When I look at old photos of myself what makes them me?

MayCaesar

A photo is just a bit of colored material, strictly speaking. The interpretation we give it is solely up to us.

You could say that what makes you you on a photo is the fact that it was pictured in the past, when you certainly were you. Assuming continuity of human consciousness, you always remained you, hence you from the past evolved into you at present. You from the past are different than you from the present, but it is still "you", just different manifestations of you.

Dee

@MayCaesar

So it’s psychological continuity that makes you , you?

jesusisGod777

You need to look up the term disassociation.

A disorder characterized by the presence of two or more distinct personality states.

Dissociative identity disorder, previously called multiple personality disorder, is usually a reaction to trauma as a way to help a person avoid bad memories.

SESMeT

Loaded question: I would say that there is no diachronic self. It's NOT you. 

There is only a synchronic self. It isn't a photo of you ... it's a photo of your 'past self' (although even that is a misnomer) ... 

... the best way to put it is: It's a photograph of somebody with a similar mind and body to yourself whose psychological continuity can be connected to yours but who isn't you. The self only exists in the present, and there is no persisting self, because things only exist in the here and now. Only the present is present. The past and the future are absent. 'What was' used to be here but isn't, 'what will be' isn't here and as soon as the future *is here*—or, in other words, as soon as the present *is present*—it's not the future anymore ... it's the present.

Tomorrow never comes and yesterday is always gone. So it is with The Self, as well as with The Other and The World (the latter two not being distinct from The Self when we're first born, phenomenologically speaking—since we are all, as babies, naturally solipsistic until we mature psychologically).

Fun fact: Google my username and the top result will be a work by a philosopher on this very topic. 'The Self and the Sesmet' from 'The subject of experience' by Galen Strawson.

SESMeT

I would deny the premise implicitly embedded within the question itself. Namely, I would say it's NOT you. 

The photo is a photo of a person very similar to you who has psychological continuity with you but who isn't you. There is no diachronic persisting self there is only a synchronic self—only a self in the present moment. The self only exists now just as everything only exists now. 'What was' and 'what will be' (the past and the future) are absent rather than present. The past has gone and is never coming back and the future is always out of reach. Tomorrow never comes and yesterday is always gone. As soon as 'the future' actually *arrives*—or, in other words, as soon as the future becomes *present*—it's no longer the future anymore ... it's the present. Such it is with the self. 

It's the case with The Self, The Other and The World (the latter two being phenomenologically indistinguishable from the first when we are born ... since babies are naturally solipsistic before they grow up to be more psychologically mature).

Fun fact: If you Google my username it will direct you to the following article by the philosopher Galen Strawson, from his book 'The Subject of Experience' ... here's a quote summarizing Galen Strawson's view on The Self, which I fully agree with, regarding the chapter 'The Self and the Sesmet':

"This chapter pursues the project of ‘“The Self”’. A description of the nature of self-experience leads to a metaphysics of the self, according to which a self is a ‘sesmet’, that is, a [1] subject of experience that is a [2] single [3] mental [4] thing. The relevant sense of ‘thing’ requires careful specification. The specification allows [i] that all things are equally well thought of as processes, and [ii] that Fichte’s characterization of the self as a Tathandlung or ‘deed-activity’ qualifies as a characterization of the self as a thing. Does the claim that a self is a ‘single mental thing’ support a picture of the self as an immaterial soul? The chapter argues that human selves are correctly said to be ‘single mental things’ although materialism is true: Selves are wholly physical entities, and are perhaps fleeting, transient, short-lived in the way Buddhists suppose." - Galen Strawson

Source of quote: https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198777885.001.0001/acprof-9780198777885-chapter-3

SESMeT

It isn't you. It's a person who has psychological continuity with you who existed in the past, who you have memories of, but who is not identical to you. The Self, just like The Other and The World, only exists in the present. As it is with everything. Yesterday has gone and tomorrow never comes. 'What was' isn't here anymore and the future is yet to exist ... and as soon as the future *arrives*—or, in other words, as soon as the future becomes *present*—it's not the future anymore ... it's the present. 

There is no persisting diachronic self ... there is only a present synchronic self. As with everything else. Only the present is present... everything else is absent.