Existence must exist at all times.

[Ignorant]

If the self is then to examine itself, then what does this mean? [1] I'd say the self is that which considers, and cannot really BE an object.  The actual object being considered is ideas about the self, or at least it seems so to me. [2]

This is a problem with the physical world view.  A table under physical examination turns out to be a collection of wave functions-- it's "tableness" disappears under the microscope. [3]

I find it much easier to deal with humans as collections of ideas than as inviolable entities.  "Mom" is a collection of various types of tissue, memories stored in the brain and so on, in a physical sense.  But this is very far from what we think of when we talk about "Mom:" associations of warmth and safety (for most), a pat on the head and a look in the eye.

So in the case of brain damage, we must prune and repair our ideas about the reality of the person.  "Bob" may be the same only in his rough physical attributes and his government identification numbers. 

In the end, we must remember that "Bob" is a label for whatever-Bob-is, and there's no guarantee that won't change. [4] Ideas about permanence (via the mechanism of the soul or otherwise) are really about the way we symbolize and use linguistic semantics.  We don't like it when words mean different things all the time: "Bob" should be associated with "Bob-ness," and for that to mean anything, we'd like it to be as unambiguous as possible. [5]

Again, the physical reality challenges us philosophically.  If all the atoms in my body are recycled and replaced over time, am I still the same me that I was when I was say 20 years old? [6]

My answer will start to sound a bit parroted now: I think the idea persists, and evolves slowly over time for the most part.  "Benjamin" has a certain physical shape, my ideas about "Benjamin" slowly adjust to a little more girth or a few more white hairs.  You can always find discontinuity in reality, but the narrative remains fairly coherent nonetheless. [7]

This or that rock is known by its location and general properties as we perceive them.  Whatever is happening in the rock as it disappears and reappears through moments of time, the label "this rock" still applies to the same virtual object in my world view.

That's what objects are to us-- not really things, but our virtual representations of things as symbolized ideas.  I'm not so sure it really matters what lies under the hood, because it really wouldn't change how we interact with our experiences. [8]

I wonder if, when I sleep, I cease to exist.  Certainly, if I had to choose between being a disembodied spirit, still conscious, or an unconscious body, I'd say that in the former I still exist, and in the latter that I do not.  Therefore it is by consciousness that I define being. [9]

It seems to me that if you accept a material universe, that panpsychism might allow for that commonality you are looking for, and that would probably be compatible with pantheism.

If you do not accept a material universe, then experientialism/idealism might work, and again I think it would be reasonable enough to describe a reality made up purely of experience and ideas as a kind of Mind of God.


However, the idea of a soul really doesn't mean much to me, because I associate more with my ability to experience sights, sounds and feelings than I do with any abstract entity at my "core." [10] If I die, and my soul may no longer enjoy life, then it doesn't matter much if "soul" is a semantic/symbolic trick or a real thing. [11]

1) You had written "sense of self", which is a consideration of the subjectivity of being a "self". I was hoping to also consider the question of identity as an object from the 3rd person perspective. In other words, the subjective, 1st person experience of being a "self"  -VS- someone else's 3rd person experience of "you" as an object.

2) When I interact with and experience you, you present as an object from my perspective. Your subjective "sense-of-self" may or may not correspond to the way in which I experience you as an object.

3) I agree. This is a difficulty for metaphysical naturalism/materialism.

4) I agree. But that is exactly my question. Is there something about Bob which remains continuous while other things change and which allows us to rationally say it is still Bob? Either Bob is a "thing" (a "whatever-he-is") that is changing, or Bob is not "a" thing at all. The latter seems a bit too absurd for me.

5) Maybe language is telling us something, because I don't have any idea how I would describe the experience a non-thing.

6) That is exactly my question. It seems clear to me that there is at least one sense in which the answer is "yes", and at least one sense in which the answer is "no". "You" have completely different atoms now, so in that sense, no you aren't the same. "You" also have a unified history of change from the beginning of "you" until now which is true independently of and includes your subjective experience. Even if "you" can be reduced to a wave function, then "you" are-being JUST THAT wave function.

It's not exactly a new question. Either Heraclitus was way ahead of his time, or he was missing something very obvious.

7) Exactly. Not only do we experience coherence and continuity, but others also observe the same sort of coherence and continuity IN US. Are we both deluded?

8) No it wouldn't, but it would contribute either to a more adequate or a less adequate account of reality.

9) Maybe just a semantics thing, but wouldn't this mean that plants are not "beings"?

10) I don't buy into the Cartesian/Enlightenment conception of the soul which is what you describe as "at the core". The first part of your sentence is, ironically, very close to the classical/platonic/aristotelian/thomistic conception of the sensitive soul which is much more like an "idea/form" than a "supernatural" pilot of the body. Maybe your reluctance to entertain the concept of a soul is colored by this more modern conception?

11) Indeed. Seems like an important question to consider, IF death is not the end, no? The question is not if you HAVE a soul. The question is "What are 'you'?" IF you are a unified and identifiable "thing", then, despite your continuous changes, 'you' continue as-that-thing. If you continue as-that-thing, then it may be important to ask, "Do I continue as-that-thing after death?" Maybe yes, maybe no. Just a thought.