Psycho-Babble Psychology Thread 543244

Shown: posts 1 to 25 of 59. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

I

Posted by Dinah on August 17, 2005, at 22:35:55

Sometimes I wonder if there's an *I*. A weird thing about having enthusiasms is that sometimes I love something and sometimes I don't care, but the enthusiasms usually cycle over the same topics. Today I thought of something I loved, and realized I had sold it on eBay. And thought "But I wouldn't do that." But of course I did.

And I started to feel odd, like there was no *I* at all. That all there was was this moment, and who I was right now. But that that *I* wasn't permanent at all. And that that *I* had no relation to the *I* of yesterday or the *I* of tomorrow. And if that was true, there was no *I* at all. Just a series of moments.

I had to remind myself that *I* love reading in the bath. I always have. And *I* don't like peanuts, but I do like peanut butter, but only JIF peanut butter (because to me it tastes nothing at all like real peanuts). And that all my life I've hated peanuts, but loved JIF. And that tomorrow and the day after I will hate peanuts, but eat JIF nearly every day.

And if there is an *I* that always hates peanuts but loves JIF, and always loves to read in the bath, then there must be an *I*.

 

Re: I Dinah

Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2005, at 22:56:21

In reply to I, posted by Dinah on August 17, 2005, at 22:35:55

:-)
This reminds me of a puzzle...

David Lewis (may he rip) thinks that time is discrete which is to say that it is just a series of instants.

A time slice of Dinah is Dinah at a particular instant in time (let us say t1). Then time moves foward to the next instant (t2) and thus we have another time slice of Dinah.

What is the relation between the t1 time slice of Dinah and the t2 time slice of Dinah? Many of the properties (incl. likes and dislikes etc) have changed...

He thinks that at t2 whosoever bears the greatest relation to t1 Dinah gets to be Dinah.

I do hope I'm not misrepresenting him...

And that means that you are more related to time slices that are closer in time rather than the time slices that are further away in time.

Though if my memory serves me rightly this might not quite work:

t1 - properties a, b, c, d
t2 - properties a, b, c, e
t3 - properties a, b, e, f
t4 - properties a, b, c, e
t5 - properties a, b, c, d

Where t1 bears greater resemblance to t5 than it does for t3.

Still, that aside... Why save money? Better one dollar for me today than 10 dollars in a couple months for something that is merely related to me ;-)

 

Re: I Dinah

Posted by cricket on August 18, 2005, at 8:52:20

In reply to I, posted by Dinah on August 17, 2005, at 22:35:55

> And I started to feel odd, like there was no *I* at all. That all there was was this moment, and who I was right now. But that that *I* wasn't permanent at all. And that that *I* had no relation to the *I* of yesterday or the *I* of tomorrow. And if that was true, there was no *I* at all. Just a series of moments.
>
Yup, that's why many people think of an "I" as something without an inherent existence. But there is a continuum, no? The I of yesterday, tasted Jif and liked it, so it set up a pattern to eat Jif again today. If there was no precedent, no causal factors, no dependence, every incident, every facet of a being would be created out of nothing and that doesn't really make sense. Then there would really be no connection between the I of yesterday and the I of today.

Then as we continually interact with the world, new causes and conditions are created. So we do change and evolve and we're not the same but patterns carry over.

Does any of that make sense?

 

Re: I alexandra_k

Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2005, at 9:33:48

In reply to Re: I Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2005, at 22:56:21

I like that theory, and I sort of wish it applied to me. For me, I am less like I was yesterday than I am like I was the last time I felt this way.

State dependent memory, sense of identity, etc. seems to be a better fit for me. So that the Dinah today may be the Dinah +1, but the +1 unit of time isn't measured in strict linear time. It is more like it picks up from the last time I felt this exact way. My thoughts, daydreams, and philosophy pick up as if they had never stopped. From the last time I felt this way. But tomorrow they may well have started over again, or not over again, but one day further from the last time I felt *that* way, which may be a completely different starting point than yesterday.

If that makes any sense.

 

Re: I cricket

Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2005, at 9:36:57

In reply to Re: I Dinah, posted by cricket on August 18, 2005, at 8:52:20

My therapist says I have poor ego strength. I think this post would be an example of that. He reassures me that I *appear* to be the same person and have the same ways of interacting and opinions from one day to the next. I just don't have a good sense of that.

So I guess I was trying to remind myself of the same thing. I may feel like an isolated unit in time, but that really isn't true. Somehow it's more reassuring coming from him. But I'm supposed to be able to do it for myself, right?

 

Re: I Dinah

Posted by kerria on August 18, 2005, at 22:42:20

In reply to I, posted by Dinah on August 17, 2005, at 22:35:55

Hi Dinah,

things like changing I's happen to me all the time. i've had i lot of things i hate that i ended up having and lose the most important things that i own all the time. It's a confusing mess to keep up with.
Do you have DID? Please don't worry that you do because this isn't the only sx. i don't know you you yet so that's why i asked.
i LOVE only Jif peanut butter too and it was the only kind that i eat but some parts won't because of being so healthy- eat the yucky kind you have to stir up.

Love kerria

 

Re: I kerria

Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2005, at 23:01:44

In reply to Re: I Dinah, posted by kerria on August 18, 2005, at 22:42:20

I have a dissociative disorder, but not DID. Probably the best fit is Dissociative Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified. Which basically means I have a dissociative disorder. :) Don't you love the NOS category? So helpful.

I *probably* have some sort of ego state disorder, though not formally diagnosed. Mid continuum I guess you'd call it. And very stable.

I couldn't eat the healthy peanut butter. I really really really hate peanuts. Growing up, we weren't allowed many foods to dislike enough not to eat at all. I chose peanuts.

 

Re: I

Posted by kerria on August 19, 2005, at 0:42:29

In reply to Re: I kerria, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2005, at 23:01:44

:)

i chose eggs to dislike.

after being forced them i promised myself that i would never eat them again when i was big.
and i didn't- only if they are baked in cakes or like that- i never eat eggs alone. All the parts are in agreement with that anyways and that might be the only thing.

Anyways it's a start. You can say- 'i' only like Jif.
and i can say 'i' hate eggs.
at least we know something about what we are like.

Take care,
kerria :)

 

Dinah I... Dinah

Posted by 64bowtie on August 20, 2005, at 0:49:11

In reply to I, posted by Dinah on August 17, 2005, at 22:35:55

(Don't mean to change the subject)

Dinah

I continue to marvel how different you think and sound since your 'Daddy' passed away... I honestly don't want to hurt or sound heartless in any way... You have a refreshing interest in new stuff that I find delightful... I feel your 'Daddy' would be very proud of you these days...

Rod

 

Re: I Dinah

Posted by alexandra_k on August 20, 2005, at 21:48:14

In reply to Re: I alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2005, at 9:33:48

Sure it does... Sure it does... I shall try and draw a pic but who knows how it will go in the little txt box...

Dinah1--------------..................-----------
Dinah2.............................------..................
Dinah3....................-----........................

Left to right is the progression of time.
----- means thats the bit of you in control.
The dots are just place holders for the silly txt box...
So Dinah1 then change in state to Dinah3 then change in state to Dinah2 then back to Dinah1.

And think of Dinah1 Dinah2 etc as patterns of beliefs / desires / preferences / emotions / memories etc.
There can be more or less of a relation between Dinah1 Dinah2 Dinah3 etc.
But Dinah1 at those two points in time resembles more than Dinah1 and Dinah2.

I think...

Under this model it would make sense that Dinah1 Dinah2 etc get to be Dinah in virtue of a bodily criterion of personal identity...

And Dinah1 gets to put in two distinct appearances in virtue of a psychological criterion of personal identity...

:-)

 

Re: I alexandra_k

Posted by Dinah on August 21, 2005, at 9:25:07

In reply to Re: I Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on August 20, 2005, at 21:48:14

Yes that's it exactly. And your comments on it have made me think.

Although I must confess that I don't think of Dinah 2 or Dinah 3 as being psychological entities. *That* I reserve for emotional and intellectual me. I guess it's because the mood states lack the thing that I consider to separate psychological entities, the sense of being an entity. The "I think, therefore I am."

And the "patterns of beliefs / desires / preferences / emotions / memories" are not as distinct. For example, feelings about the people in my immediate life. Emotional me always feels attached to my therapist and likes him. Rational me thinks he's a shallow moneyhungry boob. (Hmmm... maybe all of me thinks he's a boob, but in different senses of the word.) There are similar splits about other people in my life. And goals and priorities are fundamentally different. Ways of presenting myself are different. Views of the world are different.

The mood state differences are not as profound. But there is a bit of that, and I should consider the possibility of a lesser degree of dissociation. I know that everyone has mood states, and different states based on who you're with, and things like that...

To me, it seems like the disconnect between those states is a bit more profound for me. Not enough to impair my ability to function, but enough to make my life feel choppy and discontinuous and to shake my sense of who I am and what's important to me. It probably also gets in the way of my ability to work, since working is only important to me sometimes. I think working for Daddy counterbalanced that, because at the times when "working" wasn't important "Daddy" was.

I wonder how much of it is perception. Although perhaps a lot of this whole topic is based on perception.

Thanks, Alexandra.

 

Thanks Rod. :) (nm) 64bowtie

Posted by Dinah on August 21, 2005, at 9:26:01

In reply to Dinah I... Dinah, posted by 64bowtie on August 20, 2005, at 0:49:11

 

:-) (nm) kerria

Posted by Dinah on August 21, 2005, at 9:26:43

In reply to Re: I, posted by kerria on August 19, 2005, at 0:42:29

 

Re: I Dinah

Posted by alexandra_k on August 21, 2005, at 16:43:26

In reply to Re: I alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on August 21, 2005, at 9:25:07

Personal identity was a hot topic in the 60's. That means that the current academics (generally speaking) are sick to death of it because they were made to study it... They don't inflict it on us and so it is a topic that is currently being rediscovered by students...

Because it was the 60's philosophers were particularly hung up on necessary and sufficient conditions. What are the necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for personal identity over time?

There are two criterion that people have varying degrees of alliance to.

- bodily criterion. This is about the physical body. Here we want to talk about the same body persisting through time. So the Lewis stuff comes in with respect to time slices and relations between time slices. You can trace the bodys course through space/time.

- psychological criterion. This is about psychological factors such as memory, beliefs, desires, goals, preferences, etc. Here we want to talk about the same mind persisting through time. So the Lewis stuff comes in with respect to time slices and relations between time slices. You can trace the minds course through space/time.

Typically the psychological and bodily criterions are correlated. Philosophers thus devise all kinds of thought experiments so as to tease them apart and see which intuitively seems to take precedence for personal identity.

Thus if your body woke up tomorrow with my memories and my body woke up tomorrow with your memories we have to choose... 1) Dinah and a_k swapped bodies. 2) Dinah and a_k swapped minds. Which seems more intuitively correct?? Most want to say that it is better to say that we swapped bodies thus personal identity follows the psychological criterion of personal identity.

Then you can consider cases of amnesia. Suppose there was a radical break in psychological continuity and no break in bodily continuity. Same person or not? Here most want to say that the person has changed. But they remain the same person. What hangs it together is the bodily criterion of personal identity.

With respect to sameness over time...
There are problems with both the psychological and bodily criterions. Every cell in your body is replaced every 7 years or so. So we do not have the same body (when considered from the level of physics). Likewise beliefs, desires, preferences etc evolve over time.

> Although I must confess that I don't think of Dinah 2 or Dinah 3 as being psychological entities. *That* I reserve for emotional and intellectual me. I guess it's because the mood states lack the thing that I consider to separate psychological entities, the sense of being an entity. The "I think, therefore I am."

Okay. Though I think 'mood states' is more psychological than bodily (with respect to the criterions)

> And the "patterns of beliefs / desires / preferences / emotions / memories" are not as distinct.

Yeah. Thats okay. I guess in some people the Dinah1 Dinah2 bits can be quite distinct. In other people the Dinah1 Dinah2 bits can be less distinct. In some people it may be pointless to make the distinction. Or perhaps the distinction can be reserved for different contexts. Dinah at church, Dinah on the boards, Dinah with her family etc.

>For example, feelings about the people in my immediate life. Emotional me always feels attached to my therapist and likes him. Rational me thinks he's a shallow moneyhungry boob. (Hmmm... maybe all of me thinks he's a boob, but in different senses of the word.) There are similar splits about other people in my life. And goals and priorities are fundamentally different. Ways of presenting myself are different. Views of the world are different.

So feelings. And beliefs. 'I believe that he's a boob'. And desires. I guess you have different action urges when the different feelings / beliefs are at hand.

> The mood state differences are not as profound. But there is a bit of that, and I should consider the possibility of a lesser degree of dissociation. I know that everyone has mood states, and different states based on who you're with, and things like that...

Yeah. Context dependent. Thats important. And mood dependent too...

> To me, it seems like the disconnect between those states is a bit more profound for me. Not enough to impair my ability to function,

Actually, if you didn't exhibit a degree of flexability / change in role in different contexts then you would be dysfunctional. The person who can't distinguish between pub behaviour and church behaviour may have problems in life...

> I wonder how much of it is perception. Although perhaps a lot of this whole topic is based on perception.

Sure. Perception. Beliefs about the world / oneself. Feelings about the world / oneself.

I'm really interested in Perception, thinking (beliefs) emotions, sensations, desires, goals, preferences, and the way in which they all combine so as to produce behaviour...

Then interesting issues about how the distinction between those terms is / is not mirrored in the brain. AKA: whether there really are (in the brain) such things as perceptions, beliefs etc.

Hoping to do my PhD on that actually...

:-)

 

Re: I

Posted by alexandra_k on August 21, 2005, at 16:49:21

In reply to Re: I Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on August 21, 2005, at 16:43:26

The Ship of Thesus

(from memory so probably a bit inaccurate)

There is a ship. The ship of Thesus :-)
The ship of Thesus was blessed by the Gods.
It has legal rights to dock at a particular port.

The ship needs some repairs. They replace some of the boards. Over time... They replace every componant of the ship.

Is the ship they end up with still the ship of Thesus? The one that was blessed by the gods? The one with docking rights? Physically there isn't a single componant in common between the original ship of thesus and the ship in its present state...

Lets now say that every board, every componant that was replaced was saved... And then lets say that they are put together again. The ship is reassembled

Is this ship the ship of Thesus? The one that was blessed by the gods? The one with docking rights?

Its a little bit like 'how many grains of sand makes a heap?'
(I'm tempted to say 3 but I guess that defeats the purpose...)

The notion is that a difference in degree constitutes a difference in kind.

Necessary and sufficient condition that.
Hrm.
Necessary and sufficient conditions need to be suitably abstract is all....

But with respect to which ship is the real ship of Thesus... I guess most people think there isn't really an answer to that...

 

Re: I alexandra_k

Posted by Dinah on August 21, 2005, at 17:46:52

In reply to Re: I, posted by alexandra_k on August 21, 2005, at 16:49:21

There is a less intellectual version of that for my pop culture mind. :)

Harry Anderson used to do a juggling act with an axe. And he'd hold up the axe and say "This is George Washington's axe. The head's been replaced. And the body's been replaced. But it occupies the same space."

I used quotation marks, but I'm paraphrasing from memory and I'm sure it was funnier when he said it. :)

That sounds like an interesting idea for your doctorate.

I find it all very confusing. I just wish I *felt* more continuous.

Or even broken up between Board Dinah and Work Dinah, etc. Breaking up by mood state is way more confusing.

 

Re: I Dinah

Posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 5:22:15

In reply to Re: I alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on August 21, 2005, at 17:46:52

> Harry Anderson used to do a juggling act with an axe. And he'd hold up the axe and say "This is George Washington's axe. The head's been replaced. And the body's been replaced. But it occupies the same space."

Yeah, thats it.
And if you put the old head and the old body together then you have the same problem: which one is Washington's axe?

> That sounds like an interesting idea for your doctorate.

Thanks. I guess I'll have to narrow it down one way or the other. But I'm more interested in the general view of listing the kinds of cognitive factors that are relevant (how much emotions can be reduced to desires for example) and considering the ways in which they interact.

Trouble is finding them in the brain.

I dunno. I expect I'll adopt a topic really.
I'd like to do emotions, though.
'Cause I don't understand them very well.

> I find it all very confusing. I just wish I *felt* more continuous.

Yeah. I don't know what to say. I don't really feel discontinuous except for the missing time. And really regretting stuff. That I've said and done. Different emotional states. Maybe it is discontinuity. I don't know. I didn't even know that emotions were the problem. I just knew I hurt. I didn't know it was my emotions.

> Or even broken up between Board Dinah and Work Dinah, etc. Breaking up by mood state is way more confusing.

Yeah.

I wish I didn't have emotions.
The felt quality at any rate.
But I guess we need emotions.
I wish mine were muted.
Theres gotta be a medication for that...

 

Attribution correction Dinah

Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2005, at 19:37:32

In reply to Re: I alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on August 21, 2005, at 17:46:52

My husband informs me that I attributed the quote incorrectly. It was Michael Davis, not Harry Anderson.

My husband is great at that stuff.

 

Re: Attribution correction Dinah

Posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 20:01:47

In reply to Attribution correction Dinah, posted by Dinah on August 22, 2005, at 19:37:32

never heard of either of them :-)

 

OMG, Guess what I did

Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2005, at 17:50:07

In reply to Re: I alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on August 21, 2005, at 9:25:07

I forgot to edit this out before handing him a sheaf of posts that included this. He laughed and said his feelings weren't hurt and it wasn't anything I hadn't already told him. I told him I was *quite* certain that I had never told him that. And he snorted with laughter and said perhaps not in these words.


> Emotional me always feels attached to my therapist and likes him. Rational me thinks he's a shallow moneyhungry boob. (Hmmm... maybe all of me thinks he's a boob, but in different senses of the word.)

 

Re: OMG, Guess what I did Dinah

Posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 18:02:48

In reply to OMG, Guess what I did, posted by Dinah on August 23, 2005, at 17:50:07

I'm sorry Dinah, but I had to laugh, it just so reminds me of the sort of thing I'd do. Glad he took it so well.

 

Re: OMG, Guess what I did

Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2005, at 18:23:23

In reply to Re: OMG, Guess what I did Dinah, posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 18:02:48

Well, it *was* sort of funny. At least since he wasn't mortally offended. He was reading this stuff with no more reaction than a comment that I'd make a good existentialist (which I don't think is true) when he suddenly burst out laughing. When I asked what on earth was so funny, he quoted that. I was mortified of course.

That's what comes from hurriedly printing out posts at 1:30 am the night before a 9 am therapy session.

 

Re: OMG, Guess what I did Dinah

Posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 18:57:41

In reply to Re: OMG, Guess what I did, posted by Dinah on August 23, 2005, at 18:23:23

ROFL, sounds exactly how I packed to go to NZ. Started at 11:30pm finished around 1:30am to be out the door at 4:30am.

 

Re: OMG, Guess what I did Dinah

Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 19:36:45

In reply to Re: OMG, Guess what I did, posted by Dinah on August 23, 2005, at 18:23:23

lol! well, i snorted when i read it so i can see how he found it funny. and imagining your mortified expression just makes the whole thing even funnier.

because of course he knows you love him really :-)

 

Re: OMG, Guess what I did Dinah

Posted by fallsfall on August 23, 2005, at 19:38:05

In reply to Re: OMG, Guess what I did, posted by Dinah on August 23, 2005, at 18:23:23

Of course, there was some unconscious REASON that you left that in there... Any guesses to why you WANTED him to see it?

lol


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.