4 ms·

We have neurological evidence pointing to how our very sense of "self" exists as a construction of the brain, associated with specific regions. Drugs that indu

We have neurological evidence pointing to how our very sense of "self" exists as a construction of the brain, associated with specific regions. Drugs that induce "a sense of oneness with the universe" appear to just turn off that "self illusion" part of the brain. Compare it to when I kill my Gnome/KDE daemon and see the shell underneath. In short, neuroscientists have already discovered "the essence of a person", regardless of job description.

unalone 14y ago
Funny, most of the people I know who drop acid become more interested in philosophy, not less. Methinks you're looking at this the wrong way: it's not that neuroscience "solved" philosophy, it's that neuroscientists invented something that directly proves how fascinating philosophy really is. Thanks neuroscientists! Let's let the philosophers take it from here. I compare philosophy to when, after you see the shell beneath your GUI, you start realizing that the same principles that affect programming might affect things that aren't on your computer screen – kind of like Plato's shadow puppets, come to think of it. And then you start wondering if things that aren't on your computer screen could affect programming, if only you knew what they were. And then you start wondering how they are all pieced together. And every time you find new pieces, you start wondering where those pieces came from, and every time you start dreaming of new computers, but the really fascinating part is the questions, and the answers are just an afterthought... I love answers as much as anybody, but I love questions so much more. Drugs and Linux are wonderful answers that provoke even deeper questions. Why not let's ask those questions and see what we let neuroscientists come up with next?
kijin 14y ago
If identifying the brain region or drug that produces the sensation of identity counts as discovering the essence of identity, does identifying the brain region or drug that produces the illusion of being a cat count as discovering the essence of feline nature? Would the illusion provide us with accurate rules to distinguish felines from other animals? This is exactly the kind of equivocation that contemporary philosophers complain about nearly every time an arrogant scientist announces the end of philosophy. Not because the scientist's answers are uncomfortable, but because they don't even answer the same question. (Arrogant philosophers, in turn, would say in Latin: ignoratio elenchi.) Yes, we already know which binaries produce the KDE Plasma Desktop when executed from the bash shell. We also know exactly which bits produce which parts of the GUI. But what we really wanted to know were the conceptual, historical, and perhaps even ethical significance of the design decisions and system architecture that make KDE what it is. (If we replaced Qt with something else, would it still be KDE?) You can't answer that question by showing us a million lines of C++.
- thirdtruck 14y ago
  Would the illusion provide us with accurate rules to distinguish felines from other animals? "Felines" as a group exist only as a cognitive shortcut. Looking at the genetic and evolutionary data, we find a continuum where felines and other families bleed together in a very fine gradient. We just happened to draw boundaries in the interest of productive discussion. We will never find "the essence of feline nature" because there is no such concrete thing as a "feline" which would have such. For a human example: at what point do we stop being conscious when falling asleep?
  - memla 14y ago
    He didn't ask you whether there are accurate rules for distinguishing between felines and other families, he specifically and precisely asked you if you can deduce those rules from the illusion! It's the same inference you were trying to make about the nature of the self. Read more carefully.
    - thirdtruck 14y ago
      Short answer: no. Long answer: no, because we derive these distinctions from the real world instead, changing them as necessary to better reflect new knowledge. See "birds are dinosuars" and "the brontosaurus never existed".
memla 14y ago
You should be careful with this grand pronunciations about what scientist have discovered, given that your last sentence doesn't have much to do with anything that precedes it. A "sense of self" is not the same thing as the "self". Nor does association/correlation of the self with brain regions imply identity between those two things.
- thirdtruck 14y ago
  I posit that no distinction lies between "the sense of self" and "self". Where would you draw the line between these two instead?
  - kijin 14y ago
    If there is indeed no distinction between the two, which might very well be the case, you would still need to supply a logical argument as to why there is no distinction between the two. Philosophy isn't about positing grand-sounding statements without proof. It's about backing up such statements with valid logic. Something like: Hello, I analysed 12 different ways in which people use the word "self", and came up with precise definitions for each of them so that there is no room for ambiguity or vagueness. Here I demonstrate that each and every one of them has exactly the same logical structure as, and is therefore reducible to, the phrase "the sense of self", a precise definition of which follows: blah blah blah. Therefore, I posit that "self" === "the sense of self". Neuroscientists can show how certain biochemical processes cause members of homo sapiens to confuse the self with the sense of self, but error theory is not a positive demonstration. So I maintain that a healthy dose of philosophy is still required. Also, just because you can't draw a line between two things doesn't mean that there's no distinction between them. Is abortion the same as murder just because foetal development is a continuous process with no sharp boundaries?
    - thirdtruck 14y ago
      What definitions of "self" and "sense of self" are we using? We will have to draw that line before I can begin to erase it.

unalone 14y ago

Funny, most of the people I know who drop acid become more interested in philosophy, not less. Methinks you're looking at this the wrong way: it's not that neuroscience "solved" philosophy, it's that neuroscientists invented something that directly proves how fascinating philosophy really is. Thanks neuroscientists! Let's let the philosophers take it from here. I compare philosophy to when, after you see the shell beneath your GUI, you start realizing that the same principles that affect programming might affect things that aren't on your computer screen – kind of like Plato's shadow puppets, come to think of it. And then you start wondering if things that aren't on your computer screen could affect programming, if only you knew what they were. And then you start wondering how they are all pieced together. And every time you find new pieces, you start wondering where those pieces came from, and every time you start dreaming of new computers, but the really fascinating part is the questions, and the answers are just an afterthought... I love answers as much as anybody, but I love questions so much more. Drugs and Linux are wonderful answers that provoke even deeper questions. Why not let's ask those questions and see what we let neuroscientists come up with next?

kijin 14y ago

If identifying the brain region or drug that produces the sensation of identity counts as discovering the essence of identity, does identifying the brain region or drug that produces the illusion of being a cat count as discovering the essence of feline nature? Would the illusion provide us with accurate rules to distinguish felines from other animals? This is exactly the kind of equivocation that contemporary philosophers complain about nearly every time an arrogant scientist announces the end of philosophy. Not because the scientist's answers are uncomfortable, but because they don't even answer the same question. (Arrogant philosophers, in turn, would say in Latin: ignoratio elenchi.) Yes, we already know which binaries produce the KDE Plasma Desktop when executed from the bash shell. We also know exactly which bits produce which parts of the GUI. But what we really wanted to know were the conceptual, historical, and perhaps even ethical significance of the design decisions and system architecture that make KDE what it is. (If we replaced Qt with something else, would it still be KDE?) You can't answer that question by showing us a million lines of C++.

thirdtruck 14y ago
Would the illusion provide us with accurate rules to distinguish felines from other animals? "Felines" as a group exist only as a cognitive shortcut. Looking at the genetic and evolutionary data, we find a continuum where felines and other families bleed together in a very fine gradient. We just happened to draw boundaries in the interest of productive discussion. We will never find "the essence of feline nature" because there is no such concrete thing as a "feline" which would have such. For a human example: at what point do we stop being conscious when falling asleep?
- memla 14y ago
  He didn't ask you whether there are accurate rules for distinguishing between felines and other families, he specifically and precisely asked you if you can deduce those rules from the illusion! It's the same inference you were trying to make about the nature of the self. Read more carefully.
  - thirdtruck 14y ago
    Short answer: no. Long answer: no, because we derive these distinctions from the real world instead, changing them as necessary to better reflect new knowledge. See "birds are dinosuars" and "the brontosaurus never existed".

memla 14y ago

You should be careful with this grand pronunciations about what scientist have discovered, given that your last sentence doesn't have much to do with anything that precedes it. A "sense of self" is not the same thing as the "self". Nor does association/correlation of the self with brain regions imply identity between those two things.

thirdtruck 14y ago
I posit that no distinction lies between "the sense of self" and "self". Where would you draw the line between these two instead?
- kijin 14y ago
  If there is indeed no distinction between the two, which might very well be the case, you would still need to supply a logical argument as to why there is no distinction between the two. Philosophy isn't about positing grand-sounding statements without proof. It's about backing up such statements with valid logic. Something like: Hello, I analysed 12 different ways in which people use the word "self", and came up with precise definitions for each of them so that there is no room for ambiguity or vagueness. Here I demonstrate that each and every one of them has exactly the same logical structure as, and is therefore reducible to, the phrase "the sense of self", a precise definition of which follows: blah blah blah. Therefore, I posit that "self" === "the sense of self". Neuroscientists can show how certain biochemical processes cause members of homo sapiens to confuse the self with the sense of self, but error theory is not a positive demonstration. So I maintain that a healthy dose of philosophy is still required. Also, just because you can't draw a line between two things doesn't mean that there's no distinction between them. Is abortion the same as murder just because foetal development is a continuous process with no sharp boundaries?
  - thirdtruck 14y ago
    What definitions of "self" and "sense of self" are we using? We will have to draw that line before I can begin to erase it.