From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 31 2002 - 14:34:40 MST
gts wrote:
> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>
>> ### 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.
### You seem to be unwilling to change your frame of reference. Anything
that doesn't fit in must be insane. Just like a 1980's word processor you
cannot analyze data in a graphical format. You say: "Fatal exception at
034A3". Yet, graphical data does exist. Change your frame of reference.
Remember, I am not saying that there is an objective way of identifying
identity. My participation in this whole thread is about convincing you that
identity is subjective, and is a matter of personal choice, along with the
highly complex perceptions of "self" vs. "other". I don't want you to
blindly accept my frame of reference, merely to accept that not everything
outside your frame must be "irrational", or "insane".
-------
>> ### 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.
### I am glad you make this distinction. You are on the way to joining me
and Lee here.
Let's continue the experiment. I/we synchronize the functioning of the
parietal cortex observer-centered maps in both skulls, using the composite
visual input from both sets of eyes. Both of us start perceiving ourselves
as situated in the same place (so much for those who say "Two persons can't
occupy the same space at the same time"). In fact, looking in a mirror, each
one would see our two bodies, located *away* from the subjective location
encoded in our parietal cortices. At the same time either one of us would
still be able to objectively describe the physical aspects of this
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".
The closer you get to the prefrontal cortex, the closer you are to the
meaning of "self".
---------
>>> 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.
### 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?
--------
>
>> 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.
### We established a long time ago that alligators and humans have most
likely quite different mental lives, didn't we? My dog's sense of self is so
far removed from the complex mental constructs you and I are using in our
discussion, that bringing it in might only breed confusion. The sense of
self and the understanding of "other" are inextricably bound to, and develop
with our personality.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:54 MST