What Happens in a Philosopher's Brain? | Philosophy Tube

What is bias? How does your brain affect free will, argument, and thinking? Let's look at "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahnemann - if we want to study philosophy we need to know a bit about brains, biology, and psychology too!

Twitter: @PhilosophyTube

Recommended Reading:

If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!

Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.

[NickCybert]

Wow, great video Olly. I wonder how often it happens, that system 1 jumps in and gives a spurious answer and we just accept it as true. But then later we come across arguments against that answer, that demand system 2 step in. But instead of reexamining the problem from the start with system 2, instead we put system 2 to work trying to prove our earlier answer, as if it were the innocent until proven guilty.

[ProfessorPolitics]

I love Thinking, Fast and Slow. Its insights literally changed my life and defined the direction I would pursue my work in grad school. One quick thing on the Daniel is a librarian thing (and on the systems in general): Just about nobody knows the base-rate of farmers, bankers, librarians, what have you in the world. It wasn't until I read the book that I learned that there were still more farmers in the US than librarians (a surprise given how many libraries are in the U.S. and the increased mechanization of agriculture). So it's not so much that system 2 in this case is lazy--it doesn't know where to begin. So it defaults to the heuristics that tend to work 99% of the time (in this case a mix of stereotype and availabilith biases). It's an important distinction because it allows us to separate questions that can be solved with additional education (like how base-rates work and what the applicable statistics are) compared to those that are more stubborn to additional information ("who should I vote for?")

[Tera_B_Twilight]

Great question from the Thorns. I have tried expressing this same opinion as the one you used as, "People believe what they can't help believing, according to their reasoning abilities and the information they've been given."

[abhishalsharma]

1:48 lesson: Philosophers ain't stereotype. They're open thinkers.

[smartITworksme]

Well, I believe that COLLIDING BIASES could be helpful.. but only to those who are open-minded. It will test one's own held beliefs and check if one holds on to the same conviction. I love this topic because my brains often work with SYSTEM 2. For years, I have trained my brain when should I be using snap decisions and what matters demand SERIOUS THINKING. Thanks a lot for another helpful topic.

[GoshemGarble]

I see this quite a lot in many places, that 'system 2', the rational, effortful, the deliberate and careful ways of thinking, will correct our moral missteps and errors in reasoning. That if we were thinking more carefully about things we would live in a better society as we would be more effective at getting true belief instead of the more emotive and simplistic ways of thinking we are used to. But I have recently become disillusioned with this idea after reading a study titled "Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government".

In it they look at how people interpret scientific evidence. The two hypotheses they used were (summarized) 1. that people who use system 2 reasoning more will come to accurate judgments, and 2. that people will pick out evidence that supports our identity and relationships with people to keep our identity and relationships intact and coherent.

In the experiment they had two groups, in one they got a description of a scientific experiment in which they would have to make a calculation (system 2) about what conclusion should be drawn. In this group the description was of a study of a new cream for skin rashes. The trial was randomised and people would either get the skin cream or a placebo and their rash either improved or not. These results are given as raw numbers and the test is to see if the participants interpreted the results properly as it was a math problem. The numbers are designed so that there is a simple system 1 solution, and if the participant was thinking carefully they would find the true, system 2, solution. It tests if you are good at math problems.People who are good at numbers are good at this sort of problem, they get the right answer, and the people who aren't so good don't.

Then comes the important bit. They give another group the same exact numbers, the exact numbers. The difference comes when the participants are told that these numbers are from a study on gun control measures introduced to a state and a comparison state had not implemented the measures and that the numbers were of the instances of crime. The numbers are the same as those given for the rash and so the correct answer the same. The Experimenters identified whether the participants were Democrat of Republican. If system 2 (here represented by numerical thinking) or the tendency to use system 2 gets true beliefs then the result should be the same as in the group that were presented the numbers as skin cream.

One result that you could expect is that groups that people who think more deeply about things should get better results. Another result that you could expect is that it won't make a difference. But what happened was a even more depressing finding. That if you are, say, a liberal, and so more inclined to believe that gun control is a good thing, or republican, and so more inclined to believe that gun control is a bad thing, it's not that you just ignore evidence, it's that you are more biased the higher your numeracy is. The the more able you are to use system 2 the worse you are at interpreting the evidence.

They conclude that if a part of your identity is at stake, your ideology, your relationships, etc. System 2 thinking will hinder you because you are motivated to reinforce your position.

So, umm, help.

This could also be a good suggestion for why philosophy is the way it is.

help

[menameh]

I just had a thought, what if the Anchoring Effect is also a by product of being a social species. It is also advantageous for us to read a social environment and adapt to it quickly, so for example if the girl you fancy mentions she likes chocolate, your brain will grab that information and adapt to the conversation and possibly even coerce you into getting her chocolates later to try and win her affection.

[NilsR]

About glucose and the brain, you might want to take a deeper look? This is what I have read, feel free to correct any misunderstandings I might have acquired: Some cells in our body can only run on glucose, red blood cells and the thinner branches of brain cells are two important examples. The reason is that they for various reasons can't extract energy using oxygen (aerobic). Ketones (the energy-carrying fat-based alternative to glucose) can only be utilized aerobically. However, when glucose is broken down anaerobically, it ends up as lactic acid. This is then converted into glucose again by the liver in a process called Gluconeogenesis, which can get the energy needed from ketones. Thus although some cells do need glucose, the glucose is not instantly used up, but to a certain degree recycled, and the energy for that cycle can ultimately come from fat. We need some replenishing of glucose, but not as much as most assume. This makes very much sense, we know the body can't store very much glucose, and that we can use it up quite quickly. If we didn't have other energy sources for our brains, we'd be basically brain dead the first time we couldn't carb up...

[yourmom]

Humanity and its lack of empathy combined with logic is why we have lots of problems in other words feeling must be included in all decisions but it also must not be a sole solution only through both feeling nd logic can a serious conclusion be taken seriously

[f.b.jeffersn]

If you ever have extra time, I'd love to see a video on your take of the ubermensch.

[thisaccountisdead]

Oxytocin (the "love hormone") is a nonapeptide hormone synthesized in the supraoptic and paraventricular nuclei of the hypothalamus. Oxytocin has an effect on uterine smooth muscle contraction, blood pressure, memory, learning capability, nursing, sexual and feeding behavior. Oxytocin and vasopressin stimulate the release of insulin and glucagon from the pancreas. Multi organelle effects of oxytocin make it as important hormone in body.

Studies have found that administering oxytocin into the body reduces blood glucose levels - i.e. glocuse becomes absorbed from the blood stream by cells in the body to use it as energy (via the action on insulin which rises with increasing oxytocin levels).

Studies have also found that administering glocuse into the blood stream (through the process of eating cake for example) reduces oxytocin levels.

The stress hormone Cortisol works oppositely to Oxytocin - raising blood glucose levels. Actually the two hormones work in partnership: Cortisol releasing glucose from fat stores in the body in response to a threat for example, and then through exercise in respose to the treat Oxytocin is released to trigger energy absorbtion into muscle cells for example...

...A problem is though that although we find sugary foods rewarding (due to the energy) consuming lots of sugary foods - which we aren't adapted to do as historically sugar was a scarce commodity - can mess up our metabolism and have the effect of chronically raising the levels of the stress hormone Cortisol. A by-product of this is that other hormones that increase in response to stress like dopamine become chronically increased as well, which can contribute to depression psychosis...

Constant stress or reward effects the nucleus accumbens in the brain - a main centre for reward (it is stimulated by cocaine and dopamine) and a region of the brain that plays an important role in reinforcement of addictions. Over-stimulation reduces reward receptors in the nucleus accumbens - this is a contributor to 'burn-out' and depression following chronic stress or excessive stimilation by cocaine for example. Direct stimulation via electrodes has been found to reduce severe depression.

[abhishalsharma]

Do extroverts tend more toward using the System 1?

[xzonia]

Interesting video! Thanks! :)

This isn't really a question about this video, though, but it's something I was wondering if you could answer.

So at what point do we know that our subjective experiences are real? If someone is schizophrenic, they can have conversations for years with people they've imagined who don't exist. They can see things that aren't there. So one could argue if the 2 of us see it along with you, it's real. But if only you're seeing it, it's not. That's not always true, though, is it? Sometimes one person will see something no one else saw, but that doesn't mean it wasn't real.

On the other end of things are mass delusions, where many people say they saw something that is later said to have never happened. Religious experiences come to mind as an example. Many people can all say they saw the same thing, a burning bush or a vision, and it could still be counted as never happening.

To take the question to a further example, you look at the idea proposed by the movie The Matrix, where the whole world is a lie. Even though everyone in that world agrees on what's happening, they're all wrong. The "real" world is outside their capacity to experience on a conscious level. They're all laying in pods providing energy for their robot overlords, but none of them realize it.

So what does it take to say that our experiences are real? Subjective experiences can't be validated even when shared with other people, so how do we know that anything we're experiencing is real?

What possible proof could we offer to say this world is what we think it is? That the office party we threw happened at all? That the friend I'm talking with on the phone even exists? At what point can our subjective experiences be proven? And are there even any truly objective experiences, something we can point to and say "This is REAL."? If so, what would be an example of an objective experience?

You've probably answered these questions in videos somewhere along the way, and sorry for that if I'm asking a redundant question. I was just thinking about this tonight, and was wondering what philosophy has to say about it.

Thanks for your videos!! They are intriguing.

[jamesbarels]

I was hoping for a take on the 1980s "This is your brain on drugs" commercial. An egg cooking video that compared the different methods of egg cookery to understanding various philosophies and philosophers.
Stoicism is just a raw egg in your flat, stale beer. Still nutritious and allows for the focus on gaining the courage to start the day, perhaps by moving on to beer 2.
Nietzche would be Balut.
Hume is a Scotch Egg replacing Black Pudding for a full and completely earned, not privileged, Full English Breakfast.
JBP would be a sous vide omelette that wasn't given enough time to set.
Heidegger is pickeled eggs.

[avenger]

The wierdest part was that I guessed ghandi was 79 before he explained. I just used prior knowledge of average life expectancy at the time and images I've seen of him.

[ThreeSided]

I've heard metaphors like this before, talking about a fast system 1 and a slow system two, but I've always found that I don't seem to fit the idea that we defer to system 1 when possible. I find that I always seem to go to system 2 very quickly if not immediately. It is very annoying for people since when someone asks what seems to be a simple question with a simple answer, and then I go off on a tangent about what I'm thinking, how things work, and how I'd imagine we'd get to the answer.

[spicyjonko]

Great video! However, it's not true that Kahnemans theory is merely methaphorical. There actually are models that directly map Kahnemans S1 and S2 theory onto ways in which the brain processes information. Most notable is Bernard Baars famous Global Workspace model of consciousness. This model tells us that S2 or consciouss processing is slow, deliberate, logical etc. because the neural information has to be globally distributed throughout the brain so that other parts can also use this information. On the other hand, S1 or unconsciouss processing is fast, frequent, emotional etc. because the neural information only has to be processed locally in a specific area of the brain. Consequently, it's a mistake to say that the dual process theory from Kahneman is 'merely' methaporical.

[MaxwellLeftington]

Hey Ollie, I know you've mentioned Nietzsche before and had a short video on his concept of the Ubermensch, but I don't recall you have done a full length video on him. Might you consider this? And do you have any quick opinions on him you'd like type out? Thank you SO MUCH for what you do and for being so great at viewer interaction!

[zandermcconnochie]

The Major theme of Moby Dick is whales/whaling

[bugin]

Hi. Intersting subject, but with some sterotypes ;) What make you conclude in past, the only use of brain can be for fast decision, like tiger come, run ? Its also likely possible to imaginate a lot and hard relationship to manage with other people, and a social hierarchy or not we will never know cause no writing.
Also nothing to conclusion the brain of philosopher is fundamental different (in relation our title). We know brain of musician is different and visible when we examine it, but i didn't have knowledge specific on philosopher brain (and i will be curious about the definition of philosopher would be employed ;) )
But globaly i appreciate the video and its good... in opposite of my bad english :)
Good continuation