Mind-based identity theory and the role of faith in personal existence

Mind-Based Identity:

A Problem Impossible to Ignore

One of the most basic questions of human existence is essentially "What am I?" Although humans have known in varying degrees throughout recorded history that they are biological beings, there has always been the question of internal identity. What is it that separates me from my brother? Am I different? Do I exist in any way apart from my body? If so, do I only exist temporarily as a kind of "projection" of my physical brain and its live activity, or am I something more than the sum of electrical and cellular functions? Although there are many theories concerning this topic, they all, somehow surprisingly, have one component in common, and that is faith.

To be sure, the concept and question of "life after death" does much to frame the "identity" question. That is, when one considers the nature of the self, at the most basic and pressing level, one wants to know if that nature is infinite or temporal. Of course, removing the body and the physical and social trappings of life places this question in stark relief, on display and for careful and intense musing. Although many have taken this issue and concluded that there is a kind of existence independent of the body, perhaps most famously, Descartes and his "I think therefore I am" theory of "mind," the mere existence of thought does little to confirm anything logically. In fact, a simple and non-theological "mind-based" identity theory like the one Descartes espoused is necessarily flawed. This is due to the fact that the presence of faith as a component in any discussion of the concept of self is largely ignored by all (including Descartes) except in theories based on religion.

The simple fact is that in all possible conclusions about self, its nature, as well as its role and ultimate destiny, are grounded in faith. Given this fact, it not only makes sense to turn to religious tradition as a source of information about the nature of identity, which is based on faith no less than non-religious theories, but it points to the folly of choosing any other theory given the comparably inferior temporal definitions they may offer.

Science, Atheism, and the Faith Involved in Both

John Perry's book, "A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality" is indeed an interesting read. Although through reading his work the one begins to understand the many different viewpoints on human existence and identity, much of one's ultimate conclusions must be based upon some form of faith. When I say "faith" I do not necessarily mean a specific religion. On the contrary, I submit that even an atheist who relies on the theory that he or she only exists due to the existence and survival of the physical body is demonstrating a kind of faith in that premise. Sure, they may believe that science can account for the existence of the mind and thought -- however, a reasonably thoughtful person who embraces this notion will necessarily recall that scientific belief about the nature of the body and how it works was quite different just a few hundred years ago. For example, doctors once thought an imbalance in the "humors" caused mental imbalances. They also believed that these imbalances could be corrected through "draining" various kinds of humors. Clearly, according to modern medicine, the "cause" of the mental imbalances, or mental states (and the mind is what we experience as internal reality), is due to tiny neurons in the brain, and not on any elemental humor that can be "drained" or balanced. If, then, science (the temporal "representative spokesman" of the body-based identity theory could be wrong in this case, could not science also be lacking in the ability to account for the continued existence of mind, even after the end of physical life as we recognize it?

Take, for instance, the fact that neuro-science today considers "electrical impulses" to be a key factor in brain function. Of course, modern body-identity adherents believe that it is the brain that projects the illusion of the mind (an illusion (according to them) because it is merely the sum of nerve, cellular, electrical activity, etc.). If, then, it is just becoming understood how electrical impulses affect the mind, could there not be some kind of continued electrical activity after death that somehow continues to support that mind? What of the newest discoveries in the field of matter? What of quarks? Is it not true that science is just beginning the study of a vast new world of particles and energy that defies previous thought? If science can change so radically concerning the very nature of matter and how it behaves, is it not possible that the nature of life and mind activity can also change?

Thus, to believe that it will not change, that science has uncovered all there is to know about the nature of life and existence, as well as the boundaries for that existence (namely, death), involves the same kind of faith in the unknown (after all, no one knows where science will lead) that an intense faith in the infinite soul entails. Interestingly, however, scientific atheists (or others who do not believe in life after death), purport to use reason and reason alone in their theories of body-based temporal existence. Yet this is a problem, just as much as it is a problem in mind-based theories, specifically in the kind exemplified by Descartes' "I Think, Therefore I am" premise.

Good Old-Fashioned Religion

Mention a "belief in the unseen, or unknown," and many intellectuals and simpletons, alike, will chide you for your naivete. However, as stated above, it is clear that the same component (otherwise known as faith) is just as present in non-religious belief systems (including all philosophies of the nature of mind and self) as the most blatantly religion-based concept of self. Given this fact, that all theories are "flawed" or tainted by the presence of faith, as well as by necessary doubt, it only makes sense to take the most promising course with regard to potential outcome. This is particularly true in consideration of the self as infinite or temporal.

Most humans believe that the avoidance of pain, fear, and suffering are meritorious, even if those humans supposedly believe in the possibility of the existence of "false input" from the senses. For instance, in contrast to an individual who believes one's existence or self is confined to the experiences related by the senses, another more "mid-Meditation" Descartist may reject sensory input as reliable at all. They may say, for example, that something harmful can feel good (a narcotic reaction, for example), and that something good can feel harmful (vomiting after eating tainted food). However, if one were to observe this same theorist in "real life," he would in all likelihood, be seen avoiding physical or emotional pain in all instances. After all, faith has its limits -- what if the senses prove horribly accurate? Why take chances? Few would.

If then, this is the case, and one chooses to take the "safest" route with regard to faith and "best case scenarios" (i.e. human torch vs. happy stroller), does it not make sense to seek out the faith-based identity with the best possible outcome?

Clearly, this idea is hardly new. In fact, it was Augustine who used logic (and faith) to assert that it only makes sense to choose faith in God and the afterlife rather than unbelief, in that to choose God would only help you should God's promise prove to be true, and certainly place you no worse off should it be false. Although this argument was more theological in nature than the musings of Identity theorists, one cannot fail to see the connection between the flawed thinking of the atheist (in Augustine's view), and the flawed reasoning of body, mind, and sense identity adherents.

Much as Augustine reasoned, hey, you're alive anyway. You're gonna die for sure. Why not cover all of your bases just in case? Clearly the best way to do this is by choosing, out of the options you know, that which will harm you least. In the same vein, we know that all of the theories of self contain the component of faith (another expression of which may be the "hopeful unknown." Given that this component is the constant of all (much the same as death, itself, is the constant in Augustine's statement), it only makes sense to choose the theory of self that is the most promising -- that being one that includes infinite existence, specifically some form of "life after death," if only in mind.

Conclusions:

Clearly, the human experience of thought and all the "trappings" of musing on self and identity (including philosophy) leave much to be desired. As humans, most of us (we assume, anyway) have some inkling of the limits of our knowledge of the nature of self. We wonder, "If I am thinking, does this mean that I really am? Or is this thinking an illusion, perhaps conjured by the electrical impulses in my brain?" We may worry over how it will be to simply no longer exist, even if we fail to consider the considerable period we "didn't exist" before birth. We may wonder if everyone is just as we are in the same way that we are -- if they see and experience the world as we do. We may even feel that primary sensory pleasure seeking is "all there is," and that we are simply biological beings, straight out of seventh-grade biology text-books.

Despite all of the different tracks that conjecture on the nature of self and existence can take, the mere commonality of the need to "answer the question" points at a certain truth. Further, that doubt, and more importantly, faith is a necessary component of all of them indicates that mere philosophical, logical, or sensory musings are simply not the sources of ultimate wisdom that we yearn for. Given this fact, and given that humans are sufficiently imbibed with the need to understand just how one continues or does not continue to exist after death, it seems only logical that one would choose the best possible option with regard to potential outcome -- that which provides for the greatest assurance of infinite existence of the self. This is particularly true given the existence of faith in all other theories anyway (and this is most often the cause most non-religious people cite for their failure to consider a spiritual model).

Indeed, if faith is a common component in all theories, then one cannot use it as a "flaw" by which to judge one theory over another. The mere "lack of evidence" often attributed to religion as a basis for identity is just as present in mind, sense, and biological models. Given this, what can be lost by switching between them at will, other than choosing a false option at the expense of truth if that truth carries with it real benefits?

Personal Reflections:

Given this truth, my personal concept of self and identity seems to be a wise one. Consider, for example that I believe that I am destined, though my belief in God, and my accomplishment of good deeds, as well as the avoidance of bad, to die and live infinitely in some form with the same "mind" I think with right now. My sensory experience may be different after death, certainly my physical being will no longer be the same, yet the same mind with which I compose these words will continue. For me, this is a matter of faith -- and faith by definition is a struggle with doubt. However, in choosing belief, in this self-theory, I necessarily reject non-religious models.

Unlike the other identity models, however, I cannot embrace aspects of any other self model. I must reject them all. For example, I may not, according to my concept of identity, believe in the importance of sensory input at the expense of all else (hedonism is out), I can also not cite the benevolent nature of God as a basis for proving a Descartes-like theory based on the utility of my senses. After all, do I not see many whom God has chosen to be deficient in hearing, sight, taste, smell, or touch? Does that mean that God favors some over others, and he has designated them to "be" more, or "exist" more saliently? So, too, should I believe that "I think, and I am," yet the plainly insane man next to me on the bus does not exist?

Clearly, on logical grounds there are glaring flaws in all definitions and conceptions of self-identity. As of yet, there simply is no purely logical argument, despite many objections to the contrary. Although for some reason there seems to be a mystery concerning just why some people turn to a religious definition of existence rather than a philosophical or scientific one, it seems that choosing (if one, indeed chooses -- according to some scientific theorists, a particular part of the brain that causes an illusory belief in a "higher power") the religious option makes the most sense with regard to increasing one's odds of continued existence after death. Further, to do the converse does nothing to improve ones chances or outlook, unless one considers the abandonment of hedonistic pursuits to be a major sacrifice (and for some, it is). Given this fact it seems to be a good, Augustinian "hedging of my bets," to put my faith in religion rather than any other theory. After all, faith gets a bad wrap. If I have to live with it anyway, I'd rather take a chance on reaping any possible benefit it might afford me. It certainly can't hurt.