Daniel Dennett - What is the Nature of Personal Identity?

What makes one a person or a self? If he or she sees, hears, thinks and feels, is that a person or a self? How can separate perceptions bind together into a coherent mental unity of a single person or self?
Click here to watch more interviews with Daniel Dennett bit.ly/1y49TBd
Click here to watch more interviews on personal identity bit.ly/2cdHVhw
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com

[@MorphingReality]

The only way to get me in a church would be if Dan sat in front of me and we just talked through the whole mass.

[@joeruf6526]

Lol! Yet neither of you would ever have the courage to do that

[@bobaldo2339]

Neither would be so impolite perhaps. I don't think courage is involved.

[@benwincelberg9684]

😂 I would be polite enough to go sit next to him

[@stevedavis7020]

Perhaps the most insightful commentator on the ineffable problem.

[@MrRight1000]

Very much so.

[@hamiltonpaul73]

Yes, he is superb.

[@stevedavis1437]

...just a "leftover from metaphysical absolutism"... a point so exactly and precisely stated.

[@dearistocratia328]

NOTES : SELF 1 - Ability To Choose Action. (necessity) 2 - Maximum energy-economic value. (evolutionary utility) 3 - Center of gravity="preferential decidability" (seems not only common but universal) 4 - Competitive centers of gravity (common, but one observer?) 5 - Undecidable centers of gravity (uncommon but ... solipsism to autism?) The common Error of mechanistic and material (cells), rather than persistent information within the limits of human actions that the cells make possible. Information can persist across cell lifetimes if only by revisiting memories. We evolve from 'mostly personality' to 'mostly memories'. As someone who has had many episodes of unconsciousness it is very clear to me that as we 'wake' the 'self' exists prior to memory, and is identifiable to the increasing layers of introspection. It has made me extremely conscious of the change in my 'self' how it relies upon my personality's biases, and then as memory increasingly becomes available, how we adjust perception as we retain consciousness.

[@ichhabegenug7865]

The self is an illusion, a process. When you see it, you can't unsee it, but you can do it through meditation. It's tricky, but it can be done. It's really, really fucking spooky when you see it. It's like ego death. Hell, in some sense, I felt like I was already dead when I could see it. It also makes sense physically. Fundamental particles are indistinguishable. Morever, these fundamental particles are made up of energy, which is indistinguishable. I.e. if I start at the top of a hill on a bike, roll and pedal down, you cannot make any discernment whatsoever between the energy that came from the bonds in my leg muscle and the potential energy from gravity. The same kind of energy from two different places takes on the same form, exists in the same space and in the same time. It's without identity. And that's the stuff of the universe.

[@333_studios]

Any tip on how to deal with such a thing?

[@zacherybutter7349]

@@333_studios You don’t.

[@FirefoxisredExplorerisblueGoog]

People have suffered from brain trauma resulting in noticeable change in personality even though they retained all the memories they previously had. So memory can't be the only thing that shapes personality since both can change/develop independently of one another.

[@1yanyiel]

Firefox is red, Explorer is blue. Google+ sucks and Chrome does too. This is depending on what we define as “personality”. But hypothetically speaking, If I am to know my self or who I am, I must necessarily remember my past, because fundamentally we have to think to talk about ourselves. My name, my friends, my desires, my “personality” or descriptions of my self are all thoughts that we house on our minds. Without this, it must not be possible to have a fundamental notion of personality. Perhaps we can exist without knowing our “self” though, because consciousness or being aware that one exists sits apart from memory. Which is why that some people with insane amnesia don’t know their “self” but they exist and live consciously. That’s a thought.

[@misterlyle.]

@@1yanyiel You suggested some great ideas with your comment from a year ago, and your suggestion that the nature of "self" might be elusive seems on track. Firefox is red seems to use _personality_ as if it were the same as _self._ Personality can't be self, however; it seems to me that it is more like a fashion we choose to wear. Continuity of memory has issues too. If you wake up and can't remember who you are, then you will spend your time _discovering_ who you are, instead of _creating_ a new identity. (Of course, if you can't find the lost identity, then you might have to set about creating a new one.)

[@aaron2709]

It sounds like only SOME memories are retained. If a memory is lost (I don't like jazz), there may be an opportunity to change the personality (I like jazz).

[@vhawk1951kl]

I wonder if you understand that the word personality comes from the Greek word persona meaning mask and that people are always changing their masks, which are no more than masks. Personality is anything in a man which is not repeat *not* his own. which is probably why nothing original every comes out of any human being, one of whom are slaves to their functions.

[@luizr.5599]

The self is not unified. The processes that loop around selfhood are complex and can shatter. This is an important insight.

[@NicoleTedesco]

After traumas of various kinds, be it environmental or medical, one can feel like their old self had died. “I am not the same person as I was before.” I certainly had that experience after a period of seriously increased epilepsy. A friend had that experience following a stroke. Some people feel that following a psychedelic trip or two. That persistent sense of self can, and sometimes does, have subjective discontinuities.

[@Wingedmagician]

This is more terrifying than illuminating. It’s strange to me they’re not going insane by contemplating these things.

[@persomelizegoo-gullcervesa6684]

Why not

[@bryandraughn9830]

Yaaay!! My nonsensical biases that work against Mr. Dennet's ideas, have been resolved!

[@chewyjello1]

Im just so curious as to why they chose to film this in a church.

[@persomelizegoo-gullcervesa6684]

Why not?

[@luvbeans405]

@@persomelizegoo-gullcervesa6684 it’s 2 atheists

[@sgiffindor6962]

DAN THE MAN

[@MrRight1000]

This is the only episode which actually makes sense, as appose to scattered philosophizing on the theme of consciousness.

[@enemarius]

Equating a subjective sense of self with personality is an error and a quite obvious one too. Personality is a form of identity not a sense of self. Of course you have people with multiple personalities, but each of them has a single sense of self. The error comes from trying to answer the question from an objective perspective when in fact it should always be posed subjectively.

[@delq]

But my personal experience has limitations and is incomplete considering the total reality of the universe. There clearly are things "i know" and "i do not know". Self is just a word i like to adress this division, which is to be more precise my inability to be another person at this moment in time and have access to their experiences over mine.

[@petermiesler9452]

3:00 Here's another example of the philosophical disconnect from physical reality: How can Dissociative Identity Disorder be discussed, without mentioning the environment that's forcing this survival strategy upon this particular creature? How about the fundamental fact that we are biological creatures and the product of hundreds of millions of years worth of evolution? We presume to come up with theories, yet seem uninterested in learning about what actually grew our brain, that is, evolutionary developmental. Organisms can't be understood without understanding the environments they exists within. A theory of consciousness will flow from absorbing biological and evolutionary facts.

[@zhenminliu]

The reason he laughs is that truth is sometimes amusing, even funny. The “interviewer” is Robert L Kuhn, an exceptionally intelligent and knowledgeable person.

[@bobaldo2339]

I like this guy, and everything he said.

[@ChampakBasumatary]

1:09 Ooouuuuu....That pause though 😂

[@stevewiencek1354]

I do love listening to Dennett. I don't get why he seems hostile to Buddhist/eastern thought though (not in this clip but in others I've seen). Quite a bit of what he says here is a hair's-breadth away from Buddhist notions of "no self." A good question the interviewer could have asked is "Once you realize that your "self" is more accurately described as an internal (biological? mechanical?) desire for consistency than it is a solid "fact," does that change your moral outlook on your own behavior? How does knowing your "self" is a process rather than a thing change how you behave in this moment?"

[@vatsdimri3675]

Can you give a link to the video where he's being hostile to the Buddhist idea of no self. I've listened a lot of him but couldn't find any such video. Thanks

[@papa515]

Wonderful!

[@dubunking2473]

Wonderfully misguided and inconsistent. LOL

[@papa515]

Daniel Dennett's ideas and his way of expressing them can be controversial for some people. Depending on how you hold together your own personal world view you can easily be in total complete agreement with him or you can be totally at odds not only with his ideas but put off by his presentation. And to be fair you can be somewhere between these extremes depending on the what idea is under discussion. For me and for this topic I am solidly in the first group, which is why my reaction to the video was a single word. I could have expanded my reaction to a few words and they would have been: He totally nailed it! (for me) LOL

[@dubunking2473]

I am afraid I d not share your view. The guy is inconsistent. In here, he talks about the self as if it is some kind of illusion, it just does not seem to exist. This is consistent with his view as a materialist alright which is of course untenable. In his other writings about free will, he talks abut an agent making decision. What is this agent if it is not the self? He is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. That is perhaps to be expected for a self confessed die hard materialist who has not changed his views since his days as a PhD student at Oxford. The world has moved on. He has not.

[@papa515]

I understand your feelings about professor Dennett. I think I am more in tune with his way of thinking about things due to my specific educational background. My educational interests were almost completely restricted to mathematics, computer science, and physics. Over the years I have developed a deep interest in what and how the mind works and how it came to be. My understanding of this subject is very strongly colored by my educational background. I realize, very clearly, that one's educational background can have and almost always does have a profound impact on how they understand and how they attempt to understand ideas that are not directly related to that educational background. This goes even further. These days almost all ideas are considered 'fair-game' for investigation by individuals that have no formal training in the historical gendra that the idea received the most attention from. This practice leads to strong opinions and feelings about ideas that have historically been understood from a completely different angle.

[@dubunking2473]

Zach Cox I agree with you about educational background can colour our perspective. I also agree with you that we have entered a stage where anyone and everyone can have opinions sometimes on subjects that know little about. The age of internet perhaps play a part. This position is of course untenable. Just as not everyone who cares to pick up the violin can play it well, none of us can realistically claim knowledge and insights if we have not read and think much about a subject. Sounds like you have. As for myself, I have a background in psychology and philosophy and have maintained an interest in this subject. For Dennett who holds the materialist view, mind is just brain and consciousness is an illusion. It is bad philosophy as there is little evidence for his view and it also have little practical value. It is patently not what psychiatrists do when they see their patients. They do not poke around in their patients' brain to find what is wrong. They have no scan for thought disorder. Instead, they reply on their own thoughts to find out about their patients and treatment is usually a combination of medication, psychotherapy and activities that provide rehabilitation. No surgery of the brain is required.

[@dlbattle100]

Where is the church where he always interviews Dennett?

[@abhishekpratapsingh9117]

❤️

[@MacedonianHero]

Leave it to Dan to tell it like it is!

[@bobaldo2339]

In this video anyway, I don't see him as a "philosopher", but simply as an honest man.

[@tuberklz]

actually if there is a trauma prefrontal cortex discards collective info like it shuts down for protection. but, limbic system still records things. here comes a somatic memory that presents itself like a physical phenomenon yet is psychological

[@dungteller367]

Thinking seems to have a role in producing the self. Here I have an image of me talking about myself which I take for me. Envision thinking I am John Doe and for 25 years that is the center of who I think I am. Then, I discover that I am adopted, I am not who I thought I was. Now do I think I am someone else? Thinking is an image and the mind produces the image and another part of the mind takes the image as me. It is all the just thinking! Perhaps there are no selves there are only life forms that are thinking. The self is software not the hard drive!

[@vhawk1951kl]

if you replace "think" with dream in that you will be somewhere near the mark - you *cannot* think you only dream but you can't understand that you only dream because no dreamer can. dreams are true while they last; can more be said of life?

[@ObeySilence]

Why is the interviewer laughing all time. I don't get what's so funny

[@cbone6754]

Obey Silence He's probably laughing at you

[@kittykuchi7896]

He loves Dennett and so do most people who enjoy and have actually studied analytic philosophy.

[@jaredw2502]

I imagine it's a kind of vicariously-nervous laughter meant to smooth over some of the more "uncomfortable" ideas Dennett addresses.

[@qqqmyes4509]

Hahah it’s a fun topic and Dennett is subtly funny with his metaphors and word choice. Kuhn does like to smile and laugh but I think it’s just genuine enjoyment plus some humor

[@DestroManiak]

As an atheist, I have always hated the "if you dont believe in god, how can I trust you not to torture me?". But at this point, I have to ask Dan the same thing. "If you believe that my conscious experience is an illusion, how can I trust you not to torture me?" I simply do not see why it would be wrong to torture an entity without genuine first person subjective conscious that is continuous.

[@sondre5174]

You’re literally doing the exact thing theists do, the irony...

[@RahilSethi]

They are having a discussion in a church?

[@ravidadlani1]

He never answered the question of personal identity. You can't answer with metaphors and philosophical thought experiments. Who is aware of the memories? Who is aware of the multiple personalities? We are talking about 'that one'. You can't equate the qualities of personal identity with the identity. I am not my arm. Mr. Interviewer, why do u even bother to ask the question?

[@kittykuchi7896]

There is no "who", the grammar the question "who" assumes a specific entity when there is no specific entity, there is just some biological/neurological system that makes you think and feel as though there is a "who" that is something other than just the system or the organism.

[@chumptown259]

The problem is that you cannot see the question separate from the illusion-airy intuition of self, your conscious thoughts, such as "who is aware of memories?" are ephemeral, you produce them in the moment, only when I say that I am being figurative, it is not the identity you that produces said thoughts, instead it is the physical brain, to say that you consciously produced the thoughts would be to invite infinite regress, the real question to ask, is why do we have the intuitions that we have regarding personal identity and continuity of identity, and if you take the time to ponder what the answer maybe, I am sure you will find that there are many pragmatic advantages to our species having this illusion of the self

[@SmoothHourglass]

@@kittykuchi7896 Who is assuming there is no specific entity? Who is having that thought? Who is positing this neurological reduction? Who is in the position of ascribing their origin to a nervous system? How did that "who" come from this standpoint of being a self to negating their belief in themselves by thinking of themselves as a neurological assembly, a possible only ever made apparent and thought by the self that experiences the thinking of such a claim?

[@kittykuchi7896]

@@SmoothHourglass there is just some biological/neurological system that makes you think and feel as though there is a "who" that is something other than just the system or the organism.

[@kittykuchi7896]

@Omar Q there is just some biological/neurological system that "cares".

[@sadiatahir8545]

Million dollar content good

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

Robert Kuhn answered his own question @ 6:40. He wanted to know what maintains the continuity between the child he remembers being at 8 years old, and the person he is today. Well, the answer is the memory. Period. If he didn't have the memory he would no longer feel like he had been that 8 year old person. So it's the memory that maintains that continuity.

[@misterlyle.]

"If he didn't have the memory he would no longer feel like he had been that 8 year old person." Does how we feel define reality? If a child loses a leg in an accident, but due to the trauma cannot remember the accident, wouldn't the missing leg itself provide continuity?

[@kokomanation]

The biggest question is the nature of individual experience why me is me ? And my twin is someone else

[@Mevlinous]

You are a point of view. This is explained by the fact that all your senses enter their various portals and instant irate their impressions upon a single substrate, being your neural network. You cannot possibly be any other point of view, merely by the fact that the point of view is within your brain. Similar to the anthropoid principle. Next we have all the memories and your personality. All part of your brain. Your memories are impressions which your organism has encountered throughout its life, and your personality is a combination of those experiences interacting with genetically given templates of behaviour. These make up a big part of "you", and they are all due to your physical brain. So the question of why "you" are in this body is answered by the fact that, your body is what makes you, "you". The question is not valid.

[@misterlyle.]

@@Mevlinous Can't you have more than one point-of-view in your own mind? Or when that seems to happen, is it just a glitch in your neural network?

[@Mevlinous]

misterlyle I have never had two simultaneous points of view, I don’t think it’s possible. Awareness doesn’t seem like it can be split within the human brain, although, some experiments such as severing the corpus callosum speculate that two points of view might inhabit people who undergo this procedure, however it is not clear. To have two points of view, you would need two separate thalamus’, and two separate cortex’s. So essentially two brains. You might sometimes, experience yourself watching or listening to a voice internally, I,e, thoughts, and these can be seen from a detached point of view, but, observed as “things” separate from the observer. In this sense there can seem to be more than one in the brain, but, not more than one subjective point of view.

[@misterlyle.]

@@Mevlinous Thank you for your reply! This whole topic just surfaced for me recently, so I will have to pursue it further. I often see people suggest that identity is defined by actions. The personally unique "subjective point of view" you refer to clearly aligns with a concept of identity, but seems to still be in the "action" realm. I am looking forward to exploring the differing perspectives on this topic.

[@tunahelpa5433]

My favorite hammer has had its handle replaced twice and the head replaced three times. Great hammer! My self likewise. Continuity of memory gives the illusion of the continuity of self. Combine that with the illusion of time, and you get the illusion of a single entity I call ME. But am I me? Or am I just an illusion? Do I even exist, or am I a simulation? Where do I go when I'm asleep? When I awake, how do I know it's the same me?

[@woodsofchaos]

Add- why do i make sacrifices for the future if it will be someone else experiencing them?

[@aaron2709]

Illusion of time?

[@steveodavis9486]

How many times has that happened to your Body? What is different in your current iteration concept of yourself? Memory give you answers? New atoms of you OK with one's they've replaced?

[@arelr6822]

Idiot

[@kentheengineer592]

3:16 this is a serious issue i think that's why he's laughing have you considered puzzles of identity as thought experiments i want to demonstrate problems in practice and predict theories for how problems literally physically occur when attempting to repair brain death of the brain stem some say it's impossible in principle or that you would have to be a miracle worker but i would like to study the fundamentals of identity theory and brain science and cognition and abnormalities for patients who are already undergoing "natural death" what i want to do is study the random possibilities of the brain as well and resolve decay through medical intervention using brain interfaces and life support equipment until the brain may have been repaired using original bits of matter using computational methods for regenerative engineering im trying to find what can go wrong basically find volunteers and try to get a case going until i have discovered the situation then again ? how many people are deciding there life's to solving these problems of the brain and of consciousness states of unconscious and identity of the self

[@mikechartowich1482]

Who is Dennett anyway? Why should the Dennett in his 80's be entitled to book royalty checks of the Dennett in his 60's? I would imagine this question of the self would become important pretty quickly.

[@JoelChristophel]

1:08

[@kiddcode2848]

A ghost!

[@jameslovell5721]

Hahahaha

[@1995yuda]

HA-HAHAHAHAHAHA !!

[@mecapoonslayer4245]

personaly I think we should just throw away all this personal identity nonsense and just consider the Ego as the self.

[@sondre5174]

How is personal identity separate from the ego?

[@dreyestud123]

The interviewer Robert Lawrence Kuhn is laughing because he knows it's a ridiculous question. He likes to ask questions that superficially seem to have an answer but don't really have an absolute answer but lead to "interesting" dialogue. He'll push for an answer until he is squashed and can no longer dig any deeper. Sadly the questions are frequently pointless.

[@vhawk1951kl]

one word: dreaming.

[@switchlaserflip9243]

That childish chuckling sound you keep hearing is the host's brain blowing up.

[@miriamhurley5448]

omg imagine if i had 2 bodies

[@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858]

You cannot be closer to truth. You either are true, or are not true. Truth does not have shades. The world does.

[@kittykuchi7896]

It's true that truth does not have shades, but intellectual proximity to truth can admit of shades while also at the same time fit into the binary idea of truth/falsity. That's what it means to say someone is "on the right track" as opposed to being "way off with the fairies" - Both are not at the correct or true place but one is closer.

[@dazzaondmic]

I would say it is contextual and the proximity to truth can take on different meanings. For example 2+2=4. Now, I would say that 5 is closer to the truth than 100 is, if I define proximity to truth to be the absolute value of the difference between the correct answer and the incorrect answer. The smaller this value the closer to the truth.

[@Siberius-]

It's not that truth itself is on a gradient, but rather, the person in question. As far as how close they are to getting something right. They're not "right" until they are 100% of the way there.. but they can be closer than others to that point. So it's about the context of what it's referring to. I am also speaking of "truth" as far as.. what we imagine the truth to be.. backed up by logic and the empirical method.. primarily. Or just the best reasoning we can agree on.

[@canyegane2406]

he gave like five examples to make a point, feels like a chore listening to him

[@Redeemedbylove1987]

Dennet seems so uncomfortable in the church.

[@bobaldo2339]

projection

[@ec1385]

What????

[@LaureanoLuna]

I'm able to grasp my self in an act of self- consciousness just by saying 'me' to myself, with no reference to either memories or projects. Dennett does not explain why such memories and projects are lived like mine in the first place..His explanations are extremely poor.

[@tsuich00i]

Daniel Dennet has never said anything in philosophy not already said better by others. "dull" does not begin to describe him

[@Pyriold]

In order for that statement to be valid you would have to have listened to everything ever said by Dan. So why did you do that if he is so boring?

[@tsuich00i]

Pyriold Oh? By that logic, would I also have to keep a complete log of George W. Bush's words, thoughts and deeds to deem him moronic? I think not. With that faulty criticism having been corrected, I offer you the chance to vindicate yourself: name for me one *original* idea of Dennett's in publishing that would falsify my conclusion. Always on the attack, but with nothing to contribute of his own, he is a destroyer, not a builder.

[@dubunking2473]

I entirely agree with your analysis and your refutation of the stupid remark by Pyriold.

[@ichhabegenug7865]

I have to say, honestly, I do wish he was as clear as Harris in his own ideas. It takes him so long to explain something very simple, and it over complicates things and you get lost in the details he keeps dishing out.

[@sondre5174]

@@tsuich00i No, because moronic is not an absolute statement, it is an opinion. Claming something has never happened is not an opinion, but a statement of fact. You could’ve just said «I’ve never seen him say anything...».

[@daithiocinnsealach3173]

I just watched Swinburne's answer to this. Dennett will give the totally opposite answer. 😂 Split personality disorder isn't exactly proven beyond doubt yet though. This argument may be useless in fifty years.

[@rickhobman3322]

No free will = no self. An imagined self doesn’t want to admit it is only a story. The truth is there are no people. No one in this video. No self writing ever. No self reading ever. There are no separate things with free will in existence to be a self.

[@krisjoy2]

lot of rambling...

[@sulljoh1]

You did make it to 80 Dan, and died very much yourself with all your marbles

[@SoloYolo101]

I figure if I get bumped on the head and I’m suddenly a guy called Gary, and a trump supporter, the real me is deceased and I don’t care if Gary just dies.

[@CCW6869]

The devil's chaplain is talking righ there in the church😬😬😁

[@constructivecritique5191]

Watch how atheist fumble around trying to deny they have a soul. The self is not the soul. What we call self is what is inside the soul. The soul contains the character, the local conscious agent. The contents can change but the container will remain. Destroy the container as atheist do and all is lost. No self, no free will, no conscious agent, just blind physical material.

[@sondre5174]

Not exactly living up to your username, I must say...

[@constructivecritique5191]

@@sondre5174 wrong, I offered a negative and a positive to build on.

[@joegeorge5849]

Dennett claims to to be Darwin reincarnated.

[@joeruf6526]

What a waste. That analogy to Theseus revealed his wrong perspective. I can't believe this guy gets paid to teach people. He has mastered nothing and his philosophy is irrelevant.

[@rohmann000]

Try refuting his propositions instead of refuting him, as it were. :-)

[@jessegandy4510]

This guy is such a buzzkill.

[@mr.jamesdavidrobert2115]

I’m afraid he’s way off the mark.

[@lukeabbott3591]

For anyone toying with the idea of denying the ego, soul, self etc. as an illusion, I challenge you to go a full day without using any pronouns in your speech.

[@sondre5174]

Not really sure how the structure of human language proves anything concerning the nature of the mind and self... Also the word illusion does not mean non-existent, it just means something is not what it appears to be.

[@rokin73]

Dennett does not make any sense. He is like the DADA-ist of the philosophical community a bit of an active clown. I don't mind, it is good to have someone with different ideas even if they are outrages and preposterous.

[@freeman669]

❤️