In this paper I aim to show that in the debate about the nature of the self
one concept, the concept of the cognitive self, has a theoretical primacy
over other conceptual alternatives because of its connection with the
concept of a person in the debate about personal identity. Consequently, I
will offer a defence of the hypothesis that the Extended Mind thesis implies
the Extended Cognitive Self thesis if we additionally assume Parfit?s
Psychological criterium of personal identity. After I consider several
counterarguments to the claim that the Extended Mind implies the Extended
Self, I will offer their criticism and show that they either distort the
original Extended Mind thesis or introduce hardly defensible metaphysical
assumptions. To one such assumption, that claims that one mind can contain
another, I will pay special attention. By careful examination it will be
shown that such assumption can be kept only if the relation between the
mereologically connected minds is such that prevents psychological
continuity between them, while it has to be abandoned if there is a
psychological continuity between such minds because it would produce
numerous problems such as the problem of too many thinkers, the
proliferation of minds, the concept of the person would become useless, etc.
Also, these considerations will lead us to the clear demarcation line
between those approaches that claim the possibility of group minds and those
that claim that there are extended minds. Their key difference will be in
taking contrary stances towards the relation of psychological continuity
when it comes to different wide minds and their biological constituents.
This will be one of the main results of this paper, together with the
defence of the Extended Cognitive Self thesis.