Ourcellves? (Identity)

by dhw, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 21:04 (3876 days ago) @ romansh

DHW: The context of our discussion was that if we are nothing but our cells (the materialist view), it is a false dichotomy to claim that our cells control us and therefore we have no free will. If our cells ARE us, logically we/they control ourselves/themselves.-ROMANSH: Our we talking about materialism or your your logic for ourcellf?
The way I see your logic works is:
1) Lets define the cells in [our] bodies as our cells 
2) The metabolism of our cells which results actions, consciousness etc can be described as ours
Therefore ... It is perfectly reasonable call our collection of cells, actions consciousness etc as ours of a self
I have no problem with this is a sloppy, casual pragmatic way. Language has forced me to describe my thoughts and ideas as mine etc. ie Dualistically-That is a fair summary, and "sloppy" and "casual" don't offer much in the way of a rational response. If you don't think your thoughts are yours, it is perfectly possible to say your thoughts are not yours, and you can even use language to explain why you think this. Language does not force you into saying one thing or the other. I might even say that is your choice.-ROMANSH: But in a deeper philosophical and rigorous way I think this whole dualistic position is a nonsense. Just because I might use words, symbols, pictures to describe chemistry it does not mean chemistry is these things.-Then if it's a nonsense, why don't you stop faffing around with it? We all know that language is an inadequate tool in many areas, but in others it is adequate for our human needs. So forget chemistry and tell us, hand on heart, do you or do you not think your cells/thoughts are yours?
 
ROMANSH: Again going back to the supposed view that materialists think there is nothing but our material self. A materialist would argue that material things respond to cause and effect. ie a photon does not have a mass but responds to gravity.-Materialists believe that the mind and body/brain are inseparable. No "supposed". But otherwise I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with what you say. Of course humans respond to cause and effect. That does not mean their cells are not their own, or that they are not conscious of cause and effect, or that they have no control over HOW they respond.
 
ROMANSH: If we were to positively identify some "magical" energy (for a want of a better word) that is our supposed consciousness, this would be no problem for a materialist, she would just add it to the menagerie of energies that already exist. What would be a problem for a materialist if this magical energy was truly magical and was not described by the first and second laws of thermodynamics.-Another "supposed". David distinguishes between consciousness (neural energy) and its products (e.g. thoughts). I find it difficult to separate the two, because I don't understand how neural energy can lead to thought. On the other hand, I have equal difficulty with the concept of a "soul" that directs neural energy. And so I would say the whole process is "unexplained", not "magical". and until your materialist explains it, we can only speculate on its true nature ... apart of course from those who doubt whether we are conscious anyway. -Dhw: ...I asked you to explain what aspects of ourselves could not be subsumed under the activity of our cells. You replied: "Much more = the universe". And I can only repeat (sadly) that this leaves me none the wiser about whether or not we have free will or, in a wider context, what is the nature of the self.
ROMANSH: The nature of the self (like free will) is that it is not what it seems.-So what aspects of the self do you think cannot be subsumed under the activity of our cells? As regards "what it seems", can you be more specific? I see no reason to believe, for instance, that all the characteristics which I associate with myself and which seem to me to be part of my individual identity are NOT "what they seem". How do you know they are not?
 
ROMANSH: Our responses to the universe do not intrisically appear within the brain (choose whatever organ you feel comfortable with). It took the universe to make ourcellves and ourcellves unfold the universe.-What is the difference between a response and an intrinsic response? I agree that it took the universe to make ourcellves, but I don't know what you mean by ourcellves "unfolding" the universe. If our responses to the universe do not come from our cells, what do they come from?
 
ROMANSH: Also if our cells don't come from the food we eat ... where does it come from?-Ask Mummy and Daddy. Unless they are potatoes.