WEEK 6: Hume and Perry on Personal Identity

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

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?

[odinredd]

"The annihilation that some people suppose to follow on death, and which entirely destroys this self, is nothing but an extinction of all particular perceptions—love and hatred, pain and pleasure, thought and sensation. So these must be the same as the self, since the one cannot survive the other." (Hume 139)

Here Hume argues that self is really just the combined perceptions of our body because without them we have no self. They seem to both suggest no life after death with the intent of using identity since it cannot be proven by them.

"And so they (the soul) cannot be used to bridge the gulf between my existence now and my existence in the hereafter." (Perry 12)

There is one distinction that they have between the two that I find interesting. That is the case of the soul being the same. Perry goes into a lot more detail about our fallacy about thinking that the soul stays the same even though everything else has the ability to change. From what I understand, they generally have the same viewpoints.

Can there really be such a thing as a soul that changes all the time? It seems reasonable to say that it even does change but our concept of a single identity with the soul stays the same. What an interesting point of view.

[laquintaclark]

"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. If we had no memory, we would never have any notion of causation or, consequently, of the chain of causes and effects that constitute our self or person." (Humes p.138)

"What is fundamentally you is not your body, but your soul or self or mind." (Perry p. 4)

Humes is explaining that memory is a way that we look back to past events; this is a storage unit in a way for all that we have experienced.  Humes admits that the topic is out of reach to his understanding but still calls himself a skeptic.  Although he was not able to come up with a clear explanation, Humes still feels some of what he has said is still true and can be proved. Perry on the other hand went with Descartes rationalist ideas in the dialect between Weirob and Miller. Perry explains Descartes point of the mind and the body being separate, how they are, "intimately related but not identical." As I read Descartes theories, I was moved and started to think outside the box; reading Humes has also started me to think. I am straddling the fence with both ideas and can see it from both sides, but what I have always thought is leaning more towards Humes empiricists ideas. Perry's dialogue was interesting, when dying is involved there are so many questions that arise and there is never a clear cut answer especially talking to the victim.

The ideal of reliving with the same soul/mind is great but how would we know what we live as. What if, just like a caterpillar, we come back with another body; how will the mind/soul know how to react to this change. I understand the memory and the storage of the past life, but what if looking out through the soul we don't recognize the body we were placed in, what next? Must a new experience be recorded and continued on from there?

[iriejam796]

Perry's dialogue on personal identity and immortality rises many questions and concerns such as "Who am I? When our mind is departed from our body, does it continue? What are the correlation with identity and immortality?  and our questions can go on and on. I believe your identity is your own and it cannot be duplicated. The box of kleenex is a prime example of the relationship between our mind, soul and body. When we depart from this earth there is no concrete evidence that we will return in any other shape or form, not even as an animal. I think our soul was born when we were born and when we die it will go with us. "What is fundamentally you is not your body, but your soul or self mind" (Perry pg 4) For someone to return having the same identity and experiences is just unimaginable. Honestly, can anyone remember when they were a baby? I don't think there is anyone who can recall those moments when they took their first step and say their first word. The reason is that weren't conscious enough to know who we were and what our capabilities are. The possibility/probability that someone can have our identity and continue or mind without a body does not seem logical. Yes, people can have the same personality and characteristic but they can never have another persons soul, memory belief or mind. 

Descarte is a Rationalist, he spoke about the cogito and mind/body relationship. He also tells that it's the body who deceives you and not your mind. Perry, on the other hand is an empiricist who believes concepts are created. He believed that there is no connection with sameness of body to sameness of person. As Perry states, "The similarity of state of water by which you judge the sameness of river; does not require identity of the water which is in those states at these various times" (pg 10)

I like his dialogue because it makes more sense than Descartes. I agree with Perry's reasoning because it has some form of truth to it and it seems more  logical. It gives you a  better understanding of our existence and how our mind and body forms our identity.

[Givan]

David Hume believes what we think of as personal identity (self) isn’t really a sound and accurate definition of who we are.  Most of us think of “self “as our physical i.e. Gender, race  but Hume thinks personal identity (self) is beyond our physical; but most importantly who we really are; is extended into our Consciousness (mind).   Basically what Hume is saying is that self should be an idea or perception in the mind. My question to this is can’t there be a self which these perceptions are channel through? For example while site seeing with binoculars one do not see the binoculars while looking through them but we can’t say that the binoculars isn’t real or doesn’t exist; we would be considered ludicrous for making such a statement. So what I’m trying to say is just as we can’t see the binoculars while looking through it, can we conclude that this is the case of the self, the one Hume thinks doesn’t exist. Because we do not perceive the self when we perceive things doesn’t mean that the self doesn’t exist?

[tayo.ojudun]

Reading through Perry's work reminded me of the back and forth between the doubtful and the hopefully from "The Meditations". 

"Hope provides comfort and hope does not always require probability But we must believe that what we hope for is at least possible. "  (Perry 2)

Reading this reminds me of something I recently discovered. Holding on to hope can be a very dangerous thing and yet we all willing engage. Some make say I'm being pessimistic, but I feel like it holds true in a number of situations. At times you may need hope to rely on to keep the wheels rolling. However, other times I just feel like hopefulness goes hand-in-hand with wishful thinking; both dangerous. It allows this false mindset to take place and you end up in this place where you think all things will end up well not matter what. Perhaps I am being pessimistic or maybe I'm being too doubtful or a realist. I'm not sure. 

" I do not mean possible in the sense of likely, or even in the sense of comforting to known laws of physics or biology I mean possible only in the weakest sense being conceivable, given the unavoidable facts."  (Perry 2)

This response to Miller statement was very strong. I thought it would've made him a nonbeliever right then and there. She basically told him to attempt to turn a fairy tale into a fact. Reading it was just mind blowing. She really belittled the idea of the afterlife. 

"But what is possibility, if not reasonable probability? "  (Perry 2)

I don't quite understand this response that Miller gave, what does he exactly mean?  Can someone please explain. 

[sharifa]

“When I am without perceptions for a while, as in sound sleep, for that period I am not aware of myself and can truly be said not to exist. 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 cannot see that anything more would be needed to turn me into nothing” (Hume 133).

This quote is so complex, when it doesn’t have to be. I agree that without perception, one is nonexistent. But I also believe that this is also the obvious. In order to know there is a self, one must have perceptions. If nothing can be perceived, then one must not be alive. I believe Hume is trying to convey that self and perceptions goes hand-in-hand, and they are not separable.

 

“How then can you say that I am one of these persons a thousand years from now? 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. Then 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? What sense could you make of it? And yet that is just what you say to me. I will rot away And then, a thousand years later there I will be. What sense does that make?” (Perry 3).

I totally disagree with what Weirob is saying to Miller. I always read these readings with an open mind, but this bothered me a lot! I understand that Weirob is having a problem believing that it is possible for there to be survival after death and needs Miller to convince to her this possibility. But why would she compare life and death to a Kleenex?! A Kleenex does not have perceptions! It is not a thinking thing! It does not have impressions, thoughts or ideas! It is a tissue. Obviously, the truth with a Kleenex is that once fire is lit to it, it will burn, and be reduced to ashes. However, there is not a guarantee that we will survive after death, but we should not be compared to a Kleenex. I’m probably bothered by this because I do believe that there is life after death. I am unsure of what that may be like, but having faith is enough for me to believe that I will survive after my passing.

 

[asiyebodur91]

"When I am without perceptions for a while, as in sound sleep, for that period i am not aware of myself and can truly be said not to exist." 

This quote makes me really think, deep, and dig into my reasoning.  I can agree to a certain point. So we don't necessarily think while we are a sleep, when we are under anesthesia or when we are knocked out unconscious from a injury. We are not aware of the actions of our body, our mind. Maybe that is why we sleep walk or dream during our sleep, our mind wonders off to places and people that if we were conscious wouldn't think of. The contradiction to this would be, not existing means something big. I feel like he is stating if you aren't in action of motion, or experiencing something at the moment, you are not having a perception. Ok, let me contradict myself, because in my opinion you are having a perception when you wake up you recall the dream sometime and elaborate on it trying to see what the dream means or such. It is an experience that gets ideas in your mind. 

[vgultyaeva]

I found  the” Dialogue on personal identity and immortality”  very interesting.  Death and  is there something after it are the most wondered about questions.  I found it very helpful how the Weirob and Miller looked at the question.  Miller’s idea of looking and trying to understand and explain what and who we are while we are a live is very interesting.  We have this strong connection between spirit and physical body that is very hard to separate.  Miller’s way of understanding of self as a “ buddy you see and could touch and I fear can smell. Rather it is a remark about soul. Which you cannot see or touch or smell” To us we are what we look like and what we think is one whole thing and it wary visible in Weirobs understanding of herself.  She was wary skeptical about continuation of existence after death of a physical body but the way she understands existence sounds like reincarnation. 

                In my understanding identity, soul, mind are all one thing. It’s something that is untouchable but makes someone in to that particular individual that they are.  Although our minds are changing doe to the life events, new knowledge and time we still keep our basic structure.  Even if one would get a different body his actions his manner of talking will make him the same person even though the body is different. 

[jossianny(jossy)]

"All beliefs about matters of facts or real existence are derived merely from something that is present to the memory or senses and a customary association of that with some other thing." (Hume 22)

"Therefore , memory doesn't merely show identity but also helps to create it, by bringing it about that many of the perceptions resemble one another"(Hume, Personal Identity:137). 

 I was(i am) very confused when i was reading Personal Identity by Hume's. i really wasn't understanding where he was going with "how we relate objects and belief that they are the same when they are not". Other than that the only thing i think i understood is that the thing that we called personal identity is just made up of our memories which goes back to what we read in Enquiry. That the memory or senses are very important  and are the things that makes us.But i do not know how this connects to how we relate objects and called two grains of sand the same when they are not.i would think we called then the same because of merely because laziness. would that be correct? or do we really can not separate things because they have similarities?   

[taniki0108]

"Your soul sees and smells, but cannot be seen or smelt"

I'm not getting what Miller is saying here, because if the mind or soul cannot communicate by themselves then that most make them a united with the body. If the body dies so does the mind and the soul. The whole you play a part in who you are, if I was not in this body I would not be me, I would be someone else. It's like when you become disconnected from your body, meaning you loose a limb. You may get a replacement but it can never feel like the original.

I like the dialogue, it was very interested and both had really good ideas but I would have to side with Weirob, because to me his opinion is more realistic.

Question: If the mind or soul exist outside of the body, what is their purpose? After all thy can't communicate without the body.

[Linda Chen]

When I look in on myself, I can never perceive this self without some one or more perceptions; nor can I ever perceive anything but the perceptions. It is a complex of these perceptions, therefore, that constitutes the self" (Hume 139).

In the reading about Weirob and Miller, Miller view on life after death is very interesting when comparing life to a tissue box. The body can die but the soul lives on because they are two separate features. Although a tissue box does not have a soul, when it burns, it takes another form (ashes). Miller's view of life is that it is never ending whereas, Weirob don't believe that the mind and soul lives on. As everything dies or re modifies its shape, it may not look the same but it is still with us. For instance, when a horse dies, it decays on the ground but yet nourishes the soil to create plants, trees, which then gets consumed by humans, and animals. It sounds weird, but the idea that the horse is with us is still somewhat valid. The same goes for the soul, if it never died with the body, then would it be with other souls who's body died as well? Perry's idea of life of the mind/ soul after death of the body is very difficult to prove, but we see examples of how everything changes, but they are still with us, so maybe we could draw some references from this concept.

Hume's skepticism about the personal identity of "self" seems a bit contradictory of what he claims from other works he has written. He claims that "self" part of our mind. It is contrary to what our "self" is since the product of our mind is an idea, we don't have a perception of how our "Self" because we are the "self". Maybe if "self" was thought of in terms of a priori, the idea of self would be a valid statement. Maybe perceiving other people as "self" we can have an idea of what is our "self". This is too many selves to talk about.

A really great quote by Hume, "But the human understanding can never discover connections among distinct existences; we only feel a con-nection in our mind when our thought is compelled to pass from one object to another" (140)

[nadezhda.yakimchenko]

"Memory should be regarded as the source of identity, mainly because without it we wouldn't know of the excistance of this lengthy and continuous sequence of perceptions.." ( pg 7 ).

I find this quote quite interesting. He is right, our memory is the build up of the many perceptions that happen in our lives. If our memory did not contain all of our past emotion, actions, and any perceptions, we would not have our identity. Our life experiences and how we grow and learn from them make us. Without our memory we would repeat The same actions over and over because we did not " actually " perceive them before because we would not have the recollection. But with our recollection of past events, know what not to repeat and we already know we have that perception.

[Carmen Wang]

In short, there are two principles that I cannot render consistent, nor can I give either of them up: (1) all our distinct perceptions are distinct existences, and (2) the

mind never perceives any real connection among distinct existences. (p. 140, Hume Personal Identity)

I'm not sure about Hume's Philosophy, he seems to be inconsistent's about his beliefs. It's just too much to try to understand his thinking, when most of the things he thinks is untrue. It would be too much for me to argue with all that he believes. Here is one of them: "When I am without perceptions for a while, as in sound sleep, for that period I am not aware of myself and can truly be said not to exist." The truth is he does exist, it's just that he is sleeping right now because his body needs to rest. I think he is over complicating things. He tries so hard to come up with his own philosophy, his own understanding, and in the end he isn't even sure himself.

Why read something that the philosopher himself thinks is not true? 

[gulyabigela]

I conclude that Hume and Perry think in the similar way. Hume persuades us that we often perceive related objects as the one, same object. He further implies his theory to personal identity, which he describes as something that consists different distinct impressions and ideas, united with help of resemblance and cause and effect. Perry, in turn, tries to disprove the whole idea of the soul as the same unseeable , untouchable entity which has every person and which stays the same whole life. He challenges us with such argument as: "For all you know- the immaterial soul which you think is lodged in my body might change from day to day, from hour to hour, from minute to minute, replaced each time by another soul psychologically similar. You cannot see it or touch it, so how would you know" (page 9). As I understand, both philosophers do not confront the existence of the mind, they just think of it differently that ordinary people used to. Each of them try to prove that there is no such thing as constant identity, or self, or soul. The vivid example of the lack of the sameness in the objects, which is provided by both of them, is the water of the river, which constantly changes. I can also point that people also change under life circumstances, experience, education, relationships, etc. Nobody stays the same, as these philosophers also say. However, I am confident that in almost every case you can recognize the person even after twenty or thirty years of not seeing him not because of the body, but because of the way he makes jokes, comments or simply laughs. I strongly believe that there is something inside of each person that cannot change, maybe some beliefs, fears or values in life.

I am interested, does Hume actually believe that the mind is simply organization of perceptions, and ideas, and nothing more? How it actually organizes everything then?

[tresjoli17]

" suppose wee have in front of us a mass of matter whose parts are contiguous and connected; clearly we have to attribute a perfect identity to this mass so long as it continues uninterruptedly to contain the very same parts, even if those parts move around within it. Now suppose that some very small or inconspicuous part is added to the mass or removed from it. Strictly speaking, it is no longer the same mass of matter; but we - not being accustomed to think so accurately - don't hesitate to say that a mass of matter is still 'the same' if it changes only in such a trivial way.

I chose the above because it reminded me of a paradox I covered in another class last semester, (The ship of Theseus). The question was, " If over time, planks from the ship of Theseus and other repairs are done, is it still the ship of Theseus?" The majority of the class, myself included, agreed that yes it is still the same ship. Our reasoning was that it still holds the "essence" ( or soul) of the original ship and no matter how many repairs are done, it still symbolizes and represents "the ship of Theseus". From the passage I understand what Hume is saying in that we are accustomed to giving objects identities regardless of whether they change and no longer strictly fit into the description of that identity and that we sometimes confuse that with relatedness. We're all guilty of that. However, I will say that I do not think it would be easy for me to start thinking in such strict terms. For example, If all the original planks of the ship of Theseus were taken apart and stored in a warehouse, strictly thinking, are those planks still the "Ship" of Theseus? What if those planks were used to build a table? Wouldn't it take on a new identity? Then again if every object came from something else, and is ever changing, does it make sense to continuously give the object a new name or identity?

[abe]

"For my part, when I look inward at what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure, or the like. I never catch myself without a perception, and never observe anything but the perception. When I am without perceptions for a while, as in sound sleep, for that period I am not aware of myself and can truly be said not to exist. 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 cannot see that anything more would be needed to turn me into nothing."

A very well-worded elucidation by Hume; I am sure many of us have probed the conscience as to our cerebral whereabouts whilst fast asleep; and the differences/similarities between the state of alertness and sleep. Sleeping, altogether has always fascinated me. Where do we go, how about dreams, nightmares, the things we hear, taste, smell, and touch, it all seems so real...can we see something in a dream that isn't a derivative of what we have already seen terrestrially etc. Is that even plausible? It's one of the inscrutable wonders of humanity that I believe, we will never truly come to conceive. Hume basically words it in such a way, that, if it just so happens that you manage to garner the audacity in confuting such an assertion, then you mustn't be a reasonable being. I, for one, (as eerie as it may seem) have examined people in my family while gone cold at times in an attempt at determining what might be going on in there...Based on facial expression, respiratory rate, whether they quiver, shiver, twitch, twirl, how many times they flip their pillows, change sides, etc. (I'm kind of nocturnal, as of now, circadian rhythm=effed up). It was very entertaining (trust me, it was) and definitely worthwhile, because after a certain time; I was able to guess whether or not they were dreaming.. My brother was the craziest. Every night he'd say something totally out of the realm of normality; and if it wasn't for my experimenting, no one would've ever come to the realization that my brother sleepwalks as well (who drinks milk in the middle of the night, disgusting?) Which brings up the question; what is normal in our dreams? There obviously is no hardcore proof, for it is all based on observation, no legitimate data; although, I do have my theories/presumptions on the basis of my inquiring upon awakening of "subjects." LOL. Not exactly groundbreaking... But I learned ... a few things.

[jimborat69]

I remember on our first reading Symposium by Plato. Socrates is saying that all humans wants to be immortal. We can be immortal by leaving a legacy or producing an off spring. This is a a big magnitude of my proof that even on our own offspring we still have our "self" in them. Like when you do something wrong and your mother will say"oh you got that from your dad side".  People keep on saying each individual is unique which is true but we have a trace of our self in each evolution we have. The question of are you the same 10 years ago? My answer is no because hopefully I am more smarter and matured but also I still have a trace of me 10 years ago. I can speak about some details like I still work in the same place but now I went back to school. I might be fatter now comparing when I was in high school but still me. Like Descartes say a wax is a wax. Even though you melt it in different shape size and form, it's still a wax. 

[christela sion]

in my opinio Hu and perry are just against eachother. I feel that everything falls in the same category of self. self means memory,impression,mind and idea. I feel that all the completes self.

[Ji Yeon Park]

The reading for Perry's Personal Identity was difficult to follow. But what Miller had said (Personal Identity, Page 5) "Your soul sees and smells, but cannot be seen or smelt."

This contradicts with what Descartes was trying to defend in the Meditations. I believe that Descartes was trying to explain how the mind/soul is real, while the existence of our body/senses is with doubt.

I thought it was interesting that Miller would say that the soul can see and smell. Even though logically, that would be impossible if the soul was not paired up with the senses from a body.

I felt that Miller and Weirob were speaking as the soul as how Descartes was speaking about the mind. If that is the case, would we be able to transfer souls/minds from one body to another?

[abe]

(continuation from class discourse)

picture yourself as a juicer. Now, you have 5 roots (sources of recollection, perception stems from the senses). so lets just say a kiwi is your sense of touch, a strawberry is your sense of smell, a watermelon is your sense of vision, a pomegranate being the sense of hearing, and finally, a pineapple as the sense of taste. throw all of that into your juicer. blend! end result? the mere thought/idea drawn by the mind. Idk. it sounds crazy, but it actually makes sense to me. I hope you don't think i've gone berserk. 

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that math is an integral, pertinent part of our everyday lives. Now, to me, as I was thinking about it in class, I thought; if there was one perfect way to describe me, it'd be via an equation with variables. Our ability to remember in itself is a variable, isn't it? Everyday of our lives, we encounter something else, we see something we have yet to see before (w/o realization), we come up with new ideas, new thoughts arise(spurring from.....); where might all this come from. I came to the conclusion that my life is the equivalent of.... every single recollection spurred by the senses (which, essentially, is every single worldly recollection; tactile, auditory visual etc.), ever since the moment of that first memory (w.e that maybe, who can ever be sure of that) MULTIPLIED by the amount of time you have lived= equates who you are at this very instance.

But then I thought about it again, where does emotion, the heart, feeling, play a role into this; where exactly does it come into effect. It most definitely has its role, doesn't it? or is it our minds that dictate what is it that we have come to adore/detest? What about a sociopath, how does he go about living; most certainly, the absence of feeling must have an effect on ones decision making in everyday life. Iffy situation. But anyway, to me, this is.... who I am. Two vacillating, eternally expansive variables(well, not really eternally, but to you or the being altogether, it is eternal for as long as you are "alive"). to me, that is the definition of who I am at this very moment. hence, I really am not the same person I was 10 years ago, I'm not the very same "person" I was 10 minutes ago and I'm not the same person I was 10 seconds ago. It's kind of hard to wrap your mind around, but according to the equation it must be true. and the equation makes total sense to me. even if someone were to refute this notion with substantial evidence(there's no way of proving this right/wrong, I think), I'd still firmly believe that the person I am at this very instant, is somewhat tied to this equation. Another example I've come up with in my time.

also, the example with the visually impaired man and the circle/box. I don't believe he'll be able to tell the difference in shapes solely by seeing it after recovery of vision. he'd have to touch it, examine it, once again, even though he finally does have the sense of sight. and when he does touch it, his expression would probably be something along the lines of "ahhhh, now i see." It would be, sort of like a revelation to him. I'd picture him smiling with a grin on his face as he's touching it and seeing it for the first time, at the same time. but were i to picture him looking at the two figures from afar, to me, he'd have a perplexed expression, wondering, asking himself, what in the world could that be. but for us to say he will realize the difference w/o touching it, we don't know for sure. I, personally, highly doubt it. who are we to say that his visionary and tactile senses work immediately in cohesion upon return of visionary sense. we don't know for sure; But i would presume that it would take some nurturing and time to fully discern and distinguish...... so as to have his senses working in concordance with one another.