The Dilemma of Identity

Locke’s example of the prince and the cobbler raises a few important questions about the nature of our identities and the circumstances of our own consciousness in regards to our physical body. To everyone but the cobbler, he perceives himself to be the same prince but in a different body. In a way, his spirit is what carries his memories and personal identity, not the physical brain that he were to inherit from the cobbler. But that was one thing that I felt was the most overlooked by Locke and Reid. Our memories. If our memories are the things that hold our physical beings in the moment and hold us accountable for our actions, then why do we still ponder the existence of the soul? If our memories are held by a purely physical thing, the brain, then would it be safe to say our identity is located somewhere in the brain? Or without our brain, we are nobody? There’s something strange about Reid’s example of the general. He asks how a man could and could not be the same person if he has no memory (Reid uses the word consciousness) of his past. In a sense, Reid is asking if our memory is connected to our personal identity and what happens to a man if he were to suddenly lose his memories?  Does he then lose his identity? In a sense he loses everything that attaches him to his particular time of existence. However, he still maintains consciousness and his ability to communicate thoughts. A dog certainly holds the memory of its owner when he comes home, so what distinguishes a pet from human existence? Would it be wrong to assume that a person’s identity is a combination of their memory, consciousness, and their ability to communicate thoughts in an effective manner? Or does it have to be one of the three?