I think you need to dissolve the question “Am I my hat?” as well as the “us vs. them” issue.
See points 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 29 and then play a game of taboo.
Yes, almost exactly, though perhaps the question to dissolve is “what is me/self/I”.
“Am I my hat?” is just one, purposely bad, example of trying to do that.
Now, say you created an exact copy of yourself, or me, or any other hat wearing person, only one of these two identical people was without headwear; would it still be the same person?
“making an exact copy” or “exact copy sans hat” seems to require already knowing the answer
to “what is me/self/I”. I.e. If the definition of “me” includes a specific set of atoms,
then it’s not even possible, on the other hand if “me” is just a collection of thought processes,
then hats are not required. The precision needed is of course, dependent on the definition used, and ultimately the purpose. I’d say I’m most often thinking about it when the idea of making a copy comes up, as in, would that really be a copy.
Hope that helps :)
Indeed, playing Taboo, or rather, thinking about how I would play Taboo was surprisingly helpful.
I’ve recently tried thinking of myself as a pattern which likes reproducing imperfect copies of itself. This as a goal, (I would want more imperfect copies like me developed in the future) and not a bug of trying to produce exact copies of myself and failing at it.
Interesting, I never considered defining the me in terms of goals I’m attempting to accomplish, yet now that you mention it, it seems obvious. hindsight bias in action And it also brings to mind similar categories; who I know, who I’m friends with, social standing, ownership (gah, define one horribly fuzzy concept with yet another) … HungryTurtle mentioned the roles one plays.
Imagine a snowball that’s rolling down an infinite slope. As it descends, it picks up more snow, rocks, sticks, maybe some bugs, I don’t know. Maybe there are dry patches, too, and the snowball loses some snow. Maybe the snowball hits a boulder and loses half of its snow, and what remains is less than 10% original snow material. But it still can be said to be this snowball and not that snowball because its composition and history are unique to it—it can be identified by its past travels, its momentum, and the resulting trajectory. If this can be taken to be one’s life (an analogy that I hope was obvious), then the “I” that we refer to in our own lives isn’t even the whole snowball but merely the place where the snowball touches the ground.
What question is left to ask? there is some fibres that does not originate in your biochemistry stuck in yout hair, and there are some materials that originate in you stuck in that bunde of fibres that was previously resting on your cranium.
Why is it important to have a sharp definition of “self,” is it not to presume it has intristic meaning? What you refer to as “you” is an emergent system that has causes in your entire past light cone and repercussions in your entire future lightcone. There is a constant flux of matter and energy sorrounding the substrate that runs your consciousnness program. It is a continuous construct, there isn’t a line to be drawn at all.
Yes, almost exactly, though perhaps the question to dissolve is “what is me/self/I”. “Am I my hat?” is just one, purposely bad, example of trying to do that.
“making an exact copy” or “exact copy sans hat” seems to require already knowing the answer to “what is me/self/I”. I.e. If the definition of “me” includes a specific set of atoms, then it’s not even possible, on the other hand if “me” is just a collection of thought processes, then hats are not required. The precision needed is of course, dependent on the definition used, and ultimately the purpose. I’d say I’m most often thinking about it when the idea of making a copy comes up, as in, would that really be a copy.
Indeed, playing Taboo, or rather, thinking about how I would play Taboo was surprisingly helpful.
Interesting, I never considered defining the me in terms of goals I’m attempting to accomplish, yet now that you mention it, it seems obvious. hindsight bias in action
And it also brings to mind similar categories;
who I know,
who I’m friends with,
social standing,
ownership (gah, define one horribly fuzzy concept with yet another) …
HungryTurtle mentioned the roles one plays.
Imagine a snowball that’s rolling down an infinite slope. As it descends, it picks up more snow, rocks, sticks, maybe some bugs, I don’t know. Maybe there are dry patches, too, and the snowball loses some snow. Maybe the snowball hits a boulder and loses half of its snow, and what remains is less than 10% original snow material. But it still can be said to be this snowball and not that snowball because its composition and history are unique to it—it can be identified by its past travels, its momentum, and the resulting trajectory. If this can be taken to be one’s life (an analogy that I hope was obvious), then the “I” that we refer to in our own lives isn’t even the whole snowball but merely the place where the snowball touches the ground.
What question is left to ask? there is some fibres that does not originate in your biochemistry stuck in yout hair, and there are some materials that originate in you stuck in that bunde of fibres that was previously resting on your cranium.
Why is it important to have a sharp definition of “self,” is it not to presume it has intristic meaning? What you refer to as “you” is an emergent system that has causes in your entire past light cone and repercussions in your entire future lightcone. There is a constant flux of matter and energy sorrounding the substrate that runs your consciousnness program. It is a continuous construct, there isn’t a line to be drawn at all.