Do people need temporal parts to have persistence of self

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by 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.

.
Grammer's in the kitchen making cookies...
"persistence for humans" is no different than "persistence for ants".
Ever tried to smunch an ant and missed?
It runs all over the place trying to "persist".
Everything alive makes every effort it is capable of to "persist".
There's only one person in your skin.
One.
These "self-help" "enlightenment" books are just food for the imagination, not really anything of substance. Their purpose is for the "persistence" of the author, nothing more.

[levi]

Sorry for sounding like a broken record to confirm peristence of self is a opinion?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by levi

Sorry for sounding like a broken record to confirm peristence of self is a opinion?

No, just a fact. We all persist until we die and then we stop persisting.

[levi]

Why did a few members say that humans do not have persistence of personal identity? And everyone knows what I mean when I say persistence?

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by levi

Why did a few members say that humans do not have persistence of personal identity? And everyone knows what I mean when I say persistence?

Because your second sentence is not true, the answers vary depending on the definition of the key word.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by levi

Why did a few members say that humans do not have persistence of personal identity? And everyone knows what I mean when I say persistence?

You certainly are persistent.

[Kid Eager]

Why is it important to you that everybody have the same opinion about the topic?

[levi]

How do I know which answer is correct if there are different answers?

[I Ratant]

Because every responder is an individual with their unique viewpoints of the world.
Total agreement on anything would be unusual... and very suspect as to motivation.
It's up to to you to finger out which makes the most sense.... to you.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by levi

How do I know which answer is correct if there are different answers?

Why do you believe there must be only one correct answer?

[I Ratant]

Ever Kipled?..
"There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
"And—every—single—one—of—them—is—right!"

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

Ever Kipled?..
"There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
"And—every—single—one—of—them—is—right!"

-10 points to Hufflepuff for maliciously verbing a noun (or a name. whatever. you're bad and you know it. just take it...)

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

-10 points to Hufflepuff for maliciously verbing a noun (or a name. whatever. you're bad and you know it. just take it...)

.
I know.
I'se sorry...
(No I ain't)

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by baron

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.

It was pedantic because it was a nitpick on the literal meaning of my words. It was perfectly clear what I was talking about.

If I disagree with you because I made a statement rather than a claim, that's the same thing. I know what you mean despite what your words literally say. Nitpicking when my meaning was obvious was pedantic.

[levi]

Another question if everything can't be predicted before an event, for example in quantum mechanics does that change the answers of persistence of personal identity?

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by levi

Another question if everything can't be predicted before an event, for example in quantum mechanics does that change the answers of persistence of personal identity?

In what way would that change the answer? How would uncertainty of future outcome affect persistence? As you're only assessing persistence in retrospect, it makes no difference.

You are here. You didn't know what I was going to post. You react to it. Here you are again. See - you're persistent.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by levi

Another question if everything can't be predicted before an event, for example in quantum mechanics does that change the answers of persistence of personal identity?

.
The premise is flawed.
Things are predicted, and come to pass.
Tomorrow is going to be Saturday.
The sun will set in the west today, Friday.
Even the weather man on tv is getting more accurate as the profession gains experience.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by levi

Another question if everything can't be predicted before an event, for example in quantum mechanics does that change the answers of persistence of personal identity?

Only if you are a multi-persona schizophrenic.

[levi]

When I say the term of peristence of self past levi and present levi are the same person as opposed to 2 different people or to phrase it another way you do not survive a change to yourself.

And quantum mechanics does not affect persistence of self. Correct?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by levi

When I say the term of peristence of self past levi and present levi are the same person as opposed to 2 different people or to phrase it another way you do not survive a change to yourself.

And quantum mechanics does not affect persistence of self. Correct?

Try reading some books about quantum physics.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by levi

When I say the term of peristence of self past levi and present levi are the same person as opposed to 2 different people or to phrase it another way you do not survive a change to yourself.

And quantum mechanics does not affect persistence of self. Correct?

Only if the change involves dying.

[levi]

And quantum mechanics does not affect persistence of self?

Past levi and present levi are the same person as opposed to 2 different people. Correct?

[I Ratant]

You've been ensorceled by woosters peddling the uncertainties and unknowns of q.t. as the sources of the boojums and will-of-the-wisps of legend and myth.
Understanding q.t. to a useable extent requires a lot of education in the sciences.
Getting sidetracked and misled by semantic silliness such as imputing anything viable to "persistence" is a waste of time.
It's misusing the word.
Typical of the wooster.

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by levi

And quantum mechanics does not affect persistence of self?

Why is the phrase "quantum mechanics" even in that sentence? Why are you looking for an answer that has "quantum mechanics" in it?

Do the following affect persistence of self?.....

• Gravity
• Treacle
• Raffia
• Morris Dancing
• Spoons
• Mime
• Cabbage
• Atoms
• Eels
• Electricity

[rocketdodger]

Yes, we do.

Our persistence of self is a series of snapshots, that requires time to progress. A single snapshot by itself is nothing.

We don't need temporal parts per se, but something "temporal" has to be sequencing the snapshots.

Originally Posted by levi

Also what is mereological nihilism?

It's like, if you told someone "hey look at that cute girl" and he said "what girl, all I see are masses of biological cells, which aren't anything more than collections of particles. There is nothing but particles."

Then you could be like "ummm, ok, but don't you want to jump on that collection of particles?" And he would be like "well, yeah" and then the conversation would be over, and maybe one of you would get laid.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by levi

And quantum mechanics does not affect persistence of self?

Past levi and present levi are the same person as opposed to 2 different people. Correct?

Two different people if you change your name legally.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

These "self-help" "enlightenment" books are just food for the imagination, not really anything of substance. Their purpose is for the "persistence" of the author, nothing more.

If you're talking about the Julian Baggini book I recommended it is not a "self-help" book.

He's a philosopher, atheist and critical thinker.

I also highly recommend his The Duck That Won the Lottery which presents 100 different logical fallacies and discusses them using examples from recent current events and popular culture.

Getting back to the topic, it seems people are talking about several very different things:

The Self.
A Person.
Identity.
I / Me.

It would help if we just concentrated on the self.

[Orphia Nay]

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?

Glad you brought this up.

The Ego Trick discusses how diseases/disorders such as dementia affect the self. It also looks at neuroscience and brain damage. Plus, it looks at people who have had gender reassignment surgery. These are all ways in which a person changes physically, and inspires us to wonder if the person is the same person.

The person physically may change but think the same as they did before. Or, the body remains the same but the brain has changed. The trick is to see how the self is a bundle that adds and subtracts as time passes and things change.

"The unity and permanence we feel over time largely depends on our ability to construct an autobiographical narrative that links our experiences over time. But individual experiences and sense of self at any particular time can vary enormously. What is more, the autobiographical self is very good at self-revision. In effect, we are constantly rewriting our histories to keep our inner autobiographies coherent."

The book concludes that the self is not a fixed pearl that remains constant throughout life.

"The pearl view has become so deep-rooted that we cannot see that it deserves to be cast before swine after all. Messy, complicated, amorphous bundles are more remarkable and more human than cold, hard gems."

[I Ratant]

However one may change their perceptions of their self over time, there's still just that one person, with (or without) a continuous memory of the experiences that have occurred in the past.

[levi]

What source do people use to come up with there answers?

Also a self does exist? I think mereological says a self doesn't exist. Is thIs correct?

[I Ratant]

Woosters can and do say anything.
Anything to get the bux in the collection plate.
Of course there's a "self".
You have yours I have mine.
We know this.
Shoot, I have attracted the attention of a family of ravens, after getting too up close and personal with a juvenile just out of the nest, a week ago.
I cannot leave the house and walk past where the family is without their taking off and flying towards and at me, yelling their heads off, at my "self".
It exists external to me, as witnessed by these birds.
Every day this week they've flown by and yelled at me.
They ignore other people walking by, and every time I do, they take wing and come to me.

[levi]

The self existing may be quite an easy thing to prove but what source or evidence does anyone have that there view on persistence of self and that philosophy is bunk?

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by levi

The self existing may be quite an easy thing to prove but what source or evidence does anyone have that there view on persistence of self and that philosophy is bunk?

.
From Square One, most if not all philosophy is bunk.
It's quite difficult to find any philosophy that is workable in the real world, without modifying some its basic concepts.
When it comes to personal images, then it's every man for himself.
Hitching your sel- idea to some baseless premise... no reason why you can't but there's no reason why you should.

[levi]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.


When it comes to personal images, then it's every man for himself.
Hitching your sel- idea to some baseless premise... no reason why you can't but there's no reason why you should.

What does personal image have to do with anything? Do you mean persistence of self?
And how is this attaching yourself to a baseless premise. Isn't there any scientific answer that can answer this question?


Can you give an example of a philosophy that doesn't work in the real world?

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by levi

What does personal image have to do with anything?
And how is this attaching yourself to a baseless premise. Isn't there any scientific answer that can answer this question?


Can you give an example of a philosophy that doesn't work in the real world?

.
Other than all of them?
Try the Golden Rule.
It implies that because we imprison lawbreakers, we wish ourselves to be imprisoned when we break the law.
Do we?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Sounds wonderful.
But some people have "needs" that cause them to do things to the others to get what they consider their share of the goodies.
Go to the Science section of the bookstore, not the newage section and pick up "The Seekers", by Boorstin, "The Story of Man's Continuing Quest to Understanding His World".. without a single invented word to mislead anyone.
Starts with Moses, finishes with Einstein.
And makes no absolute evaluations of anything.

[levi]

I Rantant you still have not given evidence for persistence of self. Is there any evidence?

Thanks

I will also read the books when I get them.

Just to ask someone beside an answer by I Rantant in this paragraph, "The Seekers", by Boorstin, is it a good book? Does it have accurate premises?

[I Ratant]

Everything in the bag of skin that is me comes along with me when I move around.
Very persistent!
MOF I'd be less of a man if some parts opted off before, during or after a trip.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Originally Posted by levi

Also what is mereological nihilism?

It's like mereological Calvinism, but without the jokes.

[I Ratant]

Boorstin has also authored "The Discoverers... A History of Man's Search to Know His World and Himself"...
And "The Creators, A History of Heroes of the Imagination".. my copy has 777 pages, without considering the index!

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by levi

When I say the term of peristence of self past levi and present levi are the same person as opposed to 2 different people or to phrase it another way you do not survive a change to yourself.

And quantum mechanics does not affect persistence of self. Correct?

Again, some parts of Levi will be the same, ie calcium atoms in your bones, other parts are not the same, such as the majority of H₂O in your body.

Whether you like it or not the 'persistence of self' is only in your body, it is not the same moment to moment in many ways.

Most of our memories is incorrect and a kludge, the 'self' does not exist. There is a body that does exist.

Think about it.

Does it bother you that the body is all that exists?