Someone shared an article from a medical journal on guidelines for treating a certain disorder. The guidelines are very good, well researched, etc.

[International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (2011): Guidelines for Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults, Third Revision, Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 12:2, 115-187]

Although the DID patient has the subjective experience of having separate identities, it is important for clinicians to keep in mind that the patient is not a collection of separate people sharing the same body. The DID patient should be seen as a whole adult person, with the identities sharing responsibility for daily life.

That said, to me it seems like personhood is more the domain of philosophy. I'm not critiscizing the use of the word in the article, but I still would like to see what a philosophically rigorous analysis of personhood in Dissociative Identity Disorder (multiple personality disorder) looks like.

I don't make any claims to know what a person is or isn't. All I think is that these 2 positions are incoherent if held together:

1. It is possible for a person to live in the form of a human nervous system (including the brain).
2. It is not possible for more than one person to live in the form of a human nervous system.

I have no formal training in philosophy, so I definitely look forward to hearing panelist feedback.