Reply to comment

I certainly do find it instructive to consider the Cartesian take on the self—mind and body as separate entities—in order to better understand the rather modern, ever-evolving scientific study of the brain and behavior. However, I much prefer Hume's notion of the self as a great big bundle, or mass of predications.

As opposed to Cartesian dualism's rationalist approach, Hume forged a far more empirical conception of who we were, who we are today, and perhaps who we will become. The thought that each of us is an intricate web constructed entirely of ideas personally appeals to me, as someone who views experience as a crucial ingredient of life. On the other hand, this raises a handful of somewhat frightful questions: are we nothing more than a collection of attributes? And if so, do we have any say in the matter? Or are we hardwired from birth with certain associations and configurations?

Nevertheless, even if we were nothing more than a bundle of properties, with no distinction between mind and body nor physical and non-physical, we would still be in a constant state of flux and change. An individual's newly changed self would be one and the same as his or her so-called true self or identity. And that's what human beings seem to be; we are works in progress, more or less.