Glen ☣ -
This is a very /sophist/icated argument YOU make. *I* can't tell,
however if *YOU* believe it, at least right this instant... perhaps
*YOU* believed it when you wrote it, but does that belief persist from
the former now to the current now?
Smart-asserry aside... Trying to take your point for what it is intended
(or useful for?)... I believe that "atomicity" and "identity" in both
space and time are simultaneously deep illusions and highly utilitarian,
at least in the service of the is "illusory self" that appears to have
memory, intention, and will to action. With that in mind:
I am about to go to my boneyard and search for two specific concrete
blocks which I remember to have put there when I took the large
woodstove out of my sunroom, and trust they are still there (or wherever
I actually put them) and that when I find them and brush off any
accumulated detritus and load them on my garden cart, I can haul them
back to my house where I will use them in the same mode as I did last
year, only in a different location. This all depends on a strong
illusion of my "self", on the objectness of said blocks and woodstove
and garden cart, and a continuity of "self" roughly ranging back to the
time when I dismantled to the present as I plan and scheme to the future
when, in fact, I am pretty confident I will find the woodstove perched
on top of those very same blocks again. Of course, I may change plans
mid-course if I find another set of blocks with more appropriate or
promising qualities for the purpose..
- Stove
On 11/2/17 10:26 AM, gⅼеɳ ☣ wrote:
Yes, you're right to classify the illusion of self along with Smith's preemptive registration, more
insidious, I think, than premature registration. Identifying an object as atomic lies at the heart
of a lot of our problems. We could just as easily call it a discretization artifact. Here, the
"continuous fluid self" shines the light on the fact that discretization problems arise
in both time and space. Unless you're willing to admit that, for example, your ancestors from 10
generations ago and 10 generations hence are *also* part of your self, then you've got to
discretize "self" in time. And unless you're willing to allow some anonymous African or
Alpha Centaurian to also be part of your self, then you've got to discretize in space.
Such discretization is a great method *if* you've got a well-formed set of use cases to engineer
toward. But most conversations where "self" is bandied about willy nilly, a) the use
cases aren't particular cases, at all, they're more like usage patterns, if they're well-formed at
all, and b) conversations tend to wander and "self" under one usage pattern is magically
translated into another usage pattern, making the whole conversation into nonsense.
So, practicality demands we abandon the stupid word "self" entirely. If you
want to extend that practicality into your metaphysics, then so be it. But the
metaphysics is irrelevant because practically, there is no self.
On 10/30/2017 07:42 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
I'm curious about your reference to "the temporally extended self". If it isn't *real* it
certainly is a very strong illusion that my *instantaneous self* often indulges in. Flow states, peak
awareness, enlightenment, etc. all DO seem to point or trend toward "being in the instant"... but
nevertheless, there is also a persistent illusion of a continuous fluid self that IS temporally extended.
In fact, by the some measure, it would seem that is the very definition of Objectness which I believe
Selfness inherits from. Perhaps Brian Cantwell Smith has had something to say about all of this? It has
been decades since I read him... maybe I can find my copy of "Origin of Objects"? Or maybe it is
just a faulty memory of an illusory temporally extended self?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
