What is a single thing?ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 1:44 am Seriously, it is ridiculous to suggest that I am experiences, because there can be no experience without someone to experience it. I must be a single thing, not a pattern or process or event.
Atheism and Free Will
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Atheism and Free Will
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Atheism and Free Will
You're the one claiming there is a separate Experiencer-Me having the experience of being a me.ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑September 15th, 2021, 3:24 pmIf I am experiences, what do you think is experiencing me?
So what exactly is that Me having the experiences?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Atheism and Free Will
The "someone" is an abstraction over all of those experiences. (Abstractions themselves being mental (brain) processes.)ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 1:44 am Seriously, it is ridiculous to suggest that I am experiences, because there can be no experience without someone to experience it. I must be a single thing, not a pattern or process or event.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Atheism and Free Will
See the big discussion about indivisible existents above. That's what he has in mind.Belindi wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 4:28 amWhat is a single thing?ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 1:44 am Seriously, it is ridiculous to suggest that I am experiences, because there can be no experience without someone to experience it. I must be a single thing, not a pattern or process or event.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Atheism and Free Will
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Atheism and Free Will
I would say you are a single thing, and a pattern, process/es and event/s. It depends on one's perspective, the lens through we consider the phenomenon of being. There are many angles.ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 1:44 amI must be a single thing, not a pattern or process or event.
Consider, if you are the same person today as the one month-old baby you once were, what does the adult you and the baby you were long ago have in common? Heritage and, maybe, familial connections. I can't think of much else, aside from neurons and DNA.
A baby may show indications of innate tendencies that blossom in adulthood. However, the similarity between an adult and the baby they once were is far greater than the difference between the adult and other adults. In a sense we have died a number of times - the baby, the child, the teen, the young adult that we once were are gone, almost as if they had died.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Atheism and Free Will
Apparently, the corpus callosum isn't quite the only connection between the two halves of the brain. But if it were, and if both halves survived the cutting, then presumably we couldn't help but conclude that there are now two people in there.
Interesting thing: Apparently patients who have been through this procedure typically report feeling perfectly normal afterwards. But I guess they would wouldn't they. If your brain suddenly effectively became two brains living inside the same skull then presumably neither of those brains would report any symptoms that answer to the description of "there are two of me!". They'd each consider themselves to be the one that was there before, but with some odd stuff going on regarding control of their body. And so it seems to be, with effects such as "alien hand syndrome". Presumably the one with control of the mouth would report these effects.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Atheism and Free Will
Thank you.I remember now.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 6:17 amSee the big discussion about indivisible existents above. That's what he has in mind.Belindi wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 4:28 amWhat is a single thing?ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 1:44 am Seriously, it is ridiculous to suggest that I am experiences, because there can be no experience without someone to experience it. I must be a single thing, not a pattern or process or event.
ManInThe Moon, If this "single thing" is not a pattern, process, or event is it an anatomical entity such as a pineal gland?
Or the vermiform appendix may serve ;I don't remember its having any known function.
-
- Posts: 76
- Joined: June 18th, 2021, 1:51 am
Re: Atheism and Free Will
Sorry, I forgot. When I say something is "indivisible" I mean it is not composed of anything else. It is ontologically, only one thing. It is not made of other things than itself. Everything that is divisible must ultimately be composed of things that are not divisible, because only things without parts can exist. I don't see anything controversial or difficult to understand in that statement, although I'm aware that you'll probably disagree with it. If you have a basket and ten apples, you can say there are eleven things, but if you put the apples in the basket it doesn't mean there's suddenly a twelfth thing, a basket of ten apples. The same goes for the basket and the apples. Each is not actually a single thing, because there is no basket that exists in addition to the parts of the basket, and the same for those parts. Ultimately, all existing objects must be indivisible, although for convenience we can talk about composites as if they were unitary wholes. That's still just a convention, though, and I don't think being able to say that I am one thing is enough for me to actually be one thing, but I must actually be one thing in order for there to be one me. In order for there to be one me, there must be something indivisible that is me.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 6:19 am Re the above, unfortunately ManInTheMoon never responded to my last question to him about this: "I need to ask you to clarify how you're defining or at least determining whether something is divisible. X is divisible if it can be divided into parts per what criteria? Just how do we check whether something is divisible into parts?"
Those aren't single things, are they? I can't tell you where exactly the thing that is you must be, or give you any way to physically isolate it. I just think it must exist somewhere. An experience must be experienced by someone, If you are just an experience, who is experiencing you?
Maybe what we would call a mind, or a soul? Something indivisible with the capacity to be conscious and make choices. Maybe you have a better suggestion, but there has to be something. It's absurd to suggest that there could be an experience if there's no conscious being to experience it.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Atheism and Free Will
Safe to say most people have the intuition that you describe. I doubt if intuitions are part of the reasoning in analytic philosophy. A claim about your intuition is interesting but it is not a theory.Belindi wrote: ↑Yesterday, 1:40 pmThose aren't single things, are they? I can't tell you where exactly the thing that is you must be, or give you any way to physically isolate it. I just think it must exist somewhere. An experience must be experienced by someone, If you are just an experience, who is experiencing you?ManInThe Moon, If this "single thing" is not a pattern, process, or event is it an anatomical entity such as a pineal gland?
Or the vermiform appendix may serve ;I don't remember its having any known function.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Atheism and Free Will
It's not that I'm going to disagree with the above so much as it's not answering the question I'm asking you. Above, you're simply presenting an explanation or definition of what it is to be indivisible; you're just presenting it in more detail.ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 3:22 pmSorry, I forgot. When I say something is "indivisible" I mean it is not composed of anything else. It is ontologically, only one thing. It is not made of other things than itself. Everything that is divisible must ultimately be composed of things that are not divisible, because only things without parts can exist. I don't see anything controversial or difficult to understand in that statement, although I'm aware that you'll probably disagree with it. If you have a basket and ten apples, you can say there are eleven things, but if you put the apples in the basket it doesn't mean there's suddenly a twelfth thing, a basket of ten apples. The same goes for the basket and the apples. Each is not actually a single thing, because there is no basket that exists in addition to the parts of the basket, and the same for those parts. Ultimately, all existing objects must be indivisible, although for convenience we can talk about composites as if they were unitary wholes. That's still just a convention, though, and I don't think being able to say that I am one thing is enough for me to actually be one thing, but I must actually be one thing in order for there to be one me. In order for there to be one me, there must be something indivisible that is me.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 6:19 am Re the above, unfortunately ManInTheMoon never responded to my last question to him about this: "I need to ask you to clarify how you're defining or at least determining whether something is divisible. X is divisible if it can be divided into parts per what criteria? Just how do we check whether something is divisible into parts?"
But that's not what I'm asking you.
Here's what I'm asking you: if we're wondering "Is x indivisible," and especially where there might be some dispute about that, how do we test or check whether it's indivisible or not? Reiterating or further detailing just what it is to be indivisible won't do that. We're proceeding with an understanding of what it is to be indivisible. The problem is rather that there is a dispute over whether x is indivisible under the agreed-upon definition. So how do we settle that?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Atheism and Free Will
ManInTheMoon, do you sometimes think of the universe a whole thing, and sometimes as collection of all the contents of the universe? Most people can do so. Both aspects of the universe are true.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 17th, 2021, 6:54 amIt's not that I'm going to disagree with the above so much as it's not answering the question I'm asking you. Above, you're simply presenting an explanation or definition of what it is to be indivisible; you're just presenting it in more detail.ManInTheMoon wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 3:22 pmSorry, I forgot. When I say something is "indivisible" I mean it is not composed of anything else. It is ontologically, only one thing. It is not made of other things than itself. Everything that is divisible must ultimately be composed of things that are not divisible, because only things without parts can exist. I don't see anything controversial or difficult to understand in that statement, although I'm aware that you'll probably disagree with it. If you have a basket and ten apples, you can say there are eleven things, but if you put the apples in the basket it doesn't mean there's suddenly a twelfth thing, a basket of ten apples. The same goes for the basket and the apples. Each is not actually a single thing, because there is no basket that exists in addition to the parts of the basket, and the same for those parts. Ultimately, all existing objects must be indivisible, although for convenience we can talk about composites as if they were unitary wholes. That's still just a convention, though, and I don't think being able to say that I am one thing is enough for me to actually be one thing, but I must actually be one thing in order for there to be one me. In order for there to be one me, there must be something indivisible that is me.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 16th, 2021, 6:19 am Re the above, unfortunately ManInTheMoon never responded to my last question to him about this: "I need to ask you to clarify how you're defining or at least determining whether something is divisible. X is divisible if it can be divided into parts per what criteria? Just how do we check whether something is divisible into parts?"
But that's not what I'm asking you.
Here's what I'm asking you: if we're wondering "Is x indivisible," and especially where there might be some dispute about that, how do we test or check whether it's indivisible or not? Reiterating or further detailing just what it is to be indivisible won't do that. We're proceeding with an understanding of what it is to be indivisible. The problem is rather that there is a dispute over whether x is indivisible under the agreed-upon definition. So how do we settle that?
-
- Posts: 76
- Joined: June 18th, 2021, 1:51 am
Re: Atheism and Free Will
You'd have to prove logically that that particular thing must be indivisible, such as by showing that it exists, and divisible things do not exist; or you could prove it's not indivisible by physically dividing it.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 17th, 2021, 6:54 am It's not that I'm going to disagree with the above so much as it's not answering the question I'm asking you. Above, you're simply presenting an explanation or definition of what it is to be indivisible; you're just presenting it in more detail.
But that's not what I'm asking you.
Here's what I'm asking you: if we're wondering "Is x indivisible," and especially where there might be some dispute about that, how do we test or check whether it's indivisible or not? Reiterating or further detailing just what it is to be indivisible won't do that. We're proceeding with an understanding of what it is to be indivisible. The problem is rather that there is a dispute over whether x is indivisible under the agreed-upon definition. So how do we settle that?
-
- Posts: 76
- Joined: June 18th, 2021, 1:51 am
Re: Atheism and Free Will
What intuition are you talking about? That there cannot be an experience without someone experiencing it? That I must exist or I couldn't experience my experiences? That only indivisible things exist? Those do all seem intuitively true, but being intuitive is no reason to doubt them, is it?
Also, I don't know where I ever made a claim about an intuition and portrayed it as a theory.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Atheism and Free Will
Not necessarily. The universe is a whole thing, I have no argument with that. But if you assert, because the internal composition of the universe is not homogenous, that it is a "collection of all the contents of the universe", I think this needs some justification. And I can see none (excluding practical necessity due to human inability/disability).
"Who cares, wins"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023