What Are We?

[Dglgmut]

You are not your memory. Is that not indisputable? You existed when you were a baby... That was you, and yet it's nothing like how you see yourself now. Your memory has changed, but you have not.

Every cell in the human body with the exception of some neural cells is replaced every seven years or so. We all have changed. Ba'al Chatzaf

If you were your cells, you would have been completely disassembled by the end of that first seven years.

If you were restoring an old bookshelf, and replaced one part at a time until every part was replaced, would you still consider it the same bookshelf?

Edited September 17, 2011 by Dglgmut

[BaalChatzaf]

You are not your memory. Is that not indisputable? You existed when you were a baby... That was you, and yet it's nothing like how you see yourself now. Your memory has changed, but you have not.

Every cell in the human body with the exception of some neural cells is replaced every seven years or so. We all have changed. Ba'al Chatzaf

If you were your cells, you would have been completely disassembled by the end of that first seven years.

If you were restoring an old bookshelf, and replaced one part at a time until every part was replaced, would you still consider it the same bookshelf?

No. Different contents. The end state would be similar to the start state but still not identical.

Cue to bring up the Ship of Theseus conundrum.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

You are not your memory. Is that not indisputable? You existed when you were a baby... That was you, and yet it's nothing like how you see yourself now. Your memory has changed, but you have not.

Every cell in the human body with the exception of some neural cells is replaced every seven years or so. We all have changed. Ba'al Chatzaf

If you were your cells, you would have been completely disassembled by the end of that first seven years. If you were restoring an old bookshelf, and replaced one part at a time until every part was replaced, would you still consider it the same bookshelf?

No. Different contents. The end state would be similar to the start state but still not identical. Cue to bring up the Ship of Theseus conundrum. Ba'al Chatzaf

So we're not our cells? We are the product (an idea, I guess?) of their collaboration?

If we are our cells, why are we only the ones in our body? What about the ones that leave?

[Brant Gaede]

Why do you guys tolerate this troll crapolla?

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

It's not trolling, but I'll stop if it's that intolerable.

[Selene]

No. Different contents. The end state would be similar to the start state but still not identical.

Cue to bring up the Ship of Theseus conundrum.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But of course...

The story of the Ship of Theseus is meant to highlight some basic problems regarding the identity of objects and their persistence through time. The story dates back to the ancient Greeks and has been told in a variety of ways in order to make various points.

Story 1:

There once was a ship whose captain was named Theseus. This ship was made of a large number of parts. One day (we’ll call this day D1) Theseus and his crew set out on a long voyage. On D1, the Ship of Theseus consisted of a determinate set of physical parts. As the voyage moved along, the crew recognized that they would occasionally have to make repairs to the ship, sometimes throwing old planks overboard and replacing them with new planks. After a long while, on Day 3002, it turns out the crew had replaced every part of the ship and there were no longer any original parts left. The question that naturally arises here is whether the Ship of Theseus on Day 3002 is the same ship as the Ship of Theseus on Day 1, even though they share none of the same physical parts.

Story 2:

Now suppose that, unbeknownst to Theseus and his crew, there had been a man collecting all the old parts of the original Ship of Theseus (the ship as it was on Day 1). Let us further suppose that on Day 3002, when he collects the final discarded part, he completely rebuilds the ship with nothing but the original parts. Now, we find ourselves with two candidates for the Ship of Theseus. Which one, if either, is the actual Ship of Theseus?

The Ship of Theseus story raises several issues for our concept identity. Intuitively, we may be inclined to say that the Ship of Theseus is identical to the collection of its parts. However, this seems too extreme, because the collection of parts change even when we merely replace a single plank. Similarly, if the Ship of Theseus were to have suddenly exploded and been annihilated, there is a sense in which all of its parts would still persist yet we would not say that the ship persists. Perhaps the ship is identical not only with the combination of its but also with the specific configuration of its parts (i.e. its structure). But this still leaves us with a problem: we are not inclined to say that an object becomes a completely different object when the it goes through small changes, but we are inclined to say that it ceases to be the same object when it goes through radical change. If the Ship of Theseus story makes anything clear it is this: that any acceptable theory of identity is going to have to wrestle with the problem of change over time.

Damn, Bob, I totally forgot about this one. Thanks!

Adam

[Selene]

It's not trolling, but I'll stop if it's that intolerable.

This is what it begins to sound like...

http://youtu.be/j8CBocuXSiM

[Xray]

By the way, you are correct, his comparison is not appropriate for the argument.

Finally, as a safety issue, if you are ever in a crowd crush scenario, you need to lift your feet off the ground and let the crowd "wave" carry you along its motion.

The real danger is having your feet stepped on, or catching on an already downed body. The real danger is the fall not the power of the crowd

It seems counter intuitive, like turning into a skid with a car, but it has been tested and is a tried and true crowd crush survival tactic.

Adam

Thank you for this (possibly life-saving) tip, Adam. I'm going to spread this info to others as well.

[Xray]

Why do you pick it up? If you kept asking why eventually you'd realize you have no idea why... You do it for seemingly no reason.

The correct inference to draw is that -some things- we do have no reason, NOT -all things- we do have no reason.

Everything we do has a reason.

Hmm...

The domino scenario is an extremely simplified analogy. You don't believe that every thought and action has a trigger, other than your intangible awareness?

Keep it simple: Every action has a cause. The cause may be volitional (e. g. an individual picking up and eating some walnuts), or non-volitional (e. g. dominoes falling over without being given them a 'volitional push' by anyone).

Nothing we do is logical, because we don't know the meaning of anything.

I'm no Objectivist, but Ayn Rand would have had field day in picking that apart!

You obviously know things like e. g. the meaning of the "quote" symbol on this forum.

Dglgmut, do you seriously believe you would have been able to survive if you were unable to know the meaning of anything? Please check your premises.

Why do you guys tolerate this troll crapolla?

I don't think this is a troll, but more someone whose thinking has landed him in epistemological quicksand.

But trying to help him out there also trains one's own thinking skills.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Xray

[Dglgmut]

The way kids ask "why" so much, that's amazing. They aren't as fucked up as the rest of us. I'm sorry, if you don't think you've been completely manipulated by your experiences up to this point, you're delusional. Our way of life is pretty much insane...

No, we don't know the meaning of anything... We may know what will happen as a result, but we don't know the meaning.

Ask yourself what you would be without any memory what-so-ever.... That's you. You can experience it, and that is the closest thing to knowledge we can possibly have.

I don't think anything is bad; it's just a cluster-fuck of whatever-ness... It's something to pass the time, and without context it's all incredible and can only be related, infinitely favorably, to nothingness.

[Brant Gaede]

It's not trolling, but I'll stop if it's that intolerable.

As long as people find value in replying to you there's no reason to stop. I don't have to be one of them.

--Brant

[Xray]

I'm sorry, if you don't think you've been completely manipulated by your experiences up to this point, you're delusional.

Mentally integrating and processing experience is something entirely different than being 'manipulated'.

Our way of life is pretty much insane...

This is a mere personal opinion on your part. But personal opinions are not what epistemology focuses on.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Xray

[Dglgmut]

Personal opinion seems to have taken over this thread, because people desperately want to believe they have free will. It's a lack of humility if you ask me, but that's just my opinion.

[BaalChatzaf]

Personal opinion seems to have taken over this thread, because people desperately want to believe they have free will. It's a lack of humility if you ask me, but that's just my opinion.

I assume you came to that conclusion all by yourself.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Personal opinion seems to have taken over this thread, because people desperately want to believe they have free will. It's a lack of humility if you ask me, but that's just my opinion.

It's because they want to do the right thing as moral beings. It's multiplicity of choices and thinking necessitating philosophy, political philosophy, morality and ethics re-enforcing people's place, practical and psychological, in their social milieu which generally has been broadening out with the increase of wealth and availability of transportation. Yesterday the farm, today the world.

--Brant

[Selene]

Personal opinion seems to have taken over this thread, because people desperately want to believe they have free will. It's a lack of humility if you ask me, but that's just my opinion.

It's because they want to do the right thing as moral beings. It's multiplicity of choices and thinking necessitating philosophy, political philosophy, morality and ethics re-enforcing people's place, practical and psychological, in their social milieu which generally has been broadening out with the increase of wealth and availability of transportation. Yesterday the farm, today the world.

--Brant

"'The trouble with our modern world,' Dr. Robert Stadler said over the radio, ...'is that too many people think too much. It is the cause of all our current fears and doubts. An enlightened citizenry should abandon the superstitious worship of logic and the outmoded reliance on reason. '...the discoveries of modern science, which have proved that thought is an illusion and the mind is a myth.'" [Atlas pg. 863 35th Anniversary pocket edition]

Thus spake Dglgmut, humbly...

Edited September 19, 2011 by Selene

[Dglgmut]

Assuming you know what the right thing is... That's the problem. You can't base your belief of what is true on your pre-existing belief of what is right. You can't sense awareness in other people, and have no reason to believe there's anything observing the electric impulses in their brains. There's no reason for you to believe it's not just happening on its own. Those chemical reactions are happening in other people's brains, and can explain all of their actions and behavior... so why not yours?

Why must you be "in control" of your brain when you don't have to control the brains of others, and they function just fine?

[Brant Gaede]

You can start by differentiating between the autonomic nervous system and what the rest of the brain is about.

--Brant

[Xray]

Why must you be "in control" of your brain when you don't have to control the brains of others, and they function just fine?

This is like asking "Why must you be in control of your motor skills if you want to do rock climbing when you don't have to control the motor skills of others? "

Personal opinion seems to have taken over this thread, because people desperately want to believe they have free will. It's a lack of humility if you ask me, but that's just my opinion.

If one connects this to the first sentence you wrote in your root post:

What are we?

I'm not sure whether objectivists believe in souls or a form of consciousness that exists separate from a physical form, but I'll try to lay out the possibilities in an open-minded fashion.

How far do you think you have gotten here in making your case?

Am I correct in assuming that you believe a superantural dimension exists?

Edited September 22, 2011 by Xray

[Dglgmut]

I'm actually liking Ayn Rand's philosophy more and more, but I have a question:

Does Objectivism support the idea of total causality? Can our thoughts, in theory, be predicted if the predictor could know everything about a past "state of the universe?" Also: Is happiness/desire considered reasonable?

And sorry about any of my posts that were out of line... It is your forum, after all.

[Selene]

I'm actually liking Ayn Rand's philosophy more and more, but I have a question:

Does Objectivism support the idea of total causality? Can our thoughts, in theory, be predicted if the predictor could know everything about a past "state of the universe?" Also: Is happiness/desire considered reasonable?

And sorry about any of my posts that were out of line... It is your forum, after all.

Calvin:

Your question is very close to B. F. Skinner's behavioralism, a la Walden Two.

Walden Two describes a small, thousand-person planned community based upon the community posited by H. D. Thoreau and behavioral psychology. Frasier and five others are the governing Planners. The community is self-sufficient, emulating the self-sufficiency of the Walden utopia. However, one important difference is that experimental control is used to shape the community. As a pilot scientific experiment, the way things are done is changeable if the evidence favors change. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Walden_Two

Hmm, seems there is actually a real community in Twin Oaks Virginia which was established in 1967,,,see:

http://www.twinoaks.org/index.html

Twin Oaks is an intentional community in rural central Virginia, made up of around 85 adult members and 15 children. Since the community's beginning in 1967, our way of life has reflected our values of cooperation, sharing, nonviolence, equality, and ecology. We welcome you to schedule a visit.

I read his stuff in the '60's when the behavioralists took over our Aristotelian speech department and it became Communication Arts and Sciences or the touchy feely bullshit division.

I remember one professor taking out a coin and saying that if he knew all the forces that were acting on this coin flip, he could predict with certainty whether it would be a head or a tail or land on it's side,

Of course, their theory was that you could do this with people also.

Skinner responded to criticism to Walden Two with:

",,,another book (one of his best) called Beyond Freedom and Dignity. He asked: What do we mean when we say we want to be free? Usually we mean we don’t want to be in a society that punishes us for doing what we want to do. Okay -- aversive stimuli don’t work well anyway, so out with them! Instead, we’ll only use reinforcers to “control” society. And if we pick the right reinforcers, we will feel free, because we will be doing what we feel we want!

Likewise for dignity. When we say “she died with dignity,” what do we mean? We mean she kept up her “good” behaviors without any apparent ulterior motives. In fact, she kept her dignity because her reinforcement history has led her to see behaving in that "dignified" manner as more reinforcing than making a scene.

The bad do bad because the bad is rewarded. The good do good because the good is rewarded. There is no true freedom or dignity. Right now, our reinforcers for good and bad behavior are chaotic and out of our control -- it’s a matter of having good or bad luck with your “choice” of parents, teachers, peers, and other influences. Let’s instead take control, as a society, and design our culture in such a way that good gets rewarded and bad gets extinguished! With the right behavioral technology, we can design culture." http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/skinner.html

Adam

[Dglgmut]

Thanks for the information. I was actually referring to individual thoughts, as opposed to our overall behavior.

I remember one professor taking out a coin and saying that if he knew all the forces that were acting on this coin flip, he could predict with certainty whether it would be a head or a tail or land on it's side.

And what are your comments on that? Taking into account every little butterfly effect and every chemical reaction... is it theoretically possible to predict someone's thoughts?

I don't see why it wouldn't be... but that's only because I haven't heard a compelling argument against it.

Actually, is there any logical reason at all that this might not be possible?

[Selene]

No clue, but you would have to be able to know that I might pull out a gun and blow the professor's head off which was the point I made to him.

He got a little wide eyed at that statement.

I enjoy bringing pure irrational crazy chance into behavioralist theory, how about you?

[Dglgmut]

Well, if he knew the state of your brain, and all the cells in it, as well as all the forces at work in your environment, is it not theoretically possible to predict something like what you described?

If you use a word like "chance," I assume that means you believe certain things are truly random/happen for no reason.

A situation that would be paradoxical would be if there was a machine capable of making such predictions, and someone used the machine to predict their own thoughts/actions...

Edit: Okay, so Objectivists do not deny causality, but they also do not deny that we are the source of our own choices... How, if at all, is this different from Compatibilism?

[Selene]

Well, if he knew the state of your brain, and all the cells in it, as well as all the forces at work in your environment, is it not theoretically possible to predict something like what you described?

If you use a word like "chance," I assume that means you believe certain things are truly random/happen for no reason.

A situation that would be paradoxical would be if there was a machine capable of making such predictions, and someone used the machine to predict their own thoughts/actions...

When you can produce one I will blow it up...there's that crazy chance again.

See when we play the game of what if, we can always go to the what if we all morph into ice cubes in a large galactic gin and tonic...

What if I had a machine that could predict all the forces and take chance out of an event and then I say what if while you built that machine I built the blow up the machine machine that can predict all the forces...

see it is a pure word game.