An Ethical Thought Experiment with respect to Dissociative Identity

[infinia]

Originally Posted by thadman

Under such circumstances, would not multiple, distinct awarenesses exist (as per the definition)? If we admit this, we must also admit them as multiple, distinct individuals as we previously defined individuals as the awareness of themselves. After all, they have their own pattern of perceiving and interacting with the environment (ie a distinct subjective reality, a distinct awareness) as per the definition of Dissociative Identity.
?

Hi
Does "dissociative identity' relate mostly to a medical condition in and of itself in a single individual and usually appears along with other symptoms ie being co-morbid or indicative of other personality disorders. I think the symptoms of dissociative identity' can be treated with combination of medications, psychotherapy, and stress reduction. Besides the the other identities are usually just regressed or emotionally stunted versions of the primary personality.

The film Blue Velvet has some of these characters in it I think.

[picowallspeaker]

Just got hypnotized by that smilie , Infinia !

[infinia]

Originally Posted by picowallspeaker

Just got hypnotized by that smilie , Infinia !

Hi PicoWS
Starring at it too long or thinking about all this "stuff" can have the same effect.

[picowallspeaker]

I remember only the firt sequence of Blue Velvet !
What about Michael Gordy's movie starring Jim Carrey ?
My other head on the shoulder ( the ugly one ) suggests to go in this direction
and keep it simple otherwise going in deep waters the returning to surface and discover the mud ...
BTW is no good to report our dreams , but this night i dreamed of connecting all my speakers together ...Wow! Nice ones indeed , and good cable gear!

[thadman]

For further resolution on this subject, let us consider a person with multiple personalities such as I have previously described. Let's say he's Frank half the time, and Tom for the other 12 hours of every day. Each consciousness is completely self-contained, and there is absolute memory loss in the transitions.

Could we then say that Frank dies every day? His consciousness is completely erased and over written. His "awareness" no longer is?

If we admitted that the individual is only awareness (ie consciousness), then our conclusion will be true.

A similar analogy (from Dissociative Identity) can be applied to dreaming.

Does a person cease to exist when he is dreaming (active subconscious, inactive conscious) and in possession of existence when he is lucid dreaming (active subconscious and conscious)?

A few thoughts:

Could multiple personalities exist simultaneously (possibly in different dimensions) within the subconscious, but singularly within the conscious aspects under any circumstances?

What could we say about the human mind if we consider it capable of wiping out one personality, creating another, and then re-creating the original? Would there not have to be some kind of underlying code?

Some might suggest that the mind may function as a complex network, where the subconscious allocates different consciousnesses depending on the circumstances it considers as relevant (Timothy Leary’s 8 Circuits of Consciousness?)

Let us suppose for a moment, you are driving down a country road with your friend and you are having a discussion. Your body is able to simultaneously control the vehicle (and is aware of the cars around you, stoplights, etc) while allowing you to have a discussion with your friend.

For persons placed under hypnosis, a situation exists where they are able to be convinced that they are blind, and are no longer in possession of sight. They are, however, able to respond to visual stimulus, without being in possession of sight. How is this possible? It may be, because the subconscious is simply making the conscious aware of things it determines as relevant.

This can be drawn analogous to the chef whom utilizes distinct culinary instruments in his kitchen (stove, blender, knife, etc) for distinct tasks (cooking, mixing, chopping, etc)

Within the statement “All men are created equal”, the term “men” is ill defined. Are they referring to the conscious individual or the subconscious?

Some might suggest that just because the individual (awareness) believes he may have two different personalities, he is still just one person, not persons sharing a body.

Under what reference frame should rights considered to be significant, that is “to serve a purpose”?

To quote Thomas Hobbes treatise “The Leviathan”

Originally Posted by The Leviathan

“Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.
And as to the faculties of the mind, setting aside the arts grounded upon words, and especially that skill of proceeding upon general and infallible rules, called science, which very few have and but in few things, as being not a native faculty born with us, nor attained, as prudence, while we look after somewhat else, I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. For prudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they equally apply themselves unto.”

Are not rocks indifferent to your opinion of them? Are they able to even perceive your opinion? Do they differentiate with respect to your behavior? If you tossed one leisurely into a pond or if you hurled one into a plane of concrete, would it not be indifferent? Are rocks able to act in a similar capacity to a man as defined able by Hobbes? Are they able to communicate amongst themselves?

The individuals within a society function as a network. We can demonstrate this with the aid of an example.

Let us suppose an individual lived singularly on a deserted Island. He would be responsible for his own water, food and shelter. He would be left with these tasks all of his days, whether they be fishing, collecting coconuts, or building a hut. He would have little time for leisure and many would suggest his life undesirable.

Let us now suppose that three individuals lived together on a deserted island. The first individual might be responsible for the water (gathering coconuts, collecting rainwater), the second might be responsible for the food (hunting, fishing, etc), and the third might be responsible for building and maintaining the shelter (collecting firewood, replacing worn members of the shelter’s structure, etc). The allocation of these tasks among the individuals is arbitrary. Assuming they all fulfilled their specific tasks, they may have more time for leisure and many would suggest their lives as more desirable relative to the singular individual because of this.

Let us now suppose the first individual murders the second and third individuals in order to gain more water/food. Would not the network cease to function efficiently, specifically would it not return to the state of the singular individual?

What determines the interaction between the individuals living on the island? (hint: Rights)

We may conclude that rights exist for the purpose of maintaining the harmonious interaction between the individuals living on the island. This is analogous to logic, which is implemented within a computer’s operating system to maintain the harmonious interaction between of all of the parts of the computer, whether include the CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc.

The singular individual, however, is not in possession of rights. They serve no purpose, for he is not functioning within a network.

Rights are irrelevant with regards to things lacking consciousness. They serve no purpose under the aforementioned circumstances, for they are unable to organize and communicate amongst themselves and thus form a network.

We may reach the conclusion that only conscious individuals existing within a society (ie awareness) are in possession of rights.

Had we not already defined people as the awareness of themselves distinct from the body? If multiple awarenesses exist and function within the network (ie society), would these not be multiple individuals in possession of the aforementioned “rights” inherent to the realization of harmonious interaction within the network?

A little math,

If P=A,
Then cA=cP

where P=Person, A=Awareness, and c=arbitrary constant

[infinia]

I think an individual exists with only with both his conscience and unconscious life intact, they cannot be treated as separate entities. Some individuals operate more in the unconscious or dream state during waking hours. Some other individuals have more conscience or awareness than others but they all should be equal in a civilized state. We need dreamers and realists just as much, me thinks. I'm not sure what the point of 2 different consciences or individuals in the same body or the doppelganger in time spaces ideas is going for tho. Maybe its leftover from the title of "dissociative identity" that's creating a conflict of thoughts.

I think a more interesting idea is that if an individual could have a conscience that conflicts with the unconscious in diametric extremes. What would that look like in real life?

[picowallspeaker]

There's also the unpopular "reptile" style of managing life ,when people find themselves united to a goal that is mere possession and supremacy. Many things have concurred to set the establishment we see , as we are now limited to see a very narrow angle . It's quite unpleasant to dip our feet in polluted waters , but the people who let oil tanks to sink in the ocean are still around.
The body dies , we let just enter what anything good comes around to our mind and try to elevate it . The result is what we call humanity.

[PeteMcK]

'Could we then say that Frank dies every day? His consciousness is completely erased and over written. His "awareness" no longer is?'
no, he dies every second - for consciousness, there is no such thing as 'is', only 'becoming'
- Heisenberg's uncertainty principle may be relevant? (but that is itself a cultural construct...)

[7n7is]

Check out these experiences over here

video on sleep paralysis and entities... this is really good - Mysticism & the Paranormal - Shroomery Message Board

Sleep Paralysis - Mysticism & the Paranormal - Shroomery Message Board