Can Humans Be Objective? (with Jade from Up and Atom!)
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2024
- Can humans ever take a neutral stance and become completely objective? Can we shed our biases and judgment to achieve god-like impartiality? Can we observe anything objectively? And if not, then does 1+1 still equal 2? Alie explores this philosophical question from a neuroscience and physics perspective with the help of Jade from Up and Atom! And find out why, from our subjective viewpoint, humans can’t be objective.
We had so much fun collaborating with Jade from Up and Atom. If you have not seen her videos before, do yourself a favor and check them out now! In fact, why not start with our other collab vid that went up today!
Our other video with Jade: • If a tree falls in the...
Jade on CZcams: / upandatom
Jade on Twitter: / upndatom
Support us on Patreon - / posts
Ryan M. Shaver and Carrie McKenzie are our Patreon Producers. Thank you both! You're like that feeling when you wake up for the day, but realize you still have a few more hours til your alarm goes off. Also, big shoutout to our newest patrons: City Beautiful and KTB!
Neuro Transmissions is a channel on a mission to bring neuroscience to everyone. It's not rocket surgery, it's brain science! Learn all sorts of fun and interesting things with Alie Astrocyte and Micah Psych every other Sunday by subscribing to the channel. Have a topic you want covered? Let us know in the comments. Share, like, and subscribe for more videos to come! Over and out.
Neuro Transmissions is on the other social medias too:
/ neurotransmissions
/ neuroyoutube
/ neurotransmissions
www.neurotransmissions.science
/ neuroyoutube
Snapchat - @neuroyoutube
**Credits**
The following images and video were used for educational purposes and fall under fair use:
• Santiago Oaks Regional...
img00.deviantart.net/651e/i/2...
static.tvgcdn.net/feed/1/714/t...
is4-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/th...
All other content does not require attribution, is original, and/or is owned by Neuro Transmissions.
HUGE thanks to Jade for being awesome and collaborating with us! If you haven't seen it yet, go watch our other collab video on her channel. It's way better and the animations are so awesome! I literally can't stop laughing about the noise the tree makes when it falls. czcams.com/video/UP5hQKSU3CI/video.html
This video turned out amazing! Can't wait to work with you again Alie Astrocyte n_n
We had so much fun working with you, too, Jade! So happy we got to meet in person and do such a fun project :)
it's relative
Just seeing this now (I know, I'm way behind) but I wanted to say it's awesome to see you both together!!!!!! Awesome collaboration and a completely objective opinion!
This is a very subjective video... How can we be so sure?! 😋
I kid - I was so excited for this dream team collab!
I also wonder if the shared similarities between our brains could make some experiences potentially objective across humans... 🔮 I was looking for a brain emoji, but this one felt more appropriate!
Great job, guys!
I came form Up and Atom and I'm so glad that Jade showed this channel to us - it has great videos! Instant subscribe!
I hope I can watch Alie's channel grow to hundreds of thousands of people.
The ping-pong paradoxe shows that time and perceptual alignment is adaptive and lets us act objectively for a given task. This however requires training.
When we play ping pong, 80 milliseconds is a lot of time. Our brain needs to detect the ball movement, anticipate its future position, decide on a tactic, and execute the movement to hit the ball back just at the right time. This happens very fast and leaves no place for error. If the brain processing time delay was present all along the process, we would never hit the ball where we would want to. We would also not see and hear the bat hit the ball at the same time (e.i. sound is processed faster than sight). So why does it work?
Our brain is made to align perceptions together and make sense of what surrounds us. So we learn to hit the ball before we see it being hit. The entire process is then realigned in our brain to make us feel as if we were doing things as they happen.
Our perception is therefore a mixture of anticipation, prediction and sensoriel realignment. We can act in accordance with reality even if we never truly perceive it.
This is why the great human mission of discovering the Truth-with-a-capital-T has to be open and collaborative, and also brave enough to both ask uncomfortable questions and deal with the pushback from those inquiries.
The history of our great intellectual and spiritual development has for the last 10,000 years or so has been subject to the needs of some ruling socio economic class. So, sure, what is true could also be what is objectively real. But it could also be "true" by virtue of class or ideological necessity.
Look at how social darwinism or "race science" perverts real evolutionary theory and biology /anthropology for the benefit of people who really need to justify slums, colonialism, and slavery. Also look at the early suppression of heliocentrism, or even Pinochet's antagonism towards sociology, capitalists' antagonism towards climate science, and so many more heart breaking examples of the physical and intellectual suppression and oppression of things much closer to objective truth than the truths necessitated by a particular society's power structure.
In a very real way, free universal public education, political and economic democracy, and free speech and inquiry are as necessary for us to correct for our individual and collective biases as peer review and scientific collaboration.
We will never be completely free of our biases, but we can always challenge ourselves to do better. History shows we are capable of doing so.
the concept of objectivity is pretty objective, huh?
I'm here from 12tone! It seems like you have some very interesting topics, I can't wait to start binge watching. I like your quirkiness and humor. Can't wait to learn so many things :)
Thanks Matthew! Welcome! Take a look around and let us know what you think!
Oh and question - I was wondering - do you guys think eye-witness testimony should be eliminated or reduced in value during court cases since it can be so unreliable?
That's a great question! Yes, I do think that eyewitness testimony should be reduced in value during court cases, especially if there's only one witness, and especially if careful steps aren't taken in advance to ascertain whether a witness may hold unconscious biases or if their testimony may have been affected by the interview process, etc. A faculty member at the Salk Institute, Dr. Tom Albright, recently published an article about how eyewitness testimony can fail, even without any kind of malicious intent, and discussed the need for a closer partnership between scientists and law enforcement to make sure witness testimony is obtained and used properly (www.pnas.org/content/114/30/7758) Dr. Albright also did a TedX talk about the subject: czcams.com/video/l05NGp_z6TI/video.html
Funnily enough, I was actually removed from a jury pool once for saying that I wouldn't be able to make a conviction based on the testimony of a single eyewitness. For me, this is a good example of a place where even when a thing is "legal", it doesn't make it right, and has led to the serious miscarriage of justice in the past.
So interesting! And wow actually you're not the first person I've heard to be removed from jury pool for saying you wouldn't convict based on a single eye-witness testimony. I guess if I'm ever called for jury duty I could be removed too for this reason!
it also depends on who the witness is. For example : if the eyewitness is Stevie Wonder, It would be a bit dubious, But if it was nosey-parker Galileo looking at stuff through his telescope again and making notes of everything that he's seeing, it might be a good idea to accept his evidence.
@
ARTiculations. Objectively an eye-witness testimony should depend on the gravity of what was witnessed!
the jaramogi doesn’t matter anyway. She’s just so hot. Super hot. That’s all I can think when I’m watching her
Love your videos! I heard a conversation recently about creativity and I wanted to know, from a neuroscience perspective, how you define creativity and if you can measure it and/or teach it?
That is an excellent question. We have had a bunch of people asking us to do a video about the neuroscience of creativity. It definitely is "teachable", though I haven't looked into whether it can be measured. We'll do a video on it soon and try to answer these questions!
Immanuel Kant in a modern perspective .
The assumption of objectivity is preposterous in that; one cannot measure something against an unknown. There exists no benchmark, no control further, one cannot measure against the absence of a unknown. This is explained in my " Nothing" theory where in order to prove " something" one must be able to demonstrate " nothing" which in lies the dichotomy.
Great video! Thanks you guys work well together. This covered a lot of ground. 👍👍💜😄💪👏
"Really" well done ladies. I think that you have added clarity that nobody else has quite done. Thanks, really!
Great topic!! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
But also something else to think about is this, whose to say if a certain observation/belief is objective or not? Just because you may disagree doesn’t make something all of a sudden subjective. There are many things that are objective, yet many people will disagree. I 100% believe there is objective truth, but also subjective truth like favorite ice cream. Since I believe there is objective truth, I also believe absolute truth exists too.
Writing and essay right now and this was very helpful. Thanks
This channel deserves so much more.Well done👍🏻
Thanks so much for watching!
This video is the cutest!!!
Maybe objectivity exists within a particular, limited context. Given a particular set of conditions, if you get the same result or observation, and other people do, too, then yes, you would have objectivity. This is to counter the idea that if there is no "absolute" objectivity, then anything goes. The simple fact is that there are indeed laws and forces at work that prevent the anything goes view. Due to various factors, one person may well view or perceive the world slightly differently than another person, but both people are getting the same sensory data. There is an objective reality that exists, however our perception of it may be colored or shaded. Color-blindness is a good example of this. Colorblind people get the same light and color sensory data that any other person gets, but due to a difference in the retinas of their eyes, they don't see all the colors as other people do.
Outro music link plz
i actually have a lot of trouble hearing people at crowded parties, because other people's conversations are too much interference for me to understand what people are saying. it's not a loudness thing, it happens when im in a normal conversation and there are groups of people whispering nearby or things like that
yes, objectivity does exist (kind of). it doesn't matter that you and I may see that green leaf differently, both of us agree that the name of the color of that leaf is "green". it doesn't matter either that under different lighting conditions that leaf may look blue or whatever, being green doesn't have to be an intrinsic property of that leaf. as long as we can agree that that leaf is green, in the same moment, under the same conditions, it is objectively green. further, even in a situation where two observers see things differently, you would still have objectivity as long as it is possible to make one observation and figure out from it what the other observation was. that pilot could do some math to figure out how he would have observed you firing those signals had he observed it from a different angle moving at a different speed. he would need some information for that, but as long as it is possible at all, objectivity exists.
Oh, great show by the way and wonderful insight.
A very interesting topic, that got me thinking. Thanks for that :-)
To be able to say that two things, A and B, are different, than that judgment must be based on a measure common to A and B. The difference must be based on something else to be able to tell there is a difference. If the difference cannot be expressed on anything common to A and B then no conclusion is possible at all; we cannot state if they are the same nor different. Even the very existence and perception of A and B can be questioned.
In theory of relativity, the speed of light is the constant. It is considered a universal, and based on it we can tell that the times are different. Also, if any two people reach an agreement that they are different, naturally the question arises, based on what did they agree that they were different?
Overall, the very moment you say two things are different, it automatically means there is something common based on which the difference is expressed. It is a tricky thing. One can keep digging down and atomizing to prove that anything is different, but that always brings another deeper layer which is the "equal" or "objective" thing on which the higher level is compared.
I think this that we put a definition to are objective. The sun is a star because we defined it as such. Same for math! Unless we find a universe in which 2+2=5🤔
I'm obviously bias according to this video because I enjoyed Up and Atom's 1st video lol but entertaining and interesting! Props!
So true. Jade is amazing! 😊
Up and at them!
Man I love the Simpsons. I also love Bravest Warriors!
Exactly my point!!! How can you be sure that my green is the same as your green?
Is it objectively true that objectivity does or does not exist?
Great video! In answer, true objectivity does not exist in the victorian/clockwork sense, which you know already. The reticular formation is your friend in the moment and your enemy in the long term. That's the world you live in, period. When Heisenberg realized that "there is only one consciousness" and set the stage for quantum field theory, he also realized that the ancient ways had already encompassed relativity into their perspective. Welcome back :)
The Dunes of Truth
(1985)
"...and so we sing and we dance
upon the shifting and drifting of the Dunes of Truth
always changing, always flowing, always different
new forms grown from flakes of snow and crumbled old stones.
There is no path but that we remember it
no surface but that we climb ourselves up
no map but the inspirations of spirit and virtue
no goal but to move and discover new views.
We are sung in its song as we are whirled in its dancing
and in flowing within us, it makes us real." - zfr
Have you all read the undoing project ?
Wow! I was brought here by Jade. 🥰
maybe our perception of the green on the leave is not exactly the same but is typically the same, since the physiology is typical and the wavelength received is pretty much the same.
Really interesting and I do think that perceptions are colored by our minds; perceptions and consequential evaluation is probably on the cutting edge of the next great advance in human understanding.
"I have five fingers in my right hand. "
Is it objective or not.?
I suppose its objective because everyone would count five.
As long as bias exists there will always be subjectivity but I think objectivity can exist sometimes
The "cocktail party effect" doesn't work for me unless the conversation I'm trying to pay attention to is actually louder (in my ears) than the other conversations in the room.
MARBLE IS LIVING THING HAS GROWTH OBJECTIVITY ...JUST COMMON SENSE BY OBSERVATIONS ..OBJECTIVITY REMINISCENCES YOUR CHILDHOOD MEMORIES EVEN THOUGH THAT PLACE DOES NOT EXIST...ON YOUR MIND THE PLACES STILL FRESHED...
i've been changed by this video
I'm curious, changed in what way? Where are you on objectivity now?
Objectivity is illusory. Even down to the fact that we can all agree that the leaf was green. My father was badly color blind. To him the leaf's color would have been up for grabs. Much of the world was simply a shade of grey to him. He would have had to guess its color based upon things like season and suppleness of the leaf.
equesdeventusoccasus “objectivity is illusory” is that statement OBJECTIVELY true? ....
Thank you for the video. This is an interesting question. Neuro science is an interesting subject.
Regarding time not being objectively experienced when you consider different moving observers you can avoid that by having both observers together standing still. But really this misses the point. The question is how can anyone know what another person sees, feels, hears etc. Everything we “know” is personal- it’s our brains reaction to stimuli. There is no way to objectively compare your experience with mine because all experience is subjective by definition.
Objectivity exists in the same way perfect circles do.
Have you seen that video of the guy drawing a seemingly perfect circle on a chalkboard? Mind-boggling. But yeah, perfect circles don't exist...or do they??
Did you just make that up? There is so much truth to that.
Nickleback --still getting shade in 2019 :D
I liked what she said in Up and Atoms video :) Here I am
You were always so good with accents 😀
5:13
einstien: am i a joke to you
Sum things r subjective emotional and irrational. Thus expecting ppl to not say certain things is highly improbable.
An ego death may be one of the closest things humans could ever get to being objective.
What makes it more objective?
It is worse when we consider the fact that the sun is six light minutes away so if the sun were to explode right now we would not know for six minutes.
I thought the sun was 8 light minutes away.
Isaac Asimov:
"when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
It seems to me that Alie mixes between what is ontological and what is epistemic. The question of existance and the question of human consciousness. Is not she?
So, did you know that there is a proliferation of alcohol induced brain damage due to alcohol addiction caused by stress the reasons for which are discussed on my Facebook page. And foetal alcohol syndrome. Some videos about alcohol induced brain damage and foetal alcohol syndrome would be very very welcome
Objectivity obviosly exists... as a concept in our minds. Like numbers. Are they real?
Yes....no.....time, not space.....no I don't know what you're talking about.
if we all live in our own personal virtual reality then solipsism is true and our brains are so much "bigger and faster" than you could have ever *imagined* lol
Without awareness, what is there? Awareness is subjectivity. Can the universe exist without (a priori to) awareness of it? If so, then you must maintain that awareness is somehow derivative of non-awareness. In other words, the subjective must then be the product of the objective. Can light come from darkness? How is that possible? Awareness (subjectivity) and the objective are two sides of the same coin and cannot be separated; they are one and the same and co-dependent. Can there be the subjective without the objective? What would that mean? Can the subject have itself as an object? That doesn't make sense, at least not to me.
5:13
hi I am Einstien let me introduce you to my theory
Great video! I know you're coming from a neuroscience pov, but there's a lot of Kant in this perspective too. Also in regards to time, aren't there some studies that suggest that some animals (like flies) perceive time at a different rate? I remember reading something about that once, but I'm not sure.
Nickel back 😂
Jade is objectively beautiful.
objectivity exists I think, but for humans to be objective is another story.
Is this why there are such a thing as "flat earther's" ,??? Arggggh!
I don't know if there's any real excuse for flat earthers, tbh.
I want to see these two argue with flat earthers! Now that would be true entertainment !!!!!!!! The earth is factually and objectively round right ???? But to a flat earther its objectively flat.
Everything is abstract.
Karan Rawat why should I believe this fact is “everything is abstract” ? Your statement is a statement of fact or just opinion ? Clearly everyone believes in objective truths (including your philosophy here)
What a couple of teases. You ask whether you both see the same color in that leaf, then move on. There is a 28% chance that you two objectively don't see the same color because one or both of you have 4 cones instead of the usual 3 in your eyes. The chance is higher if your father or brother is color blind.
Does that mean that two pigments that are chemically different but appear to be the same colour to most people can look different to tetrachromats?