Summary Of A Dialogue On Personal Identity And Immortality

In the “Second Night” of Perry’s Dialogue, Miller argues that memories are what determines personal identity. He began with the idea that if he were to take a person to the stretch of the river and then later come across a different stretch of the river, it could be classified as the same river. He believes that the judgement of personal identity are referred to the parts(stretches of the river) and how they are judged to be connect in certain ways. He then argued that all you need in order to survive after death is to imagine a later person who is in heaven with all the memories that had happened in your present/past. These memories can only be considered real if they were experienced by the same person who had the memories. On page 30, Weirob

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.

Working in conjunction with memory is consciousness, consciousness is the definition of the self; it is the mind’s capacity to point beyond itself, differentiating between itself and an object creating awareness of “I” throughout bodily and memory changes. Consciousness is the heart of free will and intent, it is responsible for the ability of a person to choose. With that said, it is my belief that defining personal identity relies on both bodily and mental continuity.

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

If on Tuesday, I suffer an accident and lose all of my memory, it is probable that my family and friends will still love and care for me, creating an impression that I am indeed the same person I once was. These conditions imply the theses of animalism and bodily continuity when it comes to personal identity. However, is this human habit enough to discard the idea that it is psychological continuity that sustains identity? Whilst many may argue that it would be against our intuition to say that I am no longer the same person, I do not believe that this is caused by our intuition, but instead a societal construct that’s sole purpose is to make the trauma of the accident and loss easier to deal with. By using this premise and upholding the psychological

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 A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality, Gretchen Weirob argues that an individual has different character traits that split that person into diverse identities, no one is simple and he or she may have a complex identity. A person who experiences false memory may not be the same person Gretchen makes a careful distinction between two types of identities; these are the numerical and qualitative identities. The writer declares the former to be the identity and the later as the exact similarity. Same body same soul does not necessarily mean it resides in one person. I am numerically identical to myself. The same body could be equated to being numerically identical to oneself, for instance as they could be two and both of them boys, but in essence, they are still two people.

Loftus and Palmer support the reconstructive memory hypothesis. They believe that information gathered at the time of an icident is

John Locke claims that memory is the key to identity, so “as far [as] someone’s memory goes, is so far the identity of the person.” (Campbell) First, Locke explains the concept of body swapping in terms of the prince and the cobbler: the “transfer of memories between the body of the prince and the body of the cobbler would mean the people have swapped bodies.” (Campbell) In this example, the

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 philosophy, the issue of personal identity concerns the conditions under which a person at one time is the same person at another time. An analysis of personal identity

The question on personal identity has been a philosophical debate for a long time. Philosophers over time have tried to argue what being a person that one is, from one day to the necessarily contains. In their endless search for philosophical bases on the same, multiple questions on the issues of life and death arise such that the correct answers to personal identity determine the changes that one person undergoes, or may undergo without being extinct but rather continuing to exist. Personal identity philosophical theory confronts the most ultimate questions on our existence as well as who we are and if by any chance there is a possibility of life after death. In attempts to distinguish change in a person in survival and after death, a criterion of personal identity over time is given. Such criterion specifies all the necessary and sufficient conditions that must prevail for a person to continue to exist (Perry et al,103)

According to Miller’s first theory soul and body works together. By looking at soul we can tell who the person is. Each individual has their own soul which cannot be taken away from them. Furthermore when somebody's body deceases, so does their spirit. The issue with this hypothesis is if we apply this guideline to heaven, it gets to be inconceivable for somebody to get by after death of the body. After death, body will be spoiled so it’s absolutely impossible the same individual with the spirit will have the same body so it demonstrates that if there's one body one soul then there is no possibility to have life after death. This consequently demonstrates Miller hypothesis of body and soul isn't right, which means Weirob is right to claim that body and soul is not the only thing that defines a person. She defends her theory by saying that soul in not observable neither touchable nor audible, hence we cannot just say person A will always be person A because we can’t see their soul. Miller and Weirob both later realized something is wrong with Miler’s theory. So he came up with another theory which revolves around memory. As we all know memory is something which is hard to take away from a person unless he

In this paper, I will argue that the Memory Theory of Personal Identity is the closest to the truth. I will do so by showing that the opposing theories – Body and Soul Theories – have evident flaws and that the

What makes up a person is their past experiences and what they have been through, memory is not a necessary element in ones’ identity because if a person’s memory fails, they will most likely still have the same beliefs which they developed from their past experiences and thoughts, even if they do not remember them accurately. For example, if you are told to think of your “self” what picture comes to your mind? Do you picture a self/soul? There is no way you can know what your soul looks like, because simply there is no soul; you just picture your experiences and perceptions which make up your identity. David Hume, a philosopher, said that our minds