Topic: Abortion
Quote: No disagreements.\nSomething left out (probably because it was assumed), is memory.\nWhat you call mental existence I would say is a description of what causes or leads to personal identity. \nTo me it is self evident that there is no person or personhood without a personal identity. \nThere might be disagreement about what the particulars are concerning how to identify a personal identity, but it seems self evident to me that a mind is required, and without a brain, there is no mind, so a brain is required.\nIt seems to me self evident that if there is no brain, there is no person.\nOf course, others will disagree.\nSome say that the unique DNA of a zygote is enough for personal identity, but if this is true, identical twins (with identical DNA) would have to share one personal identity, and one soul.\nIn the case of a chimera, two souls/unique DNA in two zygotes, would have to blend into one person/soul. (No, most chimeras are not schizophrenic).\nI believe an integral part of [personal identity>mental existence>personhood] is memory. Whether it is short term, or long term, without memory there is no sense of self. (I may be stating the obvious, but you never know.)\n~ ~ ~ ~ ~\nIt is not clear if your list of indicators for mental existence is \xe2\x80\x9cone will suffice\xe2\x80\x9d, or \xe2\x80\x9cseveral are required\xe2\x80\x9d.\nI don\xe2\x80\x99t think it matters all that much, but I\xe2\x80\x99m not sure, just wondering.
Response: I\'m not completely sure what you mean by "personal identity", but it sounds similar to what I called "sense of self". It is a hard term to define. \nSense of self is different than a recognition of self. I have heard that babies do not have a recognition of self - in the sense that, though they have personal experiences of pain, sensation, etc, they do not recognize themselves as separate from others - they just don\'t think about their separateness so there is no recognition of a separate "I". Similarly, most animals may have a sense of self - they may have a central mental center which feels the sensations, experiences the emotions, etc. - but many do not necessarily have a recognition of themselves as an "I" and others as "you". They just don\'t think about the separateness - they just have experiences that they react to. \nWhere mental existence is concerned and criteria I use to define it, many of the criteria I listed (thought, emotion, sense of pain, perception of experiences, sense of self, etc.) are interdependent (ex. emotion can be thought of as a type of thought, it takes a type of thought to recognize pain or sensation, etc.). However, roughly speaking, I would say that "any of the above" criteria would be enough to define a minimum mental existence - and thus define a person.\nOn a last point, why is memory important to you? Various people who have experienced major brain trauma have lost most memory function - so they have no memory of who they are, what they were doing one minute ago, etc. One can imagine that the extreme situation would be someone who has no memory at all - so he has no words to communicate, no memory of a personal history. Indeed, every experience is completely new, including the experience of pain, pleasure, etc. However, this memory-less person can still have experiences (feel pain, pleasure, experience the input of the senses, etc.). He would be completely baffled as to what any experience at all is telling him, but he would still have the experiences. Extremely limited as that person would be, I would still call him a person. I\'m not sure if that is the type of memory that you were referring to. If not, then please clarify.
-0.2