|
The Concept of a Person
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 10:08 AM | Message # 16 |
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
Quote (eboyd) Dude, you are speaking on a COMPLETELY different subject. This is in regards to philosophy of the mind, specifically the body-mind problem. We do not deny the social constructs that effect the way your identity changes over time, we are simply referring to what constitutes consciousness. Is it a physical construct where all is one and there is no distinguishing between body and mind (monism), are there two distinctly different substances (dualism), or is it all one substance that has two aspects to it (dual/double-aspect theory)? That is the real question. what constitutes consciousness depends on the social constructs too check Evolutionary psychology for example because this question is strict scientific behavioral ecology, human behavioral ecology, dual inheritance theory, and sociobiology etc. Are other domains which can answer your question
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 1:47 PM | Message # 17 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
You don't seem to get it though. When I say "constitutes consciousness" I am not referring to what makes consciousness the way it is (ie the conditions of consciousness), I am referring strictly to consciousness in it's raw essence. Imagine a new born baby that is unaffected by the world around it thus far. It is conscious, but only in the purest, untainted sense. this is the consciousness that we are observing. Consciousness in it's raw form. We are omitting any mention of the effects on consciousness and speaking strictly of consciousness as it relates to the mind and the body. Imagine if all the universe was simply made up of you. Your body (and possibly mind if dualism is true) would be the only thing in the universe and we wouldn't take social constructs into play because there is no society to build constructs on and to conversely effect the body. This is the aspect of this issue that we are looking at. You are a bit of a sociologist so you are looking at it from a scoial aspect. We are cutting the social aspect out and therefore making it a purely philosophical (until hard scientists find a way to test this issue) argument. Take your societal glasses off and come into the philosophical realm if you want to deal with this issue bro.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 6:50 PM | Message # 18 |
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
I deny control over identity because I deny dualism. The dualist has to account for what isn't physical if they are going to maintain their view. How can something nonphysical arise out that which is only physical. There are parallels here to our nature discussion. How can something unnatural arise out of that which is only natural. Well the answer is it can't. Similarly, something nonphysical (mind) cannot arise out of that which is only physical.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 8:06 PM | Message # 19 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
I am not a dualist, so having this conversation with me is pointless, but read that short story by Daniel Dennett and you will see how he describes his version of dualism. He doesn't necessarily call the mind something nonphysical. It could just be some sort of energy. I don't know what Dennett's concept of "mind" is but I do know that he makes a good case for it not necessarily being a part of the brain (I do still disagree with him though). I do know one thing though. If monism is true (which, in a sense, I do believe. That is why I am a proponent of the double-aspect theory) then someday science will be able to accurately read and somewhat accurately predict thoughts. There is no reason we won't. That day will be quite interesting.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 11:05 PM | Message # 20 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Everyone falls in love with Dennett because of his good spirited humor and wit. But that is how he always wins. But he makes a big mistake in his essay. It is a mistake to philosophize through a fictional tale. Philosophy deals with very complex concepts and it doesn't do the breakdown of complexity any good if a philosopher adds more complexity through unnecessary anecdotes. It is common for philosophers to give parallel analogies, but they abide strict criteria and strong attachment to the subject it is paralleling. However when someone does what Dennet does in his essay, there is a smokescreen of concepts. This smoke screen can foster illusions and fallacies. In my opinion the tale gives no more clarity or power to his points than if he would explain it flat out without anecdotes. This smokescreen works to make everything seem like it falls into place and makes sense, but he has not broken down the question, he has actually subliminally built up more to the question creating more to be answered. The goal of philosophy is to break down, not to build up. This is for clarity purposes. This is why you say you don't know exactly what his position is on dualism. Because he has failed to be clear, but has succeeded in being clever. But the fact is, that he is a dualist of some sort. And there is no way that any form of dualism can be on the right track. Anything about it is inherently mistaken.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 11:24 PM | Message # 21 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
I agree that using a fictional story weakens his position. I wrote a response to his essay in my first philosophy class and that was my reason for disagreeing with him. That is why I am still a believer in the double-aspect theory and not a dualist. However, even with it being fictional, all things aside, he raises a point to be considered. It would be worth asking him. I don't think people love Dennett simply for his wit. He seems to me to be a good critical thinker. I have to disagree with you on something though: Quote (I_Guy) The goal of philosophy is to break down, not to build up. I disagree. The way I was taught and the way I see it, while every other study seeks to answer questions, philosophy seeks to question answers. That is how I've always seen it. That seems very much like a build up to me. It functions to strengthen other studies by opening us up to other possibilities.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 11:33 PM | Message # 22 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (eboyd) philosophy seeks to question answers.
I don't see how that is. Philosophy finds problems, then tries to solve them by breaking them down. In the process it may question other answers, but that simply becomes another breakdown. But that is not what Dennett is doing here. He is doing something entirely different. He is building up, and by that, I mean he is adding necessary information to make a point. The same point could be made in a different way with less information. That any philosophies goal: To locate a solution as clear and true as possible with the least amount of baggage and excessive information. Philosophy is more related to science than what most people think. We all know that science is the break down of things. Science split from philosophy once the slow development of technology allowed for thought experiments to become actual experiments.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| EmSeeD |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 11:36 PM | Message # 23 |
Heads
Posts: 11464
|
Quote (I_Guy) I agree, it is complex, but to answer it we have to incorporate psychological theories of behavior, and philosophical theories of mind, and then the philosophical theories of causes. Both harbor theories that conclude we have no control over our identity.
Psychological theories
-Behaviorism/Enviromentalism (nuture)
-Instinctivism (nature) i think i agree with this, our characteristics comes from our surroundings, but no one person experiences all exactly the same things right? or thinks in exactly the same way or the same things
http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Friday, 20/Nov/09, 0:12 AM | Message # 24 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
I_Guy, I agree. I'm not arguing that Dennett is correct. I would agree that his essay is fallacious for that reason, but his point isn't exactly refuted (though he didn't exactly develop it correctly) and for that reason it is worth considering it. Either way though, I am a follower of the double-aspect theory and so I believe that we are one substance (monism), however, there are two aspects to that one substance and one is the actual physical aspect and the other is the effect of the physical aspect reacting in a given environment and situation. If you want to debate me you will have to do so on these grounds, because I cannot speak for dualists. Most dualists believe in a God anyways and I don't, so you will have to ask sodr or maybe EmSeeD this question.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Friday, 20/Nov/09, 1:07 AM | Message # 25 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
I wouldn't debate the double-aspect theory. It's basically monism further defined.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Friday, 20/Nov/09, 2:57 AM | Message # 26 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Yeah, pretty much. Just wanted clarification as to whether you were opposed to what I was saying or not. Thanks.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Friday, 20/Nov/09, 4:04 AM | Message # 27 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
I should probably slap myself at this point. I have looked back through his article and I now realize that Dennett is not a dualist. In his article, his intent was not to suppose dualism. That is why he had the brain communicating with the body through physical instruments, basically to maintain and imitate the physical process found in the original state of the brain in the body. His real point was to investigate the concept of identity (which admittedly can be often criss-crossed with the mind-body problem). He was simply pointing out that by having two brains (an original one, and then a back up) and two bodies (the destroyed one, and then the replacement), that this conflicts with the common notion of identity. He was simply raising the question of "who is Dennett" by asking "where am I" if that which is known as him is in two places at once. So I erroneously concluded by viewing his article in the wrong way by expecting a subject that it did not cover. And that also explains why it is hard to discern rather he is a dualist or not from that article. It's hard to tell because that's not what it's telling. I suppose if he were to explain more straight forward then I wouldn't have had this problem. But yeah back to the original discussion of identity, I think as I now understand it, I do agree with Dennett. He seems to be suggesting that identity doesn't really exist as we normally think of it. I am inclined to think that no form of identity can be observed. Rather it be numerical identity or qualitative identity, it isn't really possible. It's just one more illusion to add to the list.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Friday, 20/Nov/09, 9:44 AM | Message # 28 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Yes, I agree. I wasn't saying that the article was about dualism but that rather it suggests a strange case that implies a sort of dualism. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. It is apparent from the article that, even if he isn't a dualist, he is making a case for dualism in explaining his problem of identity. Maybe this is intentional, maybe not. Either way, I would agree that identity is merely an illusion of sorts that cannot be quantified or discerned in any way.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Saturday, 21/Nov/09, 2:56 AM | Message # 29 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| ritesofpasage |
Date: Saturday, 21/Nov/09, 4:43 PM | Message # 30 |
DJs
Posts: 222
|
Do you believe identity exists?
- Yes Does it exist in it's natural state away from cultural influences?
- Yes, if you have ever seen a gay toddler with straight parents that's evidence enough How do you prove identity exists?
- If identity exists then perceptions of the same experiences can be different. Such as one baby eating ice cream and smiling another baby eating ice cream and frowning.
Check out my melody faithfulness is the fidelity of my soundtrack to that of the heavenlies.....
|
|
|
|
