As time passes are you "truly the same person?" There's a compound statement that needs some serious unpacking.

Let's start with the Ship of Theseus, that time-honoured puzzle about identity. As the ship ages, its structure decays. But in this example, each part gets replaced until nothing is left of the original structure. Is it still the same ship? It looks the same. It has the same tonnage and cargo space. It handles the same. It has the same name. Is that enough to preserve its identity?

What then is identity? For Webster, it's "the distinguishing character or personality of an individual." Will that do for now? With identity theft, someone steals what belongs to that person, what he or she owns. Can a thing be owned, be held as exclusive to that person. Perhaps not in some political philosophies, but try to run a functioning democratic state without retaining property rights.

Let's leave that one alone, but can you steal reputation or even life itself? Maybe yes, but that definition would make identity as what belongs uniquely to that person, meaning the person would be impoverished if it was removed. In that case, is time always a thief?

Now back to the ship, and replacing the parts. If the ship is endlessly being renewed, it never ages. By definition, time stands still, meaning that no identity is taken away. The ship, not aging, remains itself, but can there be constant renewal of living things? Probably not or we'd never die.

So now we must deal with the concept of "truly" since this is a word that admits no degree. Sat in that restaurant, the customer's skin continues to flake, changing the person at some microscopic level. Is that change enough to invalidate his passport photo? If identity is a snapshot taken at some point in time, but in a universe where time constantly moves forward, how long is the snapshot valid for? that depends on function,

For me it would be long enough for him to have to honour the bill.

to get the ball rolling, change is a major problem to handle logically. motion, for example, seems to be a seemless transition from place to place, yet it may be reducible to infinitely small, yet seperate states that would be to us, the observer as frozen snapshots. of course physics tells us that is not the case and there is no such thing as "frozen snapshots". but then , those bozos are just as confused about things as we do, having proven to the world that the more you know about locality, the less you know about trajectory.

so, change...

is a half rotten apple still an apple?

is blood dripping from a nose bleed, actually flowing?

is an uncooked egg whipped in a bowl an omlette?

is a penny saved truly a penny earned?

now we go to the restaurant sketch. the waiter delivered said meal, say a cheesburger, curly fries, and a soda.

you look at the splendor upon your table and become changed. your moderate hunger has turned to an emotional equivalent of the core collapse of a class IIb blue giant star.

you are clearly not the same as you were a monent ago.

you set upon the meal sending it into the event horizon. bit by bit you took it all in. the cheeseburger could not reach escape velocity.

now it is gone. so are the fries, the tiny dollop of salad and the soda. a cursory check would reveal some crumbs, and you collect them as well.

now, change again is occuring, you feel better about things. you have less fears about the melting glaciers or the over fished oceans, and microplastics in the food chain. why, this is madness!! you begin to see it all as an opportunity, rather than a disaster. all those plump balugas that will be much easier to spot, now that they have no ice to hide them.

you have underwent change.

but so has the burger. it was, at a certain point of its history, a series of ingredients; a cow, cheese , a nice piggy (oh, there was bacon, of course there was!!). some mustard flowers, a head of lettuce, a tomato, seseme, wheat, yeast, salt, sugar, water, strychnine...

and these fine ingredients where themselves a result if changes, upon changes upon changes, going back to that fateful moment, the the universe came to be, and immidietely stopped being as it was-it too changed.

and now the food, or its aggregated, historically formed constituants are gone. at least as they were just recently. changed into a soup of masticated solids, in a wash of acids and enzymes, which also were derived through change..

now the waiter approcheth. he sees that you are finished and inquires if you would require anything else. obviously, this is a trick question. you are not required to eat any more, though you could do another burger or ten. no. he is hinting, subtly that you either order more stuff, or ask for the bill, because this is the lunch hour, and they woukd like to seat other patrons, after they cleaned the upholstery.

this hint, has not been unnoticed by you, and now you undergo more change: do i feel the existential need to have more food, or perhaps a drink, OR shoukd you ask for the bill? you are clearly not the same as you were a moment ago, as doubts and schemes wash over your conciencness. you might even become resentful that the waiter has chosen to imply things rather than to speak directly. perhaps you will do well to add more possibilities, such as spitefully staying for another few hours, and ordering only water.

such changes you have gone through, and more to come, because you are EVENTUALLY presented with the bill. it is now that you face the greatest of the questions: the bill is in a way a formal contract, between you and the restaurant, where they provide you with goods and YOU provide them with money.

however this is a problem: as we established, the person you are at the moment is certainly not equal to the person that ordered the hamburger and soda. it could be that you are not that person at all.

it could be that whoever had ordered the hamburger , was presented not with a hamburger, with cheese and lovely, lovely bacon, but with iingredients that were merely formed into a hamburger. if that is true the owners of the restaurant had promissed something that they could not possibly deliver-a hamburger that is NOT mere ingredients that were subjected to change. that would be a case of gross false-advertising! moreover, you are asked to pay the restaurant a price, in either electronic or physically acceptable legal tender. however here again is another crisis, because the money that you are supposed to hand over is certainly a result of change, and soon should be subjected to more change as it ceases to be one of your possessions and becomes the owners. clearly you are asked to transfer ownership which something that is not the same as giving them YOUR money!!

morally, you feel outraged that the transfer of unchanged goods in exchange for your personal posessions did not only fail to include you, presently in the transaction, but it involved fraud, false advertising, and is not even possible!!

the waiter himself, you can see has undergone change. he is certainly, not the same as he was when he took your order, if that even occured. he is now upset, that you are "making trouble" for him, and is legitimately worried that the whole social contract, onwhich society is based is about to come apart at the seams. while this is not your concern, you can't help be sympathetic to the anxiety of the waiter, and at the same time feel caution in admitting fault , and struggle to discerne the motivation of this individual, who through personal changes has come to collaborate so eagerly with rhe fraudulent owner.

what is to be done then?

when will a solution present itself?

will you possibly be YOU when such a solution appear?

i contain

multitudes

body swollen

with digested foods

am i defined

by the size

of my stomach?

am i the same

as i was

before i began

to gorge?

i've eaten myself

out of my hole

but i'm standing

on scaffolding

made of waffle fries

that threatens to

topple

under my weight.

the food, too

has changed.

if i were to

stick my fingers

down my throat

and release it,

it would no longer

adhere to its form,

consigned to

an acid-coated

fluid.

maybe i, too,

am fluid,

changing

with the tides

body ensnared

in a constant cycle

eating, digesting, purging,

growing

despite my best efforts.

can i pay the tab

of the debt

i've accrued

for myself?

is it true

that i've sold

myself

for fear

of food?

what

defines

a person?

can we be defined

if we are always

moving,

from one stage

of the cycle

to the next?

or are we,

perhaps

defined

by fluidity itself?

¡all one two

and-

And then I and then Me

-Well, technically three!

What would We be

Nothing good, one can know

chime in I, you,

and is it “Us”, is it “We”?

If never could you

(At last ¡you! in charge: free)

Could collapse into I

Turn this fuss

(All of us!)

into (finally) “Me”.

As with all things in nature, human beings are subject to a constant and almost imperceptible change. Change occurs in many forms, typically categorized in various forms of growth and decay. Things come together, things fall apart. Humans are not exempt from this reality. From our birth we begin forming new flesh, we develop and grow in size. Through adulthood the body, after it has reached it's terminal growth, rides out the spark of life within it as it slowly decays into death and becomes again one with the dust from which it was made.

Human beings however, are not entirely confined to the limitations of the earth. Change within us occurs in more ways that just physical, though there is much debate in this regard. For the uninitiated, there is something within the human being known as a spirit that some refer to as a soul, others refer to it as a mind or psyche, and still others believe that the soul and mind exist concurrently within the person. Many people throughout history have attempted to quantify this experience using research and relationships and the invention of new descriptive words to determine the exact nature of this being that occupies the human body. These different approaches to understanding what I will henceforth refer to as "the self". Change in regard to the self is a tricky thing for the individual to identify as it typically happens as a result of a series of causal events which begin with birth and develop the person through experience.

Many human records tell of people undergoing vast changes in character through the confrontation of trials or fears, this is the basis of most, if not all, of human mythological storytelling. This idea alone has recently branched off into a sect of psychological understanding which posits that people who confront their fears are more likely to develop changes in their self concept that they and others may deem positive. The pretense to this theory is derived from the idea that all human beings share a fundamental self concept which is revealed to us in pieces through dreams, art, and the development of cultures. And so just like the things of nature, human beings change gradually and sometimes all at once. Just like the explosion of a volcano, a massive flood or a forest fire, nature's changes can also be violent and unexpected. In the case of the human life, the abrupt change is often awe inspiring and/or terrifying for the individual. Experiences with God, death, the creation of life, and in many other cases these changes occur randomly in people. Small individual changes are often informed by those of the culture either manifested in the form of conformity or resistance, in this you will see the development of tribes and cultures which often war with each other, change ensues as a result of this as well.

Human beings capacity to change is directly caused by their connection to forces greater than themselves. Their perception of such changes, and the fact that they often occur subtly, lead some people to come to the belief that change in human beings is not possible. This, however, is the result of the limited capacity for the human being to sense time and the effects that is has on existing objects, therefore they require the assistance of generations of other humans and the guidance of the Creator of existence, to which they are incredibly fortunate to have direct access through conversation, conviction, and a written historical record of change, its nature and the cause therein.

Humans were made to overcome and adapt this life. A person may change his mind, his perspective, his whole attitude on something afterwards,

however he or she will still be the same person regardless because they will still have the same values and morality they came with.

After all change and adaptation is growth no mater how painful it can be.

In your example of the meal for instance, let’s say you ordered Filet Mignon, rare with asparagus.

It comes, it is a beautiful plate and smells delicious. Cutting into the filet, you see that it is cooked to perfection and as you put it in your mouth, ahhh this is the most delicious cut of beef you have ever tasted! The asparagus is equally delicious and cooked to perfection! In fact the dish is so good no salt or pepper or other condiments are required! The Filet cuts like butter and tastes just as good.

So you are now finished.

Of course you pay the tab because you are paying not only for the meat and greens but also the service provided that you would not have gotten at home had you cooked it yourself.

Also, at home you would not have a five star chef cooking your meal so the experience would be totally different.

Now are you the person different because of your experience?

No. You will never become a different person from one experience unless it’s a pretty hefty experience.

Normal situations you will stay the same person, however, you may have learned something from that experience.

It is natural for people to learn and grow, but most people keep their core values and beliefs through out their lives.

This.

This is a question which must be answered with some further questioning seeing as the "self" is a fairly obtuse and broad range concept.

This leads us to have to consider the qualifying traits of self.

Were we to define those we could answer it no problem; much like organisms are classified as organic or non organic by a set number of specific qualifiers which determine how we quantify them.

My personal scope of quantification stems from that of the most universal of languages and is an art form unbiased in the things it expresses; an artistic language that is rarely seen as either of those things.

I'm referring to mathematics!

Yes, the thing that counts most in life; mathematics is the filter by which I pan through all of our world's proverbial dusts breaking wind.... or in the wind.... whatever..

Anyway, we're I to state a quantifier for what constitutes a self in its most basic state I would have to say that I see self as the origin Point on an x/y axis graph used for expressing functions on a plain.

Makes sense right? I mean I'm in the physical plain and trying to function so I figure out wh[Y] do so and then the variables it will take to get me their.

So really self is 0..... that is to say self really isn't anything but as it is the origin it can variably become and be every anything.....

Like in the middle of the zero draw a smiley face and ☆BOOM☆ it looks like a face of a little person..

I'm joking but really;

it's all based on decision for which there could only be a "self "defined from decisions in hindsight. So might self be a past tense principle, perhaps foreshadowed by our own principles and their practice of acting as parameters by which we meter our demeanor. Our likelihood of what our variable values will be, is this self(?), as with time applied it forms patterns that repeat and are these repetitious trends our "me" we each then lend to our scope of our "self" and if so could it be that

self = ( origin(x/y))²

__________

( Time)x +1

Dunno...

But that's as far as my qualifying scope goes currently.

All I know is that despite the uncertainty, it is "self" evident that we are all definitely "SUMthing"....

Self is just the qualities of our sum when surmised.

Though I'd think being yourself was a good thing till I realize that miracles happening and saved lives all come for acts that are selfless....

So why encourage being my self if it's selfish and what do we lose if we downright stop regarding self as a definite?

What could we gain?

Ouch; my brain.....¡

Hello, it's me.

Yes, hello, you.

I came to be with you.

I'm not sure about you.

Well, I'm one of you.

Are you?

I am you as you are me and we are all together. Maybe?

Possibly.

Who am us, anyway?

We are not you.

What's the difference?

You.

But I'm one of you.

Maybe.

When?

We'll see.

I brought my own black ball.

May I see it?

Sure.

Can I use it?

If you need to.

I need to.

Sure. Well?

You're out. You're not one of us.

Who am you, anyway?

Everyone but you.

You'll wish you had me.

Perhaps.

You'll see. We're not to be disrespected.

None intended. Don't go away mad; just go away.

Too late.

Truly we can love

this seated self

as Mythic,

above reproach;

But nay is that

really He? there

ceded at this

banquet table...!?

...Who gives out

Orders and

Accolades...?

and who tucks the

napkin like

a bib beneath

the dribbly chin...?

Is Man truly himself

if he is Subject..?

No, one can suppose

It ain't much so;

Serfdom precedes

as such and then,

Again if he be subject

and the object of

a meal in question,

we should indeed

question the Charge

as being truly and

adequately Objective,

if at all...?

Being prone to over

estimate his clout

and appetite, and

paying might,

on any given

Night...

to be sure

he/ she will surely

foot the bill, out

from three feet under

And in generations

to come again,

further still...

But as a Waiter

here very well off,

and down, down

down in the lines,

in the assembled

length of hands,

thoughts 'n rhyme,

I cannot help

but wonder

just a little,

teensy bit;

Should he really

..really now,

be subject

to Change..?

Or rather...

shouldn't he

just leave it

(on the table)

...as a Tip?

01.24.2023

Is a Person truly himself if he is subject to change? Challenge @batmaninwuhan

Change helps us grow into a better version of ourselves. So we are still ourselves but just a better version. Like how phones evolve over time. Does the phone always need to be able to text people or call, yes. So then yes you should pay for your meal, because even though possibly a sad version of you ate the meal and now happy you has to pay for it, which made you that happy. The change to the food is that it was there and now it's in your stomach. Change isn't always drastic, it can be small as well.