Unity+of+Self

Our experience of the world seems to be unified by the felt fact that the experiences are "mine". For instance, my experience of drinking coffee is multi-sensory: the bitter taste, the liquid feel, the umber brown look all are of "MY" experience of coffee.

But there are reasons to suspect that there exists more than one self. For instance, there are times when I drink my coffee but lack both the awareness that I am doing so and the multi-sensory experience. Furthermore, there are special cases of individual people who seem to possess distinct personalities, such as Dissociative Identity Disorder(DID), or lack experience even though their behavior suggests otherwise (Agnosia or Blindsight), or even have behavior that is distinct from their experiences (Brain Bisection Patients). These cases suggest a "disunity" to an otherwise felt unity of the self.

Edit: Perhaps there is an argument about whether there is one unified self or more than one self simply because there is not a clear definition of “self.” It seems like one’s self is made up of the many variables that contribute to life experiences. Just because the experience of drinking coffee may be multi-sensory one time and then the next time there is a lack of this awareness and multi-sensory experience does not necessarily demonstrate that there is more than one self. Perhaps it is the combination of the two scenarios that make up the entire unified self. In order to really determine the unity versus the disunity of the self, perhaps a unified definition of “self” would be helpful.

[|Corpus Callosotomy]
media type="youtube" key="lfGwsAdS9Dc?version=3" height="390" width="640"

Nagel's Argument for Disunity of the Self
Thomas Nagel brings up the phenomenon of split-brained patients--those who have had their corpus callosum (the brain's connecting tissue between the left and right hemisphere) cut--in his argument for this disunity of the self. It appears from multiple studies, specifically designed to disallow all forms of communication between the two hemispheres, that there are two separate minds inhabiting one body. Strange phenomena occurs since it seems that each hemisphere has its own specialization and abilities that usually influence contralateral function. When they are unable to communicate and cooperate, they act independently and in conflicting ways. For instance when the right hemisphere alone is exposed to an image, it is only capable of communicating through action of the left side. At the same time only stimuli exposed to the left hemisphere can be verbalized.

Nagel uses this research to conclude that there are two minds can dwell in a single body. He emphasizes that the separation of the hemispheres shows that the mind is capable of functioning outside of the everyday unity we perceive.

**__ Argument against Nagel’s Position __**

Much of Nagel’s position on the disunity of the self revolves around the split-brained patients. Nagel focuses on the results of experiments with these patients that are at best contrived to achieve the desired results. Nagel himself says that these patients operate in “complete normalcy in ordinary activities, when no segregation of input to the two hemispheres as been //artificially created//” (italics mine) (AM 218). It seems weak to form conclusions about the self based on exceptions rather than “the norm.” The conclusions drawn from these experiments seem to be no more revealing about the self than an experiment where electrical impulses are used to stimulate certain sections of the brain to create desired physical responses. These manipulated results shed little light on the character of the self. It is highly doubious that any of the split brain patients out there feel like they are multiple selves due to their condition.

This is where the definitional problem of the self really reveals itself. Nagel's notion of the self, presented in his argument, is presented as one with the mind, and even the brain. However many people would and do contest this conception (see the narrative self by Dennet and other theories).

What is the Self?
Derek Parfit explains the "Ego Theory" as the view that a person's continued existence is the //"//continued existence of a particular //Ego//, or //subject of experiences."// The self is therefore that which experiences (or is conscious of) events at a particular time. For example, the fact that I am typing and hearing music, and that these are my experiences occurring right now, creates the unity that is self. Likewise, what unifies a person overtime (as in, how we might define a person's extensive temporal existence) is the fact that all of the events experienced are experienced continually by the same agent.
 * //The Ego Theory//**

Parfit also explains the Bundle Theory, which holds that there is no way to describe the unity of the self, and thus no way to describe the unity of the “Consciousness” or “Life.” Rather, it is better to say that we can only be sure of a series of mental states by which we can refer to a single life. We might simplify the Bundle Theory to suggest that there is no concrete existence of persons at all, but rather a series of mental states and events which we can be tied up in a neat "bundle". At the objection that my existence is not a series of events, but rather I am an agent which experiences, which thinks, etc. (according to the Ego Theory, for example), a bundle theorist would reply that we only speak of being an "agent of experiences" because that is the way our language is structured and thus the only way we can talk about these things. The bundle theorist would hold that there is no separately existing //thing// which we are that is distinct from our brains/bodies and the subsequent mental states we experience. Although modern science would suggest the validity of the Bundle theory, Parfit notes that there is an intrinsic sense in us which wants to deny the bundle theory and say that my //self// is more than a conglomerate of "my" experiences (indeed, the way we linguistically describe experiences is a way which describes them //possessively//, suggesting that I must be something more than something I //have//).
 * //Bundle Theory//**

Wiggins' Argument for the Disunity of the Self
Wiggins' implements a thought experiment to extend our conception of disunity as shown by split-brain patients. "In this imagined case a person's brain is divided, and the two halves are transplanted into a pair of different bodies" (AM 236). By putting the separated minds into bodies he seems to have created two new people, who would be able to live as two separate selves. A particular "me" would be lost, and yet survival would be still attainable.

Michelle Mack is a woman who was born without a left hemisphere.
 * Food for thought case study:**

media type="custom" key="7152525"