Each particle can be numbered, it gives us a certain sum, but I ask about the subject and it seems that only certain particles can be part of the same subject, identical with it. If it were otherwise and the configuration of the particles would change so that they would occur in all possible relations with one another, we would not be able to talk about the identity of a person, because then we would be one. On the example I will describe it like this: I sit and write on the keyboard and my colleague in Krakow reads a book but in a different configuration, I would be a colleague reading a book and he would be writing on the keyboard. My question is the question of personal identity from the point of view of the particle of which I belong, or is it possible that certain particles belong only to me, to my personal identity. If this is not the case, you can not talk about the subject and some individual factor, but about changing the configuration of objects that are changing and individualism is falling. If it were, then as a colleague reading a book, I would be aware that I read and I would be myself, and he would write on the keyboard and it would be him, because even if all the configurations are realized, I would read the book but not the same, A book composed of those particles that belong to my consciousness, that is, who wrote on the keyboard, so it seems that there is a factor that makes the subject matter.
The difference between being "I" and being "a colleague of mine" comes from consciousness as you mentioned. However, it is yet a hard problem of the present science to understand where consciousness comes from as I asked in my question posed at the link below. I suppose that the difference in identities of persons comes not from something you call "subject matter" but from a subtle difference in combinations of identical atoms and molecules.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_consciousness_Can_science_tackle_the_mysteries_of_consciousness_with_the_present_knowledge#599fc922b0366d095b5487cf
And here is the problem, whether with constant change, I can consist of particles that Hitler consisted of and be like him, or rather there are particles from which I only consist. After all, the particles are still moving. The subject matter is very important in this regard. Because if they are so wandering at some point in a certain configuration, I can not be anything different from Hitler.
I'm looking for an individual factor that makes the phenotype begin to develop. St. Tomasz claimed that it is a soul. Beyond consciousness, which is rather a consciousness of something, they know that being conscious of something. Gametes are connected and the embryo begins to divide, but this may be due to some particle interaction. It's like bringing biology to physics through chemistry. We can number the particles and say they come in every possible configuration. Hence, Hitler's argument may be that everyone could be like him and therefore should not be punished. But on the other hand, if it were possible to use all possible configurations, I could be a tree, a stone, etc. Kant claimed that not everything possible is real. The wine is individual and transitive from which the order is issued, and the one who performs both are guilty. Are there only particles belonging to me and me forming? Hitler's next argument may be that if there are such particles it is just that and it can not be punished. And even if we are a resultant of social relationships and genetic code, we can blame society to avoid it. Then question about indyviduality is question about responsibility too.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Books