From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 15:36:34 MST
gts wrote:
> Rafal,
>
> I am amused that Lee (and now you) are accusing me of calling others
> irrational. If you read my words you'll see that I am attacking Lee's
> argument, not his person. Moreover the basis of my refutation is none
> other than that his argument is fallacious by reason of reductio ad
> absurdum, which is to say that his conclusion is absurd enough to
> invalidate his premises. For that reason I make no apologies for
> describing his argument with adjectives synonymous with "absurd",
> e.g., "preposterous" and "irrational."
### The above paragraph is, eh, interesting. In the first sentence you imply
disagreement with my request to avoid "calling others irrational". Then you
present what you see as a reason to call Lee irrational (BTW, this reason is
flimsy - a reductio is valid only if premises are shared, and we and you do
not share premises). Finally you are unapologetic about using the words you
mentioned, directly contradicting the thrust of the first sentence.
As my grandma might exclaim, "Um Gotteswillen!"
-------
>
>> ### Now, let's do some rational analysis here.
>>
>> If I stay with somebody in a room, we exchange atoms by breathing.
>> If my atoms are "self", soon there will overlap of "self" and
>> "other".
>
> I see no overlap here. You exhale some atoms which are later taken up
> by another person. The atoms are first a part of your self and later
> a part of another self. At no time are they overlapping.
### Yes, I know, you are not an atomist - I included this part only in case
there are any atomists in the audience.
-------
>
>> Or maybe I start talking to somebody and exchange ideas. If "self"
>> is made of ideas, there soon will be overlap of "self" and "other".
>
> Again I see no overlap between self and other. You can conceive of an
> idea similar or identical to an idea that another also conceives.
> There then exists two instantiations of that conception, one in your
> mind and one in the other's mind.
### What if the two instantiations of the idea of self, carried by either
person, had the *same* referent?
At some point enough shared ideas translate into a shared mind, continuously
transforming self into other.
------------
>
>> Perhaps I would choose to establish a direct neural link to the
>> person I talked to. In that case her thoughts would be accessible to
>> me like the thoughts originating within my own skull. If the feeling
>> of direct access is what makes "self", then there would be overlap
>> of "self" and "other".
>
> Again I see no overlap. If you are aware that her thoughts are coming
> from her rather than from you, then clearly they are from "other." If
> you think they are coming from you, then you are deceived by the
> illusion created by the neural link. That deception does not obviate
> the otherness of her thoughts.
### Let's say I construct a visual field out of data from the left striate
cortex in my skull and the right striate cortex in the other skull, and feed
the output to my parietal cortex spatial modeling areas. I will see a world
through a very wide interocular distance, as long as all four of my/her eyes
are pointed in the same direction. This will be an experience not achievable
to my unlinked self, not illusory, and quite useful, for example for
measuring distances, even at interstellar distances.
My vision and her vision will be one, even if our other perceptions remain
separate. This is a clear case of overlap of self and other.
Which brings me to a piece of advice - expand you horizons. You will see
more.
------
>
>> Finally, after extensive mental communion (mediated by advanced
>> hardware) I/we would decide to rewire our prefrontal cortices (the
>> material substrate supporting the idea you call "self"), to
>> voluntarily merge our motivational concepts of self, without losing
>> any of the memories and capabilities each one of me/her had before
>> we met. In that case again, there would be overlap of "self" and
>> "other".
>
> In that far out case I would consider the merged individuals as a very
> complex self, similar to a person with multiple personality disorder
> (but without the pathology connotation).
### At exactly how many bits per second exchanged through the link do our
separate selves merge into the complex self? You are surely not implying
that there is a sudden all-or-nothing switch from the self + other to
self(squared). This would be the old Zeno paradox, reincarnated at the
(neo)callosum.
No, no, of course there is a continuous change from two individuals to one,
through increasing overlap of self and other.
----------------
>
>> "Self" and "other" are not simple mathematical statements that could
>> be "mutually exclusive".
>
> The distinction between self and other is the most basic of human
> cognitions. It occurs to us in or before early infancy, perhaps even
> in the womb. It is the first rational thought we can have, and upon
> it rests all subsequent logic.
### I am afraid your beliefs in this matter are in stark disagreement with
current notions about personality development. The consensus is that the
rudimentary sense of self emerges around 15 - 18 months of age, and
continues developing through childhood, even (to a minor extent) in
adolescence and adulthood. See Erikson, Mahler, Lewis and Brooks-Gunn,
William James.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:52 MST