Thursday, August 14, 2014

The Relationship between the Body and the Self

Many define the task of philosophy by the well-known Greek quote “know thyself”. In striving to better understand ourselves, we must look at what defines an individual and what separates an individual from others. To further understand one’s self, we must identify the relationship between an individual’s physical body and their sense of identity and self. While many would feel confident that their body is the defining element of their self, there exists a substantial amount of evidence that alludes to the contrary. By evaluating the relationship between the body and the self, we can conclude that the self is independent of the rest of the individual’s body.

Throughout this paper, I will support his claim by examining many different ways and situations in which we interact with our body. First, we can observe a change in one’s physical body, and compare that to the changes in that individual’s identity. We will also look at the ways that an individual can adopt an outside “body” as their own and incorporate it within their self. Finally, we can examine the relationship between the brain and the rest of the body to show the different roles they play in defining the self. Each of these premises provides examples of situations in which the self clearly operates independently of the body.

Examining Changes in the Physical Body

The simplest way to analyze the relationship between the body and the self is to look at changes in both and attempt to draw connections. If the body and self are connected, than a significant change to body should be observable as a corresponding change to the self. In many cases, changes to the body and to the self may occur at the same time. However, correlation does not imply causation. When we observe situations where the body changes but the self does not, or vice versa, it becomes clear that there is no direct connection between these two entities.

We can see the distinct separation of the body and the self by examining a substantial change in the body while the self stays the same. To isolate the direct connection between the body and the self, we must find a situation where there is a substantial change to an individual’s body, yet no change his or her self. If the individual’s self is unchanged despite the physical change, then it is evident that the body can not directly alter the self.  To look at this, we can imagine an individual developing an internal disease, such as cancer. Although it is not externally visible, the development of a large tumor inside the body is clearly a substantial change to the body. Many individuals suffering from cancer would describe their disease as a part of their identity. However, this change in identity does not occur until the individual becomes aware of their disease and accepts it as a part of who they are. An individual that has cancer developing in their body but has not been diagnosed with cancer will continue to live with their identity unchanged, despite the substantial changes to their body. Once the individual becomes aware of their disease, whether by getting diagnosed from a doctor, or by recognizing symptoms, they will likely accept their disease as part of their identity. By looking at this situation, we see that an individual’s self will typically reflect their physical body; however this sense of identity comes from the individual’s mind and their understanding of their body. When the individual is unaware of the change in their body, their self will not reflect this change. Only by recognizing changes to the body will the individual’s self change. By understanding this type of situation, it is clear that the body does not have a direct tie to the self.

We can further examine these changes in the body by looking at the effect of the phenomenon known as “phantom limbs”. The idea of a “phantom limb” is something that occurs with the majority of amputees. After losing a limb, individuals will continue to have the impression that the limb is still present. Individuals will feel pain in the missing limb, try to move the limb and perceive the position of it. Some will even continue to perceive changes in the limb, such as feeling that the limb is “shrinking” (Ramachandran and Hirstein 1998). Phantom limbs represent a bizarre situation, but helps reinforce that the body can change without the self changing. Unlike in the previous example, individuals experience phantom limbs are acutely aware of the changes their body has undergone. They know that their limb is missing, but continue to act as though their body has been unchanged. The sensation of a phantom limb typically lasts for days or weeks, occasionally longer. The duration of time is likely dependent on the rate at which the individual can accept that their limb is missing and modify their “self” to account for this change. This example shows that visible changes can still be ignored by the self for a period of time. If the dramatic and painful experience of losing a limb is not enough to directly change the self, then it is clear that the two operate independently of each other.

While we often look at how a physical change can transform an individual’s self, we can also observe an individual that strives to modify their own body to reflect their perceived self. In this situation, one may assume that an individual is changing their body in an attempt to change their self. However, when we examine an individual modifying their body, it is clear that the self will typically change before the individual modifies his or her body. Individuals use body modification in order to express their true self through the canvas that is their body. Methods of self-expression can range from simple ear piercings to plastic surgery. To examine these actions, we can focus on ear piercing, a simple procedure that is undergone by the majority of females in America. Based on the prevalence of this procedure, we can conclude that social influence is responsible for the desire for young girls to pierce their ears. Furthermore, the prevalence of pierced ears in media, fashion as well as peer pressure creates an image that all normal, attractive females pierce their ears. Growing up in this environment, females will adapt this image as their own, and see their own body, specifically their unpierced ears, as not reflecting their true self. By examining these actions, it is clear that many individuals have a strong and concrete perception of themselves, regardless of the physical body. When an individual modifies their body to reflect his or her self, they are not doing so to change who they are, rather they are hoping that they can recognize the body that they see in the mirror as the individual that they know they are.

Adopting Different Bodies as One’s Own

If the body is not connected to the self, then it should be possible for individuals to connect their self to an outside body as their own. This may be a difficult concept to accept, as nearly every human holds their own body as a key part of their identity. However, there are a number of situations where an individual can connect their self with an outside body that is not their own. These types of situations include simply relating to an outsider’s emotions, connecting with a virtual body, and even assuming a separate body as part of one’s own.

Before we begin to look into whether an outside body can be a part of one’s self, we should establish the criteria for this connection between the body and the self. We can establish that our self is the result of all of our perceptions of our world. This concept of the self is supported by David Hume in the following quote from his “A Treatise of Human Nature”:

For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are remov’d for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. (Hume 1739)

Additionally, Hume notes that when he is sleeping and lacking perception, then his self does not exist. This establishes that the self does require a body in order to exist. Using Hume’s ideas regarding the relationship between the body and the self, we can observe situations where outside bodies are incorporated into one’s identity. If an individual has the “perception” of this outside body, then we can conclude that the individual is connecting to the body like they would to their own.

First, the separation of self and body is evident when we examine how someone can relate to the feelings and emotions of others. Typically, an individual’s perceptions are limited to his or her own emotions and feelings. However, if individuals can perceive the feelings of others, we can establish that they are taking ownership of external bodies. Joel Smith uses a series of thought experiments to support this premise in his paper “Bodily Awareness, Imagination and the Self” (2006). Smith describes a number of situations where one may imagine the feelings or actions of someone else. He notes that some would claim that imagining that Napoleon is in pain is really the individual imagining Napoleon's pain upon his or herself. However, Smith counters that one is imagining Napoleon as the subject of that pain, therefore inheriting a bodily awareness separate from their own. “...When imagining being Napoleon I do not imagine anything about myself, it follows that imagined bodily awareness (and thus bodily awareness) cannot have first person content” he claims (Smith 2006, 61). With this explanation, Smith establishes that it is possible to experience perceptions that are not from one’s own body. These ideas show that as much as we identify with our own body, we can also identify with the body of others.

Modern technology allows us to further explore ways that individuals can “assume” a new body. Popular online video games often involve each player adopting an “avatar”, or an electronic representation of the player.[1] Since the individual playing the game has nearly complete control over this character, we can observe how an individual will begin to perceive the world of this character. By continuing to play the game and becoming more immersed in the universe represented in the game, an individual will begin to accept the body of the avatar in the game as his or her own. By accepting this avatar, they will feel emotions towards this virtual body that are similar to what we may feel towards our physical bodies. For example, they may feel pride for their body around others, and sadness if this body is damaged or injured. These situations show that if an individual is willing to open their mind to an outside entity, then it may become as much a part of their identity as their physical body. Although the body of a character in a game is not even a physical entity, it simply takes someone relating to The body does not need to be physically connected, or even to physically exist, for it to become incorporated in an individual’s self.

Additionally, under the right set of circumstances, we can observe how truly disconnected an individual is from his or her body. Typically, if an individual is shown an object resembling a body part, they will quickly reject it as either fake or the body part of another individual. However, with the correct set of circumstances, an individual can be convinced that a body part is theirs and accept it as their own. One notable and well-studied example of this is the Rubber Hand Illusion. In this experiment, a participant sits with their hand hidden behind a screen. They are then shown a rubber hand in front of them, and their actual hand is out of sight. The individual is lead to accept this hand by the receiving a series of touches to their real and fake hand at the same time. For example, the person operating the experiment will show the participant a feather brushing the fake arm, while the individual feels the feather brushing their physical arm. Throughout the experiment, the participant will be able to “feel” touches to the rubber hand as if it were their own. If the rubber hand is threatened with injury, such as if a sharp needle is held over the hand, the participant become concerned as if it were their own hand (De Vignemont 2011). Once the individual can recognize the hand as part of their body, they can perceive the feelings and sensations of the hand. Separate experiments have shown that individuals can even perceive objects that do not resemble body parts as their own. In a similar experiment, scientists followed similar procedures, but used a shoe in place of a rubber hand. Surprisingly, the majority of individuals in this experiment still were able to feel sensations coming from the shoe. This experiment allowed the involved scientists to conclude that “the so-called body image, despite all its appearance of durability and permanence, is an entirely transitory internal construct that can be profoundly altered by the stimulus contingencies and correlations that one encounters” (Ramachandran and Hirstein 1998). These two experiments both conclude that participants can take “ownership” of an outside object even though it is not truly part of their body. The connection between these false appendages is entirely a part of their perception. If individuals can assume an outside entity as a part of their self without any physical connection, then we can conclude that our physical body is connected in the same fashion. These ideas support to the premise that our self’s perception of our body is not necessarily connected to our physical body.

Examining the Role of the Brain

While we have established that many parts of the body can be separated from the self, some would claim that the brain is directly connected to both the body and the self. It can be claimed that brain plays a substantial role in the definition of one's identity; therefore the body does indeed influence one's self. While there is some evidence supporting these ideas, I contend that this does not allow one to conclude that there is a direct connection between the body and the self.
A substantial claim regarding the role of the brain in the self is that modifications to the brain can lead to changes in personality and identity. One popular and notable anecdote regarding this issue is the bizarre story of rail worker named Phineas Gage. While working on railroad construction in 1848, an explosive accidentally detonated, sending a long, iron bar up through Gage's jaw and out the top of his head.

While Gage was able to make a remarkable recovery, reports claim that his personality was completely different than prior to the accident. “A typical description of him would say that before the accident Gage had been a diligent, reliable, polite and socially adept person; after his accident, he subsequently became uncaring, profane and socially inappropriate in his conduct.” (Zbigniew 2007, 116) This story is often used as an example of how changes to the physical brain can have an impact on one’s personality. This dramatic change personality clearly appears to be directly the result of the physical changes to Gage’s brain. From assessment, it could easily be claimed that physical changes to the brain can significantly change one’s self.

However, interpreting the Phineas Gage story from a different perspective and with some additional information can lead to a completely different assessment of the role of the physical brain. An account of Gage’s visit to his mother’s house recounts him entertaining his young nieces and nephews, and showing ‘fondness’ towards animals. Zbigniew Kotowicz’s piece “The Strange Case of Phineas Gage” (2007) examines this evidence and argues that the changes in Gage’s behavior were not the result of his physical injuries, but as an emotional response to the accident and his transformed body. Accounts of Gage describe his healed face as rather distorted and scarred. One can imagine the social issues that would arise from being seen with such an unsettling face. Kotowicz asserts that only among the non-judgmental eyes of his family and animals could Gage be comfortable as himself. This conclusion supports the theory that a change in the physical body can only transform the self by the individual accepting the change as who they are. Gage likely saw himself in the mirror as a deformed individual, and he likely saw negative reactions from other individuals that he would meet. It is not hard to imagine that Gage would suffer enormously from the psychological effects of this accident. The hard evidence surrounding the Gage incident is quite inconclusive, as to be expected from an incident that occurred over 150 years ago. However, the situation serves as a good example of an identity change that appears to be the result of a physical change, but may have much more to do with the individual’s perception of himself.

While this story and its implications are disputed by modern scientists, there is no disputing the role that neurology and neuroscience play in modern Psychiatry. Our increased understanding of the brain implies that the physical properties and changes of it can have direct effects on a human’s personality, understanding and thought process. This is evident in the research of mental diseases, such as OCD and depression, using neural imaging techniques. The personality of an individual can even be substantially altered by the application of drugs to the brain. By consuming drugs and altering the chemical balances of the brain, we can observe that individuals can display a number of different characteristics, such as being more assertive, introspective, or social. It is clear that the physical state of the brain plays a substantial role in an individual’s personality and mental state; therefore it could be argued that the brain can define an individual’s self.

In this regard, I do not contest that one's brain does not play a role in their self. However, using this point to conclude that the body does in fact play a role in one's self depends on our definition of body. It is clear that the brain plays an important role in our thought process, and ultimately we must think to be able to accept any entity or change into our self. By contrast, no other part of our body holds a similar role, they can send input to the brain such as pain or hunger, but cannot directly affect the way that we think. While am not arguing that the human brain does control the self, the connection between changes in the brain and the self is much stronger than with the rest of the body. Therefore, by asserting that the brain is not a part of the body, it is clear that the body can not directly affect an individual’s self.

Conclusion

Accepting this separation of body and self can be a difficult idea to accept because our body is the most intimate physical entity in our life, the “ship” to our “captain” as De Vignemont describes. However, when considering something so important and connected to who we are, we must examine how we are connected to our identity. Our self is built out of our perceptions of the world around us, and it is clear that it is possible to perceive the world using entities other that our physical body. With this understanding that our body is not directly connected to ourselves, we are allowed the ability to remove this constraint on our identity and strive to be the individual that we truly are.

References

De Vignemont, Frédérique. "A Self for the Body." Metaphilosophy 42, no. 3 (2011): 230-247.
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature . 1739.
Ramachandran, V. S., and William Hirstein. "The Perception of Phantom Limbs." Brain (Oxford University Press), 1998: 1603-1630.
Smith, Joel. "Bodily Awareness, Imagination and the Self." European Journal of Philosophy, 2006.
Zbigniew, Kotowicz. "The strange case of Phineas Gage." History of the Human Sciences 20, no. 11 (2007): 115-131.