Do you experience the self?

[buying obby maulers]

That logic would imply that smoking does not cause cancer, because the carcinogens that move from the cigarette to the lungs are individual entities, and no single one affects the existence of the rest.

Can you prove 100% that the cancer you have 5 minutes ago is the exact same as it is in the present? Additionally, can you prove that just because you have cancer now, you won't have it in the next instance? Hume says that just because you observe cigarette smokers getting cancer more often, you cannot infer the conclusion that cigarettes cause cancer. All you can do is say: I have observed that a lot of people who smoke also get cancer. This is a fallacy scientists make, by taking observations and making generalizations that they cannot prove will hold true every time. All they can prove is that it is likely to occur again, because they have observed it happening so many times before. Additionally, you imply that the body is the self. What about memories, experiences, etc?

Nonsense. The 'overlying self' that you are referring to is the net sum of a collection of individual parts or processes. In your timer analogy, while each individual grain of sand may be insignificant when isolated from the timer, their importance becomes apparent when the timer serves a useful application. Wouldn't it be pointless if the timer contained only 100 grains of sand? They would pass to the opposite chamber in no more than a few seconds. If, however, you have a timer with millions of grains of sand, you will find that the timer becomes much more useful. The timer would be useless if it did not have a certain amount of grains of sand. As that quantity is a direct result of the addition of individual grains, addition being a connecting or joining of independent integers, then each grain becomes a significant entity with respect to the end result of which it and the other grains an integral part of.

But the grains of sand aren't connected. The grains don't come together to form one grain.

 

[T V]

Can you prove 100% that the cancer you have 5 minutes ago is the exact same as it is in the present? Additionally, can you prove that just because you have cancer now, you won't have it in the next instance?

Why would any those things need to be proven?

In any case, cancers do progress, as in the case of remission. But I suppose if you wanted to prove that the present state of a cancer is the same as it was in the recent past (5 minutes is a ridiculously short amount of time), all you would need to do is examine fresh cell and tissue samples and compare them with previous samples.


As to your second question, I can't prove that something won't exist in the future. I don't think it's possible to do that either.

Hume says that just because you observe cigarette smokers getting cancer more often, you cannot infer the conclusion that cigarettes cause cancer. All you can do is say: I have observed that a lot of people who smoke also get cancer.

Where did Hume say that? I would very much like to see it in his own words.

This is a fallacy scientists make, by taking observations and making generalizations that they cannot prove will hold true every time. All they can prove is that it is likely to occur again, because they have observed it happening so many times before.

That would mean that even if, day after day for a hundred years, the sun were observed to rise and set in the same general position with respect to a landmark (a mountain, for example), it would be a fallacy to make the 'generalization' that the sun's rising and setting will continue to occur in that position as long as the sun and the mountain exist. Is that what you are saying?

Scientists make generalizations after observing phenomena, not to establish truth, but to create parameters by which further experiments can be undertaken in order to test the credibility of those generalizations. Even if repeated observation and experimental determinations agree, scientists might be hesitant to proclaim the existence of a concrete truth. It is more common to hear them say we have only a very good approximation of the reality.
That does not mean there isn't such thing as universal truths: If you jump anywhere on Earth, you will fall back down. If you put your hand into a flame, you will be burned, and so will any other sentient being that comes in contact with the fire. Conclusions? There exists a force that attracts objects of different masses to one another; and fire burns skin. (The fire example might not be the best, but hopefully you get the point)

Additionally, you imply that the body is the self. What about memories, experiences, etc?

Where did I imply that?

But the grains of sand aren't connected. The grains don't come together to form one grain.

In effect, they do. As they fall from one chamber to the other, they are move as a single, flowing stream of sand. The entire mass of the top chamber is transferred to the bottom.
It is physically impossible for millions of grains of sand to form 'one grain', so it does not seem very reasonable to eschew the existence of a connection between them on the basis of an impossibility. Rather, what you need to realize is that their net value as grains in a timer is what defines their connection.




My friend, you must understand that a casual relation between objects, processes, or phenomena implies (by definition) a connection. A connection does not necessarily have to be physical.

If you cannot understand that, then I cannot continue this discussion.

 

[buying obby maulers]

Where did Hume say that? I would very much like to see it in his own words.

It is called the "problem of induction." Hume states in his book, "An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding," the following:

"When it is asked, What is the nature of all our reasonings concerning matter of fact? the proper answer seems to be, that they are founded on the relation of cause and effect. When again it is asked, What is the foundation of all our reasonings and conclusions concerning that relation? it may be replied in one word, experience. But if we still carry on our sifting humor, and ask, What is the foundation of all conclusions from experience? this implies a new question, which may be of more difficult solution and explication." (Hume 1974:328)

In effect, they do. As they fall from one chamber to the other, they are move as a single, flowing stream of sand. The entire mass of the top chamber is transferred to the bottom.
It is physically impossible for millions of grains of sand to form 'one grain', so it does not seem very reasonable to eschew the existence of a connection between them on the basis of an impossibility. Rather, what you need to realize is that their net value as grains in a timer is what defines their connection.

My friend, you must understand that a casual relation between objects, processes, or phenomena implies (by definition) a connection. A connection does not necessarily have to be physical.

If you cannot understand that, then I cannot continue this discussion.

In saying this, you are making the same problem of induction Hume warns against. Like how we look at a series of pictures played very quickly and think of it as one movie, you look at grains of sand and see one thing. However, Hume says that is a mistake, because we are imposing the idea that there is something there that we do not experience. He argues that causal relations are found not by reason, but by induction. This is because for any cause, multiple effects are conceivable, and the actual effect cannot be determined by reasoning about the cause; instead, one must observe occurrences of the causal relation to discover that it holds. And since Hume is an empiricist, if we don't experience something, we can't say it is real. We experience a million grains of sand moving through an egg timer, interacting with one another. We experience nothing else, and to Hume, saying we do is a problem of induction.

 

[T V]

I will not keep going in circles about this topic. Please understand, that I am not imaging grains of sand as a singular object; I look only for their purpose within the frame of reference in question. In this case it is a timer. If the grains of sand were on the beach, they would have a different purpose; if they were being spread over a patch of ice, again, they would have a contextually unique purpose.
Individual entities are not nearly as significant as their potential as a collective. However, that collective potential would not be possible were it not for the accumulation of the individual entities.

But as I suppose that is my opinion, you are entitled to see it any other way you like.

 

[buying obby maulers]

Even if you think the collective is significant, it doesn't change the fact that you are inferring there is one whole when really there are many.

 

[Nathan III]

So you are a different person every moment because your cells are constantly changing? This means if I were to take away all of your memories, thoughts, and feelings - the intangibles - you would still be your "self" in its whole?

Additionally, this thread is more asking whether or not the "self" exists at all, when from moment to moment there is no direct connection between your past and present self.

I'm not so much trying to define the 'self', rather point out the irrelevance of the phrase. Ours cells hold memory that is thousands of years old, because we share this memory does that make us the same person?
The correlation between perceived past & present is explained through Carl Jung's theory of Synchronicity. The perception of two or more events as having a meaningful acasual connection.

 

[Naxious]

I'm not so much trying to define the 'self', rather point out the irrelevance of the phrase. Ours cells hold memory that is thousands of years old, because we share this memory does that make us the same person?
The correlation between perceived past & present is explained through Carl Jung's theory of Synchronicity. The perception of two or more events as having a meaningful acasual connection.

Right, thanks. We have ancestors and our cells do hold memories revealing us as "self" . I think all those make up the same person due to prior traits passed down.

 

[Lvl 75 Def]

Your character does not change because you are regenerating cells, which I already know of.

Ah sorry, my bad I forgot to specify, I feel like in this forum people need to give appropriate sources to back up their claims. And I would like to see your source on this, I'm definately interested to read more about it.

What's your source on character changes and cell renewal being connected? Because that's basicly what you're stating.

 

[buying obby maulers]

I'm not so much trying to define the 'self', rather point out the irrelevance of the phrase. Ours cells hold memory that is thousands of years old, because we share this memory does that make us the same person?
The correlation between perceived past & present is explained through Carl Jung's theory of Synchronicity. The perception of two or more events as having a meaningful acasual connection.

Through your cell example I assume you mean genetic code as the memory. However, you would not consider yourself the same self as your parents, so this doesn't have relevance. To address Jung, the most common criticism is that humans often use preexisting bias and presupposed ideas and try to make their theories and findings fit that mold. As Descartes says, whether it is there or not, everyone perceives a self; this is a mistake because we are just linking individual instances. Jung may be doing the same. Just because there is a relationship doesn't mean they are connected.