Arguments Against Personal Identity: Crash Course Philosophy #20
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Shail
Suggesting an alternative: Legacy theory of Identity
It makes sense when we say that -we are not the same person that we used to be anymore- but how fair is it to completely detach yourself from the person that you once once used to be and things that did in full consciousness of them, simply because you have lost all the psychological connects with that person; Does it mean that i can kill a person, hit myself in the head with a heavy object and lose all memory of everything and thus be subject to exoneration because i am -Not that person anymore? -
I believe a better way to look at it, beyond Memory or body theory would be to consider an alternative of Legacy Theory;
-Personal identity persists over time because the events, actions, thoughts, emotions and ideas that a living being is made subject to, involved in or is a performer of, form a bundle of records that is ever expanding with time and can not be altered. This bundle of information is what forms the identity of that living being-
This Legacy theory defeats the fallacy of a person not having to be accountable for promises that he has made in past, as those promises form a part of that bundle;
This theory defeats fallacy of constantly changing bodies as every cell that ever existed in your body is part of that bundle;
Thus, to experiment with this theory in Derek Parfit's thought experiment:
The person would be the same when he is transported to Mars and no new version of him is ever created; as the data bundle that forms his identity is still expanding singularly and remains constant;
But when a new version of the persion is created that replicates the person on Mars, both those versions would become two seperate identities, because the legacy of both those organisms would start being different from that point on and will have no way of every reconciling.
Point any fallacies if you see
reply
Suggesting an alternative: Legacy theory of Identity
It makes sense when we say that -we are not the same person that we used to be anymore- but how fair is it to completely detach yourself from the person that you once once used to be and things that did in full consciousness of them, simply because you have lost all the psychological connects with that person; Does it mean that i can kill a person, hit myself in the head with a heavy object and lose all memory of everything and thus be subject to exoneration because i am -Not that person anymore? -
I believe a better way to look at it, beyond Memory or body theory would be to consider an alternative of Legacy Theory;
-Personal identity persists over time because the events, actions, thoughts, emotions and ideas that a living being is made subject to, involved in or is a performer of, form a bundle of records that is ever expanding with time and can not be altered. This bundle of information is what forms the identity of that living being-
This Legacy theory defeats the fallacy of a person not having to be accountable for promises that he has made in past, as those promises form a part of that bundle;
This theory defeats fallacy of constantly changing bodies as every cell that ever existed in your body is part of that bundle;
Thus, to experiment with this theory in Derek Parfit's thought experiment:
The person would be the same when he is transported to Mars and no new version of him is ever created; as the data bundle that forms his identity is still expanding singularly and remains constant;
But when a new version of the persion is created that replicates the person on Mars, both those versions would become two seperate identities, because the legacy of both those organisms would start being different from that point on and will have no way of every reconciling.
Point any fallacies if you see
reply
This
The self or soul is known by God who sees all time at once (past forms of self and their connection to present and future self. Which is the meaning of the phrase 'the soul is in the body though not contained by it but rather containing it'. It is the unknown thing that connects you from birth to death containing all states of mind and body and the causal connection from birth to death. The 'true self' or 'true soul' is the resurrected christ that the soul is aiming to become - the self shed of all accidental properties and reduced to its essence. This can be said to be when the soul is in the presence of God.
Hume's bundle theory is buddhist in nature (there is no self, our mental impressions are impermanent and changing. Where as Parfit is arguing for we are not our bodies. But they are forgetting the soul (mind/body/soul. Rather than being a ghost in a machine, it is that thing which is revealed through literature (narrative) showing its transformation through the tragedy/comedy of life and shown in perfection through religious text.
reply
The self or soul is known by God who sees all time at once (past forms of self and their connection to present and future self. Which is the meaning of the phrase 'the soul is in the body though not contained by it but rather containing it'. It is the unknown thing that connects you from birth to death containing all states of mind and body and the causal connection from birth to death. The 'true self' or 'true soul' is the resurrected christ that the soul is aiming to become - the self shed of all accidental properties and reduced to its essence. This can be said to be when the soul is in the presence of God.
Hume's bundle theory is buddhist in nature (there is no self, our mental impressions are impermanent and changing. Where as Parfit is arguing for we are not our bodies. But they are forgetting the soul (mind/body/soul. Rather than being a ghost in a machine, it is that thing which is revealed through literature (narrative) showing its transformation through the tragedy/comedy of life and shown in perfection through religious text.
reply
Jerry
I think the self can't be distilled down to a single category. Let's posit there are three different ideas of what makes someone themselves. The mind, the conscious thoughts and memories of an individual; the body, the corporeal ship which stations our mind; the outside observer, someone who recognizes us as being who we are. In order to establish a person -is- who they are, only two of the three of any of these categories need apply, but if only one applies, than they are a different person.
If we have our body, but have no memories of our past, and a secondary observer recognizes us as ourselves, then we exist. If our mind was somehow transferred to another body, but a close friend recognizes us from our memories, then we exist. If we possess our bodies and our minds, but nobody recognizes us, alas, we still exist. If we fulfill only one of these categories, we are not ourselves, therefore we do not exist.
reply
I think the self can't be distilled down to a single category. Let's posit there are three different ideas of what makes someone themselves. The mind, the conscious thoughts and memories of an individual; the body, the corporeal ship which stations our mind; the outside observer, someone who recognizes us as being who we are. In order to establish a person -is- who they are, only two of the three of any of these categories need apply, but if only one applies, than they are a different person.
If we have our body, but have no memories of our past, and a secondary observer recognizes us as ourselves, then we exist. If our mind was somehow transferred to another body, but a close friend recognizes us from our memories, then we exist. If we possess our bodies and our minds, but nobody recognizes us, alas, we still exist. If we fulfill only one of these categories, we are not ourselves, therefore we do not exist.
reply
Miles
Everyone feel free to destroy my hypothesis in the comments, but what if the idea of you is a collection of cells with the same DNA that constitutes a living thing. A living thing being defined as what the consensus of biologists define it as. Your leg may be a collection of cells with your DNA, but if cut off, is no longer maintaining a living organism. Likewise, you are still you, even tho u lost your leg because you are still a collection of cells with the same DNA that constitute a living thing. Also, even tho your DNA may vary slightly from one cell to the next bcs of random copying mutations, it is still at least an imperfect copy of the same DNA that was inside the zygote that formed when your father-s sperm fertilized your mother-s egg. Again, feel free to rip this to shreds down below. I-m not sure if even I buy it.
reply
Everyone feel free to destroy my hypothesis in the comments, but what if the idea of you is a collection of cells with the same DNA that constitutes a living thing. A living thing being defined as what the consensus of biologists define it as. Your leg may be a collection of cells with your DNA, but if cut off, is no longer maintaining a living organism. Likewise, you are still you, even tho u lost your leg because you are still a collection of cells with the same DNA that constitute a living thing. Also, even tho your DNA may vary slightly from one cell to the next bcs of random copying mutations, it is still at least an imperfect copy of the same DNA that was inside the zygote that formed when your father-s sperm fertilized your mother-s egg. Again, feel free to rip this to shreds down below. I-m not sure if even I buy it.
reply
Jon
I read a court story once where a defense lawyer actually tried to argue that his client (a convicted murderer) should not receive the death penalty because his client was not the same person who committed the murder. When asked by the judge in what sense the convicted man was not the same person, the defense lawyer tried to argue that since his client's incarceration, he was not the same person on -the cellular level-, therefore, he was not guilty of committing the murder. The judge saw right through this most ridiculous reduction to the absurd level -argument- as a defense that the convicted murderer had a different identity than when he committed the murder. The convict was executed three months later.
reply
I read a court story once where a defense lawyer actually tried to argue that his client (a convicted murderer) should not receive the death penalty because his client was not the same person who committed the murder. When asked by the judge in what sense the convicted man was not the same person, the defense lawyer tried to argue that since his client's incarceration, he was not the same person on -the cellular level-, therefore, he was not guilty of committing the murder. The judge saw right through this most ridiculous reduction to the absurd level -argument- as a defense that the convicted murderer had a different identity than when he committed the murder. The convict was executed three months later.
reply
Mark
We are continuously undergoing state changes but we are the same system our entire lives.
Computer chips have circuits that are continuously changing, would Hume think that the computer chip had a different identity due to its internal configuration?
The computer chip could have a serial number and we have our DNA.
The same system was constructed on Mars and it feels that when it says -I- that it is referential to the history of that system.
Identity is a neurological construct that holds power of predictability. That dog that bit me yesterday might bite me today.
reply
We are continuously undergoing state changes but we are the same system our entire lives.
Computer chips have circuits that are continuously changing, would Hume think that the computer chip had a different identity due to its internal configuration?
The computer chip could have a serial number and we have our DNA.
The same system was constructed on Mars and it feels that when it says -I- that it is referential to the history of that system.
Identity is a neurological construct that holds power of predictability. That dog that bit me yesterday might bite me today.
reply
Simp
If you were to choose memory theory it would raise an interesting hypothetical: propose Hitler lost all his memory, would he still be evil? If yes, what would make him evil? His capacity for evil? In that case does that make us all evil since we all have capacity for evil? Where is the line drawn? Another thing: if Hitler losing his memories makes him cease to be evil, does that mean if we were able to create a memory erasing device, could someone get off Scott free if they were to do something evil and then erase their memory?
reply
If you were to choose memory theory it would raise an interesting hypothetical: propose Hitler lost all his memory, would he still be evil? If yes, what would make him evil? His capacity for evil? In that case does that make us all evil since we all have capacity for evil? Where is the line drawn? Another thing: if Hitler losing his memories makes him cease to be evil, does that mean if we were able to create a memory erasing device, could someone get off Scott free if they were to do something evil and then erase their memory?
reply
Nelda
oh damn, catching up with an old friend that you haven't seen for a long time, that hits close to home. a very old childhood friend of mine named ashtian recently reached back out to me via email after more than a decade being separated, and holy cow. -he- was male and did a gender change, and that took a while for me to adjust to. she says she doesn't recognize who that weird looking scrawny guy was back in elementary school now lol, very interesting ideas about continuity of identity you have here
reply
oh damn, catching up with an old friend that you haven't seen for a long time, that hits close to home. a very old childhood friend of mine named ashtian recently reached back out to me via email after more than a decade being separated, and holy cow. -he- was male and did a gender change, and that took a while for me to adjust to. she says she doesn't recognize who that weird looking scrawny guy was back in elementary school now lol, very interesting ideas about continuity of identity you have here
reply
Paulthored
The Soul, says differently.
There is also the 4th dimensional view on the matter. The view that God may have.
You, from conception to Death. Is the entirety of your Existence.
Maybe that's the Soul?
I think that there is a Sci-fi species called the Builder's, who supposedly see in 4 dimensions. And thus see you birth to present.
reply
The Soul, says differently.
There is also the 4th dimensional view on the matter. The view that God may have.
You, from conception to Death. Is the entirety of your Existence.
Maybe that's the Soul?
I think that there is a Sci-fi species called the Builder's, who supposedly see in 4 dimensions. And thus see you birth to present.
reply
Someone
My whole problem with this is that we still don-t have a clear definition of -I. - There-s a lot of me-s and I-s in these explanations, but you can-t define a word with the same word in it or give an example of a word until you understand what the word is. and this videos fails to do that kinda. Same with the philosophers
reply
My whole problem with this is that we still don-t have a clear definition of -I. - There-s a lot of me-s and I-s in these explanations, but you can-t define a word with the same word in it or give an example of a word until you understand what the word is. and this videos fails to do that kinda. Same with the philosophers
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
11:48