Thomas Ash

I wouldn't say that they're a result of these reactions. It's not as if your brain makes a choice and as a result of this you choose the same thing in some sense after-the-fact. The choice is being made in your brain through the chemical reactions. As for the 'just', this is obviously not the case as there is the whole experience of conciousness and our experiencing our thoughts and decisions.
Except the brain cells! Important, perhaps?
(Or, more properly, it's the fact that the same networks and thus memories and likes and dislikes and opinions remain in your brain that matters. It's like the example of the ancient caveman axe which has first a part of the handle, which had gone rotten, and then the blade, and then the whole handle replaced, but is still definitely a very ancient axe. This is an appropriate example (and not just me blathering) because even if you just consider the brain as part of you, the state of it is never going to be exactly the same if you compare it to your brain a few seconds ago, and by 20 or so years on you are a competely different person - people even use that expression - but you are treated as still 'you' just because of certain memories, or likes or dislikes, which provide a continuity.)
Yep (if that's not too short an opinion!)
Well, I think that question rests on the concept of responsibility, which I don't think is very meaningful in the first place - punishment should be instituted to achieve certain practical ends, as after all you can't undo the crime which has been committed. So prison sentences, for example, serve as deterrence, protection of the rest of the community, a comfort to the victim or her or his family (if you believe that should be an admissible factor) and perhaps most importantly as an opportunity for rehabilitation. I'd say on these factors the man is still up for his punishment, provided he still has the same character whjch led him to commit the crime in the first place (and is still in need of rehabilitation because of that.)

Oxymoron

"you" is a software model of a human being that is evolved and maintained by your mind. It is identical to the models of other human beings you have, except in two respects:

1) it is exposed to a vastly greater amount of sensory information than the other models you maintain.

2) you are 0% aware of other people's thought processes and N% aware of your own, where N is anything between 0 and 100, though I would say N < 50.

These two points encapsulate the qualitative differences between 'you' and everyone else from your own perspective.

Amos

The obvious answer here is: if you don't know the real "you" the real "you" is that part of you that you do not know!

It is also called our soul and once we know who we really are we will no longer have a soul but we will be like Atlantis and have blended with our soul. In other words, we will have come to know the depth, breath, and the width of the Lord our God. We can also say that our conscious mind has blended with our subconscious mind and our intuit knowledge has become rational knowledge through undestanding. Yes, like the convergence of our twain mind in the hypostatic union of the father with the son.

The fact that you can lose your memory means that you are not your memory. The fact that you killed someone means that your volition was your own at the time of the murder with the only excuse now that you did not know "who you were" a the time of the murder and therefore can lose that identity that caused you to commit the murder.

Just because there were [at least] two of us when we committed the murder does not mean that we should not be held accountable for our actions. If that was the case we could blame society and/or our parents who shaped our ego to become this second malevolent identity that we are so eager to forget when things go wrong.

Oxymoron Good appraoch but I would say N is closer to 25% but is 100% (90?) for those who know themselves-- such as Einstein, Newton, Michelangelo, Joyce, Shakespeare, Golding, Siddharta, Rembrant, sages and other gnostics.

Vandrare

The way that i have been working through this question has been along these lines. Everything that i think and feel, the actions i take, and how i look at the world, all are determined in the end by my brain and the way in which i think. All the things that i would consider make me unique from everyone else and create my 'self'. Now my brain is nothing more than really a supercomputer which in can collect store information, then use this stored information to interpret new experiences. In this way i experience something, by brain then collects all the sensory information about it and stores and inteprets this. the interpretation of this then determines how i percieve future events, and the way i end up acting and the experiences i then continue on to have. therefore who i am is created entirely by every single experience ive ever had.

But on top of that, each time i use my brain in a certain way, the neural pathway that was used becomes myelinated (faster and easier to use) so that i can learn new skills and habits and build on these as well. therefore even if i was to get amnesia or loose my memory i would still act a lot like i used to just because those neural networks are the established pathways in my brain. anyway, in the end then my 'self' or who i am is the result of every experience ive ever had continuosly compounded in my brain. i hope this makes sense to you all...

Oxymoron

Na. The vast majority of our inner working goes un-noticed. Most of it is automatic and mechanical. It turns out that "geniuses" are even more full of crap than us mere mortals, mainly because they are quite focused individuals who see specific issues in a lot of detail and the rest of the universe hardly at all. You might be right about 25%, but in the end it is a guess, and I would say - in my capacity as a youth counsellor (a few years ago, granted) - that most people who reckon they know themselves have a few surprises still to uncover.

Frotiw

There way to many questions it's possible to write entire books on each question.

1. the question about mental acts(including the self) emerging from pure Physical components: This is not trivial but is an issue concerning philosophers and neuro cognitivist alike. I suggest reading some articles from Ned Block or Searle. Ned Block can be found somewhere on: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/
Im fresh into some of this(Im not preposterous enough to consider myself to understand it though) since Im most fortunate to attend some of his lectures tomorrow when he will visit my Uni.
Anyway I think there a several hidden(more or less) questions. First the is as already mentioned the question how nonphysical mental act can emerge from "dead" nonmental physical. It's easier to point out the sollutions that are NOT satisfactory sollutions. One nonsatisfactory solutions is the reductionsnism(or more correctly eliminitavism) appearently supported by some replies, that the mental act(self) are illusorical. The view that there are no mental act that there are folklore myth like santaclause. This is completly unsatisfactory since this stance reject some of the most obvios of all. How will a person who support this stance act if I stab i his leg with a needle? Is the mental phenomenon of pain just an illusion? It is not scientific satisfactory to simple reject the existance of components that does not match within the scientific framework. It's a perfect example but Image if gravity was rejected because it doesn't fit the physical theori. This stane is almost religious: "Oh this doesn't fit into my theory... well then I just close my eyes and the problem is solved!".
That said it is equally unsatisfactory to claim that both physical and mental are onthological independant components. In that case it is incomprehendable how one component from the sphere of mental can act causally with a component from the sphere of physical and vise versa.

The question of "personal identity" is another question. How can there(appear to be) a constant monologic "inner-voice" when both introspection shows changing phenomena and physical external observation show changing biomass. I think the last one is the "easy" problem. The noteworthy point about renewing cells is that it is a constand slow recuring precess. If every cell was changing in an instant I would proberly not concider the new person to be identical to the first but this is not what happens. There are always are core of cells that constitute the human and though they change the process is so slow that all characteristics will remain.
The inner psycological or phenomenonal experience of the self is a different question. Perhaps a question that is best solved by a joint effort by phenomenological and analytical philosophy. Ned Block has written about the different states of consciousness from a conceptual point of view. Maybe some clearity could be achieved by analysing the concept of consciousness. There are clearly different kinds of phenomenal conscious acts e.g. the pure experience and the reflexive consciousness.
As already pointet out the "self" cannot merely be the sum of memories. The memories are accessible to something. They are shared by some constant component. If you inverstigae introperspectivle there are not just memmories there are "You Memories". There is something that can relate to and access certain memories. Something is carrying the memories and experiences e.g. the memories are private you cannot just access all memories you can access some "private" memories. And what does "private" mean? That means that it is you who can access them in a way that noone else can. Then they appear in a certain "present" way that that cannot be doubtet. You cannot doubt your first person "present" experience but ofcause you cann doubt whereither they corespond to something real.

Concerning moralty: I reject the existance of objective moral matter of fact as "fabric of the world". I am a determinist.
As someone said(aprox) the reason for emprisoning persons is simple for pretection not because the person has commited a morally wrong act. Empirical studies from sexual criminals(e.g. pedophiles) show that consequently they rougly ALL has been victems themselfes. Obviosly pedophiles should be sent to prison(and permantly I say) but for protection of the children not because they acted morally wrong. It's easy for me(and most people) not to commit crimes but if e.g. sexual criminals where "fucked up" as small children they cannot be blamed like e.g. I could. They who should be blaimed the sexual abusers of the sexual abusers nope since the same story counts for them. Yes I know many people finds such claims very controversualy and disturbing, but the denial is denial of the obvios true. Everybody know that it is not the prince of England and the like who fills the prisons but the "lesser fortunate". Most(not all ofcause) emprisioned are either mentaly ill or people with a significantly lower intelligence than the mayority of the people. That coun't especially for the really grave crimes like murder and sexual crimes.
That said: Do not count me as some socialist(or the like) who says nobody should be emprisoned. That is not what I am saying I am just saying that they are not morally to be blamed they should just be put away to protect the fortunate part of the puplic who was fortunate enough to grow up in a healthier enviroment.

Oh ofcause the point of all that moral babbling was that the raised question can be rejected if there are no moral.

Damn I am late

Cheers.

lunar tee

Wow, Vandrare, I could have written that, it so matches what I think. I like the way you expressed it so nicely! We are what we eat.

monkey mind

I think "myself" is a convenient name to use for an object in space. Just like "you" "that" "desk" "chair" "apple" etc. However, anytime I try and figure out what that convenient name is describing it just ends in a pile of confusion.

fwh

Enjoyed your post frotiw

frotiw:

"The question about mental acts(including the self) emerging from pure physical components: this is not trivial but an issue concerning philosophers and neuro-cognitivists alike"

Me:

Would you ever consider the question another way? How about the physical components emerging from the pure spiritual-mental-conciousness?

beth

I would consider "self" to be our own personal character and thoughts. I think that "self" revolves around our minds and our thought processes.