From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 08:53:50 MST
gts wrote:
>
> I don't know what you mean here by "frame of reference."
### Some people denied the possibility of the Earth being a sphere. They
said it's impossible, because people living on the other side would simply
fall off.
This comes from seeing the direction of gravity as an absolute. If you refer
it to your present position and define any deviation as impossible or not
really gravity, you will not be able to accept the round Earth.
Similarly, if you define personal identity as an absolute, logical attribute
of a sentient, you will not be able to imagine personal identities defined
referentially. In your frame of reference, any deviation must be insane. In
my frame of reference, any internally consistent definition of personal
identity is just as good as any other - although some of them are more or
less useful for my personal goals.
-------
>
> I stated that two distinct people cannot logically be one person
> regardless of their thinking about the subject. I consider this truth
> to be self-evident.
### The farmer said "These animals don't exist", when he saw a giraffe.
-------
>
> Two people might think they are Jesus Christ, for example. This would
> not make either of them Jesus Christ, nor would it make the two
> persons into one person. There would be no overlap between self and
> other. The only overlaps between them would be in that they share a
> common delusion, and in that they may end up in the same psychiatric
> facility.
### Now, this is not nice - threatening me with a 302. You have the delusion
of the absolute, unitary self. Do some introspection, it might help.
--------
> Unfortunately (or fortunately) propositions must be accepted by all as
> rational or irrational if the term "rational" is to mean anything. It
> is only because humans agree on what is rational that they can make
> sense to one another in their communications.
### Yes, at least some premises must be shared. Disagreeing on premises
while strenuously denying the possibility of the premises being different,
is a sure way into confusion.
-------
>
> If you tell me that up is down and that black is white then I'm
> obliged to remind you that your words are irrational and nonsensical.
### Of course up is down, especially if you travel halfway around the globe,
or if you wait 12 hours at the equator, or if you accelerate at exactly one
g while falling towards Earth.
You do become nonsensical if you persist in using an absolute frame of
reference.
---------
>>
>> Let's continue the experiment....
>> ... situation, that is, the location of the bodies, but our point of
>> reference for our "selves" would be located elsewhere - at the
>> overlap of "self" and "other".
>
> I don't see it that way. If you perceive of yourself as sharing
> something with another, even your personal point of reference, then
> you have not actually overlapped yourself with that other. You are
> the self that shares something with that other self.
### Did you say "self that shares something with the other"?
Finally, you agree that the concept of self is a construct allowing varying
degrees of overlap with non-self.
This is all I wanted. I will leave arguing the more general problem of
personal identity to Lee and other participants.
------
>
> To put it another way, if your "I" and the other "I" are truly
> overlapping then you are one and there is no other.
### No wiggling out, please. If I have still all my memories, and moral
rules, different from the mind in the other skull, there are still two
persons, although, as you agreed above, "sharing something" with the other.
------
>
>> ### Are you saying that your personal experience with infants led
>> you to discover that they have a full sense of self? Did you publish
>> it?
>
> I said nothing about a "full sense of self," only that in my
> experience infants are aware of the very primitive distinction
> between self and other. No I did not publish it.
### Good. Initially you said that the distinction between "self" and "other"
that we (you) are using in our discussion "developed in the womb". Now you
see there is a world of a difference between how an infant sees "self" and
what we are talking here about - our discussion, involving complex
Gedankenexperimente by adults is using our complex ideas of "self" and
"other", too complex for you to uncritically apply formal logic. Formal
logic, although capable of providing absolutely true answers in the realm of
tautological, abstract sentences, is totally inappropriate for complex
issues of the material world.
A child might have the absolutely defined sense of self. Neither me nor Lee
feel bound by this frame of mind. Leaving it behind doesn't make us
"insane".
-------
>
> Regardless of when this realization of self/other occurs in human
> development, it marks the beginning of rational thought. Upon the
> self/other distinction rests all reason. We understand then for the
> first time that we exist and that there are at least two things in
> the universe. We then begin to ponder the relationship between those
> things, and build upon our subsequent realizations, such that within
> less than two decades we are solving differential equations and
> considering deep questions about the nature of life and reality. This
> is why I object so strongly to Lee's conclusion of self = other. His
> argument may be clever and interesting but it assaults the very
> foundation of reason. It's a textbook case of failure by reductio ad
> absurdum.
>
### I disagree with the above but wouldn't wish to discuss it in detail. I
am satisfied that you were forced to admit that "self" and "other" are
complex constructs, and they may overlap in certain situations. This is all
I set out to achieve in my interjection on the ducking thread.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:55 MST