Similarities Between John Perry's Dialogue On Personal Identity And Immortality

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.

In the upcoming surgery, the donor will ideally be a brain-dead man of matching age, body size and blood group as Spiridonov (Lewis, 2015). The recipient will first be carefully decapitated, and then the head will be attached to the donor’s body through chemical fusion of spinal cords and connection of other vessels (Lewis, 2015).

In this Daniel Dennett’s essay “Where Am I?” Dennett tackles the difference between mind, body, and a person’s identity. In his story, Dennett has his brain removed and preserved in a vat. His body stays alive, and radio transmitters make it so he can still function. Dennett starts to question who and where “he” is. Though Dennett has several strong ideas, he isn’t correct in everything he suggests.

There is currently a big debate over the idea of head transplanting that came into discussion a month ago on whether it is ethical enough to perform or not. Lots of opinionated people have tied this procedure to Mary Shelley’s famous novel Frankenstein since it deals with trying to bring someone to life after having parts of them stop working. Throughout this paper, the topics to be discussed are: what is a head transplant, what are some debates going on with it, and how does it tie into Frankenstein?

A position of simply defining death as the permanent loss of consciousness was a potential position, which was then refuted. How can one be completely sure of true loss of consciousness? Singer replies to this case by referencing Dr. Margaret de Campo, and the new technologies

Imagine an elderly man, dying from a grueling disease known as ALS that makes it painful to breathe, unable to walk or stand, and eventually, unable to swallow food. With little money and time left to live he still seems like the happiest man around as he had his family and friends near him at the end with some of life's greatest lessons to teach. Well what if that man was real, and that man’s name was Morrie Schwartz? Morrie Schwartz was a college professor who had retired and then was diagnosed with ALS. An old student of his, Mitch Albom, saw him on TV and decided to visit his old professor on a Tuesday. Pretty soon one Tuesday turned into another, and eventually that turned into 14 Tuesdays until Morrie’s death. During those visits,

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 science which leads to the initialisation of the idea of creating organ donors which will contribute to the later life of those who stand higher in the society’s capitalistic structure can be said to have impacted the overall concept of a social order through the obstruction of proceeding in what is morally right as a result of deeming cloning perfectly acceptable. However, another way to interpret Ishiguro’s ideologies behind social order in Never Let Me Go can be through the lack of surprise at the ways in which Kathy’s society is run. The fact that science was powerful enough to normalise the concept of organ donation in a manner which is disadvantageous for the donors in regards to a chance at a normal life comes alongside the fact that there is very little desire to rebel on behalf of the donors. Through this, it can be deduced that science and its influence can completely overpower the idea of self righteousness and own will, enforcing conformity to the values put upon by a corrupt society, ultimately ensuing social

Gretchen Weirob, in her conversation with Cohen and Miller on the third night, discloses that in contrast to the Julia North story of a “body transplant”, she would not want her healthy brain attached to another individual’s healthy body. The human body is what we can physically see with our eyes, and what we are exposed to for the duration of our lifetime according to Weirob. The relationship we have with our brain is different. We know that the brain exists since we are capable of thinking, having the sensation of feeling, etc. But can we correctly identify ourselves based on our brains that we have never seen and say that we have survived? Weirob argues that we cannot since bodily identity is what defines personal identity. According to

Gretchen Weirob was a philosophy teacher and Sam Miller is her friend. Gretchen decided to spend her last days debating on whether life after death is possible and on personal identity. There were two debatable topics involved in this philosophical argument between Sam and Gretchen. They were immortality and personal identity.

Despite the advanced science involved, the philosophical issues are not new. English philosopher John Locke “argued that our identity is to be found in the continuity of our consciousness rather than in the continuity of our bodies.” (Solomn 323) Spridonov would agree with Locke: in interviews, he has stressed that he only sees this procedure as a way for him to live on with a new and healthy body. According to both Locke and Spridonov, the person with Spridinov’s head and someone else’s body would be mentally continuous with Spridinov and so would be

Am I the same person today as I was yesterday? Will I be the same person a few years from now as I am now? Kagan explains a few theories that can help with figuring out what makes me, me. There is the soul theory, the body theory, and the personality theory. The body theory consists of the brain and body theory and the torso and body theory. After looking into each theory carefully through Kagan’s lectures, I found that there were flaws in all three theories. The theory that I favor, however, is the body theory and more specifically the brain aspect of that theory. In my essay I will discuss why I favor the body theory and its strength and weaknesses. I will also discuss Kagan’s take on survival.

Relating to Daniel Dennett’s essay “Where am I” if Yorrick (Dennett’s brain) were to die would Dennett continue to exist through Hubert (the computer program that functionally mirrors his brain)? Dennett would not be able to survive because even though Hubert functions like Yorrick, Hubert isn’t able to recall memories and thoughts that make up a large part of Dennett. An example of this would be if you were to put your brain in a famous singer’s body and take their brain, would you be where they were or would you be in school right now? If they were to get interviewed about their past, what would they say. Memories and our feelings are vital to who we are. The celebrity might claim to be you and be able to tell personal stories about you. So Even though Dennett continues to have basic function such as breathing and a heart beat, his trust testament to himself, which included his personality, intelligence, and desires are not shown through Hubert.

Kim Souzzi was 23 when she succumbed glioblastoma, a terminal brain cancer that is incurable; however, her legacy lives on through what in the past was just science fiction. Kim’s brain is cryogenically frozen in the hopes that it one day can be mapped and her conscious be uploaded to a computer. Experts in the field of neuroscience disagree whether or not the process is possible as time and technology are potent variables. Despite being riddled with moral, fundamental, and scientific questions Kim raised funding via her online blog and Reddit. There were mixed comments on Kim’s blog, many supportive of her endeavor and many on the contrary. Ideals clash when it comes to human mortality. For centuries religion and science are in constant conflict,

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.