"The calamaties that happen in the world, the sufferings and fears, many as they are, all result from clinging to the notion of self. So what good is this clinging of mind? If one does not let go of self, one cannot let go of suffering. As one who does not let go of fire cannot let go of burning."- The Bodhicaryāvatāra by Śāntideva Great summary!
Identity is a construct. The chip. Why is it necessary to identify with it ,hence,the conscious relationship between subjects and objects and a drive towards uniformity and hierarchy. Like a tree with a trunk and branches that assist in the absorption and distribution of life ensuring nutrients throughout the whole. That is,as long as nutrients are in abundance to maintain its size and vitality, otherwise scarcity tends to favor the trunk and the most hearty of limbs.Diversity is the branche that springs from the natural hiarchy in life. Life and death is also a construct in enduring life and progress as a continuing cycle. Acuna mattata !
I've gotta say, for a video done by (or for or with or ...) a philosopher, it's extremely well done. And I don't just mean the pithiness, I mean the visuals, too. "Literally" a sight for sore eyes. For those with questions about the operationalization of, e.g. "moral capacities", or what this study supposed to show exactly, a more detailed look can be found in Nichols' actual papers that go through the studies and analyze them. If you're interested, he has collaborated on numerous empirical studies on intuitions about personal identity, and not just when tied to morality. See his various co-authored pieces with others such as Bartels, Rips, Bruno, and Tierney.
extremely well done? If this accurately describes the argument, then the argument is comically stupid. Surely, the actual argument is more than just ad populum?
Mac Smith It's really not. Read their papers or others' papers on the use of intuition in justifying beliefs. I actually really disagree with their arguments, but they're not shit arguments -- they're pretty good. They just are wrong lol. If you think it's so simple I'm sure you will publish your argument in Nous by next year.
@@MacSmithVideo - I'm not sure what you're referring to when you mention "the argument". I don't think any argument is being given. Rather, I think they are reporting the results of their research in experimental philosophy. This sub-branch of philosophy does not assume that the most popular philosophical opinions among laypeople must be true nor that they are more likely to be true. Knowing what most people think about a philosophical topic can be informative for many reasons; for one, it can help us understand common intuitions and how they relate to other beliefs and intuitions. Experimental philosophers do NOT assume that popular opinions have epistemic weight by virtue of their popularity
What is not clear in this study is what "loss of moral faculties" and the aspects of "conscience and moral action" are meant to signify, so that when the chip activates: 1) One becomes a psychopath - a person who does not see a difference between norm breaches (going to a café in your pyjamas) and moral breaches (violent assault); or 2) One finds that their moral convictions all mixed up eg. changing from pro-life to pro-choice, from Greenie to pro-coal-oil-gas, from married to poly-amorous, from meat eater to vegan, from democrat to republican. I think both 1 and 2 are important to explore, but 1 invokes a threat of potential violence which all the other chip-effects do not. This may make it more salient and threatening as a variable to change. So - this study may accidentally be asking - "which aspect of the self is most essential to maintain to ensure a person does not become a violent perpetrator"
Well, a problem that I see is that with experimental philosophy we can only get information about what people generally think. And it's not seems to be the kind of relevant information to respond a philosophical problem. Even if we find a great consesus in a question, we still with the problem that all people can be just wrong. And, looking for history, it's seems to be generally the case
MIND according to Bob Marley And The Wailers : - You can't tell the woman from the man 'Cause they're dressed in the same pollution Their mind is confused with confusion With their problems since they've no solution (MIDNIGHT RAVERS, 1973) - Life is one big road with lots of signs So when you're riding through the ruts Don't you complicate your mind Flee from hate, mischief and jealousy Don't bury your thoughts, put your vision to reality All together now Wake up and live, Wake up and live Wake up and wake up and live Rise.. ye mighty people - There's work to be done So let's do it-a little by little Rise.. from your sleepless slumber ! (WAKE UP AND LIVE, 1979) - Don't let them fool ya Or even try to school ya, oh no! We've got a mind of our own So go to hell if what you're thinkin' isn't right Love would never leave us alone A-in the darkness there must come out to light (COULD YOU BE LOVED AND BE LOVE, 1980) - Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery None but ourselves can free our minds Have no fear for atomic energy 'Cause none a them can stop the time How long shall they kill our prophets? While we stand aside and look, Some say it's just a part of it We've got to fulfil the book Won't you help to sing These songs of freedom? 'Cause all I ever had Redemption songs (REDEMPTION SONG, 1980)
I would definitely say I constitute my personal identity in my distinctive interests and preferences, not on my moral compass. I agree with Locke's Memory Criterion in terms of what makes person A the same as person B at a later stage, through common memories. I have a philosophy exam tomorrow, can you tell?
papir I think so too! It doesn't explain much about personal identity either, my basic understanding of it involves cartesianism, animalism and Locke and also Johnstone's notion of the incredibly good person etc. I guess this video was more just about research into beliefs over personal identity, but the research doesn't seem to yield very useful results haha
I think memory is by far the most important. If people think they can lose their memories and still be them, well the good news is they can just program their personality into a computer and let a robot take over from them when they die. I think most people would think that the robot wouldn't be them.
but if i lose my memory i also lose what makes my morality. because i lose the memory of the logical arguements as well as the memory of the emotions that led me to that specific morality.
XyntXII In this thought experiment they base their distinction on the idea that your morality and desires are inherit to the mind/soul/identity/whatever and therefore unaffected by the loss of memory. Most likely they would not argue for this position, but it is a premise you have to accept to dive into this thought experiment, the objective of which is to find the basis of identity.
If you're truly logical the argument should exist regardless of memory. It's just like math. Even if you forget it, by following the right steps you'll reach the equation
Is it not inconceivable that you could lose all of your memories while still having the same moral intuitions that you'd had prior? Even if you don't know WHY you have certain moral proclivities anymore, that doesn't mean that those moral proclivities cease to exist.
Well, if David Hume was right, and our moral sense is rooted psychologically in our passions, then a change in morality and a change in personal desires/interests due to the implant would be rather similar in nature. Any thoughts *****?
Yes, they would have different bodies and different minds and they would do different things with that information. They're living completely different lives, even if they're twins.
A lot of confusion in this area comes from poorly defined terms. The brain and the mind are not the same thing. Damage to a brain has literally zero effect on the mind. The mind is still fully capable of thinking, feeling, and deciding (thought, emotion, and the will are the three components of the mind) even if the brain is severely damaged. Knowing WHAT we actually are, and WHY we actually are, really helps in all the real sciences! I love it!
identity as usually perceived is an evolutionarily beneficial concept that doesnt map reality. When asking which organism, data, or psychological continuum represents *you*, then the answer is simply a matter of arbitrary definition.
1. How is person A's 'opinion' about person B's 'Personal Identity" relevant? 2. Isn't it true that: It's now understood by psychologists and behavioral economists that when person A says they would be devastated if they lost X, Y, or Z in the future, people who actually lose X, Y, or Z are not devastated? 3. Isn't it true that: There is a drug being used to remove targeted memories from patients suffering from various mental trauma. They seem to show relief and less anxiety after treatment. Are they no-longer the same 'person' after being restored back to a better state of mental health? 4. Congratulations, you've attempted to incorporate science/psychology and philosophy. But, did you actually test the theory on patients suffering amnesia or other various brain issues?
There is no answer to the question, "Who are you?" There is only an answer to the question, "Whose are you?" Creative purpose defines everything in this world, because, without creation, you are left with no logical purpose at all. Because, without an individual having an "intention" there is no "purpose" as the two mean the same thing, and are both actually just shorthand for the phrase, "intended purpose." The question, "What is the purpose of life?" is actually just shorthand for the question, "What is the intended purpose of life?" For there to be an intended purpose, there must be an intending purposer. Either there is a self-existent, immutable, eternal being, or there is no purpose able to be logically established. It is that simple. You were created to KNOW God, and for no other purpose. True Philosophy, like true Science, is an honest look at, and evaluation of, reality. Reality is that which is, whether it matches what you would like to be or not. Science falsely so called has been ruling the day for decades, and it took Philosophy down the tubes with it. Typical in a world ruled by sin.
I think you are both confused about what these researchers are saying in this video and about what experimental philosophy is. It seems to me, you are both misinterpreting the presentation of their research findings as A). an argument and B). a fallacious one. But, I could be wrong about your uncharitable projection, so here's a challenge for you both: In premise and conclusion format, state what you allege is their argument, and time-stamp each premise. I think what you'll find is that, on the basis of your own misunderstanding, you're attributing to them claims they never made.
![PHILOSOPHY - Mind: Personal Identity (The Narrative Self) [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lcIqoN9oRgo/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Mind: Personal Identity (The Narrative Self) [HD]](/img/tr.png)
"The calamaties that happen in the world, the sufferings and fears, many as they are, all result from clinging to the notion of self. So what good is this clinging of mind? If one does not let go of self, one cannot let go of suffering. As one who does not let go of fire cannot let go of burning."- The Bodhicaryāvatāra by Śāntideva
Great summary!
Identity is a construct. The chip. Why is it necessary to identify with it ,hence,the conscious relationship between subjects and objects and a drive towards uniformity and hierarchy. Like a tree with a trunk and branches that assist in the absorption and distribution of life ensuring nutrients throughout the whole. That is,as long as nutrients are in abundance to maintain its size and vitality, otherwise scarcity tends to favor the trunk and the most hearty of limbs.Diversity is the branche that springs from the natural hiarchy in life. Life and death is also a construct in enduring life and progress as a continuing cycle. Acuna mattata !
I've gotta say, for a video done by (or for or with or ...) a philosopher, it's extremely well done. And I don't just mean the pithiness, I mean the visuals, too. "Literally" a sight for sore eyes.
For those with questions about the operationalization of, e.g. "moral capacities", or what this study supposed to show exactly, a more detailed look can be found in Nichols' actual papers that go through the studies and analyze them. If you're interested, he has collaborated on numerous empirical studies on intuitions about personal identity, and not just when tied to morality. See his various co-authored pieces with others such as Bartels, Rips, Bruno, and Tierney.
extremely well done? If this accurately describes the argument, then the argument is comically stupid. Surely, the actual argument is more than just ad populum?
Mac Smith It's really not. Read their papers or others' papers on the use of intuition in justifying beliefs.
I actually really disagree with their arguments, but they're not shit arguments -- they're pretty good. They just are wrong lol. If you think it's so simple I'm sure you will publish your argument in Nous by next year.
@@MacSmithVideo - I'm not sure what you're referring to when you mention "the argument". I don't think any argument is being given. Rather, I think they are reporting the results of their research in experimental philosophy. This sub-branch of philosophy does not assume that the most popular philosophical opinions among laypeople must be true nor that they are more likely to be true. Knowing what most people think about a philosophical topic can be informative for many reasons; for one, it can help us understand common intuitions and how they relate to other beliefs and intuitions. Experimental philosophers do NOT assume that popular opinions have epistemic weight by virtue of their popularity
What is not clear in this study is what "loss of moral faculties" and the aspects of "conscience and moral action" are meant to signify, so that when the chip activates:
1) One becomes a psychopath - a person who does not see a difference between norm breaches (going to a café in your pyjamas) and moral breaches (violent assault); or
2) One finds that their moral convictions all mixed up eg. changing from pro-life to pro-choice, from Greenie to pro-coal-oil-gas, from married to poly-amorous, from meat eater to vegan, from democrat to republican.
I think both 1 and 2 are important to explore, but 1 invokes a threat of potential violence which all the other chip-effects do not. This may make it more salient and threatening as a variable to change. So - this study may accidentally be asking - "which aspect of the self is most essential to maintain to ensure a person does not become a violent perpetrator"
Well, a problem that I see is that with experimental philosophy we can only get information about what people generally think. And it's not seems to be the kind of relevant information to respond a philosophical problem.
Even if we find a great consesus in a question, we still with the problem that all people can be just wrong. And, looking for history, it's seems to be generally the case
MIND according to Bob Marley And The Wailers :
- You can't tell the woman from the man
'Cause they're dressed in the same pollution
Their mind is confused with confusion
With their problems since they've no solution
(MIDNIGHT RAVERS, 1973)
- Life is one big road with lots of signs
So when you're riding through the ruts
Don't you complicate your mind
Flee from hate, mischief and jealousy
Don't bury your thoughts, put your vision to reality
All together now
Wake up and live, Wake up and live
Wake up and wake up and live
Rise.. ye mighty people -
There's work to be done
So let's do it-a little by little
Rise.. from your sleepless slumber !
(WAKE UP AND LIVE, 1979)
- Don't let them fool ya
Or even try to school ya, oh no!
We've got a mind of our own
So go to hell if what you're thinkin' isn't right
Love would never leave us alone
A-in the darkness there must come out to light
(COULD YOU BE LOVED AND BE LOVE, 1980)
- Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our minds
Have no fear for atomic energy
'Cause none a them can stop the time
How long shall they kill our prophets?
While we stand aside and look,
Some say it's just a part of it
We've got to fulfil the book
Won't you help to sing
These songs of freedom?
'Cause all I ever had
Redemption songs
(REDEMPTION SONG, 1980)
I would definitely say I constitute my personal identity in my distinctive interests and preferences, not on my moral compass. I agree with Locke's Memory Criterion in terms of what makes person A the same as person B at a later stage, through common memories. I have a philosophy exam tomorrow, can you tell?
papir I think so too! It doesn't explain much about personal identity either, my basic understanding of it involves cartesianism, animalism and Locke and also Johnstone's notion of the incredibly good person etc. I guess this video was more just about research into beliefs over personal identity, but the research doesn't seem to yield very useful results haha
I think memory is by far the most important. If people think they can lose their memories and still be them, well the good news is they can just program their personality into a computer and let a robot take over from them when they die. I think most people would think that the robot wouldn't be them.
The robot would have a small portion of them but that wouldn't be it.
but if i lose my memory i also lose what makes my morality. because i lose the memory of the logical arguements as well as the memory of the emotions that led me to that specific morality.
XyntXII In this thought experiment they base their distinction on the idea that your morality and desires are inherit to the mind/soul/identity/whatever and therefore unaffected by the loss of memory. Most likely they would not argue for this position, but it is a premise you have to accept to dive into this thought experiment, the objective of which is to find the basis of identity.
but the result is changed hugely by that premise. ^ i think the premise is wrong.
but thank you for pointing that out.
If you're truly logical the argument should exist regardless of memory. It's just like math. Even if you forget it, by following the right steps you'll reach the equation
Is it not inconceivable that you could lose all of your memories while still having the same moral intuitions that you'd had prior? Even if you don't know WHY you have certain moral proclivities anymore, that doesn't mean that those moral proclivities cease to exist.
I used to put energy into being "me", but then I stopped believing that person exists. I've become so many other things since then.
Well, if David Hume was right, and our moral sense is rooted psychologically in our passions, then a change in morality and a change in personal desires/interests due to the implant would be rather similar in nature.
Any thoughts *****?
If two people knew everything there was to know.
Would there be a difference in those two people?
Wow intriguing question!
Yes, they would have different bodies and different minds and they would do different things with that information. They're living completely different lives, even if they're twins.
Really helpful! Thanks!
A lot of confusion in this area comes from poorly defined terms. The brain and the mind are not the same thing. Damage to a brain has literally zero effect on the mind. The mind is still fully capable of thinking, feeling, and deciding (thought, emotion, and the will are the three components of the mind) even if the brain is severely damaged.
Knowing WHAT we actually are, and WHY we actually are, really helps in all the real sciences! I love it!
identity as usually perceived is an evolutionarily beneficial concept that doesnt map reality. When asking which organism, data, or psychological continuum represents *you*, then the answer is simply a matter of arbitrary definition.
Isn’t moral identity borne out of cultural identity?
This video is great, thank you
1. How is person A's 'opinion' about person B's 'Personal Identity" relevant?
2. Isn't it true that: It's now understood by psychologists and behavioral economists that when person A says they would be devastated if they lost X, Y, or Z in the future, people who actually lose X, Y, or Z are not devastated?
3. Isn't it true that: There is a drug being used to remove targeted memories from patients suffering from various mental trauma. They seem to show relief and less anxiety after treatment. Are they no-longer the same 'person' after being restored back to a better state of mental health?
4. Congratulations, you've attempted to incorporate science/psychology and philosophy. But, did you actually test the theory on patients suffering amnesia or other various brain issues?
Doesn’t this video presuppose that morals are subjective?
No, I really don't think so. Why do you think so?
I was like WHAT A EBEAUTIFUL HANDWRITING! Untill I realized i´ts just a font. Oh well.
It's a nice font tho
not very clear :\
Clean your screen LOL AMIRITE GUYS?
can someone please translat this video to arabic please ^^
Are the results different outside of Puritanical America? What do non-WEIRD test subjects say?
There is no answer to the question, "Who are you?"
There is only an answer to the question, "Whose are you?"
Creative purpose defines everything in this world, because, without creation, you are left with no logical purpose at all. Because, without an individual having an "intention" there is no "purpose" as the two mean the same thing, and are both actually just shorthand for the phrase, "intended purpose."
The question, "What is the purpose of life?" is actually just shorthand for the question, "What is the intended purpose of life?" For there to be an intended purpose, there must be an intending purposer. Either there is a self-existent, immutable, eternal being, or there is no purpose able to be logically established. It is that simple. You were created to KNOW God, and for no other purpose.
True Philosophy, like true Science, is an honest look at, and evaluation of, reality. Reality is that which is, whether it matches what you would like to be or not. Science falsely so called has been ruling the day for decades, and it took Philosophy down the tubes with it. Typical in a world ruled by sin.
I am me.
Ad populum.
yes exactly this video is comically stupid.
I think you are both confused about what these researchers are saying in this video and about what experimental philosophy is.
It seems to me, you are both misinterpreting the presentation of their research findings as A). an argument and B). a fallacious one.
But, I could be wrong about your uncharitable projection, so here's a challenge for you both: In premise and conclusion format, state what you allege is their argument, and time-stamp each premise.
I think what you'll find is that, on the basis of your own misunderstanding, you're attributing to them claims they never made.
hat idiocy is this? Who cares what most people say is identity? It has no bearing on anything.