From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Oct 24 2002 - 14:16:14 MDT
Dan Fabulich wrote:
> gts wrote:
>
>> I can agree with that. It makes sense from a pragmatic viewpoint.
>> However I am no pragmatist; I must insist that the
>> differences between the objects remain real even if we decide
>> they are not relevant to whatever purpose we have in mind.
>
> Are the differences between a horse and a horse's head
> "non-real" when we say that there's only one thing in the barn?
I would simply ask you to clarify your meaning. Do you really mean to
imply there is no horse body attached to that horse head? If so then the
difference in the barns is very real. If not then there is no
difference.
> Are the differences between
> your whole right hand and your right hand minus a molecule
> (which is still a hand) "non-real" when we say that you have
> just one right hand?
Here you are describing a real difference. My right hand minus one
molecule would not be my right hand. The difference may be small and you
might judge it insignificant in deciding which hand you will claim as
yours, but the difference is nevertheless real.
>> However if for example Lee stated that his personality
>> persists and his copy stated that his does not persist
>> then we would have clear evidence that Lee is not his copy.
>> This would be so not because either assertion is true.
>> It would be so simply because the beliefs conflict.
>
> Conflicting beliefs aren't necessarily relevant...
I see beliefs as extremely relevant for purposes of distinguishing
between two people who appear on the surface to be identical. Beliefs,
attitudes, opinions, etc... this is the stuff of which personalities are
made. Even Lee has agreed that my person changed when I experienced a
religious conversion and became a devoted disciple of Thor. Yet
apparently he disagrees that smaller personality changes should also
matter. He (and perhaps you also) might say that large changes in
personality such as religious conversions "count" but that small changes
in personality "don't count." You and he are certainly entitled to feel
that way but your subjective judgments about what degree of change
should count does not affect the hard objective fact that even small
changes in personality are real. The decision to ignore small
differences does not make them unreal.
> Most of us are happy to say that there's just one person, even
> when her opinion changes over the years..
As am I, for most purposes. However we are here getting at the very
nature of identity and personality. It is wise here I think to use more
exact language.
I mentioned in another message to you, one to which I don't think you
replied, that in my view we persist through time only in a manner
analogous to that by which a whirlpool persists through time as it moves
down a river. We refer to these whirling patterns as "I" or "me" and
speak of them as though they are fixed objects. This is very convenient
for purposes of communication and social development of the species --
it helps to get the bills paid -- but upon closer examination we see
that the whirlpools to which we are referring change with each passing
moment. The "I" idea is merely a useful label used for describing the
general whirling patterns that comprise our ever-changing personalities.
I believe it a mistake, both psychologically and philosophically, to
consider "I" as a reference to a fixed object. Unfortunately this belief
is prevalent in the West (but not so much in the East -- Buddha knew
better). This false belief in "I" as a fixed object leads some people to
feel guilty and depressed for the bad choices they believe their
present-persons made in the past and it leads other people to become
egotistical and narcissistic for the good choices they believe their
present-persons made in the past. Much wiser I say to attribute those
successes and failures to our past-persons, and to learn from them in
the same way that we learn from the successes and failures of others.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:46 MST