On 8/3/2014 8:45 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 4 Aug 2014, at 10:09 am, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/3/2014 4:27 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 4 Aug 2014, at 5:46 am, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
What about "multiple personality disorder" ? Are they the same person? (I'd
guess not)
Why? There is a weaker, culturally acceptable version of this in the concept of the "parallel
lives" we all lead. Now don't tell me you are all just one identity. You don't necessarily
have to be one of the British House of Lords to like the whips and the leathers and the Nazi
uniforms during sex, yet a paragon of moderation humility and chastity in your day job - sorry
that's just an example, I'm sure your imaginations can do better. Nobody is "just one
person". Life offers us all roles to play. De Bono felt this was one area where human
perception was at its finest. You can have all sorts of relationships with other people. Each one
of these relationships is a kind of universe, a life, a computational stream. It has its own
identity. Why limit yourself to just one?
They are *roles* and they are *played* by one person; that's what makes them
roles. What makes the person one is consistency of memories and interactions.
Brent
They are all played sequentially by one subject (with the constraint of the FPI)
FPI is impossible if there's only one person. Is is logically necessary that all
experiences are his or hers.
but the person is the totality of all the roles played, all lives led at all
times and in all places by that subject as smeared (streamed?) over the
multiverse. A knower is associated to a machine but there are infinite parallel
computations.
I think we might allow that one individual can be implicated in many parallel histories
that do not converge in any sense except a 3p description. I don't think you have to be a
schizophrenic or suffering from MPD to merit the description of a "plural
self." Many selves feel divided. You can always say to someone that this is just
their MPD and not real but that's 3p. People who cross-dress for example, often feel that
they become another person when they wear the underwear of the opposite sex.
And from this it follows that they are everybody?
This is generally true of the effect of clothes and fashion in general. The
whole point of having 150 different pairs of shoes is so that each of your 150
different outfits is rendered effectively to articulate each of your 150
different selves. Whether any of this is actually true in any 3p explicit and
public way is of no consequence at all.
So whatever we can see and discuss and draw inferences from is merely "3p" and of no
consequence. In which case I wonder why I'm having this discussion with myself.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
