|
IamMe
|
 |
« on: November 24, 2007, 12:46:06 PM » |
|
I've been thinking about this because I have entered a Mental Health Public Speaking Competition (a meaningless platitude-fest).
The way I see it, mental illness offers challenges to both dualism and materialism.
If we consider a dualist version of life, how does the idea of a soul - an essential 'youness' - fit with the idea of an illness altering a person's behavior and then drugs altering it back?
But then if we consider a materialist version, where the mind is the entirety of one's personality, mental illness loses all meaning: there is no 'you' underneath - the mentally ill you is you.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2007, 02:05:47 PM » |
|
There may not be a "you" underneath. Its spooky, but no reason to believe there has to be a "you".
There is a great Radio Lab podcast on memory that mentions the wierdness of our existence with regard to memory. Are we who we are, even though our memories are rather quickly corrupted and our memories are part and parcel of who we are.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2007, 02:10:41 PM » |
|
There may not be a "you" underneath. Its spooky, but no reason to believe there has to be a "you".
Of course. But then the whole idea of treating mental illness is really more like destroying the 'real' you to make one that society would rather deal with. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2007, 02:51:42 PM » |
|
There may not be a "you" underneath. Its spooky, but no reason to believe there has to be a "you".
Of course. But then the whole idea of treating mental illness is really more like destroying the 'real' you to make one that society would rather deal with. Well, look at it this way. Either you accept the change or have society shun, or destroy you (depending on your sickness). I think being a different "you" and being able to participate in society is a vast improvement on being destroyed because you refuse to change your nature (say, in the case of a psychotic person). Sure, there is some honor to try to let someone remain "as god made them" but, frankly god (evolution/nature) is a horrible designer. In the lottery of haveing a life at all, I'd pick drugs over being burned at the stake, or labotomized. As I say, it may not be the best system, but I know of no better, and, it appears that society will generally win out in the end with these kinds of things. In fact, some people may be thankful for not being themselves (as god made them). (btw, of course I don't argue for a 1984/BNW style of scoiety. I am *generally* quite happy with the direction science is taking us. A evolution towards a better society with a more adjusted populous. Who makes the rule as to who is "well adjusted"? Society - thats why the system sucks, but the alternative is letting the Pope decide, and we have a whole Age that we can refer to for that experiment.... the Dark Age ;-) ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2007, 03:00:07 PM » |
|
There may not be a "you" underneath. Its spooky, but no reason to believe there has to be a "you".
Of course. But then the whole idea of treating mental illness is really more like destroying the 'real' you to make one that society would rather deal with. Well, look at it this way. Either you accept the change or have society shun, or destroy you (depending on your sickness). I think being a different "you" and being able to participate in society is a vast improvement on being destroyed because you refuse to change your nature (say, in the case of a psychotic person). Sure, there is some honor to try to let someone remain "as god made them" but, frankly god (evolution/nature) is a horrible designer. In the lottery of haveing a life at all, I'd pick drugs over being burned at the stake, or labotomized. As I say, it may not be the best system, but I know of no better, and, it appears that society will generally win out in the end with these kinds of things. In fact, some people may be thankful for not being themselves (as god made them). (btw, of course I don't argue for a 1984/BNW style of scoiety. I am *generally* quite happy with the direction science is taking us. A evolution towards a better society with a more adjusted populous. Who makes the rule as to who is "well adjusted"? Society - thats why the system sucks, but the alternative is letting the Pope decide, and we have a whole Age that we can refer to for that experiment.... the Dark Age ;-) ) BNW? Brave New World? Anyway, I think there's a thin line between Big Brother and just treating mental illness. After all, in 1984 one of the main themes was that in a world where everyone thought 2 + 2 = 5 a madman is one who says 2 + 2 = 4 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2007, 03:54:02 PM » |
|
I've been thinking about this because I have entered a Mental Health Public Speaking Competition (a meaningless platitude-fest).
The way I see it, mental illness offers challenges to both dualism and materialism.
If we consider a dualist version of life, how does the idea of a soul - an essential 'youness' - fit with the idea of an illness altering a person's behavior and then drugs altering it back? The mind is the real you and the brain is the Input/Output channel to the mind. If the I/O device is not working properly, then it will show as a mental disorder or other limitation into revealing the real you. But then if we consider a materialist version, where the mind is the entirety of one's personality, mental illness loses all meaning: there is no 'you' underneath - the mentally ill you is you.
Indeed this is yet another example of how materialism is incoherent and inconsistent or out of step with the observations we make about how this world works. I have asked many times and I can't get any coherent explanation for this. Materialism seems hopelessly incongruent with the way societies operate. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2007, 11:11:14 AM » |
|
There may not be a "you" underneath. Its spooky, but no reason to believe there has to be a "you".
Of course. But then the whole idea of treating mental illness is really more like destroying the 'real' you to make one that society would rather deal with. Well, look at it this way. Either you accept the change or have society shun, or destroy you (depending on your sickness). I think being a different "you" and being able to participate in society is a vast improvement on being destroyed because you refuse to change your nature (say, in the case of a psychotic person). Sure, there is some honor to try to let someone remain "as god made them" but, frankly god (evolution/nature) is a horrible designer. In the lottery of haveing a life at all, I'd pick drugs over being burned at the stake, or labotomized. As I say, it may not be the best system, but I know of no better, and, it appears that society will generally win out in the end with these kinds of things. In fact, some people may be thankful for not being themselves (as god made them). (btw, of course I don't argue for a 1984/BNW style of scoiety. I am *generally* quite happy with the direction science is taking us. A evolution towards a better society with a more adjusted populous. Who makes the rule as to who is "well adjusted"? Society - thats why the system sucks, but the alternative is letting the Pope decide, and we have a whole Age that we can refer to for that experiment.... the Dark Age ;-) ) BNW? Brave New World? Anyway, I think there's a thin line between Big Brother and just treating mental illness. After all, in 1984 one of the main themes was that in a world where everyone thought 2 + 2 = 5 a madman is one who says 2 + 2 = 4 Certainly. I was thinking a little more about this. Consider pedophilia, something that a person is born with (like homosexuality/heterosexuality) but is absolutely frowned upon by society (for good reason, I believe). If you could treat that, then you would be changing the "real" "you". This would be better. Consider a person born with a defect of any sort, whether mental or physical. If you are born with an outgrown hip, or a partial arm. It becomes part of your mentality. People who are born with certain defects have those defects create their personality, to some degree. You can't seperate the mind from the body. Claudia Schiffer would not be the same person if she was born a 4'11" woman of Incan decent in the wilds of Peru. (Not saying that Incan people are defective). There are some physical properties we do change for the mental well-being of people (cleft lip, growth hormones for dwarves), which change who they are from what they were born as. I don't see why changing the physical is different from changing the physical aspects of the brain (chemistry). After all, you can change your mind/brain by what chemicals you are exposed to or eat. Perhaps the one thing constant about you IS change. The WAY you change is what makes you "you". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2007, 01:55:37 PM » |
|
There may not be a "you" underneath. Its spooky, but no reason to believe there has to be a "you".
Of course. But then the whole idea of treating mental illness is really more like destroying the 'real' you to make one that society would rather deal with. Well, look at it this way. Either you accept the change or have society shun, or destroy you (depending on your sickness). I think being a different "you" and being able to participate in society is a vast improvement on being destroyed because you refuse to change your nature (say, in the case of a psychotic person). Sure, there is some honor to try to let someone remain "as god made them" but, frankly god (evolution/nature) is a horrible designer. In the lottery of haveing a life at all, I'd pick drugs over being burned at the stake, or labotomized. As I say, it may not be the best system, but I know of no better, and, it appears that society will generally win out in the end with these kinds of things. In fact, some people may be thankful for not being themselves (as god made them). (btw, of course I don't argue for a 1984/BNW style of scoiety. I am *generally* quite happy with the direction science is taking us. A evolution towards a better society with a more adjusted populous. Who makes the rule as to who is "well adjusted"? Society - thats why the system sucks, but the alternative is letting the Pope decide, and we have a whole Age that we can refer to for that experiment.... the Dark Age ;-) ) BNW? Brave New World? Anyway, I think there's a thin line between Big Brother and just treating mental illness. After all, in 1984 one of the main themes was that in a world where everyone thought 2 + 2 = 5 a madman is one who says 2 + 2 = 4 Certainly. I was thinking a little more about this. Consider pedophilia, something that a person is born with (like homosexuality/heterosexuality) but is absolutely frowned upon by society (for good reason, I believe). If you could treat that, then you would be changing the "real" "you". This would be better. Consider a person born with a defect of any sort, whether mental or physical. If you are born with an outgrown hip, or a partial arm. It becomes part of your mentality. People who are born with certain defects have those defects create their personality, to some degree. You can't seperate the mind from the body. Claudia Schiffer would not be the same person if she was born a 4'11" woman of Incan decent in the wilds of Peru. (Not saying that Incan people are defective). There are some physical properties we do change for the mental well-being of people (cleft lip, growth hormones for dwarves), which change who they are from what they were born as. I don't see why changing the physical is different from changing the physical aspects of the brain (chemistry). After all, you can change your mind/brain by what chemicals you are exposed to or eat. Perhaps the one thing constant about you IS change. The WAY you change is what makes you "you". Indeed, but we must be careful how far down this road we go. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2007, 02:01:10 PM » |
|
I've been thinking about this because I have entered a Mental Health Public Speaking Competition (a meaningless platitude-fest).
The way I see it, mental illness offers challenges to both dualism and materialism.
If we consider a dualist version of life, how does the idea of a soul - an essential 'youness' - fit with the idea of an illness altering a person's behavior and then drugs altering it back? The mind is the real you and the brain is the Input/Output channel to the mind. If the I/O device is not working properly, then it will show as a mental disorder or other limitation into revealing the real you. So how do we know if anyone is the real them? Perhaps we all have a broken I/O. For example, how can we punish criminals? They may be good people 'underneath' but their I/O is broken. How do we know when our drugs are fixing the I/O to allow the good person to come out or breaking the I/O to keep the bad person from coming out? What is the mind, then, if it is not the brain? But then if we consider a materialist version, where the mind is the entirety of one's personality, mental illness loses all meaning: there is no 'you' underneath - the mentally ill you is you.
Indeed this is yet another example of how materialism is incoherent and inconsistent or out of step with the observations we make about how this world works. I have asked many times and I can't get any coherent explanation for this. Materialism seems hopelessly incongruent with the way societies operate. Yes but materialism is also the only worldview that doesn't invent things for which there is no evidence to explain the unknown. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2007, 10:23:49 AM » |
|
I think underlying this thread is a 'classical' view of what makes for personal identity. Locke posed this question because he was intrigued how we claim to be 'the same' person over time yet this gives odd-looking results. He tells the tale of the brave general: as a boy he scrumped some apples and got soundly beaten; years later as a dashing captain he did some heroic deed which started his illustrious career; and as a general he ran the army. Yet the general could not recall the beating he had as a boy. Of course, nowadays, we also have the stat that (nearly) every cell in our body is 'turned over' every seven years (or whatever). We grow, change, get fatter, thinner, balder, more/les fertile, have more experience, improve/deteriorate our perceptive ability... what then makes the me now the 'same' me as 40 years ago.
Locke's answer - and I think its the intuitive one we still hold to - is that psychological continuity is the key. This can cater for the forgetfulness of the general, because he can remember the captain who can remmebr the boy. But of course it gets shoogly when we are faced with severe personality change. If I had a magic pill and was confronted by an Alzheimer-suffering general, should I restore him to the state he was in last year, ten years ago, as I would like him to be, as his nearest and dearest would like him to be? When bringbackwigs splatters his capabilities, memories and perceptions in the privacy of his own home, knowing that he will return to (more or less) what he was before, is he the 'same' as he was before he liberated his mind?
No answers yet from me. Just a little history to try to get the intuitions going....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2007, 02:04:58 PM » |
|
I think underlying this thread is a 'classical' view of what makes for personal identity. Locke posed this question because he was intrigued how we claim to be 'the same' person over time yet this gives odd-looking results. He tells the tale of the brave general: as a boy he scrumped some apples and got soundly beaten; years later as a dashing captain he did some heroic deed which started his illustrious career; and as a general he ran the army. Yet the general could not recall the beating he had as a boy. Of course, nowadays, we also have the stat that (nearly) every cell in our body is 'turned over' every seven years (or whatever). We grow, change, get fatter, thinner, balder, more/les fertile, have more experience, improve/deteriorate our perceptive ability... what then makes the me now the 'same' me as 40 years ago.
Locke's answer - and I think its the intuitive one we still hold to - is that psychological continuity is the key. This can cater for the forgetfulness of the general, because he can remember the captain who can remmebr the boy. But of course it gets shoogly when we are faced with severe personality change. If I had a magic pill and was confronted by an Alzheimer-suffering general, should I restore him to the state he was in last year, ten years ago, as I would like him to be, as his nearest and dearest would like him to be? When bringbackwigs splatters his capabilities, memories and perceptions in the privacy of his own home, knowing that he will return to (more or less) what he was before, is he the 'same' as he was before he liberated his mind?
No answers yet from me. Just a little history to try to get the intuitions going....
This is interesting because (and I don't mean to sound arrogant) this is essentially the conclusion I came to on my own. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
