The atom and the I: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » The atom and the I » The atom and the I

The atom and the I

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

The atom and the I

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2140

Posted 11/06/09 - 05:07 AM:	#31
wuliheron wrote: Dictionary.com wrote: intuition –noun 1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension. 2. a fact, truth, etc., perceived in this way. 3. a keen and quick insight. 4. the quality or ability of having such direct perception or quick insight. 5. Philosophy. a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a previous cognition of the same object. b. any object or truth so discerned. c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge. Seems to me that the belief that the earth is flat is indeed a "keen and quick insight".
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5580

Posted 11/06/09 - 06:47 AM:	#32
Is it the case that “you” in fact remains “you”? If “you” were to wake up tomorrow as “somebody else” (with all the memories of that somebody else), how would you actually know that “you” had transferred? How could you possibly tell? Not at all and hence it is not worthy thinking about it. It really doesn't matter. The question “what causes me to remain me” therefore is not well framed, because you do not in fact know for certain that “you remain you” – you simply assume that you remain you. Nor do I know for certain that I am not butterfly that is dreaming he is Tobias, but does that imply I have to introduce myself to others with the provisio that I might be a butterfly? You have experiences right? Well than tell me, who has those experiences? I suggest that the notion that “you remain you” is one of those intuitions, which may be false. And I suggest it is impossible that it is false. Even if I would be in fact someone else, I still recognise the experience as mine and not as someone elses. I am I whoever I might be. Did you ever hit your head and thought "hmm, I hit my head, but wait a minute, perhaps someone else hitted is head and it wasn't me?"
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2140

Posted 11/06/09 - 07:05 AM:	#33
Tobias wrote: You have experiences right? Well than tell me, who has those experiences? I am defined by my experiences. My experiences define who and what I am. Sans experience, there is no "me". There is not a separate "me" (homunculus) which is somehow independent of "my experiences" and then this homunculus somehow "has those experiences" like an audience in a cartesian theatre - that's absurd. This is why the question "what causes me to remain me" is nonsensical. Tobias wrote: And I suggest it is impossible that it is false. Even if I would be in fact someone else, I still recognise the experience as mine and not as someone elses. I am I whoever I might be. It is not something that permits of a true or false answer, its an absurd question. Since your experiences define who and what you are, it is logically impossible for you to have someone else's experiences. How can you logically "be someone else"? Its like saying "I'm not here, I'm somewhere else". The notion that "you" could be "someone else" betrays a dualistic thinking, or an adherence to an homunculus interpretation of consciousness. Tobias wrote: Did you ever hit your head and thought "hmm, I hit my head, but wait a minute, perhaps someone else hitted is head and it wasn't me?" No, I didn't - but don't you see that this is exactly the absurdity that YOU are suggesting with the absurd notion that "I could be someone else".
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5580

Posted 11/06/09 - 07:51 AM:	#34
I am defined by my experiences. My experiences define who and what I am. Sans experience, there is no "me". Wthout a me there is also no experience, because you would lack the connection of events which makes an event an experience to begin with. There is not a separate "me" (homunculus) which is somehow independent of "my experiences" and then this homunculus somehow "has those experiences" like an audience in a cartesian theatre - that's absurd. This is why the question "what causes me to remain me" is nonsensical I agree there is no homunculus, but because I am the connection between events and the one who makes an event an 'experience', it is logically prior to the experience, at least as possibility. Hence the question what the structures (categories) are of the one that experiences is not an absurd question. Difficult yes, absurd no, but it is not my question in this thread at all actually. It is not something that permits of a true or false answer, its an absurd question. So you think my utteran "I remember writing a post on PF" is somehow tainted with absurdity because there is such an absurd notion as "I"in it? Since your experiences define who and what you are Circular. My experience define who I am but than they have to be my experiences to begin with right? How can they if I am not there? It is logically impossible for you to have someone else's experiences. How can you logically "be someone else"? Its like saying "I'm not here, I'm somewhere else". The notion that "you" could be "someone else" betrays a dualistic thinking, or an adherence to an homunculus interpretation of consciousness. I wholeheartedly agree but I did not come up with the ridiculous example that I could be someone else without knowing it. That was you. No, I didn't - but don't you see that this is exactly the absurdity that YOU are suggesting with the absurd notion that "I could be someone else" No no no, lets get the positions straight, I am defending the notion of the centrality of the I to being what you are, namely 'I', no matter the physical make up or the experiences in question. I am no different from an ancient Greek in that. I am me because I can have experiences. So being someone else is absurd, but you somehow thought it was a counter example to my way of thinking. ou suggested I can't know whether when I wake up I am still the same person. I say I bloody well know, because I identify with whoever I am, the I is not based on experience but a condition for it, so the type of experience I have are contingent.
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2140

Posted 11/06/09 - 08:55 AM:	#35
Tobias wrote: I agree there is no homunculus, but because I am the connection between events and the one who makes an event an 'experience', it is logically prior to the experience, at least as possibility. Suggesting that the “self” is logically prior to the experience is simply another variant of the homunculus. A more rational explanation (imho) is that the self is created ab initio as part and parcel of the experience, that there is no self in absence of experience. Tobias wrote: So you think my utteran "I remember writing a post on PF" is somehow tainted with absurdity because there is such an absurd notion as "I"in it? You misunderstand. I have not said that the concept of “self” is absurd. I have said that the question “what causes me to remain me?” is an absurd question. Tobias wrote: My experience define who I am but than they have to be my experiences to begin with right? How can they if I am not there? How can they NOT be your experiences? How can your experiences be someone else’s experiences (ie not yours), or vice versa? Again, the suggestion is absurd. Tobias wrote: I wholeheartedly agree but I did not come up with the ridiculous example that I could be someone else without knowing it. That was you. You asked “what causes me to remain me?” But the only way you would NOT remain you is if you became someone else – which is what I am saying is absurd – it is logically impossible for you to be someone else. Therefore it follows that “you must remain you” (logically) – there is no other logical possibility (unless you subscribe to some form of dualism and homunculi). Tobias wrote: So being someone else is absurd I am glad that you agree that “being someone else” is absurd. It follows, then, that “me” must logically remain “me” – so why do you ask “what causes me to remain me?”? The answer is that NOTHING "causes" it - this is the only logically possible state of affairs. Tobias wrote: ou suggested I can't know whether when I wake up I am still the same person. I say I bloody well know, because I identify with whoever I am, the I is not based on experience but a condition for it, so the type of experience I have are contingent. How do you know? If one day you wake up as Peter and not as Tobias, and all of your memories, experiences, etc are of course also now the memories and experiences of Peter and not of Tobias, what is it that tells you that you used to be Tobias (or even that you still are Tobias) and that you have now woken up as “someone else”? Edited by reincarnated on 11/06/09 - 09:00 AM
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 968

Posted 11/06/09 - 08:58 AM:	#36
Tobias wrote: I am me because I can have experiences. So being someone else is absurd, but you somehow thought it was a counter example to my way of thinking. ou suggested I can't know whether when I wake up I am still the same person. I say I bloody well know, because I identify with whoever I am, the I is not based on experience but a condition for it, so the type of experience I have are contingent. Seems to me that you are neglecting the role of memory? Consciousness arising in a mature human neuro system would give one a sense of I (or myself, etc.) but any knowing when I awaken that I am the same person who went to sleep requires not merely consciousness, but also memory of much past experience. Without memory we might have a sense of I, but not a sense of being the same I that we were in the past. Without memory of past experience we wouldn't recognize our surroundings, or even our own face in the mirror. People with memory damage find life bewildering--including their sense of self.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

makerowner
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 326

Posted 11/06/09 - 09:09 AM:	#37
wuliheron wrote: The early Greek philosophers were also showmen. They often made a meger living performing for crowds using reductio ad absurdum arguments to humorous effect. Well they didn't perform for "crowds" because philosophy was a firmly aristocratic pursuit; they "performed" for select groups of "cultivated" men, who usually had to pay for the privilege. The use of "reductio ad absurdum arguments to humorous effect" was characteristic of the sophists, who were rather later than either Heraclitus or Parmenides. Some are also thought to have largely focused on metaphysics as a covert way of criticizing the established Greek religion, something that was punishable by death. There was no "established Greek religion", there were cults of various different gods, some of them supported by the various different states. Subverting these cults was a crime, but wasn't usually punishable by death (eg. Anaxagoras was only banished); Socrates essentially forced his judges to execute him by suggesting that they should award him a pension instead of punishing him. Heraclitus certainly wasn't covert about his criticism of mainstream religion in his time: he claimed that Homer and Hesiod (quasi-scripture to the Greeks) should have been thrashed, that animal sacrifice was stupid, etc. Arguments like Parmenides' were quite popular with the crowds until Aristotle's logic swept the civilized world by storm and they moved on to more complex forms of entertainment. However, it provided a living for quite a few people for several hundred years precisely because it does contradict everyday experience. Aristotle's logic certainly didn't "sweep the civilized world by storm". His school coexisted with the Platonic, Stoic, Skeptic, Epicurean, etc. schools for centuries, and was probably the weakest of the major schools during the Hellenistic era. Parmenides' argument is also diametrically opposed to the first wildly popular Greek philosopher, Heraclitus. His philosophy was that everything is in constant flux. It doesn't take that much imagination to conceive of something the exact opposite of what is already popular, nor is the idea of an indivisible, unchanging, and immortal "reality" exactly unique to the early Greeks. It is common enough among mystics and pantheists around the world. I'm not sure that Heraclitus was wildly popular, or that he was the first, or that Parmenides was later than him, but I am sure that Parmenides was not "diametrically opposed" to him. Heraclitus' entire philosophy is based on unity through change, not just change itself. "Changing, it stays the same", "Into the same river, other and still other waters flow", and a dozen other fragments. They were saying essentially the same thing: the vulgar can only see the day and the night and other crude oppositions, but the philosopher (the one who listens to the Logos, or the one received by Dike) can see the unity behind them. What is real is not day or night, but the day-night that shows itself as one or the other.
For philosophy, Socrates, if pursued in moderation and at the proper age, is an elegant accomplishment, but too much philosophy is the ruin of human life. Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know.

Jehu
Revealer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2006

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 883

Posted 11/06/09 - 06:24 PM:	#38
To Mega Therion wrote: I don't think we can say with any certainty that Parmenides was an existential monist; I tend toward the predicational monism interpretation, which would allow for a plurality of Parmenidean Ones. Ater all, in the Way of Truth Parmenides only describes a One, without spelling out how many there are (I think Melissus was the only Elean to hold that there is only one One explicitly); and the Way of Belief makes much more sense if we assume that there are at least two, Light and Night. Apart from that, your interpretation is certainly a possible one, with two exceptions. First, I don't think there is any evidence that Parmendies held that the One had mental properties. Perhaps you're relying too much on his connection to Xenophanes? And as for your last sentence, while some presocratics were dialtheists there is no evidence Parmenides was. After all, his argument rests on denying that what is is what is not so many times it's not even funny. While Parmenides does not explicitly state that that there is but one absolute, independent and immutable entity, it follows logically from his earlier argument: that there is only being (what is) and no non-being (what is not), and that this being is “…now, all together, one and continuous.” By the term “continuous”, I take him to mean that since there is everywhere only being, and there is naught else (non-being) that might separate that being, we cannot rightfully assert that there are a multitude of separate beings – not even two. For example, I cannot assert of my own leg and arm that they are separate entities, for each is related to the other, as parts of the same body. It is only when my leg is separated from the arm by that which is not of the body, that the two may be said to be separate. With respect to the way of opinion, Parmenides is merely relating what was the commonly held view of his time, which is essentially dualistic, hence his description of the path of opinion as “The one on which mortals, knowing nothing, wander, two-headed [dualistic], for helplessness in their breasts guides their wandering minds and they are carried, deaf and blind alike, dazed, uncritical tribes, for whom being and not-being are thought the same and yet not the same, and the path of all runs in opposite directions.” By the way, what did I say to make you think that I viewed Parmenides as a dialetheist?
It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see, that is the true reality.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 11/06/09 - 08:07 PM:	#39
reincarnated wrote: Seems to me that the belief that the earth is flat is indeed a "keen and quick insight". Dictionary.com wrote: insight 1. an instance of apprehending the true nature of a thing, esp. through intuitive understanding: an insight into 18th-century life. 2. penetrating mental vision or discernment; faculty of seeing into inner character or underlying truth. 3. Psychology. a. an understanding of relationships that sheds light on or helps solve a problem. b. (in psychotherapy) the recognition of sources of emotional difficulty. c. an understanding of the motivational forces behind one's actions, thoughts, or behavior; self-knowledge. You are, of course, free to define words willy-nilly, but it makes conversation difficult.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2140

Posted 11/06/09 - 08:47 PM:	#40
wuliheron wrote: You are, of course, free to define words willy-nilly, but it makes conversation difficult. Its the definition cited by you - how is this willy nilly? Or perhaps its the case that when you decide what a word means to you, its not willy nilly, its only when someone else decides what a word means to them that it then becomes willy nilly? Is this perhaps what you mean?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.