XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.atheism, talk.atheism
From: santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com
"Immortalist" wrote in message
news:FL9Nf.110830$4l5.23982@dukeread05...
>
> "Craig Franck" wrote in message
> news:Oq5Nf.7351$Gw2.6230@trndny03...
>> "Immortalist" wrote
>>
>>> "Joseph H" wrote
>>
>>>> What is this thing called self?
>>>>
>>>> Is it.......
>>>>
>>>
>>> the activities of particular nerve cells, but not the nerve cells
>>> themselves?
>>>
>>> like the sheen and smooth qualities of water when we see through
>>> magnification that it is just grainy atoms
>>>
>>> like the melody of many instruments playing together, that something
>>> that vanishes when they play seperately
>>>
>>> a biological process that happens when nerve cells are active
>>
>> From all that you provided at the end of this post I'm sure you are
>> aware this is a complicated issue, but identifying the "self" as
>> activities of brain cells or even biological structures is the wrong
>> level
>> of abstraction.
>>
>
> If someone asks me what sentences consist of and I answer words and
> letters are you going to say that I am at the wrong or right level of
> abstraction?
Hi Craig,
Yes, I would, because you've neglected the "whole" of it, and therefore lost
touch with the "true" meaning of a sentence and what it "really" consists
of.
Is this a sentence? "y twenty yep southern pt belle yadda jk pretty."
It's got words and letters!
Try this answer on for size: a string of words satisfying the grammatical
rules of a language.
It's the grammatical rules, or The LAW of Sentences, that makes a sentence a
sentence.
Part of that Law, also means a sentence needs to make sense.
I would suggest, a similar approach applies to defining what is this thing
called Self.
> Or are you going to say that the only way to find out what a sentence is
> is to compare it to other sentences and imagine we that can ignore words,
> letters, paragraphs, sections and chapters?
>
See above.
That's a 2 word sentence btw, and yet it still makes sense without comparing
it to anything, because it follows the principles laid down by the
rules/law. Understand the "principles" of the Law, and you see all, as it
is, without comparison. [ I think that makes sense, at least to me it
does. ]
>> To have a self you most likely need a body, but even this, as Merleau-
>> Ponty has pointed out, requires an elaborate theory of perception that
>> functions unconsciously in most persons. Knowing that you can't hear
>> my thoughts or stubbing your toe won't cause me pain probably can't
>> be expressed as simple neuronal patterns, and this is still at the
>> relatively primitive phase of body/environment distinction.
>>
>
> Actually if you took everything away from a body but nerve cells you would
> see the shape of the entire body. But I agree with you that the necessary
> conditions for experience are converged upon by the activities of nerves,
> bodies and the world.
>
And if you took away everything including the nerve cells, say cremated the
body, then an artist could easily draw that deceased body and you could
still see the shape of the entire body clearly.
Now a question arises ... did the nerve cells create the shape? Either in
the real body or of the drawing?
I'd suggest that if they didn't .... then they are not the "self" that did
the shaping but only a small part of the subsequent process of creation and
action.
>> True Self-ness requires a full-blown theory at least as elaborate as
>> Catholic theology. (Simply explaining why one body can or can't have
>> multiple selves would require an essay-length treatment. The same
>> is true for Buddhist self vs. Western self.)
>>
>
> From the evidence of neurology and neurophysiology the best theory is that
> this self-ness (IS) the activities of particular nerve cells only. But I
> agree that events external to and influential upon these particular nerve
> cells may be necessary if the complex is to converge upon one possible way
> to create human experience.
>
Why are you making a God out of the "evidence" of neurology and
neurophysiology?
The best theory used to be the world was flat. Luckily Magellan had a boat!
>> So calling an elaborate social fiction the activities of brain cells
>> just
>> means all mental activity is most likely brain activity which isn't
>> particularly useful as an explanation.
>>
>
> THe subject was "what is the self" not what influences the self. But I
> agree that bodies and the world are necessary for the complex to converge
> upon the discovery of experience.
>
Oddly enough you may have hit upon a greater truth than you realise. Follow
that thought!!
> Take away the world and and the self fades like when people float in water
> with all their sensory apperatus blinded.
>
Um, I don't think that's a valid analogy for the question at hand. Take away
the world, and there is no self's left with any sensory appartus to be
blinded. :)
cheers
> Sensory deprivation is the deliberate reduction or removal of stimuli from
> one or more of the senses. Simple devices such as blindfolds and earmuffs
> can cut off sight and hearing, while more complex devices can also cut off
> the sense of smell, touch, taste, thermoception (heat-sense), and
> 'gravity'. Sensory deprivation has been used in various alternative
> medicines and in psychological experiments (e.g., see Isolation tank), and
> for torture or punishment.
> Though short periods of sensory deprivation can be relaxing, extended
> deprivation can result in extreme anxiety, hallucinations, bizarre
> thoughts, depression, and antisocial behavior.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation
>
>> --
>> Craig Franck
>> craig.franck@verizon.net
>> Cortland, NY
>>
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
