Locke on the Identity of Matter

"The appropriate criterion of identity over time depends on the kind of thing is it"


We usually ask questions about identity when some sort of change is involved. Would item I remain the same if it changed in way C or would it be different? Since change takes place over time, we can usually point, in a metaphorical way, to items at different points in time. So we can ask whether an item that exists at one time is identical with one at a different time.
Locke says that an existing thing of whatever kind always exists in some place and at some time, and no existing thing of the same kind can exist in that place at that time: "whatever exists any where at any time, excludes all of the same kind, and is there itself alone". Like he states: "
An existing thing (E1) of a particular kind (K1) exists in one particular place (P1) at one particular time (T1)" ; "No two existings things (E1 and E2) of one particular kind (K1) can exist in the one particular place (P1) at the one particular time (T1)".
 

Leibniz's law

As we discussed in class, Leibniz's law states that if A and B are the same thing, then any property of A must also be a property of B. This makes complete sense because if two things are identical, they share all their properties in common and conversely, and if two things share all their properties in common, then they are identical. According to the indiscernibility of identicals,if two things are identical, then no difference between them is discernible, and according to the identity of discernible, if no difference is discernible between two things, then they are identical.
It may, however, be worth noting that two things may be similar to, or the same as, each other in possessing many distinct kinds of properties. Identity between two things may involve material, formal, spatial, temporal, relational, and other kinds of properties.

Can an exact duplicate or replica of something be properly called "identical to" or "the same as" that thing? If so, why may there still be some doubt or uncertainty about whether the two things are alike in every respect? What may happen to the identity of the two things as they change over a period of time?

Surely, there must be some properties that are relevant to sameness, and some that are irrelevant. Should we then relativize or qualify the indiscernibility of identicals by saying that in order for two things to be the same, they must share all properties that are essential or relevant to their sameness? Some properties may be essential to the identity of two things, while other properties may be unessential. 

"Be Right Back"

In class we watched the movie "Be Right Back." It was really interesting  I think the whole story line was creative but creepy. The movie showed a woman finally getting her life together with the love of her life. Suddenly, her husband was killed. He went to work one day and never returned. Soon after, she started receiving texts no phone calls from who she assumed was her husband, but it was a robot in training.
I believe that in the movie, it's not right to be emotionally attached to something that isn't real. She didn't learn to love the robot that was made to take on the role of her husband because a robot simply can not take the place of a human. No matter how human like it has no soul. It was also wrong because the company used the dead to get money. It was really all a scam.

Is Cloning a Good Option?

                                              Is Cloning a Good Option?

Last Wednesday web watched a film about a woman that lost her husband in a car accident. It was very devastating for her to realize that her husband was never going to come back. She fell into a depression for a couple of days, until one of her friends signed her up for a program where she was able to chat with her husband in a virtual way. Doing this brought hope to her, because she felt as if her husband was still alive. As the days passed she grew closer to the virtual image to a point where she stopped interacting with her family members. Then, something interesting happened; there was a next level to the program, a clone. She bought a clone that included the conversations that she had with the posterior virtual image. At first it was very exciting for her to be able to see her husband again. She could talk to him without the requirement of a computer. However, the clone only had memories from the time she talked to the virtual computer. Other than that it was as if she was interacting with a stranger. There were no memories involved. Eventually this began to concern her, especially because she was pregnant. She did not want her daughter to grow up knowing her dad as a computer with no feelings or emotions. So she decided to keep him in the basement for the rest of his life. Every now and then she allowed, the little girl to visit the clone, but she never knew it was the image of her dad. After the movie I felt sympathetic to the woman, because all she wanted was her husband back at any price. However, it was not healthy for her to keep been attached to someone that was already gone. Instead, she should have remarried and begin a new life. Overall, it was a good film that showed the effect that technology can have over humans.