|
5515
|
Imaginary cases are good for revealing our beliefs, rather than the truth [Parfit]
|
|
Full Idea:
I believe it is worth considering imaginary cases (such as Teletransportation), as we can use them to discover, not what the truth is, but what we believe.
|
|
From:
Derek Parfit (The Unimportance of Identity [1995], p.293)
|
|
A reaction:
The trouble is that we might say that IF I were suddenly turned into a pig, then I would come to believe in dualism, but that will not and cannot happen, because dualism is false. It seems essential to accept the natural possibility of the case.
|
|
5516
|
Reduction can be by identity, or constitution, or elimination [Parfit, by PG]
|
|
Full Idea:
We can distinguish Identifying Reductionism (as in 'persons are bodies'), or Constitutive Reductionism (as in 'persons are distinct, but consist of thoughts etc.'), or Eliminative Reductionism (as in 'there are no persons, only thoughts etc.').
|
|
From:
report of Derek Parfit (The Unimportance of Identity [1995], p.295) by PG - Db (ideas)
|
|
A reaction:
Constitutive Reductionism seems the most common one, as in 'chemistry just consists of lots of complicated physics'. He doesn't mention bridge laws, which are presumably only required in more complicated cases of constitutive reduction.
|
|
5514
|
Psychologists are interested in identity as a type of person, but philosophers study numerical identity [Parfit]
|
|
Full Idea:
When psychologists discuss identity, they are typically concerned with the kind of person someone is, or wants to be (as in an 'identity crisis'). But when philosophers discuss identity, it is numerical identity they mean.
|
|
From:
Derek Parfit (The Unimportance of Identity [1995], p.293)
|
|
A reaction:
I think it is important to note that the philosophical problem breaks down into two areas: whether I have numerical identity with myself over time, and whether other people have it. It may be that two different sets of criteria will emerge.
|
|
5521
|
If my brain-halves are transplanted into two bodies, I have continuity, and don't need identity [Parfit]
|
|
Full Idea:
If the two halves of my brain are transplanted into different bodies just like mine, they cannot both be me, since that would make them the same person. ..But my relation to these two contains everything that matters, so identity is not what matters.
|
|
From:
Derek Parfit (The Unimportance of Identity [1995], p.314)
|
|
A reaction:
I challenge his concept of what 'matters'. He has a rather solipsistic view of the problem, and I take Parfit to be a rather unsociable person, since his friends and partner will be keenly interested in the identities of the new beings.
|
|
1392
|
If we split like amoeba, we would be two people, neither of them being us [Parfit]
|
|
Full Idea:
In the case of the man who, like an amoeba, divides….we can suggest that he survives as two different people without implying that he is those people.
|
|
From:
Derek Parfit (Personal Identity [1971], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
Maybe an amoeba is a homogeneous substance for which splitting is insignificant, but when a person has certain parts that are totally crucial, splitting them is catastrophic, and quite different. I'm not sure that splitting a self would leave persons.
|
|
5519
|
It is fine to save two dying twins by merging parts of their bodies into one, and identity is irrelevant [Parfit]
|
|
Full Idea:
If I am largely paralysed, and my twin brother is dying of brain disease, then if the operation to graft my head onto his body is offered, I should accept the operation, and it is irrelevant whether this person would be me.
|
|
From:
Derek Parfit (The Unimportance of Identity [1995], p.308)
|
|
A reaction:
Parfit notes that the brain is a particularly significant part of the process. The fact that I might cheerfully accept this offer without philosophical worries doesn't get rid of the question 'who is this person?' Who should they remain married to?
|
|
5520
|
If two humans are merged surgically, the new identity is a purely verbal problem [Parfit]
|
|
Full Idea:
If there is someone with my head and my brother's body, it is a merely verbal question whether that person will be me, and that is why, even if it won't be me, that doesn't matter. ..What matters is not identity, but the facts of which identity consists.
|
|
From:
Derek Parfit (The Unimportance of Identity [1995], p.310)
|
|
A reaction:
It strikes me that from the subjective psychological point of view identity is of little interest, but from the objective external viewpoint (e.g. the forensic one) such questions are highly significant, and rightly so.
|
|
1391
|
Concern for our own lives isn't the source of belief in identity, it is the result of it [Parfit]
|
|
Full Idea:
Egoism, and the fear not of near but of distant death, and the regret that so much of one's life should have gone by - these are not, I think, wholly natural or instinctive. They are strengthened by a false belief in stable identity.
|
|
From:
Derek Parfit (Personal Identity [1971], §6)
|
|
A reaction:
This raises some very nice questions, about the extent to which various aspects of self-concern are instinctive and natural, or culturally induced, and even totally misguided and false. I can worry about the distant death of my guinea pig, or my grandson.
|
|
20014
|
Actions include: the involuntary, the purposeful, the intentional, and the self-consciously autonomous [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are different levels of action, including at least: unconscious and/or involuntary behaviour, purposeful or goal-directed activity, intentional action, and the autonomous acts or actions of self-consciously active human agents.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
The fourth class is obviously designed to distinguish us from the other animals. It immediately strikes me as very optimistic to distinguish four (at least) clear categories, but you have to start somewhere.
|
|
20019
|
Maybe bodily movements are not actions, but only part of an agent's action of moving [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some say that the movement's of agent's body are never actions. It is only the agent's direct moving of, say, his leg that constitutes a physical action; the leg movement is merely caused by and/or incorporated as part of the act of moving.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1.2)
|
|
A reaction:
[they cite Jennifer Hornsby 1980] It seems normal to deny a twitch the accolade of an 'action', so I suppose that is right. Does the continual movement of my tongue count as action? Only if I bring it under control? Does it matter? Only in forensics.
|
|
20021
|
Is the action the arm movement, the whole causal process, or just the trying to do it? [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Some philosophers have favored the overt arm movement the agent performs, some favor the extended causal process he initiates, and some prefer the relevant event of trying that precedes and 'generates' the rest.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1.2)
|
|
A reaction:
[Davidson argues for the second, Hornsby for the third] There seems no way to settle this, and a compromise looks best. Mere movement won't do, and mere trying won't do, and whole processes get out of control.
|
|
20022
|
To be intentional, an action must succeed in the manner in which it was planned [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
If someone fires a bullet to kill someone, misses, and dislodges hornets that sting him to death, this implies that an intentional action must include succeeding in a manner according to the original plan.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[their example, compressed] This resembles Gettier's problem cases for knowledge. If the shooter deliberately and maliciously brought down the hornet's nest, that would be intentional murder. Sounds right.
|
|
20023
|
If someone believes they can control the lottery, and then wins, the relevant skill is missing [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
If someone enters the lottery with the bizarre belief that they can control who wins, and then wins it, that suggest that intentional actions must not depend on sheer luck, but needs competent exercise of the relevant skill.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice companion to Idea 20022, which show that a mere intention is not sufficient to motivate and explain an action.
|
|
20025
|
We might intend two ways to acting, knowing only one of them can succeed [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
If an agent tries to do something by two different means, only one of which can succeed, then the behaviour is rational, even though one of them is an attempt to do an action which cannot succeed.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[a concise account of a laborious account of an example from Bratman 1984, 1987] Bratman uses this to challenge the 'Simple View', that intention leads straightforwardly to action.
|
|
20031
|
On one model, an intention is belief-desire states, and intentional actions relate to beliefs and desires [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
On the simple desire-belief model, an intention is a combination of desire-belief states, and an action is intentional in virtue of standing in the appropriate relation to these simpler terms.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 4)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the traditional view found in Hume, and is probably endemic to folk psychology. They cite Bratman 1987 as the main opponent of the view.
|
|
20028
|
Groups may act for reasons held by none of the members, so maybe groups are agents [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Rational group action may involve a 'collectivising of reasons', with participants acting in ways that are not rationally recommended from the individual viewpoint. This suggests that groups can be rational, intentional agents.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[Pettit 2003] is the source for this. Gilbert says individuals can have joint commitment; Pettit says the group can be an independent agent. The matter of shared intentions is interesting, but there is no need for the ontology to go berserk.
|
|
20027
|
If there are shared obligations and intentions, we may need a primitive notion of 'joint commitment' [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
An account of mutual obligation to do something may require that we give up reductive individualist accounts of shared activity and posit a primitive notion of 'joint commitment'.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
[attributed to Margaret Gilbert 2000] If 'we' are trying to do something, that seems to give an externalist picture of intentions, rather like all the other externalisms floating around these days. I don't buy any of it, me.
|
|
20018
|
Strong Cognitivism implies a mode of 'practical' knowledge, not based on observation [Wilson/Schpall]
|
|
Full Idea:
Strong Cognitivists say intentions/beliefs are not based on observation or evidence, and are causally reliable in leading to appropriate actions, so this is a mode of 'practical' knowledge that has not been derived from observation.
|
|
From:
Wilson,G/Schpall,S (Action [2012], 1.1)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed - Stanford unnecessarily verbose!] I see no mention in this discussion of 'hoping' that your action will turn out OK. We are usually right to hope, but it would be foolish to say that when we reach for the salt we know we won't knock it over.
|
|
9762
|
We should focus less on subjects of experience, and more on the experiences themselves [Parfit]
|
|
Full Idea:
It becomes more plausible, when thinking morally, to focus less upon the person, the subject of experiences, and instead to focus more upon the experiences themselves.
|
|
From:
Derek Parfit (Reasons and Persons [1984], §116)
|
|
A reaction:
This pinpoints how Parfit moves from a view of persons in terms of continuity of consciousness to a utilitarian morality. It brings out nicely what is wrong with utilitarianism - the reductio of a great ball of nice experiences, with no one having them.
|