been wired to define it

[@SubAnima]

Thanks again Avi! Glad to hear you enjoyed this older video :) You're right I didn't focus much at all on a psychological perspective on the self, which has a lot of depth in its own right. I guess I wanted to focus more on biology as a whole, and it's difficult to talk about minds beyond the realm of humans. Certainly many philosophers of mind try, but I haven't read much of that literature at all. Peter Godfrey-Smith's (yes him again) Other Minds was pretty interesting though. Octopuses are very cool: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Minds:_The_Octopus,_the_Sea,_and_the_Deep_Origins_of_Consciousness

[@brandonwootton5575]

Thank you so much for making this

[@goatmeal5241]

One personally impactful application of this kind of thinking for me is with regard to considering parenthood as a sort of "immortality": you impart not only some portion of your literal genes but also your vibes, values, and ways of interacting with the world in the process of raising a child, and they go forward with that influence in hand. So they become an extension of your impact on the world, in a much more nuanced way than classical "fame"-based immortality or "immortality" through recordings of particular moments in your life which might influence the future when they're watched. Reproduction serves as a temporal extension of the things that make you you, where that "you"-ness gets diluted with all the other influences but continues to interface in a dynamic way with the world.

[@sleeps3925]

Not sure if you've read "Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology" by Danial Nicholson and John Dupre. It's open source, I think, but it has a series of essays expounding on exactly what you talk about here video. It's a great read for anyone interested.

[@SubAnima]

A fantastic book, yep it’s open access :) academic.oup.com/book/27525

[@sleeps3925]

@@SubAnima Right, open access, not open source haha

[@unusualpond]

Really excellent storytelling. I’m a psychotherapist and artist and my background is continental philosophy, so I know a thing or two about this field and you nailed it.

[@Rockythemountain]

Amazing video! Thank you so much for your incredible work!

[@MrReesh]

Fascinating. Well done, thank you.

[@evanknowles4780]

Wow that was a good video! It reminded me of Vsauce’s recent video on ontology, but from a more biological standpoint. Keep it up!

[@SubAnima]

Haha bang on. That was a major source of inspiration but I was like “hmm I could totally do this for a biology video.” Thanks, glad you enjoyed ! Jake

[@kurtbilanoski1608]

I absolutely loved this video. It's amazing that our ancient ancestors, despite not having the scientific background of knowledge we have today, were able to acknowledge and integrate into their religious stories this idea of the impermanent, ever flowing self. It's been over a year since this video was released, so I'm sure no one's reading the comments hear. But, there was one point in the video that I disagreed with: the part mentioning the more concrete "line" that separates objects that don't exchange sufficient amounts of information. When we touch a tree, that interaction itself might not impart much change in either entity. However, the c02 we breathe out statistically will end up being breathed by that tree. At some point in time, my desire for a piece of paper may cause the tree to be cut down. Driving a car and creating plastic dust with my tires might flow into a stream and eventually make its way to the water that nourishes the tree. I could go on, but the point is that if we zoom out far enough, we really are a singular, connected process: the universe. It's not a terribly useful idea at our scale, thinking of us and existence as a singular flow. But at a fundamental level, we are but a piece of the remnant dust of the big bang interacting with other pieces of big bang dust.

[@deandsouza]

I think you hit the nail on the head (and I bet SubAnima would agree with you). I guess the point is that although we are all connected at some quantum level, i.e., we're all part of one process, our world can be characterised by regularities at the level of the human (e.g., when a ball collides with another in the middle of a pool table, the second ball will likely move), such that some interactions are more "meaningful" than others. So although individuality can probably never reach 100%, some may be considered sufficiently close enough to 100% for all practical purposes (e.g., planets in different solar systems are practically independent entities because the interaction with the local star will swamp any interstellar interaction).

[@OsvaldoBayerista]

Dude i love you, this channel is so good.

[@annaczgli2983]

I'm glad I stumbled upon your channel. This video really made me think! You've got my sub!

[@akirachisaka9997]

I like the idea of "Informational Individuals". Because I think it also pretty neatly defines life and death. Alive is "being an individual". And death is when the individual can no longer sustain itself, which cause it to collapse and no longer able to effect it's future.

[@shanelewis2255]

Very interesting Jake! Food for thought 😊 Wait, now my food is part of my individuality, changing my microbiome, which makes me a different person. I wonder how this non stable sense of me can be actively manipulated to improve healing ie of chronically damaged tissue? Cheers

[@SubAnima]

Thanks Shane! I would say one of the biggest takeaways that could have applications (at least in our thinking) is that genetics isn't everything. Our environment and our choices have way more control over our future selves than we might think if we take what's in our DNA too seriously. I think most doctors and practical physicians know this well (else what would be the point of doing any treatment at all) but in research we can often fall prey to over-trusting in an organism's genes as a definition of what they are. The person with chronically damaged tissue who gets good treatment will end up a very different individual to the person they could have been without treatment. - Jake

[@evilallensmithee]

0:07 speak for yourself, I’ve literally come up my reflection in a context having no expectation of seeing a reflection. It wasn’t until I tried to got close enough for the reflective situation to reduce to a transparency that I realized it was me.😂

[@scooterscottii]

Great stuff Thanks for sharing Keep up the good work

[@felicitye2670]

🤯

[@hanialasad7863]

Kids crying now, thanks

[@SubAnima]

Yeah sorry about that. Get them off TikTok.

[@felicitye2670]

AHAHAHA

[@jasonshults368]

Thanks for the thought-provoking video!

[@daregularperson]

I would suggest watching the episode of Bump in the Night called “Farewell 2 Arms”, in regards to the Ship of Theseus problem. It’s a really interesting take: Molly, the girl’s doll, fears her vulnerability, and so replaces each part of herself with something strong and powerful, until she is a giant monster. Then her friend puts her old pieces back together, and she is Molly again! In this case, her self-reconstruction denied her original identity, and so Molly Coddle is “within” her original body parts.

[@C3N50R3D]

At the most basic level, all organisms are made of a combination of atoms. They contain atoms that combine together to form molecules.

[@johnwade7842]

Right but like in his example a river isn't defined by the indevual water molecules that make it up. Since if the specific atoms that make up stream doesn't matter, so long as more watter comes to fill it. In the same way the particular atoms that make you up right now doesn't matter in regard to defining your ideviduality. All that matters it that more atoms of the right type replace those atoms that leave. It is the difference between defining us as the atoms themselves or as a process that atoms do.

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

@@johnwade7842 The title of this video is still click-baity and wrong.

[@suruxstrawde8322]

@@haggismcbaggis9485 It’d be better phrased as “organisms are patterns” really, life specifically follows fractals of division trees.

[@badabing3391]

​@@haggismcbaggis9485cry

[@codeinepizza]

@@johnwade7842 what is individuality if not the most basic essence of what you are?

[@bhanunihale4576]

Nice click bait title bro👌

[@aeonikus1]

Great Content, as always, deep, science-based, insightful, open-minded and using a various systems, philosophies and thoughts, brilliant. You're a truly rising star on YT constellation :)

[@benjaminbustamante7924]

Your videos are so good!! thanks for making them

[@josephsimpson4295]

I love the idea that I am the flow. A self aware channel that atoms pass through. Very thought provoking. Thanks.

[@jimjimmy3131]

Found this channel 2 days ago as the video of the veritasium debunking really made me think what I know or better yet what I dont know about biology, about us . Amazing job buddy , hope this channel gets as much views and subs as it deserves.

[@martinriebszam]

I find your video fantastic, thank you. Have to watch it again, greetings from Vienna

[@Ely-zf4yt]

I always thought there was something strange with the way we categorize organisms. Thanks for making this video.

[@nailasalimova8784]

Wow so happy that I came across your channel. This video is so much thought provoking and I literally feel how my perception is affected now. Feeling euphoria 😄🙏🏼

[@Ejckej]

Thanks for literally becoming a part of my feature self. 😊 Throughout the video as you mentioned various theories based on individuality composition I felt there always wasn't something quite right about them. But the information theory and viewing self as a process rather than a bunch of parts make a lot of sense. In my favorite Czech potcast Brain we are (it's in Czech unfortunately.) I heard an interesting concept of something they called a "mind field". That is, parts of our environment provoke certain thinking and thus might become a part of us. Our individuality is constantly changing as we are moving in the world. In a kitchen for example there is a higher chance of thinking of food. So it's not just the living things that influences who we are. Moreover you can sort of program your enviroment to generate a wanted mind field. If you want to learn to play guitar for example, just put it in your room. It will naturally become a part of the rooms mind field. Next time you go there, there's a greater chance of you thinking of playing.

[@geoffdavids7647]

This is fantastic, you've earned a subscriber. My personal favourite way of looking at it is that the self, and the ship of Theseus are simply patterns. They are dynamic but continous patterns with semi-solid boundaries defined mainly through our intrinsic understanding of the world. That is why the real ship of Theseus is the one with all the new parts, because that was the continuous pattern of "ship" traceable back through time from its creation and initial identification as the "ship of Theseus". That is why the baby you is you, despite you basically sharing no atoms any more, the continuous pattern of "you"-ness can be traced back through time, distinct from the atoms that made it up at various points. This seems to be the definition that is the most internally consistent, and agrees with what we deeply "feel" intrinsically about the separation of self. Though its arguably a bit fuzzy on the boundary details, so is any definition, and the line is drawn somewhat arbitrarily depending on the situation and use-case. I would argue that for a "self" to exist, at least with our current intrinsic feeling of the situation, it does need to be continuous. I think this is why at the moment one would consider a perfect simulation of your brain in a computer not to really count as "self".. though this may well change in the future, we might come to see the pattern of "self" as something that can be non-continuous. Though, of course this raises the issue of whether the self can be duplicated and all still be considered the same "original". At the moment I would argue not, though this may change. EDIT: I love the informational exchange definition of the individual. Its a wonderfully interesting and thought provoking, more objective way of defining where the (fuzzy) boundary of the pattern of "self" lies.

[@gearoiddom]

Good final conclusion and very relevant right now.

[@briankivuti]

I feel like we need a word, that names the kind individual we become when tied to something else in an informational feedback loop. I'm taking this from the eucalyptus tree & tiktok example. A name that acknowledges the symbiotic individual we become that includes an AI relationship, much like that of a microbiome relationship. Thank you so much for this video! This gastalt theory has been on my mind since reading Alan Watts The Book, which introduced these concepts to me, reshaping how I see the world.

[@Concentrum]

subbed brozer keep going for as long as u enjoy it, u got a hand for dis bidya essay ting no daot, much luv

[@prototropo]

"We are whatever we choose to do with our lives . . . " A beautiful truth. Coincidentally, I've been trying to tell myself that for a number of whiles now, to no great effect. But then, what most consterns the thoughty encephalon? Not enough Zinfandel, or hosts who don't know how to pour with a heavy hand.

[@ArifGhostwriter]

Sub'ing now - so that I can say, 'I was there!' - when this channel expands exponentially!

[@RSVikingJohn]

Organisms are made of particles like atoms. Due to the large collection of these particles and the underlying physical laws you get emergent behavior (Conway's Game of Life with physical laws as the rules). Human concepts like "organisms" are just a phenomena we observe (aka an emergent system). However, they are as complex as the underlying mechanisms from which they emerge. Their behavior is not bound to our simplification. Concepts like "organism" has their use in everyday life for communicating ideas, but we should be aware that they are significant approximations.

[@NullElemental]

very well thought out video, subbed and liked

[@petermartin5030]

Great video, thank you! For me thinking more about control, locus of control, and autopoesis are ways to take this thinking.... with consciousness then being control of control, topping out our control hierarchy.

[@jessetuneguy1518]

This is da channel I’ve been waiting for

[@jesusmruanolopez]

Impressive videos!!! Very well documented. I have watched all your videos, they are now part of me😊. Thanks.

[@terrifictomm]

The only way to answer the question, “What am I?” is to look at all those not-arbitrary attributes that come together as a whole; the multitudinous things all working together as one toward a goal. What Goal? The only goal that I am capable of perceiving. The Goal of Me. My existence, my intentions, my experiences. My memories. Whatever the experiences of the bacteria and cells making up my body might be having they are irrelevant to my experiences of myself. What am I? I am My Self. I am incapable of knowing anything else as intimately as I know My Self. If at all.

[@whaaaaaaap]

Subscribed. Great work, just saw your video clarifying Genetics.

[@corneliuscorcoran9900]

Excellent video. Thank you.

[@aoifedevine8153]

Great video, thank you !

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Thanks for all these videso. Whenever I watch your videos, so many thoughts cross my mind. The ideas coming today are: 1. Its time we should investigate the underlying logic/constitutent/dependencies of any system being Darwinian. 2. So many things in Biology (also in Chemistry) exists in spectrum. I feel like its also time to investigate into the very nature of "spectrum". A similar investigation as mathematicians did about the nature of continuity. May be both of these concepts has something to learn from each other. Also, this is the best resolution of the "Ship of Theseus" I've evern came across. Thanks for all of it.

[@cosmogang]

Quite a fun video, friend. Now keep going. These concepts are just the tip of the infinite iceberg of what is.

[@resiknoiro7506]

The title made me think that this would be some spiritual bs. but wow, i am very positively surprised! this is a really interesting and sensible approach to define the self, that i have never seen before

[@DavidValenteM]

Great clarity and insight! Your are an inspiration source

[@marshalmcdonald7476]

Well done SubAnima. You're getting into some nice meta-Metaphysics here.

[@kokopelli314]

So a few years ago I was talking with a friend about the ecology of a prairie as being the convolution of bison, their predators and grasses within a geophysical and climate context. Lots of other organisms and abiotic factors, but the point being that the complex settles into state space and transfers information as waveforms into the future. This is a simple example of what all ecosystems are constantly doing unless severely disrupted.

[@hypergraphic]

Wow this was such a thought provoking video. You have impacted my future self. Right away I have lots of questions come to mind. I'm just starting to read Dr. Robert Sapolky's book, Determined, on how free will does not exist, but how nonetheless we can be changed and change others. Also, immediately I'm thinking of how beautiful the mathematics describing this all must be, and the religious traditions like vedanta and Buddhism, and how they all relate to this topic. Lots to think about! Thanks so much!

[@Ratnoseterry]

When you described interacting with an algorithm, food, friends, and family, and becoming an informational being. I believe this is what the Norse concept of Wyrd is describing.

[@Thanatology101]

Very pleased to see a discussion on individually that took processes into consideration after discussing the Ship of Theseus. It's an interesting thought experiment, but it's never been appropriately applicable to living beings because the ship doesn't metabolize, doesn't reproduce, and doesn't have any sort of experiential line (so far as we can discern). We are not ships. This was excellent.

[@DoreenBellDotan]

Thank you so much. I'm 66 years old and have been grappling with the concepts of individuation vs. collective and individuation vis-a-vis collective all my like. Because I was stuck in thinking of individuation as being far to singly defined and static, I created a dichotomy that needn't have existed in my mind had I allowed for a more fluid concept of individuation.

[@maync1]

Yes, we are actually quite different. You have your belief and I have mine. Period.

[@ibnukatmoattirthamy8771]

Very great video, finally i find the video about "theory of information". Which make me wonder. Thanks.