The self is not physical, but symbolic

[Borodog]

And calling what I said a "perception based definition of self" is a mischaracterization. Who said it has to be perception based? It just makes no sense whatsoever to disintegrate perception from the definition of self. What good does that do? What does it acomplish? All you end up with is the cartesian theater problem.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your physical body is different from all other matter in the universe in that you directly control it simply by will, and the will is clearly a facet of self. You just will your arm and your leg and they obey; they are clearly integrated into the self.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just willed my coffee cup to my lips. The coffee cup is part of my "self".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you didn't. You willed your hand to grasp the cup's handle and then willed your hand to bring the cup to your face.

If you really willed the coffee cup to your lips without using your hand, you should video it and post it on YouTube. You'd get a ton of views. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You said my body was the only matter in the universe I directly control through my will. My ability to move the atoms in the coffee cup wherever I will them to go refutes this. I know it's semantics but the fact that my hand is attached to me is rather arbitrary. What if I had a prosthetic which responded to my nerve impulses, is it now part of the "self" since those atoms respond to my will also? It's a gray area... but I don't really see how it matters anyway.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your physical body is different from all other matter in the universe in that you directly control it simply by will, and the will is clearly a facet of self. You just will your arm and your leg and they obey; they are clearly integrated into the self.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just willed my coffee cup to my lips. The coffee cup is part of my "self".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you didn't. You willed your hand to grasp the cup's handle and then willed your hand to bring the cup to your face.

If you really willed the coffee cup to your lips without using your hand, you should video it and post it on YouTube. You'd get a ton of views. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You said my body was the only matter in the universe I directly control through my will. My ability to move the atoms in the coffee cup wherever I will them to go refutes this.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. See the bolded word.

[ QUOTE ]
I know it's semantics but the fact that my hand is attached to me is rather arbitrary. What if I had a prosthetic which responded to my nerve impulses, is it now part of the "self" since those atoms respond to my will also? It's a gray area... but I don't really see how it matters anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj,

I already explained my thoughts on most of this. The fact that your hand is attached to you is not arbitrary. You cannot simply will the coffee mug to move. You *can* simply will your arm to move. Denying this difference seems bizarre. If you want to move something that is across the room from you, you cannot simply will it to move. You must first will your body to get up, will it to cross the room, and will it to move the object.

And my answer to whether or not a prosthetic hand which responds to nerve impulses is part of the self would be yes, as long as all you had to do was will it to move. Again, if you're going to go around excluding things that your will has direct control over from the self, it seems like you'd have to exclude your thoughts. And then where are you (literally)?

But you're probably right that it probably doesn't really matter.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
This is like arguing that you can't include tires in the definition of "car" because they can go flat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your position conflicts with itself. You say, "self is at least some part matter and body, and my perception delineates what matter is my self." This definition of self is filled with contradictions.

Take the example of the man with multiple personality disorder. With your definition, we can never say that he has multiple personality disorder. In fact we are forced to say that he is more than one person. Because self is defined as perceptive and physical, when his perception changes he IS a different self. The only reason we are able to diagnose him as having a disease is using a completely different definition of self, which is that tied exclusively to his physical body.


I'm not picking on you I'm just making a point. A grand unified definition of self is impossible. This is a problem that arises from having such a fundamental concept such as 'self' when it doesn't exist. It is a handy convenience for our daily interactions and nothing more.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your physical body is different from all other matter in the universe in that you directly control it simply by will, and the will is clearly a facet of self. You just will your arm and your leg and they obey; they are clearly integrated into the self.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just willed my coffee cup to my lips. The coffee cup is part of my "self".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you didn't. You willed your hand to grasp the cup's handle and then willed your hand to bring the cup to your face.

If you really willed the coffee cup to your lips without using your hand, you should video it and post it on YouTube. You'd get a ton of views. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You said my body was the only matter in the universe I directly control through my will. My ability to move the atoms in the coffee cup wherever I will them to go refutes this. I know it's semantics but the fact that my hand is attached to me is rather arbitrary. What if I had a prosthetic which responded to my nerve impulses, is it now part of the "self" since those atoms respond to my will also? It's a gray area... but I don't really see how it matters anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

See Boro? I told you he'd respond this way. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Its not a knock on you, Kaj, I just knew you were a thinking poster and that it was the logical rebuttal to what Boro said.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


Personal identity is an extremely deep and difficult problem in philosophy, and it sounds like you aren't open-minded about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you take that problem to be, and what proposed solutions do you think are most plausible?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is like arguing that you can't include tires in the definition of "car" because they can go flat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your position conflicts with itself. You say, "self is at least some part matter and body, and my perception delineates what matter is my self." This definition of self is filled with contradictions.

Take the example of the man with multiple personality disorder. With your definition, we can never say that he has multiple personality disorder. In fact we are forced to say that he is more than one person. Because self is defined as perceptive and physical, when his perception changes he IS a different self. The only reason we are able to diagnose him as having a disease is using a completely different definition of self, which is that tied exclusively to his physical body.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) I boggle. *I'm* the one arguing that the self includes the body.
b) Multiple personality disorder is a myth.
c) Who cares if he has multiple selves and one body? That is precisely the case with siamese twins. And to the extent that either twin has direct control over a part of their shared body, then it is silly to arbitrarily exclude that bit from what you call "self", even if that bit is actually included in BOTH of their selves.
d) Who cares if you're a different self when your perceptions change? I'm a different person than I was ten years ago, yesterday, or indeed ten seconds ago.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not picking on you I'm just making a point. A grand unified definition of self is impossible. This is a problem that arises from having such a fundamental concept such as 'self' when it doesn't exist. It is a handy convenience for our daily interactions and nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about any "grand unified definition of self"? I mean, really, who or what are you arguing with here? All I said was that it was silly to exclude things that our will directly controls from our concept of self, however vernacular that concept is.
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]