personal existence after death Flashcards
possibility of physical existence after death: hard materalist/physicalist
- would say no continuing personal existence after death
- person’s idenity linked inextricably to physical body & when our physical life ends all mental activity comes to end
possibility of physical existence after death: hard materalist/physicalist - flew
- concept of life after death is linguistically incoherent
- talk of life after death is effectively talking about ‘dead survivors’ which is self-contradictory
personal identity as physical
- you cannot do without your brain & still be a person
- if you have no brain you have no personality, memory or thoughts
- whilst many cells in body are replaced as age, neuron’s in cerebral cortex never replaced
- no neuron’s added to cerebral cortex after birth nor are they replaced when dead
- brain retains its identity of neuron’s in cerebral cortex
personal identity as physical - physicalists agree that same person throughout life depend on spacious-temporal continuity of a functioning body & brain
- cannot be ‘same body’ as one born with as your current body is much larger
- popular myth -> cells replaced every 7-10 years & rate of cell replacement does mean there’s significant discontinuity between body’s various states over period of life
- bodily ‘identity’ more a case of spatio -temporal continuity (body/brain) occupies unique location in space & time throughout its life)
personal identity as metaphysical, involving continuity of consciousness- C.A. Campbell demonstrating that ‘I’ has metaphysical identity of consciousness
- C.A. Campbell gives illustration of Big Bang striking 1 o’clock and 2 o’clock
- when strikes 1 & 2 these two strikes are separate events in space and time
- how then does an observer know the clock has struck 2?
- because observer/listener is conscious during both strikes of clock and is consciously aware of being same self as heard the clock strike 1 as now hears it strike 2
- so memory is dependent on ‘I’ being self aware
- for Campbell mere ‘thinking’ could never relate the two strikes if the clock
personal identity as psychological continuity of personality - bundle theory of identity
- generally associated with work if Derek Parfait in ‘Persons And Persons’
- argued against finding a single, definitive feature that enables a person to maintain unique number of features
- consider yourself as you are now with developed conscious awareness & a developing memory you are psychologically & spatio-temporally connected with all past & future stars of existence but at no time is there an indenture between stated
continuity or temporary terminal states
- TTS refers to snapshot of totality of a persona’s physical & psychological states at any one particular instance in time
- if apply to yourself, your body & psych will stay same for brief period of time
- speed of thoughts, continual interaction with environment, constant reactions to sense experience -> all form a narrative identity from cradle to grace but according to Parfait there’s no deeper level of ‘self that remains the same’
Parfait conclusion
- we have to abandon any idea of some enduring ‘identity’ in persons
- what matters is what Parfait calls ‘Relation ar’ - psychological connectedness including memory
- on this account, you don’t survive death the ‘same person’
- in Parfit’s view, you have continuity with your immediate ancestors through psychological connectedness
possibility of physical existence after death - no continuing personal existence after death
- clear conclusion for those who adopt a purely physicalist understanding of nature of a persons since it’s evident body & brain decay after death & no longer exist in any recognisable form
- example : Russell sees self as bound up with what happens in the brain so can’t entertain idea of an existence outliving it’s dissolution
possibility of physical existence after death - christian concept of resurrection of body
- Christians disagree concerning whether resurrection will be spiritual or bodily
- obvious soffit of resurrection in a bodily form is that bodies rot & material of any one body becomes part of other physical systems
- if a body of some form is necessary in order to be recognised as a person how are we to understand identity if body after death is not identical to the one that died
- key q is ‘how would it be possible to establish identity in re-embodied existence?’ & one way out is to observe that an omnipotent God can do whatever he likes so there’s no reason why God cannot allow souls to live again after death
hick’s replica theory - hick’s view of body-soul and resurrection
- soft materialist so humans are psycho-physical unity: when body dies so does soul
- did believe in life after death
- as body decays it’s atoms become part of other living things so not possible for individual to be resurrected with bodily identity so Hick argues what is resurrected is a perfect replica
scenario 1
Mr X disappears from a meeting in NYC and immediately reappears in similar meeting in Australia and phoned his colleagues who are mystified but (since able to test memory & identify his body) they eventually accept he is the ‘same person’
scenario 2
Mr X dies in meeting in NYC so his colleagues see his corpse ; but Mr X feels unwell for a moment then finds himself in the meeting in Australia. His friends are astonished when he phones them and they go to meet him because his corpse is still present in NYC. Despite how odd, his friends will eventually accept he is ‘same person’ as passes all tests of his identity
scenario 3
Mr X & his perfect replica (memories X had before death) comes into existence in a ‘resurrection world’ new body composed of material other than physical matter but looks exactly like his old body Is it obvious to him that he’s in a spatio-temporal world although it’s not earth. so how does he know he’s been resurrected. he meets & recognises friends & relatives and they tell him he just appeared among them. Eventually, resurrected persons would be in no more doubt about their personal identity th an they would in above scenarios so would know they were now in a resurrection world
does story of Mr X demonstrate logical possibility of bodily resurrection? YES
- this is to misunderstand Hick’s idea of a replica
- he’s a monist not a dualist so Mr X isn’t something that can be copied like a page of writing - X isn’t a body possessing consciousness he’s a unique mind body unity so can only ever be one version in existence
