(March 17, 2013 at 6:53 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I understood your argument Genkaus. I'm saying identity is not on the basis of similarity of construct (or else we would consider people similar to us as the same identity) and that it's irrelevant to the perpetual identity.

As Apo pointed out so beautifully, similarity does not mean same. Besides, that still doesn't justify your assumption of soul.

(March 17, 2013 at 5:24 am)genkaus Wrote:

(March 16, 2013 at 11:59 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: You mention identifying features. How do you identify features unless those features already exist awaiting to be identified? Or to put it another way, how can humans recognize patterns unless the patterns already exist?

You don't. We first need to identify and categorize patterns and features before we use them as identifying features.

What is the difference between a pattern and a feature? Isn't a pattern a type of feature? What is it that allows you to mental conceive a pattern if there is no pattern until it is mentally conceived? How can you identify or categorize something that does not yet exist?

Are any of these questions relevant to the discussion at hand?

(March 17, 2013 at 1:28 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: What is the difference between a pattern and a feature?

Pattern implies something discernible and regular, i.e being repeated.
Feature implies something discernible.

(March 17, 2013 at 1:28 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Isn't a pattern a type of feature?

One that implies repetition.

(March 17, 2013 at 1:28 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: What is it that allows you to mental conceive a pattern if there is no pattern until it is mentally conceived?

By studying different aspects of an object, abstracting and creating concepts regarding them and then observing any repetition.

(March 17, 2013 at 1:28 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: How can you identify or categorize something that does not yet exist?

By abstraction.

(March 17, 2013 at 2:35 pm)genkaus Wrote: Are any of these questions relevant to the discussion at hand?

You brought up Theseus's boat. Your answers didn't do much to illuminate how you resolve the paradox.

(March 17, 2013 at 7:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 17, 2013 at 2:35 pm)genkaus Wrote: Are any of these questions relevant to the discussion at hand?

You brought up Theseus's boat. Your answers didn't do much to illuminate how you resolve the paradox.

I thought they did. Which part did you not understand?

Maybe you could give me an example of what you consider an 'aspect' versus something you think of as a 'concept'. I'm trying to understand how you distinguish between concepts, that are in the mind only, versus features or aspects that exist apart from any particular mind.

(March 18, 2013 at 8:21 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Maybe you could give me an example of what you consider an 'aspect' versus something you think of as a 'concept'. I'm trying to understand how you distinguish between concepts, that are in the mind only, versus features or aspects that exist apart from any particular mind.

Assume you are part of an experiment where you wake up in a white room with all your existing memories and knowledge gone and things are set up in such a way that you can perceive only what the one conducting the experiment allows you to perceive, i.e. you cannot even perceive your own body unless allowed to do so.

One by one, with a particular period of time in between, different objects are brought into the range of your perception. At first, since you don't even have a concept of identity, you won't think much of it. But since your brain is hardwired to go beyond mere perception, little by little, you'll realize that these perceptions keep changing and you'll try to make sense of your perceptions.

If the objects are being repeated, you'll start noticing that one object gives off a certain set of perceptions which is different from all other sets. This would be the beginning of the concept of identity. You'll start to recognize that object as one single object separate from others and you'll similarly start recognizing other objects as well. But, at this point, you are identifying the object based simply on the set of perceptions it triggers - you have not analyzed those perceptions themselves.

Having different sets of perceptions you start noticing that some sets are more similar to each other than others and then you start comparing them with each other. Now you are considering the aspects of the object. The object you in front of you right now appears one way to your eyes. Its spatial configuration matches - as perceived both by touching and seeing match each-other. It fits in your hand. All these are aspects of that object. You then start looking for similar aspects of other objects.

Now you start considering those aspects independently from the object and categorize them. What you can perceive from your eyes only, you call it color and then categorize that particular aspect with different labels such as red, blue, yellow. What you can perceive through eyes and touch, you call shape and classify different shapes such as cube, sphere, prism. And so on.

The you once again visit the original identification - then based simply on indistinguishable sets - and reconsider them with respect to the concepts you have just come up with. And from then onwards you start identify new and old objects by separating different aspects and features and identifying them against the concepts you have created. So, now you have a red sphere, a blue cube, a yellow prism and so on.

I just wanted to make a remark on my original argument. I'm not arguing you cannot philosophically rationalize or justify perpetual identity (although I believe from what I've read over the subject that you can't), it's that most of humanity from the past till now, would not know on that basis, but rather can only know in properly basic manner.

Also, I said I cannot prove that most of humanity knows it, it's another properly basic faith I have about humanity through my own experience.

In that sense, I haven't proven the conclusion. But as far as the boat thing goes, I see it irrelevant to perpetual identity, because from my perspective even if you did 180 degrees change in personality, you are still that same person from the past. And I stated if it was similarity of construct that makes us same identity, then we would be same identity with other humans with similar construct. Therefore I feel the boat paradox is irrelevant.

This doesn't make the argument weak, because a lot of people may agree on both premises and feel they know them or have faith in them.

(March 19, 2013 at 8:39 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I just wanted to make a remark on my original argument. I'm not arguing you cannot philosophically rationalize or justify perpetual identity (although I believe from what I've read over the subject that you can't), it's that most of humanity from the past till now, would not know on that basis, but rather can only know in properly basic manner.

Also, I said I cannot prove that most of humanity knows it, it's another properly basic faith I have about humanity through my own experience.

In that sense, I haven't proven the conclusion. But as far as the boat thing goes, I see it irrelevant to perpetual identity, because from my perspective even if you did 180 degrees change in personality, you are still that same person from the past. And I stated if it was similarity of construct that makes us same identity, then we would be same identity with other humans with similar construct. Therefore I feel the boat paradox is irrelevant.

This doesn't make the argument weak, because a lot of people may agree on both premises and feel they know them or have faith in them.

-bolding mine
Which is precisely what you're doing, when you conclude that you are the "same" person as you were ten years ago.

(March 19, 2013 at 9:15 am)Rhythm Wrote: Which is precisely what you're doing, when you conclude that you are the "same" person as you were ten years ago.

I'm arguing that is not what I am doing. It seems like Genkaus is resorting to that reasoning but I'm not. And I don't believe most humans do either.