What is Derek parfit view on continuity personal identity

levi

Muse
L
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
510
I am not referring to weird examples such as half brain transplants multiple versions of an individual etc., just normal everyday examples. One person one moment to the next moment?
 
There's no such thing as a brain transplant. You probably mean hemispherectomy.

No idea who Derek Parfit is, and even if I did know, I wouldn't presume to tell you what his views are on anything. Maybe you could ask him.
 
levi said:
I am not referring to weird examples such as half brain transplants multiple versions of an individual etc., just normal everyday examples. One person one moment to the next moment?
Click to expand...

You might want to rephrase your question as it makes little sense the way it is currently posed.

Slingblade has more or less nailed the entire thread up to now.
 
Personal identity

Parfit uses many examples seemingly inspired by Star Trek and other science fiction, such as the teletransporter, to explore our intuitions about our identity. He is a reductionist, believing that since there is no adequate criterion of personal identity, people do not exist apart from their components. Parfit argues that reality can be fully described impersonally: there need not be a determinate answer to the question "Will I continue to exist?" We could know all the facts about a person's continued existence and not be able to say whether the person has survived. He concludes that we are mistaken in assuming that personal identity is what matters; what matters is rather Relation R: psychological connectedness (namely, of memory and character) and continuity (overlapping chains of strong connectedness).
On Parfit's account, individuals are nothing more than brains and bodies, but identity cannot be reduced to either. Parfit concedes that his theories rarely conflict with rival Reductionist theories in everyday life, and that the two are only brought to blows by the introduction of extraordinary examples. However, he defends the use of such examples because they seem to arouse genuine and strong feelings in many of us. Identity is not as determinate as we often suppose it is, but instead such determinacy arises mainly from the way we talk. People exist in the same way that nations or clubs exist.
A key Parfitian question is: given the choice of surviving without psychological continuity and connectedness (Relation R) or dying but preserving R through the future existence of someone else, which would you choose?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Parfit#Personal_identity
 
Is Parfit correct?

What if you separated every cell from a human they would not have the same properties. Take consciousness. Consciousness isn’t the property of one cell it is multiple cells. Take the newly discovered memory cell without the rest of the brain the cell could not function the same.
 
levi said:
Is Parfit correct?
Click to expand...

No idea. Don't really care, either.

What if you separated every cell from a human they would not have the same properties. Take consciousness. Consciousness isn’t the property of one cell it is multiple cells. Take the newly discovered memory cell without the rest of the brain the cell could not function the same.
Click to expand...

Duh.
 
levi said:
What if you separated every cell from a human they would not have the same properties. Take consciousness. Consciousness isn’t the property of one cell it is multiple cells. Take the newly discovered memory cell without the rest of the brain the cell could not function the same.
Click to expand...

So does this pretty much refutes parfit?
 
Last edited:
What is the question you are concerned with refutation of? That page discusses many things.
 
It looks like you are trying to get us to do your homework for you.

This isn't the James Randi We Write Your University Essay For You For Free Forum.

I think you would be better off sitting down with the Stanford page and puzzling out for yourself what it is saying. That way you might actually learn something. Giving you something to parrot in your essay won't actually help you learn anything, it will just help you bluff your way through an assessment item with a better mark than you deserve.
 
Plug this: is parfit right about identity? into Google search.

Read. Evaluate using critical thought.
 
I think Parfit is saying that we only have psychological continuity unless your brain is split into 2 than you become 2 people and it becomes complicated.
Or am I wrong and is he a bundle theorist?
 
Why do you start threads asking us what other people think (as if we know for sure), then ignore our answers, give us your take, and ask us if you are right? Honestly, this is getting old.

Think whatever you like about these sorts of things, I am truly failing to care any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom