Richard Swinburne - How Does Personal Identity Persist Through Time?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 окт 2016
- Think back 5, 10, 20 years-50 if you're old enough. Physically, you are completely different. Mentally, you feel pretty much the same. Decades roll by and every molecule of your body changes many times over. Yet you sense yourself the same-continuous, a unity. How can this be?
Click here to watch more interviews on personal identity bit.ly/2d7pXNI
Click here to watch more interviews with Richard Swinburne bit.ly/1DwpGcp
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
"As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age,
the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change."
Purport
Since every living entity is an individual soul, each is changing his body every moment, manifesting sometimes as a child, sometimes as a youth and sometimes as an old man. Yet the same spirit soul is there and does not undergo any change. This individual soul finally changes the body at death and transmigrates to another body; and since it is sure to have another body in the next birth - either material or spiritual - there was no cause for lamentation by Arjuna on account of death, neither for Bhīṣma nor for Droṇa, for whom he was so much concerned. Rather, he should rejoice for their changing bodies from old to new ones, thereby rejuvenating their energy. Such changes of body account for varieties of enjoyment or suffering, according to one’s work in life. So Bhīṣma and Droṇa, being noble souls, were surely going to have spiritual bodies in the next life, or at least life in heavenly bodies for superior enjoyment of material existence. So, in either case, there was no cause of lamentation.
Any man who has perfect knowledge of the constitution of the individual soul, the Supersoul, and nature - both material and spiritual - is called a dhīra, or a most sober man. Such a man is never deluded by the change of bodies.
--Krishna, in Bg. 2.13
with excerpt from the Purport
by His Divine Grace, AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
This is surely how we normally think about persons (rember Kripke's "naming and necessity"?) but the question is how much weight we should put on our intuitions.
❤️❤️
I don't think I want to be resurrected in my body, I want to be resurrected in a more beautiful body 😜 so yeah, give me a better body when I'm resurrected.
based upon ur karma in this life u will get what u get in afterlife
Exactly.
Okayyy but what is the criteria for personal identity according to Swinburne???????
There is no criteria for Swinburne, we just are identical to ourselves--full stop.
@@Goonasabi Yet we have a soul that if it was put into another body with the same memories and thoughts and all that, would still be someone different?
He believes in the possibility of incorporeal beings. Without the least shred of decent evidence mind you. So I'm not convinced he sees us as merely identical to ourselves. He sees invisible ghosts inside us as the real person.
If the soul is the reason, then why does personal identity go completely away with physical problems of the brain? Through what mechanism does this embodied soul (has to be physical) interact with the brain and why after a century is there absolutely zero evidence for it?
The soul is a unified field of information rather than some eternal substance at one extreme or a reducible network of computational bits on the other. It's not immaterial to the extent of being entirely separate from material reality, but it's also not reducible to individual material components or positivist derivation. It is a dynamical whole in and of itself.
Peter From the North
Quantum information. This field isn't a physical substance. It's an abstract pattern of information that underlies all quantum fields (information-theoretic approach to quantum gravity):
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11349432
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9329.1996.tb00089.x/full
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/1995/00000002/00000003/655
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23165867
www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=process&id=process_1978_0008_0002_0073_0102
arxiv.org/abs/1405.0879
With this being said, let me clarify once again that consciousness is _not_ a physical substance. It is a top-down mathematical pattern that _underlies_ physical reality, and its mode of interaction with physical objects involves quantum wavefunction collapse, or emergent state coherence.
And the soul is physical...because we have zero evidence for anything that isn't. All that information is contained in neurons that are made up of up quarks, down quarks and electrons.
Peter From the North
You missed the point entirely. Quantum mechanics showed from the very beginning that there _is_ no such thing as the physical to begin with; not even space or time. The fact that you have wave-particle duality phenomena, entanglement, the Uncertainty Principle, and superposition while simultaneously having macroscopic dilations and distortions in the very framework of space and time (both of which were actually a single entity) proves the fact that _all_ entities in existence are derived from a single source, which is information, and that this framework is the _only_ way in which the quantum gravity paradox can be resolved. Information in this context would simply mean the abstract "data" interacting with itself to produce the regularity of physical law:
arxiv.org/abs/1005.3035
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X
arxiv.org/abs/1110.6725
www.researchgate.net/profile/Artur_Ekert/publication/256531423_The_Physics_of_Quantum_Information/links/53edd4c90cf26b9b7dc6291f.pdf
www.digicult.it/digimag/issue-056/informational-realism-quantum-bit-in-the-cyber-space/
arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X
arxiv.org/abs/1606.08444?__hstc=13887208.f4a6cf5af6e0a29b36af0430ccafb463.1472965159218.1474076384427.1474091887338.6&__hssc=13887208.3.1474091887338&__hsfp=1923231148
arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0310109
The only reason why the very notion of a "soul" doesn't make any sense to you is because your conceived model of the universe completely depends on it being entirely consistent and Newtonian in mechanical nature with no fluctuating influence. That worldview has long been disproven due to the many paradoxes in physics that have been created through its lens in interpreting macroscopic and microscopic phenomena in the first place. The only way to solve the numerous conceptual issues in physics would be to ditch the materialistic paradigm altogether in exchange for either an _idealistic_ perspective, or in my case, at least an information-theoretic approach. There is no other viable alternative...
I don't think you have any idea what quantum mechanics is. Your quantum woo B.S. reeks!
3:53 "Souls constitute the personal identity."
Not sure I'm following him. He seems to be stating that it's possible to be Richard Swinburne yet not be him. Why? Because of some unproven soul hypothesis? Maybe I have him wrong and someone can clear that up for me.
And what are these "superior beings" he refers to? Angels no doubt.
His argument is straightforward. From a 3rd person point of view... there are all these brains and bodies... Why is my sense-experience within this particular body with this particular brain from this point of view... Why am I not experiencing the brain and body of that deer over there?
It is a fact of the matter that I'm here in this body, and not in yours. But this fact is completely absent from a third person point of view.
Souls are a straightforward way to account for what distinguishes the possibility of me being in your body having your experiences... vs being in this body having my experiences.
I am a soul connected to this particular body, which is why I am having this stream of experience. If I was connected to another body, I'd be having a different stream of experience.
Souls (subjects of experiences) apart from matter is the most straightforward solution to a variety of problems. Why is consciousness unified where we see no such unity in matter itself... all these disparate processes. It solves personal identity.
💏
who else come here stoned ?
G Ru I found this channel stoned out of my mind. This channel made me question life and computer aliens
last time I was stoned I thought I was the only mind in all of existence aka solipsism. and I would have to be reincarnated as everyone who ever lived in all of existence forever etc. it is unfalsifiable, imagine if you are a void having an experience of a lifetime aka all of existence. haven't got stoned in over 2 years and that as the first and last time.
lol
Later tonight... 😂
experiance is real,its what thought says about experiance that is not real
Very Zen.
Why can't souls interact?
lol
And here we have a perfect example of a purportedly intelligent being demonstrating that he is a complete rambling fool.
Well... Thats 7 minutes 9 seconds I won't get back.
Richard Swinburne basically rambles on without making any real argument's that aren't already obvious.
An argument ends just at 3:17 (He argues that, If S is a full description of the world, then S explains why a particular mental event is associated with a particular physical event, and not other. However, the soul-less descrpition of the world does not explain that fact. Therefore, the soul-less description of the world is not a full description of the world. The only way to explain those associoations is with an appeal to souls, according to him). In don't think that's obvious really, and that is not a defect anyway. A defect would be that the argument is not valid or one of the premises is false. It I would be good if you explain why it is faulty.
No, no, no. This is the Richard Swinburne video, not the Daniel Dennett video.
I come to this channel to try and become cleverer... Wrong video. This guy sure can waffle.
What we appear to have here is several minutes of utter meaningless waffle, unbecoming even of someone at closing time at their local pub. It astonishes me to find out this chap was an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford! Seriously??
LOL, were you just too thick headed to be able to follow him? Don't criticize someone just because you can't understand them
So disappointing to hear such views out of the mouth of a former Oxford professor. If he's losing his mind then he shouldn't be interviewed because it's an intrusion into private illness. If he isn't then it just goes to show that having achieved a senior, academic position is no guarantee of the ability to rationally integrate the things for which we have good evidence into a defensible whole.
Strange, because everything he’s saying sounds coherent to me, which means I’m either finding coherence out of insanity (which might be the case), or maybe you just don’t understand what he’s saying, which I think is likely, as his words, being possibly right or wrong, are certainly in keeping with sanity (i.e. not private illness), and also happen to be in line with one end of the current spectrum of analytic philosophy. What I’m trying to say, I suppose, in a nutshell lol, is that your comment comes off as rather hyperbolic and a bit distasteful, to put it lightly. I’m saying this with sincerity, by the way, not to offend you, because the fact that you’re even watching this video means that you’re likely someone with similar interests as myself, and the fact that Swinburne’s words lead you to consider him suffering from a mental illness genuinely shocks me. I rarely comment on RUclips videos - that’s how baffled I am by your conclusion. Are you in fact kidding?
You're calling an accomplished Oxford professor mentally challenged. Just pause and reflect on the arrogance of that.
@@Jy3pr6 damn!!!! That sick burn LMAOOOO