Answer: I would like to laban that this will not be my original "Babe" anymore. Individuals have objects and bagay-bagay in their lives that are significant to them, essentially associating memories and experiences (relapse talaga 'yan) with that object. In accordance with John Locke's Memory Theory, the self is defined through the memories it retains. If I were to palit-palit all the parts of my "Babe" with new ones, all the alaala of each fragment of the original babe would be tanggal-tanggal na and changed. Furthermore, if I were to replace all parts of "Babe" with parts of the new iPhone 17 Pro Max 256GB Fully Paid, and infront of me is "Babe" and another iPhone 17, how will I be able to differentiate the two? Ang mga tao na ito tends to memorize or contextualize people according to the (1) memories attached to them and their (2) physical appearance. That's why when we look at someone's childhood photos and they look alike, we can immediately say "uy, cute mo pa dito ah". When we apply this same thinking to "Babe", we personalize the phone by its (1) physical attributes (case, size of screen, type of charger, processor etc.) and (2) memories (scratches, cracks on the screen, when it was bought, etc).

Answer: In the case (IN THE CASE ⁉️) of mind and body, I would like to argue that "mind over matter" makes a lot more kwenta compared to the latter. To contextualize the phrase, "mind over matter", it describes the kakayahan of the utak to control the galaw of the body. I would like to laban that partly, both broskis Descartes and Leibniz's solution for the mind-body problem work hand-in-hand in explaining the phrase. Descartes argues that there is an interaction between the mind and body, but is medyo ewan of what mechanism allows it. I would like to take the standpoint (STANDDDPOINTTT ⁉️) that this mechanism is due to the pre-established harmony that God has set for our mind and body (Leibniz's). This is under two major points: (1) Is that the thoughts (mind) and actions (body) that consists us is already pre-determined by God (Leibniz), but we are given the illusion of free will that makes us think that both have an interaction (Descartes). This can be separated into two leveled (oa talaga) views: (1) God making our lives pre-determined and (2) our earthly view of free will.

For example, God already pre-determined the action of us being hungry (mind) and eating at this hour (body). But in the perspective of humans, both the mind and the body interact by the stomach growling (body's response) and the thought of eating (mind's response).

Answer: Among the given theories of the self, I personally identify best with Hesse's Onion Model (gutom n tlga sha). Growing up, I would often ask myself, "who am I really?" and ang sinasagot ko, ako si Dennis (joke). Am I this outgoing and extroverted person who can socialize with everyone? Am I this leader-like person who is mostly serious and focused on their goals? Am I this spontaneous and unstructured person who is mostly goofy and happy? Some of these "selves" contradict one another, and oftentimes I find myself choosing one self over the other. However, that does not remove the fact that these selves exist, and these still show up given the right circumstances. For example, I am generally a strict person when it comes to my time, but when my family asks for my time, I'm willing to break my schedule for any spontaneous events. Furthermore, I'm often a jolly and outgoing person, but in certain situations (even when I'm out with my friends), I'd also enjoy my personal company and not lead the conversations (ambivert yarn). With Hesse's Onion model, there is no true self. Self consists of multiple layers that are constantly changing and transforming on a daily basis, depending on our experiences. The emotions, actions, and interactions of other people influences the layers of self, inevitably changing the "self" in the process.