Am I still myself?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-05-2011, 12:05 PM
RE: Am I still myself?
I think that 'you' are your memes. The YOU image emerged because it helped memes that stuck with it in reproduction. The I believe god is real meme is more successful then the god is real meme, because it needs no proof, it is to be respected (the respect faith! meme is a really successful one), etc. Consciousness is a product of memetic selection, like the eye is a product of genetic selection. The memeplex (memetic "genom") that resides in your brain and generates the subjective experience of consciousness for the sake of it's own selfish reasons is YOU.

Therefore you are your memes, and your memes are patterns in your brain that persist even if every atom of yours is replaced over time. So I think the answer is yes.

This is not an original idea, it came form Susan Blackmore : The Meme Machine. (highly recommended book!)

..."we can be truly free - not because we can rebel against the the tyranny of the selfish replicators but because we know that there is no one to rebel."
Susan Blackmore : The Meme Machine
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2011, 03:56 AM
RE: Am I still myself?
The_Observer I'm really not sure about what Dawkins says in that quote. I haven't found any evidence for it.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2011, 12:49 PM
RE: Am I still myself?
(19-05-2011 05:07 AM)The_observer Wrote:  What, from a naturalistic world view, makes me ME?

The best I can think of is my continuous existence in time. Is "Being me" just the perception from my environment? In the same sense like I see the toaster still as "my toaster"?

Essentially, yes.

"You" is simply the name we give to the chemical system comprising your body, in the same way that "your toaster" is the name you give to that particular arrangement of parts. The problem is that you're looking at these things as singular objects. In reality, "you" are a set of things, not a thing in and of yourself.

You are whatever atoms are currently part of your bodily system. You're still you, because the set hasn't stopped existing. But the contents of the set have changed. In the same way, your toaster is still your toaster, even though you have replaced all the parts, because the toaster isn't any single object, but rather all the objects that you are using as parts for your toaster.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
23-05-2011, 05:13 PM
 
RE: Am I still myself?
Almost everybody... Wrote:Toasters!

Speaking of toasters, my mind hopped to the reimagined series of Battlestar Gallactica. Coincidentally, the fact that many of the humanoid copies are completely identical in their physical appearence but nonetheless vary qualitatively in their personality was a point that I reckoned had to be added to the discussion. Cool
Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2011, 09:29 PM
 
RE: Am I still myself?
The_observer wrote:
I am not the same person as I was when I was born, I became adult, much of my
character changed. Although the chemical makeup of my body remained largely
the same, it still changed some. The atoms are completely different however.
Am I still ME?
What, from a naturalistic world view, makes me ME?
The best I can think of is my continuous existence in time. Is "Being me" just the
perception from my environment? In the same sense like I see the toaster still as
"my toaster"? A sobering thought!
Different opinions?

how human and superb is your inquiry!
"am i me through time?"
i like it, i like it a lot
you ask the question of eternity while being temporal
again... "am i me through time?"

i can offer you this for a point of... view:
eternity has no body, has no past, has no self consideration
temporal existence has body, has past and has self consideration

if you would live in a temporal existence and know eternity
you would have to
give up body, give up past and give up self consideration

it's possible
but rare as hens teeth...


.
Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2011, 10:57 AM
RE: Am I still myself?
(23-05-2011 12:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-05-2011 05:07 AM)The_observer Wrote:  What, from a naturalistic world view, makes me ME?

The best I can think of is my continuous existence in time. Is "Being me" just the perception from my environment? In the same sense like I see the toaster still as "my toaster"?

Essentially, yes.

"You" is simply the name we give to the chemical system comprising your body, in the same way that "your toaster" is the name you give to that particular arrangement of parts. The problem is that you're looking at these things as singular objects. In reality, "you" are a set of things, not a thing in and of yourself.

You are whatever atoms are currently part of your bodily system. You're still you, because the set hasn't stopped existing. But the contents of the set have changed. In the same way, your toaster is still your toaster, even though you have replaced all the parts, because the toaster isn't any single object, but rather all the objects that you are using as parts for your toaster.


Interesting post Unbeliever. I was thinking though, what if the object we are talking about had a Central Processing Unit, analogous to the human brain. Would it then be less about the chemical system and the "set" and more about the "brain" of the machine?

If a mad scientist in the future cut off my head and put it on another body, and then put a different head on my old body (while keeping both new frankenstein monsters alive), wouldn't the one with with the brain (the cpu) and the memories make up what we call "I"? The concept of the set becomes harder and harder to distinguish when more and more parts are separated from the whole. At what point does the set stop being "me"?

This is why I suggest my CPU theory. That we are more than just the collection of atoms that have come together for this moment. "I" am also a collection of memories, emotions, and behaviors.

I just woke up so this might not make sense. The words are all there, someone make something with that.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2011, 11:44 AM
RE: Am I still myself?
(24-05-2011 10:57 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(23-05-2011 12:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Essentially, yes.

"You" is simply the name we give to the chemical system comprising your body, in the same way that "your toaster" is the name you give to that particular arrangement of parts. The problem is that you're looking at these things as singular objects. In reality, "you" are a set of things, not a thing in and of yourself.

You are whatever atoms are currently part of your bodily system. You're still you, because the set hasn't stopped existing. But the contents of the set have changed. In the same way, your toaster is still your toaster, even though you have replaced all the parts, because the toaster isn't any single object, but rather all the objects that you are using as parts for your toaster.

Interesting post Unbeliever. I was thinking though, what if the object we are talking about had a Central Processing Unit, analogous to the human brain. Would it then be less about the chemical system and the "set" and more about the "brain" of the machine?

If you define "you" as "your brain", then yes, but the basic principle of the thing is still the same. The brain is also a set. It's just a smaller set than the body as a whole - just the parts which make up your brain (hippocampus, frontal lobes, etc.) rather than all the parts in your body. I was just assuming that by "me" The_Observer meant "me as a whole" rather than "me as just a brain".

(24-05-2011 10:57 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  If a mad scientist in the future cut off my head and put it on another body, and then put a different head on my old body (while keeping both new frankenstein monsters alive), wouldn't the one with with the brain (the cpu) and the memories make up what we call "I"? The concept of the set becomes harder and harder to distinguish when more and more parts are separated from the whole. At what point does the set stop being "me"?

The set never does. The parts might, as they are removed from it. The set "me" only stops existing once all the parts have been removed from it - that is, once they stop interacting with one another in a way which produces consciousness. Generally, this is death.

Your question about placing your head on someone else's body is interesting, but it comes down more to what you define "you" as than a problem with the set idea. Do you consider your body just a vehicle, or part of yourself? If someone swapped your body for another via brain transplant, would you consider this new body part of yourself? It's a subjective interpretation of what's in the set, but it isn't rejection of the set idea.

(24-05-2011 10:57 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  This is why I suggest my CPU theory. That we are more than just the collection of atoms that have come together for this moment. "I" am also a collection of memories, emotions, and behaviors.

Right. And these emotions, memories, and behaviors are all contained in the set labeled "you". You're right in saying that the brain set is sufficient on its own - all these things are stored in and products of the brain. I just went with the entire body in my original post for simplicity's sake.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2011, 11:51 AM
RE: Am I still myself?
(24-05-2011 11:44 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I was just assuming that by "me" The_Observer meant "me as a whole" rather than "me as just a brain".
I did... And that is where I found the problem. NOTHING remains from the original me. So the best i could come up with was "Me is just my continuous existence in time"

Even if you swap my brain along with all it's memory, with that of someone else, I would note that my body is different.

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2011, 11:56 AM
RE: Am I still myself?
Quote:how human and superb is your inquiry!
"am i me through time?"
i like it, i like it a lot
you ask the question of eternity while being temporal
again... "am i me through time?"

i can offer you this for a point of... view:
eternity has no body, has no past, has no self consideration
temporal existence has body, has past and has self consideration

if you would live in a temporal existence and know eternity
you would have to
give up body, give up past and give up self consideration

it's possible
but rare as hens teeth...

Either I'm an idiot, or this makes no sense.

..."we can be truly free - not because we can rebel against the the tyranny of the selfish replicators but because we know that there is no one to rebel."
Susan Blackmore : The Meme Machine
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2011, 12:11 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2011 12:16 PM by Observer.)
RE: Am I still myself?
Quote:but rare as hens teeth...
[Image: HensTeeth.jpg]
(24-05-2011 11:56 AM)TheSelfishGene Wrote:  Either I'm an idiot, or t...
Don't... go there... Smile

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: