On my view, what people are doing in that situation is making up a reason to "explain" why they did the behavior they did — Terrapin Station

From this statement it appears you don't accept that a person can engage in self-examination to learn more about his past behavior.

And that is if the antecedent brain states are even causal to the behavior in question. Again, I don't buy determinism. — Terrapin Station

You don't believe that brain states (thoughts) can cause behaviors?

From this statement it appears you don't accept that a person can engage in self-examination to learn more about his past behavior. — ZzzoneiroCosm

They're not going to learn something like, "I did x because I think y," where at the time they did x, T1, there was no thought like y present to their consciousness. They'd be making up the notion, at time T2, that they thought y at time T1 (but they just weren't aware of it at T1). It's a fiction.

You don't believe that brain states cause behavior? — ZzzoneiroCosm

They can, but they don't necessarily. There's no reason to believe that some events can't occur acausally (including probabilistically but not ultimately causally).

In what way do you see society as involved in this? — Terrapin Station

It's a well-known phenomenon and as clear as it needs to be. It even has its own wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization

It's a fiction. — Terrapin Station

That's a dogmatic assertion that you can't possibly defend (except with more dogma).

They'd be making up the notion, at time T2, that they thought y at time T1 (but they just weren't aware of it at T1). It's a fiction. — Terrapin Station

Is this your belief or is this the absolute truth of the situation?

It's a well-known phenomenon and as clear as it needs to be. It even has its own wikipedia page — ZzzoneiroCosm

Sure. so how would you finish this sentence: "Socialization mediates biological identity by ________"?

That's a dogmatic assertion that you can't possibly defend (except with more dogma). — ZzzoneiroCosm

The way it's defended is that there's zero evidence of y being present at T1. There would need to be some evidence of it being present at T1 in order to not say it's a fiction.

Is this your belief or is this the absolute truth of the situation? — ZzzoneiroCosm

"Absolute truth" is a nonsensical phrase. There's no reason to believe that something else is the case in lieu of any evidence that something else is the case.

Sure. so how would you finish this sentence: "Socialization mediates biological identity by ________"? — Terrapin Station

...the process of internalizing the norms and ideologies of society. Socialization encompasses both learning and teaching and is thus "the means by which social and cultural continuity are attained".[1]:5[2]

Socialization is strongly connected to developmental psychology.[3] Humans need social experiences to learn their culture and to survive.[4]

Socialization essentially represents the whole process of learning throughout the life course and is a central influence on the behavior, beliefs, and actions of adults as well as of children.[5][6]

Socialization may lead to desirable outcomes—sometimes labeled "moral"—as regards the society where it occurs. Individual views are influenced by the society's consensus and usually tend toward what that society finds acceptable or "normal". Socialization provides only a partial explanation for human beliefs and behaviors, maintaining that agents are not blank slates predetermined by their environment;[7] scientific research provides evidence that people are shaped by both social influences and genes.[8][9][10][11]

Genetic studies have shown that a person's environment interacts with his or her genotype to influence behavioral outcomes.[12]


Wiki

...the process of internalizing the norms and ideologies of society. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Wouldn't an important part of that be semantics?

The way it's defended is that there's zero evidence of y being present at T1. There would need to be some evidence of it being present at T1 in order to not say it's a fiction. — Terrapin Station

There's plenty of evidence vis-a-vis the continuity of personality.

Through self-examination I discover that at T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X.

Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was at play at that time as well.

There's plenty of evidence vis-a-vis the continuity of personality. — ZzzoneiroCosm

First, what does "the continuity of personality" even refer to, exactly, in terms of observables?

First, what does "the continuity of personality" even refer to, exactly, in terms of observables? — Terrapin Station

To this:

Through self-examination I discover that at T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X.

Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was at play at that time as well.

How are you defining "personality" then, because that doesn't seem to resemble any conventional definition of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality

Explain what you take issue with in this scenario:

Through self-examination I discover that at T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X.

Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was in play at that time as well.

Put more precisely:

At T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X. Thought pattern X was present and conscious at T2, T3, T4 and T5.

Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was in play at that time as well.

So if you're defining "personality" conventionally, this:
===================================
To this:

Through self-examination I discover that at T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X.

Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was at play at that time as well.
===================================
Has nothing to do with "continuity of personality"

Explain what you take issue with in this scenario: — ZzzoneiroCosm

We're getting to it. I won't do more than one "issue" at a time. You mentioned "continuity of personality" first. And you just introduced a whole host of other issues that we have to cover first, because we're now much further away from talking about how observables would count as "continuity of personality" than we were a few steps ago.

So if you're defining "personality" conventionally, this:
===================================
To this:

Through self-examination I discover that at T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X.

Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was at play at that time as well.
===================================
Has nothing to do with "continuity of personality" — Terrapin Station

Okay. I disagree but it's not important. Moving on.


Please explain what you take issue with in this scenario:

At T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X. Thought-pattern X was present and conscious at T2, T3, T4 and T5.

Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was in play at that time as well.

Okay, we can do this instead:

At T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's a claim. What is the evidence for the claim?

That's a claim. What is the evidence for the claim? — Terrapin Station

Thought-pattern X was present and conscious at T2, T3, T4 and T5. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It was conscious at those times? Okay. And we're saying that to that person's mind, at those times, they acted in such and such way because of thought-pattern x?

It was conscious at those times? Okay. And we're saying that to that person's mind, at those times, they acted in such and such way because of thought-pattern x? — Terrapin Station

Not necessarily because of. Possibly because of. Definitely in correlation with.

It's correlated with it if it's present sure.

Okay, so at another time, where X isn't consciously present, we're saying that it was unconsciously present because we believe in induction (with respect to sameness) strongly enough when there's similarity that we're willing to posit thoughts that we aren't aware of?

How would this be different, by the way, than saying:

On occasions 1, 2, 3 and 4, when I shook Joe's car, the alarm went off.

On occasion 5, I shook Joe's car, but I didn't hear the alarm. That must mean that the alarm went off, only in a hidden or silent way.

That would be making a similarly absurd move because of a belief in induction and an unwillingness to deal with non-"neat" data/scenarios.

Okay, so at another time, where X isn't present, we're saying that it was because we believe in induction strongly enough when there's similarity that we're willing to posit thoughts that we aren't aware of? — Terrapin Station

I might substitute "conscious" for "present".

And instead of "thoughts that we aren't aware of" I might say "unconscious cognitive structures that may or may not give rise to conscious thought-pattern X." It's the same to say thought-pattern X is "in play." via "unconscious cognitive structures."

The power of attention comes into play here.

How would this be different, by the way, than saying:

On occasions 1, 2, 3 and 4, when I shook Joe's car, the alarm went off.

On occasion 5, I shook Joe's car, but I didn't hear the alarm. That must mean that the alarm went off, only in a hidden or silent way. — Terrapin Station

It's different because car alarms aren't minds. It's not a precise or useful analogy.

I might substitute "conscious" for "present". — ZzzoneiroCosm

I edited that quickly after I wrote it, by the way.

There are no unconscious cognitive structures.

It's different because car alarms aren't minds. It's not a precise or useful analogy. — ZzzoneiroCosm

So if we make an analogy between A and B, if anything is different ontologically when it comes to A and B, there's a problem with the analogy?

There are no unconscious cognitive structures. — Terrapin Station

Are there unconscious brainstates?