Rosenberg's When A Corpse Is Not A Person

The soul is a non-material substance that somehow has a connection with one’s living body (Weisberg, January 2016). When the body dies, the connection between mind and physical being is broken (Weisberg, January 2016). After death, the body will rot away and parish. However, one’s soul, being a non-material substance, can not be destroyed, and with that, it is possible for a person, rather, a person’s soul and who they are, to live on after death (Weisberg, January

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.

If the body lives on despite the nearly complete death of the personality, are they still a person?

On the night three days before her death, Gretchen Weirob and her friends discussed the afterlife and things of the like. I am going to argue that Weirob is right to claim that personal identity cannot consist in the sameness of an immaterial, unobservable soul. – 45 words

McMahan 's The Metaphysics of Brain Death presents a case for the distinction between the body as the organism and the mind as the person. In defining this “mind-body dualism” (sec. 0, abstract), McMahan 's distinction brings forth a greater implication in the criterion for the death of a person, exploring the “dominant conception of brain death” which reasons that the loss of capacity for consciousness, caused by irreversible damage to the whole brain or brain stem, is sufficient for such a declaration as a persons ceasing to live (sec. 1, pars. 1-3). McMahan does not oppose the argument of brain death on the grounds of capacity for consciousness, but rather uses this to present that “the death of the entire brain is not equivalent to

One thing that ponders almost all who live is what happens after one dies. There are multiple theories about life after death, or the absence of it, many dependent on one’s religious beliefs. However, this is also a question philosophers have faced and come up with theories for. Bertrand Russell, a well-known philosopher from the twentieth century, has a theory on the matter. His theory on life after death, in standard form, is as follows: There is a strong correlation between brain states and mental states. In particular, the correlation between brain damage and impairment in mental capacity. So, probably all the mental states and capacities that we associate with a particular person are ontologically dependent on the continued functioning of that individual 's brain. So, if one 's brain ceases to function, then one 's mind ceases, as well. If you survive death, then your mind must survive. But, brain functioning ceases with death. Therefore, you will not survive death (Zelinski “On”). The argument is valid but some question whether it is sound. Russell 's argument is sound because the third premise, if one’s brain ceases to function, then one’s mind ceases to function, is true; the fifth premise, brain functioning ceases with death, is also true; that all leads to the conclusion, your mind will not survive death, being true.

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.

The nature vs nurture issue has been a controversial argument among psychologist for decades. This argument exposes two different views. One of them emphasizes that our personality depends solely on genetics (nature). On the other hand, the second view suggests that humans “develop through experience” (Myers 2013, SG 6) (nurture).

There is survival after death where the death becomes parts of the soul and the body.

Mankind has become more intellectual and creative than ever before. The human has learned to adapt and learn new ways of crafting society to be more functional. New sciences and technologies have developed at an exponential rate and then those new ideas blossom off of other ideas. This growth of ideas is similar to the process of dialectic. As this idea develops, counter ideas known as antithesis develop. The thesis and antithesis struggle between one another and convey about a new idea called a synthesis. The Synthesis contains the best of both, but creates a new antithesis as the synthesis ages. Various sciences have gone deep into human research and the makeup of the human anatomy. Scientists have become further innovative and have been able to clone people and make designer babies. Certain drugs and enhancements can also alter the way we act and think as human beings. Amid all these new alterations and being able to create life we have to ask ourselves, what is a human person? Before advanced science and mind altering drugs people would say in many instances that the person is a mind and a soul. There are many different definitions for what a ‘person’ or in many cases what a ‘human being’ is. I decided the best definition for a person to use would be the philosophical definition, which, is a self-conscious or rational being. This is a definition that makes us try to understand what is and what isn’t a person. However, this definition is simple and shouldn’t be our only

The poem "The Groundhog" composed by Richard Eberhart reflects the perception, emotion, and thoughts of a person who has experienced death first hand. The poem set in June in a golden field setting the mood light and warm until Eberhart presents the groundhog lying dead. The atmosphere quickly becomes dark and passionate allowing the audience to experience the changes in the perception and emotions of the speaker while considering the metamorphosis of the dead groundhog. As the speaker explores the golden fields, he stumbles upon a "groundhog lying dead."

The Ecological Model of Health, sometimes also called The Social-Ecological Model, is one of the main models and theories that underpin the practice of health promotion. Defined by the Institute of Medicine as "a model of health that emphasizes the linkages and relationships among multiple factors (or determinants) affecting health”, that ecological framework is based on the premise that no single factor can fully explain the variations, the prevalence and the complexity patterns of diseases, as they are the result of a dynamic interaction of several varied determinants.

Scientists still agree that biology does play a part in human behavior, however. Nature and nurture do not oppose each other in every manner. Today, social scientists hesitate to choose one or the other. As humans, life depends solely on the operating of the body. This is seen especially in children. It is obvious that children share their biological traits, such as hair or eye color, with that of their parents. Heredity also plays a part in their intelligence, how artistic they are, and their overall personality. We all have “potential” inheritances, in which their full development depends on how we are all raised. Both sides

Some would choose to declare that every human being is both a body and a mind. Both being gelled together until death, than having the mind go on to exist and the body being lifeless. A person lives throughout two collateral histories, one having to do with what happens to the body and in it, and the other being what happens in and to the mind. What happens to the body is public and what happens to the mind is private. The events which reply to the body consist of the physical world, and the events of the mind consist of the mental world.

Some psychological models assert that a proportion of our personality is inborn and permanent (Hollander, 1971), that a psychological core at the center of our personality gives us enduring, inner characteristics. Hans Eysenck (1965) suggests that our motivation and emotion are related to biological differences in brain function and proposed that 75% of our personality is based on genetic influence and 25% on environmental influence. Research by Peter Whybrow (1999) on identical twins separated at birth examined how their different environments shaped their personalities. He found that around 40% of personality should be credited to genetics, with 60% determined by outside factors.