4:32 This is the equation that articulates my own deconversion. Two things ignited my pursuit to validate my beliefs. Matt D's question "Does it matter to you whether or not your beliefs are correct?" and the realization that Pascal was a narcissistic twit. Once I decided that it really does matter to me whether what I believe is correct or not, I was able to objectively evaluate the validity of my perceptions. Objectively considering Pascal's wager led me to see that there are countless negative implications when a person believes, whether they're correct or not, and those problems effect the believer and everyone around them.
Pascal's Wager is only ever useful in those split second decisions (life or death scenario optional). Problem is that too many people use Pascal's Wager to justify thoughts and behaviors where you can discern the truth from a lie as a means of avoiding that discernment.
Seems like this happens everytime I am being a 'good christian'... when I get closer to God by reading His word & praying everyday, and trying my best to do His will and follow His commandments; this is when Satan seems to be doing his hardest work. Turns into a real tough fight between us for sure. And of course it would be this way, the devil doesn't want any of us to love our God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit!! I don't think it's because he wants us all for himself so much...I think its more driven from the jealousy and hatred he feels towards God and all that our Father stands for. Don't let that dirty deceiver trick you into doing what he wants you to do. Stay strong, focused, and faithful.* Don't forget:we already know that in the end, Satan will be defeated for good, forever, no more, permanently!
Pattern forming and pattern recognition is simply the best way to interpret the world on the fly. The patterns are not the final story in our cognitive understanding, it's more like how we find and develop a vocabulary of meaning that then allows us to piece together a comprehensive view of the world from within our own experience.
godisalie I think you’re being a little cruel. My dad is a pastor, and has good intentions in the church. It’s not only greed or for a pay check. He genuinely believes in what he teaches.
@ chris ward I just quoted this because it sounds so logic regarding all the dilettantism in this government. On the other hand, it is a bad joke because what happened was not funny at all and should not be topic of jokes.
Indeed - he made me think for a minute. It's convinced me even more than before that the Bush admin wasn't behind 9/11 - that they were merely in collusion with those who were.
Ich Nichtdu Tell me then...Who did the hard-wiring? You said we were hard-wired...what do you mean by that? The only things I have seen in this life that are hard-wired are machines and those (every single one of them as far as I know) was created by an INTELLIGENT human being with a mind; a MIND that naturally sees Order and Meaning in the Universe because it IS those things. Now I am no more a fan of an anthropomorphized deity than the next willingly ignorant atheist but I have no qualm with them nor do I wish to convince you of anything, I only wish for you to think CRITICALLY about your own words. If we have evolved to find meaning in the world we should ask ourselves WHY the course of NATURE has led us to this point, if we truly are hard-wired machines (as you have said) who programmed us? OR better yet WHAT?
Ich Nichtdu I might go further to stay that THAT which has created us is VERY invisible and yet WE KNOW it is REAL because it is THAT which is writing these words from my subjective experience, and THAT which is READING them from your subjective experience...as I have said I do not wish to convince you of anything, nor do I present anything new, for how can TRUTH ever change.
you are very ignorant about the universe, you call others ignorants but by your own response i can see you know nothing about nature or how it works yet you claim to think criticaly but call atheist...."willingly ignorants" i advise you to put an effort to study biology, astronomy, chemistry and physics. and another advise.....why...presumes meaning...if you ask why you are already presuming there is an agent behind the answer you seek. the correct question is how not why.....ask how and you will know more about anything you want.....ask why and unless you are talking about people intentions there wont be an answer.
That's awesome that you watch TED videos and Shermer's talks at the age of twelve. When I was in elementary school, I loved watching Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" with my father. Afterwards, at night, my father and I would often take his telescope out and look at the moon, stars and planets. Those were some of my happiest childhood memories. I have had a lifelong love of Astronomy and science in general ever since.
@@ubermom Is that always a bad thing? Perhaps the experience taught the young women involved to be less trusting and more sceptical. Should we simply trust everyone we meet? We teach young children not to trust strangers for good reason.
Actually he covered a fair amount of undergrad neuropsychology in under twenty minutes. And what I got from it was "reality is often distorted by our brain (contributed to by/due to previous evolutionary pressures), and because of this we are predisposed to believing in aliens and conspiracies". He's reminding us that we don't experience reality directly but through the interface of our brain and senses. You have your opinion, but mine is; that's a contribution.
I was blind and now i can see. That pattern or experience changed after this specific moment in my life. Since 30 years old i am transformed as i see with awareness not a unawareness of this spirit.
It is amazing how self-deception works particularly in group setting-- and how it facilitates and dominates the entire interaction. Academia and The branch of Science has to study this very interesting phenomenon.
Those kisses at the end were too precious and enlightening. Do we truly not realize it is the animal in us that will run away while a child is being attacked and it is our spirit which is aware of our existence that can save what is innocent and precious. Please Humans! Your Brain runs your body. Your body is an animal. LET YOUR BRAIN RUN THE BODY> DO NOT LET YOUR BRAIN RUN YOUR LIFE.
Peggy Harris : or, let's place the blame on the orchestrators of that particular consent violation, rather than the victims. That was cruel. Though I also wouldn't fault anyone for taking this stance as a result, of course.
*@ Peggy Harris* I disagree. When I was a kid, Jimmy Saville fixed it for me to milk a cow in his dressing room while I was blindfolded. What a legend.
Viktor Birkeland I had to refresh my memory of what this was about... the clip introduced at 16:39. So... as someone who has been coerced to perform felatio while blindfolded, under the pretext of an identification game, and the dismissal of my protestations, I find that I don't much care what the deception is: if one is deceived in such a way as the woman was in this clip, that's reprehensible. You may disagree, of course, but perhaps this gives a newfound understanding for my comment and, perhaps, that of the original poster? As far as I'm concerned, this was a consent violation. She "consented" to a kiss, but she consented under the belief that it would be one of two specific humans that she could see. Instead, it not only wasn't either of those humans, but not a human at all. IMHO, not ok.
I think they've raised a really interesting issue. Spotting patterns leads to creativity and to spotting opportunities. Scepticism protects us from the dangers of interpreting mere coincidences as signs of patterns which aren't really there. Where do we draw the line? What determines which patterns really are real? Creativity doesn't work unless balanced by rigour, i.e. temepered by scepticism. Where where does the right balance lie? If you get it just right, that's where the magic lies.
I love this! This is so accurate..... this describes most of the replies you see from people not only on this video, but most other RUclips videos of the same nature.
At about 5:00, when he was talking about the rustle in the grass, and whether you should believe it was a predator vs the wind, I was reminded of Pascal's wager. Perhaps the reason why people feel that pascal's wager has weight, is because in the wild, it's better to think that there is a wild animal somewhere when there isn't, than think there isn't when there is. Of course, this doesn't actually translate to invisible friends, but I think I see where it could get its weight from.
If you continue to watch these kind videos AND have an active interest in school, I'm sure you will grow to become an intelligent and probably very intuitive person.
finding patterns is for reduction of dimension of the problem to solve, an act of seeking efficiencies. Nice to see someone has formalized extensively what I have been espousing for yrs to explain theism.
Great point about the baseball patters; who doesn't know that desire to find patterns, when involved in hard to control mechanisms. That's also why mentality plays such a huge role in professional sport, where the room for error gets tiny. Personally, i'd rather be a little high on Dopamine than low (which i am). You might see "false" patterns, but i will find "meaning" in life more frequently. And i'd argue that makes for a better life. Pulling an all-nighter is a safe way to test this.
@infinit888 I should add that just because something is deterministic does *not* make it predictable - the only way to predict a deterministic fractal process is to go through the process, any prediction based on not *exactly* the same rules and information as the "real thing" will not be truly accurate - so one can "best guess" but cannot truly predict. More importantly if existence is truly simply deterministic then responsibility is ultimately negated because the future is *fixed*.
@ItsEJay I'll leave the Uncertainty Principle to a physicist. For fractals/dynamical systems: Consider a suspended magnet hanging north pole down suspended above two other magnets north poles up. Now raise the hanging magnet and release. Although the behaviour of the swinging magnet is deterministic it is not possible to predict its final resting place based on the start position because infinitessimally small differences in start position are magnified to large changes in the resting point.
@Hopeful71 quite to the contrary, me being an individual who learns from my mistakes, I've lost my ego in the process. Not saying I never fall victim to insecurity, or even bias ideals, but I am intelligent enough to know that when these things occur, it is best to be skeptic about their influences on my processes. And gain what is supposed to be gained, but let the irrelevant revel in it's own illogicies.
All can CHOOSE to see what they want to believe...Yet there is reality and perception of reality, the real part of choice is making accurate and testable decisions that have a realistic outcome.
@TheLiberalSoup I agree with Shermer, I'd say. What if a friend came over to my house and said "I was down the street earlier and I saw police drive past"? If I'm *too* skeptical, I won't believe him until he presents evidence. Sometimes you have to take people's word for it, and you judge that by how improbable or extraordinary their claim is. Since my friend's story is completely plausible and not extraordinary at all, I will take their word for it.
Twain's definition of faith is most memorable: Faith is the belief in things were know ain't true. That's exactly what it is -- you get to a point, you see it's not true, and your pastor starts explaining about the merits of faith, and tithing.
The pattern behind self-deception is just one of our experiences, by which I mean that man is the only living things on earth that is more or less faithful to the good and evil ...
@infinit888 I should also add that just because something may be fixed does *not* mean that it is predictable (consider the Uncertainty Principle or Fractals).
I like how he says the world will end in 2012, although that's one of the strange things we tend to believe. The Mayans didn't even say the world would end. Hollywood and big media painted that picture for you and you saw it as reality.
The evolution of beliefs reminds me of the evolution of habit. We start out with all kinds of habits and most of them are bad, then we become aware of the difference between good and bad habits and most of us strive to end up with more good than bad habits. Those of us who don't are considered defective, or dumb. Those of us who don't shrug off bad belief are considered the same.
@Shaunt1 I don't think he's saying that all patterns are wrong. More like we are jumping to conclusions and finding patterns where there is not necessarily enough evidence.
@TodaysThought Fractals are a neat example of emergent complexity. Simple rules can create an object of unfathomable intricacy... none of which has to be designed by the creator (or discoverer, depending on your philosophical viewpoint) of the fractal. Another nice example of this type is John Conway's Game of Life. In a sense, the fractal proves that your criteria for determining whether something looks designed or not aren't very good.
"This inspired thinking shared with you by at&t." Thanks at&t, after watching Michael Shermer's video, I've realised that my desire for the latest smartphone is self-deception based upon my past experiences with such devices. I wont be renewing my contract with your company after-all.
A 1948 study tested 58 dowsers' ability to detect water. None of them was more reliable than chance. A 1979 review examined many controlled studies of dowsing for water, and found that none of them showed better than chance results.
Yes and no. His point is a valid one. We describe people as "creatives" or "technicals" and the "creatives" tend to have higher dopamine levels which means that they are more likely to see patterns while "technicals" tend to have lower dopamine levels and, as such, tend to be more skeptical. Please note: this is a drastic oversimplification but the patterns are consistent.
How do we seek to arrange our collective brains, and how much latitude do we allow ourselves and each other? We use what we believe as a club to beat other people, to degrade them ... that is why it is so important for every one of us to be right all the time. Human beings are very scary, and it is sad that now instead of random chance and our imputed God, we now have ourselves in charge, and of course as we all know, we are all crazy stupid, and the more power and confidence we have the more crazy stupid we are.
The irony is that, if his thesis is correct, then you'll have a strong tendency to believe it, even if you don't possess, whether through deficiency in interpretation, understanding, or attentiveness, or in the rigor of the argument he presents, a rational basis for holding that belief.
The reason for these deficiencies can range from the question's being fundamentally unanswerable in principle, the question's requiring impractical means to model or measure, or the question's merely falling outside of our own competence, whether because we don't possess a sufficient capacity for reason to model it, or because, we're largely or entirely ignorant of variable values, even in the case that accurate values exist of which an expert might be aware. Already, the vast majority of conceivable questions are likely either fundamentally or practically unanswerable, or are complex and highly inductive, so that, even a person who devotes substantial time and resources towards studying the associated subject matter will not have a rational basis for a belief that deviates much from 0.5 (i.e., random). Some exceptions include ⅰ ) math / logic, which are deductive and entirely non-empirical, and ⅱ ) physics, which, while empirical, effectively represents our attempt at maximum rigor on physical philosophy, and, to a lesser degree, ⅲ ) the other natural sciences, allowing for stronger rational belief inasmuch as they rely on the scientific method (i.e., experiments) to generate knowledge, those experiments are accurate analogs of the phenomenon being studied, and we're able to measure and control all variables upon which the outcome is dependent. Any field of study which does not rely on experiment (in many studies, experiment is precluded for fundamental or practical reasons, e.g., we can't' create two economies which are identical except for one variable that are also sufficiently large and complex to function as a reasonable proxy for a real national economy, nor can we create two identical planets that vary by a single variable to study its effect on weather), but which addresses empirical questions (i.e., questions that are not purely abstract, normative, or aesthetic), can produce a rational basis for belief (i.e., a deviation away from 0.5) that is multiple orders of magnitude less than what is provided by experiment, because they contain no tools which can provide rational confidence in assessing a causal relationship (which is the foundation for all understanding) (the replication crisis makes a lot more sense in consideration of this). Thus, even most experts can expect little more than extremely modest deviations from the level of confidence one might have in predicting the outcome of an ideal coin toss.
Thus, the rational position for the bulk of questions is, by definition, something close to total ambiguity between two choices. However, Shermer seems to be suggesting that we can have a rational preference for a certain position that is based on the aspects or results of some kind of democratic assessment of questions that actually get transmitted to us, e.g. what news stations tell us about what scientists think. Of course, no question is contingent on its assessment, even if the assessor is the most remarkable among us, because the causal relationship between a question and the outcome of its assessment flows in the opposite direction. Indeed, we might find that a correlation exists, assuming accurate information about the assessments of those remarkable experts is not corrupted so badly through transmission that it becomes misleading or unusable, but such an analysis does not involve a single variable upon which the question being assessed depends, and so provides us no actual rational basis for holding a non-trivial believe about the actual problem (unfortunately, rational belief is an objective phenomenon, and it comes in equal measure to the actual understanding we work to acquire). Hence, being a 'Skeptic', assuming the title refers to something similar to the meaning of the English word, should really refer to acknowledgement of ambiguity and an exhibition of the modesty which such acknowledgement rationally demands (note, this applies only to questions insofar as they are subject to rational assessment-irrational aspects of questions, where belief is only possible through faith, such as the axioms which underlie any assessment, beliefs about metaphysics, or a belief in a god, are entirely outside of the scope of this analysis).
@MrSoyouthink If you are saying that most scientists (geologists and biologists would be the most relevant) think abiogenesis was unlikely, I'd like to see a reference for that. What I am saying is very simple: even if unlikely coincidences are required to explain abiogenesis (or rather, why it has happened faster than you would have expected), then that is not really a problem.
@MakinMagicFractals As a moral agent you're still responsible for the future you chose the fact that you most likely will choose a certain future does not mitigate the predictable consequences arising from it. I also often don't know what people mean by free will. For it to be 'free' shouldn't it be unconstrained by nature should it not be random/chaotic. Which would really not make you responsible for which outcome you 'choose'. So what exactly *is* free will?
@Guuster00 yeah you are right with the hypothesis about the spaces. But i do not think it´s about believes to which Shermer is refering to, but to the way our brain is getting a knowledge of the world. The embedded experiences of a term, lets say; the word "chair" is learned through experiences we made in our childhood by adopting the way our parents use this thing that is shaped in an "h" form Therefore a chair is a chair even if it could be used for other purposes.
@TodaysThought My last reply was a little flippant :) To me the *big* question is not the existence of God but the question of Fate (determinism) versus Free Will. Science basically points at determinism, to have Free Will requires "something more" than a dynamical system based on scientific laws. Since I fervently believe in Free Will, when asked I say I believe in God - this is my way of saying I believe in something "beyond science". For fractals, also "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you" :)
They are related but not the same thing. Pareidolia is specifically seeing images in random visual noise, like seeing faces in clouds, Jesus in a tree bark and the virgin Mary in a window reflection. Paternity is our ability to perceive patterns like the tide is greater when the moon is in a certain phase and the dog barks when the mailman drives by. We also wrongly attribute patternicity when there is none, like it always rains when you wash the car or phone rings when you go to the bathroom.
In that image at 07:09 , after a little bit of uncertainty at first, i quickly figured out what that image was (yes, way before he showed the less degraded versions of the pictures)
4:32
This is the equation that articulates my own deconversion. Two things ignited my pursuit to validate my beliefs. Matt D's question "Does it matter to you whether or not your beliefs are correct?" and the realization that Pascal was a narcissistic twit.
Once I decided that it really does matter to me whether what I believe is correct or not, I was able to objectively evaluate the validity of my perceptions. Objectively considering Pascal's wager led me to see that there are countless negative implications when a person believes, whether they're correct or not, and those problems effect the believer and everyone around them.
Pascal's Wager is only ever useful in those split second decisions (life or death scenario optional). Problem is that too many people use Pascal's Wager to justify thoughts and behaviors where you can discern the truth from a lie as a means of avoiding that discernment.
Seems like this happens everytime I am being a 'good christian'... when I get closer to God by reading His word & praying everyday, and trying my best to do His will and follow His commandments; this is when Satan seems to be doing his hardest work. Turns into a real tough fight between us for sure. And of course it would be this way, the devil doesn't want any of us to love our God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit!! I don't think it's because he wants us all for himself so much...I think its more driven from the jealousy and hatred he feels towards God and all that our Father stands for. Don't let that dirty deceiver trick you into doing what he wants you to do. Stay strong, focused, and faithful.* Don't forget:we already know that in the end, Satan will be defeated for good, forever, no more, permanently!
Pattern forming and pattern recognition is simply the best way to interpret the world on the fly.
The patterns are not the final story in our cognitive understanding, it's more like how we find and develop a vocabulary of meaning that then allows us to piece together a comprehensive view of the world from within our own experience.
This guy is brilliant. His delivery is fast though , I sometimes need to replay some parts to get it in my head .
godisalie I think you’re being a little cruel. My dad is a pastor, and has good intentions in the church. It’s not only greed or for a pay check. He genuinely believes in what he teaches.
»9/11 was not orchestrated by the Bush administration: because it worked« (min 15:45)
Convincing, really.
He seem to have a strong belief that the US government tells the trues, even in the face of strong contradicting evidence from all directions....
Not really, just flippant.
@ chris ward
I just quoted this because it sounds so logic regarding all the dilettantism in this government. On the other hand, it is a bad joke because what happened was not funny at all and should not be topic of jokes.
Indeed - he made me think for a minute. It's convinced me even more than before that the Bush admin wasn't behind 9/11 - that they were merely in collusion with those who were.
Correct!!! Bush was merely the puppet!!!
To sum up: We're hard-wired to find meaning in things and biased to asume intentional actions behind them.
How do we find meaning in things enough to make up multiple religions and society? Lol...
Ich Nichtdu Tell me then...Who did the hard-wiring? You said we were hard-wired...what do you mean by that? The only things I have seen in this life that are hard-wired are machines and those (every single one of them as far as I know) was created by an INTELLIGENT human being with a mind; a MIND that naturally sees Order and Meaning in the Universe because it IS those things. Now I am no more a fan of an anthropomorphized deity than the next willingly ignorant atheist but I have no qualm with them nor do I wish to convince you of anything, I only wish for you to think CRITICALLY about your own words. If we have evolved to find meaning in the world we should ask ourselves WHY the course of NATURE has led us to this point, if we truly are hard-wired machines (as you have said) who programmed us? OR better yet WHAT?
Ich Nichtdu I might go further to stay that THAT which has created us is VERY invisible and yet WE KNOW it is REAL because it is THAT which is writing these words from my subjective experience, and THAT which is READING them from your subjective experience...as I have said I do not wish to convince you of anything, nor do I present anything new, for how can TRUTH ever change.
you are very ignorant about the universe, you call others ignorants but by your own response i can see you know nothing about nature or how it works yet you claim to think criticaly but call atheist...."willingly ignorants" i advise you to put an effort to study biology, astronomy, chemistry and physics.
and another advise.....why...presumes meaning...if you ask why you are already presuming there is an agent behind the answer you seek. the correct question is how not why.....ask how and you will know more about anything you want.....ask why and unless you are talking about people intentions there wont be an answer.
Paul Nolan Well I guess it all depends by what you THINK I mean doesn’t it?
I genuinely couldn't see the dolphins.
I am a pervert... I did not see dolphins at all, but... eroticism...
They are the grey ones not the white. It is a silly one.
Donald Trump only k
De Jure Claims - Hint: Look at the gray areas, then look for flukes.
me neither
That's awesome that you watch TED videos and Shermer's talks at the age of twelve. When I was in elementary school, I loved watching Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" with my father. Afterwards, at night, my father and I would often take his telescope out and look at the moon, stars and planets. Those were some of my happiest childhood memories. I have had a lifelong love of Astronomy and science in general ever since.
this guy was the inspiration for Agent Coulson in The Avengers
OMG...those poor girls lives would be forever changed.
Cuban Bread Oh, sorry, and thanks for letting me know.
That was a deplorable thing to do to those girls.
@@ubermom Why?
@@Oh4Chrissake Damaged trust.
@@ubermom Is that always a bad thing? Perhaps the experience taught the young women involved to be less trusting and more sceptical. Should we simply trust everyone we meet? We teach young children not to trust strangers for good reason.
Wonderful to be able to attend these lectures via youtube, thanks!
When I heard Robin Williams I shivered.
I laughed very awkwardly at that one.
He kinda looks like him lol
Actually he covered a fair amount of undergrad neuropsychology in under twenty minutes. And what I got from it was "reality is often distorted by our brain (contributed to by/due to previous evolutionary pressures), and because of this we are predisposed to believing in aliens and conspiracies". He's reminding us that we don't experience reality directly but through the interface of our brain and senses. You have your opinion, but mine is; that's a contribution.
I was blind and now i can see. That pattern or experience changed after this specific moment in my life. Since 30 years old i am transformed as i see with awareness not a unawareness of this spirit.
Michael Shermer is a genius. He has solid proof for his skepticism and his reasoning is sound. After hearing him, everybody becomes a skeptic.
It is amazing how self-deception works particularly in group setting-- and how it facilitates and dominates the entire interaction. Academia and The branch of Science has to study this very interesting phenomenon.
man, michael shermer is too good! three cheers to skeptic!!!
I'm 12 and these videos are AMAZING :O
They teach you so much :D
Now you're 21. Show your friends because I'm 39 and my generation is already starting to act like our elders and become insane and unreachable.
Michael Shermer always seems so genuine and nice. Good guy fighting the good fight against BS.
Those kisses at the end were too precious and enlightening. Do we truly not realize it is the animal in us that will run away while a child is being attacked and it is our spirit which is aware of our existence that can save what is innocent and precious. Please Humans! Your Brain runs your body. Your body is an animal. LET YOUR BRAIN RUN THE BODY> DO NOT LET YOUR BRAIN RUN YOUR LIFE.
NEVER participate in any kind of blindfold test.
Peggy Harris : or, let's place the blame on the orchestrators of that particular consent violation, rather than the victims. That was cruel. Though I also wouldn't fault anyone for taking this stance as a result, of course.
*@ Peggy Harris* I disagree. When I was a kid, Jimmy Saville fixed it for me to milk a cow in his dressing room while I was blindfolded. What a legend.
@@Oh4Chrissake hahahahaha
Viktor Birkeland I had to refresh my memory of what this was about... the clip introduced at 16:39.
So... as someone who has been coerced to perform felatio while blindfolded, under the pretext of an identification game, and the dismissal of my protestations, I find that I don't much care what the deception is: if one is deceived in such a way as the woman was in this clip, that's reprehensible.
You may disagree, of course, but perhaps this gives a newfound understanding for my comment and, perhaps, that of the original poster?
As far as I'm concerned, this was a consent violation. She "consented" to a kiss, but she consented under the belief that it would be one of two specific humans that she could see. Instead, it not only wasn't either of those humans, but not a human at all. IMHO, not ok.
Err... women. I finished rewatching, and realize this was done with multiple women, not just one.
Bless you Shermer.
Michael should do this presentation on one of his debates. It is a great material.
one of the better TED talks...
I think they've raised a really interesting issue.
Spotting patterns leads to creativity and to spotting opportunities.
Scepticism protects us from the dangers of interpreting mere coincidences as signs of patterns which aren't really there.
Where do we draw the line?
What determines which patterns really are real?
Creativity doesn't work unless balanced by rigour, i.e. temepered by scepticism.
Where where does the right balance lie?
If you get it just right, that's where the magic lies.
Outstanding..thanks
definitely my favourite TEDtalk thus far.
I love this! This is so accurate..... this describes most of the replies you see from people not only on this video, but most other RUclips videos of the same nature.
Its people like you that restores my faith in the younger generation! thanks! =)
At about 5:00, when he was talking about the rustle in the grass, and whether you should believe it was a predator vs the wind, I was reminded of Pascal's wager.
Perhaps the reason why people feel that pascal's wager has weight, is because in the wild, it's better to think that there is a wild animal somewhere when there isn't, than think there isn't when there is.
Of course, this doesn't actually translate to invisible friends, but I think I see where it could get its weight from.
GOOD!
Michael Shermer is the man : )
If you continue to watch these kind videos AND have an active interest in school, I'm sure you will grow to become an intelligent and probably very intuitive person.
I just love Michael Shermer!
finding patterns is for reduction of dimension of the problem to solve, an act of seeking efficiencies. Nice to see someone has formalized extensively what I have been espousing for yrs to explain theism.
Great point about the baseball patters; who doesn't know that desire to find patterns, when involved in hard to control mechanisms. That's also why mentality plays such a huge role in professional sport, where the room for error gets tiny.
Personally, i'd rather be a little high on Dopamine than low (which i am). You might see "false" patterns, but i will find "meaning" in life more frequently. And i'd argue that makes for a better life. Pulling an all-nighter is a safe way to test this.
I'm reading this book now. Good stuff.
I love the Internet. And you TED.
Grace, that is the best RUclips comment I have ever read, and it made me smile.
i watched another one of his talks called "why people believe weird things" and i agree with you.
you got to love shermer
Great talk.
great talk
I love Skeptics magazine.This video is definitely getting Faved.
Thanks TED.☺
@infinit888
I should add that just because something is deterministic does *not* make it predictable - the only way to predict a deterministic fractal process is to go through the process, any prediction based on not *exactly* the same rules and information as the "real thing" will not be truly accurate - so one can "best guess" but cannot truly predict.
More importantly if existence is truly simply deterministic then responsibility is ultimately negated because the future is *fixed*.
Excellent.
@ItsEJay
I'll leave the Uncertainty Principle to a physicist.
For fractals/dynamical systems:
Consider a suspended magnet hanging north pole down suspended above two other magnets north poles up. Now raise the hanging magnet and release.
Although the behaviour of the swinging magnet is deterministic it is not possible to predict its final resting place based on the start position because infinitessimally small differences in start position are magnified to large changes in the resting point.
This just opened up a whole world for me. Very useful info
@Hopeful71 quite to the contrary, me being an individual who learns from my mistakes, I've lost my ego in the process. Not saying I never fall victim to insecurity, or even bias ideals, but I am intelligent enough to know that when these things occur, it is best to be skeptic about their influences on my processes. And gain what is supposed to be gained, but let the irrelevant revel in it's own illogicies.
Bless U Brother Filled Me with Joy Truth N Love X
came because of TOK
SAME.. the views of this videos will increase bc of the classof2017 💁🏻#iblife
how does our objective realities interfere with how develop our patternicity?
Lol same
All can CHOOSE to see what they want to believe...Yet there is reality and perception of reality, the real part of choice is making accurate and testable decisions that have a realistic outcome.
@TheLiberalSoup I agree with Shermer, I'd say. What if a friend came over to my house and said "I was down the street earlier and I saw police drive past"? If I'm *too* skeptical, I won't believe him until he presents evidence. Sometimes you have to take people's word for it, and you judge that by how improbable or extraordinary their claim is. Since my friend's story is completely plausible and not extraordinary at all, I will take their word for it.
Twain's definition of faith is most memorable: Faith is the belief in things were know ain't true.
That's exactly what it is -- you get to a point, you see it's not true, and your pastor starts explaining about the merits of faith, and tithing.
Well said.
Priceless. I must have a problem. I never see faces anywhere
Man...I was almost in tears at that ending video: perception really is everything :-P
Oh, and Michael Shermer, he's awesome too.
Food for thought!
The pattern behind self-deception is just one of our experiences, by which I mean that man is the only living things on earth that is more or less faithful to the good and evil ...
@infinit888
I should also add that just because something may be fixed does *not* mean that it is predictable (consider the Uncertainty Principle or Fractals).
I like how he says the world will end in 2012, although that's one of the strange things we tend to believe. The Mayans didn't even say the world would end. Hollywood and big media painted that picture for you and you saw it as reality.
It was a joke :)
So did I. I'm glad I'm not the only one.
The evolution of beliefs reminds me of the evolution of habit. We start out with all kinds of habits and most of them are bad, then we become aware of the difference between good and bad habits and most of us strive to end up with more good than bad habits.
Those of us who don't are considered defective, or dumb. Those of us who don't shrug off bad belief are considered the same.
Her laugh at 17:15 cracks me up!
briliant!
This video is full of win!
awesome talk!!!
Great stuff
@Shaunt1 I don't think he's saying that all patterns are wrong. More like we are jumping to conclusions and finding patterns where there is not necessarily enough evidence.
@TodaysThought Fractals are a neat example of emergent complexity.
Simple rules can create an object of unfathomable intricacy... none of which has to be designed by the creator (or discoverer, depending on your philosophical viewpoint) of the fractal. Another nice example of this type is John Conway's Game of Life. In a sense, the fractal proves that your criteria for determining whether something looks designed or not aren't very good.
A thing of beauty!
good video with cool, fast, precise explanation. and cheers for the chimps.
"This inspired thinking shared with you by at&t." Thanks at&t, after watching Michael Shermer's video, I've realised that my desire for the latest smartphone is self-deception based upon my past experiences with such devices. I wont be renewing my contract with your company after-all.
It's easy to point out errors in any system. Much harder to point out how it can be improved except by treating the errors.
Just magnificient!!!
"superstitions are all associated with feelings of lack of control" - totally
I tried really hard but i didn't see any dolphins
They are monotone in a dark shade and rather small.
We as humans seek for patter and by doing so, we become a pattern. When people say that each and every person is different, it's rubbish.
I'm 17 and I like these videos. Thumbs me up people.
lol the end was like a cherry on top of a cake :D
i love it
Belief is not the default position.
The end is freakin epic
A 1948 study tested 58 dowsers' ability to detect water. None of them was more reliable than chance. A 1979 review examined many controlled studies of dowsing for water, and found that none of them showed better than chance results.
Yes and no.
His point is a valid one. We describe people as "creatives" or "technicals" and the "creatives" tend to have higher dopamine levels which means that they are more likely to see patterns while "technicals" tend to have lower dopamine levels and, as such, tend to be more skeptical.
Please note: this is a drastic oversimplification but the patterns are consistent.
Amazing as usual!
How do we seek to arrange our collective brains, and how much latitude do we allow ourselves and each other? We use what we believe as a club to beat other people, to degrade them ... that is why it is so important for every one of us to be right all the time. Human beings are very scary, and it is sad that now instead of random chance and our imputed God, we now have ourselves in charge, and of course as we all know, we are all crazy stupid, and the more power and confidence we have the more crazy stupid we are.
The irony is that, if his thesis is correct, then you'll have a strong tendency to believe it, even if you don't possess, whether through deficiency in interpretation, understanding, or attentiveness, or in the rigor of the argument he presents, a rational basis for holding that belief.
Further, I don't doubt that there is a tendency similar to what he's suggesting in many cases.
The reason for these deficiencies can range from the question's being fundamentally unanswerable in principle, the question's requiring impractical means to model or measure, or the question's merely falling outside of our own competence, whether because we don't possess a sufficient capacity for reason to model it, or because, we're largely or entirely ignorant of variable values, even in the case that accurate values exist of which an expert might be aware. Already, the vast majority of conceivable questions are likely either fundamentally or practically unanswerable, or are complex and highly inductive, so that, even a person who devotes substantial time and resources towards studying the associated subject matter will not have a rational basis for a belief that deviates much from 0.5 (i.e., random). Some exceptions include ⅰ ) math / logic, which are deductive and entirely non-empirical, and ⅱ ) physics, which, while empirical, effectively represents our attempt at maximum rigor on physical philosophy, and, to a lesser degree, ⅲ ) the other natural sciences, allowing for stronger rational belief inasmuch as they rely on the scientific method (i.e., experiments) to generate knowledge, those experiments are accurate analogs of the phenomenon being studied, and we're able to measure and control all variables upon which the outcome is dependent. Any field of study which does not rely on experiment (in many studies, experiment is precluded for fundamental or practical reasons, e.g., we can't' create two economies which are identical except for one variable that are also sufficiently large and complex to function as a reasonable proxy for a real national economy, nor can we create two identical planets that vary by a single variable to study its effect on weather), but which addresses empirical questions (i.e., questions that are not purely abstract, normative, or aesthetic), can produce a rational basis for belief (i.e., a deviation away from 0.5) that is multiple orders of magnitude less than what is provided by experiment, because they contain no tools which can provide rational confidence in assessing a causal relationship (which is the foundation for all understanding) (the replication crisis makes a lot more sense in consideration of this). Thus, even most experts can expect little more than extremely modest deviations from the level of confidence one might have in predicting the outcome of an ideal coin toss.
Thus, the rational position for the bulk of questions is, by definition, something close to total ambiguity between two choices. However, Shermer seems to be suggesting that we can have a rational preference for a certain position that is based on the aspects or results of some kind of democratic assessment of questions that actually get transmitted to us, e.g. what news stations tell us about what scientists think. Of course, no question is contingent on its assessment, even if the assessor is the most remarkable among us, because the causal relationship between a question and the outcome of its assessment flows in the opposite direction. Indeed, we might find that a correlation exists, assuming accurate information about the assessments of those remarkable experts is not corrupted so badly through transmission that it becomes misleading or unusable, but such an analysis does not involve a single variable upon which the question being assessed depends, and so provides us no actual rational basis for holding a non-trivial believe about the actual problem (unfortunately, rational belief is an objective phenomenon, and it comes in equal measure to the actual understanding we work to acquire). Hence, being a 'Skeptic', assuming the title refers to something similar to the meaning of the English word, should really refer to acknowledgement of ambiguity and an exhibition of the modesty which such acknowledgement rationally demands (note, this applies only to questions insofar as they are subject to rational assessment-irrational aspects of questions, where belief is only possible through faith, such as the axioms which underlie any assessment, beliefs about metaphysics, or a belief in a god, are entirely outside of the scope of this analysis).
Being sceptical and cautious is not the same as paranoid and distrustful.
@MrSoyouthink If you are saying that most scientists (geologists and biologists would be the most relevant) think abiogenesis was unlikely, I'd like to see a reference for that.
What I am saying is very simple: even if unlikely coincidences are required to explain abiogenesis (or rather, why it has happened faster than you would have expected), then that is not really a problem.
@MakinMagicFractals As a moral agent you're still responsible for the future you chose the fact that you most likely will choose a certain future does not mitigate the predictable consequences arising from it.
I also often don't know what people mean by free will. For it to be 'free' shouldn't it be unconstrained by nature should it not be random/chaotic. Which would really not make you responsible for which outcome you 'choose'. So what exactly *is* free will?
@Guuster00 yeah you are right with the hypothesis about the spaces. But i do not think it´s about believes to which Shermer is refering to, but to the way our brain is getting a knowledge of the world. The embedded experiences of a term, lets say; the word "chair" is learned through experiences we made in our childhood by adopting the way our parents use this thing that is shaped in an "h" form Therefore a chair is a chair even if it could be used for other purposes.
@TodaysThought
My last reply was a little flippant :)
To me the *big* question is not the existence of God but the question of Fate (determinism) versus Free Will.
Science basically points at determinism, to have Free Will requires "something more" than a dynamical system based on scientific laws.
Since I fervently believe in Free Will, when asked I say I believe in God - this is my way of saying I believe in something "beyond science".
For fractals, also "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you" :)
highly enjoyable video!
Click for TOK Presentation
01:50- 02:53
03:26 05:18
Monkey's getting that sweet sweet french kiss XD
wow, this turned out to be a fun taalk. Interesting, thank you!
They are related but not the same thing. Pareidolia is specifically seeing images in random visual noise, like seeing faces in clouds, Jesus in a tree bark and the virgin Mary in a window reflection. Paternity is our ability to perceive patterns like the tide is greater when the moon is in a certain phase and the dog barks when the mailman drives by. We also wrongly attribute patternicity when there is none, like it always rains when you wash the car or phone rings when you go to the bathroom.
In that image at 07:09 , after a little bit of uncertainty at first, i quickly figured out what that image was (yes, way before he showed the less degraded versions of the pictures)
16:51 on is the best part :D