I Don't Know What Personality Is

God what kind of an idiot would be this guy who simply 'seemed' or even maybe acted like he 'claimed' to know just about everything all the time?!

Well that's not me. This is one helluva great question 'what is a personality,' or at least, what is personality. And I'm sure I do not know the complete answer at all.

We all have a decent enough conception about someone's personality... In the ordinary run of affairs. You know, that someone is like this, or like that. Anxious, or warm, or cold, or annoying, or arrogant, or obsequious or always angry. That kind of thing.

I don't know what personality is, but
I do know what 'contractor' is.

This is even the way a lot of psychology literature talks about it: that there are four main types of personality - sanguine, melancholic... and so on. And then, there are other psychologists who say things instead like - reserved, average, role-model, and self-centered. The first style of categorizing they also say is about 'temperament,' and then the second style they want to say is a more modern and therefore 'better' way of looking at things.

But this is like saying there are four seasons to the year. Well there are, but that is only because we live here on this planet Earth!

If you look at Thermodynamics, then there are also four 'laws' albeit one is a fundamental relationship not a 'law' as such. 

But even so, in Thermodynamics you can start to see that matters are a lot more complicated than psychologists wish to have them be - for instance, you cannot actually predict the fluid dynamics of steam for example, in open atmosphere, because once you have gone past the partial differential equations for basic flow rates and gaseous expansion and also spin or spiraling, then you have to resort to 'Chaos theory' in order to salvage some conclusions about such systems when in open atmospheres with winds and breezes and all kinds of other forces involved.

I don't know what personality is, 
but I do know what 'Academi' uniform
is.
Gee I hope they have been fully briefing you, Chris
Wray.

'Consciousness' - human consciousness - might well be a single kind of amorphous and interchangeable 'thing' but once you 'flow' it through, let's say, one of the atomic shapes of Democritus and then, let it become introduced to a whole heap of other dynamic tensions and forces obtaining in life, well what determines the pathways that 'it' goes down; what is the predictability of how it moves?

So we're back to trying to implement, or add in, 'Chaos theory' to get something by way of a mathematical 'predication' back.

And yet the whole point of, say, religious ideologies, is entirely this idea that you can have a theoretical 'perfect' order of behavior. I mean otherwise what seriously, is the point of 'Judgement?' That's a stupid thing and it would make 'God' ridiculously clueless if He was proposing that human individual agents could be predictably 'perfect' according to some prior template (of perfection), when the actual dynamics were all to do with Chaos and the future, of unknowns and uncertainties.

Okay maybe you could say there are these basic, sinusoidal, sort of 'hard limit' guidelines.

But are there, really? And then so what though?

It still makes 'Divine Judgement' a slightly silly, more or less realistically groundless, and highly not-precise matter.

Santa Monica beach is very
beautiful; lot of lights.

The only logical way to have an a priori 'Judgement' after the acts and actions of a person, is to have an a priori factual conception of who that person is beforehand. Whether in absolute potential or in some other obscure philosophical way, nonetheless it requires to be a priori. 

We know what constitutes a snowflake but then each one is said to be unique, because of those fluid dynamic characteristics which introduce very complicated, maybe Chaos theory factors into the play.

So I am going to say personality is unique, but it has a category descriptor, which is simply the word 'individual' or the word 'personality' also...

It's something that goes along with consciousness, but is not consciousness on its own. It's tied to consciousness almost as -, well no, virtually exactly and necessarily as, the real feature of 'personality.'

Hey hey hey. This is really asking for a helluva lot here though, isn't it?

Marilyn Monroe on Santa Monica beach.
Also very beautiful, and often in lights.
But is she really real?
A real person?

; )

Something goes with consciousness, is tied to consciousness, but is different from consciousness.

Hesiod said there was a time when 'men were made of gold inside.' And then, that later on, they became 'men of silver.' And next of bronze and then iron. And now today, there are men of what?

What do you want to be? A 'man' of CGI? Anything but actually nothing.

If you had electrons or light tied to your consciousness, how then though, still could there be distinct flavors of those, which seem to be highly 'amorphous.'

LOL

And even then, what would make any set of them, or particular specific grouped arrangement of them 'unique' from inception, as it were?

Well I don't know, but Revelation says there are 144,000 'sealed' individuals, whereas there are 'countless' reasonably 'good' people (it also says). Ew gewd we do not want to go the Jehovah's Witness route though now do we? I don't! I don't even think they know what they are talking about - they're just taking something they see and are flinging it around as if it means anything. Once again, turning stuff into their franchise. 

This is a complicated subject and there is an answer to the question.

What makes a person perfectly interchangeable with any other person? Nothing; they're not (interchangeable).

Be careful with the volume - the bass line at the start is pretty strong here: