Self-Identity and Survival: Are we more than our personalities?

Introduced by Austin Caffrey

Notes on the 23/4/02 meeting of HKPC's Kowloon Branch

Reported by Steve Palmquist (moderator)

When Austin told me about the “Staying Alive” game he wanted to play as an introduction to this HKPC meeting, I was skeptical. The game poses an imaginary situation regarding future space travel and requires participants to make three choices that each have implications about the form and manner of their future survival. I had already seen the game on the web site of The Philosopher’s Magazine (see www.philosophers.co.uk), and had thought it made too many undisclosed assumptions to be of much value. However, I turned out to be mistaken about its suitability for a philosophy cafe, inasmuch as it ended up being a very effective stimulus for discussion.

The introduction consisted mostly of Austin explaining the way the game worked and then taking us through the steps of playing it. During the question time afterwards, he clarified that the four main philosophical issues he thought the game raises are: (1) Are our beliefs consistent? (2) What do people think about the importance of various aspects of our personality when it comes to matters of survival? (3) How is personal identity related to the distinction between mind, body, and spirit? and (4) Why do some people just choose to give up and die? Unfortunately, a debate then arose as to whether Austin should share his own answers to each question before or after the small group discussions. In the end a vote was taken and a slim majority agreed he should share them.

As usual, I can only report on the small group I participated in. We had quite a rousing discussion, ranging over quite a few different issues. Participants agreed that the presentation of the game (borrowed from the above web site) left too many details undefined for a truly informed decision to be made on the various options. There were simply too many “ifs” involved. Nevertheless, we did delve into issues about what it means to survive, and in particular, whether each person associates their own personal survival more with the continuity of their body, their mind, or their spirit. We also noted that some of the choices would depend on how well a person likes his or her current life situation. Whereas it is quite true that every human being has a built in potential to be or become many different kinds of person, we normally expect a great deal of continuity throughout the changes that take place throughout our life. We all agreed that every event changes us to a very small extent. But abrupt changes that destroy the normal expectation of continuity tend to create the psychological impression that “this is no longer ‘me’”; yet this may well be an illusion. Most of us agreed that continuity of matter is the least important type, with memory being more important. But we were not able to come to any firm conclusions about continuity of soul.

After reconvening in the large group, a discussion quickly arose regarding whether or not a person who had all his body parts changed to new material would, in fact, be the same person. The possibility was raised that the teletransporting technology that supposedly reconstructs the new body (in the game) might well be made in such a way that the old body remained in tact. If that happened, would there would seem to be two persons, not just one. This whole scenario left out consideration of the role a soul might play in the whole event. Which of the two new bodies would get to keep the soul? Several options were discussed, and the similarity to the real issue of cloning was pointed out.

Several people noted that the issue over the best mode of transport (a dangerous spaceship journey or a safe teletransport method that reconstructs you with a new body) fails to consider the point that how we travel through life is sometimes more important that where we end up. The six month journey would very likely be such an amazing experience that those passing it up out of fear of death would have lost more than they bargained for!

There seemed to be general agreement that the central unanswered question underlying all three scenarios was: What, if anything, is a “soul”? For example, does it really make sense at all to talk as if a soul could die in a freezer (as the third scenario assumes)?

Towards the end, the discussion made an interesting shift when someone questioned the overall assumption of the entire exercise: that nothing is more important than our personal survival. In answer to the question “Does anyone prefer death?” one person pointed out that experiences of death are often life-giving in other respects. Another reminded us that in Greek myths immortality is sometimes regarded as a curse. Likewise, philosophers such as Heidegger have argued that death is what gives meaning to life: without a “horizon” to limit our being in time, we would be incapable of adopting a perspective, which is what enables us to interpret various aspects of our life as meaningful.

After a brief concluding statement by Austin, relating to John Locke’s views on the relation between the soul and memory, the following titles were suggested as topics for future meetings:

Immortality occurs?

Immortality as the driving force of life?

What Marx thought and how it all went terribly wrong

Cloning

Is the soul necessary for survival?

Is it right to want to live forever?

Return to the home page of HKPC’s Kowloon Branch.

Return to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.

This page was uploaded on 19 June 2002.