Problems in Personal Identity: In Conclusion
Baillie (James)
Source: Baillie (James) - Problems in Personal Identity, 1993, Conclusion
Paper - Abstract

Paper SummaryNotes Citing this Paper


Notes

  1. Baillie rejects the traditional “thought experiment”1 approach; our intuitions are unreliable, the conclusions are inconclusive and any benefits of this approach have already been assimilated. The problem cases are often impossible, and a false dichotomy is often set up between conflicting intuitions.
  2. Abandoning this methodology, the Physical Criterion wins out. We are material beings whose persistence is Bodily. However, if forced to accept the thought experiments2, Baillie thinks he goes where his brain goes (should brain transplants3 be possible). He largely accepts Parfit’s analysis should double half-brain transplants4 be possible: presumably he accepts that while I don’t survive (or am not identical to either of the survivors), I have what matters5 in survival.
  3. Any contribution made by philosophers with respect to the Psychological Criterion must be in the light of the sciences of Neuroscience and Psychology. The philosopher is very much the handmaiden of the sciences in the respect.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2018



© Theo Todman, June 2007 - May 2018. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page