Re: ::scr long waffley post about consciousness

[Piers Cawley <pdcawley-scr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alaric Snell <alaric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Monday 08 April 2002 17:52, you wrote:
>
>> > So eating something would do nothing since the neural tissue of
>> > what you eat is not incorporated into your own. Indeed, what you
>> > eat is broken down to raw materials and new cells built from
>> > that.
>>
>> Unless the thing you are eating contains alcohol. Or caffeine. Or
>> prozac. Or are just really well prepared and delicious, leaving the
>> eater feeling more contented (which is a change in their
>> personality after all).
>
> Ah, those are temporary influences upon you rather than
> incorporating something into you (unless you count the memories, in
> which case this drifts away from a discussion about an ethereal soul
> into 'you are the sum of your experiences', which is IMHO a
> different debate)

Ah, but I have already stated elsewhere that I don't believe in the
existence of an ethereal soul. Or even of a 'self' in the conventional
sense.

It is the view of this mind that the 'self' is a construct that this
mind uses in order to make sense of the actions of this
mind. Essentially, the job of the self is to build an internal
narrative that describes what this mind is experiencing.

It is my view that the me that exists now is not the same me that
existed at the time I typed 'now' for the first time. But each
successive me remembers when it used to be the earlier me, so it
concludes that it is, in effect, the same 'me' as it always was, but
with different experiences.

This is a really compelling way of looking at ourselves (some
inviolate 'me' that is the same now as it always was, and which will
continue until one dies, and maybe beyond), but I would hesitate to
say that it is 'really' true. It merely feels true.

-- 
Piers

   "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
    possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
         -- Jane Austen?