How Well Do You Know Email and Website Etiquette?

The Embodied Part View: A Solution to the Thinking Parts Problem

Animalism implies that a detached brain would become a new conscious being, which is absurd.
Animalists may claim that the conscious being already existed when the brain was in the body.
This leads to the Too Many Thinkers Problem, as there will be another conscious being thinking the same thoughts.
The Embodied Part View proposes that we are not animals, but the conscious, thinking, and controlling parts of them.
The Thinking Parts Problem disappears with the Embodied Part View, as the same conscious being exists throughout.
The Embodied Part View proposes that we are not just heads, but embodied heads, related to our bodies in a similar way to our thinking parts.
The Embodied Mind View proposes that we are the minds of human animals.
The Embodied Person View proposes that we are the non-derivative thinker and the subject of our mental acts.
The own-thinker principle supports the Embodied Person View.
Some objections to the Embodied Part View include the Physical Properties Objection.
The Embodied Part View is a strong reason to prefer it over Animalism.
The Embodied Part View aligns with the intuition that our heads or cerebrums are enough for our survival.The Embodied Person View: Resolving Objections to the Lockean View of Personal Identity
The Physical Properties Objection to the Embodied Person View can be answered by explaining how and why we can claim ourselves to have the physical properties of our bodies as embodied persons.
The Epistemic Problem, which counts against all views that distinguish between a person and a human animal, can be addressed by recognizing the ambiguity of pronouns and using more precise language to distinguish the Lockean person from the human animal.
The Branch Line Case analogy used by Olson to support the Epistemic Problem is misleading since there is only a single episode of thinking on the Lockean view.
Johnston's claim that we should take ourselves to be the non-derivative or primary source of the thought in us does not apply to the Lockean view since there are not two thinkers, only one conscious being that can think about itself as a person.
The Lockean person is the direct thinker of thoughts, while the human animal thinks in a derivative way through the Lockean person.
The ambiguity of pronouns can be resolved by using the phrase "Inner-I" to refer to the Lockean person and "Outer-I" to refer to the human animal.
The animal can know something only by having the Lockean person that knows this thing, and therefore the animal can know that it is the animal that indirectly thinks thoughts.
The Lockean view does not lead to too many thinkers or persons since the animal is a person only in the derivative sense of having the Lockean person as a part.
The claim that we are not human beings, in the sense that means human animals, can be supported by resolving the ambiguity of pronouns and recognizing the importance of the inner senses.
In the case of a successful brain graft, it would be the Lockean person who would wake up and continue the life with a new body, while the human animal would remain in a vegetative state.
The word "I" can be used in a more precise sense to refer to the Lockean person, and doing so supports the claim that we are not human beings in the sense that refers to human animals.
Olson's claim that there is no single answer to the question of which entity we are is not relevant to the metaphysical question of the nature of the beings holding the inquiry.Lockean Persons and the Implications for Personal Identity
Lockean persons are the part of a human animal that thinks one's thoughts in the strict, first-rate sense.
If we are not human beings, then claims about the protection of human life from conception do not apply to us.
Removing a feeding tube from a human being whose cerebrum has died would not violate the rights of persons.
Lockean or psychological theories and Animalist or biological theories have been in philosophical disagreement about the nature of souls and personal identity.
The Embodied Person View can answer objections to Lockean views and avoid strong objections to Animalism.
Personal identity is not as deep and simple as most people think and there are various false beliefs about it.
Personal identity is not what matters, and the rational and moral importance of it is often misunderstood.
Animalism would make it easier to defend the claims about personal identity not mattering.
The Biological Approach of Animalism would entail that practical concerns are less reliably connected to numerical identity than Parfit and Shoemaker have argued.
Animalism is highly plausible, widely accepted, but seems not to be true.
The Embodied Person View provides a framework for understanding personal identity that can reconcile the disagreement between Lockean and Animalist views.
The implications of Embodied Person View are significant for the beginning and end of human life, and for the moral and rational importance of personal identity.