Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Eric Olson's animalist view holds that we are human organisms whose persistence conditions are biological, not metaphysically sui generis.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Personal identity seems conceptually tied to psychological continuity, not biological substrate; we care about minds, not mere organisms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If I gradually replaced neurons with functionally identical silicon, animalism says I'd cease existing despite complete psychological continuity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Animalism struggles with cases of radical brain transplant where our intuitions follow the brain, not the biological body.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
We are spatiotemporal physical entities with clear biological identity conditions, so our persistence should follow biological criteria.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Psychological continuity theories create counterintuitive results like fission cases; biological criteria avoid these puzzles naturally.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Our fundamental dependence on continuous biological processes suggests biological persistence is metaphysically fundamental, not derivative.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.