> On 6 Aug 2014, at 9:18 am, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 8/5/2014 4:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> On the other hand, you talk about "usefulness" in a very narrow sense. What
>> makes life bearable in this weird reality we find ourselves in is very
>> personal. We all have our different ways and different questions that we
>> would like to answer, maybe.
>>
>>> It essentially cuts off any avenue of help.
>>
>> No it doesn't! It doesn't follow from "a certain theory of consciousness
>> provides no help for Alzheimer" that "there is no possibility of help for
>> Alzheimer".
>>
>
> When you refer to what makes life bearable is very personal seems to identify
> "life" with "consciousness", since that is what is very personal. When I
> said a theory of consciousness that makes it independent of all external
> interactions cuts off all avenues of help, I meant help for those personal
> experiences. Kim even went so far as to suggest that, in spite of external
> appearances, those with Alzheimers might be perfectly happy and content and
> there is no need to try to help. The trouble with such a theory is that it
> applies as well to those apoplectic with rage or sobbing in sorrow - maybe
> they're really happy, we just can't know.
>
> Brent
>
It does, doesn't it. Good one. It even applies to people in relatively baseline
or "normal" mental states. The difference would then be that the difference
between observed behaviour and intended behaviour is entirely contrived by the
subject, (where the subject's brain has not yet begun to go down the toilet or
somesuch). Behaviour has evolved to be manipulative. You behave a certain way
to present one of your plural identities, according to the circumstances
(context of self).
It seems we never get entirely the real deal from each other. There is always
much contending that remains unspoken. Body language is missing over the Net,
so much more needs to be inferred from sheer verbal language alone. This is a
very interesting lossy thing in the age of text. Communications have evolved to
be way more visual than verbal. Normally, up to 87% of what we take away from
each other's utterances is carried by the "meta data" of body languge when we
look at the other talk. Clearly this can be manipulative. Most of the "person"
is not in what they bleat about when they open their mouth, it's in what they
look like and in how they behave! This IMO reinforces my strong impression that
the self is independent of the particular instantiation. There is this opera by
Janucek about a three hundred year old opera singer who has had many lives,
carried many identities and aliases throughout her life. A good act is as good
as the real thing, anyway. Maybe try "The Twyborn Affair" by Patrick White
about a subject that exists in three parallel incarnations and who all cross
paths completely unlknowingly throughout the story. The self is some kind of
narrative.
K
--
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.
