Thank you so much for this! So informative and well presented. I was wondering if you had a list of sources/references for this video please?? So i can read more articles about the paradox :)
A major philosopher who argues the weaker version of Illusion Theory is Henri Bergson, in Two Sources of Morality and Religion. The concept he uses is not illusion but the virtual, though. He argued this well before Colin Radford formulated his paradox.
Listening to this instead of working on actual homework and rationalizing that this is equally if not more important than the homework because it more evidently pertains to the everyday life of a young adult that is me. :( time to finish the series
Do you think that maybe when you're reading something and generating an image of it in your head, your mirror neurons fire as if to mimic whats happening in that image? Like if i just sat here and thought about a guy doing pushups would my mirror neurons fire in the same manner as my regular neurons when I do pushups? Just a thought, I guess I will never actually be able to know without some brain scans or something :(
Great video! Does Radford himself ever present his argument in the way that you do here? I have seen a lot of different sources put his argument in the form of the three premises that you do here, but he never actually does that himself in his text. I'm writing an essay on this subject rn and I want to use those three premises, but it seems strange that he never uses them himself, at least not that I can find...
I LOVE YOU SO MUCH , THANK YOU VERY MUCH THIS IS JUST PERFECT anyways , yeah so i have more than a question but ... , doesn't rooting for the villains prove that the mirror neurons theory is wrong ? ,
Hey, thanks for the video i find it very informative. First of all please excuse my English, it's not best obviously. I'd like to offer a point of view of screen writer. I believe quasi-emotions should be called empathy instead and it has more to do with Illussion Theory. Let me explain: Obviously we do not believe that villians that trying to kill Bond will kill us but we do believe the emotions they have are real, Bond's and other characters'. It's all about emphathy. We do get to experience the same emotion that characters experience (given that they are believeable- more believeable characters and their problems (script) and their emotions (actor's play) the better and more immersive the play, film, book. Isn't it?). And we can do it by triggering emphathy, which is basically ability to co-experience emotions. I will not go into details why we allow ourselves to trigger empathy as viewers and how can it be engineered by good screenwriting but that's what we do when we write. We are trying to catch viewer into the story to engage him so much that he forgets aout the real world and get so deep into the story and characters problems, that he actually lives it himself (meaning emphatically co-experience emotions). Character's fear is our fear etc. In my view that's what Illussion Theory is about, and as such is pretty true and obvious to every storyteller if I may be so bold. We do not enjoy feeling sad in general but we are willing to take on the emotional journey even if that may involve negative emotions on our side, simply becuse it is so much fun, just like we agree to that when we decide to go bungee jumping or getting on rollercoaster, we actually pay for it :). That's what's the most attractive part in any story: we can become somebody else, travel, live his "life", it's an adventure without actually doing anything apart from reading/watching/hearing. How would it fit into your considerations. Looking forward to your comments
So, i´ve thought of a bunch of responses to the thesis you´ve presented here, but i will only respond to the objetions to irrationality since i feel a bit tired, but there´s enough here for an excellent debate. 1. There is no link between the fact that something rational is preferable to something irrational, we want thing to be rational but there isn´t any necessary compulsion to do so, there isn´t any reason we should prefer rational acts to irrational ones, even then, we could just say that, sometimes, irrational acts doesn´t have any moral content, because if someone who is insane, does something irrational but nevertheless inoffensive, that doesn´t mean its wrong for him to act in this way. A possible counter to this would be if you said im being too relativistic in my stance on the relation between rationality and what we "ought" to do. And you may be right, but, we would need to enter in another realm of debate to solve this issue, so i would argue that its only a presupposition to argue in favor or such relation. 2. But, as far as the fictional text is concerned, our reaction to it doesn´t matter, maybe the author intended us to have such disparate emotions in quick succession, but, the fact is, there is no required emotional response from any form of fiction at all, i could be a sociopath who doesn´t emphatize with Ophelia, and this wouldn´t change the fact that she is supposed to be a tragic character. There is no "right" emotion to fiction. Let me try to hit the point home: say you are reading Harry potter, but you didn´t like it, your response to the book isn´t at all what the author intended and yet, you are entitled to your opinion about the book. 3. Doesn´t really matter what we find fiction is useful for, for example: say that you are reading something like Notes from Underground by Dostoevsky, but you do not feel like it changed your opinions either way about the issues he´s trying to cover with the novel, be it either because of some cognitive deficit you may have or that you weren´t convinced on the issues, but there is no requirement for you as a supposedly critical reader to go either way. Another way of countering this argument for usefulness is: what can be potentially useful as a moral/spiritual guide to us doesn´t necessarily mean it is "rational", for example, imagine someone who doesn´t kill another person because he want´s to do it for whatever reasons, but he believes that he would be punished by God if he done that, and because of the certainty of the punishment, he can´t bring himself to do it; but, is this a rational response? i mean, his belief in god isn´t rational, because faith isn´t reasonable, faith is the pure submission to a belief without proof or rational thought, you may try to justify this rationally a posteriori, but the very fact of faith isn´t rational in itself. So i can be "guided" by something absolutely irrational.
You are indeed one of the hidden gems on youtube. The information you are presenting us with is unvaluable and I think you deserve way more attention.
Great stuff. Aesthetics and logic are my favorite branches of philosophy.
Thank you for taking the time to do this video, this has made the last 4 weeks of study make sense! Thank you again!
There's no paradox to why I feel emotionally moved by the quality of your presentations...
Thank you so much for this! So informative and well presented. I was wondering if you had a list of sources/references for this video please?? So i can read more articles about the paradox :)
Fascinating! Such a great youtube channel.
A major philosopher who argues the weaker version of Illusion Theory is Henri Bergson, in Two Sources of Morality and Religion. The concept he uses is not illusion but the virtual, though. He argued this well before Colin Radford formulated his paradox.
It made my presentation so easy for me. Thank u so much.
Listening to this instead of working on actual homework and rationalizing that this is equally if not more important than the homework because it more evidently pertains to the everyday life of a young adult that is me. :( time to finish the series
Do you think that maybe when you're reading something and generating an image of it in your head, your mirror neurons fire as if to mimic whats happening in that image? Like if i just sat here and thought about a guy doing pushups would my mirror neurons fire in the same manner as my regular neurons when I do pushups? Just a thought, I guess I will never actually be able to know without some brain scans or something :(
Great video! Does Radford himself ever present his argument in the way that you do here? I have seen a lot of different sources put his argument in the form of the three premises that you do here, but he never actually does that himself in his text. I'm writing an essay on this subject rn and I want to use those three premises, but it seems strange that he never uses them himself, at least not that I can find...
I LOVE YOU SO MUCH , THANK YOU VERY MUCH THIS IS JUST PERFECT
anyways , yeah so i have more than a question but ... , doesn't rooting for the villains prove that the mirror neurons theory is wrong ? ,
Hey, thanks for the video i find it very informative.
First of all please excuse my English, it's not best obviously.
I'd like to offer a point of view of screen writer. I believe quasi-emotions should be called empathy instead and it has more to do with Illussion Theory.
Let me explain: Obviously we do not believe that villians that trying to kill Bond will kill us but we do believe the emotions they have are real, Bond's and other characters'. It's all about emphathy. We do get to experience the same emotion that characters experience (given that they are believeable- more believeable characters and their problems (script) and their emotions (actor's play) the better and more immersive the play, film, book. Isn't it?). And we can do it by triggering emphathy, which is basically ability to co-experience emotions. I will not go into details why we allow ourselves to trigger empathy as viewers and how can it be engineered by good screenwriting but that's what we do when we write. We are trying to catch viewer into the story to engage him so much that he forgets aout the real world and get so deep into the story and characters problems, that he actually lives it himself (meaning emphatically co-experience emotions). Character's fear is our fear etc. In my view that's what Illussion Theory is about, and as such is pretty true and obvious to every storyteller if I may be so bold. We do not enjoy feeling sad in general but we are willing to take on the emotional journey even if that may involve negative emotions on our side, simply becuse it is so much fun, just like we agree to that when we decide to go bungee jumping or getting on rollercoaster, we actually pay for it :).
That's what's the most attractive part in any story: we can become somebody else, travel, live his "life", it's an adventure without actually doing anything apart from reading/watching/hearing.
How would it fit into your considerations. Looking forward to your comments
thnk you this really helped my boyfreijnd
Can you do a video on Waltons objection?
Is anyone able to tell me when I can find the Irwin & Johnson paper regarding mirror neurons? I can't seem to find it! Thanks!
so helpful thank you
Hi is it possible for you to give your references? As I am currently writing an essay on emotion caused by fiction and that would be really helpful
Excellent
(1) is wrong. Problem solved ;)
Thanks for your videos!
So, i´ve thought of a bunch of responses to the thesis you´ve presented here, but i will only respond to the objetions to irrationality since i feel a bit tired, but there´s enough here for an excellent debate.
1. There is no link between the fact that something rational is preferable to something irrational, we want thing to be rational but there isn´t any necessary compulsion to do so, there isn´t any reason we should prefer rational acts to irrational ones, even then, we could just say that, sometimes, irrational acts doesn´t have any moral content, because if someone who is insane, does something irrational but nevertheless inoffensive, that doesn´t mean its wrong for him to act in this way.
A possible counter to this would be if you said im being too relativistic in my stance on the relation between rationality and what we "ought" to do. And you may be right, but, we would need to enter in another realm of debate to solve this issue, so i would argue that its only a presupposition to argue in favor or such relation.
2. But, as far as the fictional text is concerned, our reaction to it doesn´t matter, maybe the author intended us to have such disparate emotions in quick succession, but, the fact is, there is no required emotional response from any form of fiction at all, i could be a sociopath who doesn´t emphatize with Ophelia, and this wouldn´t change the fact that she is supposed to be a tragic character. There is no "right" emotion to fiction. Let me try to hit the point home: say you are reading Harry potter, but you didn´t like it, your response to the book isn´t at all what the author intended and yet, you are entitled to your opinion about the book.
3. Doesn´t really matter what we find fiction is useful for, for example: say that you are reading something like Notes from Underground by Dostoevsky, but you do not feel like it changed your opinions either way about the issues he´s trying to cover with the novel, be it either because of some cognitive deficit you may have or that you weren´t convinced on the issues, but there is no requirement for you as a supposedly critical reader to go either way. Another way of countering this argument for usefulness is: what can be potentially useful as a moral/spiritual guide to us doesn´t necessarily mean it is "rational", for example, imagine someone who doesn´t kill another person because he want´s to do it for whatever reasons, but he believes that he would be punished by God if he done that, and because of the certainty of the punishment, he can´t bring himself to do it; but, is this a rational response? i mean, his belief in god isn´t rational, because faith isn´t reasonable, faith is the pure submission to a belief without proof or rational thought, you may try to justify this rationally a posteriori, but the very fact of faith isn´t rational in itself. So i can be "guided" by something absolutely irrational.
Art & Creativity is Right Brain, and not Left Brain thinking?
Fiction theory.
hello . philosophy is a make believe wor.l.d , thought processing , psyche or logical behaviour . with regards