From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 19:47:01 MST
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> >> 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?
In that case I would conclude that one or both persons were thinking insane
thoughts, i.e, that they were not thinking rationally. Two distinct persons
cannot logically be one person, regardless of their thinking about the
subject.
> >> 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.
That would be interesting, but again I see no overlap of self and other. I
see only an extension of your sensory apparatus, not much different from two
people watching the same widescreen movie. The distinction of self/other
becomes relevant only when those shared perceptions are *cognized* by your
mind and by hers. Each of you will then find yourselves to be a distinct
self, with distinct thoughts and emotions about your perceptions, even if
your fields of vision share some or all elements in common.
> Which brings me to a piece of advice - expand you horizons. You will see
> more.
Thanks for the advice.
> > 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.
Quite frankly I have too many questions about the multiple-person mind-meld
monstor that you describe for me to reply here. I would need to examine and
interview it (or you) in a lot more detail to understand exactly what you
mean by it. Your argument here reminds me of something I just read from
Robert B in another message: "Its like a con-person's shell game. 'I put
the identity here under this cup, now watch closely as I move the cups
around, the hand is faster than the eye my friend, now can somebody tell me
where the identity is?'"
> > 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
Have you ever raised children, Rafal? If so then imagine for a moment that
an infant could understand your words as you explained to him that he is too
young to perceive that his mother's breast for which he screams when hungry
is not separate and other than him.
>See Erikson, Mahler, Lewis and Brooks-Gunn,
>William James.
Assuming you read these authors then you are confusing the development of
personality with the much more rudimentary recognition of self/other. It
appears that even our house-pets distinguish between self and other.
Thank you for engaging me in an interesting (and rational) discussion.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:52 MST