Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
The Perfect Human Being Series E11 - Thomas Metzinger on choosing a different personality
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 лип 2016
- German philosopher Thomas Metzinger is interviewed by Dutch journalist and philosopher Bas Heijne. Metzinger (Frankfurt, 1958) is cofounder of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness. He is specialised in the philosophy of consciousness and the ethical aspects of developments in neuro science. In this video, Heijne and Metzinger talk about the psychological concept of the self, how it can be altered and what the consequences are for society when such technologies are developed.
Bas Heijne (1960) is a Dutch writer and interviewer. He studied English language and literature, has published numerous books and is well-known for his opinionated essays and columns in newspaper NRC Handelsblad. For the tv series De Volmaakte Mens, Heijne went on a personal quest to discover what defines 'being human' in our increasingly technological society. He interviewed philosophers, technologists and scientists around the world, in search of the future of the human species.
This interview is an excerpt from the Dutch science programme De Volmaakte Mens (“The Perfect Human Being”), episode 3 'Tinkering with the Soul'. The six-part science series De Volmaakte Mens was broadcast on Dutch television in Spring 2015.
More info (in Dutch only): www.vpro.nl/de-...
God is Dead. - Nietzsche
You is Dead. - Metzinger
Neither meant it in the way that you're referring to.
Elvis was a hero to most - but he never meant shit to me
Great intellectual, his self model theory is a very good explanation of self consciousness, lucky to hear him
Always fantastic to listen to Thomas
I've been listening to him for awhile as to his interesting theories but with this video I just decided that I like him very much. This is weird but I keep on coming back to videos I've seen before or sometimes seem new to me and I see comments by myself that sound like me but I have no idea of having ever made. My other reply below I have no idea of ever having made and it seems unusually something or other, not quite me or maybe more than I usually am. And not just a few of these comments. I run across them often these days. How very strange. However not more strange than anything else in "my" life. Life is very strange in almost every way I can imagine it.
He is very interesting.
You may be consuming too much video content, it's not a great medium for deep learning. I consume multiple hours a day because it's so interesting but don't remember most of it.
Wow, great interview! Thanks
I am blessed if I can figure out the actual difference between a self-model and a self as such. Also, I find Metzinger promotes the brain into a kind of obscured master of this modelling. That seems to me to be a kind of theology manqué.
Other "Buddhisms" are available.
Das größte seiner Werke ist wohl Subjekt
und Selbstmodell.Ein absolut großer,
moderner, genial wichtiger Philosoph.
Hallo
Heinrich Peter Maria Radojewski Schäfer Leverkusen, wir haben auch einen Deutschen Kanal, evt. interessant für Sie:ua-cam.com/channels/Bi0VEPANmiT5zOoGvCi8Sg.html
Danke. Nichts interessantes gesehen. @@vproextra3443
Wenn man ein bisschen nachdenkt kommt man eigentlich recht schnell auf den Gedanken, dass es ein selbst nicht gibt. Es ist fast schon intuitiv.
This is mind boggling and ingenious
Yes just look at the above comment!
Putting all into consideration, could the "world" be any different from what it is ( or present itself to be)?
Aldous Huxley came up with that idea more than half a century ago: soma for the people! 😘
Koestler recommended this also in "The Ghost in the Machine".
ब्रह्म सत्यं जगत् मिथ्या, जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः |
@12:28 The Dalai Lama has actually worked together with neuroscientists and psychologists for research purposes. There are some good explanatory models for meditation and mindfulness, too.
Physicists saying that there are no objects, time, etc? So physicists have an insight into the noumenal world (reality in itself)? I strongly doubt that.
No, more like modern physics has collapsed the subject-object dichotomy
Many physicists and philosophers would say there are no 'things in themselves'. Not me, of course.
So in short answers like re-programming a robot to do whatever you want kinda but With humans and more brainwash stuff
The thing about criminals 6'40'': Thomas mate, what the ferk are you talking about?
You
Could he be a alian hybrid he sound like a robot tooo.
It’s a bad microphone
Consult Popper on the logic of scientific discovery, but not politics. Don't tell a homeless man his aspirations should be more modest.
The government is not a homeless person.
"We should continously minimize suffering"
This is where you failed as a human being, and lost everything.
what do you mean?
Elaborate?
Really? You dropped a bomb yet don't have the courage to explain yourself. I'd have to say then, piss off.
@@johnmiller7453
I will try to support what I think the position may be. Please understand I disagree with Wondering Lion's assessment. It is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
1) Suffering is how we learn what to avoid in our environment
2) We get off on believing we are heroes, and that we can self-cause despite logical and empirical demonstrations of determinism and randomness.
Conclusion: Therefore suffering should be maximized.
@@thejackanapes5866 you are spot on
Proof it! Change your accent.
...and he will never know anything about the source why his brain made these models?
He presents some very plausible teleofunctionalist hypotheses in his book ("Being No One"). The question of "Why?", however, has to be handled with care, I think, since it sometimes implies some sort of deeper reason or even "will of evolution", as if evolution would have to had "meant" something. I think evolution had its "reasons" in terms of functionality and adaptivity; not in terms of what anything means, since the ascription of meaning has in itself only become possible after a certain step of evolutionary development of the human brain came to pass.
@@jukeproject haha... You know that reason is NOT living in the brains of animals, in the growth of trees and even in the bloom of flowers? Did you forget that life is a gorgeous web of interrelation that cannot exist without any REASON, cause, inducement and good sence?
@@fannyhuth3157 No offense, but to me, personally and rationally, that is sentimental nonsense. You can believe whatever you want, of course. But do not confuse personal, epistemically injustified belief-systems with scientific philosophy. Neither do I claim that one is better than the other per se, nor do I think that science is infallible. But epistemologically, one definitely has the high ground, which is all I'm saying. And the past 2500 years of metaphysical confabulation, inflated by religious dogmatism, has made it very difficult for many, unfortunately, to get rid of some of the belief-systems which are historically hardwired into our culture and face some (undoubtedly uncomfortable) scientific facts. Of course, nobody has to live her life in line with scientific findings. But most of the time, in everyday matters, most of us do, which makes it somewhat weird that they always draw the line when it comes to personal matters, philosophical questions of the self, or metaphysical questions of the soul or god or however you want to call it. Noone beliefs anymore that matter is composed out of four elements, or that the sun revolves around the earth (ok, some probably do, but well...); but when science and neurophenomenology tells us on the same empirical and logical grounds that our "self" is only a transparent model realized in the brain and not an existing, non-physical substance, nobody buys it.
This title always flares up the red flags. Who is the perfect human being? According to me the perfect human being is Elon Musk, Captain Paul Watson, Ingrid Newkirk, Peter Hammarstedt and a few others. With other words the Superhuman by Friedrich Nietzsche.
This guy is shamelessly taking Buddhist ideas and presenting them as his own
And buddhists taking ideas of someone you don't know and so on