Susan Blackmore:
Each illusory self is a construct of the
memetic world in which it successfully competes. Each selfplex gives rise to
ordinary human consciousness based on the false idea that there is something
inside that is in charge.
Steven Pinker:
Each illusory self is a construct of the
memetic world in which it successfully competes. Each selfplex gives rise to
ordinary human consciousness based on the false idea that there is something
inside that is in charge.
22 comments:
Each illusory self is a construct of the memetic world in which it successfully competes.
How can an "illusory self" do anything at all, much less compete? And BTW, who or what is having this illusion?
Victor,
Yes, continuing from the previous thread, a fascinating consideration indeed on naturalism.
This relates to what David Chalmers called the hard problem of consciousnesses, and Daniel Dennett says is not a problem at all.
Clearly, there is no single point in space that is me. Nor is the self static over time. Yet we all, presumably, I know I do, have a vivid sense of a unitary self, a first person awareness of the self, while in a conscious state.
But where does the self go when asleep, or knocked unconscious, or anesthetized into unconsciousness, or in a coma?
On naturalism, then, what we perceive as the self is simply one of many intermingled brain processes, a part of our network of networks ever working in our brains.
The brain persists in its processes, some arise, some subside. When the introspective observation process becomes active we experience the unitary self. When the introspective observation process is deactivated that sense of self ceases.
The perceived continuity of self is a continual readjustment of the perceived locus of all our self detectable brain processes. Each day that locus shifts a little as we grow, learn, forget, age, and change. Each new me is perhaps 99% similar to the old me, and is thus accepted as me. So, the perceived continuity of self can be accounted for, on naturalism, as a sort of dynamic set locus that allows for small changes day to day in the contents of the set while maintaining the basic label of the set as "me".
Some years ago on this site, I brought up The Brothers Karamazov as an example of the existence of non-material entities. It's absurd to deny that the novel exists, yet it does so independently of any physical construct. We can read it in a paperback, a hardcover, on an electronic device, or hear it read aloud, yet it remains the same novel.
The same goes for my own physical existence. Every 8 to 10 years or so, every last cell in my body, and every atom that makes up those cells, will have been replaced - often multiple times. Physically, I am not the same person who walked around 10 years ago using my name. But that is demonstrably not the case. (If it were, I'd love to see someone use it as a defense in a "cold case" murder trial. "Your Honor, I didn't kill him. I didn't exist back then. It was somebody else!")
So my personal identity is non-material. As C.S. Lewis (this is, after all, a blog about C.S. Lewis) wrote, "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body - for the time being." (or words to that effect)
Joe Sheffer is not here to correct you on this, so I am going to have to. That's not C. S. Lewis, it's Walter Miller from A Canticle for Leibowitz, which we all read back in our undergraduate days attending OSFFA meetings.
https://mereorthodoxy.com/you-dont-have-a-soul-cs-lewis-never-said-it/
But, more seriously, it seems to me that there have to be in existence unitary selves in existence in order for the rational and mathematical inferences necessary for science to take place. Some single entity has to entertain successive thoughts in order to, say, prove the Pythagorean Theorem, or infer natural selection from finch beaks on the Galapagos Islands. If there is no single, unitary being called Charles Darwin who observes the beaks, and then creates a theory to explain how the beaks turned out to be the way they are, then no one actually ever finds out that evolution is true. The materialism that is supposed to be based on the successes of the scientific enterprise is actually inconsistent with the possibility of science. It is as if science-lovers have forgotten that scientists have to exist in order to have science, and their materialism, taken to its logical conclusion, is the ultimate in science-denial. (Chesterton would love this).
I stand corrected.
What's even weirder is that A Canticle for Leibowitz is one of my favorite novels. But I haven't read it for a good many years now, and the quote does sound a bit like something Lewis (or Tolstoy) would have said.
(In Tolstoy's War and Peace, there's a scene where one of his characters has been denied permission to cross a road, and he laughingly says, "He wouldn't let me cross over? He wouldn't let my immortal soul cross over!")
OK,
OSFFA ≠ Oklahoma State Firefighters Association
OSFFA =Organized SF Fans of Arizona
I was scratching my head.
Starhopper
"It's absurd to deny that the novel exists"
A novel does not exist.
Paper and ink exist. Thoughts are processes of material that exists. A novel does not exist.
"We can read it in a paperback, a hardcover, on an electronic device, or hear it read aloud, yet it remains the same novel."
No it doesn't. Those are all different processes, although they are largely equivalent to each other in an abstract sense.
"So my personal identity is non-material"
Non-sequitur. The cells in your body are replaced slowly. Your sense of self remains the locus of this ever changing set.
Materialistic naturalism can easily account for the continuity of self.
Bmiller: Exactly right on OSFFA. Amazing.
Victor,
" If there is no single, unitary being called Charles Darwin who observes the beaks, and then creates a theory to explain how the beaks turned out to be the way they are, then no one actually ever finds out that evolution is true."
Charles Darwin, like all of us, had a brain that was a network of networks, or a highly complicated serial/parallel distributed processing system.
There was no single point in space that was Charles Darwin. When he slept he no longer had active conscious thoughts about evolution, or anything else, as other parts of his brain continued to function, but the self awareness processes were deactivated, as they are for all of us when we are unconscious for various reasons.
But there was a finite set of biological material that was Charles Darwin. The set changed continually over time as his cells lived and died, as he learned and aged and forgot, as we all do. But each day that set of cells and processes did not change much, so whatever small new part was assimilated to the whole, whatever was lost did not change the whole very much.
The continuity of self is a bit like the continuity of a nation state, even though the people come and go, laws change, borders change, still, each change is small relative to the whole, so day by day a chain of equivalence is maintained by approximation.
Let "I" mean me, who I am, the me of today and yesterday and tomorrow or any particular day.
Let "~" mean approximately equal, close enough to be considered the same sort of thing, close enough to so I can reset my present "I" to be considered as near enough to the previous "I" as to be thought of as the same "I".
I1~I2~I3~...~I36500
So, even if you live to be about 99 years old there is in your life an unbroken chain of equivalent yous. Each day of your life you consider the present day you as "I", even though In and In+1 are always slightly different.
"The materialism that is supposed to be based on the successes of the scientific enterprise is actually inconsistent with the possibility of science"
Not when materialism, naturalism, the mind, and science are all properly expressed and formulated.
Materialistic naturalism, properly expressed and formulated, has no circularity or self contradiction, none whatsoever.
Victor,
I am a researcher of ancient things you know ;-)
StardustyPsyche said...
A novel does not exist.
Paper and ink exist. Thoughts are processes of material that exists. A novel does not exist.
The mere fact that even those who have never read a paper copy of War and Peace can discuss it shows it has some sort of existence that is not paper and ink. It's one thing to say that this existence is dependent on physical media in whatever form, it's another to say that there is no existence.
The the material that made up the brain of Tolstoy exists. At that time very complex processes of that material in his brain lead to a series of symbols being placed on paper.
If Tolstoy had not written down his thoughts they would not exist today.
If an illiterate person picks up a copy of War and Peace nothing much happens.
There is no ghost in the book, no existent story, just a collection of material that means nothing to most people on Earth because most people on Earth cannot read that book, in any particular language.
For a person who can read the book the symbols will be interpreted in processes in a real existent brain. The book does not contain an existent thing called the story.
Human beings have various means to communicate. To communicate is to attempt to trigger in another person a particular sort of brain process. Communication is done using some sort of physical medium in a way that one estimates will be interpreted to begin certain sorts or brain processes in the other person.
There is no story in the air when I am telling a story, just molecules moving in pressure density patterns. The story does not somehow exist in the medium, be it light, or sound, or whatever material is arranged in various ways.
There is no ghost in the book.
I agree there is no ghost in the book. However, the story is not just some random collection of squiggles on paper.
Even by acknowledging the "attempt to trigger in another person a particular sort of brain process", you are already confirming that the process has an existence beyond the mere material that makes it up.
I hope I have not given the impression of proposing there is a "ghost in the book". My point is that, as with the car analogy, that by assembling parts (in the case of The Brothers Karamazov these parts are words, which are in turn an assemblage of phonemes) in a very specific manner, one arrives at an entity which is both different from and greater than the sum of the parts. And these entities are real, existent things. To deny the reality and independent existence of a novel is the same thing as claiming there are no such things as automobiles.
Stardusty sees all the chemical and electrical processes that make up consciousness and the self, yet denies that when assembled, anything greater than the processes exists. It's like saying that Van Gogh's Starry Night is nothing more than paint smeared onto a canvas and the light rays reflected off of it. Yes, it is all those things, but nevertheless still so much more.
" Van Gogh's Starry Night is nothing more than paint smeared onto a canvas and the light rays reflected off of it. Yes, it is all those things, but nevertheless still so much more. "
No, nothing more exists than the material that makes up the paint and the canvas.
Light rays reflecting is a process. Turn off the lights and all no picture is visible.
The only thing that exists when the lights are off is the material that makes up the paint and the canvas.
The whole is never more than the sum of the parts.
There is no existent novel in a book just as there is no existent star in the painting.
StardustyPsyche said...
There is no existent novel in a book just as there is no existent star in the painting.
If there is no novel, how can there be a discussion of the characters or ideas within that which does not exist?
Because the ideas do not exist in the book. The symbols in the book result in different ideas for different people.
The ideas the author sought to represent with symbols were processes of real material in the author's brain.
Your ideas are processes of real material in your brain.
The symbols in the book are essentially static arrangements of real material.
The author hopes that by placing symbols in a particular order you will experience a series processes of material in your brain as you view those symbols. That may or may not happen, and almost certainly happens differently for each person.
A book is somewhat like the plaque on the voyager spacecraft. Nobody knows what an extraterrestrial individual would be thinking should such a being ever view that plaque. For us, the authors, it is intended to provide a description of who we are and what we look like and the sorts of things we think about. But who knows what the view of the plaque will think?
The symbols only have meaning in the context of the brain of the reader, and for most of humanity who cannot read the symbols that are scrambled gibberish.
StardustyPsyche said...
Because the ideas do not exist in the book. The symbols in the book result in different ideas for different people.
Difference in interpretation does not mean there are no ideas. You might as well claim there are no evolutionary processes because different people interpret how they work differently.
The ideas the author sought to represent with symbols were processes of real material in the author's brain.
Your ideas are processes of real material in your brain.
The symbols in the book are essentially static arrangements of real material.
This is all true.
The author hopes that by placing symbols in a particular order you will experience a series processes of material in your brain as you view those symbols. That may or may not happen, and almost certainly happens differently for each person.
The author hopes for more than some random assortment of a series of processes. It's a series of processes that generate specific feelings, thoughts, etc. If this were not the case, there could be no good writers nor bad writers, because there could be no goal in the writing.
A book is somewhat like the plaque on the voyager spacecraft. Nobody knows what an extraterrestrial individual would be thinking should such a being ever view that plaque. For us, the authors, it is intended to provide a description of who we are and what we look like and the sorts of things we think about. But who knows what the view of the plaque will think?
The symbols only have meaning in the context of the brain of the reader, and for most of humanity who cannot read the symbols that are scrambled gibberish.
If you were to say ",,, have meaning that can be extracted in the context of the brain ...", I would again agree.
As a point of levity, I briefly misread Stardusty's comments as being about the "plague on the voyager spacecraft", rather than the "plaque". Had me quite confused for a minute.
Could happen!, you know, sort of like an old sci-fi movie, only we are the ones infecting an extraterrestrial world with some uncontrollable pathogen. NASA might try to sterilize some space probes but maybe some deadly virus would be cryogenically preserved in space.
"maybe some deadly virus would be cryogenically preserved in space"
It's already happened!
When Apollo 12 astronauts brought back to the Earth pieces of the unmanned Surveyor spacecraft that had landed on the Moon more than 2 years before them, scientists were astounded to find on them bacteria still alive after such a long exposure to the vacuum of space, the extreme temperatures of the lunar surface, and what were thought to be lethal doses of solar and cosmic radiation.
Post a Comment