Something can change continually and still maintain an identity, can't it? In fact, isn't that what every compound being is doing? — Wayfarer
If Buddhists are asked whether the person who is born as a consequence of past karma is the same as the person in the previous existence that generated said karma, the answer you'll often get is, not the same person, but also not different. Identity is like that. — Wayfarer
I believe most people would say it is still the same hammer. How is that so? We must find something that makes them the same. — Lionino
Therefore, even if time is discrete/discontinuous, should we believe that the person walking into time t+1 and the person walking out of it are the same? Is there really such a thing as spatio-temporal continuity in discrete time, and is it enough to account for identity? — Lionino
The monk calmly shakes his head with a smile and walks away. — Lionino
So specifically, I am searching for arguments, preferrably complete, even more preferrably in syllogistic form, for the belief that the self persists. Otherwise, I will remain in doubt, and in absence of any evidence of permanence, I will default to the position that it does not stay at all, and that we are constantly as always dying, as the comic posted in the first page depicts. — Lionino
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/05/a-tour-of-the-growing-brain-complete-with-upside-down-vision/As a brain develops, young neurons strike out, seeking to form synaptic connections across brain regions, Harris said. If they fail to make those connections, they “commit suicide by consuming themselves.” And even if they survive this first cutthroat wave, they can “get pruned, like plants.”
In the first trimester of pregnancy, neural growth is exponential: about 15 to 20 million cells are born every hour, Harris said. Only about 50 percent of these original cells survive. If, for example, there are too many of one type, causing an imbalance, the excess will die off. Or, if some seem to be serving a pointless task, like those attending a shut eye, they’ll move on. Why waste precious neurons?
After the early period of growth, suicide, and pruning comes to an end, adult neurons survive for a lifetime. And unlike those of a cat, they remain malleable for several years. This is one reason kids are especially adept at learning new languages, and why procedures to correct neurological dysfunctions, like a lazy eye, have higher chances of success early in life.
The issue of identifiying something as that which undergoes change is for me a very deep issue that involves, among other things, mereology and semantics.
Because of that, I summon Theseus' ship. I ask you: is it the same ship? — Lionino
Stop pretending to know about a position you cannot even spell. — Lionino
No pragmatist says "stop researching" to theoretical physicists and asks them to become engineers instead. — Lionino
I asked what practical difference does it make to our quotidian life? What are the consequences/implications? — Tom Storm
I would think that, if one were to believe that there was indeed a judgement at the time of death, and that the fate of the soul depended on that, then it would make a difference to how you view your life, wouldn't it — Wayfarer
And even if it does, my next question would be how does it matter in terms of how we live? How do we get from this to reincarnation or consequences for choices? Or some other cosmology and metaphysics which seeks to exploit this murky model? — Tom Storm
I'm not saying I necessarily believe it, but I do fear that it might be true, and it does provoke existential angst. — Wayfarer
my next question would be how does it matter in terms of how we live? — Tom Storm
a person’s identity as a context-relative functionality can then be construed to persist subsequent to corporeal death, such as via reincarnations—granting both extreme outliers and continuity between these, such as in the same person’s life commencing with birth as an infant and possibly ending corporeal life with extreme changes in psyche. And, just as a river rock will be relatively permanent in comparison to the rushing waters that surround it, so too can one appraise that some core aspect of a psyche is relatively permanent in comparison to the percepts, etc., it experiences. This core aspect of psyche (which, for example, could conceivably persist from one lifetime to the next) can then be appraised as "that which undergoes changes". I however will emphasize: this does not then entail that there is such a thing as an absolutely permanent soul which thereby withstands any and all changes for all eternity. — javra
I'm not saying I necessarily believe it, but I do fear that it might be true, and it does provoke existential angst. — Wayfarer
Religions are often depicted in terms of 'carrot and stick' in our secular age, although I think it's a caricature. I understand the goal of Eastern religions, which is mokṣa or liberation, in terms of a transition to a wholly other dimension of being, one which is quite unimagineable from the naturalistic perspective and is therefore conveyed in mythological or symbolic form — Wayfarer
I say “context-relative” because two different ships will hold the same functionality as ships, but their functionality will not be the same in terms of their immediate spatiotemporal contexts. — javra
but if a person were to so drastically change in terms of context-relative functionality, we will often state that they are not the same person they used to be, as is sometimes the case for extreme cases of dementia — javra
So I guess that, beyond functionality (final cause in Aristotelian terms), spatiotemporal continuity is also important? — Lionino
Are we gonna die in the next second, or is our conscious experience persisting across time?, is basically what is being asked. — Lionino
Also, I quite liked your art. The way you use gaps and separation on the canvas is something that I have never seen before. — Lionino
I, in the present, still hold 'myself' responsible responsible for a reprehensible thing 'I' did in 1978: but it cannot be made good by the present I, only acknowledged and, perhaps, entered as a debit on a ledger where moral credits are also claimed. — mcdoodle
We are constantly changing, all the cells that constitute our bodies replaced every seven or so years according to some accounts. On the other hand, are we not distinguishable as the entities that undergo those changes? — Janus
This is another example that shows we intuitively know we are not our bodies. — RogueAI
One side that has not been exactly addressed so far is the phenomenological, subjective side. Besides any labels or linguistic aspects, are we now going to persist through time to the next second or is our consciousness going to finish and be replaced by another consciousness (someone else) with the appearance of being the same person as before due to memories? Are we gonna die in the next second, or is our conscious experience persisting across time?, is basically what is being asked. Now after thinking I wonder whether that question even makes sense, but maybe someone will bring it to light. — Lionino
The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, set firmly as a post. And though these beings rush around, circulate, pass away and re-arise, but this remains eternally.
‘This is the self, this is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’ - this too he regards thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self'
"I did not come, Sir, on foot, but on a chariot."
"If you have come on a chariot, then please explain to me what a chariot is. Is the pole the chariot?"
"No, Reverend Sir!"
"Is then the axle the chariot?"
"No, Reverend Sir!"
"Is it then the wheels, or the framework, of the flag-staff, or the yoke, or the reins, or the goad-stick?"
"No, Reverend Sir!"
"Then is it the combination of poke, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins, and goad which is the "chariot"?"
"No, Reverend Sir!"
"Then, is this "chariot" outside the combination of poke, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins and goad?"
"No, Reverend Sir!"
"Then, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot at all. This "chariot" is just a mere sound. But what is the real chariot? Your Majesty has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There is really no chariot!" — Milindapanha
If all the cells in our bodies, in organisms generally, contain a unique DNA sequence that defines them then that is different than the 'ship of Theseus'. It is also a matter of metabolism. Look up 'self-organization' and you will see why it does not apply to ships or to anything other than organisms..
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.