Are we still "us"....

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;117357 wrote:

If you scratch a pot, is it still the same pot? Yes. Just because something about you changed, does not mean you are no longer yourself. You are still the same person if you learn something. Especially to outsiders, as they may not even know what you have learned.

I think, to become a different person, a great deal of properties would have to change. If I were to melt a pot into 12 bullets, the pot would no longer be a pot - it would be 12 bullets. Likewise, we would need to meld you, change you, so drastically (a great majority of properties would have to change) for you not to be yourself any longer.

I am what I am. You can't say that the body is unimportant, because it's everything that we can see of a person. I'm not saying the body is all that matters, but it's a bigger factor then us philosophers take account for most of the time. Just because you made a drastic change which turned a pot into bullets, doesn't mean drastic changes are all that changes something.

I am me before I get scratched. I am me with a scratch after I get scratched.

The metal is a pot before it gets melted. The metal is bullets after it gets melted. See what I mean? It's super technical and un-needed, but is it true, in a sense?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;117357 wrote:

If you scratch a pot, is it still the same pot? Yes. Just because something about you changed, does not mean you are no longer yourself. You are still the same person if you learn something. Especially to outsiders, as they may not even know what you have learned.

I think, to become a different person, a great deal of properties would have to change. If I were to melt a pot into 12 bullets, the pot would no longer be a pot - it would be 12 bullets. Likewise, we would need to meld you, change you, so drastically (a great majority of properties would have to change) for you not to be yourself any longer.

If Pa is the pot that will be scratched at t, and if Pb is the pot that is scratched at t, and if Pc is the pot that was scratched at t, then they are all the very same pot at different times, and have exactly the same property: scratched at t. And the same is true of all their properties. So the pot always has the very same properties, but indexed to time. The same is true of a person. Both change in time, but remain the same though change in time since there is never any property not had by the pot, or the person. That is how things can change, yet remain the same.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;117357 wrote:

If I were to melt a pot into 12 bullets, the pot would no longer be a pot - it would be 12 bullets.

. . . . but then you would no longer have a pot, and you'd have a handful of inferior bullets. Metal bullets? The ballistic characteristics would be awful. Unless of course your pot was made of lead, in which case you'd be better off melting it into bullets, or at least sabots, because as we know leaden cookware is a poor idea.

I'm just sayin'.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;117585 wrote:

If Pa is the pot that will be scratched at t, and if Pb is the pot that is scratched at t, and if Pc is the pot that was scratched at t, then they are all the very same pot at different times, and have exactly the same property: scratched at t. And the same is true of all their properties. So the pot always has the very same properties, but indexed to time. The same is true of a person. Both change in time, but remain the same though change in time since there is never any property not had by the pot, or the person. That is how things can change, yet remain the same.

A thing can have a potential property? That seems quite odd to me.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;117951 wrote:

A thing can have a potential property? That seems quite odd to me.

It is not a potential property at all. It is exactly the same property, only indexed to time.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;117953 wrote:

It is not a potential property at all. It is exactly the same property, only indexed to time.

Indexed in time? The pot does not have the scratch, if it does not have the scratch, even if it will be scratched at some point in time.

Quinn wrote:

I am what I am. You can't say that the body is unimportant, because it's everything that we can see of a person. I'm not saying the body is all that matters, but it's a bigger factor then us philosophers take account for most of the time. Just because you made a drastic change which turned a pot into bullets, doesn't mean drastic changes are all that changes something.

You are right. In fact, a very minor brain injury could irrevocably change someone to the point that others don't even recognize the same person. Well, personality-wise, that is.

Have you heard of the notion of essential properties? They are those properties which are essential for something to be something. These are contrasted with accidental properties, which are not essential for something to be something.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;117955 wrote:

Indexed in time? The pot does not have the scratch, if it does not have the scratch, even if it will be scratched at some point in time.

You are right. In fact, a very minor brain injury could irrevocably change someone to the point that others don't even recognize the same person. Well, personality-wise, that is.

Have you heard of the notion of essential properties? They are those properties which are essential for something to be something. These are contrasted with accidental properties, which are not essential for something to be something.

Could you say more about these essential properties, I presume most are physical properties.

I have to admit I'm quite persuaded by Hume's depiction of self-identity as beeing a 'bundle of perceptions', albeit my depiction wouldn't be quite as atomistic as his. In metaphysical terms the notion of self-identity seems very hard to justify, so what are the properties that designate selfhood.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;117955 wrote:

Indexed in time? The pot does not have the scratch, if it does not have the scratch, even if it will be scratched at some point in time.

.

The pot has a scratch at time T. That is true of the pot at any time in its history. It had a scratch at time T; it has a scratch at time T; and it will have a scratch at time T. It eternally has a scratch at time T. Every pot-stage has a scratch at time T. There is never when the pot does not have a scratch at time T.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;118669 wrote:

The pot has a scratch at time T. That is true of the pot at any time in its history. It had a scratch at time T; it has a scratch at time T; and it will have a scratch at time T. It eternally has a scratch at time T. Every pot-stage has a scratch at time T. There is never when the pot does not have a scratch at time T.

This kind of thing makes my head hurt. Mainly because I think I understand it.

I wish I was smart enough though to figure out how one might avoid using this to assert that the pot was destined to have a scratch. Did the pot also have a scratch at time T before it was even created?

It almost starts to sound like some form of determinism is at work here.

@Amperage,

there are two major questions here that I might identify. one has to do with individual identity and the other with faith, regardless of where that faith is directed.

the individual identity is created in part by its history and experience and in part by its mental makeup which may have a basis in genetic or physical causes and in part by the physical body and its ability to perceive. there is probably more to it, but that will serve as a foundation to build on.

if all the experiences are forgotten, they are removed from the mind-but the effects on the body remain and to an extent the effects on the mind that served to create a particular personality will also remain. the memories may be lost but the experiences themselves are not lost.

I am sure there are documented cases of amnesia and you can read about whether or not cruel people became altruistic or extroverts became introverts etc, or whether mathematical aptitude had been lost or gained, love relationships disappeared.

it seems to me that the results would vary depending on how strongly the characteristics of personality had been adopted. preferences for tea or coffee, chile peppers or spinach might change...

but I think the issue of faith is something else. people can reach an intellectual conclusion about religion, they can choose one religion over another, but the question of where does faith come from is not quite clear. there are people who have lived through miraculous events and yet see nothing beyond the physical. there are people who have suffered tremendous heartbreaks and yet they have faith in some benevolence in the cosmos.

so the question of whether or not a person has chosen to believe in God (or anything else or nothing at all) is not so much based on experience, knowledge or even personality, in my opinion. spiritual traditions may call it grace, which is not something to get into on this thread, but would make a great thread maybe in the theology group. so if that had descended on a person, I think it would remain. and if it had not, I think there is always a chance it will come, regardless of whether or not a person is changed by amnesia, alzheimer's, or any other life situation.

Philosophy Forum

Are we still "us"....

Quick Links

My Account

able2know