On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > *From:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > [mailto:[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] *On > Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes > *Sent:* Monday, April 13, 2015 7:49 AM > *To:* [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 13 Apr 2015, at 05:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > The philosophical literature is full of extended discussions on this, and > it is widely understood that ideas such as brain transplants and > duplicating machines play merry havoc with our intuitive notions of > personal identity. > > > Yes, it simply vanish. Personal identity is an illusion, but the FPI is > not, and that result is not used in the reversal, so I prefer to let is for > other threads and topics. > > > That seems like a flat contradiction. Personal identity is an illusion but > First Person Indeterminacy is not. You can't have first person anything if > you do not have a notion of personal identity. > > I am actually very suspicious of any argument which begins, or ends, with > "X is an illusion." Be X consciousness, personal identity, free will, > space, time, or anything else. The theory is supposed to explain our > experience of these things. Writing them off as "illusions" is not an > explanation. > > > > Only if the theory fails to explain how the illusion arises. For example, > there was a persistent illusion that the universe revolves around the > earth. Astronomy eventually showed that not to be the case, also explaining > why it looks that way. > > > > Telmo – I agree with you. An argument for something being an illusion > needs to show how the illusion emerges out of the underlying reality; it > needs to demonstrate the mechanisms that drive the illusion and how they > work to transform the actual real events/experiences/etc. into whatever is > subsequently perceived as experienced or real. Simply saying that something > is an illusion is not adequate; I agree with that. And I think your example > of the Aristotelian earth centric universe, is a good one. The mechanism by > which it produced the illusion was demonstrated in that case. > > Here's the mechanism: my body is destroyed, and another similar body is created. Because it's similar, it thinks it's me. If two were created, both would think they were me. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
