>> (similar to colors not existing in reality). > A digression, but this claim bothers me. From a pure physical point of view, light exist of an infinite numb

>> (similar to colors not existing in reality). > A digression, but this claim bothers me. From a pure physical point of view, light exist of an infinite number of wavelengths. A mix of light of different wavelengths thus form an infinite-dimensional color space. Our eyes only has thress sensors to detect the difference, roughly corresponding to Red Green and Blue, so as the light hits our brain, we receive a 3-dimensional color space. The brain collapses this further into a single qualia, that is very remote in structure to the physical light. By comparison, our ability to comprehend shapes of objects is much more closely related to the objects' acutal shape. >> Who people think we are is who we are because identity is a reflection, not an actual thing in reality > Identity is by definition what and who you _are_ and this is _prior_ to thought -- it is a matter of being, not thinking. This is not the definition most commonly used, at least not in the physical sense. What we _are_, all of us, is very complicated. Far too complicated for our brains to relate to. Instead we're telling ourselves highly simplified stories about ourselves, where we "identify with" or "identify as" one or more characters (or personas) in these stories. This is not unlike when we watch a movie or read a book, and start to feel that we are one of the lead characters there. And just like the color "brown" doesn't have a single essential identity (it corresponds to a relatively large are of the RGB space, and an even larger area of the full physical color space), our mental model of who we are, is extremely simplified compared to our physical selves.