Do people need temporal parts to have persistence of self

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

One of the best answers I have seen, so far, for where "self" comes from is a book called Self Comes to Mind by Antonio Damasio. In it, he describes an evolutionary pathway for neurons to map different types of "self" over time, layering on top of each other, until we gain the ability to sustain what he calls the "autobiographical self" we seem to be talking about.

Sounds interesting.

I'd also recommend Julian Baggini's The Ego Trick, who proposes that our self is a "bundle" of ever-changing memories, experiences and opinions, not a fixed and constant "pearl".

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ego-Trick-.../dp/1847081924

[levi]

According to Julian Baggini am I different person everytime I change?
For example say I exist right now because I change a little bit because of an experience does that make me 2 people or one persistent individual?

If we do not have peristence what about numberical identity you are not 1 thing rather than 2. I am not saying you have to be exactly the same which is qualitive identity just that you are 1 thing.

There is an entire article here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/.

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by levi

According to Julian Baggini am I different person everytime I change?
For example say I exist right now because I change a little bit because of an experience does that make me 2 people or one persistent individual?

If we do not have peristence what about numberical identity you are not 1 thing rather than 2. I am not saying you have to be exactly the same which is qualitive identity just that you are 1 thing.

There is an entire article here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/.

no, your interpretation is invalid.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by levi

According to Julian Baggini am I different person everytime I change?
For example say I exist right now because I change a little bit because of an experience does that make me 2 people or one persistent individual?

If we do not have peristence what about numberical identity you are not 1 thing rather than 2. I am not saying you have to be exactly the same which is qualitive identity just that you are 1 thing.

There is an entire article here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/.

According to Bilbo Baggins orcs are trolls which makes them not one, but two, two, two mints in one!!!


And, speaking of pares, would you rather be a number one or a number two?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by levi

According to Julian Baggini am I different person everytime I change?

No, you stay the same no matter how often you change your clothes.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

no, your interpretation is invalid.

And bizarre.

[levi]

Why is everyone making jokes. I asked a question. According to the book that Julian Baggini wrote does a person have persistence when it comes to personal identity?

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by levi

Why is everyone making jokes. I asked a question. According to the book that Julian Baggini wrote does a person have persistence when it comes to personal identity?

This is a less bizarre question.

A person may think their self is unchanging, but that doesn't mean it is.

For example, a person may think they are incurably depressed, but thinking that way doesn't help them help themselves.

Or, a person may define themselves by their job. What happens when their firm goes under, or when they retire?

Are you really the same person you were when you were 10? When you were 20?

[Rairun]

Originally Posted by levi

Why is everyone making jokes. I asked a question. According to the book that Julian Baggini wrote does a person have persistence when it comes to personal identity?

Past_levi and Present_levi can be either two different people or the same one, depending on how you define personhood. Human beings, at least in the cultures I'm familiar with, tend to define personhood in terms of a narrative. In fact, it takes a philosopher (or someone interested in philosophy) to come along and say there is no such a thing as self-continuity, or at least that self-continuity is a product of the way we conceive the world.

In other words, there is no central, inherent "self". But if you define it as the self-referential processes inside the brain that allow us to function and think of ourselves in terms of a persistent self, then it exists.

[levi]

Are you saying that we don`t have continuity according to the book and it is an illusion created by the brain? Sorry I am a little on the dumb side and need things explained simply.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by levi

Are you saying that we don`t have continuity according to the book and it is an illusion created by the brain? Sorry I am a little on the dumb side and need things explained simply.

Sometimes there is continuity, and then something may happen to change us.

A traumatic event, a nice one, something we read, somewhere we go.

Events, ideas, people change us all the time, or many of us.

Some people won't change their minds about anything. I'm sure you've met those sorts.

Keep asking questions, levi, if you need to. This is an interesting discussion.

[marplots]

Part of who I am now is a sense of what I have been.

I do not think that is illusory, if only because I can see things I've written or done in the past and recognize that I did them. If you want to argue that the current version of me is different in some detail than that previous one, I'd only say that you are right, but it is swamped by how much isn't different.

Further, you should think about how much of what makes me, me isn't actually part of me. I mean my role as father, employee, taxpayer and so on. There are many constants available that don't rely on my internal workings. As much as I am shaped by biology and entropy, I am simultaneously shaped by reacting to outside events and context.

"Is this the same river I crossed yesterday?"
"Well, all the water is different, there's no disputing that part. But it's still running in the same general place and it's still just as wet."

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by marplots

Part of who I am now is a sense of what I have been.

I do not think that is illusory, if only because I can see things I've written or done in the past and recognize that I did them. If you want to argue that the current version of me is different in some detail than that previous one, I'd only say that you are right, but it is swamped by how much isn't different.

Further, you should think about how much of what makes me, me isn't actually part of me. I mean my role as father, employee, taxpayer and so on. There are many constants available that don't rely on my internal workings. As much as I am shaped by biology and entropy, I am simultaneously shaped by reacting to outside events and context.

"Is this the same river I crossed yesterday?"
"Well, all the water is different, there's no disputing that part. But it's still running in the same general place and it's still just as wet."

... and the river is still a river when there's no water flowing along it - the river is not the water

However, this thread has caused me to wonder why the question was posed by the OP. It would have taken 10 seconds to Wiki "mereological nihilism", which would probably also have answered the original question (or at least given rise to explaining why there was a question in the first place).

Sooooo... what question was "mereological nihilism" and persistence of self an answer to, and what is going to be done with the results?

[Rairun]

Originally Posted by marplots

"Is this the same river I crossed yesterday?"
"Well, all the water is different, there's no disputing that part. But it's still running in the same general place and it's still just as wet."

I think this is a slightly different problem, though. The river scenario is a variant of the Ship of Theseus. I believe most people accept that what counts is a specific arrangement of parts, not the parts themselves (as long as the change is gradual). Most of our cells die and are replaced over the years, and we don't think that makes us new people.

But as far as I can tell, here we are talking about a change in the arrangement. If there is a landslide and the river is slightly diverted, is it still the same river? If the government chose to divert the river to a completely different region for irrigation, would it still be the same river? How far can a thing change and still be the same thing? The answer is that this is an arbitrary line to draw. Whenever something changes, even if only slightly, it becomes a new thing - and then we decide whether the new thing is different enough to merit the label "new".

With people, this is particularly interesting because we are capable of thought. We are able to remember the past. Over time, our parts change, and the arrangement of parts changes too, sometimes radically - but there are stored memories and a self-narrative in the brain which includes past events. In one sense, the self is illusory (it's an arbitrary construction, like a river); but in another sense, this web of illusion is the self.

[arthwollipot]

Technically, I think I am the same person now that I was when I was 21. I have had continuous awareness the entire time. What I think and how I think have changed in that time, but that doesn't mean I'm a different person.

[baron]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Technically, I think I am the same person now that I was when I was 21. I have had continuous awareness the entire time.

You've not slept since you were 21?

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by levi

Why is everyone making jokes. I asked a question. According to the book that Julian Baggini wrote does a person have persistence when it comes to personal identity?

I have not (and will not ) read the book. I do not (anymore) read books wherein persons with no scientific background write things that come out of their heads rather randomly. Since I have not read the book I cannot verify that he wrote that, but it really does not matter whether he did or not as there is no kind of scientific (or other) evidence for that claim. That lack of evidence kind of precludes any reasonable discussion!!

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by baron

You've not slept since you were 21?

You think I became a different person in my sleep?

[marplots]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You think I became a different person in my sleep?

I think you did.
The lasers shooting out of your eyes used to be green.

[Rairun]

Originally Posted by fuelair

I have not (and will not ) read the book. I do not (anymore) read books wherein persons with no scientific background write things that come out of their heads rather randomly. Since I have not read the book I cannot verify that he wrote that, but it really does not matter whether he did or not as there is no kind of scientific (or other) evidence for that claim. That lack of evidence kind of precludes any reasonable discussion!!

I haven't read the book either, but to be honest, philosophy isn't completely useless. You can't go around looking for evidence and doing all sorts of random experiments in hopes of figuring out whether the self is persistent or not - you first have to come up with a logically consistent definition of "self". This goes for a lot of other things as well. For instance, science can't answer questions like "when does life begin?" if "life" is an ill-defined concept. At its best, philosophy helps us organize our thinking so that the scientific method can be carried out.

[Rairun]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Technically, I think I am the same person now that I was when I was 21. I have had continuous awareness the entire time. What I think and how I think have changed in that time, but that doesn't mean I'm a different person.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly you're saying here. When you say "that doesn't mean I'm a different person", what is your definition of "person"? You said it doesn't have anything to do with what you think nor how you think, so what constitutes "you" here? What is it that remains the same?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Rairun

I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly you're saying here. When you say "that doesn't mean I'm a different person", what is your definition of "person"? You said it doesn't have anything to do with what you think nor how you think, so what constitutes "you" here? What is it that remains the same?

Me. I remain me. I have been me for my entire life. I was born me, I grew up me, and I am still me now.

[Rairun]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Me. I remain me. I have been me for my entire life. I was born me, I grew up me, and I am still me now.

All you're doing is restating what you said earlier. Don't get me wrong, this sort of language is perfectly understandable when we are dealing with practical, day-to-day stuff - but it's not enough when you are trying to unpack the concept and figure out what exactly it entails. If you are not interested in the subject, that's fine, but it's kind of disingenuous to do this as if it weren't an issue worth of discussion.

What you're doing is akin to reading a transporter thread and posting, "The original is ME because it's ME. The copy isn't me because it's NOT!" - and then refusing to elaborate.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Rairun

All you're doing is restating what you said earlier. Don't get me wrong, this sort of language is perfectly understandable when we are dealing with practical, day-to-day stuff - but it's not enough when you are trying to unpack the concept and figure out what exactly it entails. If you are not interested in the subject, that's fine, but it's kind of disingenuous to do this as if it weren't an issue worth of discussion.

What you're doing is akin to reading a transporter thread and posting, "The original is ME because it's ME. The copy isn't me because it's NOT!" - and then refusing to elaborate.

*sigh* Okay. If you want to get down to it, I can mentally masturbate as much as anyone else.

What I mean by "me" is the sense of self that I have, which is a product of all my prior experiences, thoughts and feelings. I am not now a different person than I was twenty years ago, because my personality today is totally dependent on what my personality was then - in the form of memories. The memories I have inform the person that I am today, to the extent that it is only without them that I would consider myself to be a different person. The idea of being a "different person" at different stages of life to me is utterly nonsensical. The only way I could be a different person is if I were born to different parents, had a different childhood, a different career, in short, was a different person. All the things that have come before have gone into making me. The only way I couldn't be me is if all those things were different.

"Me" is the sum of all the perceptions, experiences, thoughts and feelings that this body and this brain have been subjected to over the past forty-two and a half years. It can't possibly be anything else.

Sure, there are things I did when I was younger that I wouldn't do now. That doesn't mean a different person was doing them. I remember doing those things. It was me doing them. The experiences I've had since then would make me do things differently today. I embarrassed myself by falling flat on my face in a busy shopping centre when I was twelve. It wasn't someone else, it was me. I sang "Hey Jude" very badly in front of a huge audience when I was sixteen. It wasn't someone else, it was me. Much though I would like it to have been someone else, there's no way I can claim it was, because I remember doing it.

If that continuity of memory doesn't constitute the self - "me-ness" - then I don't know what does. Theseus' ship is still Theseus' ship. It would be absurd to claim - in practical, day-to-day terms - that it is not.

[Hokulele]

Arth, my grandmother suffers from Alzheimer's, and her memories are gradually being destroyed. By your definition, is she still her?

[baron]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You think I became a different person in my sleep?

Arguably, but that's an aside. What you said is that you had 'continuous awareness' since you were 21. This is not correct because you lose awareness several times a night.

It's an obviously convenient construct to label the self 'I' and say it's the same today as last week but beyond that it doesn't mean a great deal. If you were vaporised in your sleep and replaced with an exact clone, that clone would say the same things you're saying and with equal passion.

[levi]

Just because you don't have continuous consiousness doesn't mean you have died. You can regain consiousness at any time by being woken up. And with a coma you have the possibility of regaining consiousness in some cases of a coma.

Shelly Kagan has an yale open course called death where he discusess sleep and a coma in one of his videos. Is he credible?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Arth, my grandmother suffers from Alzheimer's, and her memories are gradually being destroyed. By your definition, is she still her?

That's definitely a grey area, I'll admit. I'd say yes, she is arguably the same person, even if she needs a power of attorney to have decisions made on her behalf.

Originally Posted by baron

Arguably, but that's an aside. What you said is that you had 'continuous awareness' since you were 21. This is not correct because you lose awareness several times a night.

Yes, you're absolutely pedantic. I mean right. You're absolutely right.

[levi]

Personal identity just comes down to opinion? Some people will say we don't and others will say we do. There is no right answer?

Now to add to this question, I asked for a scientific answer here http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=610483

The answer I got was that there are 2 main theories. Relativity and quantum mechanics. In relativity space is equal to time otherwise known as space-time and it causes there to be 4 dimensional objects. And in quantum mechanics there is only probability and time doesn't affect the outcome because of quantum randomness. And then it goes on to deal with humans because humans have perceptions this changes the answer in quantum mechanics? Even in quantum mechanics humans can have peristence. Is this summary accurate?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by levi

The answer I got was that there are 2 main theories. Relativity and quantum mechanics. In relativity space is equal to time otherwise known as space-time and it causes there to be 4 dimensional objects. And in quantum mechanics there is only probability and time doesn't affect the outcome because of quantum randomness. And then it goes on to deal with humans because humans have perceptions this changes the answer in quantum mechanics? Even in quantum mechanics humans can have peristence. Is this summary accurate?

I'm not entirely sure exactly what relativity OR quantum mechanics have to do with the continuity of the self.

As I understand it, and I am not an expert, quantum mechanics describes a superposition of states collapsing under observation, but I honestly can't see the relevance to the previous discussion.

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by levi

Personal identity just comes down to opinion? Some people will say we don't and others will say we do. There is no right answer?

Now to add to this question, I asked for a scientific answer here http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=610483

The answer I got was that there are 2 main theories. Relativity and quantum mechanics. In relativity space is equal to time otherwise known as space-time and it causes there to be 4 dimensional objects. And in quantum mechanics there is only probability and time doesn't affect the outcome because of quantum randomness. And then it goes on to deal with humans because humans have perceptions this changes the answer in quantum mechanics? Even in quantum mechanics humans can have peristence. Is this summary accurate?

No your summary is not accurate, because your referenced link is not what you claimed it was.

You asked an entirely different question on that forum, specifically:

Quote:

Does Time Exist?
Are there 3 dimenionsional objects that exist for a moment and cease to exist everytime they change or are they 4 dimenionsional objects that persists because time exists? To better illustrate imagine a timeline, I today don`t know the answer and I later kow the answer. Opposed to the idea that I am 2 people because of these 2 events. I can here because I want science answer. What does science have to say?

[baron]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

That's definitely a grey area, I'll admit. I'd say yes, she is arguably the same person, even if she needs a power of attorney to have decisions made on her behalf.

Yes, you're absolutely pedantic. I mean right. You're absolutely right.

How is it pedantic? In what way could your statement possibly be true, even given the broadest of interpretations? If you wanted to ask whether you were the same person day-to-day then that would necessitate a different answer, but seeing as you didn't and instead made a claim that's demonstrably false on all levels you can't expect it to be accepted.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

That's definitely a grey area, I'll admit. I'd say yes, she is arguably the same person, even if she needs a power of attorney to have decisions made on her behalf.

Then the next step would be, would someone who has suffered a traumatic brain injury be considered "the same person"? I ask this question because it was something that featured heavily in the book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks. By the way, if you haven't read that book, I highly recommend it.

I would argue that the "persistence of self" is a subjective issue, not an objective one, so all this talk about scientific evidence and temporal parts is just nonsense. I can see my grandmother as being the same person, but she may not.

[baron]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Then the next step would be, would someone who has suffered a traumatic brain injury be considered "the same person"? I ask this question because it was something that featured heavily in the book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks. By the way, if you haven't read that book, I highly recommend it.

Yep, an excellent book (all books by OS are well worth a read). Regarding the brain injury, and in keeping with the sleep theme, a more common parallel can be drawn from sleepwalking. A person might behave completely at odds with their normal traits and the next morning have no memory of the event, yet at the time exhibit interaction and motor skills typical of a conscious person. Like the brain injury issue, and other examples such as multiple personality syndrome, fugues and drug ingestion, this helps demonstrate that the concept of 'I' has no objective reality.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by levi

Why is everyone making jokes. I asked a question. According to the book that Julian Baggini wrote does a person have persistence when it comes to personal identity?

.
Many books on these subjects are nonsense.
The author may or may not know it's nonsense.
If he knows, then he's just preying on the insecure with a publication full of gibberish.
CT is rife with this stuff, as is philosophy.
.
The answers here are telling you it's nonsense.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You think I became a different person in my sleep?

.
I do!
I've slid on my feet the 95 miles to Bakersfield any number of times!
Really -the- way to travel.
Awake, it's surface or air transportation, without the excitement of the events of the dream.
Of course, I wonder why Bakersfield, no one wants to go there, but that's where I end up.

[levi]

So persistence of personal identity comes down to opinion. Correct?

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by levi

So persistence of personal identity comes down to opinion. Correct?

.
No, reality.
You are what you are, even when you're asleep.
The only "opinion" involved would be that of others, as they see you.

[levi]

The link I posted is it not the same question? Without persistence for humans you either cease to survive your adventure or another definition of no persistence for humans is you are 2 separately existing people over time.

So does science have an answer to the persistence of humans? Or does it appear to vary case by case or is it a matter of opinion and some people will say yes and others will say no?

I am not the one to critize someone about grammer but I can't understand I Ratant previous post.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by baron

Yep, an excellent book (all books by OS are well worth a read). Regarding the brain injury, and in keeping with the sleep theme, a more common parallel can be drawn from sleepwalking. A person might behave completely at odds with their normal traits and the next morning have no memory of the event, yet at the time exhibit interaction and motor skills typical of a conscious person. Like the brain injury issue, and other examples such as multiple personality syndrome, fugues and drug ingestion, this helps demonstrate that the concept of 'I' has no objective reality.

Exactly. I got into Sacks after reading Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain, which is an excellent introduction to neuroscience, as it was understood back when the book was written. Ichneumonwasp, who sadly doesn't post here any longer, is in the field and made several other recommendations, mostly at the college textbook level. "I", like "free will", is a useful illusion, but that is about it.