What are you if everything that proves your existence can change you?
Identity, who you are, and what defines you, are all philosophical questions that researchers both in the field and others have been striving to answer. Identity is a concept that has existed for centuries, far longer than modern society itself. Most assume the identity of one another based on interactions, experiences, and knowledge passed from one another. When we go through different phases of our lives, especially for those that go through traumatic events, those people often come out as though they’re a whole different person. We all also have the tendency to display versions of ourselves to different audiences, while social and digital networking seemingly changes us. Identity changes with us over time as we gain experiences; and with the introduction of the internet, fragmentation has only gotten worse with not just slightly different versions of ourselves, but entirely new digital personas. To understand what is said so far, this piece will also explain where identity comes from, and to understand that is to know identity is constructed by you and everyone around you. There is hope: while identity is unstable, our discoveries and knowledge can persist beyond humankind. To understand why identity seems unstable in today’s modern life, it is first necessary to understand where the idea of identity comes from. Although identity is often treated as stable and indefinite, it is constructed and changes constantly by memory, interaction, and digital influence; however, while identity itself may fragment and disappear over time, the discoveries, knowledge, and ideas people make can continue beyond them.
Starting off with personal identity, David Hume challenges the idea that the self is something stable or directly observable. Rather than finding the one permanent identity inside the mind, Hume argues that people only encounter ever-changing thoughts, emotions, memories, and sensations. He writes that “I can never catch myself at any time without a perception,” showing that the self is simply never found separately from experience. Hume goes on further by claiming that people are “nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions,” meaning identity is not one concrete thing, but a group of constantly shifting experiences. Since these perceptions change constantly, Hume concludes that there is indeed “no simplicity in it at one time, nor identity in different.” This suggests that identity was never something to be naturally fixed, but something the mind assumes exists because it connects memories and experiences together. Therefore, personal identity begins as an assumption: people believe they are themselves, and will always be the same person, even though the self is built from changing fragments.
If identity is only constructed through memory and perception, then another question comes up: can identity remain stable over time at all? Olson directly challenges the idea that identity survives merely because memories or psychological traits continue. Olson imagines a scenario where a brain-transfer machine creates “a person psychologically indistinguishable from the original” and asks whether identity would truly survive through psychological continuity alone. Even though the copied person would share the same memories, personality, and mental patterns, Olson argues that this still does not guarantee they are the exact same individual. This creates a contradiction: if identity were based only on memory or psychology, then a copied version of a person should still count as the same person. Olson even directly points out that “Isn’t it a matter of fact whether someone whose brain is altered in a certain way survives or perishes?” In other words, identity should logically have a definitive answer: either the person survives, or the person does not. He goes on to reinforce the uncertainty saying, “either she does or she doesn’t.” Ultimately, Olson argues that “the sort of mental continuity that obtains in brain-state transfer is not sufficient for us to persist.” Memories and psychological traits alone can’t fully define identity. Say another person remembers the same experiences, behaves identically, and even has the same thoughts as you, the original you may still no longer exist. Thus, identity does not remain stable simply because mental continuity survives. Olson’s argument challenges the idea that identity can permanently hold together, since even perfect continuity cannot prove the self’s persistence. If identity can’t be guaranteed even when memories continue, then the idea of a permanent self becomes difficult to defend.
Once identity stops appearing internally stable, that’s when outside influence becomes increasingly important in shaping how people understand themselves. Psychology expert Vanesa Pérez-Torres questions how identity develops through social media interaction and audience feedback. She describes social media as a “digital social mirror,” meaning that people understand themselves through online interaction and feedback from others. Rather than identity developing independently, it becomes formed through communication, comparison, and audience reaction. Pérez-Torres went on to explain that “self-expression… on social media allows them to practice their self-presentation skills, show who they are, and receive feedback from their audiences” (Pérez-Torres 22176). This suggests that identity becomes dependent on how other people respond to us. Rather than showing off one stable self, people change their behaviour depending on who’s observing them, and the environment they are in. She also explains that “social media provides many opportunities to curate… one’s identity to a wider audience” (Pérez-Torres 22176). To be able to curate identity means people can pick and choose versions of themselves to present online. In digital environments, identity becomes less of a permanent core and more like an ongoing process of adaptation. This concept connects directly to Serial Experiments Lain, where Lain’s identity exists differently depending on how others perceive Lain within the Wired (a digital reality). In the series, Lain’s online presence starts affecting how people saw and reacted to her, even when she herself had an entirely different sense of self. There are other versions of Lain across the network, creating a contradiction between lived reality, and reality made by others online. Lain becomes upset because other versions of her identity are being shaped by the Wired and by other people’s perceptions of her. Therefore, identity no longer develops in isolation, but through systems of interaction and perception that constantly reshape how individuals understand themselves and how they are understood by others.
However, once identity exists across networks and digital interaction, technology no longer just influences the users’ identities, but starts fragmenting them into multiple versions. Serial Experiments Lain pushes the idea of identity further by showing us how technology fragments identity into separate versions existing at the same time. Rather than shaping identity through social interaction alone, the series presents identity as something capable of existing on its own through networks. Throughout the series, there are multiple versions of Lain appearing at the same time across the Wired. These versions behave differently from the real Lain and seemingly interact with others independently without her control. People begin responding to actions and rumours about Lain that she herself never experienced, thus creating a contradiction between Lain’s lived identity and identities created through the Wired. This also connects to how Lain is eventually viewed like a godlike presence within the Wired, whose identity goes beyond normal limitations. Therefore, identity becomes decentralized, not belonging to one physical individual. Technology does not simply influence identity but fragments it into separate versions capable of spreading beyond the individual’s control.
If technology can fragment your identity into multiple versions, then identity itself no longer seems fixed, but something capable of being created and manipulated. In other words, there is no one and only you. In fact, identity itself becomes constructed through thoughts, memories, and emotions. All of which can change or be manipulated. Ghost in the Shell is an anime set in a world where humans have advanced so far in technology that even memory and identity can be artificially created or changed. In its world, a person can potentially live an entire life and build an identity from the ground up virtually, only for none of it to have truly existed. As technology becomes more capable of manipulating memory and perception, identity becomes something continuously remade through systems beyond the individual’s control.
So, if identity is constantly reconstructed, can be fragmented, and eventually disappear, what remains? Our contributions, discoveries, and knowledge. While many take interest in the individual, their personality and achievements, the scriptwriter for Orb: On the Movements of the Earth took a different approach where there is no main protagonist. Every few episodes, new individuals are introduced in different eras, only to disappear after; leaving behind only what they have contributed towards research. Without leaving their own names, ideas were passed down through letters, fragments, and more… As the series went on, the focus slowly shifts away from the individual and toward the discoveries they leave behind. Unlike the earlier arguments surrounding unstable and fragmented identity, Orb: On the Movements of the Earth suggests that permanence may have never belonged to identity at all, but instead to our contributions and knowledge. While the people are eventually forgotten, the movement of ideas continues well beyond them. In this way, identity becomes temporary, but the discoveries made through it are able to last long after the self disappears.
If identity is built from memory, perception, interaction, and experience, then maybe identity was never meant to stay permanent. Throughout life, people constantly change through trauma, communication, digital technology, and the environments around them. As Hume and Olson both suggest, identity cannot fully remain stable even within the mind itself. However, while identity may eventually dissolve, what remains is everything we build during our lifetimes: discoveries, knowledge, and contributions that we leave behind. Orb: On the Movements of the Earth suggests that permanence may not belong to the individual, but instead to their ideas carried forward after their story. Therefore, even if identity itself is unstable and temporary, the impact we make as humans can continue to exist long after the self disappears.