Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 58 references

Self-consciousness and personal identity in quantum panprotopsychism

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A person persists as a sequence of entangled quantum states, not as matter or memory.

desk verdict A serious speculative extension of the authors' quantum panprotopsychist program, with a genuinely new no-cloning argument against fission and teleportation, but the personal-identity claim is explicitly hostage to unestablished brain-scale entanglement. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11530 v1 pith:EN2QGFGR submitted 2025-05-13 physics.hist-ph q-bio.NCquant-ph

Rodolfo Gambini , Jorge Pullin This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-phq-bio.NCquant-ph
keywords panprotopsychismpersonalidentityself-consciousnessquantumentanglementprehensionno-cloningtheoremfreewillnuclear-spinmolecules
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that personal identity can be defined within a quantum panprotopsychist ontology, in which consciousness is carried by entangled quantum systems coupled to the brain and events have internal phenomenal aspects. The authors propose that a person persists when three conditions hold: the neural organization of the brain is causally connected over time, the prehensions of the subject continue, and the same agent performs the later acts. They claim these conditions have a physical counterpart in the identity of the sequence of states of the brain's entangled quantum system, so that identity is a quantum-information property rather than a matter of substance or pure psychology. This is meant to dissolve the standard paradoxes of fission and teleportation, because the no-cloning theorem forbids producing two numerically identical copies of the original person. A sympathetic reader would care because the account offers a way to treat persons as real, partly non-reducible agents while still grounding them in physics.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the prehension, the phenomenal counterpart of a quantum system's state, born when a preparation event creates the state and dying when a measurement event occurs. A person is a succession of prehensions anchored in one entangled quantum system coupled to the brain, for instance the nuclear-spin molecules of the kind discussed in the paper. The identity-preserving work is done by continuity of that entanglement-backed state sequence together with the no-cloning theorem, which blocks the exact duplication that fission and teleportation scenarios require; the classical organizational connection supplies the causal bridge between earlier and later brain states.

What would settle it

Look for stable entangled nuclear-spin states, such as Posner molecules in neurons, that survive across the timescales of synaptic firing and remain coupled to neural activity in living human brains. If measurements show that no such entangled quantum system can persist in neural tissue, the paper's necessary condition for personal identity is empirically contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that personal identity can be characterized by three requirements—classical organizational connection of the brain, phenomenal continuity of prehensions, and identity of agents—and that these are sufficient to ensure persistence once the quantum state sequence is included. In physical terms, the last two can be replaced by the identity of the sequence of states of the quantum entangled system coupled to the brain, where every change of state corresponds to a preparation or measurement event in the brain. The definition deliberately cannot be expressed in factual, third-person terms, because quantum states are not determinable by individual observations and any observation changes them. The authors argue that this is why the usual reductionist puzzle cases fail: fission and teleportation cannot produce a genuine second candidate for identity, since the no-cloning theorem guarantees that the original entangled state is destroyed or divided in any attempt to copy it.

Load-bearing premise

The account assumes that the human brain actually contains a long-lived entangled quantum system that stays coupled to neural processes and is preserved throughout a person's life; if decoherence destroys such states or they never form, the prehensions, free choices, and personal identity built on them lose their physical support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Personal identity becomes a quantum-information property, so a person could in principle persist through replacement of all their atoms as long as the entangled state sequence and brain organization continue.
  • Fission and teleportation no longer violate transitivity of identity, because no-cloning prevents the creation of two numerically identical persons from one original.
  • Persons in the traditional sense are not the only bearers of identity: fetuses, infants, and vegetative-state patients could satisfy the requirements through brain organization and prehensions.
  • Free will is compatible with a physical description, since quantum indeterminism leaves the future causally open and complete physical information does not determine an agent's choices.
  • Personal identity statements cannot be settled by third-person observation alone, because quantum states are disturbed by observation; identity requires evidence that is not purely factual.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the account is right, 'mind uploading' by copying neural information would not transfer personal identity, but a procedure that physically moves the entangled quantum state itself without cloning might preserve it; this extension goes beyond what the paper states.
  • A testable extension would be to look for a correlation between long-lived neural quantum coherence and self-referential cognition, predicting that disrupting that coherence degrades the sense of self.
  • The paper leaves open how free choices could be more than random; one could test deliberated choices against quantum-random baselines to see whether intentions bias outcomes beyond chance.
  • The same requirements would imply that non-human animals with a preserved entangled brain system have phenomenal continuity but not personal identity, since they lack the conceptual first-person perspective.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper extends the authors' quantum panprotopsychist framework to self-consciousness and personal identity. It argues that prehensions are the phenomenal counterparts of quantum states and events, that entangled systems coupled to the brain can provide the physical basis for a single macro-subject, and that quantum indeterminism leaves room for genuine agency. The central proposal in Section 5.2 is that personal identity over time is constituted by three requirements: (i) classical organizational connection of the brain, (ii) phenomenal continuity of prehensions, and (iii) identity of agents; the paper claims these can be given a physical counterpart by replacing (ii) and (iii) with (ii') identity of the sequence of states of the quantum entangled system. It further argues that the no-cloning theorem blocks fission and teleportation thought experiments, so the usual transitivity violations do not arise, and that the resulting account avoids both the simple view and purely factual reductionist criteria.

Significance. If its assumptions were established, the paper would offer an original account of personal identity grounded in quantum information rather than in material continuity, and the no-cloning argument is a concrete, non-trivial constraint that gives the proposal some philosophical teeth. The paper is also commendably explicit about one of its load-bearing commitments: it states in Section 5.2 that the existence of robust entangled quantum states in the brain is a necessary condition for the proposed notion of personal identity. However, the central claims are highly conditional. They rest on an unverified empirical assumption about brain-scale entanglement, on a stipulated rather than derived account of free choice, and on an ambiguity in the use of the no-cloning theorem. As a programmatic contribution the paper is valuable, but as a demonstration of a new theory of personal identity it is not yet convincing.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2] The paper states, 'The existence of such states is a necessary condition for the validity of this form of panpsychism as well as the proposed notion of personal identity,' but it provides no experimental evidence that robust, long-lived entangled quantum systems exist in the human brain under physiological conditions. The only concrete candidate mentioned, Fisher's Posner molecules (Fisher, 2015), is a theoretical proposal; no studies are cited showing that such states form, resist decoherence for behaviorally relevant durations, or couple to neural activity as required. Since the persistence criterion (ii') and the no-cloning argument are formulated entirely in terms of this quantum system, the central claim is conditional on an unestablished empirical assumption. The paper should either supply such evidence, or explicitly recast the proposal as a conditional theory with clearly stated testable consequences.
  2. [§4.2 and §5.1] The identification of quantum measurement outcomes with free choices is asserted rather than derived. The paper says that the self 'can choose' and that prehensions 'determine dispositions to action,' but in the quantum mechanics invoked here the probabilities of outcomes are fixed by the Born rule; adding an intrinsic phenomenal aspect to states does not, without further dynamical assumptions, give the agent a role in selecting among outcomes. The paper explicitly distinguishes freedom from randomness ('To be free is not to act randomly'), but it does not explain how non-random selection is implemented, instead referring to previous work. Because condition (iii), the identity of agents, and the notion of 'acts' in the persistence criteria depend on this freedom, the account needs a clearly stated additional assumption or mechanism before the proposed criteria can be evaluated.
  3. [§5.2] The no-cloning argument is ambiguous between token and type identity. The paper says 'two systems in the same state are indistinguishable' and 'identical people can be based on different material constituents,' which suggests that persistence is carried by informational content or state type. The no-cloning theorem, however, only forbids copying an arbitrary unknown token state; it does not rule out two independently prepared systems being in the same state. If the authors intend token-state identity, they should say so explicitly and reconcile it with the claim that identity is based on quantum information rather than matter; if they intend type identity, the no-cloning theorem is irrelevant to the fission and teleportation scenarios. As written, the argument does not establish that transitivity violations are impossible.
  4. [§5.2] The third condition, 'The agent A at time t is identical to A' at t'>t iff the acts of A at t were acts of A',' is circular or at least uninformative, since 'acts of A' already presupposes the identity it is meant to define. The paper later claims that the three conditions are 'sufficient to ensure personal identity' and that the second and third conditions are independent, but no argument is given for sufficiency, and the physical reduction (ii') is explicitly said not to capture the phenomenal aspect of agency. The status of IA as a primitive, a definition, or a testable condition needs to be clarified before the proposed criteria can be assessed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§5.2] The sentence 'the original quantum state is necessarily destroyed in any physical teleportation process without' appears incomplete; the final word 'without' dangles.
  2. [References] There are several typographical errors in the references: 'Watanbe' should be 'Watanabe', 'Panspyshicsm' should be 'Panpsychism', and 'consciouusness' should be 'consciousness'.
  3. [§4.2] The text 'from origio' should likely be 'from the origin', and the spelling 'prehesions' appears in place of 'prehensions' in a few places.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The personal-identity criteria have independent content, but the foundational quantum-panprotopsychist ontology is imported from the authors' own prior papers, making the load-bearing physical premise self-citational.

  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; Section 3 (Subjects in quantum panprotopsychism)]
    "In previous papers, we demonstrated that an ontology of quantum mechanics, described in terms of states and events with internal phenomenal aspects (a form of panprotopsychism), is well suited to explain consciousness. We showed that the combination problems of qualities, structures and subjects in panpsychism and panprotopsychism stem from implicit hypotheses based on classical physics regarding supervenience, which are not applicable at the quantum level. ... As shown in (Gambini and Pullin, 2024b) the treatment of subjectivity best adapted to the quantum context is that of Whitehead."

    The paper's central physical premise—that consciousness arises in entangled quantum systems coupled to the brain, that prehensions are the phenomenal counterparts of quantum states, and that the subject-summing problem is thereby dissolved—is not re-derived here. It is taken as established from Gambini and Pullin 2024a,b and related self-citations. The proposed personal-identity requirements (COC, PC/ii', IA) are then built on that inherited ontology. Thus the load-bearing foundation of the argument reduces to the authors' own prior work rather than to an independent derivation or an external, checkable benchmark in this paper.

  2. uniqueness imported from authors [Section 2, paragraph on the objectivity of states]
    "However, if we define the state by its disposition to produce events, it can be rigorously demonstrated (Gambini and Porto, 2001) that this disposition is uniquely defined, and the state in the Heisenberg picture only changes when events occur."

    Criterion ii') identifies personal identity with the identity or containment of 'the sequence of states of the quantum entangled system.' That criterion is well-defined only if the relevant quantum state is unique and objective. The uniqueness claim is not proved in this paper; it is imported from Gambini and Porto 2001, a prior paper with overlapping authorship. The paper presents this as a rigorous external mathematical fact, but for the reader the justification is a self-citation, and the personal-identity criterion is therefore only as secure as that imported uniqueness claim.

full rationale

The personal-identity proposal itself is not a fitted prediction or a definitional tautology: the three requirements are explicitly proposed, and the no-cloning argument against fission and teleportation is an independent information-theoretic constraint. The paper also honestly concedes that the existence of robust, long-lived entangled brain states is a necessary empirical condition, which is a limitation rather than circularity. The main circularity risk is foundational: the ontology of prehensions, the claimed dissolution of the combination problem, and the existence of quantum subjects are inherited from Gambini and Pullin 2024a,b and related self-citations, and the persistence criteria are built directly on that inherited foundation. However, the central personal-identity argument still contains independent resources—Parfit, Korfmacher, no-cloning, and the philosophical literature on psychological continuity—so the appropriate score is moderate rather than high. There is no evidence of fitted inputs being relabeled as predictions or of the conclusion being identical to the premises by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unverified postulates: the truth of quantum panprotopsychism, the existence of brain-scale entangled quantum states, the identification of prehensions with quantum states, and the interpretation of quantum indeterminacy as free choice. These are structural assumptions, not fitted constants.

assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Quantum panprotopsychism: physical events and states have intrinsic phenomenal aspects, and this ontology is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics.
    The paper's framework rests on the authors' prior work, described in the Introduction as having 'demonstrated' the view; it is not independently established here.
  • domain assumption Robust entangled quantum systems can exist in the human brain and remain coupled to neural processes.
    Section 4.1 states 'This requires that the brain be capable of hosting an entangled quantum system coupled with the nervous system.' Section 5.2 calls the existence of such states a necessary condition. No in-vivo evidence is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Whiteheadian prehensions correspond one-to-one to quantum states and events, spanning from preparation to measurement.
    Section 3: 'A subject's prehension represents the phenomenal aspect of a system in a particular state, and its lifetime spans the interval between the event that prepares it and the event it ultimately produces.' This identification is stipulated, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Quantum measurement indeterminism provides genuine alternative possibilities that can be identified with free choice without reducing freedom to randomness.
    Section 5.1: 'The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics makes this view compatible with a third-person physical description' and the authors admit they do not solve the non-random free choice issue: 'we do not attempt to solve this issue here.'
  • standard math The no-cloning theorem applies to person-level states in fission and teleportation scenarios.
    Section 5.2 uses no-cloning to rule out duplication of a person's quantum state. The theorem is standard, but applying it to whole brains and persons is an extrapolation.
invented entities (1)
  • The self as an agent of choice not exhausted by physical states
    purpose: Explains free will and personal identity: the self chooses among quantum possibilities and is responsible for actions, while not being reducible to brain states or event sequences.
    The paper postulates in Section 5.1 that selves are agents that choose among options and are not ruled by any physical law beyond quantum probabilistic constraints. No falsifiable observable is attached; it is a metaphysical posit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-consciousness and personal identity in quantum panprotopsychism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EN2QGFGR

@misc{pith2026250511530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-consciousness and personal identity in quantum panprotopsychism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EN2QGFGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11530}
}
read the original abstract

In previous papers, we demonstrated that an ontology of quantum mechanics, described in terms of states and events with internal phenomenal aspects (a form of panprotopsychism), is well suited to explain consciousness. We showed that the combination problems of qualities, structures and subjects in panpsychism and panprotopsychism stem from implicit hypotheses based on classical physics regarding supervenience, which are not applicable at the quantum level. Within this view, consciousness arises in entangled quantum systems coupled to the neural network of the brain. In entangled systems, the properties of individual parts disappear, giving rise to an exponential number of emergent properties and states. Here, we analyze self-consciousness as the capacity to view oneself as a subject of experience. The causal openness of quantum systems provides self-conscious beings the ability to make independent choices and decisions, reflecting a sense of self-governance and autonomy. In this context, the issue of personal identity takes a new form free from the problems of the simple view or the reductive approaches.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ", in Bruntrup G., Jaskola, L. (eds.) ``Panspyshicsm: contemporary perspectives

    Chalmers, R. (2016) ``The combination problem for panpsychism"", in Bruntrup G., Jaskola, L. (eds.) ``Panspyshicsm: contemporary perspectives", Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    and Pullin, J

    Gambini, R. and Pullin, J. (2024) Mind and Matter, 22 (1). pp. 51-94

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Quantum panprotopsychism and the structure and subject-summing combination problem

    Gambini, R. and Pullin, J. (2024) [arXiv:2409.01368 [q-bio.NC]], to appear in J. Consc. Stud

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    (2022) Philosophy of Science

    van Fraassen, B. (2022) Philosophy of Science. 2006;73(5):536-547

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    and Pullin, J

    Gambini, R. and Pullin, J. (2022) ``Atoms and persons'', World Scientific, Singapore (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Analysis of matter

    Russell, B. (2007) "Analysis of matter" Spokesman Books; Nottingham, UK (original of 1927)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    (1995) ``Quantum theory" Springer, New York, NY

    Peres, A. (1995) ``Quantum theory" Springer, New York, NY

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    (2017), ``The subject of experience'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Strawson, G. (2017), ``The subject of experience'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    work page 2017

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Panpsychism

    Goff, P., Seager, W., and Sean Allen-Hermanson, "Panpsychism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/panpsychism/

    2022

  2. [10]

    (2015) Found

    Gambini, R., Lewowicz, L., Pullin, J. (2015) Found. Chem. 17, 117-127

    2015

  3. [11]

    (2014) ``Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics To Metaphysics", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Davies, P. (2014) ``Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics To Metaphysics", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    2014

  4. [12]

    Healey, R, (1999) ``Holism and nonseparability in physics'' in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu

    1999

  5. [13]

    Teller, (1986) Brit

    P. Teller, (1986) Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 37, 71

    1986

  6. [14]

    (2001), Phys

    Gambini, R., Porto, R. (2001), Phys. Rev. D63, 105014

    2001

  7. [15]

    (1933) ``Adventures of Ideas", The Free Press, London, UK

    Whitehead, A. (1933) ``Adventures of Ideas", The Free Press, London, UK

    1933

  8. [16]

    Whitehead, A. N. (1978) ``Process and reality", MacMillan, London, UK

    1978

  9. [17]

    (2015), Annals of Physics , 362, 593

    Fisher, M. (2015), Annals of Physics , 362, 593

    2015

  10. [18]

    (1997) J

    Strawson, G. (1997) J. Consc. Stud. 4, 405

    1997

  11. [19]

    (2001) ``The phenomenon of life'', Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL, USA

    Jonas, H. (2001) ``The phenomenon of life'', Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL, USA

    2001

  12. [20]

    (2012) ``The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness''

    Low, P. (2012) ``The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness''. Proceedings of the Francis Crick Memorial Conference, Churchill College, Cambridge University, July 7 2012, pp 1-2

    2012

  13. [21]

    (2024) ``The elephant and the blind'', MIT University Press, Boston, MA

    Metzinger, T. (2024) ``The elephant and the blind'', MIT University Press, Boston, MA

    2024

  14. [22]

    The analysis of mind

    Russell, B. (2005) "The analysis of mind", Dover, Mineola, NY (originally 1921)

    2005

  15. [23]

    (2013) ``Naturalism and the First-Person Perspective'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Rudder Baker, L. (2013) ``Naturalism and the First-Person Perspective'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    2013

  16. [24]

    (1910) ``Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 11, 108-128

    Russell, B. (1910) ``Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 11, 108-128

    1910

  17. [25]

    ``Tractatus logico-philosophicus'' Cosimo Classics, New York, NY (2007) original (1918)

    Wittgenstein, E. ``Tractatus logico-philosophicus'' Cosimo Classics, New York, NY (2007) original (1918)

    2007

  18. [26]

    (1986), Evolution of brains, cognition and consciouusness J

    Butler, P. (1986), Evolution of brains, cognition and consciouusness J. Phil. Sci. 37, 71

    1986

  19. [27]

    (2011) ``Who's in Charge?: The Neuroscience of Decision-Making, the Notion of Free Will and the Idea of a Determined World''

    Gazzaniga, M. (2011) ``Who's in Charge?: The Neuroscience of Decision-Making, the Notion of Free Will and the Idea of a Determined World''

    2011

  20. [28]

    and Wakita, M

    Watanbe, S., Sakamoto, J. and Wakita, M. (1995) J. Exp. Anal Behav. 63(2), 63-165

    1995

  21. [29]

    (2014)``Worm neuron hack to probe mysteries of our brains'', New Scientist, 23 July

    Heaven, D. (2014)``Worm neuron hack to probe mysteries of our brains'', New Scientist, 23 July

    2014

  22. [30]

    A hospitable universe

    Gambini, R., Pullin, J. (2018) "A hospitable universe", Imprint Academic, London, UK

    2018

  23. [31]

    and Jablonka, E., (2019) ``The evolution of the sensitive soul

    Ginsburg, S. and Jablonka, E., (2019) ``The evolution of the sensitive soul. Learning and the origins of consciousness'', MIT Press, Boston, MA, USA

    2019

  24. [32]

    (2011) ``Conceptual Thinking in Animals

    Dieguez, A. (2011) ``Conceptual Thinking in Animals. Some Reflections on Language, Concepts, and Mind'' In ``Darwin's Evolving Legacy'' (pp.383-395) Editors: Martínez-Contrera, J. and Ponce de León, A., Publisher: Siglo XXI y Universidad Veracruzana

    2011

  25. [33]

    (2009), TopiCS, 1, 231

    Dennett, D. (2009), TopiCS, 1, 231

    2009

  26. [34]

    The Difference that Self-Consciousness Makes

    Baker, L. (2003) "The Difference that Self-Consciousness Makes" in Petrus, K. "Onhuman persons", Ontus, NewYork, NY

    2003

  27. [35]

    Archives Italiennes de Biologie

    Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V (1999). Archives Italiennes de Biologie. 137 (2–3): 85–100. PMID 10349488

    1999

  28. [36]

    ``Space, time and deity'', Wentworth Press, Sydney, Australia (2019) original from (1920)

    Alexander, S. ``Space, time and deity'', Wentworth Press, Sydney, Australia (2019) original from (1920)

    2019

  29. [37]

    and Coates, D

    McKenna, M. and Coates, D. ``Compatibilism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition), Zalta, E. (editor), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/compatibilism/

    2020

  30. [38]

    (1998) ``Ethics: subjectivity and truth'' edited by Rabinow, P., The New Press, New York

    Foucault, M. (1998) ``Ethics: subjectivity and truth'' edited by Rabinow, P., The New Press, New York

    1998

  31. [39]

    (1996) ``The sources of normativity'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Korsgaard, C. (1996) ``The sources of normativity'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    1996

  32. [40]

    and Raffone, A

    Tagini, A. and Raffone, A. (2010) Cognitive Processes, 11,9

    2010

  33. [41]

    Epstein, R., (1981) The Behavior Analyst, 4, 42

    1981

  34. [42]

    Personal Identity

    Olson, Eric T., "Personal Identity", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman (eds.), forthcoming URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2024/entries/identity-personal

    2024

  35. [43]

    Schechtman, Marya, (1996), ``The Constitution of Selves'', Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York

    1996

  36. [44]

    Nidditch, P

    Locke, J., (1975) ``An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'', ed. Nidditch, P. Oxford: Clarendon Press (original work, 2nd ed., first published 1694); partly reprinted in Perry 1975, Oxford, UK

    1975

  37. [45]

    Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 31

    Pickering, (1999) J. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 31

    1999

  38. [46]

    (1968) ``Modes of thought'', The Free Press, New York, NY

    Whitehead, A. (1968) ``Modes of thought'', The Free Press, New York, NY

    1968

  39. [47]

    (2002) ``Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals'' Yale University Press, New Haven, CT (original from 1785)

    Kant, I. (2002) ``Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals'' Yale University Press, New Haven, CT (original from 1785)

    2002

  40. [48]

    Aristotle (2004), ``Nichomachean ethics'', Penguin Classics, New York, NY

    2004

  41. [49]

    (1979) ``Identity, Properties, and Causality'' Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4: 321-342

    Shoemaker, S. (1979) ``Identity, Properties, and Causality'' Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4: 321-342

    1979

  42. [50]

    Reasons and persons

    Parfit, Derek (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    1984

  43. [51]

    A New History of Western Philosophy

    Kenny, A. (2012) "A New History of Western Philosophy", Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    2012

  44. [52]

    (2018), Frontiers in Psychology, 9

    Armstrong, S., Sale, M., Cunnington, R. (2018), Frontiers in Psychology, 9

    2018

  45. [53]

    and Pullin, J

    Gambini, R. and Pullin, J. (2016) Int. J. Q. Found. 2, 3

    2016

  46. [54]

    (1689) ``Two treatises of government" Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, reprinted in 1988

    Locke, J. (1689) ``Two treatises of government" Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, reprinted in 1988

    1988

  47. [55]

    (2024) ``Personal identity'', in ``Internet encyclopedia of philosphy'' https://iep.utm.edu/person-i/

    Korfmacher, K. (2024) ``Personal identity'', in ``Internet encyclopedia of philosphy'' https://iep.utm.edu/person-i/

    2024

  48. [56]

    The philosophy of symbolic forms

    Cassirer, E. (2020) "The philosophy of symbolic forms", Routledge, New York, NY

    2020

  49. [57]

    The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy (Open Court Classics)

    Carnap, R. (2003) "The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy (Open Court Classics)", Open Court, New York, NY

    2003

  50. [58]

    (2012) Nature Physics 8, 475

    Pusey, M., Barrett, J., Rudolph, T. (2012) Nature Physics 8, 475

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.