Problem of Personal Identity Essay Example for Free

Problem of Personal Identity Essay I. Introduction In this paper, I will investigate the Problem of Personal Identity. The particular scenario I will respond to is: Suppose that sometime in the future a crazy scientist creates a perfect clone of you. The clone has a qualitatively identical body to yours and has the same memories as you as well as same voice, character, and so on. How would yo convince a court of law that the clone is not really you? What theory of personal identity would help you to make your case (Rauhut, 2011, p. 125)? First I will clarify key terms, and then I will apply those terms in my analysis of the question. Then I will close out by reflecting on my conclusion and some insights I gained about the Problem of Personal Identity. II. Conceptual Clarification Qualitative identity is a state of identity by looking the same or having the â€Å"same properties† (p. 107). An example of qualitative identity is two cars that look the same, as in same red paint, same build of car body, same type and brand of tires, etc., but are not one and the same vehicle since there is more than one. In other words, two objects or persons can look very similar but be two different objects or persons. Numerical identity is the condition of being the same if and only if it is truly â€Å"one and the same† object or person (p. 108). For example, I have a glass of water that I set on the table. It is the only glass of water on the table and there is no one else around to put another glass on the table, thus when I come back to pick it up, it must be the same glass of water I had originally, and is numerically identical. In other words, if two objects or persons look very similar and even function very similar, they can only be numerically identical if they are one and the same object or person, and there is only one of the object or persons being described. The body theory is â€Å"often referred to as animalism;† identity conditions that â€Å"we are around as long as our physical bodies are around† (p. 114). The body theory is based on numerical identity, stating same body, same self. Even though the body may change through time, it is still numerically the same body and thus the same person that experiences through the body. For example, a childhood friend comes back to visit after a longtime of not seeing her. She does not look the same, but-though you probably wouldn’t do this upon seeing her again-her DNA and fingerprints match the friend you knew before, so they must be the same person. Memory theory is the theory that our psychological collection of experiences of different life stages enables us to be sure we are us. In other words, â€Å"we are connected to the past as long as the past is somehow resent within us, and we will be connected with or present in the future as long as we recall this present† or â€Å"as long as my memories are around, I am around† (p. 119). For example, the friend who comes to visit you remembers many of the things you both experienced together, and so you assume she is indeed the same friend you knew before. III. Analysis In this section, I will investigate the scenario of convincing a court of law that a cloned version of me is not really me. First I will briefly discuss the theories of personal identity and the arguments that may form to disprove that the clone is not me. I will then discuss my decisive theory which best supports my case, the body theory, and my reasoning for this. The memory theory would ultimately disprove that I am a separate person then my clone because the clone shares my numerically identical memories. The memories are ultimately one and the same, and remembered by us both. Memory theorists would argue that as long as my memories are around, then I am around, and the body is irrelevant. As the clone also shares my personality or character that formed from those remembered experiences, it causes the theory to be even more convincing. However, there are some issues that come into play, to include the problem of false memories. While my clone remembers all that I experienced, and remembers how each experience felt, these memories occurred before the clone existed. I can have memories of being Napoleon, but that does not mean I am Napoleon. Beliefs of reincarnation may come into play with these issues of memories before our physical existence, but with a clone, the case can be made with the help of the body theory and related science. The body theory best supports my case to prove my clone is a separate person from myself because of the science relative to the creation of my clone. We may be qualitatively identical and even have very near exactly replicated DNA, but small variations make all the difference. A cloned version of myself comes much later then my own self came into being, and thus must have been â€Å"speed-aged†, causing my clone to have a much shorter lifespan than I myself will have (Think quest, 2011). Since clones are a natural concept as well, as identical twins and triplets are basic clones, DNA can also be looked at for variations. Even Siamese twins, who are virtually one body, have variations in the DNA of their separated parts, showing they are indeed two different bodies even though those bodies are connected. The immune system of a cloned being is also less stable than the original being that has been copied; this issue appears to be caused from the â€Å"speed-aging† process, and the cloning of antibodies (Think quest). The main feature of our two beings, myself and my cloned self, that cause us to decisively be two very different persons, is our age and true physical experiences. The physical experience of the memories we share and when they occurred makes our character. Remembering being 5 years old does not make us five years old if we were grown in a lab and â€Å"seed-aged† to five years old in less than a week. Remembering my mother also does not make my cloned self my mother’s daughter. My mother knows only one of me, and would probably have a heart attack if suddenly two of me called her â€Å"mom†. If my original body is lost, my mother would mourn my loss rather than accept I am still here since my clone may still be here. IV. Reflection Insights into the Problem of Personal Identity gained include the science that makes the case for the body theory. Though the body theory essentially was the deciding theory in court to prove my clone is not myself, the memory theory has valid points of why the clone may in fact be myself in a different body. It is essentially logically possible, as it shows in movies, for me to switch bodies with someone and experience new memories without my body. While I did not discuss the soul theory, I also understand how one could argue the nonphysical form of self could continue on when the body dies and perhaps even later be reincarnated into a new body with past memories that body did not experience. However, that is for a different discussion and further investigation. These new insights can be applied in my everyday life, and my continuing to question what makes a person themselves. This will also enable me to better understand the reasoning behind various theories of reincarnation, scien tific study and the concept of cloning, and even the religious aspects to what makes a self that may be different from my own beliefs.

The Native Boomerang :: Essays Papers

The Native Boomerang Imagine the typical colonial or imperial exploration party as white, rational, glorious civilized male believers encountering dark, irrational, ignoble, savage androgynous heathen. Imagine the currently popular (in policy, not theory) admiration of the native as a centered, serious, balanced, healthy, sane, and enlightened idealized form of the explorer. The first is a mirror in speckled and faded photographic negatives – the other is all that is bad about the subject. In the second the mirror is in 32 Bit True Color Photoshopped splendor – the native is all the subject could aspire to be. In the text of Columbus’ first voyage the boomerang effect of the assumed subject perceiving others’ perceptions of his/her self takes form as a rather unsubtle direct photocopy. While the ‘native’ other usually exists as a foil to define the non-‘native’ ‘subject’, in the case of the first voyage in the â€Å"Digest of Columb us’ Log Book†, the newly encountered native, as a collective and individual, functions as someone radically similar to the subject. In this text, the ‘native’, filtered through a complex circuitry of â€Å"authors† and â€Å"translators†, gives its[1] perceptions and reactions in several varieties: in its self-interest, intrigued by Columbus’ cohort as merchants; in its religious/social nature, awed by the â€Å"men who have come from the skies† (58); and in its â€Å"very simple †¦ not savage† (59) state, reluctant and irrationally attached to native lands and the earth. Columbus’ boomerang vision of his ‘natives’ perception of his expedition explains them as rationally, in both its then-present forms, eager about his presence and held back only by irrational impulse. I call Columbus’ perceptions boomerang vision because they emphasize/generate so much likeness between his expedition and the natives that the text understands the parties not as different people marked by similarities, but as the same sort of folks marked by occasional differences. The explicit justifications[2] used at home for his exploration are what he now ‘witnesses’ abroad as the natives’ response: reasoned excitement for wealth and religious ends balanced against unreasoned hesitancy. Columbus’ seven-year solicitation at the court of Spain included â€Å"repeatedly holding out great prospects of wealth and riches for the crown of Castile† (34), culminating in a â€Å"project for the exaltation of His Church† (103). That, thousands of miles away, he happen to ‘discover’ the precise same appreciation for his project, mitigated only by â€Å"their timidity† (77) is not coincidence, but the circular input and output of images through one filtering lens[3].

Trx Case

1. How does the strategic repositioning of the company and the use of the IPO as an exit for minority shareholders affect the attractiveness of the IPO? The strategic repositioning of the company was to gradually shift away and exist from customer care which TRX generated more than 50% in 2000, and Davis’s long term strategy was to focus on the higher margin sectors, such as data transaction and integrations. By shifting away from customer care, of course would reduce operational cost and increase bottom line for the company but I think it would affect the attractiveness of the IPO in negative way.If I was an investor I would be in agreement with TRX only if they were reducing the customer care due to the high operating cost, but I mean reducing, not totally exist. In the service based company, interacting with end consumers is critical even know it has lower margin but the company should be able to profit from it, if it continues to operate in the future which I believe would create higher customer satisfaction and strong long term relationship with end-consumers.Davis decided to use the strategy to make the financial data looking good or positioning the company for the IPO which he knows that he was going to do in the future because the company need capital to support the firm’s growth, however to exist a sector was not good way to start with the risk that they might have lower customer satisfaction, as the company went IPO, any negative issues would tank the company’s shares if they were not in good relation with end consumers.Davis had chance to improve the attractiveness of the IPO, he had two options; first one was go ahead with the IPO at the lower price of $9 per share, then he had to deal with Hogg Robinson whose intention was to exit TRX, and Sabre whose was in its best interest to sever the relationship with TRX. Their lack of agreement would eventually block the IPO, in order to prove the attractiveness of the IPO; Davis has to convince those two companies to agree upon the price so the proper managerial plan could carry forward.Second, David would just wait for some time to grow the company and complete the exit from the customer care business before the next IPO attempt while increase higher margin businesses. The use of the IPO as an exit for minority shareholders would eventually help the company better alignment of his stakeholders while offering liquidity for those minority shareholders an â€Å"easy out† which would increase the attractiveness of the IPO for small investors. 1. Estimate a preliminary file range for TRX’s shares.CSFB had prepared a valuation of the file price range by comparing TRX to comparable publicly traded companies, there are really no direct competitors as a result there were not going to be perfect comparable company. The methods CSFB and TRX’s management believed are best for them are both enterprise and price earnings multiples which would bring the com pany credit for its strong cash flow and an improving earnings outlook. In the EXHIBIT 9, by using enterprise multiple methods which a measure of a company's value, often used as an alternative to straightforward market capitalization.Enterprise value is calculated as market cap plus debt, minority interest and preferred shares minus total cash and cash equivalents. Base on the result estimated from 2005-2006, the enterprise for online travel sector were around 15, for Payment Processors were about 10 and for distribution is around 7. The calculation is based on CSFB’s financial projections on its own research and forecasts of TRX’s business, and is more conservative if compared to TRX’s management’s forecasting.The second method is price earnings, it is a valuation of a company’s current share price compared to its per share earnings and we calculated it by taking market value per share divided it by earnings per share, the ratio for online travel is around 25, for payment processors is about 20, for distribution is around 17, a high price earning suggests that investors are expecting higher earnings growth in the future compared to companies with a lower price earnings. For those two methods, a 15% discount was applied to this equity value based on the banker’s belief that a newly public firm would not trade at the same value as a seasoned firm.The proposed IPO filing ranged based on analysis should be set at least $11 to $13 per share. However, due to the investor demand during the time of TRX’s road show were really low, and the final IPO offer price will have to be $9 in order to attract more or enough investors. Technology changes so fast and brutal to make it more serious, Davis’s long term goal as discussed in question 4 might not be as good as it really is due the uncertainties of being in such shifting and fast moving tech world, it is very likely that TRX might or ight not fail, we don’t know but if the company did not keep up with the skilled workforce and future prospects, it would put the company in a very difficult position even after IPO, if they are lucky, there could be some big investor jump in and take over the company but the chance are too low because TRX’s is still too young in terms of operation, and even know that the revenue have been steadily increasing, the net income were still negative and there were too many I considered red flags in the financial statement, for example, goodwill on TRX’s balance sheet have increased dramatically from 2003-2004, and current portion of long term debt almost 7 times as higher than previous year, all those factors be main contributor to the future’s success of the company. One last thing is that while the TRX is going public, two of its main investors want to exit; if I am an investor, I wouldn’t want to invest in the company. 2.Given the situation Davis faced in September 2005, what wou ld you recommend that he do with respect to the offering? The situation Davis faced in September 2005 was tough, but the situation could be solved if he could convince Hogg Robinson, and Sabre which I recommend him to signify all the positive aspects of TRX such that they have strong relationship between majority shareholder in BCD technology, and present the fact that due to the 911 incident, the travel industry had experienced some serious headwinds and should be recover as matter of time soon in the future and company will started to make profit if IPO is successfully launched, and proper managerial plan is implemented.Besides, some strength such that its ability to automate and engineer travel and travel related processes, if Hogg Robinson and Sabre agreed to the $9 price, then Davis should proceed with the IPO which will help TRX to raise capital to support growth and accelerate the transition away from customer care, when the company started to grow so their stock price should start to increase too therefore making up the difference of the company’s expectation. I would recommend him do whatever he could at his best to proceed the IPO and I think it is the best option for the company. Otherwise chose the second option which is to withdraw the IPO and allow TRX time to grow and complete the exit from the customer care businesses, and some of TRX’s operational uncertainty would also be reduced because the time might not be right as Delta and Northwest Airlines declared bankruptcy and the overall difficulties and risk as being a technology company.The first dimension be a proper fit, TRX cannot define all major problems and issues that is facing probing and analytical investment, and its products and services were only few, the information about the future perspective of the company given by the Davis were too simple, the only thing that he mentioned again and again is that the company need capital to expand and support growth. The company has the working capital deficit almost four times higher by comparing from 2001-2005 and two investment companies for TRX have declared they want to exit even when the TRX want go to public which would indicate that there are something wrong within the company or perhaps they just aren’t in agreement about that fact that the company is going public so TRX is not proper fit in the first dimension. Second, sharing of ownership seems to be a bit problem, as Davis have indicated that going public offered liquidity for minority shareholders, and lead to a better alignment of his stakeholders.As what it sounds like that Davis did not really want to give up majority of its shares to other companies therefore is not fit on this dimension too. Third dimension is investors appeal, Davis and TRX management met with investment bank which they selected Credit Suisse First Boston because CSFB had strong analyst coverage in the online travel and data transaction sector which Davis believed wou ld help investors understand TRX’s business model therefore they do fit in this dimension in terms of helping investors to understand their business model. Fourth one is the amount raised in capital for the company, Davis decided to officially start the IPO process with a proposed IPO of 6. 8 million shares of common stock, 3. 4 million primary share, and 3. 4 million secondary shares.Even though they have all the shares planed out, Davis did not give any clear idea of how much the company really need to expand and how much ownership he is willing to abandon, as a result I will state that TRX did not meeting this dimension. Fifth, the purpose and timing of the IPO, Davis has been thinking about going public since 2000, but due to the dot-come bubble burst, he was forced to abandon its IPO. After carefully exam the technology IPO market performance, Davis finally decided to file an S-1 registration statement with the U. S. SEC. on May 9, 2005. In term of purpose and timing, Da vis has been very carefully, I think that he knows that he needs this success in IPO in order to support the company.

Moeritherium - Facts and Figures

Name: Moeritherium (Greek for Lake Moeris beast); pronounced MEH-ree-THEE-ree-um Habitat: Swamps of northern Africa Historical Epoch: Late Eocene (37-35 million years ago) Size and Weight: About eight feet long and a few hundred pounds Diet: Plants Distinguishing Characteristics: Small size; long, flexible upper lip and nose    About Moeritherium Its often the case in evolution that huge beasts descend from humble forebears. Although Moeritherium wasnt directly ancestral to modern elephants (it occupied a side branch that went extinct tens of millions of years ago), this pig-sized mammal possessed enough elephant-like traits to place it firmly in the pachyderm camp. Moeritheriums long, flexible upper lip and snout point to the evolutionary origins of the elephants trunk, the same way its long front incisors can be considered ancestral to tusks. The similarities end there, though: like a small hippopotamus, Moeritherium probably spent its time half-submerged in swamps, eating soft, semi-aquatic vegetation. (By the way, one of the closest contemporaries of Moeritherium was another prehistoric elephant of the late Eocene epoch, Phiomia.) The type fossil of Moeritherium was discovered in Egypt in 1901, near Lake Moeris (hence the name of this megafauna mammal, the Lake Moeris beast, various other specimens coming to light over the next few years. There are five named species: M. lyonsi (the type species); M. gracile, M. trigodon and M. andrewsi (all discovered within a few years of M. lyonsi); and a relative latecomer, M. chehbeurameuri, which was named in 2006.