From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Nov 03 2002 - 23:47:03 MST
gts writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > We were talking about your "sense of self". If it's just a
> > physical configuration, or processing, then it might indeed
> > be the same regardless of whether it's you or your duplicate.
>
> The term "sense of self" as I use it is closely related to the idea of
> "self-concept." (I use the term "sense of self" only because it seems a more
> pertinent term for discussions of surviving death. See below.) Self-concept
> is far more than a map of memories. It is a sense of who one is as a
> distinct person in relation to other people and objects in the world. It
> changes dynamically, day by day if not also minute by minute and second by
> second, in response to our interpretations of every day events.
That's not so surprising. In your manner of speaking, I notice
that my concept of self often changes when I get a phone call or
an email. But somehow I survive. I think that I would survive
if I lost the last few minutes memories too.
> The interpretation of one's memories (not only memories themselves) play some
> part in defining one's self-concept, but the interpretation of memories
> changes with time and events along with all other aspects of personality. I
> may remember some things I did in the past that were completely congruent
> with my self-concept at the time. Those same memories of past deeds no
> longer seem congruent with my current self-concept -- my interpretation of
> those memories has changed.
I have to go back quite a few years before this is the
case for me. That is, I can find through journal entries
made ten or more years ago that the behavior I exhibit
is completely typical of me. True, sometimes I am in
moods (e.g. saying or doing something that I might not
"normally" do).
> The further back in time I go, the more apparent are the incongruities, but
> recent memories are also reinterpreted differently even if those different
> interpretations are sometimes too small to notice short of an objective
> personality test.
Yes.
> The idea that we are the same selves we were in the past is entirely
> unworkable for any non-mundane purpose, and plainly false.
The "mundane" purposes constitute the great majority of uses.
It's hardly *plainly* false. One would have to account for
the impression that most people have that they remain the
same person, and that those about them remain the same
person.
Recall the humorous story of Bernoulli's challenge to European
mathematicians to find the brachistochrone (curve of quickest
descent). Newton anonymously submitted a solution, but Bernoulli
recognized "the claw of the lion". What remains relatively
constant in people is not just their analytical ability (to
the degree at least that one hires people expecting a somewhat
uniform degree of competence to be exhibited), nor all the
outward signs, but their personalities too. For example,
a marriage can falter when one person claims that the other
"doesn't seem to be the same person anymore". However, of
course, if you ask most people if their spouses act the same
way that they did last year, the reply will be a baffled
"of course", except in those instances of illness or disturbance.
> This is not only
> my idea, Lee. If you were to study psychology (as I have -- it was my minor
> in college) then you would find this idea of dynamic personality in every
> modern school of thought. The idea that we are fixed personalities is
> archaic and outmoded. It appears to be a leftover from western religions,
> which in general deny or ignore the importance of all personality changes
> *except* religious conversion. In Christianity, for example, the self is
> thought to remain the same for all practical purposes until one accepts
> Christ as savior, at which time one is "born again." Fortunately modern
> philosophers and psychologists have seen past this simplistic static
> understanding of personality. You should do the same.
Damien might accuse me of standing up again for "plain folks",
but I'm *very* sure that in most cultures people are considered
to be the same people for extended periods of time. Grudges and
loves exist, and they simply would not if people didn't manage
to stay a great deal the same from day to day.
> One's self-concept has no need of survival because self-concept already
> changes moment to moment. In the context of these discussions about
> surviving death, all we really seek as humans is a preservation of the sense
> of continuity between our successive self-concepts. Please dwell on that
> thought for a moment, and consider how it applies to the questions we are
> asking here.
A most pressing question for me is cryonics. I enjoy life
and do want to keep on living. Do you think my quest
nonsensical on the face of it? Why shouldn't I be
satisfied that just anyone keep on living? Why indeed
do I (and most people) want to keep on living if it's
impossible?
The sense of continuity is rather overrated. Doesn't
one entirely lose that whenever one falls asleep? ;-) For
sure many people don't feel like themselves until that first
cup of coffee! That's their account anyway. But who are
they to stand up to all those "philosophers and psychologists"
who know that they aren't the same person in any case (sarcasm).
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:57:56 MST