An Argument Against Reality - Why You Can't Trust Your Senses
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 тра 2024
- Watch over 2,400 documentaries for free for 30 days AND get a free Nebula account by signing up at curiositystream.com/upandatom and using the code "upandatom".
Nebula: The new streaming platform by and for educational creators - watchnebula.com/
Do you think you see an objective, external reality? Think again. In this video, we reveal how your brain makes up more than 90% of what you see, how simple illusions can fool our senses, and why evolution made you this way.
Book mentioned: The Case Against Reality by Donald Hoffman
Sources
Book - The Case Against Reality by Donald Hoffman
Book - Deviate by Beau Lotto
The Reality of Reality: A Tale of Five Senses • The Reality of Reality...
Do we see reality as it is? • Do we see reality as i...
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality • Your brain hallucinate...
Eye/Brain Physiology and Human Perception of External Reality www.cycleback.com/eyephysiolog...
Hi! I'm Jade. If you'd like to consider supporting Up and Atom, head over to my Patreon page :)
/ upandatom
Visit the Up and Atom store
store.nebula.app/collections/...
Subscribe to Up and Atom for physics, math and computer science videos!
/ upandatom
Follow me @upndatom
Up and Atom on Twitter: upndatom?lang=en
Up and Atom on Instagram: / upndatom
A big thank you to my AMAZING PATRONS!
Christopher Robert, Purple Penguin, George Xu, Thomas Krause, Damien J, Gadi Shalom, Chris Flynn, Ofer Mustigman, Mikely Whiplash, Yana Chernobilsky, Lynn Shackelford, Richard Farrer, Adam Thornton, Dag-Erling Smørgrav, Andrew Pann, Anne Tan, Joe Court, Roger Johnson, Zhong Cheng Wang, Corey Sampson, Damien Holloway, Ayan Doss, Marcus Dentrey, John Lakeman, Jana Christine Saout, Michael Dean, Chris Amaris, Matt G, Broos Nemanic, John Satchell, John Shioli, Todd Loreman, Susan Jones, Sam Graf, Andrew, Mark, Tamara McDermott, Charles from USA, Peter Manger, John Klinkner, Lou, Hassan Sedaghat, Alan McNea, S, Daniel Eliassen, Sam Ross, Shawn, Kay, Peter Walsh, Osa and Beth Fitch, Garrett Chomka, Jeff Schwarz, Josh B, Zach Tinawi, Bernard Wei, Bobby Butler, Matt Harden, Rebecca Lashua, Pat Gunn, George Fletcher, Jasper Capel, Luc Ritchie, Elze Kool, Aditya Anantharaman, Frédéric Junod, Vincent Seguin, Paul Bryan, Michael Brunolli, Ken Takahashi, Jesse Clark, Steven Wheeler, Atila Pires dos Santos, Philip Freeman, KhAnubis, Jareth Arnold, Simon Tobar, Dennis Haupt, Renato Pereira, Simon Dargaville, and Magesh, 12tone.
For a one time donation, head over to my PayPal :) www.paypal.me/upandatomshows
Creator
Jade Tan-Holmes - Наука та технологія
2:21 do you see black and blue or gold and white?
Gold and white for me
Blue with the bottom parts being black, and the top parts being gold.
A light brown and a very light teal for me.
Gold and white for me. How can one see it as blue and black😑😑??
Black and blue. But that also depends on the type of screen you are looking at, and your settings.
That was my guess when that picture "broke the internet" :)
I remember that I saw it as gold before.
"I had an existential crisis that made me question my whole existence " she said with a sunshiny smile on her face. XD
the crisis is over :)
@@upandatom crisis averted, solved or did you just accept it
@@ricardasist she said it is stronger argument that we don't see truth accurately sometimes.
that's what happens when you see too much Salad Fingers ;)
Now that's the right way to have an existential crisis
"I've recently had an existential crisis that made me question my entire life and existence."
I just call that Monday
I call that everyday.
I've never seen someone describe an existential crisis so cheerfully.
7:10 For clarity, this is not simply an effect of your brain. The eye has a well-researched negative-image effect caused by photo-receptor saturation that causes the effect you demonstrate. In order to properly refresh the photoreceptors, your eye needs at least small movements in the image. Too large an image or the eye remaining too steady whilst observing something will cause the photoreceptors to be saturated by the image, and an after-image will persist when you look away. This is a negative of the actual, and will distort the colors of anything that falls within its area until the photoreceptors properly reset, because the brain misinterprets the signals it receives and inverts the colors.
peY
Exactly. On the green side, your green cones in your retina fatigue, and on the red side your red cones fatigue. Therefore greens become tinted purple on your left and reds become tinted cyan on your right. I know she says the green becomes redder and the red becomes greener, but actually if you pay close attention to the colours you'll see that the green becomes purple-y-er and the red becomes cyan-er.
Technology Connections: Brown is dark orange
Up and Atom: *has an existential crisis*
Later on the brown desert isn’t orange, it is red and also green (on the left and right respectively). The point is that none of the colors “is” the other colors, they just “look to us” like other colors under other circumstances. A brilliant supercomputer or alien couldn’t know what color something will appear to be just by measuring wavelengths of light, they would need to know how our visual systems will respond under the circumstances. Our brains pick colors, they don’t just spot them in the world.
@@mitchgunzler3737 The desert picture is just field saturation of the receptors in the Retina. It's strictly mechanical effect. (Look at brake lights then close your eyes. Still see red?) It was misrepresented in the vid. There are several error corrections the brain makes based on statistics, but not that example no.
Brown is orange with context
Its DESATURATED orange...
Ochre or beige is still a brown? But is lighter than some oranges, right?
Its just that saturation decreases with value.
Its less noticable with e.g. blue because we havent invented a name for that thing and learned since kindergarten.
3:56 It should be "Umwelt". "Welt" means World and "Um" means around. "Umwelt" is the World around us.
this is correct
She should go back and correct the video with a welt-tip pen 🙈
@@robinw77 Almost. But she'd need to use a velt tip pen.
Or did she mean "Umfeld"? 🤔
As said above "Umwelt" (World around) translates as environment.
"Umfeld" (Field around) translates as "surrounding".
@@j.m.w.5064 Könnte auch sein
That was overall a fascinating video. I took particular note of the "hills look steeper when you are carrying a heavy backpack" as I have often noticed, wondered about, and commented to others on a similar perception from my personal experience. I ride my bike around pathways in my city - over and over again through the years. There are many hills - except later in the season when I'm in better physical condition and I notice that the hills have become gentle grades - that no longer look like the hills I remember.
As a german, I was surprised about the word "umvelt" at 3:57 , so I looked it up, but I couldn't find it online.
There is the word Umwelt, which just means environment,
And Umfeld, which means surrounding (more in the sense of which people you spend time with)
Both don't have anything to do with the perception of vision of animals
So if anyone knows, which word she actually meant, I'd be interested to know
Underrated comment. I was searching for it 😅 I guess she means Umwelt, and even though she gave it a new meaning, it's quite clear what she meant. But I'm scratching my head too, whether there's another word that would have exactly her meaning...
I can't hear "brain storm," best I can do is "brain needle."
Similar here, but opposite. ALL I can hear is "brain storm", no matter how hard I try. I think I've given myself brain damage 😄
me too lol
the same
Interesting. I can switch them around and recombine them as I want as long as I am anticipating/concentrating on what I want to hear. 🥺 Doesn't work with the dress though 😅
I hear green storm
"We all see the same user interface on our desktops"
laughs in Linux
"I only interact with my files through manual hex editing"
@@guinn8 Linux doesn't necessarily mean the hard way. There's GUI. And the terminal isn't as hard as you think, it's just counterintuitive to learn.
"everything is a file"
*laughs in low-level software developer*
"Everything is a memory allocation!" -Laughs in assembly language.
desktops are bloat i just use tty
Just found gold! Thank you for doing these videos. This was so interesting I just got that book on audible and planning to experiment on myself with the addition to psychedelic's. Yay!! I love learning new things.
Binged 3 of your videos, ended up here, watched to the end, subscribed. Well done!
I was taught these things in intro psyc, cogs, and phil courses. My profs actually taught well with good examples. BUT YOU explained so much better with interesting examples! I was never given an example of sound being interpreted differently.
Instructions unclear: took psychedelics, got frisky with a beer bottle.
Well, at least you're not trying to mount a bison statue.
I'm not allowed in Yellowstone anymore.
Hahaha
ua-cam.com/video/a8c5wmeOL9o/v-deo.html
Something similar happened to me except it was 2 milk jugs...and one was chocolate
“The first principle (of science) is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool”
-Feynman
I'm so happy I came across this channel! Love your videos!! ❤️
Beautifully put together. I look forward to more.
3:56 German here
"Umvelt" is not a word.
You might mean "Umwelt" (world around sb.) or "Umfeld" (field around sb.).
Both roughly translate to environment; the second being a lot closer in time/space.
Yeah - she meant „umwelt".
It's pronounced umVelt, no?
@@effedrien -yes, just not spelled like that.
@@effedrien , yeah, just like Folksvagen (the car), that's how it's supposed to be pronounced.
@@toyfabrik2993 yes lucky in my native language Dutch we pronounce v and w just like it's written, so we pronounce it Volkswagen, and it sounds ok like that. So it's like a simple version of German ;)
This is also why we should be humble in our beliefs and have compassion for those who are even more confused than we are. Certainty is the illusion, really.
This was a great video. Thank you for the content!
lots of really interesting information that i didn't know, thanks for taking the time to make the video
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.” - Mark Twain (attributed)
Ecclesiastes 1
4:00 dogs can see color, they just don't see all the colors we see. bats are not blind, but they can also use echolocation. i am confident that in the near future technology will allow us to see a more objective representation of reality.
It is not just psychedelics NeuraLink would link us directly to computers showing us endless realities. ua-cam.com/video/Fi66wFfOC-4/v-deo.html
Nice! Last year I made a deep dive on colour theory and it blew my mind on howsubtle the relationship of colour and lights is. Further on the topic, one more example of controlled hallucinations could be misreading words. I have often read words which I thought were suited more in context than actual ones. For example, the local classified newspapers in my place have ads looking for a partner, so I once read "finance" as "fiance" because it was under classified section. Wonderful video there!
Amazing video, really well explained! I have subscribed :)
The fact there we're able to _realize_ our perceptions are so often flawed tells me that things aren't _so_ bad after all. If we were completed locked out of seeing reality as it actually is, we'd have no way of even realizing that were were so locked out.
Gene editing babyyy
succinctly said. too true.
It seems rather clear that a lot of the shortcuts taken by nature in terms of how we interpret the world is due to a lack of either A) Data or B) Processing Power - and this is pretty easy to illustrate in real life through some common examples that almost everyone will have experienced:
First off, you are far more likely to imagine seeing things when you are in *poorly lit* situations. People see things moving in shadows all the time at dusk and in darkened rooms, when in fact there is nothing moving. There is far less light, which equates to far fewer photons hitting your retina, and your brain is struggling to interpret a scene with very limited data compared to normal, and it is taking more and more shortcuts to try to do so. That is an error prone process and so you become more likely to see shapes or movement that simply isn't there.
Second, you are far more likely to hallucinate or misinterpret what you are seeing when you become *exhausted* or *sick* . As we become tired, our brains start working less efficiently, and essentially running slower (if we were comparing them to a computer), but the world doesn't slow down for us, so your brain tries to keep up, doing more with less. That means taking more shortcuts - and making more errors. As a result we become prone to hallucination and misinterpretation of our senses as we become exhausted, to the point where with extended sleep deprivation hallucinations can become quite severe and detached from reality.
In short, we tend to go through life as if our perceptions of the world require little or no effort on our part - but the reality is that a large part of our brain is working hard all the time to make sense of the complex world around us, and anything that makes that task harder or interferes with it will immediately start to degrade our perceptions and make the limitations and imperfections of our perception process more obvious.
You make a good point, I make furniture and a deadline meant I ended up working 4 days and 5 nights without sleep ! Interestingly after a while I stopped feeling tired but 'different' and had hot flushes , As the time went on I could no longer count to 12 (I needed to) but started seeing what I was sure was a little person running across the workshop (Always out of the corner of my vision) and when the dust extractor was running I heard distinct voices that made me look round to find the source despite knowing it was illogical.
So yes you are right the brain constructs some randomness when under stress.
Evolution has NOTHING to do with A) Data or B) Processing Power
What you are describing is why human witness are unreliable in most cases.
@@insidethecore378 yes it does, our brains processing capabilities and our brains data management are both vital for human function
Donald Hoffman's theory goes a bit beyond that, suggesting that even fundamental aspects of reality are parts of an interface. For instance, (our perception of) 3d space could be explained as being an encoding algorithm to help us experience and manipulate information. Donald would argue that reality may not *really* have a space aspect to it.
This is so well done, and so true.
I think, "our senses can be manipulated and tricked," and "our brains sometimes short cut to make things easier," is a far cry from "we see nothing as it truly is".
I think Hoffman's hypothesis is pretty accurate. It's useful to see *enough reality* to carry out our evolutionary imperatives.
We can exceed that with knowledge, but it's unsurprising that evolution optimized for *enough* reality to get by, not enough reality to satisfy some arbitrary other standard.
Nope I wanna flyy!
Evolutionary 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Like it's 1992 lmao 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Exactly. We perceive for survival and reproduction first, then for curiosity.
"We all see the same reality" as a person with autism I'm constantly frustrated that very few people see my reality. It feels like their brains are constantly deleting information to make things easier for them to live with the contradictions that social compromise seems to require.
>feels like
na man that's just how it is. It's easier to accept inconsistencies & overlook illogical but less-relevant-in-the-grand-scheme things for the sake of things running more smoothly.
Well said..
While it's little consolation, take heart in that your experience can be argued as the more 'genuine', accurate observations of reality.
The raw light of truth, without the filters of bias and expectations. A higher form of truth, even.
Sometimes I actually _wish_ I could filter the world like others do. Maybe then I would actually tolerate loud places and actually focus on a single conversation instead of _every one I can identify._
At 8:10 I did the experiment with one eye… and it was so trippy to see the colored deserts with one eye, and then see the normal sand colors with my other eye. Flipping between the two.. was wild. I love optical and auditory illusions
Just tried this out. It's awesome.
The fact that our brain interprets information and we can tell that it sometimes decieves us is actually the best argument in favor of an objective reality. It's good evidence for us likely not making all of reality up in our brain.
Well said
It's really not though. Think of dreaming. You don't tend to know you're dreaming. Your mind fills in the gaps. People in your dreams that are purely figments of your imagination, have their own personalities, constructed by you, although unintentionally. There is no proof of objectivity, only subjectivity.
The Lego piece on the stairwell at midnight is experienced the same by a foot as any other foot. -Aristotle
Because I taste something differently, or see something differently than another person doesn't say anything about the thing we both experienced. It has it's own properties and are fixed no matter the subjective experience being had with the object. It's laughable to conclude that the "reality" of the object isn't real because I can't quite get to it perfectly.
@@jamesdickerson6726 I always know when I am dreaming. Also, the fact that it is possible for your brain to cause you to see and experience things that aren't happening outside your brain does not in any way contradict the idea of objective reality. Our interpretation of the world is always ay least a little subjective, but there must be objective existence even if nobody can truly understand it without bias and subjectivity because of their own imperfections.
@@jamesdickerson6726 no proof of objectivity huh? is that statement itself objective, or your subjective take?
@3:56 it's not "Umvelt" but "Umwelt"
Just as a demo of what she said, it took me 3 minutes to spot the first one had a w. I just saw both with v.
No "w" sound in German...Ich Nacht verstanden
The way she pronounced it I thought she meant Umfeld.
Also, it just means environment. Maybe philosophers give it the meaning she mentioned, but that's not the meaning of the word in everyday life.
@@solar0wind that would also make more sense. We don´t use Umwelt in the context she explained it
Instructions unclear: Keep hearing “brain needle”
It's very important the brain needle stays in the groove...
I kept hearing "green storm"
Same. Brain Needle.
Plus one
@@rahul9704 I keep hearing "why-I-need-o"
WOW!! That was super interesting, thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Keep up the good work. Love ur content
While I enjoyed the video, I want to make one small correction. @8:03 you say we are "seeing with our brain, not our eyes", however this illusion is easily explained without your brain involved. The photon receptors in your eyes can easily become saturated and take time to return to normal. This comes across as a decrease in sensitivity to the color. Therefore, if you stare at a red screen and then look at a painting, it will look more green (because the red coming off it won't stimulate your cones as much). Similarly, if you ski with orange goggles and take them off, the world will look more blue. Not because your brain adjusted, but because the photophysical dynamics of your eyes needs to readjust.
Exactly, I wanted to write the exact same thing. This is a hardware problem, not a software bug.
That's interesting and makes sense but only for that example. Which makes it a bad example for the intended topic that expectations influence perception, which is what this video is about even if she doesn't know it yet
There are thousands of people out there being curious-like Destin at Smarter Every Day, Physics Girl, Veritasium and MANY others. What’s weird to me is just how parallel Jade’s questions and thoughts are to my own. It’s like she’s read my mind and made a video from it! Am I the only person who’s having this experience?
Maybe
@@johnrichardson7629 that’s fair! My working thesis is that the more a UA-camr approximates the base values, thoughts and feelings of their audience, the better their numbers.
The main question is: Are you really having that experience?
@@HunnidTheTrapper02 If not, simulation is compelling. 😉
Anil Seth is right in that what we perceive as reality is actually a simulation of reality created by the brain based on sensory inputs and our "database" of experience. In the simulation business, there is a concept called "fidelity", or how faithfully the simulation models the thing it is simulating. Our perceived reality doesn't model all aspects of objective reality, but we model enough with sufficient fidelity to survive.
This video actually presents a very clear understanding of why there is so much political and sociological polirisation in the world. Because people rarely take the time and energy to realize that information they percieve is always skewed to their own biases, and they draw conclusions from that.
Add the fact that a lot of media nowadays are very biased in what they report and how they report it and there's no question in my mind that the reality of the state of the world is never really what we think it is.
I think this also applies to any interpersonal relationships.
Its true. But the scary part is...it's by design. So, instead of everyone closing themselves off in their own corner. We should all be asking the questions as to why are we all being deliberately divided against each other?
I doubt that. You are assuming this phenomenon is the dominant cause of polarization. It is more likely choice that is the cause. It is true that even if all people valued the same thing, they would inherently disagree on how you obtain it due to differences in perception. However, the reality is that people do not decide to value the same things.
For example. If you really want to shoot me. And I don't want you to shoot me. Well, even if we agree that pulling the trigger of the gun will result in you shooting me, we will never agree on whether you should pull the trigger. That is the dominant problem of politics.
@@braxon You doubt what?
@@falco5150 Read the comment and the comments it's responding too. if you aren't a troll, you will figure it out.
"I've recently had an existential crisis that made me question my entire life and existence," she said with a smile and a twinkle in her eye.
'Brain needle'
At 3:32 I heard Brain Needle.. No matter what I "tried" to hear, I kept hearing the same!
So, when I covered up the squares around the primary squares we were looking at, I still saw different colors. Maybe "blacking" out is actually changing the tint enough to be different colors. Also the desert stayed the same for me after trying multiple times. I did hear green needle and brainstorm as I focused on them.
I copied to paint and used the color picker to join the two squares. They're the same.
@@Allpaka yeah I cropped them out too and had a look and yeah its the same color/colour, which is why this image doctoring trick works, in real life the image would actually be a darker color/colour because its in the shade but for this visual trick they replace the shaded brown square with the regular brown while at the same time keeping the rest of the surrounding cubes in their shadow shaded state, and because we take visual cues from the surroundings, we get tricked into thinking its a much lighter colour/color.
It the same with optical illusion regarding the dress or even the infamous pink shoe, the images were not taken in the proper lighting, the dress had some yellow filter or light shone on it, while the shoe had been darkened to appear almost grey/gray so throwing off people. For those that thought the shoe looked gray/grey I just simply tell them to visualize the shoe in a dark room and then one can see its true colour/color.
@@Allpaka then if the idea of context changing colors is true, they should be the same if I block out the rest of the image no?
@@davidthehudson yes. And they are.
@@sleepcrime not for me
Thank you for your work!!
3:27 Up and Atom: Which one do you hear?
Me: A demon
neither. It did not sounded like an idiom at all. However i could assign as a element of a group called "sounds like something" and in trying to solve for that i would put it as more likely to be closer to something needle then brain something.
@@MakakunaruLoco It was meant to say Brainstorm as from the show Ben 10
the way she says this so cheerfully is just so funny
"I recently had an existential crisis that made me question my entire life and existence!"
If you can't laugh at the idea that this place is just a simulation . . .
The thought crushes you.
Sooner or later.
Very nice subject.Keep the good work.👍
This Damascene conversion to philosophy reminded me of the words of the great Tom Lehrer; "Philosophers are people how specialise in giving advice to people who are happier than they are."
*who specialise
" I had an existential crisis that made me question my whole existence " ...and my heart melted
My ears propped up cus I've been in a perpetual crisis and was eager to hear of her daring escape!
Bats do see! In fact their eyesight is quite good
Yes, they do. I noticed that error too.
They also taste delicious 👅🦇
they do see, but their hearing is their primary sense. kinda like how we can hear really well with training (blind people can echolocate), but we naturally prefer sight.
Bats cant see in the dark.
That has nothing to do with their eyesight!
@@markenangel1813 When they can they prefer to use their sight actually, relying on echolocation only when its too dark to see.
What a great channel. Deserves so many more subscribers
A little mistake: bats are not blind, they actually have good eyes... bats being blind is a myth
Fruit bats don't even use echo location afaik, they have good eyesight. Insectivorous bats fly at night, afaik, I don't know why they fly at night but their super-sensitive hearing is more useful for chasing small flying insects in the dark of night than mere vision. Maybe that's why. You would not believe how small their young are, I almost stood on a baby Bent Wing bat that had separated from its mother. If I remember right, it wasn't much bigger than a thumbnail with its wings spread. Since I didn't quite know how to look after something that tiny, I stuck it on a nearby tree trunk s'posing that its mom would fetch the little guy back (if she recognized its squeak). I hope it squeaked. That was a coupla decades ago.
Dogs can see colors just fine also. Not a well researched piece. Lots'a 'myths' in this vid. Kinda surprising for a "science" video.
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 Dogs can see *some* colors just fine; not so much reds. I found this statement to be more of an acceptable simplification than the statement about the bats
@@AngelValis I agree with "one by..."
Dogs can see colors. Not as many as us, but the statement she made was that they don't see colors. We see colors as well, but not all of them. You wouldn't say we don't see colors just because we can't see the full light spectrum, right? Some animals can see infared; we can't.
@@swr1240
IIRC we can see one non-spectral color and some birds can see more.
“Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality?”, the very first line of Westworld.
“An Argument Against Reality” is simply the best title ever. Please publish a paper with that title!
Good content, first view, subscribed.
I love your channel. You have a great personality and you are very good at explaining things in your videos. Thank you for all your work. I look forward to watching your videos for many years to come
@3:56 Most think it's "Umwelt" (the world around something), but I think she meant "Umfeld" (the field around something)
Learning an appealing subject has never been so visualy pleasing than in this video ❤
Excellent video, thank you!!!
Very informative and well done. This made some pretty involved ideas easy to grasp. I'll keep watching.
The default quote I heard with the audio clip was 'brain needle', but I was able to hear the other three combinations of words with minimal difficulty. It reminded me of those spinning black silhouettes that you see now and then. I find that I'm able to change which direction I see the silhouette spinning in, but it takes a lot of effort and makes my head hurt if I change the direction too many times too quickly.
Edit: If mantis shrimp can see which direction light is vibrating, are they constantly taking light our of superposition in that axis?
Edit 2: I remember my first introduction to blind spots. They've always fascinated me. Interestingly, my uncle could never manage to get stuff to disappear into his blind spot...
I heard 'green stone'.
I hear both at the same time
@@thesystem6246 Bro how? The audio was clearly pronouncing the word "green needle"!😑
New to the channel, great video.
When I was studying Graphic Design I created a piece on our senses. Taking aside our brain’s perception of things, or ability to construct non-realities or agreed hallucinations, I focused on what was coming in. With that I constructed a hierarchy of “truthful” senses down to the “deceptive” senses, and hypothesised that our taste, then olfactory were the most truthful of our senses as we are absorbing a portion of the object we are perceiving, then touch where we have physical contact with the object, then auditory and visual as our most deceptive senses, receiving most of the time a mere reflection from the object. I also hypothesised that most of the reality we construct around us is based on these more deceptive senses, that we are almost designed to be lied to!
Then riddle me this, friendo: cilantro. Does it taste like soap? Why does everything taste like chicken? Why does Indian food smell amazing to some, and terrible to others?
@@NormalPersonCommenting , everything doesn’t taste like chicken….people just say it does. If a person never had tried chicken could they use that analogy? I haven’t tried cilantro, so I can’t say. I love Indian food, and you can always taste and feel the difference.
@@wakeinfright5498 My point is that people experience things in a subjective manner, regardless of the input channel. If to you, taste seems the most "truthful" how can people have such varying tastes? Why does taste vary at all?
If it is the case that taking a part of a thing into oneself is the truest experience of that thing, wouldn't that experience be more... regular?
Because truth relates to the idea of "is", a verb of being, for a thing to be called true, it must "be." If something must "be", it cannot be "not." (i.e. the earth is either roughly spherical or flat, it cannot be both.) As well, if something "is", it must "be" regardless of how it is perceived. If the perception changes what "is", then "is" never "was." There was no true thing, only the perception of a thing as true. (i.e. a person standing in a flat desert saying, "see there is no curve, it all looks flat because it is flat" meanwhile, in the ISS, a person looks down on the desert and says "it's clearly not.")
Applying this logic, if we believe that our senses exist on a spectrum of trustworthiness, the more trustworthy senses should be more uniform in their experience across any given population than the less trustworthy senses. This must be, because a more trustworthy sense, by definition, must provide more information about what "is" than other senses. If not, in what way could you consider the output of that sense to be more or less truthful than anything else?
So, you and I might be walking down a road, eating slices of pizza flavored with cilantro. I might say, "this is good pizza" and you might say "this tastes like soap." Who is correct? If our sense of taste is our most trustworthy sense, how is it we could disagree so wildly on reality? Yet if we walk down that same road, and a car passes us by, will we ever disagree on that occurrence? We both saw it, both heard it. Though our perceptions are subjective, we both have the same experience, a "regular" or "normal" occurrence. This would seem to indicate that taste and smell is more subjective (less trustworthy) than sight or hearing.
Furthering that idea, consider the wine enthusiasts. If you give them a bottle of expensive wine and a bottle of cheap wine, they will trash the cheap wine and praise the expensive wine. Put both wines into an unmarked decanter, and now they can't tell which is which; ironically, they will often describe the cheap wine as better than the expensive one. If taste is supposed to be more trustworthy, why does secondary knowledge (the price of a given bottle) affect their taste?
@@NormalPersonCommenting I totally agree with what you are saying, but again you are focusing on the sense, and the owner of the sense, as opposed to the stimuli. I acknowledged that what was said in the video was spot on, all I am focusing on is the stimuli. An analogy I will draw upon is a person tells you a story. Compare that to the person writing down that story, it being sent to an editor, who may change wording, tone, etc, then being read by another person who has the ability to misread or spitball their own view whilst being videoed. That is the difference between stimuli. Some have less scope for variance, whilst overs can easily be altered and misconstrued.
@@wakeinfright5498 I see how I've misinterpreted your idea. I suppose I find it odd that the top of this hierarchy of stimuli correlates to senses which seem the most individualistic. The seemingly inverted relationship is rather interesting to consider, given the video's subject of discussion. Thanks for chewing the cud with me, though.
@3:33 I am hearing brain needle
That's because the sample is using harmonics from all of those 4 words
Is it weird that I just can't get myself to hear needle?
@@vanillesosse yeah, I hear a really strong "st" which makes needle impossible. "Green storm" was the closest I could hear
@@gillablecam exactly
I could hear brain needle and green needle but there were too many syllables and no 'st' sound to hear storm.
This is great, keep it up. I've worked in the psychology field for most of my life and really enjoy seeing philosophy valued in this way. Looking forward to more of these. Good work.
Do you also deny your senses?
after many existential crisis, i have come to the conclusion that the boundarys which keep us away from questioning everything are actually a good thing to have to stay sane.
The dessert scene is the Red and green imprinting on your eyes due to fatique, The same happens during a camera flash... That isn't the brain messing up or believing the dessert is UNDER red and green light.. That one actually makes sense, The color is imprinted and when you look down it perfectly overlays that color Onto the image, You could have looked at a white wall and still seen it.
I’ve had this thought in a similar spirit: integrity is the true metric of value and test of ‘authority’. Integrity over truth: perceived or ‘real’
Integrity with reality, not fantasy. That is where virtue is. 😁🎉
The neural network used for auto-generated captions hears "[Music]"
I would prefer auto-transcription of music lyrics too.
Ngl, that intro was absolutely ✨gold✨ for how lighthearted and candid it is xD
After some work, I can now switch between all of these at will: brain storm, green needle, grain store, brain store, drain store.
No guarantees this will work for others, but for hearing brain storm, I just want to. That seems to be my usual default. For green needle, it's much harder to get it, unless I focus on the N at the end of Green. I just want to hear "green" and then focus on that N and imagine it being drawn out a bit. Then I hear the whistle sound after it as if it was a quick H between N and EE in Nheedle. Instead of ST. For any of the store" ones, just focus on how the end of the audio clip actually doesn't have the M sound; when you hear brain storm, it sounds more like you're hearing brain storrruh and your brain is assuming an M was intended but forgotten. So just focus on how that M is missing and you hear store. Then pick ay vowel, and G, B, or D at will for the start. (All voiced stops.) D seems to be harder but possible.
I tried to hear "green needle", but I kept hearing "brain storm".
If you've noticed this is EXACTLY HOW the representatives of the system often speak - so regardless of what we CONSCIOUSLY HEAR they are "covered" because subconsciously we heard it the way they REALLY meant it!
That's because Covid-19 is a 100% hoax.
@@openeyes-411 I heard, "We're in a live exercise here". - Mike Pompeo, USA Secretary of State, speaking about the Covid-19 pandemic.
Breathing Bear what’s wired is I heard both at different times. While laying in bed I heard green needle clearly. Then I watched video again and clearly heard brain storm. Made me question if the video is goofy. Lol I figure it’s just me an the way we operate. Extremely odd though. :)
I was trying to hear brain storm but always heard green needle. Funny.
2:21 Man I was able to see the dress transform it's colour from gold to black!
Edit: it changes colours as I blink!
Thanks Jade!
You must be an alien.
@@TheSimChannel Or Barbara Eden
The dress was blue and black the very first time i saw it. Then I blinked and it has been white and gold ever since
@@CaptainMisery86 The brain learns and does error correction. Once you establish a color, you are building a statistical base for future events. Your brain compares these.
Great video Jade. Reminds me of that masterful series James Burke did called "The Real Thing"
thank you for another mind bending presentation. Take care
I stumbled onto this video and was like: "How is she saying this with a smile on her face?". But then I realized that you're right, we shouldn't be afraid to accept that we are not perfect. Very curious where this will lead you and I will tag along for the journey. Thank you for sharing your experience!
And bcuz she’s awesome
because she's lying to you,
I honestly find topics like these the most exhilarating. The fact is that we are so wrapped in what we comprehend, and the fact that none of it is real and so many people want to live in the lie that it is. Philosophers and spiritual giants all over the world time and again have tried to bring this to the common man, but time and again it has been rejected or twisted because the common man fears letting go of his identity as he perceives it. Because then he feels that he has nothing to call his own, to identify with. But I believe loss of this false self-identify is the ultimate purpose of life. To realize that none of this is real.
That red/green desert thing completely mind f'd me... that's crazy.
It is just field saturation of the retina. Nothing to do with your brain 'tricking you'. Look at red brake lights, then close your eyes. Same thing. That said, there are error corrections the brain makes that are astonishing.
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 I don't know about that, is only the eyes are involved, why the red/green became suddenly horizontal inverted then? I heard that the brain hemispheres control the opposite part of the body so maybe there is some of that also...
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475
The retina does have variable sensitivity, but it's more than that. The visual cortex also compensates for the steady color shifts while staring at the red/green blocks. This kind of compensation, or accommodation, occurs for many other sensory inputs or perceptions.
Example: Drive down a road at steady speed, keeping your eyes fixed on a spot directly ahead. When you stop, you will feel a temporary sensation that your car is moving backwards. It's especially strong if you were driving through falling snow.
@@marianneoelund2940 yeh its a bit of both.
Retina and cones essentially get exhausted. Glancing at the sun produces blue-violet dots.
But also colour is relative in brain. Hold a colour next to grey and guess what the gray is. Likely with a few examples youd at least say its "cool grey" or "warm grey".
Then brightness value is very contextual. Painters know a white object in shadow may be darker than a dark grey object in sun! Like the moon. Which is a very dark object!
Then if you strobe the red/green you brain just creates a new nonexistant colour thats always fun. Red-green would be an impossible physical colur but is perceivable.
Excellent video!!! ❤☺
Fascinating video! Who who'd have thought that Plato would be right in his assessment of reality?
The example where people with heavy backpacks asses the hill steeper than people without a heavy backpack was the most surprising to me.
Jade is just an awesome person. Watched her for years. Love her presentations. Still think she deserves more subs. I think she'll get there
as soon as she stops with the erratic zooming.
You literally don't know who this person is at all. You like the character that you see. This is a huge problem with people today. You actually think that you "know" her and can make a judgement, lol
4:03 Many bats have relatively good night vision (although when in caves there might be no ambient light at all). They use echolocation very well, but are not blind (most species anyway).
When I was a kid I used to worry I was dreaming when awake. It usually happened when I was in the bathroom. It started happening after I had a vivid dream one night where I thought I was awake and needed to go to the bathroom. Its not a good thing to wake up and find out you are not. Even now I occasionally get a feeling of unreality while in the bathroom.
Also while I was a kid, I used to wonder if other people saw the same colors I saw or if they saw something that I would not recognize as the colors I knew.
I dont know why I thought about stuff like that as a kid. I was a weird kid.
Well done!
As long as reality is accurate _enough,_ there’s no pressure to see it completely accurately.
what is "completely accurate" though?
This is assuming you have some kind of unfiltered access to things-in-themselves that serves as a basis for comparison
2tehnik i guess complete accuracy would be having data In your consciousness that’s isomorphic to every piece of data about reality, but even then their would be multiple ways for conscious experience to be isomorphic to reality (red could be switched with green etc)
@@Adraria8
>but even then their would be multiple ways for conscious experience to be isomorphic to reality (red could be switched with green etc)
what do you mean by this? How could a thing have contradictory properties? such as being green and red at the same time?
That aside I think you're missing the point.
Which is that the whole comparison s ridiculous on that basis that you do not have any "data" that tells you about things-in-themselves.
In fact I'd argue that it's not coherent to even think it possible to have "data" on things-in-themselves.
And I'd argue that on the basis on Berkeleyian idealism (though it goes for Kant's transcendental idealism too).
If it is granted that there is thought and idea, and that things-in-themselves are wholly independent of that thought or idea, then how could the former, as a separate substance, in any way represent the latter? Would not that mean that things-in-themselves are like ideas? But we've entirely established things-in-themselves as not ideas.
In other words, ideas are only comparable to ideas; an idea of a 2 meter long stick is only comparable to an idea of another extended thing.
Furthermore, if we are to agree that what we perceive comes by way of relating between its content, ie. is a relationally dependent sythesis. And if we think of things-in-themselves as something solely independent from other things-in-themselves, it'd be absurd to also say that they are characterized by properties that depend on other things.
For example, if what color we perceive depends on what's in a shadow, or what wavelength the photons coming to my eyes are, etc. Then it would be absurd to claim that it's something that things-in-themselves have.
Of course all of this is not to say that there can't be further philosophical inquiry done into this to see whether things-in-themselves are knowable through some other method (post-kantian philosophy essentially was about dealing with all the restrictions Kant put up).
But what I do believe is that asserting that things-in-themselves are known through their representations is a belief we hold on the basis on unquestioned intuition, rather than proper investigation.
@@bosstowndynamics5488 alright, but that's a purely pragmatic solution.
As far as ontology is concerned you'd essentially be admitting that color is not an objective feature of things-in-themselves.
>a world perceived without all of the corrections that the brain applies
compared to what? a world you perceive without your brain?
The point is that because everything is "filtered through the brain", claiming knowledge of the nature of things-in-themselves is stupid; claiming the existence of primary qualities is simply a dogma on which you want to ground the supposed difference between "rightful" and "subjective" perceptions.
Like now where you implied space is some real quality things have in-themselves.
@@bosstowndynamics5488 can you read? Or are you just completely incapable of actually understanding the point I'm trying to make?
What I am saying is that, you have no real basis to claim that things-in-themselves, *if* they even exist are extended.
The claim that the brain has some "objective" data and some it just fills in is a pure presupposition.
And yes, I agreed that color was not an objective feature of noumena.
I only ever hear Brain Storm, without any resemblance to Green Needle. But I wonder if that was due to the fact, that I read from left to right, and Brain Storm was written on the left side, so it naturally was the first thing I read when watching the video.
the "ee" in needle is the "s" in brainstorm
@@markenangel1813 how
@@oledakaajel when i compare the timing of when i hear "brainstorm" and when i hear "green needle":
brain→green
nst→need
orm→le
I couldn’t hear green needle either, I covered the words brain storm and only read green needle and it still sounded like brain storm.
I clearly heard green needle.
Jade....i just love your videos ....your such a captivating beautiful soul....making a boring,interesting,fasinating,cosmic.....so much more enjoyable to watch.
Thank you Jade! ♥️🥰
up and atom: “it looks white and gold to me”
me staring at a black and blue dress: ok ??
that's so crazy because I absolutely cannot see how it could possibly be black and blue!!!
@@upandatom some people see in what they say is black and white, this is not exactly true, They usually can't see a particular colour which effects all the primary colours.
Up and Atom reality is lying to you ! lol i promise i’m seeing black and blue !
It’s definitely white and gold. Someone went to the effort to produce a similar blue and brown dress just to fool us.
I have managed to see it white and gold once but never again since
I love the direction this video is taking me. The brain and its workings are similar throughout the animal kingdom so that common means to misperceptions are probably shared between the various species. You touched on our available senses, but our universe (in all likelihood) contains information available to many more than just five senses, but we can only go with what limited receptors out body has. Granted we can identify other animal’s senses like magnetic field, sonar, ultraviolet senses, but what other wonders of perception lie out there? And how would our brain interpret those signals?
Great video. Really interesting. Your accent flits between ozzy and english loads. I don't know if you spent much time in England but it's cool none the less.
Gold and White every time other than the random side by side pic floating around. My husband and I discuss this all the time. If we have different views on a color, I ask him what color on swatches and some colors are always different between us. Life is fun that way.
Thank you again!
"Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them." - Obi-Wan Kenobi
Our senses are the only means of gaining knowledge of reality. The idea that such knowledge can be gained via mystical revelation is pure fantasy.
@@robertromero8692 Are you calling Science fiction pure fantasy!! How dare you sir, how dare you.
@@SuperNerdEntertainmentShow
One thing that irks me a little is that Doc Brown named his kids Jules and Verne.
Jules Verne despised Sciene Fiction that was pure fantasy.
H.G. Welles wrote the Time Machine.
Jules Verne's work was based on extrapolating reality.
But yeah Star Wars is fantasy.
Chico Marx had an alternative question: "Who are you going to believe: me or your owneyes?" ua-cam.com/video/cHxGUe1cjzM/v-deo.html&ab_channel=JamesSchneider
Great topic that also caused me a sort of perspective crisis. Being effective at reproducing is all that really matters to survival and evolution. Natural selection doesn’t care if living things perceive or understand reality any more than is needed to effectively reproduce. It’s a crazy blow to our general sense of understanding.. things really “are” not what they appear to us.
natural selection is all about "the good enough to have kids that have their own kids." and nothing about the best or the optimal. natural selection only ever optimizes in harsh environments and only to the point where reproduction is easy
...until we become creators of the simulation.
Really man
Main gee
I have 2 examples where I hack reality.
1. I have a wall unit in a poorly lit area. I could put the light on to see the keyhole, but I don't. I just wait for like 2 seconds, and my brain fixes it for me. My brain knows the keyhole is there so it improves my vision to allow me to see the keyhole.
2. I have a box of books which is quite heavy. So if I want to move it I lift it, then I put it down. I lift it again and my "muscle strength has improved" slightly to allow me to move the box. This of course only lasts like for 2 seconds, so only use this technique to move an object a short distance. Of course this same reality hack is used in the party trick where 4 people can lift a heavy person. Your brain realizes you want to lift this person so it "makes you stronger" for long enough to lift that person for a few seconds.
You nailed that red and green song. Subscribed.
I don't know if you'll see this comment, but as someone who makes videos discussing philosophy, I feel that I have some important points to make on this subject. I have a lot of fundamental disagreements with this video, it's really cool to see you discussing philosophy on your channel since I usually watch you for you're physics and math content. There's a lot of things I would have to say and unpack in response to this video, and maybe I'll make a response on my channel.
The main thing I want to point out is that our perceptions are still observing things that are true regardless of the fact that we don't see everything at once at all times. Our perception is obviously "limited" to the interactions between reality and our sense organs, but those interactions are facts. Our mind can misinterpret them, but we cannot drop the fact that these interactions themselves are factual. They obviously have a context (i.e. we don't perceive every truth at once), but these interactions are the basis for all knowledge that we have.
Early on in the video, you argue that illusions are a basis for denying the validity of the senses. However, I think you are conflating misinterpretations of the mind with invalidity of the senses. You're mind can misinterpret a specific interaction between reality and the senses, but that interaction is still a fact that is necessarily true.
Later in the video, you go into why our senses evolved to perceive reality in a certain way. This is actually a really interesting topic that science can find an answer to eventually. However, it's a leap in logic to claim that, because we perceive reality in a specific way, we aren't perceiving "true reality." One doesn't need to perceive everything from every conceivable perspective to perceive "true reality." It is the role of science to see things from other perspectives and to discover things that aren't perceptually given, but our senses are the basis for science. Our perceptions may not see everything, but they still see something. This something is something true.
Here's a video I made on this topic that you might find interesting: ua-cam.com/video/5Im9o_iz2Vk/v-deo.html
If I read you correctly you are saying something like, my eyes see the truth it is just my brain didn't understand what I saw. If that is essentially what you mean, then you are making her case for her, not refuting it.
This first example with the cube is amazing. Indeed RGB values of the squares are the same. However, if we consider the illumination is different, then the eye tells the truth. The actual colors of the object *must* be different, if this where a photographic image.
Therefore in this case - and in most cases - the eye tells us *more* truth than RGB measurement can do, because it takes the *whole situation* into consideration.
This is a very complicated process that can fail sometimes and can be fooled, but it is very powerful.
It is just a misconception to think the eye is a thumb measuring instrument.
That's the premise of the argument, though. Those colors are the same, however, the shortcuts our brain is wired to take leads us to experience two different colors. You're right it is more likely that those would be different colors in the real world, but that is not the case in this example which is why the argument is that we do not see reality. Our brains construct our experiences based on the input from reality, but our brains make a lot of assumptions when constructing our experiences of reality. Those assumptions are not reality.
@RogerWilco99 Do our eyes take into account the different contrasts or our brains???
@RogerWilco99 It is not a flawed example. It is an example of the flaws of human perception. They are literally the same color. Once the components that are tricking your brain's shortcuts are removed, it becomes apparent you were deceived by your own brain.
excellent observations, thank you. I did not think of that side of this. It's somewhat reassuring!
@@humicroav215 I dont say the example is flawed. It is just, the eye and the brain are not interested in wavelength spectrum of of light. It is interested in the reflection properties or coefficients of the material (color) and it calculates this properly and this is what we see. This is a complicated job and sometimes impossible and can fail under artificial or random circumstances.
When I was in possibly late elementary school or early High School, I came up with the idea that we may not all see the same thing particularly the same colour. I meant that if I am looking at a blue object, while a friend is also looking at a blue object, the colour our brains show us may not be the same, although we will both agree that it is blue, because that's what we call that colour. I had difficulty explaining my idea to my friends, even my very intelligent friends. Basically they all told me I was stupid and moved on. I still think that is possible 60 years later.
The dress issue is due to the effect shadow has on the observer and "how" they choose to interpret what is being asked when they see the colors of the dress. If you paint your wall a light grey, in low light situations, it will look dark grey. If you know for a fact that the wall color is light gray, you might say "light gray", discounting the shadow effect. Someone else, who is going only on their observation, might say "dark gray", due to the effect of the shadow. In full light, the dress was white and gold...but in shadow it appeared to be more blue and black. The differences in answers is due to whether people compensate for the shadow effect or not.