correlation between what, not anyones brain, and some not-in-particular-mind?
Rather that this is a mistaken way of talking about it. Brains don’t ‘belong’ to anyone, they aren’t an attribute - they are the person. You are the non-specific congruence. There is no ‘you’ who ‘values’ or ‘thinks’. Rather, thinking and valuing in progress is you. And no part of this is ‘priviledged’ to be called ‘you’.
What do all of Vichy’s pronouncements add up to? The new religion of actually believing that bulldada should be Serious Business.
This is just demonstrating that you have no interest in cognitive science.
I think you don’t grasp what I’m saying. I’m saying there is a theoretical and existential identity between mechanical existence and individualism. The individual is the bounds of the mechanical system. But it is not extrensic, perpetuating or acting. Rather what we experience - and which may be called an individual - is a sort of systematic self-reference. ‘Making a decision’ is what the case of mechanical outcomes is; there was no existential freedom and no ‘person’ who did it. We do not ‘make’ choices, we are choices (and feelings, concepts, etc.)
Again, your problem comes from a monadal conception of ‘self’. Such a conception is nonsense. There is a particularity of arrangement at any given instant - a limit to a particular moment’s self reference that constrains what information is integrated. But this is continuously under change. The reason that ‘thought’, ‘action’, etc continue are are not arbitrarily disconnected is because the system is not arbitrarily disconnected; it evolves but does so under necessary material conditions. Nonetheless there is no ‘monadal’ you, there is only a string of connected states.
And also a person can share their value with others and these people can agree on a pattern, a standard of value for anything in particular. It is inherent in the individual, but has ‘evolved’ or been made into a social pattern at that point.
Well this isn’t pre-Socratic era, and that’s a no answer. Of course there’s an individual, but we exhale and inhale… exchange between the boundaries. That’s what I think is happening here.
Exerting an influence on things in the Universe - everything exists by virtue of its ability to influence other things; that is what existence is. An object is identical with its manifestations; that is why it is anything because it manifests; and what it ‘is’ is identical to what it instantiates as.
Vichy, is this view of self in part influenced by Stirner’s ideas on “uniqueness,” particularly on being a unique entity at every single moment, different from all previous and future “you’s?” Of course you can come to the same conclusion based on cognitive sciences and materialism in general, but I think anyone infatuated with Stirner will probably come to the particular conclusion faster and with less resistance than otherwise.
On another note: it’s curious that while there certainly are legitimate performative contradiction arguments, I can’t recall ever having heard one used seriously and not fallaciously.
im sorry, which Stirner are you talking about? as you well know there was never and could never be a Stirner that prevailed through a period of time of which we can talk.
I was already a quasi-Aristotilian material reductionist before I had heard of Stirner, but I do consider him to be the most consistent and rounded arguer of amoral egoism and its application to ideology, society and behaviour. He also had an implicitly anti-dualist notion of the self, IE a reductionist self. Stirner aimed to please, “The whole chap, the spirit and the bodily man.”
Yes, that’s because the ‘performative contradiction’ in the hands of the menschen is like the way they use dialectical reasoning - they quickly turn it into vulgar parodies disconnected with the actual argument but rhetorically evocative.
I like what you said here. I may actually be of similar mind except I don’t think the world is only inorganic and biological, do you? I also think the world involves social and intellectual patterns as long as humans and other animals (some have social patterns, I’m not ready to say whether other animals have intellect yet). I also find the world to be dynamic.