Author
|
Topic: What does it mean to be me? (Read 4979 times) |
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407 Reputation: 8.29 Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
What does it mean to be me?
« on: 2003-10-31 07:13:20 » |
|
(Filed: 29/10/2003)
It is a riddle that still foxes scientists – where in the brain our sense of self is born. Paul Broks reports
Science, having done away with the soul, has lately been turning its gaze to the soul's secular cousin: the self. There is no ghost in the machine, it is agreed, just a machine.
The challenge is to specify which operations of the machine (that is, the brain) give rise to the sense of self. According to the neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran this is the greatest scientific and philosophical riddle of all. Others see it as a doomed quest. The self, like the soul, is an illusion; the brain scanners are tracking a chimera.
There is nothing illusory about the effects of brain damage, however, and although any illness can affect the way we see ourselves, neurological disease sometimes penetrates the very substructures of the self - the brain systems controlling long-term memory, for example, or those that regulate emotion and bodily awareness.
As a clinical neuropsychologist, helping patients and those around them come to terms with the psychological consequences of brain disorder, I see problems of self-awareness and personal identity not just as conundrums of science and philosophy but as matters of real practical concern. At the same time, the experiences of patients may illuminate some of the deepest problems of philosophy.
"I know that I exist," said Descartes, "the question is, what is this 'I' that I know?"
One of my patients, Stella, has temporal lobe epilepsy and, when her brain misfires, she is thrown into a similar quandary. Her seizures start with a feeling of detachment. She might be walking down the street. She might be at home. It can happen anywhere. Objects and people seem brighter than usual, more alive, but at the same time utterly unfamiliar. She knows what's going to happen next, and she tries to resist, but usually it happens anyway. "I sort of evaporate."
Evaporate? "I have no idea who I am." She does not know her name and has no recollection of her personal history, or any appreciation of where she is, or what she is supposed to be doing. She has become a point of subjective experience, devoid of identity. These episodes are brief and, within a few minutes, she seeps back into herself.
Stella's loss of identity does not strip her entirely of a sense of self. The "evaporations" seem to lay bare what is sometimes called the "minimal" or "core" self - the self of the present moment. In the words of neurologist Antonio Damasio, this core self is "a transient entity, recreated for each and every object with which the brain interacts". It is the most primitive, and robust, feature of self-awareness.
Yet, in rare cases, even the core self seems to dissolve. Another patient believed that she had ceased to exist. "Am I dead?" she tentatively asked. I assured her that she was alive, that we were on the ward chatting and drinking tea. She was unconvinced.
"But what about you?" she said. "Are you real?" This is Cotard's syndrome , a nihilistic delusional state, which may be due to a neurological decoupling of feelings and thoughts. Thinking that one exists is not enough, the notion must also be felt: "I feel I think, therefore I am.''
Ordinarily, when we think of ourselves we have something other than the primitive, core self in mind, something closer to the notion of "personal identity". We think of a more elaborate entity journeying from a remembered past to an anticipated future, replete with knowledge, recollections, and dispositions to act in certain ways. Philosophers call this the "extended" or "autobiographical" self. It is more fragile than we care to think.
There are many ways of wiping the neural records of a life: the slow progression of Alzheimer's disease crowding the cortex with plaques and tangles, the blitzkrieg of a viral encephalitis blasting through the memory circuits of the temporal lobes, the deep-brain booze-wreckage of alcoholic Korsakoff's syndrome . Yet, in some respects, the autobiographical self is also remarkably robust.
Judy came round from a disturbed sleep to find that a stroke had reset her brain's calendar 23 years back to 1976, leaving her with no memory of the intervening time. She believed she was in her thirties, rather than her sixties. The strange man in the room turned out to be her second husband. He held up a newspaper, pointing out the date at the top of the page and Judy demanded a mirror. Her face was wrinkled, and her hair was short and grey.
However, despite the gross autobiographical discontinuity, integrity of personality was preserved. She was "the same Judy", if rather older and greyer. In time she adjusted to her new circumstances and came to accept the re-drafting of her story.
Other forms of neurological disorder have an opposite effect, leaving memory more or less intact, but distorting the person, in essence. Driving home from work one night, Jeff was hit head-on by a car. I remember him on the ward, furiously wrenching his neck. "Get this head off me," he kept saying. "Get it off, it's the wrong one." The image haunts me. It contains a desolate truth. It was the wrong head.
The original housed the steady dispositions of a loving husband and father, the knowledge and skills of an educated man. His damaged brain is now a place where thoughts and urges roam untethered, provoking dark turns of mood and, sometimes, spiteful outpourings of abuse. "I tell myself it's not really Jeff," his wife says, but she stands by him out of the dutiful conviction that, at some level, it is really Jeff.
Descartes believed that our capacity for self-awareness was due to the possession of an immaterial soul. I have long since rejected this myth. (Are we to imagine a mutilation of Jeff's soul as well as his brain - and, if not, what does the pristine soul make of Jeff's disturbed behaviour?).
I find it harder to shake off "the myth of the self", an inner "I" monitoring the screens of perception, orchestrating thoughts and actions. But neuroscience reveals that the mental processes underlying our sense of self - feelings, thoughts, memories - are scattered through different zones of the brain. There is no special point of convergence, no inner sanctum of the ego. And neurological case studies reveal "the self" to be multifaceted and fragile. To paraphrase the science writer John McCrone, we are all just a stumble or a burst blood vessel away from being someone else.
Dr Paul Broks of Plymouth University is the author of Into the Silent Land (Atlantic Books), which is available for £12.99 + £2.25 p&p. To order, call Telegraph Books Direct on 0870 155 7222.
Tickets for his Last Word lunchtime lecture (12.45-1.45pm) on Nov 13 at the Royal Geographical Society, London, usually cost £21 but are available to Telegraph readers for £8. For tickets, tel; 020 7792 9512. Quote Telegraph Science. The same discount is available for the lunchtime lecture on Nov 11 by Prof Howard Gardner of Harvard University, who will discuss his theory of multiple intelligence and success at work. www.lastwordlectures.com
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318 Reputation: 8.06 Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #1 on: 2003-10-31 21:53:10 » |
|
Coffee-house philosophy time...
The biggest mystery for me about the "illusion of the self" is not about just any self but about mine.
I mean, I can easily talk about selves in general, and I seem to understand how selves depend on memories and how a core self can be instantly created upon interaction with things even in the absence of memories, and what has been said about the role of self-reference, complexity, competing modules in the brain and everything. However...
The question of identity is weird. We do know that millions, trillions, and gazillions of sperm cells never get to become selves. So, our selves seem to be very lucky to be the ones they are, on this planet and in this particular century. It is luck beyond probability theory, because we haven't drawn a lottery ticket out of any repository of souls -- we have drawn it out of the infinite posibilities of forging a self.
On second thought, however, the fact that our selves were forged rather than picked out by luck seems to be a way out of the metaphysical curiosities: We just came to be. But this is not so clear any more when we get back to the question of identity -- when I think that I am talking about *my own* self.
Think of it: You are sitting over there reading this, with *your own* self forged in a complex process. The probabilities that the person who experiences this "illusion of the self" would be someone else and not "you" are overwhelming. Still, it is "you" sitting there and experiencing "the illusion of the self", on planet Earth, in the 21st century of all centuries. The lottery is back, along with Descartes' "I think therefore I am".
I think we have a long way to go and many more models to try before "the illusion of the self" is really understood well enough to be reconciled with our perception.
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642 Reputation: 8.75 Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #2 on: 2003-11-01 22:33:53 » |
|
Quote from: rhinoceros on 2003-10-31 21:53:10 Think of it: You are sitting over there reading this, with *your own* self forged in a complex process. The probabilities that the person who experiences this "illusion of the self" would be someone else and not "you" are overwhelming. Still, it is "you" sitting there and experiencing "the illusion of the self", on planet Earth, in the 21st century of all centuries. The lottery is back, along with Descartes' "I think therefore I am".
|
[Lucifer] You lost me there. The probability of me sitting here reading this is 1.0. The odds of me being in another century are zero because if I was it wouldn't be me. I know I must be misunderstanding your intent so perhaps you could explain?
|
|
|
|
|
hkhenson@rogers...
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 130 Reputation: 7.68 Rate hkhenson@rogers...
back after a long time
|
|
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #4 on: 2003-11-02 19:59:08 » |
|
At 02:24 PM 02/11/03 -0700, you wrote:
>WARNING: OUTSIDE MEMES ARE PRESENT. YOU MAY BECOME INFECTED > >It is the goal of Buddhism to eliminate the self, in a manner of speaking. > >We see it as sort of frightening to imagine 'us' being something other >than 'we' are. If I drink too much and black out, what did I do in that >time I don't remember? Could I end up like Sybil or Ed Norton in Fight >Club? However, as pointed out in the article and in Buddhism, the self >once lost is not necessarily a bad thing (Epilepsy has other negatives to >it, losing the self is scary only to those who desire to hold on to the self). > >This leads me to believe that the concept of "I" is a memeplex. A >compositie of memories, how other people react to us, how we react to >outside stimuli, etc. It is not a ghost in the machine, it is an >infection. The question becomes: is it an infection worth having?
I think this is an abuse of the term. Memes are replicating information patterns. "I" is not. You don't need to hear about some "I" meme in order to have an identity.
Is the idea that things fall when released a meme? No, because you learn it from the environment as a kid before you can speak or understand such concepts. Identity, consciousness, and "I" are emergent in a similar way from the way our brains are organized and contact with the environment including other people. They are not something we learn, though there may be many ideas about them that *are* memes.
Keith Henson
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642 Reputation: 8.75 Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #5 on: 2003-11-03 23:13:39 » |
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Henson" <hkhenson@rogers.com>
> I think this is an abuse of the term. Memes are replicating information > patterns. "I" is not. You don't need to hear about some "I" meme in order > to have an identity.
For an alternate (and somewhat controversial) view, see Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine. As far as I can tell her Buddist memes cause her to want to reject her "I" meme.
It is possible that you are infected by an "I" meme when you are an infant. A controlled experiement is very unlikely for ethical reasons, but there are cases of feral children raised by animals. These children miss the window to learn language (which seems to be limited to the first 3 years or so) and so never have a stream of consciousness identity like we do. They may have an identity like animals experience, but not like normal humans; they don't host an "I" mean in the literal sense of saying the word "I" with meaning to themselves or anyone else.
David
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642 Reputation: 8.75 Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #6 on: 2003-11-03 23:17:19 » |
|
> It is possible that you are infected by an "I" meme when you are an infant. A > controlled > experiement is very unlikely for ethical reasons, but there are cases of feral > children > raised by animals.
p.s. The information on feral children was recalled from a book I read some time ago which I would still recommend, The Myth of Irrationality by John McCrone>> http://virus.lucifer.com/books/myth.html
p.p.s Sorry about that formatting :-/ Is MS Outlook braindead or what?
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
DrSebby
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 456 Reputation: 8.07 Rate DrSebby
...Oh, you smell of lambs!
|
|
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #7 on: 2003-11-04 01:47:58 » |
|
...how dare you david! you KNOW that i was raised in a gravel lakebed with other baby salmon. are you suggesting that somehow my lack of parental connection has cost me??? when i wriggled up the banks of the kasilof river and found my way in the world, i did not need parental guidance. the fishermen that caught me simply realized that i was somehow different (i bit different lures). if they could appreciate the differences, why cant you?
DrSebby. "Courage...and shuffle the cards".
----Original Message Follows---- From: "David McFadzean" <david@lucifer.com> Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com To: <virus@lucifer.com> Subject: Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me? Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:13:39 -0500
----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Henson" <hkhenson@rogers.com>
> I think this is an abuse of the term. Memes are replicating information > patterns. "I" is not. You don't need to hear about some "I" meme in order > to have an identity.
For an alternate (and somewhat controversial) view, see Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine. As far as I can tell her Buddist memes cause her to want to reject her "I" meme.
It is possible that you are infected by an "I" meme when you are an infant. A controlled experiement is very unlikely for ethical reasons, but there are cases of feral children raised by animals. These children miss the window to learn language (which seems to be limited to the first 3 years or so) and so never have a stream of consciousness identity like we do. They may have an identity like animals experience, but not like normal humans; they don't host an "I" mean in the literal sense of saying the word "I" with meaning to themselves or anyone else.
David
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
_________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
"courage and shuffle the cards..."
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160 Reputation: 8.63 Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #8 on: 2003-11-04 02:28:43 » |
|
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Henson" <hkhenson@rogers.com> You don't need to hear about some "I" meme in order to have an identity.
[Blunderov] Umm. There doesn't seem to be too much doubt in my mind about just who it is that gets burned if I put my hand in a fire. If I could nominate someone else, Dubya for instance, to suffer those consequences I expect I would...
To me, the complicated bit is how it is that we construct a contiguous internal narrative of ourselves in spite of the fact that we are not exactly the same now as we were a moment ago. Add to this the fact the fact that we quite often don't behave in the way we would ourselves predict - we seem able to assimilate our inconsistencies into the consistent system we call "I"!
Clear as mud, I know, I know.
Best Regards
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
hkhenson@rogers...
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 130 Reputation: 7.68 Rate hkhenson@rogers...
back after a long time
|
|
RE: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #9 on: 2003-11-04 11:05:06 » |
|
At 09:28 AM 04/11/03 +0200, you wrote:
>[Blunderov]
snip
>To me, the complicated bit is how it is that we construct a contiguous >internal narrative of ourselves in spite of the fact that we are not >exactly the same now as we were a moment ago. Add to this the fact the >fact that we quite often don't behave in the way we would ourselves >predict - we seem able to assimilate our inconsistencies into the >consistent system we call "I"! > >Clear as mud, I know, I know.
Actually we are not that far off from understanding it from hippocampus damage cases. But in any case, I don't see how it could be considered a "replicating information pattern," a meme or an element of culture to use an alternative definition.
One culture can (and in the case of Easter Island did) bring another culture a major concept like writing (Rongo-rongo). But I am unaware of any culture bringing another the concept of "I." That seems to be wired in to animals, at least to the extent we can see it in other primates.
Meme is a nice short, memorable word. In that respect Dawkins chose well. But the problem is that the popularity of the *word* has led to a plethora of people trying to hang divergent meanings on a very simple concept.
You can elaborate on Dawkins without violating his original discussion in Selfish Gene. Any time someone uses the word, you should be able to replace it with "replicating information pattern," "element of culture," "learned element of culture," "culturegen" (a earlier term for the same thing) or other similar terms.
So when asked if a religion is a meme, you can ask back: Is it a replicating information pattern? Is is a learned element of culture? If the asker says yes, they answered the question.
The point to using the word at all and not just using "idea" or "learned skill" or something similar is to bring out the Darwinian selection factor. If you are concerned at the level where using "meme" is appropriate, you have to be aware that memes interact with other replicators (including other memes) in all the ways that all other replicators interact with each other. This can be mutualistic the way mitochondria have become in our cells or the way lichen is a symbiosis of fungi and green alga or a cyanobacterium. They range through neutral to parasitic, deadly even.
At this level you have to be aware that evolution in an environment consisting of a number of replicators gets *very* complicated. You have "arms races," oscillation like the rabbits and bobcat populations, and really complicated interactions with many different kinds of parasites that keep any one blood type or histocompatibility type from being "best."
Keith Henson
PS. As an example, memes interact with *microorganisms.* Have since people figured out memes for cheese and beer and started making them on purpose.
As an example of memes interacting with human genes, you can see both positive and negative (from the gene's viewpoint). There are a lot more of certain human genes as a result of the Mormon memes for large families. There are fewer human genes from the 'nad whacking Heaven's Gate cult.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571 Reputation: 8.61 Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #10 on: 2003-11-04 12:21:14 » |
|
David, (or anyone with cut and paste formatting issues), check this out. I've been using it for 3 or 4 years now, it's great and it's FREE!
http://www.dsoft.com.tr/stripmail/
Walter
David McFadzean wrote:
> p.p.s Sorry about that formatting :-/ Is MS Outlook braindead or what? > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--
Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered."
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571 Reputation: 8.61 Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #11 on: 2003-11-04 12:29:18 » |
|
Keith Henson wrote:
> At 09:28 AM 04/11/03 +0200, you wrote: > > >[Blunderov] > > snip > > >To me, the complicated bit is how it is that we construct a contiguous > >internal narrative of ourselves in spite of the fact that we are not > >exactly the same now as we were a moment ago.
I am EXACTLY the same on my current 40Hz cortical scan as I was on the previous 40 Hz cortical scan!!!
Except between the two sweeps, I decided to ask Jesus into my heart.
He couldn't get in in the time allotted, so it's kinda like a fucked-up "Star-Trek" transporter session.
Pardon moi, I must go take an aspirin.
;-'<
Walter
> --
Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered."
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614 Reputation: 7.53 Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #12 on: 2003-11-05 03:05:07 » |
|
< infected with the "I" meme
It's meditation on that very meme that may have evolved our brain size beyond expectation or need for basic survival.
Interesting to note that you can increase you mental ability through certain forms of Buddhist meditation.
Having not practised it, I forgot the site, however there was a thread on this at transhumanism.org --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614 Reputation: 7.53 Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #13 on: 2003-11-05 11:08:07 » |
|
I think the proper term is "ego". And is cannot be rejected...even a Buddhist would agree that "rejecting" an ego merely reinforces it.
The technique is more like "acknowledging" it, recognising it. Then, when you are fully present to the ego, you will see a choice...to create a new one, or to keep the old. In that moment you are using a much larger portion of the brain.
A practiced Buddhist creates new identities so often that he no longer even notices it.
Without defenses of ego, synchronicity becomes you guide. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
metahuman
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 212 Reputation: 4.22 Rate metahuman
|
|
Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #14 on: 2003-11-07 10:26:57 » |
|
Personally, I don't think of myself, as a whole, as 'I' or 'myself.' You does not exist. I see my brain as the dominant entity which is what is "me". The eyes, fingers, hands, legs, etc.--all these parts are tools of the brain to help communicate and act in a perceived, and perhaps, personal world. I do think the mind is capable of creating an entire reality and such is noticed in dreams. I didn't sleep for about 24 hours yesterday, and when I went to sleep, I had no dreams until an hour to waking up. My dream demonstrated various 'scripts' as we can refer to them that control the actions and reactions of entities (people, objects, etc.).
The barrier we have, as minds, is speech. Language is our barrier for accurate communication which is why the concept of self "is a riddle that still foxes scientists."
I, you, myself, yourself, ourselves, themselves, self, etc.--these are all words that represent you, your mind, or your thoughts. For example, let's take the first sentence of this message: Quote:Personally, I don't think of myself, as a whole, as 'I' or 'myself.' |
I've combined 'I don't think' to refer to 'what I think or am thinking.' 'Personally' is a preventative identifier meaning that others may not think alike and may disagree, and that I may be wrong yet this is an explanation that is acceptable to me. 'Whole' refers to my body which is the container for the tools I--my mind--needs to act and react in this world or possibly its world. With this thought, we can conclude that we are all poor workmen as it is a poor workman who blames his tools. We are limited by our tools just like computers.
Language is a barrier because we may not have learned the right words to describe our thoughts. It also may be possible that we are a hive-mind where all of our minds on this planet are communicating behind the guise of self, and we are installed with measures to protect ourselves from knowing this and from knowing at all. Why would this be a protection scheme? If we knew, like actually knew (not perceived), we would all be what Christians call "God". We would be capable of anything and that includes rewriting the 'universe' that we perceive as individual minds or cocreate as a hive-mind.
Of course, this can't be proven, but it can be shared.
|
|
|
|
|