Talk:Personal identity

message: === This article is entirely skewed ===
…toward the empricist/naturalist tradition, from Descartes -> Locke -> Hume (which continues in the work of people like Strawson & Parfitt). It needs a balanced and a fair representation of the important views on the concept of a person, from non-naturalists like Harry Frankfurt, Charles Taylor, Maurice Merlau-Ponty, Hubert Dreyfus, Stanley Cavell, Wilfrid Sellars and Ernst Tugendhat.
I can start, but others are welcome to contribute their thoughts as well. For ideas, see the discussion on the Person page, under "Compromise on Lead". Walkinxyz (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cant find narrative views of Schechtman or Lindemann ... and no entries on  desire-endorsement views ... is the frankfurt , the Harry Frankfurt? J. D. Redding
In the "mind-body" section, is says "Someone's desire for a slice of pizza, for example, will tend to cause that person to move their body in a specific manner and in a specific direction to obtain said pizza." But as far as I'm aware, this only relates to Belief-Desire Theory. Perhaps this should be referenced? - 11 June 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi-teem13 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: General comments

message: …toward the empricist/naturalist tradition, from Descartes -> Locke -> Hume (which continues in the work of people like Strawson & Parfitt). It needs a balanced and a fair representation of the important views on the concept of a person, from non-naturalists like Harry Frankfurt, Charles Taylor, Maurice Merlau-Ponty, Hubert Dreyfus, Stanley Cavell, Wilfrid Sellars and Ernst Tugendhat.
I can start, but others are welcome to contribute their thoughts as well. For ideas, see the discussion on the Person page, under "Compromise on Lead". Walkinxyz (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is entirely skewed 

message: Structured additions recommended: An overview of diachronic accounts (e.g. Parfit, Perry).  A comprehensive outline of synchroninc accounts (e.g. the narrative views of Schechtman, Lindemann, etc.; desire-endorsement views such as Frankfurt's).  Links to 'Identity Politics' sort of entries. Zillmerj 21:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cant find narrative views of Schechtman or Lindemann ... and no entries on  desire-endorsement views ... is the frankfurt , the Harry Frankfurt? J. D. Redding
In the "mind-body" section, is says "Someone's desire for a slice of pizza, for example, will tend to cause that person to move their body in a specific manner and in a specific direction to obtain said pizza." But as far as I'm aware, this only relates to Belief-Desire Theory. Perhaps this should be referenced? - 11 June 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi-teem13 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Additons?

message: Anyone else find it a forehead slapper when verb conjugation involves apostrophes? D'oh! (Just a minor correction) Hexalm 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: What needs to be cleaned up to meet quality standards? If nothing, tag should be removed. J. D. Redding 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup to meet quality standards?

message: What needs to be cited, referenced, or sourced? If nothing, tag should be removed. J. D. Redding 02:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite its references or sources?

message: Ego identity
Main article: Id, ego, and super-ego
Ego integrity is the ego's accumulated assurance of its capacity for order and meaning.
    ^^^^^^^^^ should read IDENTITY  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.197.24 (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: typo

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a "support" vote? If so, can you please register it with the appropriate formatting, as below?
*Oppose the page  was a disambiguation page until a few days ago (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personal_identity&oldid=453883821 ) If there is a primary topic, it would be Personally identifiable information, since "personal identity" is intimately linked with "identity theft", which involves falsifying "personally identifiable information" , and is quite frequently in the news, unlike the sociology or philsophy constructs. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Something broke?===
It appears that after the move the article (now "Personal identity") consists of nothing but a redirect to itself, and has no history of the older content. Likewise the redirect at the old title ("Personal identity (philosophy)"). What happened? --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: It appears that after the move the article (now "Personal identity") consists of nothing but a redirect to itself, and has no history of the older content. Likewise the redirect at the old title ("Personal identity (philosophy)"). What happened? --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Something broke?

message: In this paragraph, the first sentence has been tagged for clarification, after being separated from the rest of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph provides the clarification, and it is the separation of them that makes it appear to need clarification. Bolded for easier identification:
:However, dualism is far from uncontroversial or unproblematic, and adopting it as a solution raises a host of other questions. Our perceptual experiences depend on stimuli which arrive at our various sensory organs from the external world and these stimuli cause changes in our mental states; ultimately causing us to feel a sensation, which may be pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Someone's desire for a slice of pizza, for example, will tend to cause that person to move their body in a specific manner and in a specific direction to obtain said pizza. The question, then, is how it can be possible for conscious experiences to arise out of a lump of grey matter endowed with nothing but electrochemical properties. A related problem is to explain how someone's propositional attitudes (e.g. beliefs and desires) can cause that individual's neurons to fire and his muscles to contract in exactly the correct manner. These comprise some of the puzzles that have confronted epistemologists and philosophers of mind from at least the time of René Descartes.
--Pfhorrest (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the paragraph does state the questions, but I also think that it could be worded to get the message across more clearly. Looie496 (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying problems with dualism 

message: I would like to add a section on 'Proof of Identity' and bring this article into the modern world.  Comments? Pinkelk (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a different topic entirely and already has several articles such as identity document and personally identifying information. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof of identity?

message: I think we may have some serious problems with the Experimental philosophy section. It is vague, difficult to understand, makes claims that are neither clear nor clearly supported supported and may be advancing a POV, or may just be nonsense. Let me explain.
First up, I don't really understand what the section is getting at so I'll have to point to individual red flags:
*  - Vague, popmous but clearly recent. When?
*  - Who?
*  - What methods?
*  - "Better" sounds like a value judgement. Who says this is "better"?
*   - Is it though? The Experimental philosophy article certainly doesn't say that it is called "xPhi" or "x-Phi". Searching for "xPhi" doesn't redirect to that article although "x-Phi" does.
*  - Vague and uninformative. Maybe I am being uncharitable but to me that reads as "Our shrinks analysed your shrinks to predict their opinions after they said them".
* Moral self theory section:
:*Vague. Opens with a platitude. No wikilinks. Adequately sourced? How much is this actually saying?
* Numerical and qualitative section:
:* - OK. This sounds like complete bollocks. "Moral improvement vs. moral deterioration" is subjective and no scientist would suggest that this is a quantifiable factor with an objective direction. "moral deterioration" sounds a bit too similar to the pseudo-scientific concept of "degeneration" so beloved of far-right cranks. Is that what this is? If not, lets be clear about what it actually is so that cranks don't latch on to it.
:* - Which studies? Are they good studies? Presumably the source given is one?
:The remainder of the section seems less obviously bad although it could be explained better and doesn't seem to be saying anything particularly unexpected. If any of this can be saved it is probably that last bit.
So... What do we want to do here? Should we just rip the whole thing out, or does somebody who understands this better than me want to pick it over and save the good bits? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Experimental philosophy section

message: The phrase "numerical identity" is used without adequate explanation and is likely to confuse the reader. To a typical reader this phrase will evoke something like a Social Security Number, which isn't what we mean here at all. The reader can barely have started reading this article before they need to be redirected to Identity (philosophy), so that they can find out that it is used to distinguish from qualitative identity. I think we should try to use phrases that are more likely to be understood without people needing to read another article first. Possibilities include "individual identity", "unique identity" and other options. Where we absolutely have to use "numerical identity" we should make sure that we are explaining it clearly and correctly, in a way that the readers can understand without too much effort. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: "Numerical identity"