Our worldview alters our view of the world | Zafir Ivanov | TEDxNelson
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 12. 2022
- Have you ever wondered why so many people seem to be immune to evidence? Zafir has been thinking about this for most of his life and thinks he may have found part of the answer. What he wasn’t expecting, is that this answer can help us to have better conversations.
Zafir has been interested in belief formation and how we think about evidence for as long as he can remember. Recently he has been focusing his research on how we respond to counterevidence.
He writes articles explaining some of the concepts relating to the ‘Bayesian Brain Hypothesis’ and its implications for how we think about evidence for and against contentious issues. These articles are informed by recent research in neuroscience and cognitive psychology.
He has collaborated with the Cognitive Immunology Research Initiative on a model to help people respond appropriately to counter evidence. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
You sound like a natural public speaker, Keep it up.
Thank you.
yeah, that makes debates/conversations interesting thing to do.
This video should have as many views as this channel has subscribers
That is one of the best compliments/endorsements I’ve ever received. Thanks very much.
This is an excellent video that addresses a difficult subject in a clear down to earth manner.
That is high praise from a Podcasting Hall of Famer. You gave great advice in your acceptance speech.
Compelling and thought provoking Zafir~
Thanks Lisa.
Excellent talk. An issue I have been thinking about for some time.
Thank you.
In recent years, research relevant to this topic has taken off across multiple disciplines. I think we are getting close to understanding why some types of belief seem immune to counter-evidence.
Feel free to comment or ask questions. I'm more than happy to have my positions challenged.
Wouldn't it be a greater miracle for consciousness to arise from matter, than matter arising from consciousness?
@@peterburns4586 Now that is an interesting question. Why do you think that?
Can you give me some context so we don't talk past each other?
@@peterburns4586 I didn't answer your question. No I think it is more likely that consciousness arises from the functioning of the brain.
@@no_idea_is_above_scrutiny well perhaps I should have you check out this discussion I was listening to that has really changed my view.... It's Donald Hoffman and lex Friedman on what is consciousness. In would love to hear your thoughts on some of his ideas, if you have the time.
@@peterburns4586 I’ve heard Hoffman being interviewed a few times, including by Lex. I find the strong version of his arguments such as, objects being like an icon on a computer screen, or the moon only existing when we look at it unlikely.
A weaker version, such as what is put forward by Anil Seth is what I suspect is closer to being correct. There is reality although we are not adapted for perceiving it accurately and our perception is constructed by the functioning of our brain. Wavelengths of light are perceived as different colours due to their wavelength. The wavelengths are real and the colours are our perception of them.
Another explanation that I find compelling is Karl Friston’s Free Energy Principle. We have a model of reality that is constantly being updated. We infer what is outside of our boundary (Markov Blanket) and we can also act on it to make it better match what we want to see. This is called active inference.
Seth’s and Friston’s models make more sense to me than Hoffman's. This is mostly outside my area of expertise, so my credence is not that high.
Thank you Zafir - well worth the time spent watching.
Thanks for taking the time to check it out.
In his TEDxNelson talk, Zafir Ivanov argues that our worldview shapes our perception of the world. He suggests that our beliefs, values, and experiences influence how we interpret information and make sense of the world around us. Ivanov uses examples from his own life to illustrate how his worldview has changed over time and how this has affected his understanding of the world. He also discusses the importance of being open-minded and willing to challenge our own beliefs in order to gain a more accurate understanding of the world.
The talk has been well-received and has been included in lists of top TED talks.
Thanks for the summary.
The main point I was trying to convey is the importance of avoiding absolute certainty.
I didn't know it was on any recommended lists?
How did you find out about this talk?
@@no_idea_is_above_scrutiny
I found your conversation with theistic people, and that person viewed your channal.
Isn't worldview is just like confidence because it does not need to based on facts, but on emotion/fantasy?
I mean facts are physical or measureable things.
@@Im-not-alone-Im-full-of-myself When I refer to ‘worldview’, I’m speaking about the set of beliefs that shape our understanding and interpretation of incoming information. This concept is often referred to as ‘top-down processing’. These beliefs might be formed from facts and evidence or they could be from stories and emotions, as you noted.
From my perspective, the certainty of our beliefs significantly influences our perception of new information.
To answer your question; Yes, although, if our confidence in our worldview is unwavering, it affects our ability to accept facts. For instance, an individual who staunchly believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible often rejects facts about evolution or fossils. A flat earther will reject facts that might support a globe shaped earth.
Our worldview alters what we can accept as facts.
@@no_idea_is_above_scrutiny
why we accepts books info as facts without figuring out it may be wrong?
@@Im-not-alone-Im-full-of-myself That’s a surprisingly tricky question that I don’t have a great answer for.
There is an idea that people have an intolerance of uncertainty, and not having something to trust causes anxiety. There is some merit to this view, although I think there is more to it than that.
There is an idea that society can’t function without a degree of trust. I think this is probably right.
Also trying to figure out everything for ourselves takes time and energy. So, learning from other people’s effort and mistakes provides a shortcut. In general, it takes a lot of effort to produce a reference book and we have an expectation of higher accuracy.
My advice when encountering new claims, regardless of where they come from, is to ask ourselves “thanks interesting, I wonder if it’s true?”
Cool, I have just finished chatting with you on another channel, that's why I'm here.
Thanks for checking this out.
Who determines what is weak or strong evidence? Who says what is “quality” evidence?
Hi Daniel.
Those are two very good questions that I didn’t have time to address in my talk.
There are general guidelines and rules of thumb we can use.
These include: how many participants (or data points) were in the study, what were the methods used, could there be alternative explanations and has the study been replicated.
I think a good starting point is to get a more nuanced understanding of what is evidence.
I highly recommend “An Intuitive (and Short) Explanation of Bayes’ Theorem” on the Better explained website.
@@no_idea_is_above_scrutiny Thank you for your reply Zafir. There is something I would like to add to your above response.
While scientific studies are fine for certain things, not everything we claim to know can be processed in formal scientific studies. Love, friendships, trust, compassion, wisdom, intuition, creativity, the past & unrepeatable events of history, truth itself, beauty, justice, philosophy, intelligence, discernment, genius, consciousness, and many other aspects of our knowledge, simply cannot be processed in empirical studies or replicated in the laboratory. You can’t even scientifically test one’s subjective predilection in assigning priors in Bayesian calculations.
We don’t rush off to the lab to verify everything we believe to be true. It would be impossible.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, Zafir!
@@Psalm1968 Thanks for the reply.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “You can’t even scientifically test one’s subjective predilection in assigning priors in Bayesian calculations.”
Are you saying it is not possible to design an experiment to investigate how we choose our priors ? Are you saying that Bayesian priors are always subjective? Or, are you saying something else?
While I would agree that well conducted experiments are not always the appropriate method for gaining knowledge, I think we can use something analogous to the scientific method for revising our credence in most claims.
Regardless of the claim, I would still ask myself:
What kind of evidence could change my credence in the claim?
How much data or evidence is there?
How was it gathered?
Are there confounding variables?
Are there potential biases?
Are there alternative explanations for the evidence?
I don’t think everything that you have listed are reliable methods of gaining knowledge about claims. I think a few of them may even be sources of bias.
I’m not sure; we would have to be specific about what we are claiming to make sure we are not talking past each other.
@@no_idea_is_above_scrutiny Hi again, Zafir. Thank you for replying once again. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.
To your first set of questions.
First, what exactly is involved in science? The creativity, ingenuity, wisdom, experience, genius, love for one’s subject, desire, philosophy, intuition, etc of scientists themselves. All things that science itself cannot “prove”. Secondly, there is no one singular, one-size-fits-all method in science for testing things. That’s a myth of our modern era.
Second, you cannot use science or whatever you think constitutes “the” scientific method to demonstrate that science or its methods are the only way we can know if something is true.
And yes, I do believe there is subjectivity involved in assigning priors in Bayesian analysis. That’s why people who use it who have differing worldviews often come to different conclusions when implementing Bayesian calculations.
You can’t use “the” scientific method to demonstrate who is properly assigning priors to a historical event for example, like the origin of the universe or the origin of life or Jesus’s rising from the dead.
Your _worldview_ will largely determine how you set priors for those things, not the events themselves. They don’t come with priors attached to them. Priors are someone’s interpretation of the data, not what the data actually says.
What I listed previously are not “methods” but very integral aspects of human epistemology, without which we don’t have our society as we know it. Yet they are also concepts and ideas that “science” and its methods cannot empirically demonstrate to be true or real.
From your comments it appears you ascribe to some form of logical positivism.
@@Psalm1968I partially agree with you on some things and mostly disagree with you on others. From my point of view, what is generally considered the scientific method contains procedures to minimize confounds and biases.
As I was trying to get across in my talk, I think our worldviews are a collection of priors. These priors impact how we see evidence.
The CZcams comment section isn't great for nuanced discussions. We can continue via email if you like. The about tab on my channel should show a contact for me.