Googling Kolak I can see he indeed holds the very strange view that I am identical to you. But this particular paper basically consists of a decent outline of the present personal identity debate and a brief statement of Kolak’s own view which for me, is a vague, mysterious description of a view that basically says “I am the the thing that the indexical “I” points to in this sentence.” Which is a perfectly fine view except that it answers hardly any questions (My reply is “Duh, now is that thing a body or a psychological state?”) Then somehow in the remaining paragraphs this becomes “the brain is not sufficient for personal identity” and strange, out of context Wittgenstein quotes. Anyway, it didn’t really have anything to do with this discussion.
Googling Kolak I can see he indeed holds the very strange view that I am identical to you. But this particular paper basically consists of a decent outline of the present personal identity debate and a brief statement of Kolak’s own view which for me, is a vague, mysterious description of a view that basically says “I am the the thing that the indexical “I” points to in this sentence.” Which is a perfectly fine view except that it answers hardly any questions (My reply is “Duh, now is that thing a body or a psychological state?”) Then somehow in the remaining paragraphs this becomes “the brain is not sufficient for personal identity” and strange, out of context Wittgenstein quotes. Anyway, it didn’t really have anything to do with this discussion.
A note for those not familiar with Wittgenstein: Many of his quotes are strange and out-of-context in the original writing. It’s part of the charm.