Great piece to watch think ask yourself how does this play in your art or how you view photos and life around you it is a great piece to have a group discussion, family, friend, students, church, it has many possibility all one would have to do is open your mind be free to think and say what you believe
How does one imagine a current self? A feeling? As mental content? One's behavior? What, put simply does (or do) a self (or selves) consist in? No one has any solid idea. No philosophers, and certainly no psychologists can provide a coherent, logically, and phenomenologically compelling description of what is a self (or selves) might entail. At best, we know the self via acquaintance (cf Russell, 1912) -- but that is at best. Given this state of affairs, how exactly does one imagine a future self (i.e., as an entity, state, collection of information, feelings, behaviors, etc., etc.) when it is unclear what is occurring when a person claims to be imagining his or her current (synchronic) self. More, what makes X (i.e., self) at some future date, the same X as at present (the issue of personal diachronicity)? Assuming there are material changes (weight, age, etc.) as well as mental changes (new experiences, memories, goals), we certainly do not have numerical identity. How much overlap is needed to claim that X at time 1 is the temporal continuant at some future X time 2? What does psychology have to offer to this age old problem (recognized in antiquity by such riddles as the the ship of Theseus)? Answer in brief = 0. Such central matters -- and there are Plenty more -- do not even register a blip with the "scholars" of academic psychology. Apparently they cling to the childish notion that "method will prevail (i.e., so long as we employ empirical procedures, conceptual issues will sort themselves). Of course, this sad attempt at reasoning only confuses necessity and sufficiency. Contemporary psychology is a pseudo-science occupied largely by "academics" who like to pronounce the logically unwarranted conclusions of their demonstrations (academic psychology does demonstrations -- whether traditional or with the crutch of machine [e.g. fMRI]). Unlike science, they do not rely on empiricism (i.e., experiments) to distinguish between theories (this is necessitated by the sad fact that there are virtually no scientifically justifiable theories in psychology. The most a psychological theory can predict is "effect present/effect absent. And ordinal prediction does not permit meaningful discrimination between hypothesized outcomes and theoretical predictions). These "scholars' are best kept in their towers and not allowed to disseminate their nonsense to an unsuspecting public. Don't we have enough fake news these days?
4:37 Creating a better tomorrow doesn't require "sacrifices" today. Let's take just one area: saving money today for a better tomorrow. That only applies as a "sacrifice" if you are of the mindset that you can't enjoy today without spending all your today money.
One of the basics of Islam is to focus in the "future" self parallel to focusing in your current self. and to have that reflect in your current decision making process. But that is the "future" self of afterlife. In the Quran it is repetitively asserted to do "know" what will benefit you tomorrow, but without forgetting about today. So in a similar concept, even if you are limiting your "future" self to this life, I don't see it's practical to have to go through a visualized experience in order to do today what will benefit you tomorrow.. but rather, it should be based on a solid mindset by observing the reality of life through others, the life experience, difficulties, conditions of old people. because it is really degrading to the human abilities and capabilities, to assume that we should go for a visualized way of reasoning rather than of observing the obvious reality around us, everyday, everywhere.
This is probably one of the most underrated ted talks I've seen
So true 👍💯 you are spot on
Phenomenal Talk Hal!
Awesomeness!
Well done!!!
Love it
wow nice talk
So the better you are at caring for others the better you become at caring for your future self.
yes i agree
Great piece to watch think ask yourself how does this play in your art or how you view photos and life around you
it is a great piece to have a group discussion, family, friend, students, church, it has many possibility all one would have to do is open your mind be free to think and say what you believe
How does one imagine a current self? A feeling? As mental content? One's behavior? What, put simply does (or do) a self (or selves) consist in?
No one has any solid idea. No philosophers, and certainly no psychologists can provide a coherent, logically, and phenomenologically compelling description of what is a self (or selves) might entail. At best, we know the self via acquaintance (cf Russell, 1912) -- but that is at best.
Given this state of affairs, how exactly does one imagine a future self (i.e., as an entity, state, collection of information, feelings, behaviors, etc., etc.) when it is unclear what is occurring when a person claims to be imagining his or her current (synchronic) self.
More, what makes X (i.e., self) at some future date, the same X as at present (the issue of personal diachronicity)? Assuming there are material changes (weight, age, etc.) as well as mental changes (new experiences, memories, goals), we certainly do not have numerical identity. How much overlap is needed to claim that X at time 1 is the temporal continuant at some future X time 2? What does psychology have to offer to this age old problem (recognized in antiquity by such riddles as the the ship of Theseus)? Answer in brief = 0.
Such central matters -- and there are Plenty more -- do not even register a blip with the "scholars" of academic psychology. Apparently they cling to the childish notion that "method will prevail (i.e., so long as we employ empirical procedures, conceptual issues will sort themselves). Of course, this sad attempt at reasoning only confuses necessity and sufficiency.
Contemporary psychology is a pseudo-science occupied largely by "academics" who like to pronounce the logically unwarranted conclusions of their demonstrations (academic psychology does demonstrations -- whether traditional or with the crutch of machine [e.g. fMRI]). Unlike science, they do not rely on empiricism (i.e., experiments) to distinguish between theories (this is necessitated by the sad fact that there are virtually no scientifically justifiable theories in psychology. The most a psychological theory can predict is "effect present/effect absent. And ordinal prediction does not permit meaningful discrimination between hypothesized outcomes and theoretical predictions).
These "scholars' are best kept in their towers and not allowed to disseminate their nonsense to an unsuspecting public. Don't we have enough fake news these days?
4:37 Creating a better tomorrow doesn't require "sacrifices" today. Let's take just one area: saving money today for a better tomorrow. That only applies as a "sacrifice" if you are of the mindset that you can't enjoy today without spending all your today money.
One of the basics of Islam is to focus in the "future" self parallel to focusing in your current self. and to have that reflect in your current decision making process.
But that is the "future" self of afterlife. In the Quran it is repetitively asserted to do "know" what will benefit you tomorrow, but without forgetting about today.
So in a similar concept, even if you are limiting your "future" self to this life, I don't see it's practical to have to go through a visualized experience in order to do today what will benefit you tomorrow.. but rather, it should be based on a solid mindset by observing the reality of life through others, the life experience, difficulties, conditions of old people. because it is really degrading to the human abilities and capabilities, to assume that we should go for a visualized way of reasoning rather than of observing the obvious reality around us, everyday, everywhere.