This is where the third person view helps. Since I wouldn't have existed, how would we know that the replacement wasn't you? Equally, then, how do we know that the proposed minor variation - even if it caused a massive difference - would have been at all different from me? It's based on the assumptions 1) that the DNA would have been different in some way that made a difference to the result and 2) that every difference is equally important.For example, if the sperm that "won the race" in your case had not made it, someone else, not you, would have existed in your place; — Janus
All of that is true. But the important thing here is that although one may never encounter the exact some position again, the process of analysis can reveal similarities among those differences. Some of them will matter, and some will not. When one can do that, one can learn from past experience. But if every difference is equally important and equally makes a position different in the sense that past experience is irrelevant, then past experience can teach you nothing.Absolutely. But it's interesting, because it is very unlikely that one will again come across the exact same chess position, and be able to make a different choice in the exact same situation, and yet one learns how to look, and how to analyse other positions and make other choices better. So counterfactuals function as useful notions here. — unenlightened
I like that answer. Very neat.If I had been a soldier in Cromwell's army, then necessarily the right sperm and egg would have miraculously come together at the appropriate time to make that happen. — unenlightened
It is well established that the links between genes and specific characteristics are very complicated and often surprising.The genes obviously contribute but seems intuitive one might change genetic information or phenotypic traits of a person and retain the identity. — Apustimelogist
I am not sure what you're saying I dismissed — Apustimelogist
But then, any circumstances after conception that affect the development of the DNA will also result in a different entity existing. Surely? The development from DNA to person is not a railway track, but a path through rough country - to an indeterminate destination.
The fact that, on this account, the DNA is a necessary condition, but not sufficient, allows for the possibility that there are other conditions that could have produced the same result. No? — Ludwig V
But What function does this counterfactual serve? — unenlightened
"If i had been a soldier in Cromwell's New Model Army, I would have been having difficulty with the harsh discipline." - because "wrong sperm and egg". — unenlightened
This whole thread is a case of overreach by the thought police. — unenlightened
This is where the third person view helps. Since I wouldn't have existed, how would we know that the replacement wasn't you? Equally, then, how do we know that the proposed minor variation - even if it caused a massive difference - would have been at all different from me? It's based on the assumptions 1) that the DNA would have been different in some way that made a difference to the result and 2) that every difference is equally important. — Ludwig V
If knowledge and memory is also embedded in this momentarily unfolding flux then is there a fact of the matter about being the same as I was 5 minutes ago? After all, to generate the right expressions of memory or knowledge only requires the right momentary states in terms of physical states of my neuronal membranes. Continuity is not necessary and it is questionable whether my brain is ever in the same two states even for similar experiences at different times. — Apustimelogist
I am sure philosophers have broad range of beliefs on the issue. I doubt I am the only person drawn toward that kind of view. — Apustimelogist
It is well established that the links between genes and specific characteristics are very complicated and often surprising. — Ludwig V
I think it is uncontroversial from a science perspective that each sperm would produce a different genotype and hence a different phenotype (body). — Janus
The whole notion of identity and discerning it. I don't even have to look this up, and I would guess there would be hundreds or more papers written on things tangential to this regarding identity, essence, genes, and the like. It just seemed you were a bit too hastily dismissive of any sort of notion related to that. But we don't have to dwell on this odd dismissiveness and hostility to the concept — schopenhauer1
It's also a function that you missed a broad portion of the debate on the thread here and then just came in with these ideas focusing mainly on the genetic component aspect of my argument, and not the idea that it is combined with the causal. — schopenhauer1
I also mentioned that the genetics aspect is not some blank slate. It does have uniqueness that contributes to various aspects of the self that would be different than if the gametes were another set. It isn't just "any set of gametes" that makes you, you. It has to be those gametes, along with the other factors I mentioned. — schopenhauer1
Very much so, but I think there are still important questions about whether you would consider your phenotype the same as your identity. — Apustimelogist
Do you mean in the sense that I might think of my identity as consisting in being a mother, a scientist, an artist, a policewoman or whatever? — Janus
Some people believe in an immortal soul and would say it is that soul and not their body that constitutes their identity. — Janus
then what alternative do we have but to think of the body — Janus
If each body has a unique genotype and phenotype, then DNA would be the most accurate way to establish bodily uniqueness, since differences of form can sometimes be hard to discern as can be the case with identical twins. — Janus
what bits could be changed and you would intuitively still consider yourself yourself. — Apustimelogist
Then again, I don't think I identify all parts of my experiences with myself even though they are going on in parts of my brain... which are part of me??? — Apustimelogist
Yes but clearly its not all essential and I think identifying myself just as a population of cells misses something in the same way that I don't think there is necessarily a single way of identifying or labelling or drawing boundaries within/around bodies or animals, other objects etc., even though doing so and thinking about it may have practical benefits or be interesting in some ways. — Apustimelogist
I think there is at least a debate to be had about whether my dead body is me. Since I wouldn't be alive anymore. Maybe you would say it is me. — Apustimelogist
Are you the same person (same identity) today, than "you" were yesterday (or 20 years ago)? — Relativist
I think Janus point earlier is that there is clearly a boundary of organism with non-organism. — schopenhauer1
I think you're saying that the particular sperm/ovum combination that produced you is essential to being you. That combination is your historical origin, but isn't your subsequent history also essential to being you? This history would distinguish you from your identical twin, if you had one.Are you the same person (same identity) today, than "you" were yesterday (or 20 years ago)?
— Relativist
My answer to that would be yes, even though the body has changed, in fact changed all its cells a few times, those cells still have the same unique genotype, and the basic structure of the body is still usually recognizable all through its changes barring severe disfigurement.
. — Janus
Maybe because with the emergence of organisms, there is an exponential increase in possibilities. And that in order to exist as an organism, the very first thing that appears is the boundary between self-and-not-self. After all, death is merely dissolution, isn't it? That the elements comprising a specific individual organism dissolve back into the periodic table. It is the ability of organisms not to simply succumb to chemical entropy that is the hallmark of organic life, isn't it? — Wayfarer
Another fact to reflect on is that every being occurs as 'me' from their first person point of view. Every living being experiences themself as 'me' but it's not until the being becomes attached to a particular set of sensations and memories that it is differentiated as an individual self or soul by the thought 'this is me, I am this, this is mine'. Of course, from the p-o-v of a specific individual, every other being is 'not-me' (cf Kastrup's 'dissociated alters') as within their first-person perspective there is only one 'me', as due to their identification with ego. That's why it's said in the Upanisads that the awakened see themselves in every being and every being in themselves. — Wayfarer
I think you're saying that the particular sperm/ovum combination that produced you is essential to being you. That combination is your historical origin, but isn't your subsequent history also essential to being you? This history would distinguish you from your identical twin, if you had one.
Is all your history essential to being you? If not, then how do you non-arbitrarily draw the line? — Relativist
The Schopenhauer1 of 1999 lacked all the experiences of the Schopenhauer1 of 2023. This is why I previously asked: "Are you the same person (same identity) today, than "you" were yesterday (or 20 years ago)?"experience plays a role in identity — schopenhauer1
I think you're saying that the particular sperm/ovum combination that produced you is essential to being you. That combination is your historical origin, but isn't your subsequent history also essential to being you? This history would distinguish you from your identical twin, if you had one.
Is all your history essential to being you? If not, then how do you non-arbitrarily draw the line? — Relativist
one's entire history is essential to being exactly as you are at any time. — Janus
I suggest that you are assuming the rock has an enduring identity, as a premise, and then identify some of the things that would have to be entailed. But the fact is, it is not possible to identify some subset of its properties and history that give that rock a unique identity."Surely, experience plays a role in identity. Even two rocks from the same molten volcano are roughly similar but are separated by a boundary when they cool. One rock may end up being smooth and one crushed up and jagged. Surely, part of the identity of that rock is the substance that the rock is composed of and arrangement of chemical compounds. When identifying if certain objects came from certain areas in archeology, you can use their unique patina "fingerprints" see if they came from the same location originally" — schopenhauer1
What exactly are you saying is necessary? Your DNA mutates throughout your life, so if your specific DNA sequence is necessary, you are not the same person your mother gave birth to.Again, it's necessary, not sufficient because of its role in its unique combination. — schopenhauer1
This reflects a subset of your history.It's also causal and spatially variant, thus accounting for the difference between twins and clones. — schopenhauer1
What exactly are you saying is necessary? Your DNA mutates throughout your life, so if your specific DNA sequence is necessary, you are not the same person your mother gave birth to. — Relativist
My position is that 100% of your history is essential to being "you" at a point of time. There is a causal relation between the "yous" of each point of time - and "you" are that cross-temporal causal sequence; you have temporal parts. This is perdurance theory of identity. — Relativist
n that case, then "Janus, at this exact day and time", would not exist if indeterminism is true and a different history had occurred. — Relativist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.