The Problem of Personal Identity

 Perhaps you have heard the observation that, since our bodies are continuously changing as we live and breathe, with sloughing off of skin cells, the retirement of blood cells and their replacement, hair growth, and the like, the person we were 10 years ago is gone in all essential matters today.  The food we have eaten over these past years has provided the molecular basis of the substitution of older materials in our bodies with new materials.  We heal by regrowing damaged tissues, our joints and organs get replaced, and in so many other ways.  We might call this physical evolution process the Body Theory of Personal Identity.

Another way to look at this change process is by comparing a person's interests and recognition of themselves.  Our attitudes change, our sense of self shifts moment to moment so that we become a new person continuously.  This is called the Illusion Theory which says that to think that we stay the same is the illusion.  In fact, we continuously change.

A third perspective states that we are the same person as long as we have a continuous memory of our past, and possess a set of overlapping memories.  When memories are gone, we are no longer the same person we were.  Those of us dealing with our elders with dementia feel this loss of continuity deeply and may consider the loss of memory to be a way of saying that our loved one is not who they once were, that their identity has been lost.  I've read stories dealing with dementia where the author describes the person with memory loss as dying twice, once mentally and the second time physically when the body can no longer function.  It sounds like Rousseau and the mind/body problem he so famously summarized with "I think, therefore I am."  When we can no longer think, we are not.

The last perspective is one a bit more sacred, as it addresses the living self through identity with a soul.  This theory posits that we are our soul in a very literal sense.  Same soul = same person.  It would seem that the changes discussed above are considered to be ephemeral to the central identity of our soul, which forms our being and is unchanging.  The problem is that the soul is non-physical and eternal, and exists associated with but separate from the bodies we inhabit.  Various religions suggest that the soul is put into our bodies by some force that we cannot see or measure, and that upon death the soul rejoins the larger pool of souls from which it came (heaven is one model, the over-soul in Eastern religions is another).  Philosophers are not fond of mystical identities like this, since there is no way of measuring or identifying a "soul" in any meaningful way.

This idea that everything changes constantly is an ancient theme.  Heraclitus famously observed that it is not possible to step into the same river twice, as the water is in constant motion.  The philosopher William James talks about our constantly changing consciousness.  David Hume, the Scottish philosopher whose picture is at the top of this page that I took in Edinburgh, wrote that it was not possible to observe a permanent self. 

If all this great philosophy concludes that we all are in a constant state of flux, and the world around us is continuously changing, how can we hold onto an idea of our personal identity?

Convince Me We are not Living in Purgatory?

The May 1 Big Questions will be hosted by Wes and Alice Cain at their home (or should I say farm?) in Stanwood.  If you need the address or directions, please contact them directly.  The starting time is still 6:00 and will include the potluck dinner, followed by the discussion at 7:30.  Judy and I are traveling that day and cannot be back in time to host.  Please note that the meeting will not be on Zoom that evening.

Wes has chosen the topic, which is summarized in the title above.  He provided a synopsis of his topic, and I have copied it below.  

<Wes>  At a March Big Questions, someone suggested the topic: Convince me we are not living in purgatory.

Definition of purgatory according to Merriam-Webster:  

1: an intermediate state after death for expiatory purification, specifically: a place or state of punishment wherein, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, the souls of those who die in God's grace may make satisfaction for past sins and so become fit for heaven.  

2: a place or state of temporary suffering or misery

First Question: Are we living in purgatory? 

<Gemini>  Sometimes, the "purgatory" feeling is just a byproduct of modern life. The repetitive nature of a 9-to-5 job, the endless scrolling on social media, and the feeling of waiting for "real life" to start can make Tuesday afternoon feel like an eternal middle ground.

<Wes>  I don’t think this addresses the intent of the statement, which I took to be our political situation, including the ICE raids and No Kings protests, and the general awfulness of the world.

Back to the initial statement: Convince me we are not living in purgatory.

<Gemini>  It’s a valid question. If you look at a news feed for more than five minutes, the "waiting room for the afterlife" theory starts to look like a pretty reasonable explanation for the chaos.

However, if this were strictly purgatory—a place designed for static endurance and purification—the "architects" made some pretty significant clerical errors. Here is the case for Earth being a much more interesting (if messier) reality:

1. The Glitch of Sensory Joy

Purgatory is usually depicted as a grey, monotonous middle ground. It’s "lukewarm." Earth, however, is a place of extreme sensory peak-and-valley.

• The Argument: A place designed solely for soul-scrubbing wouldn't include the smell of rain on hot pavement, the specific endorphin rush of a perfect high-five, or the existence of mangoes. These things are "unnecessary" for purification—they are purely, redundantly wonderful.

2. Agency vs. Endurance

In the classic concept of purgatory, you are a passive participant. You are there to undergo something until you’re ready for the next level.

• The Reality: On Earth, we have the annoying but beautiful burden of agency. We don't just wait for the world to happen to us; we actively tilt the axis. People build libraries, rescue stray dogs, and invent ways to harness the sun. If this were a waiting room, we’d be getting in a lot of trouble for rearranging the furniture.

3. The "Bad News" Bias

We are biologically wired to notice the "terrible things" because, evolutionarily speaking, the person who noticed the tiger survived longer than the person who noticed the pretty flower.

• The Perspective: Disaster is an event; peace is a state of being. You don't see headlines that say "4 Billion People Had a Decent Tuesday," but it happened. The fact that we are even capable of being "convinced" otherwise suggests we have a baseline expectation for goodness that purgatory wouldn't bother providing.

4. Innovation and Progress

Purgatory is a circle; Earth is (mostly) a messy upward spiral.

• The Evidence: We’ve eradicated diseases, lowered global poverty rates significantly over the last century, and figured out how to put a camera on Mars. In a true purgatory, the "tech tree" would be locked. We’d be stuck with the same problems forever, but we keep solving old ones—even if we're remarkably talented at inventing brand-new ones to replace them.

The world is undeniably heavy right now, but purgatory is a place where nothing changes. Earth is a place where everything is constantly, sometimes violently, becoming something else. That capacity for change is exactly why it's worth sticking around to see what we do next.

What’s one "unnecessarily good" thing you’ve encountered lately that definitely wouldn't be on the menu in a grey waiting room?

The Importance of Maintaining Friendships

 Psychology tells us that the loneliest part of growing old isn’t being alone, but realizing that some friendships disappear as soon as you stop nurturing them, and understanding that they were never based on mutual care, but on your willingness to do all the emotional work

I don't think I've done the same topic twice in a row before, but the discussion we held last time was powerful due to the perspectives shared, and was meaningful for me.  The quote above comes from an article on the topic of friendship that focuses on the work that friendship requires, and how aging can affect who we are friends with, and how it takes work to make it all come together.  Here is a link to the article.   (I apologize that this link takes you to an article that is absolutely filled with Ads.  Please ignore the distractive Ads and stick to the text.  That is where the real information exists.)  As I read the article my mind flashed to people who I had considered to be friends in the past, but who may have slipped into my past today due to either inactivity, indifference or my negligence in failing to reach out and share what is going on in my life.  Being friends requires work, according to the authors, and the work is what makes having friends rewarding.  What is the work being done?  Read the article to find out.

Anyone who has had a medical appointment in the past few years has been quizzed by their primary care physicians and others about how connected each of us is to the people in our lives.  Connection to people is a key to mental and emotional health, if not actual survival, and special connections with people we consider to be friends is especially important.   The social groups we participate in affect our sense of belonging more than we can appreciate.  Social scientists study these interactions and report on their importance.  As we age it becomes even more important.  

Our group at Big Questions is a crucible where friendships are formed and nurtured.  We come together to provide the mutual support we all need in our lives.  Come, friend, and participate in a life-affirming activity.

What are the qualities you value in a friend?

In our modern world we meet lots of people whom we get to know at an imperfect and sometimes superficial way.  Some of these people make it to the Friend Level, which involves us knowing more about them, having more contact with them, and so on.  What do people you call Friend have in common with you, and with each other?

April 3, 6:00 Potluck, 7:30 Discussion

What Do You Own? - March 20

For our next topic  I reached back over a dozen years and stumbled on this one.  In the link below I have copied the original discussion topic blurb I used in 2011, and then have expanded on it with a discussion I had with the AI Gemini.  I think drawing in specific legal cases and outlining the philosophical issues clearly makes for great reading, and leads to a deeper understanding of the issues we all face.

This link is to an extended discussion concerning the ethical, philosophical and legal parameters surrounding the idea that ownership of our bodies, both as living entities in society, and with regards to life ending decisions we may want to make.  It can be convoluted and controversial.  The US Supreme Court has ruled on several aspects of personal property ownership that significantly impact what we can do with our body parts, and what we can select as our final wishes.

Please let me know if you cannot get access to the linked material.  I don't think I have restricted access in any way.

The Paradox of Choice - March 6

I asked Gemini to help with a topic for this week's discussion group.  Gemini offered three topics and I chose this one.  I chose it because it is one that I have thought about in the past, especially when traveling in countries where the items that are available on their grocery store's shelves are only a fraction of those we see in our stores.  We all experienced this to a degree during COVID when distribution systems were disrupted, for example.  In a larger sense many of us have had opportunities for life choices that lead to this path, or that path, which have guided our lives to this point.  Choosing one path to follow puts us on our life's journey in that direction, forsaking the others.

The idea that people with limited life choices seem to be happier is an interesting one.  In a recent tour of Scotland and Ireland Judy and I visited towns and villages that continue to exist with small houses and very limited access to the sort of world we live in here in the USA.  These limitations do not mean that they live less interesting or happy lives, or does it?  Shopping in a grocery store with 400 ft2 of sales space?  Our grocery stores in the USA are 50,000 ft2 and more.  Shouldn't we be happier with all the choices we have?

How does access to so many life choices impact the lives of men and women who live in the US midwest where farming is the economic driver in the community, for example?  We could look back at a time when pioneers drove covered wagons into that area and our ancestors chose to put down roots and raise their families in a world without any access even to community, other than the folks in the next homestead.  Were they happy?  Would they have been happier if they had more choices?

<Gemini>  The "Paradox of Choice" is a fascinating pivot from your recent discussion on Utopian Societies, as many utopias are built on the idea of perfect freedom—yet in practice, that freedom often leads to a specific kind of modern anxiety.

Here is an exploration of the core tensions within this topic to help frame your Friday night discussion:

---

The Core Concept: Why "More" is "Less"

Psychologist Barry Schwartz, who popularized this idea, argues that while some choice is better than none, too much choice produces two negative effects:

1. Paralysis: We find it difficult to choose at all (think of scrolling through Netflix for 40 minutes only to give up and go to sleep).

2. Opportunity Cost: Even if we make a good choice, we are less satisfied because we imagine the "missed" benefits of the alternatives we rejected.

---

Philosophical Perspectives for the Group

1. The Existentialist Burden: "Condemned to be Free"

Jean-Paul Sartre famously argued that humans are "condemned to be free." Because there is no pre-determined blueprint for our lives, every choice we make defines who we are.

• Discussion Point: In a world with infinite career and lifestyle paths, does the "weight" of choosing correctly become a source of existential dread rather than joy?

2. Stoicism: Freedom through Limitation

The Stoics believed that true happiness comes from narrowing our focus to only what we can control. By voluntarily limiting our desires and options, we actually gain more agency.

• Discussion Point: Does the modern "minimalist" movement (digital decluttering, capsule wardrobes) represent a return to Stoic wisdom as a defense against choice overload?

3. The "Maximizer" vs. The "Satisficer"

• Maximizers: People who feel they must explore every single option to find the "best" one. They often achieve better objective outcomes but feel worse about them.

• Satisficers: People who have a set of criteria and choose the first option that meets them. They are generally happier with their decisions.

• Discussion Point: Is it possible to be a "Satisficer" in a culture that constantly tells us we deserve the "absolute best"?

---

Potential "Big Questions" for the Meeting

• The Identity Trap: If we define ourselves by our choices (purchases, hobbies, politics), does having too many options make our identity feel fragmented or shallow?

• The Regret Factor: Does a society with more choices inevitably lead to a society with more regret?

• The Social Contract: Should society/government intentionally limit certain choices to increase the collective well-being (e.g., standardizing healthcare or retirement plans to reduce "decision fatigue")?

 

Feb 20: Utopian Societies

 The group at the last meeting of BQ discussed their interest in examining Utopian Societies at our next meeting.  To put some context into the discussion I prepared this linked document that identifies many societies that have existed in the past (mostly), what they stood for, how they conducted themselves, and why they ultimately failed.  This list is certainly not comprehensive, but it does cover a broad spectrum of ideologies that drove people to attempt to live in what they felt would be an ideal way, for whatever reasons they embraced.  I encourage you to explore these in more detail, esp. the Oneida Community in upstate New York which still exists as a viable entity today.  They were one of the most idealistic groups when they started, but they fell prey to public litigation concerning their sexual practices, among others.

I added a short section that summarizes the Fruitlands Farm commune that was formed in the 1840's in Massachusetts by the Alcott family and others, in a book that was written by Louisa May Alcott who lived in the farmhouse and participated on the farm.  I read the book years ago, and I feel that the summary provided by CoPilot does a good job covering the main points of the book.  There are some very interesting characters at the commune that Louisa discusses in the book, but these characters are not mentioned in the summary.  Ultimately Ms. Alcott points out the irony (hypocrisy?) that existed among the members based on everyone's dependence on Mrs. Alcott (Louisa's mother) to cook and clean, care for the children, work in the fields, etc., while the men spent their days in philosophical arguments about idealistic intentions.  Wild Oats, indeed.

The third section addresses the question, are the Amish a utopian society?  The information provided makes a case that they are in many ways, and it summarizes how their community has found ways to persevere and grow to some extent despite the many obstacles they face from internal and external sources.   

Feel free to add comments in the space below if you have something you want to share with the group before our meeting.