Metacognitive Reading Report # 2

GED101 – Understanding the Self

Prof. John Mark H. Villanueva

Name: Sañosa, Carl Angelo C. Section: A15 Date Submitted: 11/16/19

In our everyday lives, we have a choice whether what to do in our ordinary day. Whether
we have work to do and errands to finish. Bond with friends and families. We always think of
something new to make our day memorable, exciting, and productive in a way that we won’t
bother getting tired the whole day. And we execute those things by using our body. So, that gives
us the idea that our body won’t function without our mind. And that what we think isn’t possible
without the help of our body to do it. In “Ryle’s behaviorist view of mind” by Jeff Speaks, it
gives the idea of how Gilbert Ryle, a British philosopher who was also influenced by some of the
well-known philosophers like Rene Descartes and Ludwig Wittgenstein, view the “mind” that
people ought to see as only a “part” of our body. Based on what I have read and understood upon
reading “Ryle’s behaviorist view of mind”, it made me realize the importance of both body, and
mind. That even after death, a person’s mind may still function and exist. Human bodies being a
subject in mechanical laws while the mind are operations subject to mechanical laws. Another is
the Cartesian view as a category mistake. In this part of the reading, Ryle said that dualism is
also some sort of a mistake which he called a “category mistake”. That makes it hard to define
but easy to give examples. And based on the examples given, the “category mistake” is the
construction of something that is also based on that same thing. So, to conclude things up, being
able to define a certain object in a population relates on how the mind functions and on what
mind really is.

Now, we have known self for being our self literally. Only us know our own self. Its ours
that no person can truly know and understand. That self can only be defined by the person who is
asking his own self. But in “A Biological Definition of Self” by Dr. Aaron Blaisdell, a professor
in Binghamton University, emphasized how self can be defined biologically. He first stated how
psychology in science stand out of a branch of philosophy mainly about understanding the mind.
Then defined psychology as the study of mental health. Then later on told the rise and fall of
consciousness to the scientific playing field. But as consciousness rose again, he chose not to
define consciousness but, he said that he will attempt to provide a useful definition of what “self”
is. Then now, based on what I have read, self, biologically speaking, is defined by the
replicator’s ultimate objective, and that is, replication. Meaning, self is like when the first
nucleotide sequence was replicated. It is a conscious or a non-conscious that protects the
boundary within the replicating machinery contained. That the self that we know is also our
replicators. We can also relate it to different kinds of living things like the crustaceans who not
only able replicate the sequence but also did replicate its own sequence. More complex selves
began replicating “themselves” and alongside it is also the construction of the barriers between
the nucleotide machinery and the channel used where the sequence occurred. Now to conclude it
all, self is generally still can be defined by which aspect we choose to define it. But when it talks
about biology, we can consider many aspects like what is discussed by Dr. Aaron Blaisdell. Or
any other science-based definition of self. Self is still an unknown theory that even science is
being challenged by its capabilities upon defining what “self” really is.