Personal Identity

Question 1

Define same body theory of identity.

Answer 1

If someone has the same material substance over different times and places they are the same person.

Question 2

What is a person for Locke?

Answer 2

A person is the same thinking thing in different times and places.
We do this by our consciousness, which is inseparable from and essential to thinking.
Person refers to the rational thinking being we call the “self” that distinguishes us from other thinking things.

Question 3

Define “man” in reference to Locke.

Answer 3

Man is used to refer to living organisms.

Question 4

Define “substance” in reference to Locke.

Answer 4

Substances are non living things that are purely material.

Question 5

What is personal identity dependant on for Locke?

Answer 5

It is consciousness, preserved through memory, that constitutes personal identity in an individual or a succession of substances.
If an intelligent being can repeat past action or the idea of past action while having consciousness of its present action and of that past action, it is the same “self”.

Question 6

Define identity according to Locke.

Answer 6

When a thing is one thing rather then another.

Question 7

Outline Locke’s principle of individuation and its purpose.

Answer 7

(POI) Is that which makes something the same thing over time, and so what establishes a sense of identity in things across different times and places.
POI works on two principles: that one thing cannot be in two places at once, and that two things cannot occupy the same space.
The organisation of constantly changing material substances of the body into one continuous life is what establishes its POI.

Question 8

How does Locke say that even if our substances change we are still the same person?

Answer 8

If the substance, which is our body, is united at one time with all pieces. But then varied at another, with us losing a finger or other piece, we still have the same personal identity because their has been no change to our consciousness. Which is what personal identity is dependant on.

Question 9

Explain Locke’s thought experiment of the cobbler and the prince and its purpose.

Answer 9

The purpose of this is to show that the soul and consciousness are connected.
The souls of the prince and the cobbler swap. The prince would appear the same to everyone else as no material substance has be swapped, but the one inside the body of the prince would recognise he is the cobbler as he entertains the thoughts of the cobbler, not of the prince. This shows that thoughts accompany souls, as each person would still have the thoughts of their previous substance (the cobbler thinks like a prince and vice versa). As thinking is accompanying the soul this means that consciousness must also accompany the soul as it is inseparable and essential for thinking to take place.

Question 10

Does possessing the same soul as another make you that person according to Locke?

Answer 10

No. The possession of Steve’s soul does not make you Steve. You can only become Steve if you have consciousness of Steve’s experiences through memory, as it is consciousness (which accompanies the soul) preserved through memory that creates the self.

Question 11

Outline the implications of Locke’s idea of personal identity on the concept of responsibility.

Answer 11

If a consciousness/ person were to be separated from a body/ man, then that consciousness would have no responsibility for the actions of that body.

Question 12

Explain Locke’s thought experiment of the drunk/ sober man and its purpose.

Answer 12

P1: If one person has a different consciousness then another then they are not the same person.
P2: A sober man will have a different consciousness then that same man when drunk, as it will have been affected by the alcohol.
P3: As the sober man and drunk man do not have the same consciousness they are not the same person.
P4: It is wrong to punish one person for the actions of another.
C: So then the sober man should not be held responsible for the actions of the drunk man.
The purpose of this thought experiment is to show the implications of Locke’s views on personal identity on responsibility between different states of consciousness.

Question 13

Outline one major criticism and Locke’s response to it, in reference to the drunk/ sober man thought experiment.

Answer 13

Criticism: We have no way of telling truly the consciousness of any given man. It could be anyone at any time, because we have no objective way to measure it. So then we can never determine who holds responsibility for anything.
Locke’s response: Locke would agree that we have no actual way of knowing what a persons consciousness is at any given time, and so cannot ever determine responsibly. But we should in our laws, punish as if man and person were the same thing. Even though we can never actually know if their consciousness has responsibly, we should punish the man that does as this is the best we can do. True judgement will come on the “great day”.

Question 14

Explain the brave officer paradox as an objection to Locke.

Answer 14

A 12 year old boy steals apples, and is caught and flogged. This boy is the same as the 24 year old solider because he remembers the flogging. This solider grows into an old man. Who at 60 years old remembers his actions as a solider and so is that solider, but no longer remembers the flogging and so is not the boy. (A=B, B=C, C must = A. This is the axiom of transivity.)
This shows that consciousness through memory does not mean identity. Because we have demonstrated the old man is the same as the boy, even thought the old man has no consciousness of the boys actions as Locke claims is necessary to be someone.

Question 15

Explain the fallacy of circularity as an objection to Locke.

Answer 15

Locke says continuity of memory is necessary for personal identity. But we cannot have memory without personal identity because we cannot think of a memory without presupposing ourselves in it.
In this situation memory is needed to produce personal identity and personal identity is needed to produce memory.
But if memory is the basis of personal identity it cannot also be its producer, as this creates an infinite regression of requirements.

Question 16

Why does Nagel say a reductionist analysis of consciousness is impossible?

Answer 16

Reductionism/ materialism deals only in the objective. But consciousness deals with in the subjective nature. So in applying a purely materialist view to consciousness, it could not adequately explain consciousness. As the subjective cannot yet be explained in these objective terms.

Question 17

Define cognitive dissonance.

Answer 17

Holding two conflicting views simultaneously.

Question 18

Define the subjective experience in reference to Nagel.

Answer 18

This the experience gained from interaction that cannot be found in the brain (cannot find what it is like to see X in the brain). These are mental states, and so fit within brain states, but their is an element to them that cannot be analysed in brain states (cant be analysed in materialism).

Question 19

Explain Nagel’s thought experiment of what it is like to be a bat and its purpose.

Answer 19

Nagel says to think of a bat. It has sensory organs that are familiar to humans (ears, skin) but also functions through echolocation not sight, which is foreign to us and so by our lack of that function we can never understand it experience.
So when we ask “what is it like to be a bat?” any answer is incorrect. As we can only imagine what it would be like for us to be a bat, not the bats own experience of being a bat. Because we lack the function of echolocation the bat posses and so cannot truly understand this element. We can only imagine it.
The purpose of this thought experiment is to show that there exists a subjective dimension/ character to experience for each living organism and that we as humans have a limit to how much we can understand others subjective character.

Question 20

Why does Nagel use bats for his thought experiment?

Answer 20

Because bats are not so unrelated to humans that we can think they have no consciousness, by unrelated enough for us to not reasonably understand it.

Question 21

Why is our imagining what it is like to be a bat not enough to determine the bats subjective character of experience?

Answer 21

Our imagination is limited to our experiences. Since we have no experience of echolocation, we cannot imagine it. With this lack of experience any answer to the question would instead be what it is like for us to imagine to be bat, not what the bats own subjective character of experience is.

Question 22

Should we think that because we cannot describe the consciousness of other organisms it doesn’t exist according to Nagel?

Answer 22

No. The fact that we cannot expect to accommodate a detailed description of of the bats consciousness doesn’t mean that we should dismiss it.
As a Martian may have a full description of its own consciousness, but not be able to understand humans. Yet we know humans have it. So therefore just because we don’t understand the consciousness of an organism does not mean to say it does not have consciousness.

Question 23

How can we understand the consciousness of other humans and to what degree according to Nagel?

Answer 23

Because elements of our perception overlap across all of the variety of humans. Like hunger and thirst. Allowing us to understand the subjective character relative to the amount of overlapping perceptions we have with another.
Conversely we cannot ever fully understand the subjective character of a blind or deaf person because they do not have the experience of sight or sound.

Question 24

Does Nagel think that materialism is false?

Answer 24

No. Nothing is proved by the hypothesis that falsely assumes an objective analysis of the mind.
It could still be that everything can be reduced to physical constituents, its just that we are never going to be able to fully how know because we cannot understand the subjective character of experience.

Question 25

Explain Nagel's ultimate suggestion.

Answer 25

We are completely unable to think about the subjective character at the moment without using our imagination, which comes from experience we can never have. We need to devise a new language that can translate at least some elements of the subjective character into objective terms so that we can remove the requirement of experiences.

Question 26

Define a priori.

Answer 26

Knowledge before experience.

Question 27

Define a posteirori.

Answer 27

Knowledge after experience.

Question 28

Define a contingent fact.

Answer 28

Something that could be otherwise based on circumstance.

Question 29

Define analytic statements.

Answer 29

Statements like logic and math that analyse a concept and identify its parts. These are absolutely and necessarily true by its premises, and so not provide us with anything new to learn.

Question 30

Define synthetic statements.

Answer 30

These are statements that add something to the concepts, "synthesising" new ideas and facts that do not necessarily go together. Conclusions are not forced by the premises, they require proof.

Question 31

Explain Hume's fork.

Answer 31

For something to be considered knowledge it must fall into one of two categories: contingent (synthetic statements and a posterori), or necessary (analystic statements and a prori).

Question 32

Define impressions in reference to Hume.

Answer 32

Impressions are what we see, hear, love, hate, etc. These are vivid and forceful and we are aware of them when we have them.

Question 33

Define ideas in reference to Hume.

Answer 33

(Impressions cause ideas) Ideas are what our impressions are like when we remember them after the experience. From ideas we can fashion synthetic statements like "my chair is blue" that can be tested and ideas re experienced.

Question 34

Explain Hume's view that the self cannot exist.

Answer 34

Impressions give to ideas, so the idea of self must come from one single impression. But we only ever refer to other ideas and impressions. But we have no one impression or idea of self. P1: It must be one impression that gives rise to every single idea. P2: If any one impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably over time because we perceive our self to not change over time. P3: There is no one impression that is constant and invariable. C1: It cannot be from these impressions that the idea of self is derived. C2: There is no such idea as the self.

Question 35

Explain Hume's view that the self is a bundle of perceptions.

Answer 35

P1: We are constantly aware of our various perceptions. P2: We cannot experience "self" separate from any other perception. C1: The self is no single perception or separate from our own perceptions. C2: The self must be a bundle of perceptions that succeed each other rapidly that our mind fools us into thinking are one thing.

Question 36

Explain Hume's view on memory in the self.

Answer 36

Memories are all sperate impressions with no connections that can exist without the self. But the self cannot exist without memory, so it doesn't. It is only through resemblance in similar things that proceed each other that our memory is fooled into making two distinct things the same, and so creating the illusion of self. (memory not sufficient for self alone)

Question 37

Outline the elements of our mind that, in Hume's view, cause the sameness.

Answer 37

Resemblance (similar looking things following each other in memory makes us think they are the same), contiguity and causation (We assume because memories follow each other they are connected). Expect Hume writes off contiguity in the self as this is focused more of physical positioning.

Question 38

Explain the theatre analogy used by Hume and its purpose.

Answer 38

Hume compares the functioning of our mind to a theatre. A movie is made up of many unconnected stills and scenes that are played in rapid succession which makes us think it a movie and not just a presentation of those individual and unconnected stills. Our mind plays unconnected memories of perceptions in rapid succession, which by resemblance and causation, fool us into thinking that it is the same "self" over time. The purpose is to show that: when really all our "self" is just a bundle of perceptions proceeding and overlapping each other rapidly to form this illusion.

Question 39

Explain the republic analogy by Hume and its purpose.

Answer 39

A republic is comprised of distinct members who are then succeeded by other distinct members. With all of the original members replaced we still call this the same republic. This is because the "republic" is a label for separate things we perceive to be connected via causation. But we do not know this, we are just making an assumed link between the two. Just as "memory" is a label for perceptions we believe to be connected via causation of the self through an assumed link, but really are not. The purpose of this is to illustrate how causation contributes to the formulation of the illusion of self.

Question 40

Outline two criticisms of Hume.

Answer 40

Some ideas seem to come without corresponding impressions (Archimedes and displacement) and so this it seems we could then have an idea of self without needing an impression. There is no obvious link between impressions and ideas, we cannot be sure which impression caused which idea. So just because you cannot find the impression of self does not mean it does not exist, you may have just miscategorised it.

Question 41

Explain Michael's Wanda/ Schwanda thought experiment and its purpose.

Answer 41

Wanda is a girl killed by a steamroller (A), you are the onlooker to this event that suffers a deadly stroke as a result (B). A neurosurgeon then takes the brain of A and transplants it with the damaged brain of B. So the patient now has the body of B but the brain of A and so has all of A's memories. But who is this person? Michaels refers to it as Schwanda. The purpose of this thought experiment is to show that we cannot argue that A is Schwanda because they have A's memories, as the only way to determine if these memories are genuine or false is finding if they are the same person as who experienced them (A). But this is exactly what we are trying to find out. (Is an illustration of the circularity objection to Locke.)

Question 42

Explain Michael's riding a bike thought experiment and its purpose.

Answer 42

Perhaps we can stop short of circularity by saying that the memories are genuine if the it is the same organ that experienced them is that one that is remembering them (same brain theory). But considering the example of remembering to learn how to ride a bike. The brain is the same as the one that had this experience, but it is not brains alone that learn to ride bikes it is people. So then it is people who remember it. The purpose of this thought experiment is to show that the same brain theory is false because it is not brains alone that learn anything, it is people. So it would need to be the same person and not just the same brain to be the same person. But this leads to another fallacy of circularity so it must be false.

Question 43

Explain Michael's Dr Nefarious thought experiment and its purpose.

Answer 43

The doctor tells you that at 5:00 you will be tortured, which makes you anxious because it is your body that is being hurt. the doctor then tells you that at 4:55 he will erase all memoires of this conversation, so you will not be anxious for the torture because you are not expecting it after the procedure. But before it you will because its still your body that's being hurt . The doctor then tells you that at 4:57 he will swap out your memoires with those of Ronald Regan's. But Michaels says this will not stop us being anxious as we would still perceive it as our body being hurt, not Ronald Regan's. The purpose of this thought experiment is to show that because we seemingly care for our body even though all of our memoires are replaced with someone else's, there is some plausibility to the same body theory.