unit 3 aos 2 - personal identity

Question 1

according to Locke, what is the difference between a person and a man? what analogy does he use?

Answer 1

Locke defines a man as a body, and a person as a rational thinking conscious part. He posits that if there were a dull, irrational man, and a very intelligent, rational parrot, then the man would be a human but have no person, and the parrot would have a person.

Question 2

in sum, what does Locke say personal identity lies in?

Answer 2

Since consciousness always accompanies thinking and it is what distinguishes us from one another, it must follow that consciousness alone consists personal identity, not anything physical.

He also suggests that our identity is our consciousness as far as it can be extended back to any past action or thought ie. We are the summation of our memories.

Question 3

what objections does Locke anticipate in section 10?

Answer 3

Locke anticipates an objection that could be raised against his argument that identity=memory. There is the issue of memory loss, sleeping, and not being able to view all your memories and one point, yet it would be absurd to say that the person who can remember, and the one that can’t are two separate persons.

Question 4

why does Locke say the objections in section 10 don’t matter?

Answer 4

They can still be the same man or living organism, but they are indeed separate persons. It doesn’t matter if memory is interrupted because regardless of the substance (ie. physical body), it is your consciousness that identity depends on.

Essentially, he is saying that you always are your memories, and if you forget some, they simply aren’t a part of your identity anymore.

Question 5

why does Locke say a change of substances does not necessitate a change in identity?

Answer 5

Lock claims that a change in your physical form/substance does not produce a change in identity, because your identity lies in your consciousness and memories, not the sameness of your physical body over time.
If you change a part of your physical form, you still have the same identity because it doesn’t change your memory and consciousness.

Question 6

what though experiment does Locke use to say that change in substance isn’t a change in identity?

Answer 6

he used a thought experiment of a severed hand. If you were to cut off a hand, thus changing the substance of yourself, it still does not change personal identity and is still the same person because you still have memory of the hand.
Essentially he is arguing that personal identity does not reside in physical attributes

Question 7

how does Locke reject the same soul theory?

Answer 7

Locke anticipates that it could be your soul, that non-material part of humans wherein personal identity resides.That is, we could imagine the same consciousness being transferred from one soul to another. Yet, he argues that it cannot be the unchanging, immaterial soul which makes someone the same person over time, it is still merely your memories.

Question 8

what thought experiment does Locke use to show that identity is not in soul?

Answer 8

consider there was someone claiming that in a past life they were Socrates and have now been reincarnated, that is, the soul of Socrates has been transferred into a current man’s body, and this soul was also at one point in the body of Nester or Thersites at the Battle of Troy.
If this soul was in fact in all of these bodies (Socrates, nester, and now rational man, and they could somehow prove it), the question remains, is it the same person/identity?
Locke confirms that this is all irrelevant if you have no memory of it. He would say YES if the man could remember these past lives, but NO if he has no recollection of it.

Question 9

what is the prince cobbler thought experiment?

Answer 9

suppose the soul of a prince entered the body of a cobbler and vice versa (think freaky friday), and they swap bodies. From their first person perspectives they would be confused and think they’re in the wrong body, but in the third person from other people’s perspectives, they’re the same. So the question remains, which one is the prince and which one is the cobbler? Have the swapped identities?
Locke says that because identity is in consciousness and memory, not the sameness of a living organism the prince is still the cobbler and the cobbler is still the prince, because although they now have different bodies, the prince still has the memories of the prince, and vice versa.

There is still a living life force that changes, but the identity does not, because it resides in MEMORY. The third person perspective is irrelevant, the memory is what is important and is what defines memory.

Question 10

what is the little finger analogy?

Answer 10

Locke goes on to use the little finger analogy to explain that where the consciousness lies, that is where personal identity lies.
If our consciousness was only held in our little finger and it was cut off and separated (with all the self-identified memories of what it would mean to be us) then our personal identity would also be in the little finger.

Question 11

what is Lockes socrates sleeping analogy?

Answer 11

if Socrates awake and Socrates asleep have different memories and consciousness, they are not the same person.
If Socrates committed a crime while asleep and then woke up and doesn’t remember it, then we should not punish Socrates awake. To do so would be tantamount to punishing a twin for something his twin brother did just because they look the same.

Question 12

what does Locke respond to the question of memory loss? what does he say about the term ‘I’?

Answer 12

The question arises if I lose the memories of a whole part of my life, am I not the same person that did those actions? Locke’s reply would be that we are conflating the difference between man and person (I in the sense of the question conflate the two definitions that he has laid out)
Essentially, he is saying that if we forget parts of our life, we are the same MAN who did those actions, but not the same PERSON.
The objection is presuming that the man is the same person, and I is easily supposed to stand for both, however, if it’s possible for one man to have different consciousness at different times, then they are different persons. When we say I we are making a statement about the physical body, if it’s something we don’t remember.

Question 13

what is Lockes analogy of the mad man and what does he say about our language?

Answer 13

human laws do not punish a mad man for the sober man’s actions, nor a sober man for a mad man’s actions, thereby making them two distinct persons.

This distinction is also somewhat explained by our language. People often say phrases like ‘he is not himself’, which is suggestive that the same person is no longer in the same self.

Essentially he is saying it’s interesting that we don’t punish sober man for mad man’s actions, and have phrases like that, yet will still say that a person who forgets stuff is the same person and should be treated accordingly.

Question 14

what is lockes thought experiment of the drunk and sober man?

Answer 14

Locke uses a thought experiment of a drunk man and a sober man. To Locke, they are not the same person, as the sober man does not have any memory of the drunk man’s actions. Neither is conscious of the actions of each other.
But legally we are not able to determine if there is continuity of consciousness so the courts will use the identity of a man (not the person) to pass judgement.

He hopes that in the future, there will be a means through which we shall be able to determine whether there is a continuity of consciousness and subsequently punish people accordingly, based on the PERSON and not the MAN.

Question 15

what does Locke say is necessary for happiness?

Answer 15

Essentially, whatever is founded in concern for happiness ie. pleasure and avoidance of pain. That which is conscious of pleasure and pain is happy.

Question 16

what does Locke conclude about punishing people for what they don’t remember? What is the legal implication?

Answer 16

Whatever actions you cannot remember and apply to your present self, you cannot be concerned for, as it’s not a part of your identity. If you don’t remember, it’s equivalent to it having never been done, and to receive punishment for it, would be the same as punishing a man now for what he had done in a past life.
There is no difference between being punished for something you don’t remember and being created miserable. However the legal implication is that we cannot determine what someone does and doesn’t remember.

Question 17

what does Locke say at the end about heaven?

Answer 17

Locke also posits that on the day that one dies and it’s being determined whether they go to heaven or not, this is not an issue because the sentence shall be justified as this is determined merely by what is attached to your consciousness.

Question 18

what is Reid’s though experiment about the general?

Answer 18

a boy as a child is flogged for stealing an apple by the orchid owner. Then, as a young man he becomes a brave army officer, and at this point he still has a strong memory of stealing the apple from the orchid. Then, as an old decorated general, he still remembers being a young officer, however, he doesn’t remember being the young boy who stole the apple from the orchid.

Question 19

what is the key argument of Reids objection to Locke?

Answer 19

essentially, Reid points out a flaw in Locke’s argument as it does not align with the axiom of transitivity. According to the axiom of transitivity then A=B (boy = young officer), B=C (young officer = old general), and C=A (general = boy), however, Locke would argue that C does not equal A because C has no memory of A, thus Locke is breaking the axiom.

Question 20

what is a counter argument to Reids objection to Locke?

Answer 20

Philosopher H.P Grice, pointed out that a person’s life can be conceived as a series of momentary stages. In order for the old general to be identical with the small boy, it is not required that the general remember experiences and actions of the boy but only that the old-general person-stage be linked to the small-boy person-stage by a series of person-stages, each member of which contains memories of something occurring in the immediately preceding stage.

There is still a continuity of memory from the boy to the officer to the general, so it could still necessitate that it’s the same identity.

Question 21

what is Butlers circularity objection to Locke?

Answer 21

Locke argues that continuity of memory is a necessary criterion for personal identity. However, Butler argues that personal identity is a necessary criterion for having continuity of memory – it is not possible to speak of memories without presupposing a person who has those memories.

Ie. Locke presupposes a self, memory = self, but Butler asks, what self is existing before the memories to have those memories? Therefore, the argument is circular because a self must exist to have memories, but memory must be there to constitute a self.

Question 22

what is the psychological continuity objection to Locke?

Answer 22

Locke is arguing that something is only a part of our identity, but what about times where you forget a memory but it still has an effect on your psychological states. Ie. if as a child you were attacked by a chicken, so now you feel fear whenever you see a chicken, yet you don’t actually remember being attacked by the chicken. Forgotten memories can still have an effect on your current psychological state.

Question 23

what is Williams Guy Fawkes thought experiment to Locke?

Answer 23

A guy wakes up one day and suddenly is remembering things he has never spoken of before, and soon, it becomes apparent that all the memories he is claiming to have coincide with the life of Guy Fawkes. Has Charles become Guy Fawkes? Or has Guy Fawkes come to life again in Charles’ body?

Question 24

what is Williams key argument/objection to Locke?

Answer 24

Williams says that the guy is not Guy Fawkes, arguing that physical continuity is a necessary, though not sufficient, precondition for personal identity, because while it’s not logically impossible for two people to claim to have the same memories, it is logically impossible for two people to be the same person

Question 25

according to Hume, why do we have no certain self?

Answer 25

Hume objects to philosophers who claim that we have a self because there is no proof that we do have a self.
If there was such a self, it would have to be a constant stable thing throughout our lives that we can specifically identify, however there is no singular impression like this
If you were to look inside your consciousness to try to focus in on the self you cannot because our impressions are constantly changing and there is no particular thing we can pinpoint

Question 26

what is Humes bundle theory?

Answer 26

The bundle theory of identity claims that our conceptions of ourselves are nothing but a bundle of perceptions that succeed one another at an inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual flux.

Conscious experience is nothing but a collection of perceptions that are constantly changing

Question 27

what is Hume’s theatre analogy?

Answer 27

In a theatre you cannot see all the stagehands, set, and work going on backstage to keep the play going, you only focus on all the actors, lights, costumes, play etc, not the stuff behind it.
Similarly, you cannot identify a self underneath all of your thoughts. There is nothing in our head except a collection of successive thoughts. We are only aware of these thoughts just like we are only aware of the play.

Question 28

what does Hume say is the reason for our false conception of self?

Answer 28

Imagination. Because all of our perceptions resemble each other in some way and have causal effects one one another, it is easy for our imagination to blur all the variation together and create a false sense of continuity, thus creating the illusion that there is a constant, stable identity.

Question 29

what does Hume say about strict identity?

Answer 29

Hume says that speaking in terms of strict identity, two things can only be regarded as the same identity if they are exactly the same in every possible way. If something is changed even in the tiniest way, it absolutely destroys the identity as a whole and we cannot consider it one thing
Technically, because our perceptions are always changing, this should necessitate a change and we should consider it as such, however we rarely acknowledge this and just allow our imagination to say it’s still the same thing.

Question 30

what does Hume say are the relations that ‘identity’ depends on?

Answer 30

Resemblance, Contiguity, and Causation
these relations produce an easy transition of ideas. It follows then that smooth and uninterrupted progress of thought along a train of connected ideas are what produces what we think to be the identity of something across time.

To have identity you would need something constant, stable, and uninterrupted, and it is these three qualities that makes us think that we have something uninterrupted (even though we do not).

Question 31

why does Hume say resemblance and causation create a ‘self’?

Answer 31

Resemblance and causation: Hume says that by these principles the mind is able to link perceptions and create easy transitions among impressions and ideas, and it is these transitions that create the illusion of oneness and continuity

Question 32

what does Hume say about memory and resemblance?

Answer 32

Hume says that in our imaginations we readily find relations of resemblance between past perceptions and the ideas we form of them, due to memory. Memory allows us to look back at past bundles of perceptions. We by observing the similarity between the various bundles, judge that there is a continuance of one object rather than a succession of different bundles together.
thus, memory creates the resemblance to which we impute sameness, which gives rise to assumptions of identity or self.

Question 33

what does Hume say about memory and causation?

Answer 33

When, via memory, we can see the various past bundles of perceptions, we are apt to imagine that these bundles are united by a relation of cause and effect. The bundle of perceptions is thus redefined as a chain of causes and effects that constitute our self.

Because we imagine constant causal relations linking these actually distinct perceptions, a misleading sense of a smooth and coherent train of ideas arises, and thus we impute personal identity

Question 33

what does Hume say about memory and causation?

Answer 33

When, via memory, we can see the various past bundles of perceptions, we are apt to imagine that these bundles are united by a relation of cause and effect. The bundle of perceptions is thus redefined as a chain of causes and effects that constitute our self.

Because we imagine constant causal relations linking these actually distinct perceptions, a misleading sense of a smooth and coherent train of ideas arises, and thus we impute personal identity

Question 34

what is Hume’s republic analogy?

Answer 34

Hume compares consciousness with a republic or commonwealth, which would seem to have a particular identity over time in order to show how causation leads us to feign identity.
As the members change, new laws and constitution are written the republic remains the same through the relation of causation which seems to link the members and create a coherent whole
Just like how a person may vary their character and disposition, as well as their impressions and ideas without losing their identity because we can see causality between the changes.

Question 35

what is Hume’s direct response to Locke memory theory?

Answer 35

According to Hume, memory is merely the thing linking perceptions together to create a fictitious sense of continuity that we can label as the self.
It is responsible for resemblance because it allows us to see similarities between perceptions, and causation because if we did not remember prior perceptions we couldn’t suppose that they affect present perceptions.
Locke is conflating the means of inferring identity with identity itself.
Memory merely allows us to look back and discover the illusion, it doesn’t create it.

Question 36

what is Humes conclusion?

Answer 36

Hume ends by stating that the question of personal identity therefore can never be decided and should be regarded rather as grammatical than as philosophical difficulties. It’s a question of language, not philosophy.

Hume says that we ascribe identity to the bundle of perceptions because it is simple. It’s easy for our imagination to attribute simplicity due to the similarity of perceptions and feign a principle of union as the support of this simplicity.

Question 37

what is the objection to Hume’s bundle theory?

Answer 37

Hume argues that what we misidentify as the self is a bundle of perceptions, yet this bundle has no subject, ie. There is no owner of the bundles. So what exactly is drawing the perceptions together for us to be able to group them together. Why are the perceptions only in one place and not just floating around everywhere?

Question 38

what is the objection to Hume on resemblance and causation?

Answer 38

Hume argues that because our perceptions resemble one another and we can see causal chains between us, we mistakenly impute an identity because it creates the illusion of continuity. But do our perceptions really always resemble and cause one another? Hume does not account for when we have extremely random ideas or intrusive thoughts that seem to have been conjured from thin air.

Question 39

what is an objection to Hume’s no self theory? Gravity example?

Answer 39

Hume propounds that because there is nothing specific we can pinpoint as being the self, then there is no proof we have a self. However, just because we do not perceive the self during perceiving, it doesn’t necessitate that there is no such thing as self.

Consider gravity. We cannot directly perceive gravity through our senses but we know that it is there. Similarly, there must be something that draws and holds the bundles together, irrespective of whether we can see it or not, because we can clearly see its effects.

Question 40

what is butlers objection to Hume?

Answer 40

Butler’s concern for Locke’s argument also has bearing on Hume’s argument. Although Hume denies the existence of a self, he still submits that we have the ability to recall previous perceptions and assimilate them to one another, which denotes that there must be something to which those memories belong.

Question 41

what is Hume’s dates example?

Answer 41

He questions individuals ability to recall specific dates like the 1st of January 1715 and the 11th of March 1719 to demonstrate that memory is not something constant and unchanging, which is what identity would need to be. Thus, memory cannot be a sufficient precondition for identity as it is not stable and continuous.

Question 42

explain the schwanda thought experiment?

Answer 42

Consider that your friend Wanda is crushed to death by a steam roller, and you have a stroke upon witnessing the accident. Wanda’s body is destroyed, but her brain remains intact, and your brain is destroyed, but your body remains intact. The neurosurgeon, Dr. Haagendaas, is on hand to perform emergency surgery and puts Wanda’s brain in your body.

Now the question is is Schwanda Wanda, or is Schwanda you, is Schwanda a mix of you and Wanda, or is Schwanda someone else all together?

Question 43

what is michaels trying to prove with the Schwanda thought experiment.

Answer 43

The point is that memory alone cannot be a sufficient criterion for identity because if it was true that memory alone constituted identity, then Schwanda would be Wanda and her parents would accept her.

Question 44

what does Michaels say about genuine and apparent memories?

Answer 44

Michaels brings light to the problems that arise by simply assuming that the self identity of Schwanda is Wanda purely because Swanda ‘has’ Wanda’s memories. The fact Schwanda believes she is Wanda does not guarantee that she is because we cannot determine whether Schwandas Wanda memories are genuine and not apparent. Because Schwandas Wanda memories were not formed in Schwandas body, we cannot be sure that they’re actually her memories or she just thinks they are.

Question 45

how does Michaels reject the brain theory of identity?

Answer 45

Michaels anticipates that someone could say Schwandas wanda memories are genuine because the same brain who had those experiences is remembering them. However, she says that some memories belong to the body and not the brain alone. Eg. riding a bike. It is not the brain alone that learns to ride the bike, rather people learn to ride bikes and people remember having done so.

Question 46

What is Michaels Lockean circle criticism?

Answer 46

The problem with Locke’s theory is that by arguing that memory is the defining feature of identity, he presupposes a self that had the memories. This is problematic as the self is the very thing that is trying to be explained. Thus, by claiming that continuity of consciousness constitutes personal identity, Locke is assuming the self already exists.

Question 47

explain the Dr. Nefarious thought experiment?

Answer 47

Dr. Nefarious will torture you at 5pm tomorrow. You are nervous
Even if he says that at 4:55 he will erase your memory of the conversation, you are still anxious.
Even at 4:57, when he says he will erase all your memorise (it will still be you experiencing the pains of torture)
Even if he says at 4:58, saying he will replace all your memories with that of Ronald Reagan (it will still be you experiencing the pain)

Question 48

what is Michaels trying to prove with the Dr Nefarious thought experiment?

Answer 48

We can’t ignore the importance of our body in self identity because the fact that we would care about harm to our body means that we must feel a connection to it as a part of our self, even if we don’t have our memories.

Question 49

what is michaels final conclusion about personal identity?

Answer 49

We do identify ourselves with our thoughts, BUT ALSO our body. It is not all or nothing but about is about a measure of degrees
Thus, there is no one single element that comprises identity, but rather a mixture of things

Identity lies in both physiological and psychological elements ie. body and memory.

Question 50

what is an objection to Michaels argument about brains?

Answer 50

Michaels bicycle argument links the brain to both body and mind, yet denies it the power to confer identity, so is Michaels dismissal of the brain theory sufficiently justified if it in itself is a mixture of components? Wouldn’t something that can be considered both physiological and psychological be a sufficient factor for identity?

Question 51

criticism of Michaels Dr Nefarious thought experiment?

Answer 51

Is our concern for what happens tomorrow at 5:00 a matter of compassion rather than a sense of self? Maybe it doesn’t matter whether we have our own, none or Ronald Reagan’s memories.

Question 52

supporting Michaels?

Answer 52

Bernard Williams Guy Fawkes problem is consistent with Michaels views as it shows that memory alone is not enough for identity and that physical continuity is a necessary precondition.

Question 53

what three ways can you criticise Michaels?

Answer 53

Michaels final argument will run into significant challenges if you can argue that:

the body isn’t at all relevant to personal identity (i.e. Teletransporter or Brave Officer thought experiments)

memories aren’t at all relevant to personal identity (i.e. Guy Fawkes thought experiment)

neither body nor memories in combination are at all relevant to personal identity (i.e. psychological factors)