Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

RG1 wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:...we can never escape the fact the objective is as humanly constructed as the subjective world and is only seen through each of our subjective filters.
Hi Hobbes, well said! And in general I agree with this statement. BUT, if we wish to be ‘technically’ correct, then there are actually 3 (three) exceptions to this claim. There are 3 things that exist in the ‘objective world’ (i.e. with ‘certainty’) that do not require “subjective filters” (i.e. a subjective view) to confirm/see its existence. We can know these 3 items exist with certainty, beyond that of our ability to subjectively perceive them. These certainties are:

1. The ‘subjectiveness’ itself!

2. Secondly, and contingent upon the existence of ‘experiencing’, an ‘Experiencer’ exists.


3. Thirdly, and again contingent upon the existence of ‘experiencing’, ‘Memory’ exists.
Now, where do we go from here, what else is certain and exists in the ‘objective’ world. It is here at this point where I agree with Hobbes with my certainty #4--

4. Fourthly, Everything Else can ONLY be known to exist through imagination and perceptions; via the ‘subjective’ world, and through the lens of our subjective eyeglasses. "...we can never escape the fact the objective is as humanly constructed as the subjective world and is only seen through each of our subjective filters." --- Hobbes' Choice

Notes:
A. Don’t confuse the ‘experiencer’ (in item #2 above) with the ‘experience of "I"/self-awareness/identity’. These are not the same. One is an objective, logically derived, 'thing', and the other is a 'subjective' experience. The ‘experiencer’ (in item #2) exists in the OBJECTIVE world (via logically derived), and the “I”/self-identity experience exists only in the SUBJECTIVE world (via the subjective experience of self-awareness/identity).

B. Also, it seems to be logically possible that Experiencer and Memory could actually be one-in-the-same.
I do not disagree with the thrust of this, except to say that they are all known through the filter of perception like everything else.
But applying Hume's fork.
1 is purely in the realm of ideas. Subjectiveness does not exist as a real thing, but only in the way we relate to factual things.
2. That's me - the ground of the possibility of perception. I can kick myself, so can prove myself to be factual.
3. I'd assert this to be factual, as I can stick a bullet in my brain and forget.
4. Yup everything which has to submit to the filter of perception, including that well know 'relation of ideas" the so-called objective world.

There is no doubt that my dog exists really!! You might want to doubt her as merely a figment. But she will insist on licking you to death when you came through the door, and is hard to dismiss.
But as real as she is, you and I cannot conceive of the same dog, though she has her own reality. We both have different experiences of her. This pretty much is true of all things.
This "realist" idealism explains why the world is full of disagreement and conflict.
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by RG1 »

Hobbes’ Choice wrote:I do not disagree with the thrust of this, except to say that they are all known through the filter of perception like everything else.
I’m not sure this is totally accurate. For instance, if ‘perception’ exists, then so must the ‘perceiving’. And if the ‘perceiving’ exists then so must a ‘perceiver’. This is 'logically' derived, NOT 'perceptually' derived (i.e. logic tells us this, not our 'perceptions'), Right?

Let me explain further -- A perceiver perceives a perception, agreed? If so, then this ‘perceiver’ and ‘perceiving’ are PRIOR to, and are a REQUIREMENT for the ‘perception’ to occur, otherwise there can be NO PERCEPTION.

Therefore, this ‘perceiver’ and ‘perceiving’ are NOTknown through the ['subjective'] filter of perception”, but instead, are known/identified through the ‘objective’ use of logic.

If this is the case, then this means that we can actually ‘know’ something that we do not subjectively experience, true? Or am I missing something here?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

RG1 wrote:
Hobbes’ Choice wrote:I do not disagree with the thrust of this, except to say that they are all known through the filter of perception like everything else.
I’m not sure this is totally accurate. For instance, if ‘perception’ exists, then so must the ‘perceiving’. And if the ‘perceiving’ exists then so must a ‘perceiver’. This is 'logically' derived, NOT 'perceptually' derived (i.e. logic tells us this, not our 'perceptions'), Right?
No. Not logical. You terms are of different quality. "Perception" and "perceiving" are relation of ideas, whilst "Perceiver" is a factual real thing. However I'm not claiming that perceiving animals do not exist. I am saying that perception is a filter of understanding; immediately filered through anticipated and expected, ideaological world view. And has to differ with each person.

Let me explain further -- A perceiver perceives a perception, agreed? If so, then this ‘perceiver’ and ‘perceiving’ are PRIOR to, and are a REQUIREMENT for the ‘perception’ to occur, otherwise there can be NO PERCEPTION.
I not denying this. I'm denying the possibility of the purely objective.

Therefore, this ‘perceiver’ and ‘perceiving’ are NOTknown through the ['subjective'] filter of perception”, but instead, are known/identified through the ‘objective’ use of logic.
No way. ~Like i said you are changing the ontology of the terms from ideas to the real.
If this is the case, then this means that we can actually ‘know’ something that we do not subjectively experience, true? Or am I missing something here?
You can understand that a circle is a line about a point, where no circle can exist in nature. But You can't exhaust the circle perceptually. In fact you can see a circle like thingy and mistake it for the conceptual circle in your brain - the idea of a circle. In fact I think it fair to say that to 'see' something we understand we always tend to see it in the ideal way that our minds conceive it.
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by RG1 »

Hobbes’ Choice wrote:I'm denying the possibility of the purely objective.
Isn’t ‘experiencing’ itself a ‘real’ event? …one that can be known ‘objectively’; and with 'absolute certainty'?
WHAT could be more 'real' or “purely objective” than 'experiencing'? ...is there something out there more 'real' than this? ...what is it?

It appears to me that there can be NOTHING more 'real', nor "purely objective", than the very fact that 'experiencing happens/exists', ...this is 'undeniable', as it is NOT possible to 'deny' this WITHOUT 'affirming' it!

And if Experiencing is ‘real’, then this logically implies an equal ‘realness’ of an 'Experiencer' and a 'Memory' (a means of ‘knowing’), as well. Which then gives us 3 ‘real’ (objective) facts of reality, ...all BEFORE ever viewing "through the filter of perception".
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by Obvious Leo »

Be careful not to fall into an argument with each other when you're actually saying the same thing, which is very much the way it looks to me.
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by RG1 »

Obvious Leo wrote:Be careful not to fall into an argument with each other when you're actually saying the same thing, which is very much the way it looks to me.
Leo, yes, after re-reading this, there appears to be a slim possibility that you could be right. :oops:
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by Obvious Leo »

RG1 wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:Be careful not to fall into an argument with each other when you're actually saying the same thing, which is very much the way it looks to me.
Yes, after re-reading this, it appears that you could be right! :oops:
I've been around discussion forums for a long time, mate, and I see it happen all the time. Too often people start hurling arguments and even abuse at each other when they're actually making the same point in a slightly different way. It almost always boils down to a problem of language because the moment we commit our words to print they pass out of our ownership and become the property of the reader of them and we cannot comprehend the words of others without first passing them through the filter of our own consciousness. Thus we can unwittingly attach either a confirmation or refutation bias to those words without actually subjecting them to adequate logical scrutiny.

Pretty much the same principle applies to the titular topic of the OP. Is personal identity arbitrary? How the hell could it not be?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

RG1 wrote:
Hobbes’ Choice wrote:I'm denying the possibility of the purely objective.
Isn’t ‘experiencing’ itself a ‘real’ event? …one that can be known ‘objectively’; and with 'absolute certainty'?
no. Obviously not. Experience is subjective. You can only make objective statements by argeement with others. "Objective" is not about the thing, but how you related to the thing.
WHAT could be more 'real' or “purely objective” than 'experiencing'? ...is there something out there more 'real' than this? ...what is it?
How are you using the word "real"?

It appears to me that there can be NOTHING more 'real', nor "purely objective", than the very fact that 'experiencing happens/exists', ...this is 'undeniable', as it is NOT possible to 'deny' this WITHOUT 'affirming' it!
You you know what objective means?
And if Experiencing is ‘real’, then this logically implies an equal ‘realness’ of an 'Experiencer' and a 'Memory' (a means of ‘knowing’), as well. Which then gives us 3 ‘real’ (objective) facts of reality, ...all BEFORE ever viewing "through the filter of perception".
Since you accept the filter of perception, what make you thing you have experience "BEFORE" it?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by attofishpi »

Obvious Leo wrote:
RG1 wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:Be careful not to fall into an argument with each other when you're actually saying the same thing, which is very much the way it looks to me.
Yes, after re-reading this, it appears that you could be right! :oops:
I've been around discussion forums for a long time, mate, and I see it happen all the time. Too often people start hurling arguments and even abuse at each other when they're actually making the same point in a slightly different way. It almost always boils down to a problem of language because the moment we commit our words to print they pass out of our ownership and become the property of the reader of them and we cannot comprehend the words of others without first passing them through the filter of our own consciousness. Thus we can unwittingly attach either a confirmation or refutation bias to those words without actually subjecting them to adequate logical scrutiny.

Pretty much the same principle applies to the titular topic of the OP. Is personal identity arbitrary? How the hell could it not be?
Yes and its so ironic that the very point they are making: Hobbes "This "realist" idealism explains why the world is full of disagreement and conflict." is what they are actually arguing about!
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by RG1 »

Hobbes’ Choice wrote:
RG1 wrote:Isn’t ‘experiencing’ itself a ‘real’ event? …one that can be known ‘objectively’; and with 'absolute certainty'?
No. Obviously not. Experience is subjective.
Isn’t it more accurate to say that -- ‘that’ which we experience (i.e. the ‘content’ of the experience) is the ‘subjective’ part, not the ‘experience’ itself, right?

Hobbes’ Choice wrote:You can only make objective statements by agreement with others. "Objective" is not about the thing, but how you related to the thing.
I guess this is one definition, …but not the one that I was using. My usage of ‘objective’ is synonymous with ‘real’ and ‘truthful’ (i.e. exists independent of one’s subjective experiences). --- so, for future conversation, I will try to avoid using this potentially confusing word.

Hobbes’ Choice wrote:
RG1 wrote:WHAT could be more 'real' or “purely objective” than 'experiencing'? ...is there something out there more 'real' than this? ...what is it?
How are you using the word "real"?
My usage of the word “real” is -- something that ‘exists with certainty’; exists independent of one’s subjective experiences.

Hobbes’ Choice wrote:
RG1 wrote:It appears to me that there can be NOTHING more 'real', nor "purely objective", than the very fact that 'experiencing happens/exists', ...this is 'undeniable', as it is NOT possible to 'deny' this WITHOUT 'affirming' it!
You know what objective means?
Yes, I understand there are multiple definitions.

Hobbes’ Choice wrote:
RG1 wrote:And if Experiencing is ‘real’, then this logically implies an equal ‘realness’ of an 'Experiencer' and a 'Memory' (a means of ‘knowing’), as well. Which then gives us 3 ‘real’ (objective) facts of reality, ...all BEFORE ever viewing "through the filter of perception".
Since you accept the filter of perception, what make you think you have experience "BEFORE" it?
I accept the "filter of perception", but further claim there are at least 2 items of reality that exist BEFORE this perception; before the actual experiencing event itself.

I claim that an 'experiencer' exists BEFORE the ‘experiencing’ can happen (i.e. before the subjective "filter of perception"). For without an experiencer, then experiencing (the experiences) are impossible! And likewise, without memory, then the 'knowing' of this experiencing is not possible.

Do you agree with these items of certainty (that which exists independent of our subjective experiences/perceptions), and that which I call 'real'?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

RG1 wrote:
Hobbes’ Choice wrote:
RG1 wrote:Isn’t ‘experiencing’ itself a ‘real’ event? …one that can be known ‘objectively’; and with 'absolute certainty'?
No. Obviously not. Experience is subjective.
Isn’t it more accurate to say that -- ‘that’ which we experience (i.e. the ‘content’ of the experience) is the ‘subjective’ part, not the ‘experience’ itself, right?

Sorry I think this is an invalid distinction and I can't see where you could make it. Experience is experienced by an experiencer. The 'object' of your experience is not the same as the 'experience'; it can't be. No more that a picture of a horse can win the Grand National.
Hobbes’ Choice wrote:You can only make objective statements by agreement with others. "Objective" is not about the thing, but how you related to the thing.
I guess this is one definition, …but not the one that I was using. My usage of ‘objective’ is synonymous with ‘real’ and ‘truthful’ (i.e. exists independent of one’s subjective experiences). --- so, for future conversation, I will try to avoid using this potentially confusing word.
If you want to say real, then say real. If you mean "objective" then you are using a word that invites comparison with "subjective".
Truth is a whole new ball game.


Hobbes’ Choice wrote:
RG1 wrote:WHAT could be more 'real' or “purely objective” than 'experiencing'? ...is there something out there more 'real' than this? ...what is it?
How are you using the word "real"?
My usage of the word “real” is -- something that ‘exists with certainty’; exists independent of one’s subjective experiences.

You can have knowledge OF, and even have experience OF in some sense. Your perceptions enforce an inevitable limit that make your experience partial.
I'm not trying to pretend that stuff you have experience of does not exist. I am saying there is always a gap between it and your perception of it that has to be partial.



Hobbes’ Choice wrote:
RG1 wrote:It appears to me that there can be NOTHING more 'real', nor "purely objective", than the very fact that 'experiencing happens/exists', ...this is 'undeniable', as it is NOT possible to 'deny' this WITHOUT 'affirming' it!
You know what objective means?
Yes, I understand there are multiple definitions.

Well sort of. There are multiple interpretations. Interpretations that reveal the philosophical bias.


Do you agree with these items of certainty (that which exists independent of our subjective experiences/perceptions), and that which I call 'real'?

No problem. It's just that I can't perceive it the same way as you.
For practical purposes simple things like cups, although seen differently; the differences are few enough to make no difference.
But if you told me to get a big white cup from the shop, my idea of a "big cup" might well be different from yours. And so with even the simplest "object', confusion can be made.
My teacups hold a pint - a proper 20oz pint. I call them 'big", but you might be satisfied with a 16oz, or 10oz both of which other people might consider big.
Now when it comes to a problem as complex as "personal identity" you can see how difficulties can arise, if you think you can just say what's 'objective'.

User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by RG1 »

RG1 wrote:
Hobbes’ Choice wrote:Experience is subjective.
Isn’t it more accurate to say that -- ‘that’ which we experience (i.e. the ‘content’ of the experience) is the ‘subjective’ part, not the ‘experience’ itself, right?
Hobbes’ Choice wrote:Experience is experienced by an experiencer. The 'object' of your experience is not the same as the 'experience'; it can't be. No more that a picture of a horse can win the Grand National.
Yes, I agree with this. Though I think our disagreement stemmed from the usage of the word ‘experience’.

For example and to help clarify: the “perceiver perceives perceptions”. It is NOT the ‘perceiving’ itself that is subjective, but instead, the ‘perceptions’ that are subjective, right? The perceiver may perceive a “picture of a horse”. So it is this “picture of the horse” that is the perception (i.e. the ‘subjective experience’), and not the ‘perceiving’ (event) itself, agreed?

Hobbes’ Choice wrote:Now when it comes to a problem as complex as "personal identity" you can see how difficulties can arise, if you think you can just say what's 'objective'.
"Personal Identity" does not seem complex at all. Since it is impossible to perceive oneself, then "Personal identity" is simply a ‘myth’; a made-up, feel good illusion.

Remember, -- We can only perceive 'perceptions', not ‘things’ themselves.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by Obvious Leo »

RG1 wrote:Remember, -- We can only perceive 'perceptions', not ‘things’ themselves.
I don't think anybody's disputing this and It seems unequivocal that there's no such thing as an objective "object". As Kant pointed out it is not our perceived objects which define our cognition but rather our cognition which defines our objects, an important distinction which many scientists would do well to take to heart.

It's also worth maintaining a distinction between that which we perceive and that which we are aware of perceiving, because modern neuroscience tells us that these are by no means synonymous concepts. We respond behaviourally to a vast range of perceptions which never affect the higher brain functions which would make us consciously aware of them. This doesn't make us mindless automata but simply allows the executive function to focus on the big picture instead of forever being diverted by trivia.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

RG1 wrote:
RG1 wrote:
Hobbes’ Choice wrote:Experience is subjective.
Isn’t it more accurate to say that -- ‘that’ which we experience (i.e. the ‘content’ of the experience) is the ‘subjective’ part, not the ‘experience’ itself, right?
Hobbes’ Choice wrote:Experience is experienced by an experiencer. The 'object' of your experience is not the same as the 'experience'; it can't be. No more that a picture of a horse can win the Grand National.
Yes, I agree with this. Though I think our disagreement stemmed from the usage of the word ‘experience’.

For example and to help clarify: the “perceiver perceives perceptions”. It is NOT the ‘perceiving’ itself that is subjective, but instead, the ‘perceptions’ that are subjective, right? The perceiver may perceive a “picture of a horse”. So it is this “picture of the horse” that is the perception (i.e. the ‘subjective experience’), and not the ‘perceiving’ (event) itself, agreed?

Hobbes’ Choice wrote:Now when it comes to a problem as complex as "personal identity" you can see how difficulties can arise, if you think you can just say what's 'objective'.
"Personal Identity" does not seem complex at all. Since it is impossible to perceive oneself, then "Personal identity" is simply a ‘myth’; a made-up, feel good illusion.

Remember, -- We can only perceive 'perceptions', not ‘things’ themselves.
I think we are done here, hey?
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Is Personal Identity Arbitrary?

Post by RG1 »

Obvious Leo wrote:I don't think anybody's disputing this and It seems unequivocal that there's no such thing as an objective "object".
Well, dependent, of course, upon your meaning of “objective object”, I have to disagree. As I have previously shown, it is possible to ‘know’ an object exists, even though we cannot subjectively experience this object. If this is the case, then would you agree that there IS such thing as an “objective object” (i.e. an object that is known, independently of subjective experience)?

Obvious Leo wrote:As Kant pointed out it is not our perceived objects which define our cognition but rather our cognition which defines our objects, an important distinction which many scientists would do well to take to heart.
I fully agree, and not just scientists, but fellow philosophy posters too.

Obvious Leo wrote:It's also worth maintaining a distinction between that which we perceive and that which we are aware of perceiving, because modern neuroscience tells us that these are by no means synonymous concepts.
I can’t seem to comprehend this phrase - “that which we are aware of perceiving”. What is this? Can you give an example? Isn’t “being aware” the same as (or a form of) “perceiving”? So are you saying that we can perceive our perceiving? ...Sorry, I’m lost on this one.
Post Reply