What's interesting about the personal vs subpersonal distinction?

rei December 04, 2018 at 01:30 2825 views 4 comments

What is everyone's stance on the topic? Personally, I feel as if it's quite interesting, and works well to connect other disciplines with philosophy (such as neuroscience). I do know that many don't find it to be that useful or necessary, though.

Comments (4)

Fuzzball Baggins December 04, 2018 at 12:53 #233487 0 likes

I find it interesting to wonder about at what level of complexity consciousness arises. If you look at things from the subpersonal view, the separate parts of the brain don't seem to be conscious, there doesn't seem to be one particular brain activity that causes consciousness, and yet when you combine all the parts and look at a person as a whole they are conscious.

Terrapin Station December 04, 2018 at 18:43 #233549 0 likes

Well, the only way I can really make sense of Dennett's distinction is that it's simply another term for third versus first-person perspectives.

Maybe you have something else in mind for the distinction, though?

Terrapin Station December 04, 2018 at 18:45 #233550 0 likes

Quoting Fuzzball Baggins

If you look at things from the subpersonal view, the separate parts of the brain don't seem to be conscious,

Well, although people can be conscious with parts of their brains removed or damaged. So that at least tells us that those parts, minus the missing/damaged bits, can be conscious.

RosettaStoned January 16, 2019 at 17:48 #246698 0 likes

Reply to rei It's interesting because things that aren't even alive, like T4 and the like, appear to have some sort of complex thinking structure. A lot of beings seem to be more capable of rational thought than we give them credit for, and it makes me wish that we had a way of communicating with them. I would also like to mention Henrietta Lacks. Is "she" still alive? Is her soul still in her cells? Are her cells even her at all anymore?