Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Page · 03-11-2003, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I find my self-awareness to be the only thing I know for sure, yet science SEEMS to deny it.

How?

LostGirl · 03-11-2003, 10:16 PM

I've actually heard this figure before:

Quote:

Every seven years or so my body completes a cycle where it has renewed every cell it is made up of; in effect it is no longer the same body.

Of course, I couldn't make sense of it because there are a few cell lines that cannot be replaced once they have died. So, I asked a few of my profs, and this was the general answer I got:

It's not that every cell in your body is replaced, but that every part of every cell is replaced. Even post mitotic cells continue to replace the phospholipids in their cell membranes, along with the cholesterols and membrane channels and pores. So too are the constituent components of the organelles inside the cell replaced as they wear out one at a time. At no time is the cell replaced, but the flow of molecules is through the body, it's not static. Even the most environmentally isolated cell lines (gametes) undergo some low level of maintenance.
So; not every cell is replaced every seven years, but every molecule in your body is replaced several times during the course of your life. My profs couldn't substantiate the seven year cycle specifically, because it would be very hard to quantify!

Nowhere357 · 03-11-2003, 10:31 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nowhere357
I find my self-awareness to be the only thing I know for sure, yet science SEEMS to deny it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How?

Well for sure many people think science says self is "illusion", which is not a too bad definition of "non-existence".

Current science hasn't explained the self - though it is reasonable to suppose it eventually will. However, it is NOT UNREASONABLE to suppose it eventually won't - after all, there are an entire class of objects which exist subjectively, and do not follow scientific laws (though they do follow laws of reason). You know, pain has no mass.

I haven't decided which position is more reasonable.

MyKell · 03-11-2003, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nowhere357
I find my self-awareness to be the only thing I know for sure, yet science SEEMS to deny it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How?

Well for sure many people think science says self is "illusion", which is not a too bad definition of "non-existence".

Current science hasn't explained the self - though it is reasonable to suppose it eventually will. However, it is NOT UNREASONABLE to suppose it eventually won't - after all, there are an entire class of objects which exist subjectively, and do not follow scientific laws (though they do follow laws of reason). You know, pain has no mass.

I haven't decided which position is more reasonable.

Nowhere,
When someone says the self is an illusion, they do not imply that it is non existent. At least I don't. When saying an illusion, I mean it is not what seems intuitive to you by introspection. Otherwise, I would have said "delusion". I think I explained that in my earlier post on this thread.
From what I understand you are a dualist. You are implying that the phenomenon of the self is a totally different entity (metaphysically) than the body/brain. I find such a claim unsupported, and the only argument you are using is an argument out of ignorance. Holes in our knowledge do not support your theory. You have to come up with your own evidence for such a thing that you are claiming.

Nowhere357 · 03-12-2003, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MyKell

1. The self is a phenomenology by it's own right. Just like we feel the visual scenery in front of us through a mental scene, we feel that our cells are united by some homuniculus inside our brain. Now, that doesn't mean that there is a hominuculus, but the illusion is probably felt by everyone reading this paragraph.

2. The concept of the self is a late evolutionary characteristics that only humans and chimpanzees have. None of the other species can recognize themselves in the mirrors as far as I know.

3. The self arises later in development. Children recognize their parents long before they recognize themselves.(Parents at 6 months, Themselves at 2 years)

4. The self arises due to social interaction. My guess is that, just like all other complex phenomenologies, the self comes from the outside world. Recognizing that people label YOU as YOU, gives you the concept of YOU. It is not intuitive to know that you are an individual.

5. The self is an ever changing entity. This is not metaphoric, it is literal. You are not You a year ago, period. Therefore, my guess is that the self is as changing as the synapses that give aid in their emergence. It is directly related to memories, value systems (emotion, motivation), and the current environment one is living. You cannot isolate the self from the environment

6. About what makes the self. This is a step beyond what makes consciousness. It's a very difficult concept that I will not try to explain because I will most certainly get wrong. What exactly are the neural/biological correlates of the self, how they unite to give rise to the feeling of the self is a question that we are a bit far from answering at the present time.

I agree with everything here. I would say the child has an awareness, and that awareness is what become self-aware. There seems to be a continuity between the childs awareness, and the later adults awareness - regardless of changes, it's still the same awareness.
Maybe it is like stop action - the awareness is generated moment-by-moment, and has no seperate existence. But then maybe it IS continous, how do we decide which is more likely?
The stop action idea reminds me of the Zeno paradox, and infinity always make me wary.

MyKell · 03-12-2003, 05:20 AM

Quote:

There seems to be a continuity between the childs awareness, and the later adults awareness - regardless of changes, it's still the same awareness.

This is a vague sentence... I don't understand what you mean by the term "same awareness". If you mean that the concept of phenomenal consciounsess is "continuous" in time then I agree. However, if you're trying to say that the NCC of a child consciousness is the same as those of an adult's awareness, then I strongly disagree. Again, we get down to the same problem, vagueness!

Nowhere357 · 03-12-2003, 08:20 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nowhere357
I find my self-awareness to be the only thing I know for sure, yet science SEEMS to deny it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nowhere,
When someone says the self is an illusion, they do not imply that it is non existent. At least I don't. When saying an illusion, I mean it is not what seems intuitive to you by introspection. Otherwise, I would have said "delusion". I think I explained that in my earlier post on this thread. "

Mykell I agree. This is why my post clearly shows I was talking about appearances.

"From what I understand you are a dualist. You are implying that the phenomenon of the self is a totally different entity (metaphysically) than the body/brain. I find such a claim unsupported, and the only argument you are using is an argument out of ignorance."

I don't know yet if I'm a dualist - hence the motive behind my explorations. I must admit I find the "dogma" of out-of-hand dismissal of the concept unsavory, and that doesn't help your case. Now, I have two supports for my argument: the words are defined in a way that allows my conclusion, and the fact that self-awareness is fundamentaly different from all other observed phenomenae allows my conclusion. Neither argument has been refuted, and you claim to be unaware of them at all! I don't know
the answers and may never know, but the claim that I'm arguing "out of ignorance" seems untenable.

"Holes in our knowledge do not support your theory. You have to come up with your own evidence for such a thing that you are claiming."

These holes don't support your position, either. Unless your position is "science is all powerful - science has no limits - science can answer everything because everything can be answered by science". At any rate, I have do evidence, currently unrefuted, and it's being refined as I recieve useful feedback. In deciding the value of our two views, at what point does the burden of evidence shift? In other words, I haven't proven that science cannot answer the question, and you haven't proven it can - it's not clear to me yet which failure carries the most weight. Surely the assertion that "science can answer everything" is of no help at all.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There seems to be a continuity between the childs awareness, and the later adults awareness - regardless of changes, it's still the same awareness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This is a vague sentence... I don't understand what you mean by the term "same awareness". If you mean that the concept of phenomenal consciounsess is "continuous" in time then I agree. However, if you're trying to say that the NCC of a child consciousness is the same as those of an adult's awareness, then I strongly disagree. Again, we get down to the same problem, vagueness!"

I have re-read my quote, and see nothing vague about it. The appearance of continuity is pretty obvious. The rest of your comment seems, well, vague. I see assertions, and I can't tell exactly what those assertions are. I don't see any positional arguments.

I have a slightly different vein to explore, I hope you will take it seriously - it may be a rich vein. Let's step back from the problem, and consider this:
While exploring the natural world, science discovered two facts which seemed to be mutually exclusive - the particle/wave duality of light. Eventually this duality was explained, and new physics were discovered. When I look at our two positions, I see the parallel, and I think "both are reasonable - perhaps they're both right?" Maybe a self-awareness appears as a metaphysical object when veiwed one way, and appears emergent when viewed another way. Maybe neither view is superior - they're just different views. Maybe the reality of the nature of self-awareness is such that it explains both views.

MyKell · 03-12-2003, 09:13 AM

Quote:

These holes don't support your position, either. Unless your position is "science is all powerful - science has no limits - science can answer everything because everything can be answered by science". At any rate, I have do evidence, currently unrefuted, and it's being refined as I recieve useful feedback. In deciding the value of our two views, at what point does the burden of evidence shift? In other words, I haven't proven that science cannot answer the question, and you haven't proven it can - it's not clear to me yet which failure carries the most weight. Surely the assertion that "science can answer everything" is of no help at all.

Science has been advanced mainly by a positivist approach. Everything that we know has been a construction of the observations we make. I think you have problems understanding how science progresses. In science, I don't think anyone claims a metaphysical truth of any sort. We only make observation and construct theories. When an observation stops agreeing with the theory, it is either modified or changed. Now, holes in my theory only need observations to further confirm or overthrow it (since it is based on objective observations to begin with). You have provided neither. Your theory on the other hand, is unfalsifiable!! How would I disprove the existence of such a thing you are claiming. I can't make observations on non-physical entities.
I am a materialist, and I'm also a positivist. I do think that everything we
observe can and will be explained by science.

Quote:

I have re-read my quote, and see nothing vague about it. The appearance of continuity is pretty obvious. The rest of your comment seems, well, vague. I see assertions, and I can't tell exactly what those assertions are. I don't see any positional arguments.

Ok here are a few references that you can read in order to understand what I'm talking about. Edelman's Universe of Consciousness and Crick's Astonishing Hypothesis
This work is more of a building foundation for the NCC that I meantioned. For Philosophy of mind you can do a search for Ned Block or David Chalmers.

Quote:

Maybe a self-awareness appears as a metaphysical object when veiwed one way, and appears emergent when viewed another way. Maybe neither view is superior - they're just different views. Maybe the reality of the nature of self-awareness is such that it explains both views.

Are you using metaphysical instead of non-physical? Those are two very different things by the way. No, I don't think our two views are similar to the particle/wave duality of matter. Your view cannot possibly be observed.

Cheers

Nowhere357 · 03-13-2003, 10:59 PM

I understand the scientific method, and the basic sciences, at least. I think my problem is with logic, or whatever it is that allows us to understand all that information. Or maybe it's from when I was dropped on my head.

I'm disappointed you didn't try harder on the duality thought experiment.
Thanks for the links - I'm using them.

Does the body exist? Does the body have an afterlife?

crocodile deathroll · 03-14-2003, 03:38 AM

The problem I have with pure materialism is that
If one were to wind the clock back to when the earth was young then are there "atoms" scattered all over the globe that have are the essence of you personal self stamped on them and in order for your personal self to be generated into existence they all have to gather in a certain place at a certain time?

I think if the chances of my existence were contingent on that extreme improbability then it should not be possible my personal self to exist and read this message and send it to you.
But since I sent this message and you are reading it then there should IMO be something wrong with that theory.

03-11-2003, 10:31 PM	#33
Nowhere357 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Grand Junction CO Posts: 2,231	Now where is Now Here quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Nowhere357 I find my self-awareness to be the only thing I know for sure, yet science SEEMS to deny it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How? Well for sure many people think science says self is "illusion", which is not a too bad definition of "non-existence". Current science hasn't explained the self - though it is reasonable to suppose it eventually will. However, it is NOT UNREASONABLE to suppose it eventually won't - after all, there are an entire class of objects which exist subjectively, and do not follow scientific laws (though they do follow laws of reason). You know, pain has no mass. I haven't decided which position is more reasonable.

03-12-2003, 08:20 AM	#37
Nowhere357 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Grand Junction CO Posts: 2,231	Re: Re: Now where is Now Here -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Nowhere357 I find my self-awareness to be the only thing I know for sure, yet science SEEMS to deny it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Nowhere, When someone says the self is an illusion, they do not imply that it is non existent. At least I don't. When saying an illusion, I mean it is not what seems intuitive to you by introspection. Otherwise, I would have said "delusion". I think I explained that in my earlier post on this thread. " Mykell I agree. This is why my post clearly shows I was talking about appearances. "From what I understand you are a dualist. You are implying that the phenomenon of the self is a totally different entity (metaphysically) than the body/brain. I find such a claim unsupported, and the only argument you are using is an argument out of ignorance." I don't know yet if I'm a dualist - hence the motive behind my explorations. I must admit I find the "dogma" of out-of-hand dismissal of the concept unsavory, and that doesn't help your case. Now, I have two supports for my argument: the words are defined in a way that allows my conclusion, and the fact that self-awareness is fundamentaly different from all other observed phenomenae allows my conclusion. Neither argument has been refuted, and you claim to be unaware of them at all! I don't know the answers and may never know, but the claim that I'm arguing "out of ignorance" seems untenable. "Holes in our knowledge do not support your theory. You have to come up with your own evidence for such a thing that you are claiming." These holes don't support your position, either. Unless your position is "science is all powerful - science has no limits - science can answer everything because everything can be answered by science". At any rate, I have do evidence, currently unrefuted, and it's being refined as I recieve useful feedback. In deciding the value of our two views, at what point does the burden of evidence shift? In other words, I haven't proven that science cannot answer the question, and you haven't proven it can - it's not clear to me yet which failure carries the most weight. Surely the assertion that "science can answer everything" is of no help at all. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There seems to be a continuity between the childs awareness, and the later adults awareness - regardless of changes, it's still the same awareness. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This is a vague sentence... I don't understand what you mean by the term "same awareness". If you mean that the concept of phenomenal consciounsess is "continuous" in time then I agree. However, if you're trying to say that the NCC of a child consciousness is the same as those of an adult's awareness, then I strongly disagree. Again, we get down to the same problem, vagueness!" I have re-read my quote, and see nothing vague about it. The appearance of continuity is pretty obvious. The rest of your comment seems, well, vague. I see assertions, and I can't tell exactly what those assertions are. I don't see any positional arguments. I have a slightly different vein to explore, I hope you will take it seriously - it may be a rich vein. Let's step back from the problem, and consider this: While exploring the natural world, science discovered two facts which seemed to be mutually exclusive - the particle/wave duality of light. Eventually this duality was explained, and new physics were discovered. When I look at our two positions, I see the parallel, and I think "both are reasonable - perhaps they're both right?" Maybe a self-awareness appears as a metaphysical object when veiwed one way, and appears emergent when viewed another way. Maybe neither view is superior - they're just different views. Maybe the reality of the nature of self-awareness is such that it explains both views.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-13-2003, 10:59 PM	#39
Nowhere357 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Grand Junction CO Posts: 2,231	I understand the scientific method, and the basic sciences, at least. I think my problem is with logic, or whatever it is that allows us to understand all that information. Or maybe it's from when I was dropped on my head. I'm disappointed you didn't try harder on the duality thought experiment. Thanks for the links - I'm using them. Does the body exist? Does the body have an afterlife?

03-14-2003, 03:38 AM	#40
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	The problem I have with pure materialism is that If one were to wind the clock back to when the earth was young then are there "atoms" scattered all over the globe that have are the essence of you personal self stamped on them and in order for your personal self to be generated into existence they all have to gather in a certain place at a certain time? I think if the chances of my existence were contingent on that extreme improbability then it should not be possible my personal self to exist and read this message and send it to you. But since I sent this message and you are reading it then there should IMO be something wrong with that theory.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.