 
Support Wrong Planet!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 9147
Location: Omnipresent
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:36 pm Post subject: People do not exist |
 |
|
People (or better yet, persons) do not exist. Nobody can prove otherwise.
To get into this, let's analyze what we mean by a person. First, let us start off with the assumption that a person is a being that consciously acts, as opposed to a being that unconsciously acts, like a rock. Secondly, let us assume that a person is a being that has a well-defined identity.
Now the issue with the first assumption is that when we look at how human beings act, we can recognize on some study or intuiting backwards, that a human being's actions are to a great extent unconscious. We see examples of this every day.
"People follow the incredibly complex rules of language use without having any conscious knowledge of those rules ... Many distinguished writers "write with their pens" and the examples are not limited to literature. So much "thinking" is unconscious that the very concept of "mind" becomes problematic" - Richard Posner from The Problems of Jurisprudence
For example, even I am not fully thinking through my writing as I write it. Sure, it is not as if I am utterly unengaged, but the words I used are not each consciously chosen, but rather they appear out of my fingers without substantive levels of thought for most individual words.
Not only that, but decision making itself is not conscious, as in studies of the brain done by Benjamin Libet, information expressing a decision made is found in the mind before the decision itself is known to the conscious mind. What does this mean? Well, it means even our conscious decisions seem to really be unconsciously made, thus further undermining the degree to which human actions can be labeled conscious actions.
http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm
This goes even further with optical illusions, such as the phi effect, where two lights are flashed but most people observe a light that moves and even one that changes midway between its movement, despite the fact that this would indicate that we perceived the change in color before we perceive the light with the new color. Because of this, we have to sort of wonder how great of an extent to which our very sensation of consciousness is really representative of reality, as the only way a change midway in the movement of the light is possible is if the contents of our consciousness are unconsciously processed, meaning that we don't directly consciously perceive our reality, but rather unconscious facts are responsible for our conscious perceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Phi_phenomenon
If the consciousness is not the doer nor the decider of actions, and it is not the receiver of external facts, then properly speaking, we are not consciously acting in any sense at all.
Secondly, persons have a well-defined identity, however, human beings lack a good theory for their identity. I am myself, and I consider me to still be myself if I live 50 more years, however, during all of that time, most of the components comprising my body will be replaced, and most of the ideas and beliefs I hold to now are likely to be ones that a future self would reject. So, if this is case, in what sense am I still myself then at this future point in time? What is the meaningful difference between aging 50 years and having my mind removed by a mad cybernetics expert who wanted to implant a robotic mind into my body? Think about it, both minds have different components than the current mind, both minds will have different beliefs, so why should me+50 years be different than my body with a robotic brain? And given that it seems obvious that me+robotic brain is not me at all, then in what sense can me+50 years be me? Well, it seems difficult to say it is me given that.
In fact, problems with identity are so powerful that some philosophers actually consider our identity to just be a narrative fiction created by the mind to help it function, rather than any strong thing with actual existence.
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/selfctr.htm
Because we not only aren't beings who consciously act and have strong identities, but are beings who neither consciously act nor have strong identity, I must conclude that we are not people. And given the lack of evidence about other worlds, and other people-y beings experienced on this world, I must conclude that people do not exist and nobody can prove otherwise.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ChrisHitchens
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, MY soplipsism is correct and you're just a figment of my imagination. I invented you. You are only the part of me that I allow you to be. I can unimagine you and you will cease to exist. The only reason you think you're real is because I choose that. :-b
_________________
The god of the old testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction, jealous and proud of it; a petty, unforgiving, unjust control-freak; a vindictive bloodthirst ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, genocidal, meglomaniacal, |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 9147
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChrisHitchens wrote: | | No, MY soplipsism is correct and you're just a figment of my imagination. I invented you. You are only the part of me that I allow you to be. I can unimagine you and you will cease to exist. The only reason you think you're real is because I choose that. :-b |
The direction you are going is the opposite of mine in some ways. Solipsism is more of a result of Idealism, which holds that ideas and minds are the essence of reality, and rejecting the existence of persons is more of a result of reductionism, where minds and ideas are stripped away from reality.
Additionally, I included myself in my analysis, so this isn't a matter of solipsism. This is much closer to straight-up nihilism.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 20
Posts: 9130
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:14 am Post subject: Re: People do not exist |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | People (or better yet, persons) do not exist. Nobody can prove otherwise.
To get into this, let's analyze what we mean by a person. First, let us start off with the assumption that a person is a being that consciously acts, as opposed to a being that unconsciously acts, like a rock. Secondly, let us assume that a person is a being that has a well-defined identity. |
I can just reject your assumptions and deny your definition of "person." The lack of conscious action is irrelevant to a determinist like myself and so cannot be a defining point of whether a given entity is a person. Also, a person is usually dynamic rather than static, so it does not matter that a person lacks a well-defined identity over long periods of time. A person is usually stable enough in the short term, so it doesn't matter if they change over longer spans.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 9147
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: |
I can just reject your assumptions and deny your definition of "person." The lack of conscious action is irrelevant to a determinist like myself and so cannot be a defining point of whether a given entity is a person. Also, a person is usually dynamic rather than static, so it does not matter that a person lacks a well-defined identity over long periods of time. A person is usually stable enough in the short term, so it doesn't matter if they change over longer spans. |
Determinism has nothing to do with conscious action, it has to do with physical determination. A determinist could still hold to the idea that people act consciously in most of their actions.
Additionally, a person may be dynamic, but if a true theory of identity does not exist, then in what sense does the person exist? Short-term stability isn't the big issue, the issue is whether identity really exists in the first place, as it is hard to say that persons exist if we can't properly specify these beings, after all, there must be a meaningful difference that tells us that a bit of matter in a time-space location should be labeled a person, rather than just a complex carbon-based process.
Orwell, if my definitions suck, then how would you identify a person as something different than a rock? The best I can see for you at this point is arguing "persons are the things denoted as such by information processing methods used by human beings". The issue with this definition is that "person" doesn't have a real meaning, but rather it seems as if it is arbitrary. If personhood has seeming moral weight, probably also metaphysical weight, then how can it be that personhood is just arbitrary?
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Eggman
das Freak'n Techno Viking!
Joined: Jul 18, 2008
Posts: 4213
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
For all I know, nothing exists but me.
_________________
Pwning the threads with my mad 1337 skillz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
X_Parasite
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 29, 2006
Age: 19
Posts: 716
Location: Right here.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I was going to write a reply, but I seem to have vanished in a puff of logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
sartresue
Radical Aspergian
Joined: Dec 19, 2007
Posts: 5207
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does AG exist? topic
The proof is not in the pudding, or any other substance.
If AG is a person, he does not exist. Now how can any of us say such a thing if people do not exist?
One of those conundrums! Is existence falsifiable? Is any of this possible?
  If we are not people, could we exist?
_________________
Radical Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind
Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jono
Velociraptor
Joined: Jul 11, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 442
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: |
Determinism has nothing to do with conscious action, it has to do with physical determination. A determinist could still hold to the idea that people act consciously in most of their actions.
|
Except that those conscious actions might still be predetermined by prior events. Another way of thinking about it has to do with the question "what is free will?". Most people don't like the idea of actions being predetermined because in their perceived idea of free will, any past action could of been done otherwise, however if actions are not predetermined they are random. You also can't consider actions to be that of free will if they are just random impulses from ones nervous system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 9147
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jono wrote: |
Except that those conscious actions might still be predetermined by prior events. Another way of thinking about it has to do with the question "what is free will?". Most people don't like the idea of actions being predetermined because in their perceived idea of free will, any past action could of been done otherwise, however if actions are not predetermined they are random. You also can't consider actions to be that of free will if they are just random impulses from ones nervous system. |
Well, they would still be predetermined. The issue is that if you consciously act, you could be said to be freely enacting your will. If your actions aren't fully conscious though, in what sense can you be said to just be enacting your will? It gets even more difficult to say that, because we know our will as our conscious will, but the conscious isn't choosing, thus even compatibilism is trickier.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 20
Posts: 9130
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | Additionally, a person may be dynamic, but if a true theory of identity does not exist, then in what sense does the person exist? Short-term stability isn't the big issue, the issue is whether identity really exists in the first place, as it is hard to say that persons exist if we can't properly specify these beings, after all, there must be a meaningful difference that tells us that a bit of matter in a time-space location should be labeled a person, rather than just a complex carbon-based process.
Orwell, if my definitions suck, then how would you identify a person as something different than a rock? The best I can see for you at this point is arguing "persons are the things denoted as such by information processing methods used by human beings". The issue with this definition is that "person" doesn't have a real meaning, but rather it seems as if it is arbitrary. If personhood has seeming moral weight, probably also metaphysical weight, then how can it be that personhood is just arbitrary? |
Simple enough, a specific human genetic pattern occupying a physical human body is a person. Twins are two distinct persons, and clones (if/when human cloning occurs) would be distinct persons as well. This resolves the identity issue just fine, as a person's identity is (in almost all cases) determined by their unique genetic pattern. In the case of two humans with identical genetics, there is obviously one person to each physical body. The physical body is gradually replaced over time, but again, it is not difficult to see the chain of continuity in it- it's not as though humans replace their entire bodies at once.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Letum
Deinonychus
Joined: Jan 21, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 350
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nagasena, a Buddhist philosopher, whom the Greek philosophical world had contact with, refuted personhood as a class error.
he argues that in the same way that you can't touch the part of the city that is the "London" bit, you can't find the part of your self that is the "you" bit.
Of course, by this measure you can't find anything that is divisible into smaller parts. That trivialities his point a little, but not so much that is is completely lost.
| Quote: | King Milinda: How is your reverence known and what is your name, sir?
Nagasena: I am known as Nagasena, great king, and everyone calls me Nagasena. Even though my parents named me Nagasena, the word 'Nagasena' is just a name, a label, a series of sounds, a concept. It is just a name. There is no real person to be apprehended.
King: (addresses everyone) Listen up everyone, Nagasena tells me that he is not a real person. How can I agree to that? (to Nagasena) If no person can be apprehended, then who gives you alms? Who eats and takes medicine? Who meditates and guards morality? Who kills, steals, and rapes? If someone were to kill you, Nagasena, wouldn't that be murder? What is this 'Nagasena'? Are you the hairs on your head?
Nagasena: No, great king.
King: The hair on your body?
Nagasena: No, great king.
King: What about your muscles, bone, brain, organs, or any other part of your physical body? Is this Nagasena?
Nagasena: No, great king.
King: Perhaps it is this whole form, or a combination of this form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness?
Nagasena: No, great king.
King: Is it something outside of the combination of things?
Nagasena: No, great king.
King: (to everyone) I can discover no Nagasena at all. Just a sound, but who is the real Nagasena? Everyone, your reverence has told a lie. There is no Nagasena!
Nagasena: Your majesty, I notice that you have been brought up in great comfort. If you walked here under the noon sun, on the sharp rocks and burning sands, then your feet would be hurt and you would be tired. So how did you come, on foot or on a horse?
King: I came on a chariot.
Nagasena: If you came on a chariot, please explain what a chariot is. Is the pole the chariot?
King: No, reverend sir.
Nagasena: Is it the wheels, or the frame, or the yoke, or any of the parts?
King: No, reverend sir.
Nagasena: Is it the combination of the parts? If we laid out the wheels and the frame and the yoke and all the parts, would that be a chariot?
King: No, reverend sir.
Nagasena: Then is it outside of this combination of parts?
King: No, reverend sir.
Nagasena: Then, ask as I do, I can't discover a chariot. Chariot seems to be just a mere sound. Where is this chariot? Your majesty has told a lie!
Greeks: (applaud) How will you get out of this, your Majesty?
King: Nagasena, I have not told a lie. It is in the dependency and interworking of all the parts that you have a chariot. A pile of parts isn't enough. It is when they all work together that you have this conceptual term, sound, and name of a chariot.
Nagasena: Your majesty is exactly right about the chariot. It is just so with me. Nagasena is the working of all the parts of the body and the five skandhas that make me. But in ultimate reality, however, the person still isn't caught.
King: Well played sir. Well played. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 9147
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: |
Simple enough, a specific human genetic pattern occupying a physical human body is a person. Twins are two distinct persons, and clones (if/when human cloning occurs) would be distinct persons as well. This resolves the identity issue just fine, as a person's identity is (in almost all cases) determined by their unique genetic pattern. In the case of two humans with identical genetics, there is obviously one person to each physical body. The physical body is gradually replaced over time, but again, it is not difficult to see the chain of continuity in it- it's not as though humans replace their entire bodies at once. |
What about chimeras?
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=412
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/01/the-mind-blowing-wor.html
(the articles both overlap)
One person, two sets of DNA? Given that it isn't a specific human genetic pattern occupying a physical human body but more than one, it seems as if these people aren't persons under your definition.
Additionally speaking, your definition has further problems. For example, are brain-dead humans still persons? How about freshly dead humans? Also, when do we call a body a "physical human body"? Can a combined sperm and egg count? How about a fetus? How about a living and working human brain in a vat? If a brain in a vat, then why not a hand or leg or torso? If not a brain in a vat, how much of the body is necessary?
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 9147
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Letum wrote: | Nagasena, a Buddhist philosopher, whom the Greek philosophical world had contact with, refuted personhood as a class error.
he argues that in the same way that you can't touch the part of the city that is the "London" bit, you can't find the part of your self that is the "you" bit.
Of course, by this measure you can't find anything that is divisible into smaller parts. That trivialities his point a little, but not so much that is is completely lost.
|
That is actually interesting. Thanks for sharing!
I actually agree with the argument, I think if you combine this with Dennett's view of identity as narrative (which I provided a link to, it's the last link I gave, I really found it an interesting article and try to share it to when I can), the objection is dealt with in all practical senses. Y'know, London doesn't really exist as a metaphysical entity, however, London is a useful classification for our mind to deal with and to convey information about what is being roughly talked about.(after all, London is a social convention, not physically or metaphysically distinct, sort of like the question of when a hue is properly blue and when it is properly purple, there is no "purpleness" or "blueness" in existence so we can't say the line at all, but we have basic conventions)
(the parentheses are things I added later, because they came to mind)
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ChrisHitchens
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: |
Additionally, I included myself in my analysis, so this isn't a matter of solipsism. This is much closer to straight-up nihilism. |
Before you go to bed, do you read Nitsche and masturbate? 
| Awsomelyglorious wrote: | | The direction you are going is the opposite of mine in some ways. Solipsism is more of a result of Idealism, which holds that ideas and minds are the essence of reality, and rejecting the existence of persons is more of a result of reductionism, where minds and ideas are stripped away from reality. |
I'm not sure I feel like wasting my time on the subject, because both solipsism and nihilism share the same fault in that, even if they are true, they aren't the basis of functional models of the world. So let's assume that you're right. So what?
How can you use reductionism and nihilism to form the basis of a usefull epistemology? The only thing that you've suggested so far that looks promising, is Dennett's view of identity as a narrative. But even this seems to lead to the conclusion that even though certian assumtions about the world are wrong, they are nonetheless, usefull.
_________________
The god of the old testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction, jealous and proud of it; a petty, unforgiving, unjust control-freak; a vindictive bloodthirst ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, genocidal, meglomaniacal, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
