Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

DavidSmith said:

The issue that Ian and I are calling into question is what the brain and alcohol really are. If reality is experiential then the brain and alcohol do not objectively exist. They are experiences themselves and are thus on the same playing field of reality as the the experience of drunkeness they are assumed to cause.

Once all the experiential products of Beingness are removed from the picture, through drugs or disease, what is left? Beingness. Can you experience this Beingness without the mental faculties included in these products of Beingness? I very much doubt it. But let's assume so. Then the question is this: How would you remember?

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

Now I've just started drinking now. At the moment I can detect a very slight effect. Which therefore means my brain processes also have changed. As I drink more and more it will effect my conscious states more and more. But this means that if My I is to be equated with conscious states and therefore physical states of the brain, then I literally am not the same person now as before I first started drinking, and I will again be a literally different person after a few more sips.

That is correct. And you literally are not the same person you were before. The chemicals in you body are different. Your behavior is different. They may be different in only subtle ways, but you simply are not the same collection of atoms you were before you started drinking. I don't know why this bothers you. Isn't one of the reasons people drink because they want to be different? More gregarious, for example?

.But it certainly doesn't seem this way now does it? It seems my I is the same, but I just feel differently.

And herein lies your entire argument. It seems like you should have something that stays the same. Perhaps that is because the vast majority of you does stay the same. For some reason, it is important to you that there be something immutable about yourself, yet it seems unlikely. Has your "I" changed in any way whatsoever since the day you were born? Since the day you were conceived? If it has, then there is no reason to deny that your "I" can be in constant change. If it has not, then you are simply proposing the existance of a soul that is installed at conception and never changes. Doesn't your "I" ever learn anything?

This must be so otherwise it would be irrational for me to say look forward to a night out drinking since it wouldn't literally be me enjoying the night out!

It would literally be you. It would be the ever-changing, ever-learning you. You are still, for the most part, the same person you were before your night of drinking, but subtly changed. The new "I" may decide it will never do tequila shots again.

 

[hammegk]

Kewl! A ladyfinger courtesy of Tricky in a discussion at the tactical nuke level.

Maybe you should start a thread on "Terran Homo Sapiens consciousness" which is what you appear to be discussing.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk, are you out drinking with Ian? I have no idea what you just said.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Hammegk, are you out drinking with Ian?

Nope. This is still *me* without foreign substances in the blood stream.

I have no idea what you just said.

~~ Paul

Yeah, I have that trouble a lot ...
The basic idea was that Tricky's post had f*ck-all to do with the discussion some of us were having ( imnsho of course ).

 

[Tricky]

Yeah, I have that trouble a lot ...
The basic idea was that Tricky's post had f*ck-all to do with the discussion some of us were having ( imnsho of course ).

Actually, it had to do directly with what Ian just said, but without the frippery of philosobabble. One of the main contentions that Ian seems to make (from this quote):

Interesting Ian said
But still it seems that I have the same *I* but just that I feel differently.

...is that there is an *I* that is separate from the *me*. The *me* is affected by alcohol, but the *I* is unchanging, or at least unaffected by the material world. I submit that the *I* is not the same, but is affected and changed by material experiences.

My contention is that for such an *I* to exist, it cannot be affected by material means (such as perceiving material things), or it is in fact interacting with the material world. If the *I* is affected by the physical world, then how is it in any way different from the *me*?

If that's too straightforward for you, Ham, I'll try to throw in some philosobabble.

 

[Dancing David]

David,

The issue that Ian and I are calling into question is what the brain and alcohol really are. If reality is experiential then the brain and alcohol do not objectively exist. They are experiences themselves and are thus on the same playing field of reality as the the experience of drunkeness they are assumed to cause.

I understand the 'it's all experience' argument.

However that does not exclude the possibility and verifiablity of the fact the the brain is the cause of consiousness.

You can have the playing field and the names but it still comes down to the fact that there is no consiusness without the brain.