Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

lfrontino's picture

When considering which story

When considering which story I felt the most comfortable about, Dickinson or Descartes, I realized that I'm not really sure which I believe. Although I feel more comfortable with the idea that there is more to our personalities and identities than chemicals and matter and thus favor the Descartes version, I realize I have no evidence backing this claim. I merely choose to defend it rather than succumb to the idea that my thoughts, actions, and ideas are simply a combination of chemicals and signals. When we discussed the reasons for the Dickinson story coming more into society's favor, I found myself almost begrudgingly agreeing to some of the points. However, it is true that alterations to our nervous system will affect our personality to a point and therefore there must be some deep connection between our sense of selves and our brain. I think about those who suffer from memory loss and brain trauma. Do victims of Alzheimer's still have an inner sense of their identity?

 In doing this activity, I learned more about myself and my own tendency to defend my own ideas quite blindly rather than consider a possible other side to the story or think of a compromise. If I look at both explanations from a completely honest point of view, I would say I favor a combination of both ideas. Our brain and nervous system make up who we are. Different combinations of neurons and chemicals must make up for alterations in personality. However, I still can't shake the feeling that humans have a so-called 'soul.' Therefore it is quite logical for me to decide to adopt a combination of both the Descartes and Dickinson theory. 

Reply

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
1 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.