A PVS Patient

 A person in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS) has suffered trauma to the parts of the brain that govern higher brain functions but not to those parts of the brain and nervous system that govern basic biological functions.  The person cannot think, is not conscious and is not aware of her surroundings. However, the person still breathes, circulates blood and digests food and will continue to live as long as they are fed and hydrated with a feeding tube.  That state is considered permanent because it is virtually impossible for the person to regain the higher brain functioning.  The person, however, is not considered “brain dead.” 

 

Suppose that a famous professional athlete Dora has had severe brain trauma as a result of a car accident and is in a permanent vegetative state. 

 

Is the athlete Dora who won several National Championships in her sport that same person as the PVS patent Dora? 

Reincarnation?

  In his 2005 book Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children's Memories of Previous Lives psychiatrist Jim B. Tucker of the University of Virginia presents an overview of more than 40 years of  research into children's reports of past-life memories. He argues that the cases give evidence for the reincarnation. 

For example, a young child (called Sam in the study) born a few months after his grandfather’s death reported at the age of 3 as his father changed his diaper, that he remembered changing his father’s diaper.  A few years later he recognized himself in old photos of his grandfather he had never seen and recalled the murder of his grandfather’s sister even though the boy had no knowledge of these events. 

 

Is Sam the same person as his grandfather? 

Beam Me Up, Scotty!

  In the television series Star Trek, humans use a teletransportation device called a “transporter” to conveniently and quickly travel from a spaceship to the planet’s surface or even to travel long distances across the surface of planets.  The transporter works by mapping the atomic structure of a human and sending that information to a distant location.  At the distant location the transporter reads the information and reconstructs the human atom by atom.  The person at the new location has all the memories and psychological traits of the original human.  The original human’s body, however, has been permanently disassembled. 

 

Is the person who enter the transporter at the first location (let’s say Cleveland) the same as the person who exits the second location (let’s say San Franciso, the location of Star Fleet Academy)? 

The Case of Grant and Fiona

 The 2006 film Away from Her related the story of a retired couple, Grant and Fiona.  Fiona is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and, as her condition worsens, she eventually decides to enter a nursing home.  The facility has a policy that requires each new resident to have no visitors for a period of 30 days to adjust to their new life.   After the period of adjustment is over, Grant visits his wife.  However, she has forgotten her husband and instead has focused her attentions on Aubrey, a mute man she has met at the facility.  

 

Is Fiona the same person in the facility who has forgotten most memories of her past life as the women who was happily married to Grant for all those years? 

Weavers and Lyres and Souls, Oh My!

 In response to Socrates' assertions that the soul is immortal, Simmias and Cebes raise serious objections to the idea that the soul is immortal or can even survive the death of the body.  Simmias presents his objection uses the analogy of the harmony of a lyre [85e-86d], while Cebes using the image of a weaver and a cloak[87c-88c].    

Can you explain ONE of these objections?  Does Socrates have a valid response -- or can you construct one for him?

The Immortality of the Soul?

Facing his execution with some of his closest friends (as described in the Phaedo), Socrates dismisses an gloomy predictions about his death: death is a good thing and something that he is confident he will outlast.  What is the basis of this confidence? Socrates develops three arguments for the immortality of the soul.  If just ONE of these arguments is sound, he will have demonstrated that we all have a reason to cheer for the Grim Reaper.  But is he correct?

Examine ONE of Socrates' arguments in the Phaedo, briefly describing its main points.  What is one problem or objection to that argument?  Is there any way Socrates can address, avoid or otherwise get around that objection?

What Can I Hope For?

In the Phaedo when Socrates is faced with an imminent execution he is cheerful and confident that he has nothing to worry about.  He believes that death is not a problem at all because the soul is immortal.  But should have a reason to worry?  In this post let's not consider the arguments for the immortality of the soul but rather the connection between the soul, personal identity and surviving death. 

What theory of personal identity is he basing his confidence on?  Putting aside the stronger claim that the soul is immortal, does he have any good reason to think he can (it is possible to) survive death on this theory?