This paper will be based on the imagination that I have been involved in a terrible car accident in which my body is completely destroyed except for my cerebrum (the front part of my brain where, by hypothesis, my psychology resides). It is also based on the imagination that my sibling is involved in the same accident and also suffers some damage, but that the only part of my sibling's body that is affected is the front part of the skull. The cerebrum is destroyed, but otherwise the brain and body is functional. So my sibling is alive, in a vegetative state, but has no significant psychological functioning. Doctors, in a heroic effort to save someone, transplant my cerebrum into my sibling's head and reconstruct the cranium around the transplanted cerebrum. The reconstructed human recovers and survives, and appears to have my sibling's body, but my memories, beliefs, desires, intentions, preferences etc. This paper tries to answer the following questions. (i) How would Parfait answer the five questions below? (ii) How would Olson answer the five questions below? (iii) In your own opinion, what are the best answers to the five questions below? Defend your position. a. In this story what has happened to me? b. Are mine numerically identical with the survivor? Why or why not? c. What has happened to your sibling? d. Is your sibling numerically identical with the survivor? Why or why not? In what sense, if any, has something that "matters" been preserved?
Parfait would answer this questions based on his philosophy of personal identity. The questions or perceptions that arise on our being can be handled by looking in to the issue of personal identity. This is on how philosophers and lawyers perceive it. The frequent asked questions on our being are question which apply to almost all of us. For instance for my case being involved in accident together with my sibling. Some of the questions which I may ask myself is; what has happened to me, Incase I die what will happen. Other questions which are may arise are more abstruse. Personal identity is an issue which has been discussed by philosophers since the upcoming of western philosophy.In this paper I will look in to the obvious question which will arise for being involved in a terrible accident. These questions will be based on personal identity. The recent times have brought new revelation to the issue of personal identity. This paper will be based on recent revelations. The issue of identity within certain time will be highlighted. I will discuss the meaning of the question as well as giving proposed answers. I will also say a little about how these answers relate to some of the other questions of personal identity and to more general questions the philosophy of mind.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
I will first identity the problems arising on the issue of personal identity. It v should be understood that a couple of questions exist for personal identity. Thus, there is no single problem of personal identity. These are the questions which will be dealt with in this analysis. In this story what has happened to me? Personal identity is mostly attributed what one is. In this case what makes me unique from the individuals defines my personal identity. What happened to my well being will be based on this uniqueness. The manner in which I perceive myself will enable factor out has happened. The convictions and also the values that dominate in my life will make me draw conclusions on the issue. Personal identity occur temporary based on the situation. Normally a new identity may come up by swapping the current personal identity. Are mine numerically identical with the survivor? Why or why not? It should be understood that an individual is unique from other individuals in one way or another. What has happened to my sibling? Is my sibling numerically identical with the survivor? Why or why not? In what sense, if any, has something that "matters" been preserved? The question of persistence should come up trying to review what has happened to my sibling. The issue on the possibility of living at different times should arise. In this v case it was not my intention to be involved in the accident, thus living at different times is the key issue here. By being involved in an accident, I should understand the adventures which I can go through or those which terminate my existence. The possibility of overcoming certain adventures is the central point. What has happened to me and to sibling should be an issue of comparing the past and the future. Personality identity over time should dominate in this case. In this case I would identity the survivors as my sibling. The parameter of "my" in this case denotes some kind of identification.The question of what happened to me and to my sibling should be based on the issue of hope or in another dimension of fear on what happens after we die. This can be related to the example of Plato'sPhaedo. The question will be based on the issue of biological death and how one's existence relates to it. Imagine that after your death there really will be someone, in the next world or in this one, who resembles you in certain ways. How would that being have to relate to you as you are now in order tobeyou, rather than someone else? What would the Higher Powers have to do to keep you in existence after your death? Or is there anything they could do? The answer to these questions depends on the answer to the Persistence Question.The issue on how we can identify ourselves is based on evidence. Evidence tries to give an insight of who I am? It is the question I am the one who was not earlier involved in accident. Opposing verdicts can be answered by looking in to the evidence available. First-person memory can be used as evidence. In the case of the accident, my brain was not affected but my sibling's brain was affected. Thus, first-person memory can be used as evidence. If someone remembers doing a certain action, or at least seem to remember, and someone really did do it, then that person is probably you. Physical continuity is another source of evidence. My sibling would in this case have a physical continuity since they resemble me in one way or the other.
Parif and Olson can clearly answer the questions based on the literature behind personal identity. Philosophical literature is mostly dominated by the Evidence Question. Persistence Question should not be confused with Evidence Question. In order for one to persist is outstanding. Evidence can be based on facts on personal identity such usage of fingerprints in court rooms. The issue of whether the victims of the accident are my siblings can be based on the Persistence Question. This gives a clear personal identity over time. The issue of probability comes up in this case. The questions can be answered basing on the argument that all of us are biological organisms. Based on the issue that we are made of made may be used to answer the questions above. Questions have been changing over time on the issue of personal identity. Analogous questions exist on the issue of persistence. It is therefore nice to analyze events based on well structured questions.It is worth noting that, an individual who exists at one time is identical with a person who exists at a second time if and only if the first person can, at the first time, remember an experience the second person has at the second time. These are some of the attributes which may enable answer the questions in the after the accident. They can also be answered based on Memory Criterion. The Memory Criterion may seem to imply that if you were to lapse into an irreversible vegetative state, the resulting vegetable would not be you, as it would be unable to remember anything: you would have ceased to exist, or perhaps passed on to the next world. But in fact it implies no such thing. Assuming that a human vegetable is not a person, this is not a case involving a person existing at one time and a person existing at another time. The Memory Criterion purports to tell us which past or future personyou are, but not which past or futurething. In other words, it says what it takes for one to persistas a person, but not what it takes for one to persist without qualification. So it implies nothing at all about whether you could come to be a vegetable or a corpse.In conclusion, the questions of my incidence can be answered based on Evidence question and Persistence Question. In my own opinion, Memory Criterion can be used in personal identity also.