Steven Pinker on Writing About Science | Big Think
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2024
- Steven Pinker on Writing About Science
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free will exists, but by no means is it a miracle.We use "free will" to describe the more complex processes by which behavior is selected in the brain. These neurological steps taken to make decisions respect all laws of physics."Free will wouldn't be worth having or extolling, in moral discussions, if it didn't respond to expectations of reward, punishment, praise, blame," Pinker says.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PINKER:
Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and his PhD from Harvard. Currently Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard, he has also taught at Stanford and MIT. He has won numerous prizes for his research, his teaching, and his nine books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOW BIG THINK:
📰BigThink.com: bigth.ink
🧔Facebook: bigth.ink/face...
🐦Twitter: bigth.ink/twitter
📸Instagram: bigth.ink/Inst...
📹TH-cam: bigth.ink/youtube
✉ E-mail: info@bigthink.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
STEVEN PINKER: I do believe that there is such a thing as free will but by that I do not mean that there is some process that defies the laws of physical cause and effect. As my colleague Joshua Greene once put it, it is not the case that every time you make a decision a miracle occurs. So I don't believe that. I believe that decisions are made by neurophysiological processes in the brain that respect all the laws of physics. On the other hand it is true that when I decide what to say next when I pick an item from a menu for dinner it's not the same as when the doctor hits my kneecap with a hammer and my knee jerks. It's just a different physiological process and one of them we use the word free will to characterize the more deliberative, slower, more complex process by which behavior is selected in the brain.
That process involves the aggregation of many diverse kinds of information - our memory, our goals, our current environment, our expectation of how other people will judge that action. Those are all information streams that affect that process. It's not completely predictable in that there may be random or chaotic or nonlinear effects that mean that even if you put the same person in the same circumstance multiple times they won't make the same choice every time. Identical twins who have almost identical upbringings, put them in the same chair, face them with the same choices. They may choose differently. Again, that's not a miracle. That doesn't mean that there is some ghost in the machine that is somehow pushing the neural impulses around. But it just means that the brain like other complex systems is subject to some degree of unpredictability. At the same time free will wouldn't be worth having and certainly wouldn't' be worth extolling in world discussions if it didn't respond to expectations of reward, punishment, praise, blame.
When we say that someone - we're punishing or rewarding someone based on what they chose to do we do that in the hope that that person and other people who hear about what happens will factor in how their choices will be treated by others and therefore there'll be more likely to do good things and less likely to do bad things in the expectation that if they choose beneficial actions better things will happen to them. So paradoxically one of the reasons that we want free will to exist is that it be determined by the consequences of those choices. And on average it does. People do obey the laws more often than not. They do things that curry favor more often than they bring proprium on their heads but not with 100 percent predictability. So that process is what we call free will. It's different from many of the more reflexive and predictable behaviors that we can admit but it does not involve a miracle.
Scientists that I have the most respect for are ones that are able to see the "big picture", and the "overarching" theme of knowledge and nature, and how these themes relate to and from the small hyperspecialized areas that scientists are trained.
Nueroscience is the most exciting new frontier in science! We have barely dipped our toes in the ocean of this subject. The first step is for us to support research initiatives so that Nueroscientists can study the patterns of hundreds of thousands of nuerons at a time as opposed the paltry hundred or less that is available with current technology now.
his voice trails off into the muzak like that scene in fear and loathing in las vegas where the television set goes out of whack on static..
Really keen to read your work on how we first make our categories around what "makes sense" or what "fits" with our human "programming", so that we can interact appropriately. I've had this idea about autistic people "missing" part of the programming that tags experiences with "salience", especially in the social cues area. Part of my idea is that impairments in other areas besides the social mean that "salience" is not working for other cues, eg. most sounds or sight or spatial orientation etc.
He's likely meaning, the average truck driver isn't a major psychology or science buff. It may be an untrue stereotype, but in all reality, most stereotypes are rooted in some fact.
This is awesome
For anyone interested in science writing, it is discouraging to see how few views this video has, even with the well-known Mr. Pinker & Big Think. The video also seems to cut him off at the end.
...A couple comments even give him a hard time just for mentioning truckers? Bizarre.
He's not a real scientist.
420 views
Nani
Does he ever take his his eyes off the camera??
yes - 1:53
His eyes also move sideways several times when blinking 👍
one of his weaker speeches...
So is Mr pinker saying truck drivers are too dumb to read his book? Narrow realm of reality. Disappointing.
He's a phony. Chomsky always destroys his illogical nonsense.
He was talking about the level of detail and profundity when writing about a subject, it's not about intelligence, but the level of study in a particular field matters, someone who didn't graduate in physics won't understand a book aimed to the physics community for example.
^^^
wow a pseudo-scientist on 'Writing about Science'
How can he be pseudo scientific when he applies the scientific method in his studies and uses scientific papers to support his view