ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ก.ค. 2015
- What makes you, you? Is it how you think of yourself, how others think of you, or something else entirely? In this talk, Julian Baggini draws from philosophy and neuroscience to give a surprising answer. (Filmed at TEDxYouth@Manchester.)
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector
did your professor asked you to watch this?
Why yes she did
Sheesh YES
Yes
yes
Lmao yep
hello po sa mga taga feu
Hello! Sana okay pa kayo.
HAHAHHAHAHAA
hello T___T
Hello pu
Helloooo
So again, after watching this video, I find myself realizing that we are what we create, this really old idea of "self-making". In a way, I was worried about myself, about not being able to find myself, and to say who I was. I could not find in me the words to describe myself, and I though "maybe it's like in the movies, I need this kind of trip to learn who I am". But now again, I face the self-making. And I'm right now thinking "do I really need to travel?" I mean, why do we keep looking for ourselves? Why don't we realize that we are creating ourselves in the process? Those are my thoughts now, anyone who can relate?
What you say I think is true. But is there a way to change better or worse? Only if it satisfies you. Maybe what you really are is what you really need. So the question is right: "Do you really need to travel?". Are you aware of your desires?
Please get off the internet.
Playing driveclub. 6 seconds behind 1st place ranking in one of the time trails. I must of lapped the course 30 times, not getting close to the lap time. I left it for a couple of hours. Later that day I went back on the track, rather reluctantly. I fine tuned my racing line and pushed my car till the point it would occasionally uncontrollably spin out on corners. I managed to cut off 4 seconds of my time. At this point, due to the progress I made, I was adamant that I would set a 1st pace laptime. I continued to almost microtune my adjustments, trying to perfect my racing line. I turned on the 1st place laptime ghost car and raced it. I finally came in 0.5 seconds faster then 1st place laptime. The journey of failing to achieve my seemingly impossible goal, to gaining progress, to accomplishing it was a great experience. I truly believe anyone can do anything as along as your passionate about it / obsess over it.
Ye, I actually completely agree with this as I am a person who has gone through a lot of major changes. See, the thing is, here, the place where I live, people consider behavioral traits to be things that can be passed down from parent to child and whenever I tell them that they're wrong, they just wont budge. We're all but a product of all our experiences, our environment, and everything that could possibly influence us(Btw, just to clear this up, I just have very strong convictions when it comes to my opinions, I'm not the child of horrible people)
This is the very reason why people from a certain place often hold similar values in life. If we had a core then more people should be separated from what their peers are. Well, I am aware that I'm not the most convincing person when I say this bcos I'm one of the weirdest people ever (probably) but even then I could still trace back my weirdness to the certain blend of influences that I have had in the past. Now, what I am trying to find is the exact trigger as to what made me like this. You see, my personality took a complete 180 about 2 years ago after a four month vacation from school(it just happened) and to this day, I'm still fascinated by what happened. The conclusion that I have come to is that I just subconciously had some realizations which led to that change but that is still something uncertain. A friend of mine told me that maybe this is my real self, and true I was indeed pretending for like 6 years, but what I became, what I am now, is something much more extreme than what I perceived to be my real self during those years of pretending.
Glad I watched 'till the end. Nice talk
Thanks, I truly enjoyed this!
Great dichotomy at the end. That last sentence sums up the entire lecture. The self is discovery and creation. This dichotomy is useful in other areas, math may be another example.
The "illusion" is still operating as long as that sense of a separate center is felt and experienced. The felt "signature" could be tension or fear, anxiety. To say "I am going to direct my life" or "be creative" may be another way for the ego to mutate. That is a different feeling then watching, paying attention , and have it all unfold. We do not know what will happen.
FEU MANILA-UTS Represent here
hello FEU Manila here whats your course?
Fascinating talk. I suppose it's all about interpretation and trying to make sense of patterns. We naturally want to try and connect things, to have a sense of identity and belonging. Personality tests offer a way to group certain characteristics together, but obviously they can't explain someone perfectly because there is no "core" - it's all a mish-mash of experiences
***** I hate these personality tests like Myers-Briggs because it promotes fixed mindset over growth mindset. People think if they are ISTJ, for example, that's what they are and that's what they will always be. But you can mold yourself into something different. For example, you can increase your feeling function for other people through practice. I suppose if it was made clear that that's what they are at that particular moment but that they could become something else tomorrow it would be okay. But most people interpret it as that's what they are and what they will always be. That's fixed mindset, a recipe for failure, failure meaning not achieving everything that you could actually have achieved if you knew you had the potential.
ImanAliHussein It's only fixed if one allows it to be. It's just a framework, a way of interpreting things, a way to understand and develop oneself, not to make excuses for one's limitations. Personality "science" can help people understand their biases relative to others. MBTI doesn't at any point in its categorisation, description, background etc. give any notion that we are limited by our personality/preferences. There's no scientific notion that certain types are INCAPABLE of certain tasks.
it's hard to understand it.
He has a quote from Siddhartha Gautama next to a picture of Budai. Both Buddhas but different people.
I have had the near death experience. Twice, each complete with blinding light revealing what had been the meaning of my life _to me_. That light contained the integral sum of the memories of all the interactions with another mind.
Your mileage may vary, but I found that being a human being human had been most meaningful when it was interacting with other human beings being human too. Oh, yes, canine and feline minds and one manta ray I danced with were meaningful. But most of the sum was weighted by consanguinity. I was content. I had done my best, but the crescendo to completeness was not the end; a coda for to live...
Forgive me if I give advice.
Let us leave a society and environment where our collective grandchildren for generations uncountable find a society and environment where it is a joy to live a meaningful life.
Today, make your life more meaningful by making someone else's life more meaningful to them.
George Steele Spot on George. It's this us and them mentality. People need to stop looking at them self as different from others and that we are all basically
the same. We're not in this separate from others, we are all in this together.
*****
Read the sentence beginning with "That light contained..."
+Jay Hart
I hope you know what interactions with other minds are.
Excluded are the balance in my bank account, the stuff I own, the awards I've won, and more. It is people that mattered to me most when I thought I was done being alive. My parents, my daughters, my wives, my best friends all were more important than any stuff. Included is a child who shared the front seat of a roller coaster ride; I have never seen him since. Included is that clerk at a motel in Idaho who told me her story. Included is that fifth grade class who gave me a gift I still have. Excluded is the Library I helped design, but the co-designers are included.
I hope that helps.
(p.s. This chat is there, brief as it is.)
*****
Asked and answered before.
*****
Your mileage may vary.
I've explained the best I can.
Live long
这个视频讲得很棒
Wow something like enlightenment concept
The way I see it, each person is an individual force. A will you can say. At any moment, I cant reflect and choose. That is all that we are I think individually. Like a force of will. That is kind of like a soul. That's the way I see the universe being alive, is through forces.
if all 'we' are is a culmination of our experiences, then I'm pretty sure a person with amnesia wouldn't stay the same person.
He wrapped it up at 11:45 by saying your self is in part discover and in part create. What if horoscopes and such are some part of discoveries?
It's indeed not about illusion. How can an illusion even operate or do things if it's concidered to be unreal? The only illusion there is, is how we think about 'ourselfes' and things.
Cool talk, although I disagree with the part where he says there is a limit to what we can achieve. Physically that may be true, but mentally the saying that says "you can do anything you put your mind to" is absolutely true. That doesn't mean you're going to succeed right away but if you keep pushing yourself through every failure, you will eventually get to the point of accomplishment
***** But in a sense that would be wrong, newer generations are shown to be smarter mainly because we evolve. So in point of fact there are things now that we can't do with our minds because they are in a constant state of evolving. We simply do not have the capacity for it no matter how much you stribe for it. - whatever it may be, there will always be something out of reach.
I think your statement is true assuming unlimited time, health, energy, and access to necessary tools. That's not the case in reality though.
What if you fail at something until you die. Genetics play a role in allowing people to achieve something in a certain amount of time. If that time required is greater than a lifetime then those people cannot achieve that goal matter how hard they try.
Obviously not all goals are going to be achieved. I'm not saying that. I'm saying all goals are POSSIBLE.
***** Try calculating faster than a calculator or process information faster than a computer. If you could do that with enough practice, I will agree with your statement.
***** So we can all be like Einstein if we work hard enough...?
Wonderful. You actually explained what Hindu belief system says
Brilliant
I love this subject, I like the way he explained it, bizarrely enough there is a girl from the program outnumbered who made this very point
It's just the sense of knowing how the human mind operates. To relate in literature, it is a sense of different perspectives in a story. We are all viewing life in first-person because everything that gives us a sense of our outer stimuli is working in unison to calculate the output. A neuroscientist, effectively, can give the third person into our lives by knowing how we make our observations. Our first person observations about what we are able to interact with is different for everyone. As well, everyone is composed of a unique set of genes. This is the formation of our individual personalities. For me, specifically, I believe that religion is false because death cannot be comprehended by us. It would only work to our benefit to evolve our nature to rid ourselves of the bad that nature has brought to us. We can essentially cure ourselves of pain, but retain our sense of consciousness. Isn't that what we can only work for?
That's a valuable piece of insight Julian. It's liberating.
Hum... We are a collective before we are a collective. Love it.
A watch is not the sum of it's parts. Believing that it is, is an illusion. This is like saying that the sound of a violin is the sum of the parts of the violin. So, believing that the Self, is the sum total of memories and experiences is also an illusion.
The real you is energy
Quite obvious and confusing: It is all about perspective and abstraction level. I can see a watch either as a builder, considering different parts to work and interact each other in order to compose a mechanism, maybe without considering the purpose itself, or as a philosopher or physicist, thinking about the measure of time and its real existence. Point is: we approach everything as regards a task, and from every window we look through, there is always something new to learn and understand about the reality. It is all about schemes, considered parameters to analyse something that is complicated and actually "the one", that is something whose definition is just a way to look at it. Take the mind: there isn't a center and awareness is a complexity of not countable things, and that is true. But we know everyone has conflicts inside: desires that can't be satisfied and in opposition with other forces. Well, we can analyse our thoughts as originated by different logic points like conscious, Super Io, subconscious, and so on and it is quite obvious they don't actually exist; however their concepts are useful to understand a phenomenon. In particular the Es is what we define nature cause it's such a space of "most profound and instinct desires". So what are we talking about? New information: hey, guys, our mind doesn't exist: it is part of our body. A physical pain affects the psychological pain and vice versa. We ore one person and the brain is just an organ: we are a body, an animal and not a mind! So the mind doesn't exist! Yea, is that false?
The self is that which experiences; the experiencer; the subject of experience.
If the self is an illusion, there must be an experiencer to experience that illusion, otherwise it doesn’t make sense to call it an “illusion” (because who’s the subject of this “illusion”?).
If there’s not an experiencer, a self, then an illusory thing is somehow being fooled into believing it exists. Can non-existent thing have beliefs?
Without a self, the very concept of conscious experience is incoherent. Experience without an experiencer is like clapping with no hands (or anything to take their place). Again, that’s self-evidentially incoherent.
If there’s no real self, then there’s no experiencer. If there’s no experiencer, there can be no experiences. If there are no experiences, no one has ever suffered. Thank God!
To see ourselves as a process. To fashion ourselves. Nice. But who is it that sees the 'me' as a process, and who is it that acts to fashion ourselves? Perhaps there is nothing more required once the illusion of 'me' is truly seen. Then everything would unfold without the effort-maker. The reality, though, is that in every little moment the maker of the effort is present, subtly guiding even the discussion about itself and hence continuing the illusion.
+ Vivek Raju
You are making an error of an implicit assumption by "begging the question". "But who is it that sees the 'me' as a process, and who is it that acts to fashion ourselves?" - this could be a faulty question because in it, there is an implicit assumption, that such a 'who' already exists independently - and that the two are seperate. This assumption is then used to defend the seperation. I feel that one place that sheds some light into this is studying the structure and limits of language - how implicit assumptions creep in, that present themselves as pretty real. You might find the concept of "private langages" for example by Wittgenstien in 'philosophical investigations' interesting. He points out that it is not possible to have private language - the implication of this (which he didn't go onto himself) is that there cannot be a seperate self (actor/seer/does) independent of the tribe. And therefore "the self's" independent reality is refuted :)
What creates the question to question?
Excellent talk. Wonder why the picture is fuzzy. I must be getting bad reception. lolz... :P
But yeah, one of the more interesting 'philosophical' TEDs in a while.
I remember reading his "A Very Short Introduction: Atheism" back in philosophy class. Smart guy.
beautifullll I enjoyed watching this video
Bingo! This is the very core of Budhist teaching!
A watch is not a watch because of its parts, but because of it purpose.
Thank you.
Thank you. I felt that point was being totally ignored. Likewise, human selves were never meant to be the collection of parts or some centre of the brain but the "beingness" or "purpose of being" human. :)
Shane Joyce True in some sense but not relevant to his point.
+Shane Joyce Purpose implies intention. The watch had a maker who intended its purpose. So who intended the purpose of the self?
The parts of the watch make up the watch.What you think its purpose is,will not change the watch,the way it functions or its parts.People might disagree on the purpose of a watch,book etc.However,if I change the parts of the watch,it won't be a watch anymore.It will probably be something else.In other words,purpose is subjective but the parts are objective and undeniable.Similarly,your mind is like a computer,made up of different parts.You are merely the "software" or the result of a program.However,you have the ability to make decisions between a set of options that will determine the future of this "software" to a certain extent.This means that this "software" doesn't only receive like an "output" but also reacts and "sends" a set of orders as an "input".Ofcourse,our minds are much more complex than a computer system,but that's how the basically work.
His assumption is that since we can't find a "me" location in the brain, there must not be one. But there is another theory out there to explain this -- that consciousness (the "me") is outside the brain in a dimension we can't detect, and the brain is more like a computer with a wifi antenna that is controlled to some degree or another by the nonlocal "me." Who knows which theory is correct. Maybe we'll find out when we die.
In this way of thinking how would you explain genius level talent? Like Mozart? Do geniuses have limits? What is natural born talent and what is its origin?
Stunami genius is the source of knowledge. genius produces knowledge. but it's very specialized and is more like being an idiot savant, so i'd say yes there are limits. somebody can be a genius in one area of life but a total idiot in another, or others. the concept of god is that it's a being that knows EVERYTHING. there's no human being who knows absolutely all of everything there is to know. but somehow, people really enjoy the idea of a "god" who does. haha
Stunami Its easyer to learn things you love to do, and kids learn things much faster then adults.
People with "genius level talent" really really loved what they do from a very young age, and they never got bored of it.
Thats all there is to it.
DNA
Malaso el video, todos y cada uno de sus puntos valen callampa, nuevo sub 👍👍👍🙏🏿
One of the best Ted talks ever!
Why does JB’s question seem like an obvious one?
What is JB’s theory?
What analogy does he use to try to demonstrate that this idea is common sense, rather than ‘weird’?
What analogy does he use to try to demonstrate that this idea is common sense, rather than ‘weird’?
Does this mean that what we think of as our ‘self’ is an illusion?
Amy Li yea sorry i was doing a project and didn’t want to keep switching apps to look at my questions so i just typed them on here so i could read and watch
This wisdom comes first from Vedic Spiritual Tradition, long before Buddhist denominations to the Chi. The beginning is in the Revelation of Sanatana (Hindu) Dharma, and Lord Shiva, or Adi (the first) Yogi, whose teachings ancient Rishies ans Brahmins kept as an electric Energy, transforming humanity , bringing Mukhti to this day. I have my spiritual path as a gift from Paramahansas Muhktananda and Yogananda; together with great Sages like Ramana Maharishi: Encountering their legacies WILL change your life. We therefore call such Sainted Gurus "Dangerous Friends". -Hari Aum Tat Sat-
8:02
To all my BAAS students, hi! :D
he is right and not right. on the idia that there is no real self, real center, real "chooser" in the persona, he is right. its causality, the persona is made of thoughts and emotions. and those things do change in life any moment. but! who is the one who's aware of he's persona? who is the one who see to his complex structure? this is the thing that he missed. when he spoke only on creating and not seeking for the true self, this was a mistake. because he forgot awarness. change is thare constantly, but thare is allwayse unchanging unmooving awarness that waches that all the time. and buddhisem like all other traditions that try free man speak on. when you wach, meditaiion, on every action you do in life, you are free of the constant desire of wanting to change or to find youself, and thane you realise, the persona is still changing by it self, but you are not the changer or the chooser, you are the one who is aware of it. thats freedom.
I agree with you.All the memories,desires,beliefs make the "ego" the ilusory self we believe we are, the "you" that he describes.But all these things are merely thoughts... if you meditate you can clearly see that! So whats left?Like you said the awareness, the stillness inside you, the one who silently observes all of this... and thats you! thats all of us in a way!
our only "core" is our DNA and our DNA is essential in determining our experiences in that it deals us a hand of cards. The hand that we are dealt + the environment is what causes our experiences.
As for "awareness", I believe this can be equivocated to free will, which is another highly debated issue.
True. Awareness with no core or personal self is what remains. Attention is the quide to that awareness. If you look at a bird and the bird looks at you there's only one attention like there's only one wind that belongs to nobody. The same is true for attention witch is not a personal thing.
you just wrote my philosophy prep, thanks :)
el ejemplo del mbti al inicio está malo, ya que éste no define tu personalidad, sino que se basa en las funciones cognitivas para que puedas comprender tu forma de tomar desiciones o que entiendas cómo comprendes/ves las cosas. Y digo que es incorrecto, ya que el mbti SÍ puede ir cambiando según cómo tú vayas cambiando, el mbti en realidad no es eso de “ah, eres intj, tienes que ser así y asá” ya que esto no define tu personalidad, sino que tiene otro propósito que ya mencioné.
Pero además de eso, todo bien. 👍
dudes been meditating a long long time!
Hm... He didn't talk about what makes you the same person at different times. If you can just create your true self, does that mean the person you were last year is not you at all?
Your DNA is timeless.
No. This is still you then but in sort of a evolved way as you gathered more knowledge, experience and so forth.
👍
i understand something here...
❤️❤️❤️👏👏👏
Where’s the self that shapes itself?
What about genetic predisposition sepertate from life experience things like say intelligence
+DeTruthful He adressed it when he talked about the limitations of modeling itself.
Absolutely hated it when he failed to represent water correctly! (stopped right there)
No entendí casi nada pero gracias
damn vro
The "you" is not an illusion. But it isn't a collection of things or processes either, I think. All those words: me, I, self, you etcetera are abstract concepts of individuals made out of these parts and processes. And therefore these words are neither an illusion or "processes".
This is just my idea. I wonder about some of your ideas.
I'm not quite sure about this, so let me make you understand this a little better. Philosophers ...
If a constant you is not existing
anyone else take one look at the H2O diagram and was like 'wth, that's not how water is arranged'
Hi
OI OI OI OI
This is simply stating that nature plays no role in the development of your personality and it is all formed by nurture, while in fact your genotype DOES influence how you deal with certain circumstances in life. Not a very strong TED talk in my opinion.
This is just playing with words. Introducing some concepts like they are some well established laws and then rebuking them to prove his point like most of the people when trying to sell you something
hel;lo
cyber bully
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
¿Algo que agregar todo inteligente?
@@ae-gs1gm si, zzzzzzzz
@@benjanavarrete5094 Entendible
Careful ,Julian believes Great Thunberg is climate change expert🤔🤔😂😂
God. Never give this guy a platform to speak again.
Terrible, terrible talk, this fellow completely misunderstands what is meant by "you". You don't find this view in Buddhism, you find this view in misinterpretation of Buddhism. There is no real individual nowhere to be found, apparent individual is none other than non-dual reality. Buddha: "whatever arises is of nature to pass away, this does NOT BELONG to me, that is NOT what i am." Wise men don't fashion themselves, they seek escape from that which is born, created, fashioned, destined for death, i.e. what this fellow calls a process, aka Samsara. Buddha: "There IS, o followers, an Unborn, Uncreated, Unformed, were there not, escape from that which is born, created, formed would not be discernable"
This fellow says: "If you are born with an essence..."
The Self/Soul is not something that you are born with, Self is not a possession by anyone, nor is It/That someone, nor is It a "thing"/fashioned. He, Julian Bagini also says: "...something that gives you definition..."
What gives definition is/are desires, what 'you' truly are, better said, That which "is"", is indefinable. Buddha: 2nd noble truth, cause of suffering: desire(s), craving (Pali: Tanha) 1. for becoming (other than Self), 2.unbecoming (annihilation) , 3. for sensual pleasures, all rooted in beginningless ignorance (Avijja). Ignorance of what? Of what is suffering, cause of suffering, end of suffering, path leading to end of suffering, and in the end, That which is not suffering, i.e. ones True Nature. It is Self that seeks Itself. Again, WHATEVER arises is of nature to pass away, this does NOT BELONG to me, this is NOT what i am.
There cannot be any belonging, possesion of anything since, That which 'you' are/That which "is" not somebody. All these false constructs of thought "I", "mine" , "I shall be", "I shall not be", "I am this" are nothing but CONSTRUCTS that ARISE and FALL. All conditioned/construct phenomena is from what escape is sought after, because they are suffering.
Many, many flaws in this talk, but then again, no one can be blamed.