Exactly; that is precisely the question that needs answering. And the next question that naturally follows is...
"how can we develop a way to test for that?"
Consciousness is among, if not, the most difficult thing to measure. It would seem that even neural scans don't truly tell you what a person is thinking; it is not a portal into their thoughts. It only shows what parts of the brain are activated at what moment - but we are blind to the actual experience the individual is having.
Nonetheless it comes closer than any other method we have thus far, and is definitely a place we need to consider when attempting to answer this question. But also consider other angles - as many as can yield some fruitful data. In my opinion, these would be:
- Visual Signals/Mannerisms
- Voice Tone/Fluctuation
- Neurological (bio/chemical)
- Genetics
Now, even genetics doesn't gives us a window into the experience of a person's mind - because it is a static code while experience is a dynamic. But if there is a biological root to the difference in people's temperaments then it might also be, at least partially, genetic-based.
That is where, I think, this investigation would peak: If indeed some biological origin existed to temperament, perhaps the most sound argument that could be posed is that it can be measured on a genetic level. But even if that were true, getting to that point without aide from other dimensions would be difficult.
So if we can track
backwards to genetics, starting from the observable effects that are seen, we might understand this riddle. So for example, if we compare the dimensions available to us via a dispassionate methodology and let the data compile into clusters on its own -- that narrows the search and we can study those clusters for genetic similarities.
Using the example of Motus + Neuroscience is one attempt at this. We measure two different manifestations of the psyche; from opposite ends. The input (waves/chemistry) and the output (expressions/result) to try to understand the important center (consciousness) better.
Brain activity occurs a split-second before the actual execution of the motion. So if we track enough motions and the brain activity of their execution, we may be able to form a template of what brain activity = visual motion.
And although this all may seem like a mechanical approach to understanding an intuitive phenomenon -- that brain activity isn't irrelevant to psychology. Nor are the motions. This becomes obvious when you actually see the motions and why they're there. The reason a person moves like they do is because of a personal subjective impulse tied to their individual experience at the moment.
....so now, what can be expected from this in the event that there is a reality to it? and if there isn't?
Auburn's Personal Hypothesis:
Imo, there are a lot of motions that are simply just basic human operations, and so even if types existed not every motion would exclusively indicative of that type. I think it would be unrealistic to expect something like that - nor is it necessary.
From my experience, every human has a general body rhythm when conversing. That is, although there is variation even within the same person in different days and different moods -- the way they speak, walk, emote, etc - has a finite parameter.
It is a bell-shape though, so there are outliers but in general people repeat the same motions. And if you took enough footage of a person, day after day, and bitted their video each day you'd see that 90%+ of their movements would become "typical" of them, and you could even formulate a signature exclusive to them. Like, "Motus Alexia".
But it's also sort of pointless to create one motus type for each individual. If we wanted to, we could. But we'd eventually run into identical Motus either way. Even if we took the extreme approach and only created "patterns" (types) from people who share 99% of their own typical 95%-most-common-body-cues (as observed over many weeks of footage) we still would not come up with 7 Billion Motus Types.
I think we might come up with ~10,000 or so. So even if there really were 10,000 motus signatures that would mean there are 700 thousand people with your exact motus signature out there.
But I doubt this will be the case because even in the ~10 samples we've already discussed we've found several motion-groupings and even what might be a motus type shared by Matthew Gray Gubler and Danny Pudi. I think we'll soon be able to make video series about the specific groupings of motions and the predictability they have. And then encourage others to see if they can identify these groupings as well -- as well as creating videos with realtime annotations of the motions people display, hovering around them.
You can look forward to some pretty cool stuff.
