you are still yet to explain two key points in your argument 1- how a persistent physical process can be sustained by a larger system that changes literally from the ground up every 10 or so years and 2 - how can consciousness can be a physical process
My only argument in this exchange has essentially been: You just can't seem to accept (for whatever reason) that all I am doing here is pointing out that you own argument is weak for attacking the physicalist view of consciousness. You like to "hone" your debating skills, right, so you can be a more effective servant of Krishna? So, come up with a better argument. All the physicalist is going to do in response to your current one is say "well, sure, consciousness and selfhood are mysterious, and we haven't been able to properly quantify such things yet, but this alleged 'continuity issue' doesn't exactly make me question my position".
You don't. It's an illusion. Just like how a movie looks continuous even though it's a certain number of frames per second.
hence: 1- how a persistent physical process can be sustained by a larger system that changes literally from the ground up every 10 or so years (since you are talking about that, right?) and 2 - how can consciousness can be a physical process (since you do want to make the point relevant to the discussion, right?) not really since there is a complete absence of temporary physical things giving rise to other consistent physical things that you speak of atm its just begging the question - "selfhood and the body are the same thing because (we guess) persistent physical process can be sustained by a larger system that changes literally from the ground up every 10 or so years and (we guess) consciousness can be a physical process" IOW far from saying "we don't know", there is a strong leaning on premises
that certainly explains the nature of selfhood as nothing more than the body (but then when push comes to shove I'm sure most people would be reluctant to identify themselves purely at whatever chronological stage they are at), but it doesn't really explain the selfhood that runs unchallenged throughout all these changes of bodies.
You aren't even your body. We are filled with millions of other organisms called bacteria. There is no real boundary between self and other. In fact this applies to all words. Words are artificial separations of a continuous process into separate frames. Useful for the purposes of discussion, but not the ultimate truth.
I don't understand what you're getting at. Once again, this is about the strength of the argument you presented earlier, not about the assumptions that physicalists make. That would be a different way to attack such a position.
yet for some reason you look both ways when crossing the road (even though getting flattened by a car would be lucky to wipe out even 0.1% of the total number of living entities in your system) yet also regularly bathe (which kills a substantially higher number on a regular basis) :shrug: Then you should learn to take your own advice and never breach subjects of truth/illusion. :shrug:
I don't understand what you are talking about : You : I merely pointed out that "there doesn't seem to be a reason why a persistent physical process can't be sustained within a larger system that changes over time". the critique rests upon two key premises ... both of which stand a distance apart from the position of "we don't know"
If there is no "you" without the body, then anyone could have occupied that body instead of you, since then there would have been no difference that discerns you from all the other possible existences that could have been that body. The reason, and it's a true reason, is because then you would have no properties without the body, and neither would the countless other possible existences have which could have been the body (there is nothing to discern you from them). Or, to put it differently; What is it to you that is your body?
I don't need to import those premises to demonstrate that your argument is weak. All I need to do is point out that physical processes that remain within certain parameters for sustained periods of time can and do occur. Therefore the quality of continuity, by itself, doesn't render such a process necessarily unphysical. Perhaps other qualities might, but not that one.
I disagree Poster Formerly Known as JDawg. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think this has been one of the coolest and useful discussions I have seen here despite the OP's initial inarticulateness - but that's okay, He is questioning out on the edge here, really pushing the envelope.
I wasn't talking about the OP. He's just curious about something we've all questioned in our lives, and that inquisitiveness has lead to a very enlightening discussion. I'm referring to the...well, let's call it the "Usual Suspect." Hence, ":shrug: into oblivion."
You don't however see them giving rise to other phenomena that are singular, constant, unchanged, etc If you are trying to play the ephemeral (the body) on par with the constant (the self) you have seriously downplayed the issue of "continuity"
That would mean that unique selfhood is an illusion - and you need to explain 1. how this illusion comes to be, 2. why it is generally so important to people, 3. how are we to still take our supposedly unique selfhood seriously, if we are to believe it is mere illusion. If you don't think unique selfhood is important, just imagine that the police or the IRS get you and you want to save yourself by saying "It wasn't me." Yes, these are the cunundrums that one runs into if one follows the popular "I am my body" to its logical conclusions. If you are your body, do then oxygen, carbon etc. atoms in your body have your name written on them? And since there are probably several people with your name, and date of birth, do those atoms also have written on them your ID numbers, social security numbers etc.? How is that? And if your body is really you or yours, then why does it age, grow ill and die? Nobody in their right mind would opt for aging, illness and death. But the idea that we are our bodies suggests just that: if we are our bodies, then aging, illness and death is something we choose; and could also not opt for.
But the sense of selfhood is not constant, unchanged: Ordinarily, when we (are in dreamless) sleep or are unconscious due to anaesthetics or injury, we perceive such periods as interruptions to our sense of selfhood. Retrospectively, we qualify these periods of interruptions in terms of "who we are", in a way that suggests continuity - but this sense of continuity is an imposition, and we know it as such.
The problem with the idea that consciousness or selfhood is merely a property of a physical process is that this is an externalist view of self. I seriously doubt there is anyone who actually sees themselves as "I am a property of a physical process." Sarkus will probably say that this doesn't matter, and that what matters are the "underlying processess," not what people think of themselves. But if we are to dismiss people like that, then why bother with any kind of exploration at all?
You're not getting it. If our sense of self is a property of a persistent physical process that remains within certain parameters for a sustained period of time, then that process is the phenomenon that provides a sense of continuity. That would be an assumption, yes. And if you want to attack assumptions for being mere assumptions, then go right ahead. But for the nth time, focusing on the quality of continuity, by itself, does no real damage to the physicalist position. This is especially the case because there is indeed a part of the brain (the brain stem) that is a central regulating hub for all bodily and mental function. If the parameters of this tight coupling deviate too much, we end up ill, or dead. If a certain part of it is damaged, it can result in paralysis (but the continuation of mental function). If a certain other part of it is damaged, it can result in a vegetative state (but the continuation of bodily function). So both mental function and bodily function seem to be grounded and very tightly regulated by being coupled with the brain stem. This basic design is also shared with a large number and variety of other creatures. It looks a lot like a persistent physical process constrained within certain very tight parameters that is going on within a larger system to me. None of this explains properly the subjective quality of inner experience of course. That's still a mystery. Go ahead and harp on about that all you like. But continuity as an argument against physicalism? It just does not work.
