The Philosophy Of Personal Identity - Who Are You?

Are you the same person you were as a young child? What is it that links your past self to your present and future self? In this video we take a look at some of the main arguments in the philosophy of personal identity, a topic which has divided philosophers for hundreds of years.

Sources and additional reading:

Music:

[musicalmedium]

I don’t believe you can ever be the same person you were at anytime. But you can think the same as you did in the past or future.

[BuceGar]

Great vid.

The fundamental problem is that that the experience of being "you" is the experience of "structured consciousness", which cannot be adequately explained by science yet. Science can explain the chemical and electrical interactions in your brain and body, but why do you have the sensation of a singular experience, despite all the processing your brain does, is still a mystery.

Is it simply an emergent quality that arises from complex information processing? Is it necessary at all to exist? Why can't you simply be an emotionless robot, doing all the things necessary for life, without having an emotional self-aware constructed experience, or a sense of "you". It is a very difficult question. How can consciousness arise from something inanimate, or that had no consciousness in it's prior state?

Keep up the good work.

[emirs]

Nothing is better than learning that your thoughts on a subject is on par with a great philosopher.

[chrisknight]

Fascinating video. I've come across versions of Parfit's idea in science-fiction and always found it troubling. Would you agree to be scanned, have a duplicate you created elsewhere, and the original - i.e., you - destroyed? If the answer is no, then you must believe that identity trumps mere survival. The duplicate may suffice for your friends, family, etc., but the original has been killed. The you that stepped into the machine does not experience the future life of the copy.

[daryaramble]

Plot twist: This channel's personal identity is actually duolingo in disguise.

[kev-dawgg]

You know, it's things like this that make me consider the idea of a soul most seriously. At its root, this problem is about consciousness, which frankly, no science we have so far can really explain. Dark Matter, while I'm not rehearsed in it, is something that I think might be the substance self-awarenss/a soul is made from.

Spiritual feelings and emotions can at least be seen in the brain, but do they originate there? I've been religious for most of my life, and frankly, it is not because of some proof or science but things that I feel. In fact, it's mostly because of the fact that I can feel.

I remember once having a discussion with an atheist friend of mine. He told me that maybe self-awareness is just actions going on in the brain. His wording interested me, though. He said that he is probably just feeling what goes on in his brain. His phrasing entirely separated his identity from his brain. His brain was simply something that he was able to feel the thinking from.

I'm sure people will disagree with this, but my personal belief about what makes me me is my soul/ability to feel.

Also, fun theory: Assume that we all have souls of awareness that can pull and interact with a brain. It is possible that we could flit around from body to body, but never know it because we leave behind memories with the previous body.

[MladenPostruznik]

I was never in a place where there was not me.

[Lopfff]

I’ll never forget the Northern Exposure episode where Chris is on trial for a crime he had committed long ago in the past. His lawyer argued (unsuccessfully) that Chris is philosophically literally a different person now and therefore can’t be convicted of a crime “somebody else” committed

[rommellreubenvieyra]

Identity is not a specific space occupied by a body rather it is realization of self. If this realization can be manipulated quantitatively then it is possible to magnify identity in space and time but qualitative manipulation of identity is impossible as it breaks down the identity itself. For example a drop of water on a table and the pacific ocean are liquid water bodies, if that drop of liquid water gets vaporized then it looses its identity as a liquid water body. Quantitative manipulation can possibly magnify identity whereas qualitative manipulation breaks down identity.

[swimmingaddict]

I dont think that identity is your consciousness or your body but the people around you are the ones creating your identity. If you experience amnesia, you won't know who you are. However, your family and friends still remember you as the "original version". Not only that but we create our thoughts based on the influence of others and we link our thoughts with our identity. Those are my arguments for the given theory.

[seth]

You are who you are. If You try to know who You are your simply chasing your tail. Language itself falls at your feet. "You must unlearn what you have learned".

[milospollonia]

Got an Oxford Philosophy interview today, cramming all sorts of philosophical topics rn hahaha

[wayofspinoza]

What is the “SELF?” GISH JEN and others try to help understand what the self is. Spinoza, a 17century philosopher wrote his Ethics which has contributed to society in psychology, philosophy, science, and rational thinking. If Spinoza’s Ethic was read and understood, they would understand and know the nature of the mind and of human emotions. Spinoza’s idea of a self is a thinking being. The self reflects the mind, the mind is comprised of clear or confused ideas. The ego state is a lower sense of self, the intelligent thinking mind is a higher sense of self. Neuroscientist believes that the brain is the mind, this is not true. The brain is an organ that helps regulate all the systems of the body and it’s a storehouse of memory. The mind is a nontangible thing, it can only be understood intuitively. Science relates to the physical world; it measures and compares things to other things.

[alpacawithouthat]

One thing I always wondered is if we don't remember early life, who experienced it? I cracked my femur as an infant after my sister and I fell down the stairs. If I do not remember the event, it is not part of my experience, so did anybody really experience it? Did anyone feel pain if it is not part of the experience of any dead or alive person? Also if I make a decision I do not remember making, who made the decision? If I am not conscious of my past decisions, then is the me who made those past decisions really me?

[alanmalaquias]

I think we are the same person, inside a different body(as time goes by), with a different percepission about the world surround us!

[paulfrischknecht]

My view is not to care. Identity is just a word, a concept. And it has no use for me. I apply it only to myself in as far as law and friends and family seem to require it to keep recognizing me and offer the ensuing benefits, while clearly distancing myself from accepting and pondering the concept in a deep way. I see no possible benefit coming out of any „answer“ to the „problem“ of identity, so I don’t ask the question. The only thing related to continuity I am interested in is to have enough memory to still know years from now where to find all the externalized information, memories and things that have been created in this world. It is also nice to know that taking care of my body now pays off because my mind keeps operating from this body.

[Old_Salt]

At first i thought this video was going to tackle a topic I always thought about. Turns out they talked about they most overrated kind of personal identity. The timely you, the you that changes with time. But what about the timeless you, the you that what suddenly born without any reason and the you that hosts this body?

[aliquida]

Imagine you could "rewind" time back 5 years. You consciously get to see out of your eyes as everything rapidly moves backwards, and then it pauses at that point (5 years in the past).
You are given the choice of:

(A) Continuing your conscious awareness by "taking over" the "you" from 5 years ago, and then having to re-live the last 5 years from that point forward; or
(B) Allowing the conscious awareness that was you 5 years ago to suddenly acquire your memories, and then that consciousness gets to live from that point forward with the new knowledge tucked in the mind.

Do you see a distinct difference between these two options?

I personally see (B) as committing suicide. Because "Me" is not only dependent on where my body is, and where my mind is, but _when_ I am. Me from 5 years ago is a different consciousness than "now" me.

[canpusa]

I am but a representation of a person (me) in my brain. I even see myself differently from that representation of me, whenever I see myself in a picture, or when I don't recognize my own recorded voice. We are many things, but what we think we are, what we think of as "Me" is nothing but an illusion. Ones and zeros in our brains harddrive, so to speak. Very far from how other people, animals, or machines perceive us, and very far from the infinitelly complex reality of all that there is.

[t_umami]

Richard Dawkins says we are all collectives of cells just trying to survive. I somewhat agree with it and I believe my "consciousness" is probably with my body, but because of my association with my psychological self, I would forfeit my physical self for my psychological self. Maybe that is something my selfish genes didn't account for in evolution.