My opinion

Animalists identify the “I” with the human animal, religious views identify it with a soul, and many naturalists identify it with the brain. I believe that the “I” is not a source or entity at all, but a word controled by grammer. Animalism is another sort of dualism in the sense that it still treats the “I” as something that has to be located, this time in the human animal rather than in a soul or a brain. Nochrisis

 

Animalism

Among the questions to be raised under the heading of “personal identity” are these: “What are we?” (fundamental nature question) and “Under what conditions do we persist through time?” (persistence question). Against the dominant neo-Lockean approach to these questions, the view known as animalism answers that each of us is an organism of the species Homo sapiens and that the conditions of our persistence are those of animals. Beyond describing the content and historical background of animalism and its rivals, this entry explores some of the arguments for and objections to this controversial account of our nature and persistence.

Read the rest here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/animalism/

---

Chatbot

Animalism is a theory of personal identity.

Core claim: you are numerically identical to a biological organism — a human animal. You persist just as long as that organism persists.

Key points.
Personal identity is biological continuity, not psychological continuity.
You were once a fetus; you will remain even if you lose memory, personality, or consciousness.
Thought experiments about brains, memories, or uploads do not determine identity; organisms do.

Contrast.
Against psychological theories (Locke): memory or consciousness is not what makes you you.
Against dualism: no separate soul or immaterial self.
Against brain-based views: you are not your brain; the brain is an organ of the animal.

Standard objection.
The “thinking animal problem”: if both the animal and the person think, are there two thinkers in one place?
Animalists accept the cost or deny the distinction.

Main defenders.
Eric Olson is the central contemporary figure.

Bottom line.
You are not a mind that has a body.
You are an animal that sometimes thinks.

---

Wikipedia, Animalism (philosophy)

In the philosophical subdiscipline of ontology, animalism is a theory of personal identity that asserts that humans are animals. The concept of animalism is advocated by philosophers Eric T. Olson, Peter van Inwagen, Paul Snowdon, Stephan Blatti, David Hershenov and David Wiggins. The view stands in contrast to positions such as John Locke’s psychological criterion for personal identity or various forms of mind–body dualism, such as Richard Swinburne’s account.

A common argument for animalism is known as the thinking-animal argument. It asserts the following:

1. A person that occupies a given space also has a Homo sapiens animal occupying the same space.
2. The Homo sapiens animal is thinking.
3. The person occupying the space is thinking.
4. Therefore, a human person is also a human animal.

Read the rest here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animalism_(philosophy)