The nature of self

Alright, I know I said my next philosophy post would be another one about free will but it's not going to be. It's not that I'm not going to do that, it's just that I'm not going to do that right now. The downside is you have to wait a little, the plus side is this gives you extra time to start posting comments telling me how wrong I am. Huzzah! In all seriousness though, I do recall at least one person saying they wanted to comment but I forget who it was (So I can't remind them) and I haven't seen anything so I figure I might as well give Mr. X another few days (And then however long after that until I decide I feel like finishing what I started).

Instead, we're going to talk about something that I don't actually have any concrete ideas on yet, so this will be less of a lecture and more of a rambling discussion starter about some philosophical possibilities (Lava lamps and controlled substances are optional). That said, I've been doing a lot of thinking about this topic recently and am starting to get a few ideas in place, methinks.

Alright, so let's begin with a hypothetical question-story hybrid that doesn't really have anything explicit to say about our topic. This is something that a friend posed to me about 6 months ago, and it's certainly stuck as a rather deep point of interest: Let's say you have a boat. Over the course of some period of time, you gradually replace the various parts of the boat (Maybe it's falling into disrepair, maybe you're just fickle, doesn't matter). At the end of this period, every single piece of the boat is a different one from when you originally got the boat, but they were each replaced separately (Which is to say that you didn't tear your boat apart and then go build a totally new boat).  Is that the same boat?

Think about it for a few minutes, I'll wait.

Alright,  so there are a couple ways to handle this problem. Really, since it's a binary question we must provide one of two answers: yes or no. If we say it's the same boat, on what grounds are we defining "same" and "boat"? If we say it isn't the same boat, at which point did the identity of the boat change?

These aren't easy questions, certainly. To consult good old Merriam-Webster as a place to start (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/same):

1

a : resembling in every relevant respect b : conforming in every respect —used with as

2

a : being one without addition, change, or discontinuance : identical b : being the one under discussion or already referred to

3

: corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable

4

: equal in size, shape, value, or importance —usually used with the or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses 

 

1 is difficult to gauge without seeing the final state of the boat, but for the sake of argument let's say that the boat does appear to resemble the original in the physical sense. What of it's deeper composition? What is relevance and who is the final authority regarding it? Are we to think that the primal structure, the unique atoms and molecules, which compose the object before us are not relevant to it? That strikes me as absurd, honestly. For the moment I'm going to side with saying that our boat does not hold water with definition 1.

2 I don't think I really need to explain, but I'm just going to discard it outright. We've already rigged the question in direct contradiction to this definition.

For 3 I'm not as comfortable going either way, but it seems that a line of thought similar to that used to address definition 1 could be applied here. Indistinguishable to whom is the very first question that pops into my head. I've seen many squirrels, and I'd have to say that I'd be hard pressed to distinguish between many of them. Does that mean that some of them are the "same" squirrel even if they are separate entities? Indeed, if we could supply a doppelganger of anything, would they become the "same" or is this definition only intended to apply to appearance? If that's the case, it is of no use to us and should also be cast aside.

So now all that is left is definition 4, which is the toughest one by far to deal with (Isn't it handy how they arranged them in difficulty for us? You've got to admire an organic formulation of suspense like that). Size and shape are easy to understand, but what of value and importance? Value is subjective, so its use in a supposedly concrete label is dubious at best. Importance is tougher... importance in what regard? The flow of electricity is important to my computer being powered on right now in that it is the primary (If not sole) reason that it is in fact powered on, so we appear to have some objective basis for importance. However, to say that Jens Kidman is an important member of Meshuggah is a more subjective statement (Although he totally is) and isn't useful in the way of establishing a firm label on anything. Still the definition is a string of conjunctions (Equal in size and equal in shape and equal in value and equal in importance) so we really just need to focus on the issue of value and subjectivity in the definition. Are all subjective values equivalent in that they are all subjective or are all subjective values different in that they express individualized notions? If they are equivalent then the definition passes muster and we may be able to apply it to our boat (Concluding, at long last, that the boat is in fact the same one, by some magic of our language). However, if they are not then the entire definition breaks apart (Again, it's a four part conjunction and if even one part is false then the whole is false, it's a basic logical fact) and we are left with a boat that is not the same than the one we had before.

And what, you might be thinking, does any of that have to do with the nature of self? I'm getting there.

So as not to spend the rest of our lives watching me talk myself in circles, let's assume that "same" does not apply to the boat. We have taken boat A of component parts C1, D1, E1 and F1 and replaced the components one by one until we somehow arrive at boat B of component parts C2, D2, E2 and F2. Now, where did the change occur? At some point we have a boat (Let's use x as a generic variable) of component parts C2, D1, E1 and F1. Is this boat A or boat B? Both? Neither? Perhaps boat x will take on a different identity with each shift; so we have boat G of component parts C2, D1, E1 and F1, then boat H of component parts C2, D2, E1 and F1, then boat I of component parts C2, D2, E2 and F1, and finally boat B from above. It seems almost that any change would disqualify a boat from being taken as the "same" boat, as it is now fundamentally different in some compositional manner. 

So now what? Well, for the sake of fairness, let's apply all of those concepts to you. If we take you A of component parts C1, D1, E1, F1 and G1 (Apparently you're made of more than a boat in this blog's fantasy world) could we derive you B by replacing each of those parts one at a time? Note that I'm not saying this is the case, I'm saying that if this were the case and that we could actually replace all of your components, could we arrive at a you that is no longer the same as the original you? What if we replaced one of those components? If you allowed it for the boat (Which I have no idea, yet), you must allow it for yourself. 

Now let's cut to the chase: the universe is currently replacing your components at the very moment you're reading this. You're composed of particles and one thing particles do is move around, they trade places and shift and generally have quite a rowdy time. Two objects in close contact with each other trade particles and they do so frequently. So, while it is not necessarily the case that each of your components will be replaced, nor is it necessarily the case that any of your components will be replaced (Perhaps they just switch positions, although I think this is so unlikely as to be physically impossible in any practical sense), it is most certainly the case that some or all of your components are capable of being replaced. Given everything from above, does this indicate that you are no longer you A but actually something closer to you ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZC (There should be way more "Z"s, I'm just lazy)? What does that really mean?

Let's return to the boat. So maybe it isn't the same boat, but do we really perceive a difference? More importantly, what is a boat? It's made up of physical objects, right? Do those physical objects cease to be themselves and become subsumed into some nebulous concept of "boat" once we affix them to the whole? What about the particles making up those objects, do they cease to be individual particles and become subsumed into a nebulous concept of "steering wheel" at some point? What about this "universe" thing, it's made up of components too, right? Do all of those components cease to be individuals and merely part of the concept "universe" instead? 

It seems to me that the issue is largely one of perception. We perceive objects and consider them to be whole unto themselves, but the reality is that they are made up of components, each of which we would also consider to be whole unto itself. Since there is a certain point at which we cannot really perceive things unaided (And even then the regression continues down to... quarks at the moment, yes?) it seems that there is nothing which we directly perceive that is a truly whole and defined entity. In other words, when you look at a rock you're look at a mass of components that you can't individually perceive and the perception of the rock itself is in a sense merely an illusion. There is no such complete, whole entity as a "rock." Or at least, that appears to be the case.

And of course, this would have to apply to humans and other animals as well. When you look at me, you're seeing an illusory figure composed of imperceptible parts, one that is constantly in a flux of gaining and losing components. And the same would be true of when I look at you. What then can we say of "self"? Are we truly reasonable in concluding that there even is such a thing? 

So that's that. Again, nothing too concrete yet (Although you can probably tell which way I'm leaning). Commentary is more than welcome, really. Perhaps I could do a post later on with responses to any discussion that forms (Hint: there needs to be a discussion first). Aside from that possibility, it would just be really nice to hear some more minds weighing in on the matter.