Karl Pilkington, the Onion, and the Problem of Free Will
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 02. 2011
- A clip the Ricky Gervais Show that illustrates the problem of free will. He's easy to make fun of, but Pilkington actually makes a pretty profound observation here.
Note: I am using this for educational purposes only. I do not have the rights. those belong to Gervais and HBO.
I love these Karl moments where he's on the verge of making a half decent point, like he's almost onto something, but Ricky and Steve mischievously interpret what he's saying for the sake of comedy.
tpl89 ikr
All the time lol, used to be annoyed from time to time with it, as sometimes Steve and Ricky's comedy isn't worth interrupting carl sometimes that is 😂😂😂
This is actually an extremely profound question. Philosophers debate this exact thing all the time.
***** What a logical and well reasoned argument.
And actual neuroscientists like Sam Harris would have said just what Ricky Gervais said in response to the question: The mind and the brain are not two separate things! Every part of the mind is produced by a different part of the brain.
PaladinswordSaurfang I'm about to cry... "Actual neuroscientists like Sam Harris"... my god... look up "appeal to authority" Sam Harris is not taken seriously in neither philosophy nor neuroscience, he has no experience in any of the fields, his book "Free Will" relies on pure rhetoric and no actual arguments, aswel as over-relience on libets experiments, which requires you to assume physicalism, then layer assumption upon assumption to see as an argument against free will.
*****
"Sam Harris is not taken seriously in neither philosophy nor neuroscience, he has no experience in any of the fields"
Idiot. I just hear assertion after assertion. It's clear that you don't like Sam Harris, but can you actually provide any real arguments?
Oh, and an appeal to authority is not always a fallacy. You're the one who needs to look it up.
Again, if you want any evidence, you can look it up yourself, but you won't, because Sam Harris is your god and hero.
I have not met a single philosopher on philosophy forums that take Sam Harris seriously, and if you want to ignore this, go ahead, he certainly didin't convince me.
It's clear that you worship Sam Harris, and you think he is some kind of authority in those fields. He has done undergraduate work in philosophy, and done basically no studies in neurology, and he wrote a book that was slammed among philosophers but since its all rhetoric, people like you swallowed it, because you can finaly understand a philosophy book. :)
Today I learned that Karl is Descartes
godmode9 without all that silly Latin stuff.
You could call him Deskarltes.
In this case I think Karl is asking a good question: are we more than our brain? And if so, are we controlling our body or vice-versa.
Ricky and Steve are just as confused as Karl on this
they're more confused, because at least karl is thinking of it as a question
You sure that its nor karl thats confusing them?
No it's just the two of them pretending not to understand him for a bit even though he's right.
_SUDDENLY ONION_
Karl and Steve would rather get caught up in semantics and pretend they don't know what he means than just explain Karl's error in expression to him
+YourPalHDee You mean Ricky and Steve
+Owen Swift lmfao, yeah sorry I had Karl on the brain
Do you mean your brain had Karl in mind, or that you were thinking of Karl?
They're kind of both right. You are your brain, but there are parts of your brain that work away without you being consciously aware of them and directing them. They'll sometimes pop up and 'speak' to you. (Like - oh! remember the onion!) So you have an 'observing' you which feels outside of the rest of your thoughts, and then 'your brain' which seems to be something different.
To see what I mean, just try not to think of anything (by observing your breathing or something) and you'll find thoughts just pop up seemingly on their own.
no
Lmclean89 What a profound and well thought out response.
Nah, Karl is right.
hes echoing sam harris but in a really linguistically reductive way
sam hassan
Sam Harris echoes all on his own.
I love how Karl has such an observant, curious and down to earth way of seeing and thinking of things and Ricky and Stephen always laugh at his supposed dumbness and weird ideas when he makes so much sense.
Karl makes a lot of sense actually. I relate to a lot of it. Love these podcasts.
The thing with central nervous systems is that there's all the bits collecting information and sometimes responding on their own (recoiling from a pinprick only signals your spine which then goes back to the pricked spot, and heartbeat typically only reaches the cerebellum), along with the cerebrum or forebrain which interpret information with more complexity. Something in the environment probably stimulated him to think of an onion.
I think Ricky's being a little harsh to Karl in this one. We talk about this all the time what with the mind vs the brain, conscience vs unconscience etc
Ironically, he has given an example of one of the finest thought experiments that's used to demonstrate the genuine absence of free will.
So you're saying it does provide output but that the output is already determined, because it was already extant in the input (or previous inputs)?
What season and episode is this?
People here seem to think that the yt comment section of a Ricky Gervais Show video is the right place for a serious scientific debate, especially by people with no actual knowledge of the matter (actually of any matter). I especially love the "Karl is actually right" -type of comments - like Ricky and Steve weren't perfectly aware of the situation. This is comedy after all. Yes, you are very observant, clever and unique, you've shown that, now please kindly bugger off
Morgan Ban Bogol hear hear
Karl is kind of right here. We are mere observers of the products of our brain, and we can't account for how thoughts pop into our heads.
I'm making you think of this comment
@Apanzon Where did you get a silly idea like that?
The way Ricky sizes up Karl's various lines of thinking (or not) is by far the best part.
I'm with Karl on this one, I mean how else do you explain irrational phobias, ocd , random thoughts etc? An example is people who are hydrophobic. Why would you fear water ? Yes I know you can drown but there are other things that can kill you as well that you don't necessarily fear like knives , cars etc. What makes you have Selective phobias?
Carl's not wrestling specifcally with his brain, but different parts of it. What he was saying here was his naive approach to the difference of eidetic memory (total recall, photographic), Declarative memory (searching your mind for some specific memory), and Procedural memory (unconscious memories that pop up, onion lobe). He makes a rational point, just not one that makes any sort of scientific sense. He's actually pretty smart to be able to notice and discern things like this, despite not knowing anything about their natures.
negative life experiences usually from childhood
Karl's just trying to account for why his thoughts appear in his consciousness. Sam Harris deals with this excellently.
The pop culture atheist?
@@chattingesque372 This was 7 years ago. I've changed my mind a lot. Not a fan of Sam Harris at all.
@@ManForToday I can respect that!
everyone should have a friend like karl, hours of great conversations
what documentary?
It is actually a profound question.
In a sense we don't have free will as from the perspective of your conscious self (i.e. your self awareness and experience) you don't have free will at some deep level as thoughts simply arise in consciousness, you have no idea what your next thought will be...and thoughts ultimately dictate your actions. Also there's a lot of external factors that you have absoloutely no control over. Plus it is highly plausible that we live in a completely deterministic universe.
HOWEVER
If you consider yourself to be your brain, like Mr Gervais said, then you can be said to make conscious decisions, therefore can be said to possess free will. Also the fact that we don't know the future can be used as a defense for free will.
Ehm, determinism has been falsified by quantum mechanics and is now completely discredited. Sorry, but don't post bullshit in the comments assuming that you are the only one who has googled these words. :)
Google definition of determinism: "the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will."
Quantum mechanics is external to the will.
Quantum mechanics falsifies the idea that everything can be predicted.
Sorry if I haven't represented determinism accurately enough. :)
NB: I hadn't assumed I was the only one who had "googled these words" at all. By the way I first came to know what determinism is through reading books, now I could have a go at you for assuming things, but I won't. :)
"All events" means all events, not all events in human action. Again, you are talking about a "completely deterministic universe" and quantum mechanics has certainly falsified that, that's all I'm saying.
Okay fair enough.
But all this is only relevant if you are a reductionist, keep that in mind.
I'm an agnostic person but your comment intrigued me, it may be possible that there is a religious force or spiritual plain in effect if there is no explanation for consciousness in this century. I hope it's further explored as it's a very thought-provoking topic
I do philosophy of mind at A-level, and it's so interesting to see Karl default to a Substance Dualist position of some sort, or even an Epiphenomenalism position, whilst Ricky goes straight to Smart's Identity Theory
ricky's head is so far up hard science's arse its unbelievable
typical Ricky gervaise-- 2nd graders grasp of deep philosophical issues that come naturally to Karl Pilkington
Karl is on the precipice of a nice thought there; he's talking about our soul. He just didn't make the rest of the leap, but it made some sense I think.
aintgonnahappen Actually he's talking about the conscious and unconscious minds, but he lacks the vocabulary to express himself.
Thanks again. Yes mental problem's can be over seen in some way for sure, even though it can seem real hard. Like i previously mentioned, i tend to use negativity as a learning curve in some way i guess to use for happiness in the long run. (As like a two steps back, three forward sort of thing) I just hope people can use these kind of skills also sometimes who are in the same situation as that. Then im sure life would be more pleasant for them too. Cheers.
what is that at 0:00 ??
This style of animation makes me physically ill.
You should see a doctor about that, son.
one of the videos in the related/featured box at the end of the video, is a lecture by sisyphusredeemed. i recommend his channel for discussion of these topics in depth
That's what i love about Karl Pilkington, he is a very deep person, but always finds the most simple way to phrase things, he does my favorite kind of humor completely naturally! Any stand up humorist would want this brain.
This is one of my favorite sketches
Depends in which sense you use the term 'you', but the most refined thing that can be called you, if you broke yourself down into your various parts, is your brain matter.
Anything else can be removed/changed or modified, and you would still have the same thoughts, feelings, personality etc. If you do anything to the brain however, everything that constituted 'you' changes or dissappears.
While Karl's wording is a bit off, this actually is a great question to debate. I'd actually agree with him that, if such a situation occurred, without sensory input, the brain would not learn - extremely well that is. Likely, there would be some thoughts and dreams in some abstract sense but it wouldn't necessarily just create concepts like "sound is just pressure waves created in the air."
While the brain is a machine, in charge of the complex processes that help to keep the body alive, there is a slight disconnect. An "extra" is a good way to describe it. The unconscious is another perfect title. Regardless of terminology, the body and who (insert name) is are not always one in the same. For some reason, I have a deep admiration for and of Karl and his thoughts. At base value, it can sound like ignorance but a lot of what he says can be picked apart for a deeper meaning. I'd like to bring this question in front of a load of psychologists and psychiatrists - and hope they don't ignore the deeper question and jsut check me in for an evaluation.
Does the wikipedia control the comments or do the comments control the wikipedia?
Why can't I post a link to any other video here?
Karl You are great! I love that you question what most of us are too jaded to question. Thank you.
Why can't I post a link to any other video here? Well, Karl can do a search for "Gateway to the Mind", an educational video created by Bell Science Laboratories and Disney. It should help.
I was just thinking that. Everyone has an inner voice which is their conscious mind talking, where you are actively thinking things, and then I think what Karl was trying to say was that deeper in your unconscious mind something makes you remember things even though you weren't even trying to.
You can to a certain degree, perhaps even utmost degree; not without tools (whether personally developed or external) though. There's tips & tricks, and there's also endless ways to reprogram yourself to whatever humanly/personally possible of your liking. Your last claim can be answered as well with the part above on reprogramming. Example of external Tools for reprogramming: Meditation, Psychedelics (especially LSD), NLP, etc.
i am conciousness i think therefore i am, i am all what is and ever shall be.
@sttate hmm yeah but where do the electrical signals go. and if we're just matter does that mean matter is conscious and cares and experiences. did the consciousness come from matter or is it an intrinsic part of matter. did matter possibly even come after consciousness.
I believe there’s different parts of memory, it’s still hilarious how Karl notices them
@keir193 yea but did you write that or did your brain?
What he's saying is that thoughts emerge from an ether that is not susceptible to a concious author. Otherwords, the fact that the onion suddenly entered his mind, made him think: "How come I thought of onion and not something else" or maybe even "Where did the thought of the onion come from, I certainly wasn't concious of it?" And further more, makes you think: "What exactly am I concious of?" "Which actions DO I author out of my free will?"
...that showed that what we consider a conscious choice is simply awareness arising from the previously made decision by that part of the brain that we are not consciously aware of.
I can't believe this finished... New season pl0x!
2:42 "you are your brain if you are anything you are your mind your brain your collection of memories your personality, your not what you look like" quite profound if only more people would realize this
Can someone point me to the youtube video where Karl has an argument with himself, where his ear is telling his eyes to do something or something like that?
Something similar happened when he wrote in his diary that "there are so many sounds in the universe, every sound must've been used at least five times".
They also laughed at him that time because they were saying he was stupid for thinking someone chooses sounds, but he was talking about how certain sounds we hear probably pass through the same frequencies more than once and different sounds share equal pitches.
Karl actually ponders much more complicated stuff these two give him credit for.
Because we're intelligent enough to become self-aware, and once you're self-aware, you have a consciousness. One inherent trait of the consciousness is to be its own agent. That's why you feel like you have a "soul" that is separate from your body, because your brain is intelligent enough to be aware of the body's self and become an agent of the body.
@mackeymkay that's probably what he meant but Karl seems to be talking about duel personalities i.e. him and the brain are two different entities. Ricky and Steve are pointing out that both the conscious and subconscious reside within the same brain.
Yes, though I didn't talk about the subconscious. Even conscious choice is subject to the laws of physics as I described. You may think of it a redefinition of choice, but I think of it as a more accurate description of the process we call choice.
very true, also, most people are subconsciously guided more by the social structure of their world rather than the "free will" aspect. pretty much everything we are, is made up of learning from others and not 'pure' self. the debate around free will is very interesting. do we really have free will? or are our actions dictated to us by what we glean from the world around us
I don't feel like I'm external to my brain. The seat of my consciousness feels to me like it's behind my eyes and between my ears.
Yeah i was going to say that. Carl actually asks a very good question. Humans do have a conscience/self-awareness that is currently unexplained.
it isn't when you rephrased it, does the brain(subconscious) controls you(conscious) or is it otherwise?
Reminds me of:
Ricky: "Who am I talking to right now, you or your brain?"
Karl: "Right now it's... me, I think."
Ricky: "Are you going to get your brain involved at some point?"
Ok: The question of whether there's Absolute Free Will is a metaphysical question and can only be argued by the metaphysical position of Determinism, not by arguing Psychology. I was arguing Psychology because in the first place I wasn't arguing about Free Will, and I also argued that Pilkington wasn't arguing about Free Will either in his question (he never got that far in his questions, assuming he was at all interested). If you want to argue about whether Absolute Free Will exist ~
I believe what he was trying to ask, was whether or not the brain can add thoughts to the activity of the consciousness.
I am no expert by i suppose it can in a way. the conscious state may be writing a list, looking through memory for the items it needs. However an activity such as putting on a coat may have triggered additional thought processes into last time he put his coat on. This may produce a reminder of onions which he had not remembered previously, when he was trying to think of them.
@enaksound You mean sub-conscience?
i think karl was talking about the 'unconscious' part of the brain (the part that makes you breath naturally, that makes you blink etc)
@HLecterPHD "take a functioning body and brain with no consciousness, thats a machine." It's exactly the same with consciousness. In the end, all we are are electrical signals taking input from the environment and calculating that information to form a physical reaction or thought.
If you think about it, we're not even truly conscious, we're just a really complicated machine taking something in and putting something out.
You CAN say there are no ghosts in the machine if you know that the mechanisms are deterministic (perhaps with randomness). No matter how complex the system is (think about a supercomputer), it's composed of smaller parts which are easier to understand (with computers transistors, with brains, neurons). If you're striving for absolute certainty, you won't get it outside of the realms of logic and maths.
It's funny/interesting because Ricky Gervais doesn't subscribe to Libertarian Free Will (at least now he doesn't). So from my understanding, Ricky in this clip is talking more about what the "self" is, and Karl is getting more at the nature of Libertarian Free Will. Ricky identified with, and thought, that we are our brains/thoughts, when in reality we are not our thoughts and we don't control them.
Which then gets to what Karl was saying with the onion in this clip. If one takes notice (which isn't difficult), thoughts just arise into our conscious awareness. We don't freely author them. They just pop up, and then we incorrectly take ownership of them, as if we freely consciously authored them. We generally become identified with thought, as if they are US, when they are not. The thoughts just pop up all on their own. There is no Libertarian Free Will going on there. We do not think our thoughts before we think them.
"Who reminded me of that?" "You did!" + the looks on their faces! :D
"it was just like - 'Onion!'" *heavenly choir*
"do I need me gloves, it's cold out... suddenly onion"
I'd like to see all episodes written down, it would be funny in its own way.
Good to hear that mate. Although i must admit i can't seem to like electronic/house an all that, i just don't get the point to it. I can understand it being underground because ive been to trap raves before, mostly for the drugs lol. But it just seem's like the same beat all the time to me as with rock an hip hop it has a story behind most songs.
Carls question is actually a good one, Scientists and philosophers have pondered the question of the 'ghost in the machine' for ever. "Who is me the one that uses my brain.." It provokes the question of conciousness and the human spirit / soul.
You can think of your brain as a computer and your body as external hardware. Your brain processes and remembers information, while your body takes in information from the outside world for your brain. Your eyes give you all the visual information you need, your ears give you all the audio information you need, and your nerves bring in all the physical information you need, etc. With all this sensory input, your brain can paint the picture of reality. But only in as much detail as your senses.
Our brain is the person we are, regardless of looks or thoughts
I often get that impression. By not knowing some of the things Ricky and Steve take for granted, he sometimes comes up with very original and interesting thoughts. The other two just pick up on the "stupid" element of the thought and shoot it down based on that, when the general idea is actually a lot more profound than their own thoughts on the matter.
This is actually a great existential question. As Aristotle postulated are we greater than the sum total of our parts? I think there are many human examples where 1 + 1 = 3
@ashpewl Not sure how it is linked to memory, as the ego acts to realistically fulfill the ids basic pleasures. I just don't see where the "question concerning the ego and the id" is within this video. It seems more to do with short-term memory.
lmao at Ricky's expression when he said, "You did!"
@Rory99M He's looking at things from inside the brain, they're looking at things from outside. They are both right from their own perspectives but wrong from each others. Inside we -experience- multiple parts of our selves interacting with each other, but from the outside we -observe- that it's all part of one system.
So what is observing thoughts ideas and memory's then?
What does "we" refer to in your second sentence? Some disembodied homunculus?
@realworldish Thanks. I wish I could claim I thought it up, but it's a line by the '80s comedian Emo Philips. It did seem apropos, though...
@Fordi Fair comment. However, I would argue that freedom involves choice, at some level. So if our consciousness is merely being informed of the result of a decision, not actively taking part in it, I would lobby that the above doesn't qualify as freedom. But I don't know enough about the brain to form a conclusive opinion. I am not a neuroscientist. ;)
@Impulse725 Im pretty sure they touch on this aswell in a separate show where they talk about the operation where someone got their brain "cut" in half and the left side (brain) controls the right side(body) and vice versa, So Im guessing its just to aggravate Karl. On a personal note multiple specialist systems working in coordination sounds a lot better (though my opinion means nothing) than a materialist cartesian theatre (cartesian theatre is just lazy thinking.)
@enaksound yeah I've always thought that, karl comes up with some interesting philosophical ideas. like the idea of identical clones "how would i know which one i was" made perfect sense, if you had the same memories youd both think you were the real person not the clone.
I'm not my brain, I'm somebody completely different.
wrong
Yes, there is real randomness, but free will cannot arise from randomness. I somewhat agree with you. You might say that free will is an illusion, but necessary. I would slightly disagree because it has some consequences. For example rehabilitation (if possible) of criminals as opposed to punishment, or at least containment of harm as opposed to revenge.
@HLecterPHD But we don't appreciate, we simulate appreciation. Just like a game simulates a 3d environment or a light detector simulates sight.
A machine does experience it's equivalent to taste, its input that it's designed to take in.
Personally, I think Karls question was pretty dumb, but I also think that Ricky and Stephen weren't handling it very well and didn't understand what he meant.
That is actually a valid question, I am very afraid of heights, I visited a tall tower and I had problem going close to the ledge, my body said oh it is so dangerous but my brain said that it was no problem and I had to force my body to go close to the ledge and I mean force because my body fought it.
It's no contradiction at all. The option of doing the "should" part is not available to you if you are unaware of it. By telling what "should" be done, we have in our heads the idea of a course of action that could be taken. Whether you do the "should" part or not is determined by the physics of your brain.
Yeah, im sure i have seen this guy before on youtube. Very educational isn't he? Interesting stuff, i like people that inspire other's like him.
This sounds like the debate we had about the mind vs. the brain in my philosophy class.
What confuses me is using the positive (choice) in place of the negative (no choice). What I'm hearing is that we should encourage others (implying that we can choose to), but in the same breath saying we cannot choose to...that negates the ENTIRE point...
Anyone else reminded of the rooster teeth podcast and gavin when watching these?
A bizarre dream I had last night. I was a hospital orderly. A guy was wheeled in on a bed and the doctor standing next to me said it was a mo job. I thought in my dream what is a mo job? Then thought it must mean a motorway job i.e the guy is going to be in a really bad state. He was - never got to see him but the figure under the sheet was in a very unnatural position and he was making some very awful sounds. Woke up and thought how can your own brain invent a phrase like a mo job that you have to think about yourself (in a dream) to understand. Just by chance I watched this today. Weird.
The part that got me was when he said "there's not like, two brains, the thinking brain then another "meta" brain"
and I thought to myself, "Isn't that EXACTLY what a lot of theories say, more or less?"
~ if we're arguing mere Psychology, as I proved earlier. And whether Absolute Free Will exist, as a metaphysical position, is unanswered, and possibly unresolvable, which also leaves your argument in vain. The only space you've got left to argue on (as far as I see it, feel free to Argue (not merely assert) otherwise) is whether Pilkington "actually was arguing about Free Will", which I'd might still be interested in discussing briefly.
you have to actually scan for the something else. i have to enter recovery mode and extract whatever it is that is bothering you or urging you that something is amiss.
once you recover it it enters the forefront of your mindscape. There are plenty of things in the periphery of the brain's immediate vision. The onion was in the periphery and move to the forefront, the curren/now,,, where consciousness resides
So, what karl was saying makes complete sense. Your central nervous system and your system communicates. Your stomach tells you, you are full after 30 minutes or so, it takes up to 5 hours to tell your brain it has enough water in its system to stay hydrated. Cravings of the body come at its time.... Low carbs can manifest itself as THIRST and so on. So you arent in control, but its the subconsious that is in control in tandem of your bodily needs.