Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 1:15 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
#21
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
(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.
Reply
#22
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
(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?
Reply
#23
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
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.
Reply
#24
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
(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.
Reply
#25
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
(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?
Reply
#26
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
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.
Reply
#27
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
(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.
Reply
#28
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
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.
Reply
#29
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
(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.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#30
RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
(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.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  [Serious] Questions about Belief and Personal Identity Neo-Scholastic 27 1701 June 11, 2021 at 8:28 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  [Serious] An Argument Against Hedonistic Moral Realism SenseMaker007 25 2866 June 19, 2019 at 7:21 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Argument against Intelligent Design Jrouche 27 3064 June 2, 2019 at 5:04 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  The Argument Against God's Existence From God's Imperfect Choice Edwardo Piet 53 7907 June 4, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God Edwardo Piet 58 13611 May 2, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  The argument against "evil", theists please come to the defense. Mystic 158 67825 December 29, 2017 at 7:21 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Your position on naturalism robvalue 125 16249 November 26, 2016 at 4:00 am
Last Post: Ignorant
  2 Birds, 1 Stone: An argument against free will and Aquinas' First Way Mudhammam 1 1147 February 20, 2016 at 8:02 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Is personal identity really just mind? Pizza 47 6510 February 14, 2016 at 12:36 pm
Last Post: God of Mr. Hanky
  Presumption of naturalism Captain Scarlet 18 3524 September 15, 2015 at 10:49 am
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)