A logical argument for the unity of personhood

[Speakpigeon]

You lost me at P1. and P2. A logical argument states premises that can be refuted. That is not the case here.

You seem to be confusing logic and science...

Specifically, you are asking for falsifiable premises, but that's something that's not required for logical arguments to be valid. For example: All men have been created by God, Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates has been created by God. This is a perfectly valid, logically valid, argument and yet I don't think you could falsify the first premise, even though it is very reasonable to think it is false.

As to science, there is a view that for a theory to be scientific it has to be falsifiable, i.e. that we could conceive of a practical process by which it could be shown to be false, even if it is in fact true. Even though Quantum Physics is probably true, I can easily conceive of a way to disprove it, for example by setting up an experiment where we would fail to observe the photon predicted by the theory.

Some people disagree with the idea that falsification is necessary to science, saying that it's not the way science works, but it is still a widespread view, for example in the critics, usually by scientists, addressed to String Theory, that you can't even prove it wrong. Personally I think some people just don't understand the notion of falsifiability. That being said, people are free to regard as proper science a theory that's not falsifiable, but it's seems to me that non-falsifiable theories are more likely to go nowhere.

Quantum Physics seems to be falsifiable, as far as I understand the issue, but some interpretations of QM seem not to be.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Seeing consciousness as a sort of featureless and ubiquitous property would not make the scenario you are imagining more plausible. Subjective personhood seems to require the kind of organic connectivity typical of the living brain and that seems of a very different nature from what big organisations can achieve. I may have an anthropomorphic bias but we can easily explain what big organisations do merely from the fact that they are all made of human beings rather than by speculating that they enjoy subjective personhood.
EB

The claim being made has nothing whatsoever to do with a large, over-arching unified consciousness that connects all people. That's totally different and, as you say, unsupported by evidence.

What is actually being argued by proponents of open individualism is simply this: to the extent that you remain the same person at different points in time, even though there is nothing unchanging that anchors your personal identity across them all, you are also the same person as everyone else at any given time; just as you can only experience one moment of your own life at a time, you can only experience being one person at a time. This deflates the counterargument that you are not capable of directly experiencing my life right now, because you are also incapable of directly experiencing your own life from five seconds ago. There is nothing metaphysically or ontologically relevant that differentiates the state of not being able to experience someone else's current life right now and not being able to experience your own life at times other than now. Therefore, if you maintain that you are the same person as you were yesterday despite the second inability, in just the same way you can maintain that you are the same person as everyone else despite the first inability.

All that this view requires is that we treat time and space as equivalent dimensions with respect to personal identity, which is probably the correct way to look at them according to physics anyway.

If Gilbert Gosseyn had false memories of being A. E. Van Vogt writing a sci-fi book about a guy called Gilbert Gosseyn, he could think for all intents and purposes that he is indeed Van Vogt. Yet, other people would keep regarding Gilbert Gosseyn as being Gilbert Gosseyn. Your subjective personhood is determined by your memories, those you can recall and at the time that you recall them, or more precisely by what you think are your memories, while your objective personhood is determined by the memories and current perception other people have of your body, your behaviour, and other possible objective items such as identity cards. You keep pretending that these two perspectives are not distinct but they are. If you could effectively recall at least some of the wonderful memories I have, you would take them as part of your personhood. You would think you have been a student in Paris at some point during the last century, but of course you would be the only one to believe that. But the point is that your personhood would not make you me (assuming I'm really me). You would still be PyramidHead looking at whatever you are looking at now because your personhood could not possibly be identical to my own, in particular because we could not possibly have the exact same perceptions right now even if we had the same memories, which is itself also impossible in practice. You want to treat personhood as a metaphysical property when it's not. Objective personhood is an empirical perspective. It's like deciding whether the accused is guilty of the crime. It's a messy and often inconclusive process but we choose to go with it because we don't have any better. Subjective personhood is different. You are what you experience subjectively. If you could experience being a bat you would believe you're a bat. If QM could make you experience being all of us, you'd believe you are all of us. But would you be? The kind of personhood you are discussing simply doesn't exist. It's not who you are. It's who you think you are and then who other people think you are. There is unicity in subjective personhood, at least as far as we know now, but there is multiplicity in objective personhood simply because there is a multiplicity of possible observers.

It's not possible to defend personhood as a consistent notion. The argument you are referring to plays on the fictional nature of personhood. It's a logical game: If you believe in personhood then you ought to believe you are all of us. Sure, but you don't have to believe in personhood. We may all use personhood as a convenient fiction but at some point personhood breaks down. You can still be conscious and yet have no memory of anything. You can have subjective experience and no personhood.

Also, present perception beats logic. We can and we do live our lives even though they are full of contradictions and that's not a problem because we are to a large extent free to ignore contradictions.*
EB

 

[DBT]

Each of the split parts experience their own perspective the world and self which develops over time thus diverging from the initial integrated personality. Even identical twins have unique personalties however close their way of thinking may be.

 

[Random Person]

You lost me at P1. and P2. A logical argument states premises that can be refuted. That is not the case here.

You seem to be confusing logic and science...

Specifically, you are asking for falsifiable premises, but that's something that's not required for logical arguments to be valid. For example: All men have been created by God, Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates has been created by God. This is a perfectly valid, logically valid, argument and yet I don't think you could falsify the first premise, even though it is very reasonable to think it is false.

As to science, there is a view that for a theory to be scientific it has to be falsifiable, i.e. that we could conceive of a practical process by which it could be shown to be false, even if it is in fact true. Even though Quantum Physics is probably true, I can easily conceive of a way to disprove it, for example by setting up an experiment where we would fail to observe the photon predicted by the theory.

Some people disagree with the idea that falsification is necessary to science, saying that it's not the way science works, but it is still a widespread view, for example in the critics, usually by scientists, addressed to String Theory, that you can't even prove it wrong. Personally I think some people just don't understand the notion of falsifiability. That being said, people are free to regard as proper science a theory that's not falsifiable, but it's seems to me that non-falsifiable theories are more likely to go nowhere.

Quantum Physics seems to be falsifiable, as far as I understand the issue, but some interpretations of QM seem not to be.
EB

If science isn't logical then why bother.

A nonsensical premise is not part of a logical argument.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You seem to be confusing logic and science...

Specifically, you are asking for falsifiable premises, but that's something that's not required for logical arguments to be valid. For example: All men have been created by God, Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates has been created by God. This is a perfectly valid, logically valid, argument and yet I don't think you could falsify the first premise, even though it is very reasonable to think it is false.

As to science, there is a view that for a theory to be scientific it has to be falsifiable, i.e. that we could conceive of a practical process by which it could be shown to be false, even if it is in fact true. Even though Quantum Physics is probably true, I can easily conceive of a way to disprove it, for example by setting up an experiment where we would fail to observe the photon predicted by the theory.

Some people disagree with the idea that falsification is necessary to science, saying that it's not the way science works, but it is still a widespread view, for example in the critics, usually by scientists, addressed to String Theory, that you can't even prove it wrong. Personally I think some people just don't understand the notion of falsifiability. That being said, people are free to regard as proper science a theory that's not falsifiable, but it's seems to me that non-falsifiable theories are more likely to go nowhere.

Quantum Physics seems to be falsifiable, as far as I understand the issue, but some interpretations of QM seem not to be.
EB

If science isn't logical then why bother.

A nonsensical premise is not part of a logical argument.

You seem to be confusing two things again.

First, yes, science definitely has to be logical. Scientists start from premises they think are true based on empirical evidence and they infer a theory using inductive logic. Then they can use the theory so inferred to draw any conclusions they can using deductive logic.


And then, no, logic doesn't need to be like science. Logic is not restricted to anything like empirically justified premises. You're free to feel you don't want to bother with such premises but that's not the question. Logic is entirely in the necessity of the conclusion once you've granted the truth of the premises, whether these premises are true or not. The validity of the logic used does not depend on the truth of the premises. Which is the whole point of logic.
EB

 

[untermensche]

In terms of science "logical" means "according to the way things work".

Examination of the data and if accurate models can be produced so that predictions can be made, the models are labeled "logical".

But the possibility of better models always exists IF we can gain greater understanding of something.

 

[Random Person]

Good luck.

 

[Speakpigeon]

In terms of science "logical" means "according to the way things work".

Examination of the data and if accurate models can be produced so that predictions can be made, the models are labeled "logical".

Thanks for the information!

Do you know of any university-level book on logic or on science which would explain this in more detail? Maybe even just a website? Wiki?
EB

 

[untermensche]

In terms of science "logical" means "according to the way things work".

Examination of the data and if accurate models can be produced so that predictions can be made, the models are labeled "logical".

Thanks for the information!

Do you know of any university-level book on logic or on science which would explain this in more detail? Maybe even just a website? Wiki?
EB

You want me to reference ideas from my own mind?

These come from me, not somebody else.

I am not here serving as the ape for somebody else.

 

[Speakpigeon]

In terms of science "logical" means "according to the way things work".

Examination of the data and if accurate models can be produced so that predictions can be made, the models are labeled "logical".

Thanks for the information!

Do you know of any university-level book on logic or on science which would explain this in more detail? Maybe even just a website? Wiki?
EB

You want me to reference ideas from my own mind?

These come from me, not somebody else.

I am not here serving as the ape for somebody else.

Ah, yes, but that does not transpire from the way you expressed yourself in your post.

You said: 'In terms of science "logical" means "according to the way things work"'. So it good to know there's no authoritative reference to support your assertion.

And you said: 'the models are labeled "logical"'. Here, too, it's good to know there's no authoritative reference to support your assertion.

Thanks for this necessary clarification.
EB

 

[untermensche]

In terms of science "logical" means "according to the way things work".

Examination of the data and if accurate models can be produced so that predictions can be made, the models are labeled "logical".

Thanks for the information!

Do you know of any university-level book on logic or on science which would explain this in more detail? Maybe even just a website? Wiki?
EB

You want me to reference ideas from my own mind?

These come from me, not somebody else.

I am not here serving as the ape for somebody else.

Ah, yes, but that does not transpire from the way you expressed yourself in your post.

You said: 'In terms of science "logical" means "according to the way things work"'. So it good to know there's no authoritative reference to support your assertion.

And you said: 'the models are labeled "logical"'. Here, too, it's good to know there's no authoritative reference to support your assertion.

Thanks for this necessary clarification.
EB

Just a shorthand expression.

But totally true.

Which is why you don't even attempt a criticism beyond "This is an idea I cannot discuss without help".

You are basically pointing to your limitations in dealing with and exchanging with ideas on your own without some "master" to tell you the answer.

At least I suppose you are honest.

But there is no reason to be that way.

 

[PyramidHead]

In terms of science "logical" means "according to the way things work".

Examination of the data and if accurate models can be produced so that predictions can be made, the models are labeled "logical".

Thanks for the information!

Do you know of any university-level book on logic or on science which would explain this in more detail? Maybe even just a website? Wiki?
EB

You want me to reference ideas from my own mind?

These come from me, not somebody else.

I am not here serving as the ape for somebody else.

Ah, yes, but that does not transpire from the way you expressed yourself in your post.

You said: 'In terms of science "logical" means "according to the way things work"'. So it good to know there's no authoritative reference to support your assertion.

And you said: 'the models are labeled "logical"'. Here, too, it's good to know there's no authoritative reference to support your assertion.

Thanks for this necessary clarification.
EB

Just a shorthand expression.

But totally true.

Which is why you don't even attempt a criticism beyond "This is an idea I cannot discuss without help".

You are basically pointing to your limitations in dealing with and exchanging with ideas on your own without some "master" to tell you the answer.

At least I suppose you are honest.

But there is no reason to be that way.

Yeah! Don't let things like informed testimony from knowledgeable sources BOSS YOU AROUND, MAN! Such a maverick.

 

[untermensche]

Yeah! Don't let things like informed testimony from knowledgeable sources BOSS YOU AROUND, MAN! Such a maverick.

I think it is many times possible to discuss ideas without needing authorities to explain them.

My initial point was that "logical" in terms of science means "the way things work", or to say in another way, "to conform with the evidence".

A ball falls to the ground. Really there is nothing "logical" about it. But if we strain to apply this concept of "logic" to descriptions of natural phenomena it can only mean to conform to the available evidence.

Now I can't imagine anyone needing some authority to discuss that.

 

[fromderinside]

You lost me at P1. and P2. A logical argument states premises that can be refuted. That is not the case here.

Those were questions to the point about whether there need be a unified conscious.

If you can develop propositions shown how those necessarily reslut from something related to the need for a unified conscious, have at it.

IOW those were redicums to the proposition there need be a unified conscious.

For instance, Why wars? We are tribal. Other tribes are threats. Tribes are two notches of organization above individual. We see difference as threat. We protect ourselves from threats. ergo Unified conscious is necessary? hokay?

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah! Don't let things like informed testimony from knowledgeable sources BOSS YOU AROUND, MAN! Such a maverick.

I think it is many times possible to discuss ideas without needing authorities to explain them.

My initial point was that "logical" in terms of science means "the way things work", or to say in another way, "to conform with the evidence".

A ball falls to the ground. Really there is nothing "logical" about it. But if we strain to apply this concept of "logic" to descriptions of natural phenomena it can only mean to conform to the available evidence.

Now I can't imagine anyone needing some authority to discuss that.

Uh, can you cite your references with respect to the notion of available evidence?

 

[Random Person]

You lost me at P1. and P2. A logical argument states premises that can be refuted. That is not the case here.

Those were questions to the point about whether there need be a unified conscious.

If you can develop propositions shown how those necessarily reslut from something related to the need for a unified conscious, have at it.

IOW those were redicums to the proposition there need be a unified conscious.

For instance, Why wars? We are tribal. Other tribes are threats. Tribes are two notches of organization above individual. We see difference as threat. We protect ourselves from threats. ergo Unified conscious is necessary? hokay?

Well no, not hokay. If you want to affirm unified consciousness you're going to need to construct a persuasive logical argument.

 

[fromderinside]

Geez, I thought everyone would get that I'm not a unified conscious advocate. Consciousness is a high level grabbing of awarenesses as is an awareness a sifting of attentions as is perceiving tonality a sifting of frequencies received ...

 

[fromderinside]

One's belief that one has a unified consciousness is desirable social construct, which is to say, a belief system aggregated from several forms of awareness cobbled together into an overarching precept regardless of whether it is a true thing or no. In fact there is no evidence the brain organized such a thing, rather, the brain offers communication channels that permit such a conscious picture being activity assembled by one's social processes as a model upon which one makes social decisions.

I observe pathways for an arousal system to bring us to wakefulness and attention (Pontine RAS; Moruzzi and Magoun, Sokolov, etc), I observe pathways that arouse the cortex and certain cortical and midbrain activation centers to engage concurrent information (locus coereleus), I still don't see existence of a process through which one decides based on aggregated awareness. Rather I see a reactive response system which may be justified by such a cobbling in both visual and auditory cortex.