Wolfy wrote:
But aren't our memories, perceived personality aspects of what construct our sense of self?

Interesting stuff btw.

I'd been going to add - along the same lines as Oi - memories erased, I would still be the same personality to a large extent, in that the same things would amuse / irritate / inspire / scare me. It has no bearing that I can see on submission of will.

Gilly wrote:
Depends on the level of amnesia.

But for the sake of this debate, imagine you were completely wiped of personality.

So that Gilly, as an entity, was no more.

You would still exist, right?

Wolfy wrote:
But existing isn't the same as having a sense of self. You/we/I would still suffer the human condition and would have a sense of being human but no sense of distinct individuality.

Yes, I would still be me, myself and I. And me, myself, I would still be fairly important to me, myself, I. What about it?

Gilly wrote:
You wouldn't.

Gilly as a "mind" entity wouldn't exist.

Scary isn't it?

Wolfy wrote:
You've not even proved to my satisfaction that amnesia would cause the person as an entity to no longer exist, let alone that it's scary, or that it has any bearing on submission.

Yes. I also think the people with dementia, while not here, are somewhere else, if you know what I mean.

It's OK what you're saying is interesting. We don't have to agree.

"Where is a baby if not where they are?" - please could you explain, as I'm not sure what you're getting at.


It seems you're suggesting that survival in some kind of vacant, vegetative state is fine, but imo, if you don't have the mind, to analyse experience, that existence seems pretty pointless to me, so I'd still argue that the self awareness is pretty important.

Gilly wrote: Wolfy wrote:
Well no, I think the person with dementia is experiencing thoughts maybe as you would while you're dreaming. I never said they lose their personality. They may not be able to comprehend what's going on around them or communicate in the same manner, but that doesn't mean the individual essence of them no longer exists. (Dunno if that's technically true btw, or just an assumption on my part).

That's entirely different to a baby's situation, surely? Babies are drinking in the external stimuli and analysing & learning from it constantly while awake.
Wolfy wrote:
I don' think so. You're more than memories & DNA. People have personality traits - sense of humour; aversions; levels of ability; things they enjoy.
Wolfy wrote:
Of course not, and nor have I implied anything to that effect.

Wolfy wrote:
Do you think a child is in a vegetative state?

Do you not think that a child finds a frog just as fascinating, if not more, than an adult who knows that it is an amphibian and it is green?

Gilly Wrote
Of course not, and nor have I implied anything to that effect

It seems you're suggesting that survival in some kind of vacant, vegetative state is fine, but imo, if you don't have the mind, to analyse experience, that existence seems pretty pointless to me, so I'd still argue that the self awareness is pretty important

feather wrote: Then I presume that you have no belief in a soul?

A baby's mind is the exact opposite of the vacant, vegetative state. I've already said that.

I'm not convinced that someone with dementia could necessarily be described as being in a vacant, vegetative state either. While they're not interacting in their physical world, do we know what they're experiencing in their minds?

And yes, in my point of view, physical existence without the mind to think and recognise emotions etc etc is pointless. I'm also not accepting that without the body the mind can't exist.So, that's where our perceptions differ.

Wolfy wrote: You're going to have to clearly define that please.
Then I can give an honest response.