Thought Experiments about Identity, Mind, Body, and Selves

I discussed the following Ep 8 a Self or not a Self with my guest Nate Sheff.

Thought Experiment 1: Mind Swap

Setup-original persons:

• Person 1: Mind 1, Body 1
• Person 2: Mind 2, Body 2

Experiment: swap minds, so that Mind 1 is in Body 2 and that Mind 2 is in Body 1, resulting in:

• Person 3: Mind 1, Body 2,
• Person 4: Mind 2, Body 1

Question: 

Who is Person 3?

Thought Experiment 2: Mind Fission

Setup-original persons:

• Person 1: Mind 1, Body 1
• Person 2: Mind 2, Body 2
• Person 3: Mind 3, Body 3

Experiment: divide Mind 1 into two hemispheres. Remove Mind 2 from Body 2 and Mind 3 from Body 3. Put one hemisphere of Mind 1 into Body 2. Put the other hemisphere of Mind 1 into Body 3, resulting in:

• Person 4: Half Mind 1, Body 2
• Person 5: Half Mind 1, Body 3

Question:

Where is Person 1? Who is Person 4 and Person 5?

Conclusions

There are no souls!

For the mind swap, I think Person 3 would think and feel like they were Person 1. That leads me to suspect that Person 3 is Person 1.

For the mind fusion, it's a lot less clear to me. I suspect both Person 4 and Person 5 will feel like they are Person 1. One of the two would most likely have better communication skills and be able to express being Person 1 better. I'm tempted to say both are Person 1, but they both become new people going forward. Something like, Person 1a and Person 1b.

Both thought experiments capture my belief that the self and identity are in the psychological continuity and not the bodily continuity. I don't mean to suggest that the body, hormones, senses, nervous system, and enviornment do not influence the mind. They do. The mind is shaped by the body, but what makes a person a person over time is the continuity of what Hume calls a bundle of perceptions: the processing of sensations, emotions, memory, thoughts, interpretations, and self-awareness. The mind is the present emergent state of a psychological continuity that makes a person a person, more commonly known as a self!

An existing self that The Buddha, Hume, and Parfit can all agree exists, but exists as an emergent property of perceptions.

Reigning in Hell

Background

I'm slowly reading The Odyssey with a friend. There is a great line by Achilles that reminded me of John Milton's Satan from Paradise Lost. These literary giants have opposing ideas about what it means to rule in hell.

Introduction

 

Is it better to reign in hell or serve in heaven? How important is having glory if the cost is dying young/younger?

Milton's Satan on Reigning in Hell

"The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n. [ 255 ]
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less then he
Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: [ 260 ]
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n.
But wherefore let we then our faithful friends,
Th' associates and copartners of our loss [ 265 ]
Lye thus astonisht on th' oblivious Pool,
And call them not to share with us their part
In this unhappy Mansion, or once more
With rallied Arms to try what may be yet
Regaind in Heav'n, or what more lost in Hell? [ 270 ]"

Homer's Achilles on Reigning in Hell

"βουλοίμην κ᾽ ἐπάρουρος ἐὼν θητευέμεν ἄλλῳ,
ἀνδρὶ παρ᾽ ἀκλήρῳ, ᾧ μὴ βίοτος πολὺς εἴη,
ἢ πᾶσιν νεκύεσσι καταφθιμένοισιν ἀνάσσειν."

"I would rather be a laborer working for another man—some poor man who has little to live on—than rule over all the dead who have perished." GPT Literal Translation

A Brief Look at Milton's Interpretations

One way to read Satan is as the hero of Paradise Lost. Satan is the individualistic, defiant hero representing personal freedom. "The mind is its own place." Even if in Hell, in Paradise Lost, Satan has freedom to choose.

The flip side is that Satan is a tragic figure. Satan has deluded himself into thinking the ideas from the previous paragraph are great. His love for his personal freedom creates his downfall. Satan is delusional about the reality of his situation.

Another interpretation that blends the previous two ideas is that Satan is a political allegory for Milton. Milton was a political activist who supported Oliver Cromwell in the Puritan revolution against the monarchy. The monarchy was abolished and King Charles executed. After Cromwell's death, the monarchy was restored and Charles II became king. Milton was arrested, briefly imprisoned, and placed on house arrest. Milton is the fallen and tragic hero. Satan is an allegory for Milton.

Obviously, readers can choose for themselves how to interpret Satan's statement.

A Brief Look at Homer's Interpretation

In Homer's Illiad, Achilles is given the choice between two fates. In book 9, Achilles tells Odysseus, Phoenix, and Ajax:

"For my mother the goddess, silver-footed Thetis, tells me
that two fates sweep me on to my death. If I stay here and fight,
I shall not return alive, but my glory will be undying forever.
If I return home to my dear fatherland, my glory is lost,
but my life will be long, and death will not come to me quickly."

According to what Achilles says, he gets to choose. He eventually chooses kleos (glory) after his friend Patroclus is killed in battle by Hector. Achilles dies young but his glory lives on. (He was played by Brad Pitt in Troy!)

In The Odyssey, when Odysseus goes to the underworld, Achilles has a change of heart or mind, or whatever the dead possess. As the dead, Achilles regrets his kleos. Not only would he have preferred his long peaceful life, he would even prefer the life as a servant of a poor man.
 

The literal reading is Achilles thinks kleos is overrated: life is greater than kleos.

 

Another idea, is that The Iliad and The Odyssey are different stories with different main ideas. The Iliad is a story about the heroics of war and glory of dying in battle. Where The Odyssey is about life and nostos (homecoming). Achilles is a foil character for Odysseus.

 

Another reading is that death striped Achilles of his identity. All his strength, power, and agency are gone. Achilles went from being the baddest dude on the planet to just another dead guy. He has no power or agency. He's just dead, so he is bitter. A interesting note, the other characters in the underworld do not share Achilles's dread, bu they other characters were Achilles.

 

The funnest interpretation is that Achilles is just an angry asshole. If you continuing reading the passage, Achilles seems like his angry self from The Iliad. Achilles is rage and anger, so why shouldn't he be mad and bitter in the underworld?

 

 

Conclusion

 

I love all the passages and lines shared above. I love Miltion's take on Satan. I love Satan's desire for freedom. I love his defiance. I also love how Achilles possibly regrets his kleos.

 

It's not an easy choice for me. I want to be remembered when I'm dead. I do not like the idea of being forgotten, but I don't like the idea of dying either.

 

If given Achilles original fates, I'd choose a long forgettable life. I agree with Satan that the mind is a place. We can create a heaven of hell or a hell of heaven. I'll take my chances with a long life.

 

 

The Odyssey Book 11 lines 489-491 Translations

Samuel Butler (1900) – More Direct, Readable

"Say not a word," he replied, "in death’s favor; I would rather be a paid servant in a poor man's house and be above ground than king of kings among the dead." 

Robert Fitzgerald (1961) – Formal and Poetic

"Let me hear no smooth talk of death from you, Odysseus,
light of councils. Better, I say, to break sod as a farm hand
for some poor country man, on iron rations,
than lord it over all the exhausted dead."

Richmond Lattimore (1965) – More Literal, Preserves Greek Structure

"O shining Odysseus, never try to console me for dying.
I would rather follow the plow as thrall to another
man, one with no land allotted him and not much to live on,
than be a king over all the perished dead."

Robert Fagles (1996) – Lyrical and Poetic

"No winning words about death to me, shining Odysseus!
By god, I’d rather slave on earth for another man—
some dirt-poor tenant farmer who scrapes to keep alive—
than rule down here over all the breathless dead."

Emily Wilson (2018) – Modern, Iambi

"Odysseus, don’t try to sell me on death.
I’d rather be a hired hand back up on earth,
Slaving away for some poor dirt farmer,
Than lord it over all these withered dead."

The Iliad, Book 9, lines 410–416 English Translations:
 

Richmond Lattimore (1951):

"For my mother the goddess, silver-footed Thetis, tells me
that two fates sweep me on to my death. If I stay here and fight,
I shall not return alive, but my glory will be undying forever.
If I return home to my dear fatherland, my glory is lost,
but my life will be long, and death will not come to me quickly."

Robert Fagles (1990):

"Two fates bear me on to the day of death.
If I hold out here and I lay siege to Troy,
my journey home is gone, but my glory never dies.
If I voyage back to the fatherland I love,
my pride, my glory dies…
true, but the life that's left me will be long,
the stroke of death will not come on me quickly."

Secrets and Knowing Though Experiment

Introduction

I recently read A Heart So White by Javier Marias with a twitter book club, #javiermariastogether. The story is a slow paced philosophical suspense. Secrets, listening, and knowing are main ideas in A Heart So White. The opening sentence in the novel is:

I did not want to know but I have since come to know that one of the girls, when she wasn’t a girl anymore and hadn’t long been back from her honeymoon, went into the bathroom, stood in front of the mirror, unbuttoned her blouse, took off her bra and aimed her own father’s gun at her heart, her father at the time was in the dining room with other members of the family and three guests.

Later in the story the narrator says, "Listening is the most dangerous thing of all!" The narrator explains how one can close their eyes to avoid seeing something, but one can't close their ears to avoid hearing something.

In A Heart So White, characters keep, tell, and hear secrets. Once characters know a disturbing secret, they can't unknow it. Once characters tell someone a disturbing secret, they can't untell it. 

I believe people should be free to choose. Individuals, in general with exceptions to children and people with certain types of mental illness, know what is best for them. They can choose for themselves if something is or isn't worth it. A person, like the narrator in A Heart So White, knows secrets hide for a reason. Secrets have a cost. 

But secrets inspire curiosity. Once a person knows a secret exists, can they make a rational choice? How does the one with a secret decide if a secret should be shared?

Though Experiment

You're given an envelope with the secret of reality (it includes the answers to free will, God/s, afterlife, etc). It is a perfect proof that every human with an IQ score above 70 can understand. The downside to this secret is that it will make people 15% less satisfied for the rest of their life. If shared, the secret of reality will spread as scientific knowledge and will infect all that learn it by reducing their life time satisfaction by 15%. Once shared the secret cannot be contained again. You, as the thought experiment subject, are the only person who gets to make the choice about the secret. You can read it or not, and then you can share it or not. If you read it, you will be 15% less satisfied/happy the rest of your life. If you decide to share the proof, everyone who learns it will be 15% less satisfied/happy.

Here is the secret in an envelope. Which of the four choices do you pick?

	Read It	Don't Read It
Share It	Read it and share it	Share it without reading it
Discard it	Read it and discard it without sharing	Discard it without reading or sharing it

What do you think about your choice?

If you didn't read or share the secret, at what point would you share it? Pick a percent between 0-24%.

If you choose to read or share it, at what point would you not share it? Pick a percent of 26% or higher.

Analysis

The 15% is an arbitrary number. It seems about the point that makes reading and sharing the secret most difficult for me.

I suspect most people will choose to read the secret of reality and then choose to discard the secret. The curiosity of the secret of reality is appetizing, even at the price of happiness. I suspect others would feel similar. 

The nature of reality won't change the nature of reality. Reality is reality. Would humans understanding reality alter life for humans? I suspect not much. But maybe having a clear proof for or against religions, or free will, would have a, positive or negative, impact on society and institutions. Maybe wars would increase or decrease at a faster rate. Maybe criminal justice would reform to more or less punitive systems. The thought experiment subjects will need to evaluate these ideas, among others, to pick their necessary read and share percentages.

Conclusion  

If I had to choose now, I would not read it and discard it without sharing. 15% is a significant amount of satisfaction/happiness. Since I don't see much value in knowing the nature of reality, it's not worth my happiness or the happiness of others.

I would read the letter at 10%. My curiosity is worth close to 5% of my satisfaction. Then the risk that some religion might be correct is worth close to 5% of my happiness, due to the potential eternal consequences of some religions. 

I don't know how other people value their curiosity, and since they'll never know, I'll ignore other's curiosity. For similar reasons mentioned above, I would sacrifice 5% of everyone's satisfaction for the knowledge of reality.