Karanlık
How To Academy Mindset
How To Academy Mindset
How To Academy Mindset
Abone ol 344 B
Welcome to the home of big thinking. The How To Academy Mindset channel shares inspirational ideas for thriving in the 21st century. From Jordan Peterson to Steven Pinker, Stephen Fry to Elizabeth Gilbert - from how to be creative to how to take control of your life, we explore the big questions with world-renowned psychologists, business leaders, authors and coaches.

Visit howtoacademy.com/ for tickets to upcoming events, or become a How To Plus member for free livestreams and access to our entire back-catalogue of 250+ events.

YORUMLAR
@chadmichael_
@chadmichael_ 16 saatler önce
I have zero self control to stop myself from posting a comment about how dumb Daniel Dennett is.
@insatiabletraveler2929
@insatiabletraveler2929 18 saatler önce
Jordan Peterson is such a phenomenal being....Canada is so fortunate that he is their son......BUT NO.....politically, Canada wants to cancel his license to practice - WHAT THE HELL....CANADIANS NEED TO STEP UP AND PUSH BACK ON THIS TRAGEDY AND OUTRAGE. I would love Peterson to come to the USA but we are in a world of hurt just like Canada....my last question. WHERE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE IN CANADA & USA THAT HAVE COMMON SENSE....if we ran each Country with common sense......we would be OK. P.S.....I am both American and Canadian :)
@robynhope219
@robynhope219 22 saatler önce
I wish bessel came here now and then to answer some qs..he really should! Busy man, I guess, but he is 80 yrs old😮
@t5845
@t5845 23 saatler önce
I would love to meet one person without trauma. I truly love the path to healing and closure but at some point we have to recognize that trauma happens to everyone. We need to heal and move forward to help the next one. Camping in a perpetual journey to healing is not self improvement. Forgiveness and gratitude is. Moving forward is. So happy I found Jesus. He healed all my trauma and anxiety. True peace with my creator.
@TheMultisingularity
@TheMultisingularity 23 saatler önce
Dennett's core of the argument based on the evolution theory is correct: evolution and also ftee will don't depend on indeterminism but on randomness and deterministic chaos. In this sense free will can be as he puts it, the unpredictable decision we choose some times in order not to be controlled by others and achieve even some possible evolutionary advantage by this very random unpredictable choise. For example the really top class tennis player among the good ones is the one who can use randomness on his usual repertoir of play in a way that other players cannot read his next move and this randomness is what gives him the edge among the others.
@ceriasophis405
@ceriasophis405 Gün önce
When self will is an outside control option in an unfree world one can never be free..as a choice is not freedom..but a limit to what is already free...not to choose.
@petitio_principii
What a sad world where we have as more prominent pop- "intellectuals" the likes of Rogan, Peterson, Weinsteins, rather than Dawkins, Sagan, Gould, DeGrasse Tyson... I'm afraid we've entered the road to idiocracy.
@adphi8219
@adphi8219 Gün önce
I leave this comment for commenters.The system has always been hardcore intensity and shitty compromising incentives. Used to be the whip and the fear of death, it became through “free markets” the fear of being poor. Not affording the human rights of food, water, shelter, let alone the “emotional” needs of family, health, friends, art, love. These markets and their standards of conduct will put whatever message on a shirt from a sweatshop, and fight not for your rights but the perception of fighting for your rights
@karenohanlon4183
People who are trapped in seriously dysfunctional families are apt to end up lacking trust being hyper-vigilent . He is right about growing up you become a people pleaser. But what he does not mention abusive Narcissist can smell a victim from a mile away They swoop in and the trauma feelings are brought back to the surface and so the game begins again. I have heard psychedelics help with trauma memories. If you are not careful your logical brain goes AWOL and you find yourself being retraumatised all over again over and over. No amount of talk therapy or meditation or distraction can put that pin back in the grenade. The only thing you can do is to love yourself and acknowledge that their are dangerous people who will enjoy making you suffer. Avoid the bad people or at least get to know the signs when someone is targeting you and preparing to mistreat you.
@user-gl6ms2vq6u
@user-gl6ms2vq6u Gün önce
Why is the obvious not so obvious?
@adebttonature
@adebttonature Gün önce
dennett is a fine thinker, but he is also a twit who needs to control his emotions with this free will he claims exists. especially since he is intellectually accomplished and, according to him, should therefore be more responsible because they are more capable given their advanced free will
@deller5924
@deller5924 Gün önce
No, we don't. There is no such thing.
@sciencesaves
@sciencesaves Gün önce
This interviewer felt it necessary to mention”stay woke” tshirts. Why?
@mikaelamaverick8916
How anyone takes Daniel Dennett seriously is beyond me. This entire debate he offered 0 evidence for free will and instead his argument is simply free will exists because I want it to and if you don’t agree with me you’re a bad person 🤦🏻‍♀️
@mindlander
@mindlander Gün önce
So you don't make choices?
@ScienceNow-
@ScienceNow- Gün önce
Sapolsky fails at intellect. Basic science shows there is free will. the problem for him is that he is defining it in a way that is not in accord with proper scientific understanding of reality. Free will is to be able to have even the smallest amount of control over what occurs. Choosing to eat one food over another is free will. And right there his arguments are destroyed. Free will is not having complete control over everything, magical powers, or no constraints on actions.
@brandwijkgg
@brandwijkgg Gün önce
No free will in what you think and want and who you are and why you are who you are etc etc.
@ScienceNow-
@ScienceNow- Gün önce
Complete unscientific nonsense. Have a few random things randomly put on a table so that you cannot see them. Then choose one without looking at them. There is free will immediately. You can choose something without any rhythm or reason, without something beyond your present awareness controlling the choice. Many other examples of this exist. Free will is rooted in physical reality not silly psychological pseudo-scientific beliefs.@@brandwijkgg
@nelsots
@nelsots Gün önce
That we have experiences that lead us to believe we make choices that have some deterministic effect on our behavior doesn't neatly square up with Sapolsky's position. If behavior is completely determined by past experiences and biology, as he seems to argue, why do we hallucinate making choices? I think in Dennett's view, that's where the magic happens. That's where we're given a little bit of freedom. We don't know exactly how it works, but it's real, and it's important, and it means we can be responsible for our actions, to some extent. In Sapolsky's model, it seems that even your own actions are more like something that happens to you. But if that's the case, why would the experience of making a decision feel like a choice?
@frederickschwarz246
Love your (singular) Content, Mr Stewart!! 6000km Trek, Languages, your Great Game Documentary, even your Podcast with your slightly phlegmatic, dogmatic partner - what a Stud you are!!! 😏🦁🌍🇬🇧
@roberthess3405
@roberthess3405 Gün önce
Well, as the last poll shows, Sapolsky smoked Dennett, and for good reasons. Let me explain the background of the debate to those who are not already familiar with (probably most of you). Dennett is not actually arguing for free will in the sense that humans have control of their destiny and can rise above their personal circumstances. He agrees with Sapolsky that our biological history and environmental circumstances determine entirely who we are, what we think, and what we do. But according to Dennett, our predetermined nature doesn't matter to free will. In his view, as long as our freedom to choose and act isn't obviously impaired, say, because we are only 5 years old or because we have a brain tumor, that apparent freedom is enough for free will - and to hold us responsible for our actions, including punishing (or rewarding) us. In philosophical jargon, Dennett is a so-called "compatibilist." He believes that free will is compatible with determinism. Sapolsky, on the other hand, is an incompatibilist. He argues that free will is not compatible with determinism because, to him, free will means more than just not being obviously impaired. In his view, everyone's thoughts and actions, not just those of 5-year-olds and people with brain tumors, are unfree, because they too are the inevitable outcomes of our biology and environment. If so, it doesn't make sense to hold any of us responsible for our actions any more than is the case for 5-year-olds and people with brain tumors. One way to approach the debate thus is to ask yourself the question of which version of free will, Dennett's compatibilist version or Sapolsky's incompatibilist version, seems correct to you. Do you believe, and does it make sense to say, that free will means we have the actual ability to make decisions and take actions independently of, and in some cases despite, our biology and environment? Let's call this "strong free will." Or do you believe, and does it make sense to say, that free will only requires that our perception and judgment are not obviously impaired? Let's call this "weak free will." As you think about these questions, you might ask yourself which version of free seems more just if you didn't already know who you are. Which version of free will would seem more just if, for example, you were born into a household with a single mother, grew up malnourished, and experienced constant violence in your family and community?
@mindlander
@mindlander Gün önce
Life is like poker. You don't choose the cards you're dealt. You choose how to play the game.
@frederickschwarz246
When Kim Phillby was asked whether the party (read fête) or his then wife were more important, he quipped, "Why, the party of course!" Yet he sacrificed his career at MI6 to save his Friend Donald Maclean from a nasty interrogation. It's a solidarity thing, I suppose.
@frederickschwarz246
I doff my hat to your principled stand against Boris' shenanigans Mr Stewart!! I think it was a great display of Machiavellian "Virtu" when the historiographical dust settles.
@michaelrose93
@michaelrose93 Gün önce
*"Genes determine next to nothing"* < 10:18 Ahhh yes, the socialist maxim. However, studies of identical twins separated at birth show that genes determine quite a lot! Aside from the fact that identical twins look more or less identical, (that's genes) their personalities generally overlap to a large degree. To say that genes determine "next to nothing" is pure hyperbole.
@garjimrus
@garjimrus Gün önce
Reaching the point where you can say “ I’m grateful I went through hell because of what it taught me is a great victory in one’s healing journey.
@leilaniford3574
@leilaniford3574 Gün önce
This isn't a discussion about allowing dangerious people harming society. I disagree with that Dan. Dan isnt following the good doctor. So he is speaking randomly. I am dealing with symptoms of P.T.S.D. from Complex or childhood P.T.S.D. I am also the 25th Great Granddaughter to William The Conqueror, A.K.A., The Duke of Normandy. As well many more kings and queens of Britain and Europe.
@user-bj6kf5vd4j
@user-bj6kf5vd4j Gün önce
Wow
@29BD29
@29BD29 Gün önce
Dennett is defending the existence of responsibility, not free will.
@mindlander
@mindlander Gün önce
How can you have one without the other?
@29BD29
@29BD29 Gün önce
@mindlander an animal could be responsible for eating someone but you probably wouldn't say the animal has free will.
@threestars2164
@threestars2164 2 gün önce
No, and that is ok.
@renfarrar8548
@renfarrar8548 2 gün önce
I feel like these guys are forever arguing past each other with different definitions of "you/I/self", I can't make sense of any definition of "me" that includes all of the prior subconscious processes that made the decision before I even knew what it would be. "I" am not those processes, "I" am not even aware of them.
@mindlander
@mindlander Gün önce
Your prior mind made the process of your brain happen. Just because I have to pee, doesn't mean I have to pee my pants. I can control by body to some extent.
@krcalder
@krcalder 2 gün önce
What did we do to solve the problem last time? Mariner Eccles, FED chair 1934 - 48, observed what the capital accumulation of neoclassical economics did to the US economy in the 1920s. “a giant suction pump had by 1929 to 1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing proportion of currently produced wealth. This served then as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied themselves the kind of effective demand for their products which would justify reinvestment of the capital accumulation in new plants. In consequence as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When the credit ran out, the game stopped” A few people have all the money and everyone else gets by on debt. When the credit ran out, the game stopped. When wealth is too unevenly distributed the system stops working. Keeping the system running on credit is what we call a short/medium term solution; it doesn’t work over the long term. What did we do? We added redistribution by taxation, and used it provide cheap housing, education, health and other services. How did that work? Disposable income = wages - (taxes + the cost of living) Employees get their money from wages, so employers pay the cost of living through wages. A low cost of living works for employees and employers. A strong healthy middle class developed in the West. You probably haven’t noticed, but the arc of progress did a U-turn after the Keynesian era, and we went back to the economic thinking that preceded it with neoclassical economics. If we want to get back there, we need to remove the redistribution by taxation. You keep the economy running on debt for as long as possible. When it collapses, you have a rethink. A new generation comes along that can’t remember last time, and you do it again.
@missmarya747
@missmarya747 2 gün önce
Depends on your point of reference (s). Which dimension, world 🌎.
@brunosirigado
@brunosirigado 2 gün önce
Robert Sapolsky is more objective, no excuses, it is what it is. Daniel Dennett on the other hand, is more apologetic, more embedded with the system... in fact, Daniel Dennett can easily say: there is no system, there is no matrix, it's all in your head... here, have a prozac. By the way, I've noticed that Daniel Dennet is a hardcore atheist, therefore, for him, this system is the best matrix that humans have ever had. I may not agree 100% with Robert, but at least his more objective.
@mindlander
@mindlander Gün önce
So you don't believe you make choices?
@brunosirigado
@brunosirigado Gün önce
@@mindlander Of course we do. It's true, our choices are influenced by the system that rules us, by our genes, and even by the weather. Sometimes we have to postpone certain actions because of the weather. Robert Sapolsky says a couple things correctly, but then he exaggerates. Robert Sapolsky knows very well that we all have free will, only those who were born with brain deficiency or had a serious accident, those don't have it or lost it.
@brunosirigado
@brunosirigado Gün önce
@@mindlander Now, if Robert Sapolsky knows that we have free will, why does he keeps saying that we don't have it? Well, despite his age, his a spoiled child. His trapped in his own narrative, he wrote Books... he can't go back now.
@thomaspantazopoulos976
@sandroelbers
@sandroelbers 2 gün önce
I listened to Robert's lectures, i read his books "behave" and "determined" and the man has an incredible ability to talk for hours if needed, where he seemingly jumps from topic to topic, with no end in sight, only to suddenly connect the dots and form a crystal clear picture where he eloquently illustrates his point and conclusions. It's a writing style you have to get used to, but once you do it's mesmerizing. I had heard about Dennett, but was skeptical about the worth of his opinion and value of his book, so i decided to watch this debate in the hope to be conviced by him. But unlike Sapolsky, he talks without getting to that point where his incoherence turns into that 'Aha' moment. He seemingly has a fluid definition of free will, and as Sapolsky pointed out, he seems to advocate for magic emerging from randomness making up our free will. I had great difficulty detecting his argument, as he seemingly did not adress Robert's point about how what we choose from that randomness isn't free will magic, but also predetermined by our biological and environmental luck. Sapolsky won this debate, and i won't be buying Dennett's book. As a biologist i find it self evident that there is no place for free will amongst the many factors which determine our behaviour.
@mindlander
@mindlander Gün önce
So you don't believe in choice?
@maybenjaminbenjamin9330
Problem is where one get quality help and healing!
@jeff__w
@jeff__w 2 gün önce
The best argument Dennett has, I think, is that self-management was favored by evolution and that humans have developed self-management to the highest degree. His argument is, essentially, who is doing the management but an “initiating” self? Sapolsky counters with the argument that one’s entire environmental and genetic history determines the self-management. It’s hard to rebut Sapolsky’s argument except by saying something like self-management _wouldn’t_ work, at least not as well as it does in people, _without_ the *illusion* of an “initiating” self (which is not what Dennett says).
@jeff__w
@jeff__w 2 gün önce
58:12 *Robert Sapolsky:* “If you raise people to think that we are the outcome of all that came before, this is not going to be a world in which people run amok. This is a world in which people are going to be more empathic and less blaming for reasons that are totally different from the world we have now., except for the edge cases…” True but that’s not the most important point: if people think that we are the outcome of all that came before, they’ll build environments that produce better outcomes-environments with fewer aversive consequences (arising from poverty, child abuse, etc.) and more attention paid to effective self-management.
@siroutrage1045
@siroutrage1045 2 gün önce
Free will is a characteristic a mind might come to possess, like a theory or a memory. It’s not a given faculty of a mind. A mind cannot choose whether it acquires free will, but once it has it, it has it. It might not like it. But once it has it, it has it. It was not always this way, it’s not a given that it must be this way. It happens that some minds have acquired free will, through no free will of their own.
@johnpatzold8675
@johnpatzold8675 2 gün önce
Dude doesn't even know what the Gold Standard is or was? Sapolosky is an embarassing lightweight.
@johnpatzold8675
@johnpatzold8675 2 gün önce
Sapolsky doesn't seem to grasp the concept that the way to overcome pain is via the evolution of using our self-control more effectively to reduce said pain. He seems to think that determinism is how pain is avoided. No, determinism, as far back as even Thomas Hobbes, is a power play. It's "nasty, brutish and short." The way to avoid those circumstances is to grow stronger in our decision making. This is what Free will is geared for. In such manner, pain can be avoided. It may also be chosen, however, and overcome, so that certain behaviors are discouraged when we apply punsihment. That point he subtly agrees with.
@johnpatzold8675
@johnpatzold8675 2 gün önce
"Evolution is all about the evolution of the skill of self-control!" - Daniel Dennett. Now that is a quote. This was such a great debate.
@roberthess3405
@roberthess3405 Gün önce
The quote actually is a spectacular example of begging the question - it assumes that humans have self-control and, thus, free will. Aside from that logical fallacy, the quote also misdescribes evolution. Evolution is not ABOUT anything. It has no end point, much less a purpose. To the extent that we have self-control in Dennett's sense, it's simply one evolutionary outcome among billions of others.
@johnpatzold8675
@johnpatzold8675 Gün önce
I would agree it is simply one evolutionary outcome among billions of others, and I don't think he is intending to capture all of his understanding of evolution in a single quote, but rather speaking to the concerns of this one issue involving the question of whether human beings have self control. Umm, there is a logical fallacy by your defintion in a lot science my friend. I think you know that. Science is a tool and a process to discover truth, not a thing in itself. @@roberthess3405
@ceriasophis405
@ceriasophis405 Gün önce
Evolution is a mechanical function which always degrades biological function into devolved state of existance leading to annihilation. Regardless of Self-Control..as one thinks important for sustainment of an identity as a Self which is nothing more then a construction representing a transient entity in form.
@mitchellseach3404
@mitchellseach3404 3 gün önce
Gee whiz, how’s the echo-chamber of Peterson haters in this section. Dawkins is coming at it from a purely intellectual vantage, denying any notion of a spirit. Rogan is right, feed this man something to open his heart.
@BayesTheorem78
@BayesTheorem78 3 gün önce
It seems to me that Daniel Dennett is conflating capability with free will. Perhaps start with a definition of free will.
@Life_42
@Life_42 3 gün önce
I love Elon Musk!
@FallenStarFeatures
@FallenStarFeatures 3 gün önce
Scientists who harbor materialist presumptions are either withholding or unaware of the extensive research and engineering practice on feedback control systems. Living organisms do not simply react to external and internal stimuli, they incorporate multiply-nested feedback systems that work together to maintain biological and psychological homeostasis. In every organism, there are multiple layers of purposeful action employed to continuously monitor their external and internal environments to maintain personal integrity, not simply a unitary spark of consciousness directing everything from inside your head. You may not think you have "free will", but your body would be paralysed without the ability to act on its own free agency.
@TheDavidlloydjones
@TheDavidlloydjones 3 gün önce
able: aye-bul. Terminal L. not: ends in a T. certain: There's a T in the middle. Not "sir-uhn." You sound lazy and weird.
@poksnee
@poksnee 3 gün önce
Intelligent people still believe that money has intrinsic value. Dennett should stick to things he has a chance to understand. Better yet, he should retire.
@aenamabag
@aenamabag 3 gün önce
Doesn't sapolsky provide a lot of arguments for having the 'free' will to be able to purposefully alter our environmental inputs to change our determined actions?
@poksnee
@poksnee 3 gün önce
I am pretty much a Sapolskyist.
@clorofilaazul
@clorofilaazul 3 gün önce
Daniel Dennett is much more close to the truth. Of course we have free will. If we have "will", it's free. It's kind of a pleonasm to say "free will".
@holgerjrgensen2166
@holgerjrgensen2166 3 gün önce
Life is Eternal, the Life-Desire is the MOTOR of Life, Will, (Life-side) and Gravity, (Stuff-side) is in Direct extension of the Life-Desire. So, We see, that Will is Eternal, You cant Free yourself from using your Will. Life Re-new and Develops It's Eternal Consciousness, by Will, forced by the Life-Desire, and the Hunger- and Satisfaction-principles. Dont be Obsessed with 'free will'.
@KieranLeCam
@KieranLeCam 3 gün önce
I think I understand what's going on on here. They're both talking about different things. Robert is talking about a physical method of transferring movement, which is physics, and biology, a cause must cause an effect, the pure idea of determinism. And Daniel is talking about a relative geometric arrangement of one shape of reality (example: a human) compared to other shapes in the environment. What Daniel calls Free Will is a comparative analysis of the abilities of both shapes. The problem with doing this, is that the way you value an "ability" is also relative. Meaning that the way you value Freedom is relative. If Daniel is looking for some deep force, called indeterminate Free Will, at the origin of choices, then this cannot work, because the Freedom described is relative. But I don't think he is. Robert is talking about, and denying the existence of, the version of Free Will which must be indeterminate. And so these two, Robert and Daniel, are simply talking about different things. They're not actually disagreeing. The better question is: what do we do with all this knowledge?