The problem with personal identity is, we feel there is a fact that 'I'm me'. But that's hard to pin down philosophically, because all of my experiences change, all of the parts of my body change, all of the molecules in my body change.
He further stated:
You have to postulate a self to make sense of rational behavior. We want to find a 'soul' that is at the bottom of all this … but, of course, there isn't any.
Colin McGinn said:
The self is something real, but the self has got to be grounded in the brain — the self's unity over time must be a function of what's in the brain. We don't know how that works, but it must be so.
He also adds:
All we've got is the idea that you, at a later time, are causally connected to you at an earlier time. That isn't the same thing as you persisting through time.
So they have a great deal of difficulty reconciling this idea that we are persisting selves with the idea that the brain produces consciousness. I sympathise with this. Our brains are in a constant state of change. Thus, how could they produce an unchanging self?
Psychologist and skeptic Susan Blackmore outrightly rejects this concept of persisting selves. She says:
This so-called 'me' is really just another reconstruction. There was an earlier one 30 minutes ago, and there will be others in the future. But they're really not the same person
She further goes on to say "so there's no self to die", because there is no self prior to death and "there's certainly no self to continue after death".
And she also said:
Death has no sting, because there never was a 'you' to die. Every moment is just a new story.
We regard death as the end of us and something to be feared. But this presupposes we exist before death -- that we are conscious entities that persist from second to second, day to day, even from one year to the next. But, if there's no persisting self, then all this is an illusion. We effectively are constantly dying every second, only to spring into being anew the next second. But the new "you" that springs into being each and every second are always replicas (this can best be understood by a teleportation thought experiment. See a relevant blog essay by me). I agree with Blackmore that it's kind of liberating to feel that way. However, that does nothing to make it true.
Finally, we have the famous Daniel Dennett, a philosopher, who, like Blackmore, outrightly rejects the concept of persisting selves. He says:
The notion that the only thing that could persist is a little, special, unchangeable pearl of self-stuff seems like a fairly lame solution to the problem.
I agree with all four of the quoted philosophers/psychologist that it is extremely difficult to reconcile a persisting self with the notion that the brain produces such a self; indeed perhaps impossible. But what if the brain doesn't produce consciousness? In which case the commonsensical self -- what we might label an immaterial self or mental substance -- no longer encounters any such intractable difficulty. It's of no avail simply stating it's a fairly lame solution. I think this is simply a reflection of Dennett's view that science explains reality in its totality (i.e modern materialism) leaving no room for that which cannot be measured, a view which I emphatically reject.
It seems that if we subscribe to materialism, or indeed any position that has the brain producing consciousness, we ought not just to reject an afterlife, but also the notion that we are selves that persist from one second to the next. Very few people appear to understand how radical this brain produces consciousness thesis actually is.
Ever get the feeling deep down that these people don't *really* believe their own arguments? That they *can't possibly* really believe it?
ReplyDeleteIt's like Free Will: Intellectually, you might be able to convince yourself that it doesn't exist. But you *must* believe it (maybe not meta-cognitively) the vast majority of your waking life. Otherwise, I'm not sure if you could function from moment to moment in your daily life.
I think people can intellectually subscribe to a position, yet not resonate with that position on an emotional level.
DeleteYour blog is literally excellent.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations and please keep sharing your thoughts with us (which are more important than ever in this era of materialist/physicalist intellectual starvation).