Mentat
Feb15-05, 10:43 AM
I think one of the most important questions facing those would adopt the Dennettian approaches of "Multiple Drafts" and "heterophenomenology" is: Why -- if there really is no "finished product" of conscious perception, no "quale", no quantized "perception" -- does it seems so intuitive to refer to our processes in these terms?
After all, if it is intuitive, then it must be natural; and if it is natural, then doesn't that mean it's most likely right? For the answers to these questions, I want to try mix in a little Rortean philosophy....
If we consider ourselves as we really are, social animals, the answers to these questions becomes apparent. We are social animals, concerned with relating our perceptions to others, being recognized as a member of certain societies (and, conversely, as distinct from members of other societies), and justifying our beliefs. Doesn't it make sense, within that understanding of ourselves (and our "nature") that we would want to believe in something like a "Final Draft" of consciousness? After all, we can't relate all of the process as it continues on (for numerous reasons), so why not just decide when a perception is fleshed out enough to be related to other members of our society, and then call that the "Final Draft"?
This reasoning also helps explain the concept of self-awareness, and of what it means to be a singular self or soul. Think of it this way: We recognize all of the many (innumerable even) aspects of our personality as making up one, singular, recognizable "person". That way, we can interact with others like us, since they also appear to us as "one, singular, recognizable 'person'". IOW, it allows you to be "one of them". DID (or, if you prefer, MPD) would then be explained as someone whose many-aspects-of-personality don't try to come together sufficiently to be accepted as "one, singular, recognizable person" (ergo, a DID case cannot be accepted into society as are others, since they haven't coalesced to the point of being recognizable as "member").
So, why does it seem intuitive to refer to "final drafts" and "single persons", if none such things exist? Because it's easier to talk about :smile:.
After all, if it is intuitive, then it must be natural; and if it is natural, then doesn't that mean it's most likely right? For the answers to these questions, I want to try mix in a little Rortean philosophy....
If we consider ourselves as we really are, social animals, the answers to these questions becomes apparent. We are social animals, concerned with relating our perceptions to others, being recognized as a member of certain societies (and, conversely, as distinct from members of other societies), and justifying our beliefs. Doesn't it make sense, within that understanding of ourselves (and our "nature") that we would want to believe in something like a "Final Draft" of consciousness? After all, we can't relate all of the process as it continues on (for numerous reasons), so why not just decide when a perception is fleshed out enough to be related to other members of our society, and then call that the "Final Draft"?
This reasoning also helps explain the concept of self-awareness, and of what it means to be a singular self or soul. Think of it this way: We recognize all of the many (innumerable even) aspects of our personality as making up one, singular, recognizable "person". That way, we can interact with others like us, since they also appear to us as "one, singular, recognizable 'person'". IOW, it allows you to be "one of them". DID (or, if you prefer, MPD) would then be explained as someone whose many-aspects-of-personality don't try to come together sufficiently to be accepted as "one, singular, recognizable person" (ergo, a DID case cannot be accepted into society as are others, since they haven't coalesced to the point of being recognizable as "member").
So, why does it seem intuitive to refer to "final drafts" and "single persons", if none such things exist? Because it's easier to talk about :smile:.