The fact that we cannot, through introspection find a ’self’ in within ourselves, hardly proves anything. Because if the only means of experiencing the world, including ourselves, is through our perceptions, neither then should we expect to understand or find a world or a “self” outside of perception. It is no wonder then, that we should not catch ‘ourself’ without a perception, for we are always perceiving, and it would be impossible to perceive the self outside of our perception of ourselves.

Humes theory does seem to present quite a few problems…

But Hume never explains what constitues as a “bundle” – how much “perception” we must experience to make us human. Neither does he account for who bound up these perceptions into bundles to make individuals, creatures and objects. In other words, the properties’ compresence – the relationship between these properties that brings them together into the same bundle.

The language-reality objection also questions the legitimacy of an object’s supposed “properties”. For how are we to know when we perceive, that the cause of these percetions are the objects themselves, i.e. the properties of the objects? It may well be that our ‘perceptions’ are just abstractions of previous experiences, and that we attribute or project these abstractions onto a thing – that thing itself being a substance bare of all properties (a bare particular). Which by this arguement, the concept of a ’self’ is re-introduced. An essence of a ’self’ that can exist independent of our perceptions – our perceptions of the world being affixed to this ‘bare particular’ that is the self.

A question that comes to mind is Are we free to create our own meaning (colour our own lives?)

Therefore, within this stimulus you could also discuss other minds this impossibility.

Or, i would consider the state of nature identified by these political philosophers. I’d contrast the altruistic nature of man as seen by Rousseau against Hobbes’ war-like savage beast. Then, i’d argue that this image portrays the fact that man is not wholly in control of his being and that forces such as a basic state of nature influences who he is (therefore he is in an inferior, cowering position).

Anyone else reading this, think other examples that you could use that would assist in highlighting the philosophical issues that emerge out of this stimulus.

One your final point, “put together in order to define who we are over a period of time as all of these will vary through time”, do you think there is any formula that could describe our composite (and fluid) identity?

The self is only a bundle of perceptions. We can only see ourselves through our own perception. For example, the robot can only see itself by looking at its mask. It will think it is a human. This will lead us to Locke and Descartes the self as our consciousness. However, we do not know whether it is aware itself is a robot. As long as it sees itself as a human, it will remain a human in its own thinking. Another example is in Blade Runner, Rachel sees herself as a human-being, yet she is actually a robot. The self that is seen by others and by ourselves are different from each other since we all have various ways of seeing things. Thus, there is no self but only a bundle of perceptions which also varies with time.

2.Locke’s consciousness

If the same consciousness is being preserved, no matter what has changed physically, the same identity is also being preserved. Nevertheless, if this robot has the same consciousness as a certain human-being, then it must have the same identity as that person. And since identity is something which is there to define why we are different from each other, then what is the difference between the human and a robot that possess the same consciousness? Therefore, consciousness is valid enough to define our identity.

3.Michaels’s body theory

Michaels reminds us that physical is also important to your identity as it is the only thing we can perceive. Without our physical self, there cannot be an identity. Our appearance and how we present ourselves should be considered as our identity as well. For example, bankers will choose to present themselves in a certain way, that is to make others trust them and believe in them. And that’s their identity as bankers. Yet, our identity will varies with time for our perceptions, our thoughts and our physical self cannot remain the same over a long period of time. A banker in a bank, working, and a banker who is on holiday will have different appearance. That will destroy the sameness, or identity, of that banker.

Thus, it is a combination of many factors, such as appearance, perceptions, thoughts, consciousness, put together in order to define who we are over a period of time as all of these will varies through time.