Does "the individual" really exist?
Over centuries, the era of faith ended up taking over everything and took away from religions the role in creating the bases for understanding what is and what is not human.
One of the "appendices" that have remained in these institutions is the soul, that essential, ethereal, mystical "organ" of divine and indivisible origin, has become the last barrier between science and religion, since even much of the scientists find a world without the idea that we have a soul, a very discouraging world to live in.
But as always, whoever wants to find an argument, finds an argument - and that's how science managed to transmute the concept of soul into the concept of "individual".
Inhabiting the mind (an institution as important to science as the soul is to religion) the individual, as the name implies, is a single, defined, linear, predictable, basically static entity and also has its bit of sacred.
Within the liberal world, the individual is the most important institution to be contemplated, something like the supreme deity.
It turns out that, like the soul, the scientific probabilities that such an individual exists are bleak. Now, if the human being is as fragmentable as the flesh, if we have an average of 70 trillion separate cells that make up our whole, where is the idea that there is an individual? Of what is there this portion that defines us as a general, unique and indivisible whole, if not of religion?
The point is, this is lagging behind. Science is increasingly skeptical about believing in this individual and understanding the human being as a mess of parts that allow us to be countless "individuals".
In short, we are not a single person and there is no way to be: we force decisions by propagating this uniqueness in acts perpetuated by the character, not the actor. In other words, it is the repited visions of others about us that define us, we coordinate our organisms to respond to these third stimuli in a way that compose the social fabric more or less in an organized way.
Complicated? Not so much:
With 500 million neurons, the gut is considered our second brain.That's exactly what you read: there are neurons in the gut. Much of what you think, feel and act is directly related to your gut.
What is there in the mind that is not in the brain? If, in the first place, the mind is not just in the brain, then what do we understand as mind, does it really exist? Is it really unique? Is really indivisible?
Certainly the statistics calculate that to be obtained from a point of view based on a compliance collective. Public policies, analysis of future scenarios, etc. But the same rule does not apply to the "individual" - ironicly there is not a better word to define the so called individual.
The disbelief in the individual must increasingly be a point of split between the mentality of the industrial model and the mentality of the post-digital thinking model and should help shake foundations before being taken as stone clauses of Western thought, above where the liberal model it is the most accepted among the peoples.
In a world where the individual ceases to exist, he ceases to be credited as such, or at least to have direct economic value - once the economic value rises from the precepts of big data, it will fall only to large collective groups, that is, to statistical notions, the common individual will cease to be inclusive a concern of governments and big entities.
What will be left to be for the people to be? What will be left to the human's thinking when he knows that he doesn't even have the privilege of being a single and indivisible conscience anymore?
Well, my guess is: we will need more drugs, Video Games and much better suicide prevention policies.