From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Sep 27 2002 - 09:15:17 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
>Catching up on some old email, now that I have a few minutes...
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
>>[mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of gts
>>Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:51 PM
>>To: extropians@extropy.org
>>Subject: RE: Motivation and Motives
>>
>>Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Part of what makes me a person is a deep-seated drive
>>>to avoid the pain should my organs be deprived of oxygen."
>>>
>>>(I had to write that just to focus; on each of three consecutive
>>>prior readings your paragraph, I kept getting opposite answers!)
>>>
>>>I agree with my paraphrase, at least.
>>>
>>>
>>Well good then. That's progress, almost. (Unfortunately, looking below,
>>I see that it is not much progress after all, as you continue to split
>>hairs in an apparent effort to dispute and deny the obvious).
>>
>>
>
>Please. I am not trying to be obstinate; nor do I feel
>threatened if I get the worst of this argument. (I wish
>that this were true of all arguments.)
>
>
>
>>>But it's not *me* when it's unconscious.
>>>
>>>
>>But it *is* you who breathes unconsciously, Lee.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, I can hardly deny that when I visit the doctor and
>he describes some problem I'm having while asleep, that
>I wouldn't object if he said, "while unconscious, you
>are breathing irregularly". Yet it's also true that
>if his assistent spoke up and said, "he means that
>your body is breathing irregularly", then I would
>admit to that too.
>
>
>
>>It is absurd that you should continue to deny that your
>>personality is comprised of these kinds of unconscious
>>motivations and drives in addition to the more
>>familiar conscious motivations and drives.
>>
>>
>
>Yes. I will concede that my personality is made up
>of unconscious motivations and drives in addition to
>the more familiar ones. Surely these unconscious
>nuances would be evident in video tape, and perhaps
>even in email.
>
>
>
>>>That's a reflex that I may choose to edit out of
>>>myself when I reach a time of good technology.
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, and so? You might also edit out your conscious preference for
>>tootie-fruitie flavored ice-cream. Your ability to do so does not mean
>>your preference for that flavor is not part of your present personality.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, but you see, it's all what I *identify* with that
>is decisive when it comes to determining what is *me*.
>I still maintain that *I* don't have a motive to breathe,
>sorry, and that that misuse of language is *doubtless*
>involved in your opinions (that I still disagree with,
>evidently) about *altruism* and *motivation*.
>
>
>
>>>>My main thrust in this argument..., is that
>>>>internal behaviors like breathing and the
>>>>beating of the heart are controlled by
>>>>primitive drives or motivations (whichever
>>>>word you prefer), and that these basic drives or
>>>>motivations are part of YOU. They are not of
>>>>some other.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I say that they are *not* part of me. Now fending off pain
>>>is a part of me, but *not* these "internal behaviors", I claim.
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, so you claim. But you offer little in the way of
>>argument. If these primitive drives of which I speak
>>are not "of you," then you need to explain "of what"
>>they actually are. Are you saying that your drive to
>>breathe is "of God"? Historically, that is the only
>>competing claim of which I am aware.
>>
>>
>
>No ;-) Evolution built it into me, not God. Since your
>mood seems a touch surly, I had better explain that often
>the "design" seen by worshippers of God really is *design*,
>just that it was committed by nature, or evolution. My
>little smiley means that sometimes some of us Darwinians
>appear to use "Evolution" as a replacement for "God"!
>
>
>
>>>>To me the above is an obvious truth of human
>>>>nature. I find myself wondering why it should
>>>>even be a topic of debate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I sense some exasperation on your part, which is quite
>>>understandable.
>>>
>>>
>>I'm glad you understand it. Quite frankly I am beginning
>>to suspect you are merely a master of sophistry.
>>
>>
>
>Oh for Christ's sake, Gordon. Do you honestly believe
>that I'm the only person in the world who *believes*
>what I am saying? You are getting just as short with
>me as Rafal was getting with you, and it appears to me
>that you just both simply underestimate how grossly
>different people's views are, and at what a deep level
>the disagreements lie.
>
>Well what else did you expect from another intelligent
>person? Did you really think that all you had to do
>was be *patient* for a while, and then the other person
>would see the wisdom of your point of view? If it
>*REALLY* was so simple, then people would be agreeing
>on things like this. Instead, people who have devoted
>their *lives* to philosophy, or to the science of
>emotion continue to disagree.
>
>
>
>>You have managed for countless messages now to engage
>>me in a dispute that no two intelligent people should
>>ever find themselves, namely that of whether basic
>>human drives such as the drive to breathe are a part
>>of the person who breathes.
>>
>>
>
>Well, you should breathe much easier now. I have
>conceded that in this phrasing I partly agree (e.g.,
>my doctor's example).
>
>If your patience is not at a complete end, then
>perhaps you can use this concession to wrest from
>me an even deeper one. It's not impossible.
>
>Lee
>
>
>
>
This discussion seems rooted in the mind/body dichotomy (appearantly)
introduced by deCarte.
I recommend that you read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Dennet. (It's a
good book. I sure hope that it's the one I mean.) In this book Dennet
talks about the illusion of the Cartesian theater, and of the illusion
that there is an observer who sees what the mind is thinking. And about
why it *must* be an illusion (to avoid infinite regress).
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:18 MST