Persistence of the Self

Persistence of the self over time occupies one of the most interesting subjects for debate in philosophy and religion, although one which is typically taken for granted in Judeo-Christian culture. The focal point of this discussion is between ego theories (strict identity over time) juxtaposed with bundle theorists (identity is only a series of experiences). In Western culture at large most people staunchly endorse ego theories of the self. In this case, what makes the self “me” is not a series of thoughts, but rather an underlying persisting substance which is a container for thoughts. This container is what unifies my perceptions together so that I recognize not only thought, but that “I” exist. (I think, therefore I am) Put bluntly, most people regard this unified self or container as a “soul”. The questioner asks, “Who am I really?”. And the Christian answers, “What makes me myself is the eternal soul.”

But on the other side of the coin, is an equally compelling answer given by bundle theorists. Hume was the first prominent bundle theorist in Western culture who argued that the self is not composed of an underlying soul, but rather is only a series of experiences in the certain causal relation of memory. This is also the Buddhist conception of the self as part of “dependent” arising. Buddha wrote: "This bundle of elements is void of Self. In it there is no sentient being. Just as a set of wooden parts receives the name of carriage, so do we give to elements the name of fancied being. Buddha has spoken thus:...There is no Individual. it is only a name given to a set of elements."

Thus, this does not deny that there are persons, but simply argues that a person is an assemblage of sorts. Just like the carriage has no fundamental existence outside of its particular arrangement, the concept of the person depends on its parts, mind and body. We are nothing more than our brains and our bodies, but identity cannot be reduced to either. This is similar to the way the logical atomists, in the philosophy of language, seek to reduce objects to their constituent parts in order to illustrate the most fundamental substance of reality. For instance, a table does not exist as an independent entity above the way a board and a stump sit in a particular configuration. The word “table” just is what we have used to call the configuration of its parts, which then can be reduced even further. The table's existence requires "conceptuality" and therefore is nominal. Logical atomists are no doubt influenced by scientific inquiry, which attempts the same reductionism. For instance, “solidity” is simply the arrangement of molecules in a certain way, and “color” is only the refraction and absorption of certain waves of light. (Notice the scientific materialist view of the self as merely a complex machine therefore fits in well with the bundle theorist account)

Similarly, the contemporary philosopher Derek Parfit endorses the bundle theory of the self by positing that there are feelings, thoughts, experiences, and the causal relationship between them but nothing more. The fundamental question is not of identity, but rather of continuity of experience. “I think therefore I am” cannot be concluded on the basis of a concept of personhood which does not entail an underlying self. For Parfit, people are like clubs-

"Does the Maryland Philosophy Club exist as a thing in its own right? The answer would seem to be no. For there to be a Maryland philosophy club is nothing more than for there to be certain people who have decided to associate with one another for certain purposes and talk about that association in a particular way. The club has no individuality or integrity in its own right. Or again: at the moment, there is on my desk at home a rather outdated and bulky modem, on top of which is a bottle of vitamin E, an aluminum can and a bowl with a spoon and a bit of ice cream residue in it. Suppose I give this collection of objects a name, calling it "Modemess." Does "Modemess" exists? The answer is on the one hand obviously it does. There is the modem and the junk on top of it; no doubt about that. But does it exist as a genuine, unified object? Its existence is surely nominal -- that is, a result of nothing more than the separate facts about the individual objects together with the fact that I have decide to give the lot of them a single name.” (http://brindedcow.umd.edu/308x/parfit.html)

Thus, any talk of the “self” for a bundle theorist is like the carriage or club, nominal or name-only. What matters is not identity, but the psychological continuity of my memory. This has the striking result that when my memory is gone, I am literally no longer the same person. Thus if one endorses this theory, we must be prepared to say of a person who has severe Alzheimer’s that they have not only merely forgotten, but they are literally no longer themselves.

Free Will and Desire

If I follow my natural passions, I’m I acting with libertarian freedom? Suppose I am faced with a choice between eating a cheeseburger and a chicken sandwich. Without much deliberation, I recognize that I am craving the burger and this is what I choose. But was the choice one in which I was acting autonomously? In deciding I surveyed my competing desires (i.e. tastes I am craving at the present moment, the price of the item, etc…) But if my desire is caused, we cannot say that I am responsible for freely choosing. I cannot wake up today and say “I intend that my desires will be such that I will be hungry for a burger”. It is like saying “I am choosing to feel the need to go to the bathroom”. Thus, if I follow my natural desire then it appears that I am not acting freely.

If causal determinism is true, such desire is in itself caused by an infinitely long chain of antecedent events back perhaps to the hand of God leading to its inevitability. And of course, we then do not have any free will, and the word “choice” has no real meaning. Thus, someone who exhibits only these first-order desires cannot be said to be an agent in the strict sense of the word. This is because in this situation our beliefs and desires are causally-sufficient reasons for action. This would include animals, small children, perhaps the mentally insane, and those who are blind addicts. (What Frankfurt calls animals and children “wantons”)

But what if I choose the latter? I’m I acting as an agent if I choose that which goes against my desire? Suppose I choose the chicken sandwich, have I done so with absolute free will? What if I desire both equally? It would seem that freedom, at least in the compatibilist sense, is established when I override my original desire. This would be a second-order choice which supersedes my innate desire. (Or perhaps If I choose my original desire it is because of a period of self-reflection and not because I was led by a craving) In this case, my original desire is not causally sufficient for action. I have the possibility for self-reflective action. This seems to me intimately connected to the concept of duty. In such cases we resist our first-order desire by acting according to a sort of universal principle or ideal. (i.e. A priest chooses to live a life of asceticism despite innate passions) Thus, second-order desires give rise to freedom of action which leads to the possibility of morality.

Second Order Desires Can be Considered as:

“Higher-order volitions (or higher-order desire), as opposed to action-determining volitions, are volitions about volitions. Higher-order volitions are potentially more often guided by long-term convictions and reasoning. An example for a failure to follow higher-order volitions is the drug addict who takes drugs even though he would like to quit taking drugs. According to Harry Frankfurt the drug addict has established free will, in respect to that single aspect, when his higher-order volition to stop wanting drugs determines the precedence of his changing, action determining desires to either take drugs or not to take drugs. Following this definition the establishment of free will is a continual challenge with a changing degree of difficulty. This view of free will conforms with compatibilism.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-order_volition)

We might say a person who then acts according to a moral law but then gives in to his desires, has fallen victim to akrasia, or weakness of will. Weakness of will presupposes the existence of free will and second-order choice. A person who continually is subject to his first-order desires and akrasia would have a life which lacked any sort of continuity or purpose. Rather, it would be more akin to Plato’s immoral expert who is internally fragmented by his desires which are leading him around like a carrot in front of a horse. In this situation, reason is reduced only to a calculative faculty for achieving pleasure. But there are indeed some problems with Frankfurt’s hierarchy when one asks, why are second order volitions any more free than first? For instance why not third order, fourth order, etc…

The Technological Pinnacle

“The truly apocalyptic view of the world is that things do not repeat themselves. It isn’t absurd, e.g., to believe that the age of science and technology is the beginning of the end for humanity; that the idea of great progress is a delusion, along with the idea that the truth will ultimately be known; that there is nothing good or desirable about scientific knowledge and that mankind, in seeking it, is falling into a trap. It is by no means obvious that this is not how things are.” Wittgenstein

I seek to argue here the claim that the product of science-the ostensible benefits of technology- are trumped by the specter of the mass destruction which they cause. Science, in seeking objectivity, unleashes forces which not only fate man to not only ethical suicide but quite an actual one. To avoid ambiguity on the meaning of technology, I want to specifically refer to the rise of technology in the 20th century which allowed humans to change the environment at an alarming rate and harness atomic energy and micro technology. This is type of innovation is a double edged sword, and this is the technology which is cause for concern.

The benefits of technological improvement in the 20th century are clear: great interconnectedness in communications and travel, nearly instantaneous fluid interaction of ideas, and the improvement of the living standards of millions of individuals, particularly in the developed countries of the United States and Europe. It must be conceded that technology has also promoted lives which are longer and more prosperous with the advent of new medicine and procedures, which are of course, restricted mainly to the 1st world.

However, the 20th century is replete with examples of the destructive military capabilities which have been created through technological innovation, causing mass killing and genocide. This includes gunpowder, high explosives, automatic weapons, and rapid long-distance communications. During World War I, machine gun technology and bombers led to the death of 15 million. World War II- 55 million due to “total war”. Ten of the twenty highest mortality rates during war and/or genocide have occurred in the 19th/20th century, in no small part due to the increase in technological capacity. There are also estimates that 75% of all casualties in conflict since 0 B.C. have occurred in the 20th century. It is estimated that each year, over $1 trillion dollars is spent on the arms trade alone. Don’t worry; you can rest easy knowing the United States, who contributes to half of the world’s entire spending, is cashing in on those profits to contribute to our GDP.

With the introduction of nuclear armament in the post World War II era, thanks physicists such as Oppenheimer, the problem becomes even more dire. The nuclear option reaches a point of gravity that war between nuclear powers must be avoided at all costs. And indeed, this has the temporary benefit of preventing the escalation of conflict due to mutually assured destruction. But how many hundreds of years will it take for one deranged dictator or another Republic promoting a Star Wars defense shield to upset the delicate nuclear balance and the policy of deterrence and encourage a new arms race? Or worse yet, utilizing nuclear weapons as a first strike policy or minimalist nukes as an alternative to traditional bombardment (i.e. Bush's plan for "mini-nukes")?

In addition to the nuclear threat, technology poses the risk of severe global environmental problems as is the case with global warming caused by anthropogenic sources. The burgeoning production of fossil fuels has caused the emission of carbon dioxide which has perhaps irreversibly altered the environment leading to climate change. Such industrialization coupled with deforestation leads to a decrease in biodiversity, and rapid species extinction. Worldwide improvements in the overall standard of living have led to rapid increases in population growth which leads to future sustainability issues. Although such growth has slowed down significantly throughout Europe, the third world suffers from very high rates of growth and equally high under-5 mortality rates. If the exponential growth of the world eventually outruns our creative ability to adapt, a Malthusian fate is plausible. (On this point it is important to note that the alarmist projections of economist Paul Ehrlich who favors placing restrictions on reproduction have not yet occurred) Lastly, such technological adaptations have arguably created dependency issues by creating the expectation of efficiency or leisure through artificial electronic devices and severing our connection with nature and the outdoors.

I speculate here five logically possible scenarios which due to the rise of technology could lead to irreversible damage to the planet and the fate of mankind:
1) Nuclear Holocaust- This is the most likely due to the uncertainty of an anarchical international political realm with no significant central power to prevent usage.
2) Global Warming- We irreversibly alter the environment causing glacier retreat, ice shelf depletion, sea level rise, further species loss, and eventually the disruption of the food chain.
3) Genetically Engineered Supervirus- We unleash a superbug which has the ability to mutate indefinitely
4) The Singularity- Micro-technology reaches an apogee which results in machines which have the ability to self-correct exponentially until their operation is beyond human understanding. If such machines are hostile to humanity, then this is the “Terminator” scenario.
5) Brave New World Scenario- Mankind realizes that social stability can only be ensured through genetic manipulation, and in an effort to avoid nuclear war, we use eugenics to artificially create humans in test tubes who are programmed to be passive and enjoy their role in society. Steven Hawking mentions that the elimination of aggression in humans through genetic manipulation is actually necessary for mankind to survive and avoid nuclear war. There is hope yet.