Posted by alexandra_k on July 21, 2005, at 19:51:21
In reply to Re: Yet another rave... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 21, 2005, at 19:36:43
>>So...
>>What are selves supposed to be anyway???I meant that that was what the paper was about...
> Persistent ways of viewing and interacting with the world? A sense of being?
Yeah. Its unpacking that that is hard... Though I used to be more of a behaviourist than I am today and so the paper is fairly behaviourist...
> I'm not altogether sure there is a unified self. I think there may be tendencies instead.
Dennett says...
What is a centre of gravity?
There isn't a 'thing' at a particular point that actually is a centre of gravity. A centre of gravity is a 'useful abstraction'. Physicists posit this useful abstraction so as to make predictions as to the behaviour of objects (whether they will fall over or not).
What is a self?
There isn't a 'thing' at a particular point that actually is a self. A self is a 'useful abstraction'. Psychologists (and we are 'folk-psychologists in our daily lives) posit this useful abstraction so as to make predictions as to the behaviour of people (what they are going to do next).
> Sounds like one for you philosophers. :)Yeah :-)
But Dennett also wants to say that centres of gravity are useful abstractions that are real in a sense... Whereas selves are useful abstractions that are completely fictional...
I reckon that the way he goes on one should be the same as the way he goes on the other.
And so try to argue that there is a realist aspect to selves.
(Being a behaviourist I'm ashamed to admit I was a bit of a pragmatist too...)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:531104
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050716/msgs/531134.html