Can you deliberate about this...

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
My view is that GB is fundamentally a biological organism, a human animal, and that his persistence over time consists in the persistence of his life-sustaining functions. So if we do nothing to the original GB to prevent his life-sustaining functions from continuing, then that will be GB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me you're making this up as we go along. You must realize there is an easy counter to that.

luckyme

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My view is that GB is fundamentally a biological organism, a human animal, and that his persistence over time consists in the persistence of his life-sustaining functions. So if we do nothing to the original GB to prevent his life-sustaining functions from continuing, then that will be GB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me you're making this up as we go along. You must realize there is an easy counter to that.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no 'easy-counter' to the main tenet of animalism--that we are identical to human animals--although there is an ever-growing debate between those who propound animalism and those who propound a psychologically based neo-Lockean view of our identity over time.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My view is that GB is fundamentally a biological organism, a human animal, and that his persistence over time consists in the persistence of his life-sustaining functions. So if we do nothing to the original GB to prevent his life-sustaining functions from continuing, then that will be GB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me you're making this up as we go along. You must realize there is an easy counter to that.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no 'easy-counter' to the main tenet of animalism--that we are identical to human animals--although there is an ever-growing debate between those who propound animalism and those who propound a psychologically based neo-Lockean view of our identity over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than restart, I'll just use the scenario we're in. I start to switch atom for atom between the two Gb's. At which point does the one stop being your 'the real Gb'.

luckyme

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My view is that GB is fundamentally a biological organism, a human animal, and that his persistence over time consists in the persistence of his life-sustaining functions. So if we do nothing to the original GB to prevent his life-sustaining functions from continuing, then that will be GB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me you're making this up as we go along. You must realize there is an easy counter to that.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no 'easy-counter' to the main tenet of animalism--that we are identical to human animals--although there is an ever-growing debate between those who propound animalism and those who propound a psychologically based neo-Lockean view of our identity over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than restart, I'll just use the scenario we're in. I start to switch atom for atom between the two Gb's. At which point does the one stop being your 'the real Gb'.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

At the point at which the biological functions that sustain the life of the human animal that is GB irreversibly cease.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My view is that GB is fundamentally a biological organism, a human animal, and that his persistence over time consists in the persistence of his life-sustaining functions. So if we do nothing to the original GB to prevent his life-sustaining functions from continuing, then that will be GB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me you're making this up as we go along. You must realize there is an easy counter to that.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no 'easy-counter' to the main tenet of animalism--that we are identical to human animals--although there is an ever-growing debate between those who propound animalism and those who propound a psychologically based neo-Lockean view of our identity over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than restart, I'll just use the scenario we're in. I start to switch atom for atom between the two Gb's. At which point does the one stop being your 'the real Gb'.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

At the point at which the biological functions that sustain the life of the human animal that is GB irreversibly cease.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh? we're switching liver cell a70000 for liver cell c70000. Why in the world should anything cease? At all times since emergence from the 'porter these two entities have been identical. The switching is not necessary other than to somehow get your attention.

luckyme

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My view is that GB is fundamentally a biological organism, a human animal, and that his persistence over time consists in the persistence of his life-sustaining functions. So if we do nothing to the original GB to prevent his life-sustaining functions from continuing, then that will be GB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me you're making this up as we go along. You must realize there is an easy counter to that.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no 'easy-counter' to the main tenet of animalism--that we are identical to human animals--although there is an ever-growing debate between those who propound animalism and those who propound a psychologically based neo-Lockean view of our identity over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than restart, I'll just use the scenario we're in. I start to switch atom for atom between the two Gb's. At which point does the one stop being your 'the real Gb'.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

At the point at which the biological functions that sustain the life of the human animal that is GB irreversibly cease.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh? we're switching liver cell a70000 for liver cell c70000. Why in the world should anything cease? At all times since emergence from the 'porter these two entities have been identical. The switching is not necessary other than to somehow get your attention.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it would cease. You asked me when GB would stop existing, and my answer is "when the biological functions that sustain the life of the animal that is GB irreversibly cease." If that doesn't happen, then GB still exists.

All views of personal identity have borderline cases where it is difficult to apply the criterion, so it is no special objection or refutation of animalism to point out that there are borderline cases for applying that criterion as well.

Btw, I am also a non-criterialist with respect to the persistence of continuants in general, which means that I do not think we can give informative necessary and sufficient conditions for the identity over time of any concrete particular. But I hold that view because of my views about the nature of persistence, not because I think there is no answer to what I take to be the central question of personal identity--the question of what we are most fundamentally. On that question, I am an animalist.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Madnak, I think that useful philosophical discussion requires a minimum of shared conceptual background beliefs. When there is fundamental disagreement at the bedrock level there is no basis for useful discussion.

That's about the best I can do in response to claims like "there's no such thing as identity," "I can coherently conceive of logical contradictions," and "everything is semantic."

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, fair enough, but I don't think this is bedrock and even if it were, I don't think that means you're off the hook in terms of supporting your position.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say it would cease. You asked me when GB would stop existing, and my answer is "when the biological functions that sustain the life of the animal that is GB irreversibly cease." If that doesn't happen, then GB still exists.

All views of personal identity have borderline cases where it is difficult to apply the criterion, so it is no special objection or refutation of animalism to point out that there are borderline cases for applying that criterion as well.

Btw, I am also a non-criterialist with respect to the persistence of continuants in general, which means that I do not think we can give informative necessary and sufficient conditions for the identity over time of any concrete particular. But I hold that view because of my views about the nature of persistence, not because I think there is no answer to what I take to be the central question of personal identity--the question of what we are most fundamentally. On that question, I am an animalist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But I hold THAT view..

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not convinced it is a view. You strongly argue for the uniqueness and identity of a specific entity, then admit there is no way to identify it. It comes down to - "he" exists when I tell you he does.

luckyme

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say it would cease. You asked me when GB would stop existing, and my answer is "when the biological functions that sustain the life of the animal that is GB irreversibly cease." If that doesn't happen, then GB still exists.

All views of personal identity have borderline cases where it is difficult to apply the criterion, so it is no special objection or refutation of animalism to point out that there are borderline cases for applying that criterion as well.

Btw, I am also a non-criterialist with respect to the persistence of continuants in general, which means that I do not think we can give informative necessary and sufficient conditions for the identity over time of any concrete particular. But I hold that view because of my views about the nature of persistence, not because I think there is no answer to what I take to be the central question of personal identity--the question of what we are most fundamentally. On that question, I am an animalist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But I hold THAT view..

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not convinced it is a view. You strongly argue for the uniqueness and identity of a specific entity, then admit there is no way to identify it. It comes down to - "he" exists when I tell you he does.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your response. Yes, animalism is a view. It is a view held by a number of philosophers writing about personal identity.


The fact that identity over time may be indeterminate in some cases, if it is a fact, is a fact for all theories of personal identity. If you accept that we persist over time, then there is something that our persistence involves, and the fact that it is difficult to discern whether or not those conditions hold in some cases simply means that some cases are difficult, or perhaps that the question of persistence itself is sometimes indeterminate. This is a fact about persistence, not about what sort of thing we are most fundamentally.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
I waiting for the aha! moment in this thread.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUod3jGQt0U