week 6 dialogue on personal identity and immortality by john perry

[joyash22]

"What is fundamentally you is not your body but your soul or self or mind."

This piece was confusing for me. The distinctions being made about body mind and soul were so technical. Is it possible to convince someone that there is an afterlife? I think that either you believe in it or not. I think the belief comes with a belief in gd as well. 

It was interesting how the author referred to Descartes when he spoke about consciousness and body. Descartes makes the distinction between them. He states the body is just a vessel for the mind and soul while on earth. Judaism holds this belief as well. I thought when soul was linked to memories that would be the clincher in trying to convince that each soul is of one mind. But, that was destroyed also with the example of the brain transplant.The donors memories went into the other persons body.

Weirob was given an opportunity to have her brain harvested and donated and she refused. Will her memories and identity be passed on to the other person? Would she continue to live on through her? According to Weirob she wouldnt live on ,that once her body is gone so will she be gone. I honestly don't know what I think about that. In some studies done on transplant recipients they claim to have more of the donors feelings. It is a strange phenomena. Until recently and only in some communities jewish law outlawed organ donation. (it is now becoming more accepted) The reason being to keep the person intact for afterlife.

 So, are we just here for a finite amount of time? Or do we get to go on living spiritually and be able to meet up with our loved ones someday? Believing in an afterlife is very comforting, especially when you lose a loved one. 

[elena.pronoza]

"Personal identity" by David Hume

"I never catch myself without a perception, and never observe anything but the perception."

Hume strictly believes in perceptions as a content of many things even a self. He says that without perceptions being asleep he does't truly exist. Later on Hume comes to the idea that "each of us is nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions". It really sounds weird to me. For my understanding there is a sufficient difference between perceptions and mind. Mind is a place where our perceptions are collected and analysed, and eventually mind creates an ended product, a thought. How perceptions can determine myself if I do not think what they are? Maybe I understand wrong Hume's idea. Reading of Descartes makes me confused about some parts but his idea that senses sometimes trick the mind sounds more consistent to me than Hume's theory of personal identity. On the other hand I find some Hume's ideas very convincing. He says that "our emotions contribute to our identity just as our impressions and ideas do, by making our perceptions influence others that occur at different times". Here I completely agree that emotions definitely influence our perceptions. When a person being in a good mood accidentally remembers something upsetting from the past and starts feel the same sorrow as he felt before. Somehow our memory has an ability to memorize perceptions which is strange because perceptions are something what we feel right now but events happened some time ago. It is pretty hard to explain how we can feel pain or pleasure from the past just right after making an effort of remembering it or even without such effort.

[Ellie]

“I have no doubts that I shall merge with being; plants will take root in my remains, and the chemicals that I am will continue to make a contribution to life”

 

I don’t get why Weirob keeps referring to herself after death as “I” (as in “I shall merge with being”). Isn’t death the end of the existence of the person that she is? There will no longer be an “I” after death. If there was an “I” after death then she would still exist, and there would be some type of afterlife. However, Weirob says she isn’t convinced of such a thing so I’m not quite sure why she keeps talking as if to insinuate that she does believe in one. Or why it would be a comfort to her if she were to find out that there is one. Why would anyone want to live beyond death or be immortal in the first place? If people were to be immortal that would cheapen the value of life. Like gold for example, if gold was abundant and not rare, there would be some other thing that was of value and gold would be like sand, it would be free. Same thing with life, if life didn’t have an end, there would be no beauty to it at all.

 

Also, according to Weirob the mind and body are not two separate entities but rather, they are one. So what if her bodies “contribution to life” is via organ donation (as opposed to being a fertilizer for plants)?  Does that mean that a part of her still exists after her death? Because if part of her body, which is intertwined to and one with the soul, is still part of a living and breathing human, then the soul that is interconnected with  it should still be “living” as well. And what about the receiver of the donated organs, are they more than one “person”? Do they have more than one soul? Because now that they have organs from various physical bodies’ (which Weirob figures is one with the soul) they shouldn’t have one full soul but rather parts of a few. Even their own original soul wouldn’t be whole because they are “missing” part of their body which was correlated to a soul, so part of that should be missing as well. Does that mean that “they” partially dead then because part of their identity is no longer part of them? 

[Mateo Duque]

Joy,

Thank you for starting the thread.

This week we are looking at Personal Identity. Who am I? What am I? What makes me, me? I urge you to try to find lines of connection, and differences between and among the authors we have read. In Plato, we saw Aristophanes argue for how important the other is in figuring out who each one of us is individually, and how ultimately we would like to merge with another. Remember, Descartes believed in a very strong version of the self, the 'I' that is a 'thinking thing,' the cogito. Even in Clark and Chalmers we saw how I am part of a system in 'coupling' with tools and person(s) outside of me. Thus, extending out what is called thinking, my mind, or even 'my self.' This week, we are reading Hume and Perry on Personal Identity. Hume is much more skeptical of the concept of the self. Do you think that Hume's conclusion is consistent with his empiricism that we read about in the Enquiry? Also what do you make of Perry's essay. He is a contemporary philosopher. He is still alive and teaching at Stanford. Do you like his dialogue? How do you side with and why?

[imusicea92]

"Emerson said that a little philosophy turns one away from religion but that deeper understanding brings one back..."

This sentence that comes at the very end of the reading is one that I disagree with. Many religious practices are just philosophies in themselves. I believe philosophy and religion go hand in hand. As individuals, most of our beliefs are neither proven one way or another and we feel them but they are not tangible. For instance, take the belief in karma (which is a belief held in many religions). You can give me reasons why you believe in karma such as a man helps an elderly women across the street and then finds 20 dollars but you can not tangibly prove that the force behind this is karma. This is much like the way you can argue "I think therefore I am" but you can not tangibly prove that this is the way we live. The part I do agree with is that a deeper understanding of philosophy in general will lead you to a deeper understanding of religion. Can we really have religion without philosophy and the other way around?

[g.dlegister]

"Memory should be regarded as the source of personal identity, mainly because without it we wouldn’t know of the existence of this lengthy and continuous sequence of perceptions."

  This analyst on knowing oneself is based of the memory and past events is interesting. The idea of the identity being formed by one perspective of our past existences is a effective argument.  Now does our memories hold every detail accurate to what happen then, to make us do what we chose to do now? The answer to that question would form our judgment, out bias  and our opinion. I think Hume also argues but it's not really stated in his essay, is the idea of a person perspective  of existence on you. The memories you might share with another person will differ due to variable factors, for example the moods, location, the time of day are factors that can differ memories between two people . What Hume is arguing  is similar to the first what Descartes argues in Meditations, the idea of mind and body and the existences in space. Both Descartes and Hume argue the idea of existences by supporting the're point about the mind.Descartes was all about "Who am I", so he question the function of the mind and body. Hume is more about the (self or the personal) so there is more of a focus on what makes someone who they are. I agree with Hume, with his argument on memories shaping the mind of a person. Something tragic can happen to a person which can change that person state of mind for the good or worse and that can change a person identity.  

[Juliet Harper]

Hello,

     To my understanding of " Personal Identity" by Hume I learn as well as agree that Mr. Hume believe that perception is lead by ideas.I believe that our mind is a stage were perception makes and appearance and knowing the size, shape and so on can lead to similar ideas and thoughts. Our thought takes something and turn it into something else, here is where resemblance takes into effect. So Mr. Hume is right when stating that fact. What count my attention is this statement " For memory is just a faculty by which we raise up image of past perception and an image of something must resemble" which is so true. We use our memory to develop imagines and ideas of how thing are suppose to look. As was mention that if a small part is removed then we would no right away image it as a part but still a whole. 

    In the end he said that this experiment is left on solve, I am right and why do he think this way?

To me he have raise good points and have explain it clearly with examples and references.

 

[dahlia4808]

David Hume states in personal identity

If all my perceptions were removed by death, and I could not think, feel, see, love or hate after my body had decayed, I would be entirely annihilated.
I agree and disagree with quote. Is Hume trying to say that when we die that is it, we no longer exists? When we die we can no longer think, feel see, or love. Our minds can no longer function. That part of us is no longer existing. But Hume's continues to say that he cannot see that anything more would be needed to turn me into nothing.if anyone has a thoughtful claim to have a different notion of himself, I can't reason with him any longer. I disagree with this. Referring back to the first quote when we die our bodies decay but that existence of memory still lives on. Maybe I'm over thinking what Hume is trying to say is this passage but I believe that when we die, our bodies don't exists but our spirit and soul still do.

The dialogue on personal identity and immortality by Perry
This dialogue on personal identity and immortality confused me very much. I started to understand this is the beginning that weirob knew she was going to die and that was it.I belive that Perry is trying to say that when you die its just a body and theirs no soul. That we could not survive our death. Does it make sense that a person will survive the death of their bodies? Then he talks about surviing the the death of your body through your beliefs. (God). I am confused and need more clearity on this.

[Soon M. Seo]

Soon M. Seo
“We have a clear idea of an object that remains invariable and uninterrupted while time supposedly passes. We call this the idea of identity or sameness”(Hume 133)

If Hume meant an object as a certain, specific one, I do not agree with him. If he mentioned about a concept of certain kind of objects, I somewhat agree with it.
All changes as time goes by. Of course including human, all the objects, even diamonds change. Even if the material itself does not change, the value fluctuate period to period. For example, the value of gold or diamond thousands years ago and now is different.
I am a totally different person than I was ten years ago. If the former I and latter I can meet each other, they would agree that they are different people. Even the name of Michael Jackson will mean differently now and a hundred years later.
Identity and sameness can be applied on some concepts such as mathematics, universal human traits, or names. We know an apple is an apple. Different languages have different names of it, but we know and remember the scent, taste, texture, and color of it. It will last in anybody’s mind. We understand two plus three equals five. It will not change. Human kind has common emotions, senses, and needs. We have needs to love, eat, think, and have fun. However, these are not objects, and have exceptions depending on individuals. We cannot generalize it either.
If there are identity and sameness, I think they have to include the time, moment. We can define objects at the moment. How can we be so sure on anything if we cannot even be sure the sun will rise tomorrow? Will sun rise tomorrow, if it is not a deductive premise?

[rebecca.s]

According to Hume, the self is a seemingly continuous arrangement of our bodily perceptions. In the same way he posits that impressions are the root of all ideas, Hume claims that perceptions are the root of each 'self'. Consequently, the self is inherently chained to the body. This holds up with more modern ways of regarding the self. Biologically, our minds are nothing more than the firing of neurons. There is no biological 'soul' and our personalities are the result of intricate biological reactions that can be both seen and measured. In this way, there is no distinction from body and mind as Descartes believed. However, there are some careful distinctions to remember. When Hume is discussing the 'sameness' of a thing, he points out that our perception of same is flawed and much too broadly applied. Take a care, for example. If I replaced the muffler in my car, almost everyone would agree that it is still the same car. Hume would disagree, claiming that to be a misperception. It is nearly the same car, but it is not THE same. If that same car gradually needed every single part replaced (but this happened gradually, not all at once), we would still likely claim that it is the same car as when it started out. Even though this is plainly not true, we attribute its sameness because there is more to being a car than the sum of all its parts. As Hume claims, we have falsely attributed a personality or mystical thingness that allows us to keep thinking it as the same car. The same thing happens to human personalities. In order to continually think of something as the same when clearly it is not, we assume continuity of perceptions that are actually individual. Every 7 years (or something along those lines) every cell in our bodies has been replaced, meaning that we are physically a completely new person than we were 7 years ago. And yet, we are still assumed to be the same person. The only time we are not the 'same' anymore is when some sort of brain damage alters a person's seemingly continual chain of perceptions.

[AYGUL KULA]

“Personal Identity” by David Hume

 

Hume says “I am willing of the rest mankind that each of us is nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions that follow each other enormously quickly and are in a perpetual flux and movement.” Hume says that all perceptions build a person identity. I agree with his statement. I think the way we perceive things, make us different. These perceptions are always in movement and only the time they stop when a person is asleep. We are always aware of our surroundings. Memory collects these perceptions. When we thing about the past we can still have same feelings.

[AYGUL KULA]

“A Dialogue and Personal Identity and Immortality” by John Perry

 

Miller and Weirob are trying to find an answer to the question if person’s soul will continue to exist after the death of the body? For some religious this is possible but scientifically of course is not proven. No body’s soul has been return back to earth to tell us what is going on after death. What I think that my body and my mind are connected and I can’t exist without them.

[pesantezkevin]

Something that stood out to me from the reading was something I read in Hume’s personal identity.  The fact that if you move something or change it doesn’t take away from the whole.  He said “We would count a planet as still the same if it acquired or lost a mountain, nut a few inches could destroy the identity of some bodies”.  I completely agree with him in the idea that removing something meniscal as a mountain from a planet won’t change much.  Yet to further go into his idea one could say that taking away or changing the shape of one’s appearance could change them entirely.  For example, an obese person undergoing liposuction appears one way before the surgery, and then after undergoing a change to this extent will drastically change their appearance.  He goes further to explain how everything is not the same unless it is truly natural.  Even ones memory would not be considered natural because according to him something you did on three different days is considered a memory and yet all three days differ completely.   Consider this; if someone does the same routine every day for example, wake up, brush their teeth, eat breakfast, and then leave to work in the same order almost flawlessly every day.  This being a routine, which they have worked into something that became a habit and almost comes natural to them because they do it on instinct every day.  Would something like this be considered natural, or not because of small factors such as eating something different every day, using a different toothbrush, or even wearing different clothes.  This is something I thought about while i was reading.

[t.rivera511]

Weirobs example of the box of kleenex being burnt and flushed down the John and when you go home the same box will be there isn't, well, a convincing argument. I could be totally wrong on this, by the way. So shes trying to say that we, humans or just she is that Kleenex box and that she cant appear, as Miller said, in a thousand years to this place with him. That's to say that the body will survive, right? The box of Kleenex is the body, her. In my belief, not Christianity but just me, i believe that our memories, our thoughts and such are not part of the body. I don't remember which author said it that we previously read that the MIND and the BRAIN are separate,Miller says this to some extent as i read on. I believe that, so Weirob can appear a thousand years later to a place with Miller but not in her physical body that she held then or the form she is in this reality. Our body, our physical appearance isn't or shouldn't be our identity, our person. Miller said that 'Your mind or soul are immaterial ,lodged in your body while you are on earth. The two are intimately related but not identical.' Our body is what we truly know, right? When we think about ourselves we think about the reflection we saw in the mirror. When you remember someone, you remember their face.Later on you remember that that person you remembered is kind and smart and that comes from them, their essence, their soul or mind, not their body. The body is simply a vessel we use for a limited time. What makes us, us is how we turned out after what we've experienced. How we react after something was done to us like if i were surprised i would be stunned while others may be excited and just go with the flow. What makes us, us is how we treat our neighbor. How we go on. How we think. All that has nothing to d with our body, necessarily. 

 I don't believe we're here for a finite amount of time. Life cant simply be that cruel, GOD cant be that cruel. Life cant be pointless. Maybe we wont meet up with our loved ones, who knows, but we'll go somewhere. Heaven and Hell. In my belief, anyway. In my knowing. Believing in an afterlife isn't entirely comforting. To some sure, those who are simply strong in their faith like my father or Pastor who know they will go to Heaven but then there are people like me. Those who always have that "What if?" What if there's only darkness, what if i stop to exist. I believe in God but my 'what if' is what if i go to Hell and spend eternity there? I don't want that. The way i picture hell is awful and spending eternity there is even worse. Some part of me in comforted by the thought pf spending eternity in Heaven but the other part is scared i wont be able to spend it there due to my living style on Earth. 

[ivandavenny]

I think it's interesting that both philosophers each bring up the example of a river (though I'm pretty sure Perry has probably read Hume's work, so I don't know how coincidental it can be).  They argue that, although we may see and identify a river as being the same river we have seen before, it can never be exactly the same, because the river is made up of different water than it was last time (not to mention the fact that it has, perhaps imperceptibly, eroded its shores and so even changed its course).  Hume uses this as a way to illustrate that humans assign something to be "the same" because motion and this type of change is understood to be part of its nature.  Perry uses this argument to state that the soul/mind/self could also be changing.  I like this thought, because like the river, our minds are constantly intaking sensations and perceptions and some are forced out and forgotten for good while others are just forced down.  I think it is also worth mentioning that our bodies are also interacting with our surroundings quite a bit more than we perceive; we leave skin cells, oils, bits of ourselves behind when we come into contact with anything.  Cells die and leave our bodies and we intake more materials to replace them.  If you see person after 30 years in their absence, what, physically, will be left of the person you knew?  Yes their form will basically be the same (maybe he got a bit paunchier, a bit balder, his nose grew a bit) and you will recognize them from your memories, but it's essentially a new body, or at least a new outer layer.  

Perry's thoughts on minds changing bodies was interesting to me too.  Now if bodies were to change minds, I should think that someone would notice that the person was acting funny.  This could lead to two things: 1- The observer changes their view on the observed, thinking they must have actually been like this, or they have changed recently.  His concept of the person has changed, but he still identifies it as the person.  (The improbability of the second argument would sway most to this first.) Or 2- The observer believes there is an alien presence within the observed.  But what is alien presence?  How do we define it?  Something outside our bodies that has entered?  Well that could be any perception we have ever had!  And if "every idea is derived from previous impressions" (Hume, 139) that means that any impression we've had could be defined as something alien, something invading.  We are talking about an outside force that takes control of an entire mind, but couldn't this just be an obsession, or a recurring thought that has warped the thought process? 

But let's say for a minute that a self-sufficient clump of distinct thoughts, memories, previous perceptions has replaced a mind within a body, leaving no trace of previous notions.  (Or, if you don't enjoy the sci-fi mind-stealer approach, go with the soap-opera amnesia plotline.)  If the change was not gradual (Hume,135), I believe that a regular observer would split his concept of the possessed (this word opens up a whole other can of worms) observed into essentially two parts: the before and the after.  Possibly not even consciously he would split his concept of the person into two, each defined by impressions, but also by time.  There would be the past-person, who would become increasingly distant, and the present-person, with his suddenly new habits.  I think we actually do this much more than we think, sectioning off our acquaintances into pieces.  Drunk Joe becomes, in our mind, a character almost separate from Joe.  Sad Joe, after his dog dies, is another.  These pieces can build up an idea of another's identity together, providing insight into his future actions, but I would argue we section these personalities off by chunks of time (instants or years) in which a particular part of a personality is dominant.  However, in an extreme case, when none of our previous experiences aid us in any way with the new observed mind-controlee, I believe that we do identify him as a new person, albeit not necessarily consciously.

[monise_71]

"If the idea of self came from an impression, it would have to be an impression that remained invariable the same throughout our lives"

 

From this argument, Hume essentially is saying that there is no persisting thing that we can properly refer to as 'self". He thinks that we are simply a collection of perceptions because every minute we experience different thing. Does that make us a different person at each stage of our lives?

I agree that every one of us, throughout our lives, went through some drastic changes, usually inevitable. For instance, our physical body, from the day we were born  to today, is completely different. Also, as we mature, our way of thinking, our perspective, our interests as well as our beliefs change. base on this facts we would say that a person does not have a strict identity. However, I would not say that "we are simply a bundle of perspectives". Throughout our lives, we all have experience difference situation, and since we grew up and raised in differently our perspective on certain things is also different. Therefore, we all have a unique sense of what it means to be your "self". I think we each see the world from a different point of view, and over time we become familiar with this perspective. In contrast to Hume, I think that there is a self that persist through our lives because we always have our unique perspective on things, our own way to see the world, and our unique way to express our point of view.   

[Juliet Harper]

The mind do recall things differently then the original seen

[andrewaalvarez10]

At the end of Hume's writing he added "I must plead the privilege of a sceptic and confess that this problem is too hard for my understanding. I don’t say outright that it is absolutely insoluble." I have a problem with this just because it discredits everything he just said. If he can't stand by his word and be confident in his beliefs then it's all meaningless. This is has been a common theme with some of the authors we have read in class. They contradict themselves repeatedly and fail to have a solid argument. I believe that Hume probably does believe in the idea of personal identity and is trying to bullshit himself into thinking its a misperception. Just because our personal identification is in constant flux doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. It's just hard to concretely identify yourself when you are experiencing new things every day. If your personal identity doesn't change and have flux then it means that your not living a "proper" life. The flux in identity is just the constant introduction of new perceptions and your mind evaluating them. Trying to re-imagine and reconstruct the term "personal identity" will not ignore the flux of the mind's perceptions no matter how hard Hume tries.

[kingholee]

what Hume and Perry were trying to say are basically our mind and body are two separated things which stay together which Decartes has talked about, and they both try to imply that the mind is more important since they mainly focus on the mind in their writing, and not so much the part of the body,

the most important thing what Hume think about the mind, self, and personal identity is the memory, and it is one of the main idea of his reading, "Memory should be regarded as the source of personal identity, mainly because without it we wouldn't know of the existence of this lengthy and continuous sequence of perceptions." (Hume 138) I absolutely agree with this point, because without memory, I will not the same person who I am, when we watch movie, we see some character lose their memory in a car accident or some accident, he not only lost his memory and forget things, but also acting like a different person even with the body. Later on, Hume wrote somethings like " All ideas are borrowed from previous perceptions. So, our ideas of objects are derived from that source."(Hume 139) which is similar and related to the same thought

and other thing I really like in Hume's reading although it is not the main idea of the reading is "What is natural and essential to a thing is expected, and what is expected makes less impression and appears less significant than what is unusual and extraordinary. (Hume 136) He first used river as an example to explain our mind is constantly changing, but that is still the same mind, and talked about the different stage of the unchanged and changed part of our mind made of the our essential and extraordinary part of our personal identity.

in Perry's fictitious conversations, he used Miller, the chaplain character to talked about the similar things what Decartes and Hume have said, the difference and separation of the mind and the body, he even take it more far, the Miller character believed that even our body is died, our mind or soul can possibly lived on in other form and other stage or eternal life, similar to the re-inclination belief in Eastern religion and philosophy, he even mentioned something about Eastern religion in the conversation, one of the thing Miller said in the conversation, I like the most is "For I don't know how God could be excused, if this small sample of life is all that we are alloted: I don't know why He should have created us, if these few years of toil and torment are the end of it"

 In this whole conversation, I think Miller was more like a philosopher than the philosophy professor Weirob, Miller's thinking and philosophy are not so difficult to understand, I don't know if she play dumb or what, she seems not so understand, and the points she argue with Miller are not so concrete and reasonable than Miller.

 

[sremac.sara]

In Hume's reading I'd like to specifically address his question about the difference between substance and self in his sixth argument. He asks, 

"Is self the same as substance? If it is, then there can be no question of the same self remaining when there is a change of substance". 

Would an answer to this be that the self is imagined (a point I deciphered Hume to be making) and the substance is perhaps the physical brain, which enables the imagination of oneself? Or if we asked Descartes would he say that as the self is solely deduced to the definition of a thinking thing, then there is no substance or it is secondary and not connected to the self? And then perhaps would Chalmers and Clark say that the substance and the self are connected and that is the composition of your extended mind? Maybe they could say the self is the thinking thing and the substance is external things that help compose your thoughts and mind. 

In my personal opinion with the consideration of the span of authors we've read and the conclusions I they might make, I feel that the essence and most simple definition of self is one's thoughts, which includes perceptions and impressions, which would all exist even if you were trapped in an empty room as long as you were alive. The extension of ones self, which may just be the impact and incorporation of ones environment into ones thoughts, would be the substance or the extended mind. So in response to the second half of Hume's quoted thought above, the same self does remain even when the substance changes as the self will always be ones thoughts.

[nadiahamidi7]

Kleenex, Barbara Walters, and the Blue River

(Since I see majority of the class posted on Hume, I'll post on Perry!)

Now, I don't mean for this to turn into a religious argument, but I have to be honest and say Weirob annoyed me for the entire duration of the excerpt. And just when I thought she was going to have a breakthrough and understand Miller's points, she ended up ranting and using odd analogies to prove him incorrect in her mind. To start off, given the fact that she is basically on her death bed, most people would think that it would be a perfect time to accept God; but apparently, not for philosophers. As a chaplain, and friend, I hoped Miller would knock some sense into Weirob.

My view point might be biased because I do believe in an afterlife, but I feel Miller was bringing some valid points. I'm going to spend this post discussing the faults and validness of the analogies used throughout the dialogue. 

Let's start with the Kleenex analogy. Weirob says, "Suppose I took this box of Kleenex and lit fire to it. It is reduced to ashes and I smash the ashes and flush them down the john. They, I say to you, go home and on the shelf will be that very box of Kleenex. It has survived! Wouldn't that be absurd?" To answer simply, yes, Weirob, that would be absurd. But that's not the point Miller was trying to make! Kleenex is a soulless, inanimate object. It does not feel and once it is used up, it will be disposed and forgotten about. However, humans are not like a box of Kleenex. We have minds and souls and a purpose. I must praise Miller for trying to explain that to Weirob because I am not as patient! He even smartly brought Descartes into the picture reminding her that he distinctly made a separation between the body and mind/soul. I think throughout the dialogue Weirob knew what Miller was trying to prove but she was really getting a kick out of being irritating. I still don't understand why a presumably well-read person, like Weirob kept on circling around the truth. She even says, "surely this body, which will be buried and...rot away, will not be in your Hereafter. Different body, different person..." That was the straw that broke my back. Why is she so shallow?! Obviously we are more than our bodies and often time our physical appearance or "container" is a misrepresentation or inaccurate reflection of the inside. For crying out loud, the woman is bound to a hospital bed after a motorcycle crash. Does that make her mind void? She even says in the beginning, "some of my vital organs have been injured beyond anything the doctors know how to repair...my brain was uninjured..." She is so hypocritical! If she is so keen on sticking with her argument that we are limited to our physicality, which for her, is non functioning, why is she still able to communicate and think? It's because the mind/soul and body are two entirely separate entities that can exist separately. Her current state is proof of that as she is able to converse on an intellectual (and may I add, annoying) level with Miller, but unable to free herself from the bed.

And now for Barbara Walters--if they somehow swapped bodies, regardless of their appearance, they should identify with the mind. For example, if I somehow switched bodies with my cat, Sir Barnabas (and yes, I did name him that), then I exist in cat form. I still think like a human and still retain my memories and experiences, only, I am unable to communicate like a human because no one would take me seriously and most likely I would be admitted to some sort of freak lab which I already somewhat experience in Brooklyn College (just kidding!). My cat, appearing to be a human, would have no clue of my daily routine or how to act like a human. Same goes for the Barbara Walters experience. I don't care who or what you look like on the outside, the inside it what counts! Aren't there hundreds of movies telling the exact same thing? Two people, or animals, or things, switch places and document the struggles of trying to express themselves in a different form? Almost all of them end up being able to figure out a spell or condition where they are able to exist in their natural form.

And finally, the Blue River. This analogy was probably the most annoying. Actually, it may be a tie between the Kleenex. Here, we have Weirob basically proving Miller's points with her refusal to see it. Basically, she claims that the water of the river is always changing like our minds/souls. Of course we are changing! We incorporate different people, experiences, and memories daily. Her problem is that we are unable to truly see another person's identity because so much of it is concealed. And guess what? She's completely correct. But that doesn't mean that we do not exist wholly to ourselves. 

Overall, the dialogue was interesting, and useful, but I just couldn't stand Weirob. I know the piece is fictional and functions as educational material for students of philosophy to engage in it, but for a dying woman, she was just too much. She needs to spend time with her family and think about what is to become of her in a more positive light. Her negativity was so unattractive! However, I do enjoy the dialogue as it is because it allowed me to angrily dissect the arguments Weirob was saying. And by the way, kudos to Miller! I would have walked right out of that room in the beginning. And I would have taken the box of Kleenex on the bedside table.

[rbrutusjr]

"But I am using identical in a way in which identity is the condition of memory and correct anticipation."

In this part, Weirob talks about identity and exact similarity. This difference being identity is the relation something has to itself. For example, I am identical to myself. However, exact similarity is two things have the exact qualitites and traits. This leads to Miller's first point point of how people are identical to their souls and not their bodies. Thus, life after death is possible because even though your body dies, your soul lives on. I found this part to be very interesting. People are really identical to their souls because you are who you are. Just as Descartes said body and mind are not identical. I think that Miller is using some of Descartes' view as the basis of his argument.

[AYGUL KULA]

“A Dialogue and Personal Identity and Immortality” by John Perry

This reading reminds me Descartes's argument about can mind exist without body?
I feel like Miller and Weirob are playing Descartes's oposite thoughts, one says it can exist and other trying to disprove it... 

[felixjonanthony]

Our class discussion about the story of the Ship of Theseus really pushed the ideas in the passage further than I had gone previously. The main dilemma that occurs in the both the writings and the tale is the ownership of something's (or someone's) existence. The ship was blessed and allowed to travel without having to pay tolls. However, as the ship's wooden planks grew old and tarnished, they were replaced with newer wood until the entire ship no longer had it's old planks. Now, a witty man decided to collect the planks of the original Ship of Theseus and claimed that he was now able to travel without paying tolls. What is the Ship of Theseus? The gradually remodeled ship that bore the title, or the ship that contained the actual planks?

In my opinion, it's both. There are numerous valuables that cannot determine which of the exact two can identify as Theseus's ship - one contains the hard material, while the other carries the ship's essence. It is impossible to determine the specificity of the ship's blessing - was it the idea, the people held, or the actual object. Why do I say there are now two Ships of Theseus? Because both carry on the ships existence - the belief that something is to be because of it's birth. Something doesn't have to be physical born to be brought into existence; ideas, thoughts, and objects can be born (but not without previous impressions according to Hume). 

How does this tale my personal belief tie into Hume's ideas of personal identity? Throughout his work he constantly battles with the use of the words self and pure identity. He states that one's pure identity is not to be confused with "sameness" or "resemblance", but rather the purest form of our being. Now, similar to the specific blessing given to the ship, our purest identity is riddled, vague, and difficult to pinpoint exactly. However, our purest identity does play a small role in our existence. Our existence puts "all of our eggs in a single basket". It pulls in all aspects of our "self" - which Hume believes is not made up of one impression, but all of our impressions which make us constantly change (such as the damaging of each plank of wood and it's constant change), our bodies - which undoubtedly exist but do not determine definitely what inhabits it (such as Weirob constantly questions using the examples of a Kleenex), our soul - which many, such as Miller in Perry's dialogue, believe to live on despite the death of a hosting body, and our pure identity - our exact classified true being ("...two ideas of identity and a sequence of related objects of related objects are perfectly distinct from one another and even contrary, yet in our everyday thinking they are often confused with one another, treated as though they are the same." (133 Personal Identity, Hume). This is why both ships should sail freely. Do they not all have the "self" or collection of impressions, "body" or phsyical object which to sail on, "soul" or history - whether it be with the ships essence or material, and "pure identity" what makes the ship the Ship of Theseus in the first place.

Existence and self - Throughout our lives we collect an abundance of impressions which change us every day. [Supported by Hume and his belief that perception is the self, changing constantly]

Existence and body - Our "living" or journey of life is given physical placement within our bodies. [Which strikes the "debate" between Weirob and Miller weather this body determines our very existence or the end of it]

Existence and soul - Two very similar ideas except soul is originally known as belonging inside of the body. [Whether it lives on afterwards is a separate argument which Miller and Weirob touch on]

Existence and pure identity - How would we be identified if not for our existence.

I may have gone off on a completely incomprehensible tangent straying away from these works, but in my opinion this term ties in many of the themes and common beliefs throughout all works. Much of philosophy (as I've interpreted it) is theory based on lack of a better word. However, the use of the word existence has made these theories clearer and easily correspondent with one another.

Does anyone else believe this term would aid in grasping these works? And does anyone else agree that although there are now two physical ships it's essence is now carried on with both?

[Juliet Harper]

In this dialogue, Mr. Hume had a talk with a lady on her drying bed. Weirob was not comforted or had hope that she will surviving because she didn't believe and I think you have to believe in something in order for it to come through. My opinion base on my custom and tradition. Then he talked about the mind, soul and body being one, which to me is true because you can identity someone with little concept of what they apply.

[herring.chantell]

What is an identity and how do we obtain our identity? Is our identity something we were born with such as our race, ethnicity, physical characteristics or name? I believe a personal identity consists of experience, emotions and intellect. I also believe it changes over time. Someone's experience can easily alter their personalty, for instance an almost near death experience can change a persons future actions, it can give them a different insight on their life and purpose.

[yuliyazhivotenko]

Hume talks upon the idea of self in "On personal Identity". He argues that personal identity doesn't exist and that it is a false thought. He says that it is just a "bundle of perceptions".  He believes that what creates the identity is based on a persons perceptions. With that being said, ones perception could change the identity of a person. Hume quotes,"But self or person is not any one impression, but is rather that to which all our many impressions and ideas are supposed to be related." Hume brings in the idea that self is not one impression because impressions aren't constant, but if self did come from one and one impression only, than it would have to remain the same throughout our lives. Since perceptions don't reman constant through out our lives, he concludes that self isnt true and just a false thought.