Jump to: Board index
February 26th, 2012, 2:51 am
February 26th, 2012, 2:47 pm
Scott wrote:While I happen to agree that you are not your body and I am not my body, I do not think the argument in the OP is sound. Not only is the poster before correct that the argument merely proves that your body changes, but also I think the premise is suspect. It assumes you don't change which I think is incorrect, and it may also be a fallacy of equivocation considering the word I may be very equivocal.
February 27th, 2012, 1:49 am
Scott wrote:You are mixing up my body at t with my body. Of course, X is not identical to Y if X is your body on Feb 26 2011 and Y is your body on Feb 26 2012. But neither the term your body on Feb 26 2011 nor your body at this very moment is synonymous nor identical with the term your body as the term your body unless specified otherwise refers to a 4-dimensional object of which both your body on Feb 26 2011 and your body at this very moment are a part.
Belinda wrote:The self is metaphysically simple, that is, it is not made out of parts. Really, the only things, which, can undergo change are composite objects.
Is this elemental self anatomical or physiological, or is it a psychological construct? There is not anything else it can be unless it is supernatural. Supernatural things cannot be proved to exist, because if they could be proved to exist they would be natural, not supernatural. Anyway, elements are not made out of parts and elements can undergo change by becoming compounded or mixed with other elements, and elements can also move around in space.
It is not even possible to find the self by introspection.You say that I'm assuming I don't change, and that's correct. I can't be something that changes, since, again, I could not endure through time.
February 28th, 2012, 2:10 am
Fhbradley wrote:Speaking of Hume, you falsely believe that the self is something to be perceived itself when you say, "It is not even possible to find the self by introspection". That is, you're looking for an impression or idea of a self. But this is just misunderstanding what a self is. A self is a thing which perceives, not a perception.
AS you say I was indeed thinking of Hume.The self as subject, defined as a thing which perceives, is also what is up for discussion, besides the self as an anatomical or physiological construct. If the self is the thing which perceives, what of the changing flickering perceptions of gestalts such as the duck/ rabbit or the vase/ human profiles, or the old hag/ young woman? Also, what is it that is perceiving when we are examinng our idea of self: here we have the beginniong of a regress.
My self's attributes cannot be measured as it has no dimensions. My self as a mental construct can be measured by brain correlates but this is not what we are talking about.My self's attributes are also mental constructs but those also do not exist in space time. However even mental constructs however nonsensical have an existence as they are within the cycles of cause and effect. But we are taking about the sustantive existence of the self in space and time, not the self as mental construct.
February 29th, 2012, 10:00 pm
Scott wrote:Yes, but in a non-abstract sense everything is constantly changing and swapping parts, such as the water flowing away from a river, the electrons from my carpet being replaced by new ones, etc. Because of that, almost all our words refer to 4-dimensional patterns of things. 'My carpet' doesn't refer to a certain set of atoms and electrons; 'his river' doesn't refer to a specific cubic feet of water, and 'your body' doesn't refer to that which changes about it. That particular water in that amount may happen to be part of the river at a certain time but at another time it may not and the term my river refers to the river at both times in a 4-dimensional, relative way. Similarly, your body may refer to a mass that has long blond hair at one time and is bald at another. You may change in the way your body changes (i.e. an instance of your body has a property at a certain time that your body does not have at another time, even though both are actually your body), but the concept of you 4-dimensionally may be identical with itself and body in the way body is identical with itself. Baldness or hairiness cannot be a property of your body, but can only be a time-relative quality of the changing-over-time 4-dimensional concept that is 'your body'. You may change just like your body changes, but you may not change in the sense that 'you' are identical with itself even when used at different times.