My Society My Self?

How do we develop a sense of who we truly are? Do we perceive ourselves as science defines us? While some scientists think our identities are a product of our neurons, others are finding that our social and cultural context plays a dominant role in shaping how we view ourselves and each other. Join the top neuroscientists, philosophers, and psychologists as they discuss how culture and morality figure into the science of self.

The Big Ideas Series is supported in part by the John Templeton Foundation. Additional support provided by The Jackson Laboratory.

The World Science Festival gathers great minds in science and the arts to produce live and digital content that allows a broad general audience to engage with scientific discoveries. Our mission is to cultivate a general public informed by science, inspired by its wonder, convinced of its value, and prepared to engage with its implications for the future.

Original Program Date: June 5, 2016
MODERATOR: Maria Konnikova
PARTICIPANTS: Joshua Knobe, Jesse Prinz, Daphna Shohamy, Nina Strohminger

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel for all the latest from WSF.

Maria Konnikova Introduction 00:12

Participant introductions 1:40

What is the self? 3:42

What methods are used to identify the self? 8:15

Is difference of feeling like yourself and the what the self feels like on the inside.17:57

Does the self come from our social experiences? 26:35

Is memory more important than morality? 37:13

What is memory for? 51:05

Who was patient HM? 58:34

How do you define morality? 1:06:50

Does the self change along with morality changes? 1:08:26

Can the self be dismantled? 1:11:09

Is there a memory based fabric that lies underneath morality? 1:15:26

Have narrative structures been imprinted in our memories over time? 1:18:59

How long have morality based decisions been a part of emotional sections of the brain? 1:21:15

Is it possible to test what is more predictable in moral behavior? 1:24:39

[WorldScienceFestival]

Hello, YouTubers. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its YouTube translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account.


To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done.

The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.

[theeasykg]

What I got from this talk: The problem with concluding if the evidence of this research is conclusive or not is that the answers are not empirically coming from the answers itself but from the mouths of the researchers themselves which is hindering the actual research dichotomy which in turns leaves the question unanswered and left for new experiments to arrise for the teams involved. In essence no one knows what is the self and what happens to the self when left to think for itself in a indifferent society.

[levihowell]

It seems obvious to me that every living thing with the "instinct" for self preservation has to have some concept/feeling of a self that it is trying to preserve

[TheCakeIsNotaVlog]

The thing I noticed, almost everything that was referenced was studies asking individuals "what do _you_ think is x?" Which is interesting, certainly, but where's the actual data? The studies that look at how people do things, as opposed to what people _think_ of things? We really should know, we _do_ know, very well, by this point, that judging the veracity of anything, based on what people think of it, is unreliable at best

[charlesbrightman]

Aren't these "experts" (and I am not saying they are not), giving us their memories from their perspective as viewed through their self about what self is? If their self is missing even one pertinent fact and/or not understanding correctly even one pertinent fact and/or not correctly connecting two or more pertinent facts together, then couldn't their perceived self of self possibly be in error, especially since "experts" tell us that recollections from memory are not 100% accurate? "Experts" can be wrong at times too? I am no "expert", but then again, maybe I am wrong. Myself seems to be confused about myself at times.

[charlesbrightman]

An entities' "true self" might just be the arrangement of the DNA molecule. It is what allows a fish to know how to swim, or a bird how to fly, or a baby how to cry. Nobody taught those things to those entities, they are inherent in the "true self" which stems from the arrangement of the DNA molecule for that entity. It even proceeds memories before the functional brain was even formed. It's "soul" if you will. The DNA "soul" for that entity. A bundle of information being the "soul", in this case, stemming from the DNA molecule.

[charlesbrightman]

Utilizing modern science:
Modern science claims that from an expanding singularity everything in existence in this universe came into existence, including the forces of nature that it operates by and including you and me with our supposed consciousness, memories and thoughts.

But now, does everything in existence even exist per se, OR does only the singularity exist in the form of all things? Why did society pick one perspective over another equally valid perspective, and it might even be more valid since it existed before this universe or us existed? How could I even have "self" if "I" don't even exist but the singularity is existing as "me"? And how could "I" ever cease to exist if "I" never ever existed at all in the first place but the singularity is existing as "me"? And this singularity has a consciousness as evidenced by the consciousness "I" am experiencing, but it is not my consciousness but a smaller part of the singularities larger consciousness. And if this conscious singularity wanted to eternally consciously exist as "me" throughout all of future eternity, who am I to stop it from doing so, especially since "I" don't even exist in the first place?

Or then again, maybe "I" exist and yet "I" don't exist simultaneously in some sort of quantum state of existence. But then, is the part that is not "me" eternally consciously exist throughout all of future eternity if it chose to do so, as the singularity in the form of "me" of course. Basically, my existential clone. But then, am I the clone of it? Do I have more than one "self"? And if there is only the singularity, then is that only a society of one? I think maybe that the singularity has a split personality into many selves. "I" am just one self of the singularity.

[ZphdBblbrx]

The "self" is based in the wishes. josh, yes, It doesn't matter what the others want us to be. go josh.

[charlesbrightman]

If a conscious person contemplates "self", and the only real resource the consciousness has is it's own memories from it's own brain, of which modern science tells us that recollections from memory are not 100% accurate, and including that our view of self bias what our brain takes in, then does our inaccurate view of self along with our inaccurate recollections of memory, make our view of self all screwed up? None of us have an accurate view of self and never will? And therefore will never be able to fully and correctly relate to nature and others due to our inaccurate selves?

[darlenelaski]

I have a low view of my true self because 10 years ago I did a very bad thing, so bad I was a stranger to myself afterwards because never in a mill years would I have believed I was capable of such a terrible thing. I wanted to run from myself. I hated the first few seconds of waking up because I would realize I was still the person I hated, so I tried to commit suicide several times just to not be me.

[katiekat]

That last guy with the brown hair speaks so fast and has some kind of accent that I can’t understand him. Plus he’s kind of soft spoken. I wish i knew everything he is saying.

[utubetruthteller]

Self is best defined by vedanta philosophy.

[_.-._.-._.-_.-._.-._.-_.-._.-]

.wow.'💕░░nearly right .'░▌ nice talks.thanks.

[AvocaSingleTrack]

@25:55 Lady, Please ! I watch these discussions to get away from politics, so please can't you all just discuss the topic and stay out of politics. You should all be smart enough to know that either of these two parties are made up of the same rats...and neither have our best interest at hand.

[prygler]

Ofcourse memory was created by the evolution to plan and optimize their behavior. So ofcourse memory was made to improve the now and the future and not for enjoying the past. You don't optimize reproduction of genes by enjoying memories in the past. You optimize reproduction of genes by optimising behavior in the now and in the future which leads to increased reproduction of genes. We are all created by evolution to reproduce genes.