Sybil supposedly had sixteen distinct personalities. “Curing” such patients by eliminating or merging their personalities isn’t obviously good: The cognitive fragmentation that characterizes DID [Dissociative Identity Disorder] far outstrips … self-deception and akrasia. Indeed, … it becomes difficult not to regard each alter as a distinct locus of experience, thought and agency. As Wilkes points out with respect to the Beauchamp case,
All this seems to assume that a person is defined by their personality- that if you eliminate a personality you kill somebody (as opposed to destroying a brain). Is there actual evidence for this?
“left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing”.And why is that? :)
Sounds like there is two independent controlling entities then...
There is actually physically two brains. Is the one conscious and the other one just is? They obviously have to work together to maintain motor function though (through the senses mostly)Also in very young patients both brains can develop speech abilities and there is sometimes quite apparently different personalities.In adult patients the one brain cannot communicate much because speech is localized in one of the hemispheres and is very hidden.
This has MUCH more evidence than DID which some claim have distinct persons, which experience consciousness etc.
Is it because they are conscious at the same time and the personalities is very similar twins and hidden, but definitely distinct, that they are somehow one?
I hadn't heard there were split personalities in that case, more "left hand doesn't know what the right is doing".
Dre: We might also regard property rights as status quo bias. I framed things in terms of "theft" and "stolen", where the original personality has primary rights to brain-time. In my view entities which are yet to exist have less ass-kicking ability, and that is the determining factor.
What about split brains, where the corpus callosum has been severed, I believe there are two distinct personalities in some persons. What if there is some way to cure severe epilepsy in the future and a way to reconnect the two hemispheres(and personalities)? Would that be murder?
In this case we actually have very good evidence for two persons in one rather than the very flaky case of “Sybil”.
Doug, the Borg were considered evil because they forcefully assimilated people against their will. Prior to the Voyager series, the Borg did not intentionally kill people. They simply forcefully assimilated them, and sometimes people died as a result of their resistance. The Borg prefer it if individuals live. When not assimilating individuals, they don't attack unless attacked themselves. Since DID probably frequently results in personalities permanently disappearing, this is quite similar. The Borg are DID of the first type because they have a queen. Many alters probably prefer not being integrated.
This looks like status quo bias, people assuming that having one mind per body must be optimal because its what we have now. I don't think there's a proper explanation of why the status quo is the best in the comments saying curing sybil isn't murder.
I don't know the underlying neurology, and it does seem like that is important, but if there were some way to have coordination between the personalities, I might consider getting some myself. It would open up interesting possibilities for comparative advantage within my brain.
I suspect that most of the problem with turning people into Borg came from the fact that the Borg were evil, and when people were assimilated, they became evil too. Furthermore, people who were assimilated and then un-assimilated usually report that they prefer the un-assimilated state. The Borg are not a collective I'd like to join, but maybe one with a better marketing department could induce me to sign up. ;)
1. No. But notice that I refrained from playing word hopscotch to convince myself that I somehow still have a meaningful opinion on the matter backed by sound reasoning.
2. Notice also what Robin refrained from doing.
3. ???
4. There are no "specifics" to your assertions. You just glued "skull packed with brain tissue" and "person" into one concept, and casually tagged "appearance of a single personality" with some unknown amount of positive affect via an appeal to "health" that I find wholly vacuous. If you're asserting that "they'll end up happier" is sufficient justification for thwarting a person's will, then I certainly disagree.
5. Those are good questions, but they're difficult to answer even apart from this particular edge case. Assuming we agree on what constitutes a person, I still don't think we can make much progress on the first without a solid answer to the question "Should each person be entitled to one vote in an election?". The second would probably depend on the rationale for the tax break - clearly the extra personalities aren't extra mouths to feed.
Steven,
I'm not quite sure what your initial claim is even supposed to mean. But what the hell: If you're a materialist, then you know that understanding a complex system often requires more than a simple catalogue of surface similarities. I accuse you of nascent behaviorism, sir.
Depends on how much these two different people enjoy their lives, the effect premature death will have on others, how productive they are in society, how much their murder will make everyone else fear for their security, etc.
1. Is it your field?2. It isn't Robin's field either. So should he not have it on his blog?3. Would you have preferred that I (falsely) claimed to speak authoritatively, rather than honestly state that this was not my area of expertise?4. Do you disagree with the specifics of my assertions? If so, what?5. BTW, while we are on the question of counting the number of people within one brain: Should those with this disorder be entitled to more than one vote in an election? Also, should they receive additional tax deductions, specifically for having more dependents?
All this seems to assume that a person is defined by their personality- that if you eliminate a personality you kill somebody (as opposed to destroying a brain). Is there actual evidence for this?
On your advice, I just finished reading this novel, and was pleased with it. Thanks!
It might be illuminating to ask each persona: if you could be transferred into a separate body, would you go?
“left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing”.And why is that? :)
Sounds like there is two independent controlling entities then...
There is actually physically two brains. Is the one conscious and the other one just is? They obviously have to work together to maintain motor function though (through the senses mostly)Also in very young patients both brains can develop speech abilities and there is sometimes quite apparently different personalities.In adult patients the one brain cannot communicate much because speech is localized in one of the hemispheres and is very hidden.
This has MUCH more evidence than DID which some claim have distinct persons, which experience consciousness etc.
Is it because they are conscious at the same time and the personalities is very similar twins and hidden, but definitely distinct, that they are somehow one?
This does not hold if you think about it.
I hadn't heard there were split personalities in that case, more "left hand doesn't know what the right is doing".
Dre: We might also regard property rights as status quo bias. I framed things in terms of "theft" and "stolen", where the original personality has primary rights to brain-time. In my view entities which are yet to exist have less ass-kicking ability, and that is the determining factor.
What about split brains, where the corpus callosum has been severed, I believe there are two distinct personalities in some persons. What if there is some way to cure severe epilepsy in the future and a way to reconnect the two hemispheres(and personalities)? Would that be murder?
In this case we actually have very good evidence for two persons in one rather than the very flaky case of “Sybil”.
Here is a good article about sybil.
http://www.astraeasweb.net/...
Elaine Showalter’s “Hystories” is a good book.
Now to show off my nerdiness...
Doug, the Borg were considered evil because they forcefully assimilated people against their will. Prior to the Voyager series, the Borg did not intentionally kill people. They simply forcefully assimilated them, and sometimes people died as a result of their resistance. The Borg prefer it if individuals live. When not assimilating individuals, they don't attack unless attacked themselves. Since DID probably frequently results in personalities permanently disappearing, this is quite similar. The Borg are DID of the first type because they have a queen. Many alters probably prefer not being integrated.
A collective mind *is* better - by a variety of metrics. That's why humans are currently busy forming collectives.
This looks like status quo bias, people assuming that having one mind per body must be optimal because its what we have now. I don't think there's a proper explanation of why the status quo is the best in the comments saying curing sybil isn't murder.
I don't know the underlying neurology, and it does seem like that is important, but if there were some way to have coordination between the personalities, I might consider getting some myself. It would open up interesting possibilities for comparative advantage within my brain.
I suspect that most of the problem with turning people into Borg came from the fact that the Borg were evil, and when people were assimilated, they became evil too. Furthermore, people who were assimilated and then un-assimilated usually report that they prefer the un-assimilated state. The Borg are not a collective I'd like to join, but maybe one with a better marketing department could induce me to sign up. ;)
And the trolley problem, once again, rears its ugly head...
Robert,
1. No. But notice that I refrained from playing word hopscotch to convince myself that I somehow still have a meaningful opinion on the matter backed by sound reasoning.
2. Notice also what Robin refrained from doing.
3. ???
4. There are no "specifics" to your assertions. You just glued "skull packed with brain tissue" and "person" into one concept, and casually tagged "appearance of a single personality" with some unknown amount of positive affect via an appeal to "health" that I find wholly vacuous. If you're asserting that "they'll end up happier" is sufficient justification for thwarting a person's will, then I certainly disagree.
5. Those are good questions, but they're difficult to answer even apart from this particular edge case. Assuming we agree on what constitutes a person, I still don't think we can make much progress on the first without a solid answer to the question "Should each person be entitled to one vote in an election?". The second would probably depend on the rationale for the tax break - clearly the extra personalities aren't extra mouths to feed.
Steven,
I'm not quite sure what your initial claim is even supposed to mean. But what the hell: If you're a materialist, then you know that understanding a complex system often requires more than a simple catalogue of surface similarities. I accuse you of nascent behaviorism, sir.
Depends on how much these two different people enjoy their lives, the effect premature death will have on others, how productive they are in society, how much their murder will make everyone else fear for their security, etc.
But it could certainly be good, yes.
1. Is it your field?2. It isn't Robin's field either. So should he not have it on his blog?3. Would you have preferred that I (falsely) claimed to speak authoritatively, rather than honestly state that this was not my area of expertise?4. Do you disagree with the specifics of my assertions? If so, what?5. BTW, while we are on the question of counting the number of people within one brain: Should those with this disorder be entitled to more than one vote in an election? Also, should they receive additional tax deductions, specifically for having more dependents?
I just added to the post.