Reply to comment

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.