Holy busyness.
Ok, I'll make some comments here on various points.
If anyone thinks I've missed some salient points do let me know.
Well, here's the downside: selfishness.
...
Howso?
What's wrong with selfishness?
I'd say it's a fairly effective survival strategy.
I don't see it as a pernicious belief, but I do see it as a bit of a fiction in the way we normally conceptualize it. First off, it is just an abstraction, and it has no concrete form, which makes it difficult to analyze. Even if, due to the replacement of atoms in the body, cognitive scientists were able to show that the "self" were to be completely replaced every three to five years, our concept of self would clearly encompass a string of "selves" from birth to death.
I wholeheartedly agree on all points. Nicely said.
Even if we set aside the issue as to whether or not the 'string of selves' is developed through a graduated change or discrete instantiations, it's clear that our self is different through time.
However, you're most significant point here is your description of the self as a fictive entity. Not only is the self a piece of fiction, it is a very useful fiction.
As an aside, in my PI theory, the fictive nature of the self is exactly the explanatory mechanism that is responsible for both the maintenance and creation (evolution..) of the self.
...
That is not how most people think of the self, but if one accepts multiple "selves" in a certain sense, one has to acknowledge that we tend to use the concept to mean "my 'selves' that exist from time to time."
Or, more accurately, "my selves that I recall".
...
I tend to think that the self only exists as a result of the body, and that as the body changes the self necessarily changes with it. The seeming permanence of it comes from the fact that we have no other point of view from which to observe ourselves than the position of the "self", and that makes it exceedingly hard to notice changes. The only time we tend to do do is when the change is relatively radical, which typically takes time.
...
100% correct.
I can add nothing here.
Regarding the persistent self, it is surely difficult to know whether it is persistent or not unless we can adequately define what "self" is?
Thank you.
I was really hoping that the first post after my initial post would point this out.
Procedures people. We cannot hope to even discuss if we do not first define our terms.
Also, the claim (or merely understanding) of "persistence" might also only exist because we have memory of that previous self. If you remove that memory and wipe the slate clean, so to speak (as in the case of some amnesiacs), are we the same self that we were, given that we have no memory of that prior self?
Exactly.
As it stands, the only
evidence (sic) we have at all of a 'self' is through recollection. Memory, it goes without saying, is hardly reliable.
So the question is... is your "self" the particular run through the game you're playing, or the consciousness playing the game?
Or, is your 'self' the totality of all played games?
The problem with the game analogy is that through all played games, there is that entity that has the controller in its hands, and can opt to end or start a game at any time. Which is to say, in ordinary life, there is no such continuous 'behind the scene' player.
Meh - probably a bit muddled in my thoughts.
But good thoughts nonetheless.
How on earth (sic!) do you know that?
Hey gb. Nice to see you back.
That my self is always myself??
If that's what you're asking, then I refer you to the Thread Title.
Or, Buckaroo Banzai: Wherever you go, there you are".
But, to be clear: you do not wake up one day not being you.
Really?
And yet I can clearly point out Lake Ontario to you on a map despite the fact that no one can tell me where the lake begins and the Atlantic Ocean ends....
Note also that your objection here begs some sort of definition of 'self' that you're making use of.
There's no mechanism to reference it inside our heads. But whenever I ask myself ' is this myself?' of course the answer is Yes. And I can't recall a time when this wasn't so.
my emphasis
This is correct.
And alludes to the evasive nature of the 'self'.
...
Unfortunately to argue further on whether self is persistent, one needs an agreed upon definition of "self". Are we talking merely "consciousness"? Or are we talking personality?
And even then, with an agreed-upon definition / understanding, we can only answer the question (hopefully) for that particular understanding.
Indeed.
However, the problem is even more restrictive than that: assuming an agreed upon definition, we face the solipsistic hurdle ( and the Other Minds Problem, and Infinite Regress, for a few).
So - let me ask... would you define "self" as "consciousness"?
Or even broader - how do you think the two are related or interact?
We can
only begin once we do this. Even if we can agree upon an operational definition.
Although, for my part, I'd say we discard the mentioning (with respect to making a definition..) of consciousness (unless we wish to get bogged down in a neurochemistry discussion).
Whew.
