Posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 22:25:04
In reply to Re: Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 21:57:37
> > >Don't factors like environment, genetics, and experiences have roles to play in constructing the Self?
> > Yes. But I would go further. I would say that those things: social / physical environment + genes actually *determine* or *cause* the self.(Here I should have said *constitute* rather than *cause*... Or maybe not... Now I'm getting confused. social / physical environment + genes CAUSE beliefs desires etc. The mental states are like Many H2O molecules interacting in certain ways. The H2O molecules *constitutes* water. The beliefs and desires *constitutes* the self. It doesn't *cause* water, it just IS water. Thats more what I meant..)
> That makes sense, though I'm not sure how causing the self is different from constructing the self. I suppose I'd say that the self, having been constructed, can be deconstructed and reconfigured as social and physical environments change. But that possibility would also arise from your way of describing it, as far as I can tell.Yeah. The social and natural environmental inputs change over time...
And I guess thats what shows you that our dispute is more verbal than substantial (in the sense that we are saying fairly much the same thing even though you say 'no' and i say 'yes' with respect to whether there is any such thing as the self). A lot of philosophy is like that. Thats why you can still learn a lot even though there might superficially look like there is a lot of disagreement, people actually agree on quite a lot...
> > Ah. Here is a (attempted) functional definition of the self: The self is a function from beliefs, desires, perceptions, goals, memories etc to behaviour.
> > That means that the strength of those things and their causal connections determines what people will do. Thats what I think the self is.> And, I suppose, there's the influence of other people, of social structures, etc.
Sure thing. The picture looks like this:
social + natural environment + innate inheritance -> beliefs desires etc -> behaviour.The arrows -> are supposed to be causal.
We'd quite like there to be 100% determinism between the links of the chain - but there might be an irreducibly probabilistic element...>One question, for me anyway, is whether the self is something people possess or have, or whether it's more of a reflection of a wide range of factors. If it's the latter, then it's harder to say it's determined in any way. Instead, perhaps it's perceived.
Hmm. I'm not too sure what to say there. The self just is a function from mental states to behaviour...
Or... And this is something that I talk about in a paper that I wrote a few years ago... Thats what a mind is. A mind is a function from environment + genes to behaviour.
Then you can look at patterns in behaviour over time (characteristic ways people have of responding). You could try to build a self out of patterns in behaviour that emerge over time... That might be a better way to go if you want the self to be more distinctively human than minds...
> I think in everyday usage the term self is implied to be quite a stable thing: something reliable and straightforward. But I don't think it's that simple.okay. though patterns in behaviour over time... characteristic ways of responding... might be relevant to that notion of a self.
There is quite a bit of stuff on personal identity especially on continuity over time. Lots of stuff done in the 60's and its starting to become a hot topic again now.
And about bodily and psychological (mental state, memory belief) criterions of personal identity.
> Foucault is fun but hard going. When I started reading his work it would take me an hour to read a single page. But after a while you get used to it.LOL! I still find philosophy to be a lot like that.
> I haven't yet read anything postmodern or feminist about therapy. I'd really like to. I find much of the argument in the medical model to be quite circular. I'd be keen to see how it's challenged! Is there anything in particular you'd recommend?Hmm. I'll try to get some names etc off my friend. Mostly... I've been reading about narrative therapy... They aren't so keen on the medical model. According to the medical model the doctor is the expert and the client goes along because they don't know what to do and so the expert is supposed to be an authority on how to fix the problem. According to this model the client is the expert because they are talking about their experince. The therapist is supposed to walk alongside the client and help the client come to their own understanding and insights.
Its supposed to go some of the way towards remidying the power imbalance etc etc.
Whether it works or not remains to be seen
(its my current therapists orientation)
IMO... harder to get attached (probably because she doesn't come across as an authority at all).
Whether that is good or not remains to be seen...
I don't know...
But... It is a lot different.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:534847
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050725/msgs/536216.html