The Bundle Theory By Derek Parfit
Derek Parfit states, “it is an empty question whether the resulting person would be you.” (384) With this statement, Parfit means that we could know the result of what just happened without answering the question. There is only one outcome that is being considered. According to the Bundle theory we cannot explain consciousness by examining a person. The answer is instead in a long series of mental states and different situations. In these different series we experience life through thoughts and sensations. Each life situation or experience is put together by various kinds of perception that we have in our thoughts or some sort of mental sensation. This theory gets its named because each experience is like a “bundle” tied up with one string.
…show more content…
On the other hand, the Ego Theory states that a persons continued existence cannot be explained except as the one continuous existence of a particular “subject of experiences.” The Ego Theory takes our current experiences and says those experiences are being had in that current moment. We can than take this and apply it to a person’s whole life by saying that the unity of someone’s life is had by the same person.
Simply put, the Ego Theory says that all our life experiences are being experienced by the same person, which unifies our life memories. The Bundle Theory rejects this view. An Ego Theorist would not agree that the question is an empty one. An Ego Theorist believes that someone’s experiences are gathered through personal experiences (situations or past events). The person who had these specific experiences is their own unique person and no one can be exactly like that specific person. Parfit believes people are like clubs because the identity of a person is analogous to the identity of a club over time. The analogy of people as clubs is this: people join and leave clubs, just as… The club has meetings for awhile, then the meetings stop. A few years later a new club is made, but this club has the same name and the same rules. The big question being considered in this analogy is whether the people revived this club or did they create their own club, which is exactly similar. People are the same way, according to Parafit. If half a person’s cells were replaced over time with exact duplicates, that same person would call the duplicate them self. This analogy is a natural fit for the bundle theory because the bundle theory states that a person forms relations only
through thoughts and sensations and people are truly a collection of these different mental states. The same club is formed through the same rules and name, not because the club has been there over time. I do not agree with his analogy of the club. I believe that the “same” club has to be the one that stayed the same over time, from beginning to end. The club’s continuity cannot be broken and then try to be reestablished later. Trying to reestablish the club would simply be forming a new one. Just because the club has the same rules and the same name does not make it the same club. The club in the beginning can change their rules and name if they want, but they are still an exclusive club, which no other club will be similar. No other club will be similar because a new club will not have the same continuity of the initial club. Another club can create the same scenarios, but to me they are a replica, not identical. As a personal analogy, this would be compared to a fraternity on campus. When a person joins a fraternity there is obviously a name and a set of rules to be followed. For sake of the analogy, let’s say that the fraternity was there for 20 years and then diminishes out completely over time. Ten years go by and then a new fraternity forms. This new fraternity has the same name and tries to follow the same set of rules. This fraternity is not the same fraternity as the last one, due to the fact that the last fraternity is exclusive and their continuity was broken when the fraternity diminished out. Even though the new fraternity goes by the same rules and the same name, that fraternity was not the original, but instead a replica. Parfit says that “ordinary survival is about as bad as being destroyed and having a Replica.” By “replica” he means that it is not uniquely you as the original specific person, but instead someone else who is exactly like you. In terms of the related teletransportation process, it wont get an original person to Mars, there is no self. The idea of the original person being transported is not existent, only an individual’s specific ideas are teleported. With this view he is saying that “replica” is built on the idea that what matters in person survival is psychological continuity, and this continuity is broken in the teletransportation process. The Replica will have knowledge of your memories, past emotions, and your past situations. According to Parfits theory, a replica of those memories are not the same memories as the original person who actually experienced those memories. He thinks that ordinary survival is about as bad as being destroyed and having a Replica because he is saying that teletransporation is just as bad as regular survival, in a sense that our life continuity should not really matter to us. Our life continuity should not really matter to us because we are just a bundle of ideas. If we are just a bundle of ideas, there should not be a difference whether those ideas are kept alive or die. I do not agree with him on this point. I find it hard to believe that my life is just a bundle of thoughts, so ordinary survival certainly seems better than being destroyed and having a replica. I believe more in the Ego Theory, in a sense that there in something that makes me unique, called my soul. I believe that I have my own emotion, desires, and wants, which make me unique in my own self. I know that I have a soul because of my consciousness. With my conscience I know right from wrong in the world. I can also decide to act in certain manners and make decisions as I please, which is called my free will. In the split-brain case, someone’s brain is divided and then the halves are transplanted into a different pair of different bodies. These two different people live two different lives. This case “shows that personal identity is not what matters.” (386) Parfit believes that the split brain-case support the Bundle Theory because neither of the resulting people with the brain are the person of the original brain. There is no “self” involved in this case. According to Parfit this shows that there is no such thing as “personhood” or “self.” This supports the Bundle theory by showing that split-brain patients do not have only one state of awareness of their streams of consciousness, but instead two. This shows that we have two distinct bundles of perception, instead of one. I agree with Parfit on the point of the split-brain case supporting the Bundle Theory, because when the two colors are shown there is no unity of consciousness at that specific moment. According to the Ego Theory we would have to assume that there are two Egos within a person and according to Parfit it seems unreasonable for two egos to reside in one individual. If there are two egos, the egos would reasonably be able to be divided. The Ego Theory says that two new people should function the same; however, this is impossible. The two people will never be the same individual, the original person will just cease to exist, which backs up the Bundle Theory. I do believe that the dispute between the Ego Theorist and the Bundle Theorist is something that can potentially be settled by science. Experiments are already being done with split-brains to show the effects of them. I believe that with multiple experiments on different brains will be able to define a specific answer to the effect of the split-brain case. To be able to define a specific answer to establish the Bundle Theory, I believe that consistent results would need to be shown of two streams of consciousness on each individual. These experiments would be difficult to show because it is working with a human brain.
On the other hand, the Ego Theory states that a persons continued existence cannot be explained except as the one continuous existence of a particular “subject of experiences.” The Ego Theory takes our current experiences and says those experiences are being had in that current moment. We can than take this and apply it to a person’s whole life by saying that the unity of someone’s life is had by the same person.
Simply put, the Ego Theory says that all our life experiences are being experienced by the same person, which unifies our life memories. The Bundle Theory rejects this view. An Ego Theorist would not agree that the question is an empty one. An Ego Theorist believes that someone’s experiences are gathered through personal experiences (situations or past events). The person who had these specific experiences is their own unique person and no one can be exactly like that specific person. Parfit believes people are like clubs because the identity of a person is analogous to the identity of a club over time. The analogy of people as clubs is this: people join and leave clubs, just as… The club has meetings for awhile, then the meetings stop. A few years later a new club is made, but this club has the same name and the same rules. The big question being considered in this analogy is whether the people revived this club or did they create their own club, which is exactly similar. People are the same way, according to Parafit. If half a person’s cells were replaced over time with exact duplicates, that same person would call the duplicate them self. This analogy is a natural fit for the bundle theory because the bundle theory states that a person forms relations only
through thoughts and sensations and people are truly a collection of these different mental states. The same club is formed through the same rules and name, not because the club has been there over time. I do not agree with his analogy of the club. I believe that the “same” club has to be the one that stayed the same over time, from beginning to end. The club’s continuity cannot be broken and then try to be reestablished later. Trying to reestablish the club would simply be forming a new one. Just because the club has the same rules and the same name does not make it the same club. The club in the beginning can change their rules and name if they want, but they are still an exclusive club, which no other club will be similar. No other club will be similar because a new club will not have the same continuity of the initial club. Another club can create the same scenarios, but to me they are a replica, not identical. As a personal analogy, this would be compared to a fraternity on campus. When a person joins a fraternity there is obviously a name and a set of rules to be followed. For sake of the analogy, let’s say that the fraternity was there for 20 years and then diminishes out completely over time. Ten years go by and then a new fraternity forms. This new fraternity has the same name and tries to follow the same set of rules. This fraternity is not the same fraternity as the last one, due to the fact that the last fraternity is exclusive and their continuity was broken when the fraternity diminished out. Even though the new fraternity goes by the same rules and the same name, that fraternity was not the original, but instead a replica. Parfit says that “ordinary survival is about as bad as being destroyed and having a Replica.” By “replica” he means that it is not uniquely you as the original specific person, but instead someone else who is exactly like you. In terms of the related teletransportation process, it wont get an original person to Mars, there is no self. The idea of the original person being transported is not existent, only an individual’s specific ideas are teleported. With this view he is saying that “replica” is built on the idea that what matters in person survival is psychological continuity, and this continuity is broken in the teletransportation process. The Replica will have knowledge of your memories, past emotions, and your past situations. According to Parfits theory, a replica of those memories are not the same memories as the original person who actually experienced those memories. He thinks that ordinary survival is about as bad as being destroyed and having a Replica because he is saying that teletransporation is just as bad as regular survival, in a sense that our life continuity should not really matter to us. Our life continuity should not really matter to us because we are just a bundle of ideas. If we are just a bundle of ideas, there should not be a difference whether those ideas are kept alive or die. I do not agree with him on this point. I find it hard to believe that my life is just a bundle of thoughts, so ordinary survival certainly seems better than being destroyed and having a replica. I believe more in the Ego Theory, in a sense that there in something that makes me unique, called my soul. I believe that I have my own emotion, desires, and wants, which make me unique in my own self. I know that I have a soul because of my consciousness. With my conscience I know right from wrong in the world. I can also decide to act in certain manners and make decisions as I please, which is called my free will. In the split-brain case, someone’s brain is divided and then the halves are transplanted into a different pair of different bodies. These two different people live two different lives. This case “shows that personal identity is not what matters.” (386) Parfit believes that the split brain-case support the Bundle Theory because neither of the resulting people with the brain are the person of the original brain. There is no “self” involved in this case. According to Parfit this shows that there is no such thing as “personhood” or “self.” This supports the Bundle theory by showing that split-brain patients do not have only one state of awareness of their streams of consciousness, but instead two. This shows that we have two distinct bundles of perception, instead of one. I agree with Parfit on the point of the split-brain case supporting the Bundle Theory, because when the two colors are shown there is no unity of consciousness at that specific moment. According to the Ego Theory we would have to assume that there are two Egos within a person and according to Parfit it seems unreasonable for two egos to reside in one individual. If there are two egos, the egos would reasonably be able to be divided. The Ego Theory says that two new people should function the same; however, this is impossible. The two people will never be the same individual, the original person will just cease to exist, which backs up the Bundle Theory. I do believe that the dispute between the Ego Theorist and the Bundle Theorist is something that can potentially be settled by science. Experiments are already being done with split-brains to show the effects of them. I believe that with multiple experiments on different brains will be able to define a specific answer to the effect of the split-brain case. To be able to define a specific answer to establish the Bundle Theory, I believe that consistent results would need to be shown of two streams of consciousness on each individual. These experiments would be difficult to show because it is working with a human brain.