Posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 3:22:00
After considering the above three theories I am now in a position to outline an alternative position on alters, which I will call multiple systems theory. According to multiple systems theory (or a multiple systems version of the intentional stance) it may be legitimate in some cases to interpret or view the behaviour of one subject as being best predicted and thus explained by multiple intentional systems being associated with a single body.
Different alters (intentional systems) are observed to behave in distinctively different ways. They would thus seem to have different sets of beliefs and desires that function to produce the behaviour of the body when that system is in control. The behaviour, and the beliefs and desires that are attributed in order to predict and explain the behaviour are largely incompatible between systems - which is why there is an advantage to postulating more than one such system. Internally the systems (as sets of beliefs and desires) are largely non-contradictory, and evolve in comprehensible ways. This is not a feature of episodes of psychosis, or psychotic voices. The sets of beliefs and desires thus constitute distinct intentional systems, or selves. So what does the multiple systems view buy us? I maintain that in some cases the multiple systems view buys us predictive and explanatory leverage that we cannot obtain from the single system view. In the 20% of subjects whose presentation is blatant and in the majority of diagnosed cases, it would appear that multiple systems theory has predictive leverage over the single systems view.
Where the single system view had to allow for unpredictable and inconsistent, irrational behaviour the multiple systems view buys us an account with greater predictive and explanatory power. I maintain that given the predictive advantage of the multiple systems view we may consider that in virtue of this it gives us a greater explanatory advantage as well. This being so the multiple systems view is the most descriptively adequate account that we have of these subjects behaviour. It would also seem to be the most charitable view with respect to making the best sense that we can of these subjects behaviour, as we no longer have to attribute defects in impulse control, rationality, consistency, or coherence.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:476614
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20050321/msgs/476614.html