Determining Personal Identity

John Locke states that personal identity is a matter of physiological continuity that is based on the consciousness of a person rather than the individual’s body. Personal identity is constituted by memory connections; specifically the depiction of autobiographical memory connections that result in constituting personal identity. John Locke states that a person’s personality and psychology can be transferred to another body and that individual can still stay the same person because the consciousness of the person did not change. This idea is known as transplant intuition. This intuition is the basis of the account of personal identity. If a cerebrum was removed from one body and transplanted into a different body, the transplant intuition

In a series of relatively simple though complexly-worded (out of necessity) thought experiments regarding body-swapping and changes to memory and the mind, Bernard Williams attempts to demonstrate that identity should be identified with the body rather than with the mind when identity is extended into the future (and by extension during the present). That is, though it is typical for identity to be associated with the mind at any given moment, Williams argues that the logic that supports this intuitive association does not hold up over longer periods of time, and that anticipation of the future leads to an association of identity with the body rather than with the mind. Whether or not Williams is successful in this attempt is a matter of much debate, with this author finding some fundamental flaws in the very premise of the comparisons and thus the conclusions, however the argument is fairly elegant and persuasive and certainly worth of closer inspection. A careful reading of the argument might lead one to a conclusion opposite to that which was intended, but is no less rewarding for this unusual quirk.

A body is just a body without a brain to command it and a brain can only do so much without a body to yield. It’s undeniable that the mind and body are completely dependent on the other to function, but where do they join together to form a unique individual. To what extent do the mind and body bridge together to form a unique individual? Is there even a bridge that connects them or are the mind and body separate entities who solely rely on each other to function, but that’s where all the shared boundaries that create a person end.

As the tool of scientific investigation increase, the relationship between the mind and the brain has never been more intimate. Chemical changes in our brain could lead to heightened euphoria or it can lead to the most profound depression. Damages to the brain can lead to changes that can eliminate the some abilities of the brain, such as smell, vision, or even the ability to recognized faces. Therefore, this is at that vary lease a powerful correlation between the state of the mind and state of the brain. But this is not enough for the Identity theories, so they go above and beyond this to explain this profound view.

The Identity theory maintains a monistic belief by considering states of mind as being indistinguishable to brain states. Mental experiences including feeling pain, and possessing mental images are not correlated with, but in fact are brain processes (Smart, 2007). When dealing with the question of whether the mind and brain are identical, identity theorists differentiate between two forms, Type Identity and Token Identity (Schneider). Token Identity theory considers that mental

Locke then presents his own body switching experiment to further strengthen his argument. The experiment is about switching souls between a Prince and a Cobbler. In this experiment, Locke takes the soul of the Prince and puts it in the body of the Cobbler and takes the soul out of the Cobbler and puts it in the body of the Prince. The result is that the Prince has the body of the Cobbler and the Cobbler has the body of the Prince.7 Both the Prince and the Cobbler feel normal because their consciousness goes along with their soul. Though the Prince and the Cobbler are in completely new bodies, they are still the same person because the soul that transferred from one body to other still has the same consciousness.8 Locke is trying to prove through his body switching experiment that personal identity goes where your consciousness and memories go. It doesn't matter what body contains what soul because each person has their own consciousness and that makes them able to identify themselves.9

According to many different philosophers such as Descartes and Locke there has to be more to the mind than just the materialistic view. There are many different parts to the brain which make it a whole according to science, so thinking about the brain from a philosophical standpoint, there must be different parts to make up the minds identity. According to John Perry, the memories and personality traits as well as beliefs and intellectual skills make up a personal identity and the body is just a vessel that holds this identity (TP, 197). Certain people might believe that if one were to get a brain transplant they would wake up the same person they were before they went in for the surgery. I, on the other hand concur with Perry and the idea

In the Third Night, Weirob explains why transferring her brain to another body would not be considered her own survival. One of the reasons she gives talks about the fact that she has seen her body but she has never seen her brain. In this case, if her brain was placed in another body, then the surviving person would not be her because she has no connection, or has never seen, the surviving body. This is to say that the fact that her brain has the ability to think abstractly, which includes her feelings and beliefs, it does not make the resulting person her identity. Also, Weirob touches on the idea that whatever the brains thinks can be reflected on the exterior.

Weirob reasons this conclusion by explaining that, although her surviving brain will be in another body, she will no longer be herself because it will not be her own body, basically suggesting that she chooses bodily connection over

In, “A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality,” the author, John Perry, proposes three totally different ways of thinking about personal identity. The first theory is presented by a character named Gretchen Weirob, she believes that a person is their body. By this she means that a person’s identity is intertwined with the DNA and molecules of their body. Their personality as well as their personal identity can’t be separated from their body, and they cannot exist without it. The second theory was presented by a character named Sam Miller, he believes that a person is their immaterial soul. So in general, Sam thinks that the soul is this invisible, immaterial substance that is able to exist from the body. The third and final theory was presented by a character named Dave Cohen. Cohen believes that a person has continuity of memory, and/or psychology. So in general Cohen’s theory is that personal identity is a set of correlating experiences and/or memories enclosed in the brain. All three of the personal identity theories state some very valid points, but they also have some inconsistencies, some more than others. But there is one theory that seems to be the most credible, and creates a very compelling argument while also having a little science to back up some of its points.

In John Perry’s Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality, in “The Third Night,” it starts with Cohen continuously questioning Weirob’s firm stand and opinion of what personal identity is. This opinion is of whether or not a person is identical to their own body. Weirob personally believes that when ones own brain is transferred to a completely different body in the attempt of survival, it has in fact not truly survived. Weirob argues that a person whose brain is in another person’s body; it is no longer the person involved. The person that had owned the body before the other brain was transplanted into it, is the one who is really in control.

Personal identity is essential in the human experience. Identity is complex and can be broken down into two main groups: introspective identity, and bodily identity. Introspective identity is based off of the groups, mentalities, or beliefs that you align yourself with, and bodily identity is based off of the physical side of yourself. Whether physical or introspective, your identity impacts every action you take. Whether choices ranging from what colors you prefer to which college you want to attend are primarily based off of your introspective identity, which is a combination of both memory and consciousness, physical identity impacts how others perceive you. Consciousness is mainly the awareness of bodily identity as well as continuous introspective identify, while memory is awareness of introspective identity. These two different facets of identity are imperative in the distinction between bodily identity and introspective identity. In means of personal identity introspective identity (which is evident in memory), is essential, while bodily identity (based partially in consciousness) has less credit.

In the world of philosophy, there has been an ever growing skepticism of the relationship between the human body and its mental state. The physical state of a person is tangible, meaning that they can be seen by anyone and touched. While the mental state of a person is embedded in their consciencousness, meaning that it can’t be observed by others unless willing expressed by said person. I will be using Leibniz’s law of identity to show that the metal states of an individual are distinct from a physical state. Using the notion of sameness, I can prove a valid argument that the physical and mental states are distinct. While this theory in part can be debated, some identity theorists can provide a rebuttal this claim. I will provide a response to an identity theorist rebuttal.

The view that we are purely material and nothing more than our brain is supported by the identity theory. The identity theory is that the thinking processes are identical to brain processes. One developer of the identity theory, J. J. C. Smart, claims that,”Mental states must be reducible to physical process.”(95). Therefore, if the mind is reduced to the brain and the mind defines self, then humans are just their brain. The “Brain in the Vat” argues for this view because it just needs the brain in the machine in order to experience the same reality as now. Consequently, since the brain is needed for the conscious thinking mind to go on experiencing life like normal, then the brain includes your mind and you are your brain.

I do not believe that the Identity theory solves the mind/body problem as well, because the identity theorists they fail to construe what consciousness is from both the internalists and externalists perspectives. Since something as complex as consciousness cannot be simplified to physical properties as the identity theorists would like to think so, then they are left with the question of how someone is able to understand if they really, in fact, aware of their consciousness.