How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker [1/39]

[Ravenmongoose]

This guy sounds like Hannibal Lecter.

[HoustonILostMePants]

The inner mechanations of my mind...are an enigma.

[coolbluestreams]

Thanks! 

[Coffeeisnecessary]

I think I purchased the incorrect book. I purchased "How the mind works" by Steven Pinker, but chapter 1 Standard Equipment says not what is being read in this video!

[MANGOS487]

many people from the left are also voting down. Reality is against their ideals

[pawsoned]

Mr Pinker is just another modern day sophist and his pseudo-explanations are a whole lot of hooey that befuddle other people by constructing false data and presenting them as a scientific fact that is seemingly irrefutable. Who is he really? Not a philosopher or a scientist but only a linguistic maven who uses rhetorical gimmicks to dismiss ideas that he does not like.

[sc00f]

@pawsoned "Steven Arthur Pinker is an experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and author of popular science writings. He is a Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University and is known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind." "Pinker was named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential scientists and thinkers in the world". So yes he's a scientist, and you're just a troll.

[pawsoned]

@sc00f Yeah, I know, he's great, isn't he. But what exactly is he famous for?

[sc00f]

@pawsoned He is the author of 12 books and more than a hundred scientific articles, probably that's what he's famous for. He's considered an influential thinker, and has inspiring ideas for many (including me, coming from a background with IT and linguistics). I think his insights on the mind come partly from his extensive study of linguistics, because language is the first-hand representation of how our mind and thinking works. So you should get your facts straight before making such claims.

[pawsoned]

@sc00f What I wrote previously was certainly over the top, I admit. But I still think his praise is overblown. Please give me at least one worthwhile scientific idea coming from Pinker (apart from the unproven so far theory that language is an instinct).

[sc00f]

@pawsoned I'm not praising him, I just pointed out that he's a scientist (and IMO with inspiring insights). As far as I know, language processing capability is an innate instinct, at least that's what I was taught at the linguistics faculty of the University of ELTE. So if you want to argue, then go there and argue with the professors there, instead of trolling youtube videos.

[pawsoned]

@sc00f what do you mean by scientist?

Are you aware that he has only a phd in psychology and wrote only two technical books that didn't make any scientific breakthrough? The rest ten books focus mainly on popularizing science of other scientists.

As far as I know he's a professor because he teaches at a university, so imo it's not a 100% title.

[sc00f]

@pawsoned A scientist is a person who applies scientific methods. Look up "scientific method" at Wikipedia. Doing observations (like doing his research about language acquisiton of children) and making hypothesises (like, "language is an instinct") are very much "scientific". There's no distinction of "scientist" and "pure scientist". Being a scientist simply means using a certain pre-defined methodology, that can be later subjected to peer-review and criticism. That's science, by definition.

[pawsoned]

@sc00f I thought there's a distinction between hard scientists (experiments, laboratory, physics, biology, etc.)

and scholars (the rest). Sorry, but if Pinker belongs to the first category then he is a 'soft' scientist (but it's a euphemism though)

[sc00f]

@pawsoned He is actually both. He did experimental research at MIT, and he's doing studies and researches too besides giving lectures. Just check his "research" page at his homepage pinker dot wjh dot harvard dot edu. Again, get your fact straight before making claims about someone. And stop trolling, finally. Most university professors are also scientists (doing studies, researches, writing papers etc.), so there's no clear distinction between these two categories as you present it.

[pawsoned]

@sc00f Yeah, there's never a clear distinction when Pinker is concerned lol

[pawsoned]

@sc00f btw maybe you can tell me what kind of experimental research did he do at the MiT. I'm just curious not that I want to question it

[sc00f]

@pawsoned There isn't much info about it online, except that he mostly researched psycholinguistics and language acquisition of children. He worked there for 21 years until 2003, and these are the major topics of his books between that period. To see his current researches, check out his Harvard home page. Example: "using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and intracranial encephalography (iEEG) with epilepsy patients to investigate the neural organization of language".

[pawsoned]

@sc00f Thanks I'm asking because I also tried to find it out. What strikes me is that he's been working there for 21 years! And I wonder what was he doing there and how many discoveries has he made. But thanks for your reply, I appreciate

[sc00f]

@pawsoned Sidenote: a scientist's task is not to present unarguable facts. Instead, they often present new theories and thought-provoking ideas (and thus are often attacked by criticism). This of course does not mean that they're not "scientists", or not "valid" scientists. Just think of any of the great scientists of the human history - most of them had severe criticisms and arguments with other scientists. Yes, that's how science evolves; there are no absolute truths. Don't be narrow-minded.

[pawsoned]

@sc00f Well, he may be a scientific writer if not a scholar but not a 'pure' scientist.

[Introspective91]

3:29 The question was "why do we have a wrinkled a symmetrical ears?" not what good does having wrinkled ears do for us? He didn't answer WHY, but he answered the good of it. Just thought I'd comment on that. It's good though.

[keggerous]

i just came .. .

[Introspective91]

@keggerous That's hot...I hope you cleaned it up, it's sticky.

[Paulwhoisvegan]

Evolution is a LIE! GOD MADE US! He made our minds!

[juxhin000]

@Paulwhoisvegan

yeah right and earth is 4000 years old. and unicorns exist as well

[dirtydonki]

@Paulwhoisvegan If you truly believe this then PUHLEEZE read the instruction manual and start using that mind you were given.

[jonesgerard]

HE says mind when he means brain.

3 minutes is all I can waste on this when it starts out this dumb.

[Jshect]

@jonesgerard You are not willing to listen to a brilliant MIT professor's views on how the mind works because you think he says mind when he means brain. Given that he is an evolutionary psychologist and a cognitive scientist he probably talks about both the mind and the brain. I think you are calling this book "dumb" ,which it isn't, for other reasons. Since this book is so dumb I'd love to hear your brilliant theories on how the mind actually works.

[jonesgerard]

@Jshect I believe Penrose has a much better idea for how the mind works, we aren't flesh'puters running on algorythms because consciousness cannot arise from algorythms.

Pinko is just trying to cobble science to fit his atheism but it fails common sense.

[hymnofashes]

Oh, Steven, why are you so afraid of the loving embrace of Jesus? Why else would someone try to get knowledge other than an irrational hatred of your loving father?

heeeeeeeere atheist atheist atheist

[gray786]

@hymnofashes put down the bible and pick up a science book you fool.

[SvendsenAtheist]

@hymnofashes Why are you so afraid of loving Lord Shiva? Why beilive in your God and not a different one?

[hymnofashes]

@SvendsenAtheist Shiva doens't love me. He all up on his bitch Parvati and just spends all his time up in the buddha lounge dancing out cosmic time. But Jesus has a fluffy beard and died for my sins, yO. Plus his father is completely metal and whacks motherfuckers just cause they displease him, or because they disobey, or for no discerable reason. You have to admit that is pretty damn savage.

[SvendsenAtheist]

@hymnofashes haha brilliant

[PupRescue]

@hymnofashes Oh, hymnofashes, why are you so afraid of reality? Why else would someone so readily beleive in everything stated in a horror novel such as the Bible, other than an irrational hatred of thought?

[polymath7]

Thanks for uploading. I guess you saved me twenty bucks.

[prnvalium]

He's a great public speaker. I listened to The Stuff of Thought and I actually wished he was reading it--it would bring a lot more of the humour through.

[dollaresque]

I wish Pinker himself would have been the reader / speaker for his book.

[adrastea99]

agree

[madscirat]

This guy is banality incarnate. His is the sort of thinking that keeps biology in the 19th century. He will not tell you how the brain lacks any executive organ tieing the others together and he will not mention how the brain, cell and nucleic matter are quantum mechanical in nature putting them beyond mechanical metaphor or analysis. He will certainly not mention the fact that the human brain differs from other animal brains by virtue of its LACK of differentiation. Modules... hah!

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

He's an Evolutionary Psychologist, not a Neuroscientist. His job is to explain the psychological adapatations that the human brain has evolved (our built-in psychological tendencies), and not the actual biology and chemistry of the brain.

[madscirat]

The tendency in modern science toward specialization is part of the problem. When we cut out one little sphere of something as complex as the human brain and analyze it, we can't hope to get a clear picture. A great example of this is how biological specialists ignorent of physics have taken centuries to admit let alone investigate the electromagnetic and quantum mechanical aspects of biological systems notably the brain.

[PeeGeeBeeDee]

If you want to lose weight poke at your Hypothalamus.

[GentleSavage1]

are you one of those having fallen prey to this mumbo jumbo movie called "what the bleep do we know" featuring lots of drivel abusing terms of quantum physics?

[glacialmind101]

Are you one of those people who make assumptions about people?

[Gold3nStat3KiD]

Oh my, your comment alone is a prime example of FAILURE...LOLOLOL.

[madscirat]

My comment is a prime example of my education, yours is a prime example of your maturity.

[Gold3nStat3KiD]

Well you education means shit if you have the worst judgment. Pull your head out ya ass...lolol

[TheBenEEeee]

I'm guessing that you probably hold the opinion that the mind is of a metaphysical nature or at the very least not entirely determined by the physical matter of the brain. Say it is due to quantum forces, holy spirits or psychic aliens - they are not necessary in the explanation of the mind.

Dehumanising as it appears, the "mechanical metaphor" that you rail so hard against might actually be the best explanation used to answer questions about ourselves.

[glacialmind101]

The brain is the neural tissues in our skull. The mind is the electromagnetic field created by those complex tissues. One is physical and knowable, the other is probabalistic and can be known only with a degree of accuracy. No psychic aliens required.

[GentleSavage1]

what do you mean by "lacks any executive organ" ?

and what the heck do you mean by the brain being beyond analysis and "mechanical" metaphor?

I guess what you are referring to is MODEL. An abstract description of what has been observed of how the brain works, what it does.

I think this is a sound way to try to understand things. Way better than being content with "well it's all just unexplainable magic" like you seem to be doing.

What problems do you have with the concept of modules?

[glacialmind101]

The significance of the brain lacking an executive function can be determined by realizing that perception is gestalt. It is not composed of pieces therefore going by the philosophy being presented here one would expect to find some neurological organ putting the workings of different regions of the brain together. There is no such organ. The only faculty of the brain which interacts with all its sepperate parts is the brain's electromagnetic field.

[newcoyote]

Quantum Mechanics? I think you are jumping the gun there friend. Are you an ideologue or just some smug Deepak Chopra groupie that like to use weasel words?

[glacialmind101]

Right an organ that operates entirely by the motion of electrons has nothing to do with QP... also I loathe the new agers who abuse QP please dont confuse me with those fluff brained ninnies. All Im saying here is that you can not apply mechanical reasoning to a quantum system, this is not 'weasel words' this is physics.

[GentleSavage1]

# 1

"lacking executive function"

sounds like you postulate the necessity of a controller at the top of a hierarchy coordinating the modules.

Who says the way the mind works as a whole and feels to us like one big thing could not be the result of exactly the modules working and (with neighbboring ones) interacting the way they do? Relatively autonomous parts doing their thing, linked together, give appearance to a new whole thing thats comprised of functioning of the interlinked modules.

[GentleSavage1]

# 2

There are countless examples for observed phenomena which, mildly put, strongly suggest that there are (not extremely) roughly demarkatable areas in the healthy brain which are pretty specialized to certain kinds of tasks. And if damage to certain areas occur or electrical signals are artificially induced, the effects to be expected do actually occur.

So it seems to make sense to build a model of "modules" for these tasks and work with it.

there is no "banality" in that, it is practicality.

[GentleSavage1]

# 3

Mystical explanations aren't very helpful.

Nobody claims that a model is 100% accurate, leave alone for all cases.

As for the gestalt theorists, they seem to be tackling things from a different angle - but I dont see anything mutually excluding between it and the "down to the bare metal" approach, from having a glimpse over the subject.

[GentleSavage1]

#4

The "mind in EM field" is a relatively new idea and you can't just claim it to be truth and dismiss other things which (yet) fail to explain some observed effects.

I would say it's unlikely that the mind lies in the field, which seems a side effect of neurons doing their thing which also has other side effects then - but I'm pretty sure, only to relatively close other neurons. I don't think there could be a field connecting all neurons (sounds a bit fantastic) like you seem to be suggesting.

[GentleSavage1]

# 5

"All Im saying here is that you can not apply mechanical reasoning to a quantum system"

I disagree.

It depends on what you need to accomplish.

Everything could be viewed in the light of quantum theory.

But we are doing just fine with classical Newtonian physics for many things.

The latter of which are more abstract than the quantum stuff, and abstractions alsways pose the risk of introducing inaccuracies - but for many things one can live with those if not too great for the tasks at hand

[GentleSavage1]

# 6

Do you think quantum theory is the last wisdom? It's also not describing "the reality" (tm) and is also just a model.

What puzzles me is that you favor the latter over alleged "mechanical" views "no matter what", but also favor something as abstract and not extremely scientific as like Gestalt theory.

The rate of accumulated flaws in GS must be way higher than in these "mechanical" disciplines.

[TheBenEEeee]

Excellent counter-explanations GentleSavage1.

[robotaholic]

i adore steven pinker

[Marsiliusofpadua]

Thanks very much for this.  It's important that things like this be in this sort of format: free and easily acessible.

[5544andrew]

You are welcome. Sometimes I wonder how the author would feel about this...

[dwaynedibbly]

@5544andrew dont worry he's rich enough already and will be happy you are opening ppl's minds who otherwise may not have got to see/hear his stuff ;)

[REALITY2point0]

@5544andrew Steven Pinker doesn't believe that you have free will, so I guess it'd be kinda tough for him to blame you for your morally questionably actions of piracy (over which you ultimately had no control)

[Sesquiltera]

@5544andrew Well presuming the 2084 viewers who were persistent enough to watch to the end would have bought the book IF it weren't for these videos - one can say Pinker has lost some potential money. Let's say he gets $5.- per book, he has lost $10420.-! On the other people might buy more than one book because of listening to this vid. Still, thanks for the upload!

[ToListen]

@5544andrew I'm sure 46,136 plays doesn't reflect the number of people who would've purchased his material instead. : - |

lol, jk. Thanks.

[sumpmiffot]

@5544andrew Well, hopefully happy that as many people as possible can take part in experiencing the book.

[tculig]

@Marsiliusofpadua Steven Pinker is a personal hero of mine. When I grow up I want to be as smart as he is.

[SirGeorge8600]

@tculig Haha well if you read enough of his work you'll learn that it's not possible since high IQ is a matter of genetic nature and not something that can be achieved through worked nurture....that's Pinker for you...

[tculig]

@SirGeorge8600 I said as smart as him, not as intelligent. Also, note that I'm now 26 years of age. ;)

[The3nlightened0ne]

@SirGeorge8600 Do you have proof for that peseudoscientific claim?

[GohModley]

@SirGeorge8600 How is he wrong?

[SirGeorge8600]

@GohModley Never said he was.

[numberonesurvivor75]

What is the mind, exactly? His definition is rooted in the Pragmatism of the 1870s, but it is rather sloppy and imprecise, no offense. I would go further and define it operationally as the solution to the binding problem.

[Andrew5544]

I think you got the wrong idea... His work is based on cog sci research and things like The Minds New Science

[numberonesurvivor75]

I haven't read The Mind's New Science, but I am fairly familiar with Howard Gardener's work. His theories seem to be insightful, but even they are marked by an inelegant imprecision. Think about it from an epistemological perspective! When my dog jumps up in the air to get a better view of the squirrels, he demonstrates one type of intelligence that falls under the rubrics of logic-mathematical, spatial, and spatial, bodily kinaesthetic.

[ZerqTM]

Frankly i dont belive in copyrights when it comes to knowlage and learning.

there can be no greater crime then to impose ignorance upon ones fellow man in the name of greed....

however i wouldent mind making donations to any research projects he might work on :3

(but i simply think its wrong to limit peoples capasaty ot learn for financial gain)

[numberonesurvivor75]

I agree. I think credit should always be given, but a person cannot own an idea once he gives it to the world. Today, copyrights and patents sometimes act as de facto thoughtcrime.

[Mjhavok]

This isn't copyright infringement?

[imanselmo]

shhhh...

[SS4Gojetanks]

I'm trying to follow this with the book but I can't find where he is starting :S.

[weekeed123]

This is soo interesting ! it has a special star about it its brillent (Y)!

[SweeperstheBoss]

This guy reminds me of the old guy Neo meets in the second Matrix movie

[numberonesurvivor75]

The technobable guy!  I think they called him "the Architect."

[Rikotistic]

He is one of my favorite author/scientists. I've cited his works only a hundred times, I think.

[Finallythankyou]

Why would you say that???? Really!

[turbosamvara]

What about the conclusions he makes from his claim; it is better to look into how the brain works with metaphors istead of a computational system metaphors?

[pokermaster54]

whoever rated this less than 5 is an idiot.

[Andrew5544]

It's the born again Christians voting it down. They think what is written in the bible was truly written by God... They call him an Atheist and turn it off before they can even listen. If you could do me a favor and send it to some people for them to Vote Up, that would really help me.

[DrawAmatour]

Of course they do. He wrote in his book that the brain is a result of natural selection. No christian believes in natural selection. If it it's written by a christian, it's not worth their attention.

[theinquisitor]

"No christian believes in natural selection"

While this may be true in many cases, it's not always the case. The catholic church accepts natural selection as the explanation for the evolution of life. There are also examples of biologists who are also christians, and who accept evolution. Ken Miller is a prominent example, and he testified against creationists in court in support of the teaching of evolution. Apparently there are a lot of christians who accept evolution.

[DrawAmatour]

I did not know this. I was obviosly wrong. But I still think a lot of christians deny evolution and believe in natural design - but I may be wrong again :)

[theinquisitor]

Indeed it's true that there are a lot of christians who are anti-evolution. However, this hasn't been the case in many western countries except for the US. There are fundamentalist christians who believe that scientific naturalism is the cause of all immorality in the modern world. For this reason, they think they need to destroy science to make people accept the supernatural god and then be moral. They are of course severely deluded on many fronts. I think the problem is mainly poor education.

[theinquisitor]

forestskog, firstly Darwin was wrong about the details of inheritance and no biologist would say otherwise so your claim of dogmatism is unfair.

That aside, I think it's important to make a distinction between the fact of the common ancestry of life and the theory of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution.

My point was that those who common ancestry are uneducated, but not necessarily those who reject natural selection as the sole mechanism.

What exactly are these holes you describe?

[Thrashaero]

@Andrew5544 yeah, 'god forbid' we know more about ourselves than what people dreamt up thousands of years ago.

[NeoOneOrg]

@Andrew5544 Its all physics

[Saidffff]

@Andrew5544 

[jaybzjaybz]

@Andrew5544 or perhaps just people who've read more compelling ideas by people like daniel everett

[guitaristxcore]

@Andrew5544 Doubtful.

A christian (like myself) who has taken the time to find this video and watch it probably reasonably interested in whats being said. Believe it or not, we can disagree with people philosophically and still appreciate what they have to say.

[SvendsenAtheist]

@guitaristxcore Good.We can disagree and still get along.I like your attitude.

[SirGeorge8600]

@Andrew5544 That makes no sense, the book has nothing to do with religion. I voted it down because I believe there are more advanced modern day theories and empiric in understanding neurology and it's emotions and biochemical reactions. Also Pinker has been known to use some flawed scientific evidence and it has not stood the test of time; not that it applies to this book.

[MarcoMeerman]

@pokermaster54 What an idiotic argument