Even if all your atoms were used to transport you to another being, this can be recreated leaving you to just be a copy and not an original.

To some extent I feel like language is limited. Although, I also believe that there has to be a simplification at times in order to provide a more general understanding across people of different backgrounds.

Memories influence actions and we learn right or wrong from the success or failure in our past.

What would the Professor's perspective on people with Dissociative Identity Disorder be? Would it be a cade of multiple persons or none at all?

The brain is so powerful and it is so interesting that there are parts of the brain that are focused on one aspect of your personality and function.

The literal separation becomes a divide of consciousness.

This is saying that the outside body does not necessarily have to do with the essence of a person. Responses and the self are potentially separated from the body which can sometimes only be a vessel.

Because he has some similarities, it is possible to become the same person?

Would you say that the animals that are able to recognize another of its kind has some sort of consciousness?

This thought is intriguing because if certain thoughts weren't processed as quickly as they are we wouldn't be considered high-functioning.

I think that there are many things that we aren't aware of, like the specifics of how we breathe and smell. I feel like the mind and thoughts in general are complicated to understand and define because it is not definite.

If we are only partially responsible for our actions, what would entail full responsibility? What would this world look like?

Why does defining things often cause people to act in a way that challenges what is being defined? I think that we don't like feeling constricted and there are many more interpretations and perspectives.

I think that this would cause a lot of disorder, for example if a person is excused for committing a crime it puts other in danger. Even if they had no control over it.

I agree that we are capable of choosing, that is free will.

I like this sentence because I like to think that we are conscious and have free will and ultimately everyone cares at least a little bit about others and themselves.

How can free will exists in parts? So we're on auto-pilot and then when we are put in a situation where we are torn, then and only then are we exercising free will?

How does this relate to having instincts?The idea that it's a quick decision because we don't care boggles me.

I have never thought about this, it's interesting how I personally haven't been conscious about what food I choose at times. I feel that this is not the case for everyone because there are people who depending on the day may feel more inclined to over-analyze the smallest things.

In order to label a decision as torn, it must be in the middle of it taking place. One is able to acknowledge once one realizes the puzzling emotions.

Blame and responsibility are constructs and I definitely think that the oversimplified idea that we have of it allows us to separate ourselves from the problem, yet there should be more deciphering of the problem.

I think a child can decipher between right and wrong but the adults in the child's live are essential to their development.

This definitely has to do with nature and nurture and even genetics. There is proof that some murderers with damage to the amygdala which is responsible for emotions or a smaller amygdala have higher chances of performing dangerous acts.

I think that this sentence negates the emotional attachment present in a religious person's life. The death penalty and the crucifixion are completely different scenarios.

So many things can be classified into states. Mental and physical states for example but the importance is in how they relate to each other.

It's more theoretical and there aren't right or wrong answers.

Definition: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

I talked about this in my Social Psych class, someone can have all the knowledge about the physical states and science behind the color red but if they have never understood it then they are missing a crucial part.

All of these are memories and signals that are connected to the person's experience. There has to be a level of consciousness in order to connect current to past stimuli.

I can see how this can be alarming because consciousness is a construct that can't necessarily be easily defined.

Even though you can't be 100% sure that everything around you is real, you can be sure than in this moment you are conscious. Philosophical questions give a way to question your surroundings and at the same time understand them even more.

Metacognition: thinking about the way you think

His body is doing all the actions but his mind is not completely aware. This happens when you've been driving for a long time, you lay back a little because you trust your instincts, this can be dangerous though.

Can this relate to emotions? A manifestation of a feeling has to have a disposition?

Somebody can say one thing and mean another. Some people assimilate to the group they are in and alter their personality to fit in.

This can be related to impulse actions. I think that if we have some control of our anger for example, we wouldn't scream in the middle of the street but rather vent our anger doing exercise etc. It's about channeling the energy or repressing it.

I think that sometimes science and religion are seen as total opposites but instead they intertwine and support each other in some senses. The more you understand science the more you will be able to acknowledge it and decide whether the religious approach makes sense.

He sees the power in being able to question and learn more about how the world works.

This is very interesting to me. This seems that he has separated his dreams from his knowledge of self. I feel that sometimes people like to interpret dreams and use the "imagination" to guide them.

What if the soul expressed your innermost needs and desires and the things that he says he did not see in reality were actual experiences but in a supernatural way?

Why is he so focused on this superior being having the capability of "deceiving him". Descartes acknowledges his limitations. Is the idea of him being controlled in a body frightening to him?

I watched a TedTalk by Elizabeth Loftus called "How reliable is your memory" for my Social Psych class. I think that Descartes perspective that our memory can deceive us will agree with how eye-witnesses at trial can be unreliable. In the TedTalk Elizabeth creates computer-generated car accidents and then asks questions of the scene. Depending on the language she used she could push a witness to lean towards a specific statement. This ends up with the culprit being identified as a completely different person.

The journey can provide more answers than the answer itself. There can be growth in the individual's mindset.

Are people limiting themselves to what they already know. The not-self might seem alienated to their own beliefs and therefore it is easier to reject anything that does not add to what they already think.

It amplifies the way we look at problems. Makes the bubble larger and recognizes there are more than two ways to draw a conclusion.

Aren't statements supposed to have some sort of truth to be considered valid. If in philosophy you can't prove anything, does it have to do more with the individual's thought process instead of convincing the other person to think like you?

How is it that studying the human brain was considered Philosophy when we know due to experiments and research how it works? Philosophy does not necessarily have definitive answers.

It's interesting how physical science is thought to help others even when they aren't studying it, but the way Philosophy is classified here, makes me think that you will achieve some sort of "enlightenment" or perceive certain things completely different once you become a philosopher.

Creating explanations to help us reason with reality is "central to our existence", this relates perfectly to the unending discussion about religion and the existence of non-existence of a God.

Psychology prides itself in that the person has a lot of control over their bodies. A lot has to do with mental strength and determination but if we negate the act of us having that power to act on the self-fulfilling prophecy, than what are we?

There is an order to events and daily life. These are things that we don't normally question. Time and events are normal.

In Philosophy there are more patterns and explanations for things that we sometimes like to leave undefined. I think the reveal of the depth of these topics like the text says is what alarms people because things can be more complicated than what we believe them to be.

Through rules and laws we understand the world. If someone is sick, it makes sense for their initial response to be what did I eat? In this sense we have a lot of power because this is something we can control. On the other hand if he didn't know he was allergic and had a reaction that would cause even more alarm. We have a fear of the sudden and unexpected.

It puts those who aren't the "most fit" at a disadvantage

"Can never become persons under the higher-brain definition", this sentence seems morally wrong to me. Any human being should be considered a person despite their limitations of expression.

Is this negating the existence of anything supernatural? Are we the only beings in this world? Are spirits simply a figment of the imagination or can someone really feel as if their soul is disturbed when they sense bad spirits?

This is true to Christian teachings, the soul continues to exist even after the body is dead. Christians believe in an afterlife and receiving salvation.