On the surface level, if we have a "self" in the materialist worldview, we inevitably run into the "Ship of Theseus" problem. — tom111
So why is it, when I look back at photos of myself from 5 years ago, I feel like the same person? — tom111
This is likely due to the fact that you have inherited memories from this person, — tom111
What we are (in the materialist view) are simply piles of carbon, — tom111
using past memories and ideas to compile a constant "self" that simply doesn't exist; — tom111
a human being is empty of essence. — tom111
Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. — tom111
In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don'texistwork — tom111
This reduces the immaterial part to the role of a nametag, but I've said as much myself. The proponents also (usually) give it more function than that, in which case one wonders why humans need such an inefficient system that other creatures do with a 5th the calories. Besides the point. You wanted the monist view. I don't think material is fundamental, but I still see no evidence that we're not purely a product of material physics.Under conventional, religious dualism, generally, a human can be divided into two distinct parts; material and immaterial. The immaterial represents the "soul", or the "self", which is the fundamental essence of what a human is. — tom111
Both are easily demonstrated invalid, as you do in your post.Materially, we can define a "self" based on one of two quantities; the actual matter that makes up a thing, or simply just the arrangement of matter.
Keep in mind that less than 1/10000th of your atoms are original, and less than 1% of your original atoms are in you. This is heavily dependent on when you define your original state.we inevitably run into the "Ship of Theseus" problem.
...
Unless we draw up some arbitrary percentage (eg 30% of the matter has to be in the same state for it to be the "same person")
Well, if I take my dad's ashes and water and recreate a living dog out of it somehow, not many would say the dog is my dad. We're all composed of material from past and present beings, people and otherwise.We can make a similar argument if we neglect matter replacement entirely, and focus purely on matter rearrangement. If we decide we want to slowly re-arrange an individual into an entirely different organism, at what point can they no longer be considered the same "self"?
Arguably so, yes. Doesn't mean I don't think I existed yesterday, or so says one part of me. The rational part of me is agreeing with you. I have different parts with different beliefs. So do you.we must conclude that the self is not solidly grounded in the material world, and thus it doesn't exist.
I am myself a materialist (in the sense that I believe the material world is primary and that our subjective experiences arise directly from the physical) and have been trying to reconcile the idea of the "self", with a materialist worldview. — tom111
If you think of "Self" as a representation -- a self-image or mental model, not a ding an sich -- Its relation to material reality may become clearer. We can assume that all sentient creatures have some kind of self-image. But that intuitively constructed image is inward looking, not an external observation. The Self may begin simply as proprioception due to feedback to the brain about location of body parts. But for self-conscious beings, that abstract representation may become more complex, including comparisons to other beings. So, your self-image is similar to an avatar in a digital world, that you can manipulate intentionally. Yet, like a digital avatar or mirror image, the inner Self is not a physical object. Instead of a physical Being, it's a meta-physical Meaning. And Meanings don't exist in a purely physical world*1. Hence, our reality is both Physical and Metaphysical.Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist. — tom111
Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist. — tom111
It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic substance of the universe flows through oneself as it flows through everything else. For that reason one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with one’s ultimate inner being.
Wobbly, sure, with no solid foundation. But not entirely arbitrary, surely? You have the vehicle's service history? — bongo fury
I don't label myself (my personal Self) as Materialist. But I also don't define Me as Spiritualist. Ironically, one definition of Spirit is "the essence of a thing". So, your definition of The Self could be construed as a spiritual concept; which may trigger the trolls. Therefore, due to the contentious religious baggage of "spirit", I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things. Unfortunately, the trolls can sniff-out the implicit spiritual (essential) connotations.I am myself a materialist (in the sense that I believe the material world is primary and that our subjective experiences arise directly from the physical) and have been trying to reconcile the idea of the "self", with a materialist worldview. The self, as I see it, is the "fundamental essence" of who we are; this sense of "I" we are all likely familiar with. — tom111
The "arrangement of matter" is its Form. And Matter is merely a "form" of Energy that our senses can detect (E=MC^2). So, I have concluded that Energy is transformed into Matter, via a process that I have labeled as EnFormAction, in order to suggest its relationship to Information-in-General (the generic ability to enform ; to create forms/patterns ; to cause change ; to carry meaning ). Energy is all around us, but invisible to human senses, until it takes on a measurable Material form : Mass/Matter/Substance. With that scientific knowledge in mind, your notion that the human Self is "just the arrangement of matter" makes sense.Materially, we can define a "self" based on one of two quantities; the actual matter that makes up a thing, or simply just the arrangement of matter. — tom111
That conceptual Dualism can be resolved into Monism, if we understand Body & Self as merely different aspects (instances ; expressions ; manifestations) of the EnFormAction process. For example, as an individual Photon is zooming through the cosmos, that building block of matter is invisible & massless. But when it energizes the visual purple chemicals in the eye, that photon is transformed into matter, and then back into energy (neural pulses). :smile:Under conventional, religious dualism, generally, a human can be divided into two distinct parts; material and immaterial. — tom111
Given that "essence" denotes that which non-impermanently makes something what is and not something else (to paraphase Plato/Aristotle(?)), why isn't there a "law of the conservation of information" like – complementary to or entailed by – the conservation of mass-energy law, for instance? Why isn't "information" (i.e. "pattern", as you say, Gnomon) conserved in physics?I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things. — Gnomon
I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things.
— Gnomon
Given that "essence" denotes that which non-impermanently makes something what is and not something else (to paraphase Plato/Aristotle(?)), why isn't there a "law of the conservation of information" like – complementary to or entailed by – the conservation of mass-energy law, for instance? Why isn't "information" (i.e. "pattern", as you say, Gnomon) conserved in physics? — 180 Proof
Information is physical e.g. DNA, circuit-switches, computer programs, heat, etc. Every physical transformation is information; translating (i.e. compressing) information into an algorithm is abstraction (i.e. code). Yeah, abstract = nonphysical (insofar as 'nonphysical' means not causally related). — 180 Proof
Ernst Mayr: ‘… The discovery of the genetic code was a breakthrough of the first order. It showed why organisms are fundamentally different from any kind of non-living material. There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history ...’
The idea that ‘life is chemistry plus information’ implies that information is ontologically different from chemistry, but can we prove it? Perhaps the strongest argument in support of this claim has come from Hubert Yockey, one of the organizers of the first congress dedicated to the introduction of Shannon's information in biology. In a long series of articles and books, Yockey has underlined that heredity is transmitted by factors that are ‘segregated, linear and digital’ whereas the compounds of chemistry are ‘blended, three-dimensional and analogue’.
Yockey underlined that: ‘Chemical reactions in non-living systems are not controlled by a message … There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences’.
Yockey has tirelessly pointed out that no amount of chemical evolution can cross the barrier that divides the analogue world of chemistry from the digital world of life, and concluded from this that the origin of life cannot have been the result of chemical evolution. This is therefore, according to Yockey, what divides life from matter: information is ontologically different from chemistry because linear and digital sequences cannot be generated by the analogue reactions of chemistry.
At this point, one would expect to hear from Yockey how did linear and digital sequences appear on Earth, but he did not face that issue. He claimed instead that the origin of life is unknowable, in the same sense that there are propositions of logic that are undecidable. — What is Information? Marcello Barbieri
??? — 180 Proof
If we decide we want to slowly re-arrange an individual into an entirely different organism, at what point can they no longer be considered the same "self"?
Both matter replacement and rearrangement occur in nature and prevent us from safely defining any solid, constant, material thing that we can call a "self". — tom111
Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist. — tom111
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.