Ok, I'm behind in my posts but I'm going to try to catch back up.
For Reading: http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/WhereAmI.html
A standard interpretation of Dennett’s “Where Am I?” is that it is a clever story intended to help us see that the self may not be a discrete, particular thing (like a soul or a brain) with well-defined boundaries that individuate it from all other things. It may, instead, be a train or series of overlapping, interconnected psychological events that keep “handing off” conscious awareness to a new sequence of psychological events in a manner akin to a long line of dominoes where the ones up the line pass along the activity of falling to those down the line. And just as the line of falling dominoes can split into two or more lines of falling dominoes, the series of psychological events that constitute the self may, under the right circumstances, split into two or more continuous lines of conscious experience. In fact, the dominoes metaphor nicely captures another aspect of Dennett’s piece. Whereas the line of dominoes may begin with dominoes of the standard shape and size constructed out of wood, there is no reason the line couldn’t come to include dominoes with non-standard shapes and sizes made out of many different materials. Similarly-Dennett’s suggestion goes-the sequence of conscious experiences may begin in a brain but pass on to a computer (or some other sort of device we haven’t yet imagined).
What evidence do you find to support this interpretation of Dennett’s story? (Can you think of a better interpretation?) What do you think is gained by thinking of the self as a discrete, particular thing with well-defined boundaries-a thing that is what it is and cannot be any other? What is gained by thinking of it as sequence of psychologically connected events that can pass from a brain to a computer or that can divide and go on in two different directions?
MY ANSWER:
Segments of the interpretation described the parts of psychological events being passed along like falling dominoes as an analogy for the "overlapping" and interconnecting psychological events. The evidence for this interpretation is found throughout the entire essay. It begins (from the reader's view) when Dennett is proposed with the surgery and reasons for the operation (the deactivation of the warhead in Tulsa, OK). Had Dennett not gone through with the process and consequences of accepting the challenge, he would not have been self-assured of what his "self" was as described toward the end of the story. (In the beginning, Dennett clearly had "self" issues between Yorick and Hamlet.)
The interpretation goes further to describe the dominoes splitting in two directions and falling into dominoes of different materials. This idea mirrors perfectly Dennett's experience. Had not Dennett start off as a natural born - biological being and change, physically, to another body and a computerized brain? Yet, his essential "self" remained, just like the driving force of the dominoes.
People believe that because the brain and mind are so complex that nothing can compare to it. That with its boundaries and limitation, nothing can copy it, nothing can copy that person, or their "selves." Because of this belief, people gain an inner confidence that (well, besides identity theft) they are who they are and no one can change that. But how can one really have that inner confidence without being tested as Dennett was? It's one of those faith issues, similar to religious faith, that people gain and maintain that inner confidence/ knowledge of their "self."
The first idea to come to mind by thinking that the "self" is a sequence of psychologically connected events that can pass from brain to a computer or divide in two different directions is that the person is bipolar. For in reality, it is impossible for a person's mind to be split or to pass memories and functions to something other than a brain and be society’s definition of sane. But if there was a way, would everyone be able to be as assured of their "selves" as Dennett was? Would people be able to live as long (or short) as they wished? As this scientific way of living evolved, would people have a choice as to whether or not they have the option of a brain and computer back up or just their brain? Would it be one more way that the government could control people? Who’s to say that someone might implant memories to your brain and how would you know?
