John Lockes Theory

[proverbial student]

As it relates to the distinction between human beings and persons...Can someone please explain this to me? I have read this over three times and still cannot understand his definition of person. How can one who has the same thoughts as Socrates be Socrates? I realize modern philosophy has debunked this theory by adding time into the mix, but I would like to understand his version.

[dangerdan]

Hmmm…not sure. I really like Locke, he’s pretty awesome I think…so calm and even tempered and open minded. But I can’t say when it comes down to the intimate details, like here. Is there a link I can have a squiz at?

How can someone who has the same thoughts of Socrates be Socrates? Perhaps he is talking about what defines someone. Personal identity and such. If someone has the exact same thoughts as Socrates they could effectively be Socrates, for all intensive purposes. This is because someone’s personality is basically as important to their identity as their physical body. But hey….this is just a guess!

[proverbial student]

Yes, personal identity. What on earth does that mean? How can I be someone else if I think like them? Does that mean that there could be 1000 Socrates' wandering around? And what if someone thinks like me even though I think like Socrates and am Socrates? Does that mean that they are me or Socrates? What if I think like Socrates on politics but not on anything else?

I'm sorry, I just don't get it. Chalk it up to my ignorance.

[ST88]

As it relates to the distinction between human beings and persons...Can someone please explain this to me?

I think what Locke was saying is that "humanness" is strictly biological. We are humans because biologically, that's how we're made. But personness is different from humanness. A person is a collection of memories, experiences, and reactions to both. This is how I understood it, someone who knows better or remembers their Ethics & Society courses better than I, please correct me.

To take this into a modern context (and to simplify greatly), picture a very large computer with a very large memory, much larger than those that exist now, sustained by a very large electronic superstructure. If you take out all of the stored memory on this hypothetical astronomically large hard drive and put it into a different superstructure, it will effectively become the same computer as the one before. In other words, the "computerness" of the original computer did not change, but the identity of that particular computer did change (aside: Locke would argue against this example because, in a strict sense, a computer is an inanimate thing).

Many modern authors and philosophers have taken these arguments to their logical extremes. For example, if personhood is based on memory, does the amnesiac become a different person? Locke would argue yes. If an all-powerful entity switched your brain pattern with someone else's brain pattern, are you still you even though you're in a different body? Locke would say yes.

All this was in terms of defining personality as a definite thing that could be measured, trying to explain personhood in a material world. Parmenides explained it something like this:

There is no underlying substance apart from qualities. Substance is the collection of qualities, not something that has these qualities.

So, the personality of the person can be separated from the person -- the software can be separated from the hardware.

Locke argued that only persons had this property. In other words, you can't separate a watch from its personality, because by putting the workings of a particular watch into a different case, you have effectively changed the "watchness" of the original watch (and that of the second watch).

[proverbial student]

So, in essence, he believes the body is separate from the mind or at the very least the body can be separated from the mind? Is this idea supposed to make sense? Other than the theory of reincarnation, how could anyone logistically separate the mind from the being and become the same person in another being?

Sorry for belaboring this point, it's just I'd like to understand before I move on in this book because they base further discussions on the Lockean theory and I want to be sure I understand it. Thanks.

[ST88]

So, in essence, he believes the body is separate from the mind or at the very least the body can be separated from the mind? Is this idea supposed to make sense? Other than the theory of reincarnation, how could anyone logistically separate the mind from the being and become the same person in another being?

Logistics aren't necessary to make the point. I don't think Locke was even concerned with body switching or reincarnation. He was just trying to make the point that we can call individual consciousness the sum of the individual memories, separate from the body. It is an empirical assertion and not a metaphysical one. The consequences of thinking like this can lead one in those directions, but Locke wasn't an engineer.

And it's not quite as easy as the body being separate from the mind. The two are obviously inextricably linked because the mind is contained within the brain. For example, if the brain suffers an injury, the mind is usually affected in some way. But for the purposes of "personhood" the only thing that is required is the mind -- the set of memories in an individual. Locke says little if anything about brain anomalies, but consider these questions: Is someone who is brain dead still the same person? Is someone with an aphasic disorder still the same person?

[dangerdan]

Yes, very good questions indeed.

Just think of Darth Vader. He slowly got bits and pieces of his body replaced by spectacularly engineered biomechanical componentry. Now when, say, he got his second lung replaced with a fully automated and self regulating unit, did he fail to be “Darth Vader”? No. Of course not. He still had the same personality and emotional outlook and the same memories, but merely a new mechanical lung.

Hence his “personhood” was still the same, but his physical body had changed.

Now compare Darth Vader to Anakin Skywalker. Here, you could almost call them two completely different “persons”. Anakin’s temperament was kind, caring, good natured, and compassionate. Now his personality changed until he became Darth Vader, the evil, cold, despotic ruler of the Imperial Army. Now even though his body had not changed dramatically, his personality had (we are ignoring memories for now), and one would say he had become a different “person”.

Hence Anakin could be considered a different “person” to Darth Vader.

Does this make sense?

[TQWcS]

This is one of the questions addressed in the movie The Matrix. If we make AI that have human personalities and feelings are they now persons and do we have right to kill them.

[bernee51]

So, in essence, he believes the body is separate from the mind or at the very least the body can be separated from the mind? Is this idea supposed to make sense?

How about something along the lines of...

A geosphere...the physical world (including the physical aspects of our body - the nuts and bolts) In fact this could be the only aspect that 'survives' death.

A bioshere...all aspects of that which is 'living'. The mechanism by which the nutsand bolts of our body get us around and sustain us.

A noosphere...or the sphere of the mind. The mental aspects of all creatures that display a 'mind' are part of the noosphere.

Then we could perhaps go onto a spiritual sphere as well.

[proverbial student]

Does this make sense?

Absolutely! Thank you. We could call it the dangerdan Darth Vader argument.

ST88, thanks as well. Actually the section of this book I am reading is metaphysics, so I think they were actually hinting towards the metaphysical ramifications of his theory.

You guys are great tutors.