As you know, I have been responding to a BBC Magazine article that colloquially and humorously discusses a few very deep philosophical questions. The second question is as follows:
Are you the same person who started reading this article?
The passage goes on to talk about the exact definition of a human being, and what distinguishes one person from another. It explains that the definition of a person cannot be their physical form, since most of the cells in a person’s body are replaced after a few years. (To explain this, it uses the example of a burgeoning sapling compared to an aging oak tree.) Next, the article states that the definition of a person cannot be their brain or their mental state, either, since the brain can hypothetically be put into another person’s body or duplicated.
I think this question is a bit lame. Though the author of this article is correct in saying that people’s physical form does changes over time, making the physical definition of a person hard to pin down. This is because human beings are organisms, and the whole is still recognizable even after each part has been replaced. As to the article’s “proof” that this is untrue because of the nature of the brain and the mind—well, it’s just pure poppycock. Admittedly the article is correct in saying that the other organs such as the spleen, lungs, or other components of the body are just as much a part of a human being as a brain, what defines a person is their mental state, which exists in the mind alone. Additionally, the fact that the brain can hypothetically be reproduced seems to be irrelevant, and I am not sure why the author brings it up.
Overall, I am not as impressed with this one as I was with the first question—I hope the next two improve, not get worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment