5 ms·

I mean i relation to our mind. If I took a hammer to your skull, I could fundamentally alter your personality. So the person you are right now is variable, depe

I mean i relation to our mind. If I took a hammer to your skull, I could fundamentally alter your personality. So the person you are right now is variable, depending on the state of your brain. So with that has a fundamental fact, who are you really but the state of your brain at the moment?

jsprogrammer 11y ago
How do you measure a personality? What are its constraints? It appears to me that I am more than my brain. I have a body that I think I can control. If you define "you" as a sequence of states of matter, then the rest of your body should count too. >So the person you are right now is variable, depending on the state of your brain. So with that has a fundamental fact, who are you really but the state of your brain at the moment? This feels a bit circular to me.
lliamander 11y ago
A: "it seems the evidence of the prosecution overwhelmingly identifies you as the robber of the convenience store. What evidence do you provide in your defense?" B: " 'I' am nothing other than my present brain state. Since the entity that robbed the convenience store possessed a different brain state, we cannot be the same person." Not sure how that would fly. Maybe there is a meaningful concept of personhood that transcends specific brain states?
- ux-app 11y ago
  >Not sure how that would fly I think it's generally accepted that, barring mental illness, we're accountable for our previous brain states.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Accountable to who? This sounds like mind police. Who can examine your actual brain states anyway?
    - ux-app 11y ago
      My comment was in reply to a scenario involving a crime. In this case you would be accountable to society/law enforcement. Unless you live in a cave, we're all accountable to many others, employers, loved ones etc, and, finally even to ourselves. After all haven't we all felt embarrassed or ashamed of something we did in a 'prior brain state'. > Who can examine your actual brain states anyway? Much can be inferred from actions. > This sounds like mind police A hyperbolic term. Aren't we all in a sense policing each other's minds? Part of living in a functional society involves creating and reinforcing social norms so that we can live in a slightly less chaotic world.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Actions are different from brain state (as I can gather its definition in this thread). Are their brain states that shouldn't be allowed?
        ux-app 11y ago
        > Actions are different from brain state I think it would be fair to say that actions are a result of brain state, but not all brain states result in actions. > Are their brain states that shouldn't be allowed? Seems you've gone for a more philosophical angle. Of course your secret heat of hearts is yours and yours alone. We don't yet have the technology to decipher your thoughts, and even if/when we do we probably(hopefully) won't police them. In a more practical sense, when policing your own thoughts there certainly are thought patterns and by extension brain states that you should avoid because they have negative side-effects. Some examples are OCD, depression etc. For these there are medications and therapies designed to help correct aberrant brain states.
  - lliamander 11y ago
    Indeed we are. FreedomToCreate's point, as I read it, is that our identity as a person is nothing more than our brain state at the present moment. That is, from moment to moment we are a different person as our brain states change. If 'I' am nothing more than my brain state at this precise moment, then any previous brain states that preceded this are separate persons. How then can I be held responsible for something "other people" (i.e. my previous brain states) did? Of course, we could say that the legal and philosophical definitions of 'person' are different, but what purpose is the philosophical definition if not to inform our definitions in other domains like law?

jsprogrammer 11y ago

How do you measure a personality? What are its constraints? It appears to me that I am more than my brain. I have a body that I think I can control. If you define "you" as a sequence of states of matter, then the rest of your body should count too. >So the person you are right now is variable, depending on the state of your brain. So with that has a fundamental fact, who are you really but the state of your brain at the moment? This feels a bit circular to me.

lliamander 11y ago

A: "it seems the evidence of the prosecution overwhelmingly identifies you as the robber of the convenience store. What evidence do you provide in your defense?" B: " 'I' am nothing other than my present brain state. Since the entity that robbed the convenience store possessed a different brain state, we cannot be the same person." Not sure how that would fly. Maybe there is a meaningful concept of personhood that transcends specific brain states?

ux-app 11y ago
>Not sure how that would fly I think it's generally accepted that, barring mental illness, we're accountable for our previous brain states.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Accountable to who? This sounds like mind police. Who can examine your actual brain states anyway?
  - ux-app 11y ago
    My comment was in reply to a scenario involving a crime. In this case you would be accountable to society/law enforcement. Unless you live in a cave, we're all accountable to many others, employers, loved ones etc, and, finally even to ourselves. After all haven't we all felt embarrassed or ashamed of something we did in a 'prior brain state'. > Who can examine your actual brain states anyway? Much can be inferred from actions. > This sounds like mind police A hyperbolic term. Aren't we all in a sense policing each other's minds? Part of living in a functional society involves creating and reinforcing social norms so that we can live in a slightly less chaotic world.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Actions are different from brain state (as I can gather its definition in this thread). Are their brain states that shouldn't be allowed?
      - ux-app 11y ago
        > Actions are different from brain state I think it would be fair to say that actions are a result of brain state, but not all brain states result in actions. > Are their brain states that shouldn't be allowed? Seems you've gone for a more philosophical angle. Of course your secret heat of hearts is yours and yours alone. We don't yet have the technology to decipher your thoughts, and even if/when we do we probably(hopefully) won't police them. In a more practical sense, when policing your own thoughts there certainly are thought patterns and by extension brain states that you should avoid because they have negative side-effects. Some examples are OCD, depression etc. For these there are medications and therapies designed to help correct aberrant brain states.
- lliamander 11y ago
  Indeed we are. FreedomToCreate's point, as I read it, is that our identity as a person is nothing more than our brain state at the present moment. That is, from moment to moment we are a different person as our brain states change. If 'I' am nothing more than my brain state at this precise moment, then any previous brain states that preceded this are separate persons. How then can I be held responsible for something "other people" (i.e. my previous brain states) did? Of course, we could say that the legal and philosophical definitions of 'person' are different, but what purpose is the philosophical definition if not to inform our definitions in other domains like law?