Preview: Ethics vs Physics

00:29:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMlcC93X3Nw

Résumé

TLDRŠajā lekcijā tiek aplūkots, kā atklājumi par kognitīviem procesiem var ietekmēt mūsu izpratni par ētiku. Pasniedzējs norāda uz to, ka ātrie kognitīvie procesi var būt neprecīzi, bet noderīgi, kas var novest pie nepareiziem secinājumiem par fizisko un morālo pasauli. Rentocentrs tiek likts uz to, ka, ja mēs neizmantojam dziļākas teoriju izpētes un sistemātiskus piegājienus, mēs varam neizprast sarežģītas ētiskas dilemmās, līdzīgi kā tas notika fizikas jomā.

A retenir

  • 🧠 Kognitīvie procesi ietekmē mūsu spriedumus.
  • 🔍 Morālā psiholoģija atklāj, kā domājam par ētiku.
  • ⚗️ Descartes uzsver atšķirību starp uztveri un realitāti.
  • 🎢 Cilvēki var kļūdīties spriežot par fizisku objektu kustību.
  • 🕰️ Ātrie procesi var būt neprecīzi, bet tam ir savs labums.
  • 🍀 ētika prasa dziļāku un sistemātiskāku pieeju.
  • ⚖️ Mums jāizvairās no nepareiziem secinājumiem par morālo pasauli.
  • 💡 Izpratne par fiziku palīdz uzlabot mūsu ētiskos spriedumus.

Chronologie

  • 00:00:00 - 00:05:00

    Šajā kursa trešajā daļā tiek apsvērts, kā atklājumi un morālā psiholoģija ietekmē ētiku. Pasniedzējs piedāvā skatījumu, kas piedāvā argumentu virzību uz secinājumu, vienlaikus plānojot apskatīt dažādus resursus un instrumentus, lai pierādītu vai apstrīdētu sasniegto secinājumu. Tiek solīts, ka nākamās lekcijas būs detalizētas un sarežģītas, un iesaka apmeklētājiem apsvērt kopējo attēlu, pirms ieiet sīkās detaļās.

  • 00:05:00 - 00:10:00

    Lai ilustrētu savu viedokli, pasniedzējs izmanto Descartes un viņa domu par gaismu, kurā tiek uzsvērts, ka sajūtas var maldināt. Svarīgi ir atšķirt, kā mēs, cilvēki, uztver gaismu un kā tā patiesībā pastāv. Tiek minētas arī Descartes teorijas par varavīksni un refrakciju, apliecinot, ka mūsu sajūtas ne vienmēr atbilst fiziskajiem fenomeniem.

  • 00:10:00 - 00:15:00

    Pasniedzējs pievērš uzmanību tam, ka cilvēki, kuri nav profesionāļi, izmanto nepareizus loģiskos modelus, kad viņi domā par fizikas principiem, piemēram, etiķetes par spirālveida trajektorijām, tad apkopo teorijas, kas atspoguļo Aristoteļa domas apejot modernās zinātnes pieejas. Abstraktivizējot fizikas izprati, tiek uzsvērta, ka sajūtas var būt ievērojami maldinošas un ka, ievērojot pieredzi, cilvēki var izdarīt secinājumus, kas nav precīzi.

  • 00:15:00 - 00:20:00

    Cilvēku uztvere ir ietekmēta no vispārīgajiem uztveršanas procesiem, kas ietekmē pieņēmumu veidošanos par fizisko pasauli. Tiek apspriests fenomena, kas pazīstams kā reprezentatīvā kustība, pēc kura cilvēki ir tendēti spriest, ka objekti būs vienādā pozīcijā, pat ja tie iekļauj gaismas manipulācijai līdzīgus mirkļus, šī fenomena dēļ citas nepieciešamās lietas jau ir izmainījušās.

  • 00:20:00 - 00:29:40

    Pasniedzējs izsaka uzskatu, ka lēmumu pieņemšanai par fizioloģiskajām interpretācijām ir vajadzīga strauja, bet ne precīza apstrāde. Tā kā cilvēki bieži vien ir sakārtoti pieņēmumiem, kas paši var veidot nepareizus secinājumus, tas ir atgriezeniski saistīts ar plašāku izpratni par to, kā mēs pieejam fiziskajai izpratei. Šī pieeja var tikt attiecināta arī uz ētiku, jo ātras procesi mēdz prioritizēt lietderību pār konsekvenci, kas var apgrūtināt ētikas konceptuāli pareizu izpratni.

Afficher plus

Carte mentale

Vidéo Q&R

  • Kā atklājumi ietekmē ētiku?

    Atklājumi var sniegt jaunas perspektīvas uz ētiskajiem principiem, taču tie netieši neietekmē to patiesumu.

  • Kādi ir ātrie un lēnie kognitīvie procesi?

    Ātrie kognitīvie procesi prioritizē noderību pār konsekvenci, savukārt lēnie procesi vērš uzmanību uz konsekvenci.

  • Kā Descartes domas attiecas uz fizisku un morālu kognīciju?

    Descartes uzsvēra, ka mūsu uztveres priekšstati ne vienmēr precīzi atspoguļo fizisko pasauli, kas ir līdzīgi attiecībā uz morālo psiholoģiju.

  • Kāda ir saistība starp morālo psiholoģiju un ētiku?

    Morālā psiholoģija var sniegt ieskatu par to, kā cilvēki pieņemt lēmumus, kas var mainīt mūsu pieejas ētikai.

  • Kā cilvēki kļūdās spriedumos par fiziskiem objektiem?

    Cilvēki bieži pieņem nepareizus lēmumus par trajektorijām pamatojoties uz neprecīzam uztverēm.

  • Kāpēc ir svarīgi saprast, kā cilvēki domā par fiziku?

    Tas palīdz izprast, kā mēs varam izveidot precīzākus uzskatus par ētiskajām situācijām.

Voir plus de résumés vidéo

Accédez instantanément à des résumés vidéo gratuits sur YouTube grâce à l'IA !
Sous-titres
en
Défilement automatique:
  • 00:00:00
    in this third part of the course where
  • 00:00:03
    we're thinking about
  • 00:00:04
    how if at all discoveries and moral
  • 00:00:06
    psychology have
  • 00:00:07
    consequences for ethics
  • 00:00:11
    i'm structuring it by offering you a
  • 00:00:13
    view the whole thing in effect is
  • 00:00:15
    an argument for a conclusion now of
  • 00:00:18
    course i want to cover
  • 00:00:19
    a range of different resources that you
  • 00:00:20
    might use and i want to provide you with
  • 00:00:22
    some tools so that you can
  • 00:00:24
    object however mistakenly to the
  • 00:00:27
    conclusion
  • 00:00:28
    that i've reached and formulate
  • 00:00:30
    alternative positions
  • 00:00:32
    but the thing is that over the next
  • 00:00:34
    lecture or so
  • 00:00:36
    this is going to become very intricate
  • 00:00:38
    we're going to be looking up details
  • 00:00:40
    about
  • 00:00:41
    cognitive processes and we're going to
  • 00:00:44
    be looking at fairly intricate
  • 00:00:45
    philosophical arguments and it's easy i
  • 00:00:47
    think to get lost in the details
  • 00:00:48
    a lot of those will turn out to be dead
  • 00:00:50
    ends so i thought that some people might
  • 00:00:52
    like
  • 00:00:53
    a little preview of where all of this is
  • 00:00:55
    going so i'm hoping that this might help
  • 00:00:57
    some people
  • 00:00:58
    who like to have sort of the overall
  • 00:01:00
    picture the end point
  • 00:01:01
    in mind and then work towards it
  • 00:01:04
    although of course not everybody does
  • 00:01:06
    does it like that but the great thing
  • 00:01:07
    about the recording of lectures is that
  • 00:01:10
    you know you can just skip this one
  • 00:01:12
    and still be there for some of the
  • 00:01:13
    others now i want to start here i'm
  • 00:01:15
    going to draw an analogy with physical
  • 00:01:16
    cognition
  • 00:01:17
    ethical cognition physical cognition so
  • 00:01:20
    i want to start by asking you
  • 00:01:21
    please to do a little exercise what i
  • 00:01:24
    want you to do is to imagine that you're
  • 00:01:25
    looking down this
  • 00:01:26
    tube so this this spiral here is
  • 00:01:28
    actually a tube and you have the
  • 00:01:30
    perspective of the arrow
  • 00:01:31
    and what you're going to do is shoot in
  • 00:01:34
    a very high
  • 00:01:35
    velocity a ball a little ball you're
  • 00:01:38
    going to put it in there right this is
  • 00:01:39
    your piece shooter when it got bent
  • 00:01:40
    so what you're going to do is shoot the
  • 00:01:42
    ball in right
  • 00:01:44
    and round it goes and what i want you to
  • 00:01:45
    think about is what trajectory will the
  • 00:01:49
    little p or the ball take as it leaves
  • 00:01:52
    here
  • 00:01:52
    as it leaves the end of the tube what
  • 00:01:54
    i'd ideally like you to do
  • 00:01:56
    is to take a pen or a piece of pen or a
  • 00:01:59
    pencil
  • 00:01:59
    and draw a line draw a line for me
  • 00:02:02
    showing me the trajectory
  • 00:02:04
    that the ball will take as it executes
  • 00:02:06
    this
  • 00:02:07
    tube
  • 00:02:10
    really helpful if you do i know you
  • 00:02:11
    don't want to do that i've got a piece
  • 00:02:13
    of paper you're so modern
  • 00:02:15
    aren't you without a piece of paper take
  • 00:02:16
    your finger at least and draw
  • 00:02:18
    draw a trajectory with your finger for
  • 00:02:20
    me how is that
  • 00:02:21
    how is that finger moving if you're
  • 00:02:23
    representing how the ball leaves the
  • 00:02:26
    screen good all right and we'll come
  • 00:02:28
    back to this in a minute you'll see why
  • 00:02:29
    it's relevant before
  • 00:02:31
    so here's descartes what's descartes
  • 00:02:32
    doing here well descartes starts
  • 00:02:35
    my favorite book actually the world
  • 00:02:36
    unfortunately this wasn't published i
  • 00:02:37
    think this is the essence of descartes
  • 00:02:39
    thinking much better than the
  • 00:02:40
    meditations
  • 00:02:41
    unfortunately first-year students in
  • 00:02:43
    philosophy at warwick have to study the
  • 00:02:44
    meditations i think that's a terrible
  • 00:02:45
    mistake
  • 00:02:47
    because descartes project wasn't really
  • 00:02:48
    about sort of the philosophical forms of
  • 00:02:51
    skepticism that people are interested in
  • 00:02:52
    now
  • 00:02:53
    and that was a sort of hobby a side
  • 00:02:55
    sideline for descartes
  • 00:02:56
    i think much more the actions here in
  • 00:02:58
    this book the world
  • 00:03:00
    and descartes starts that book by saying
  • 00:03:02
    that
  • 00:03:04
    concerning light it's possible for there
  • 00:03:06
    to be a difference between the sensation
  • 00:03:08
    that we have of light
  • 00:03:10
    and what it is in the flame or the sun
  • 00:03:13
    that we term light now this twice i take
  • 00:03:15
    it's become so obvious that it seems
  • 00:03:17
    kind of really weird that anybody would
  • 00:03:20
    would say this but at the time descartes
  • 00:03:22
    was writing it was
  • 00:03:24
    far from obvious and descartes was
  • 00:03:27
    using this as the basis for
  • 00:03:30
    many further claims where he was moving
  • 00:03:33
    away from
  • 00:03:34
    what people thought might have been true
  • 00:03:36
    on the basis of the senses to
  • 00:03:39
    a scientific approach so it's very
  • 00:03:41
    striking that
  • 00:03:42
    descartes starts his whole book the
  • 00:03:44
    world with this observation
  • 00:03:46
    there's a difference between the
  • 00:03:48
    sensation that you have of light
  • 00:03:51
    and what it is in the flame or the sun
  • 00:03:53
    that we term light the thing in itself
  • 00:03:55
    another good illustration of this comes
  • 00:03:57
    from a different book where descartes
  • 00:03:59
    studied the rainbow so the question was
  • 00:04:01
    many people have asked this question
  • 00:04:03
    why does the rainbow appear bowed why
  • 00:04:05
    does it appear like a bow
  • 00:04:07
    and so what descartes did here was to
  • 00:04:09
    try to construct a theory and i believe
  • 00:04:11
    this theory is correct actually
  • 00:04:13
    i wasn't able to find really solid
  • 00:04:15
    confirmation of that
  • 00:04:16
    descartes tried to construct a theory
  • 00:04:18
    which takes in takes seriously both the
  • 00:04:20
    phenomenology
  • 00:04:21
    the the boldness of the rainbow and the
  • 00:04:23
    physics put the two things together and
  • 00:04:24
    you get a good explanation
  • 00:04:26
    and of course what we find is that the
  • 00:04:28
    bowing of the rainbow is not
  • 00:04:30
    explained by the fact that the world is
  • 00:04:32
    exactly as it appears to be
  • 00:04:34
    when you see a rainbow on the contrary
  • 00:04:36
    the discoveries about
  • 00:04:37
    refraction are something quite different
  • 00:04:40
    from what you might expect
  • 00:04:42
    on the basis of sensory perceptions
  • 00:04:45
    descartes says sensory perceptions do
  • 00:04:47
    not reveal the natures of physical
  • 00:04:50
    phenomena now that is hardly
  • 00:04:52
    controversial now
  • 00:04:53
    nobody thinks that we do physics by
  • 00:04:58
    imagining you know how the world seems
  • 00:04:59
    what seems obvious to you
  • 00:05:01
    are there self-evident truths that you
  • 00:05:03
    rely on when you're doing physics is
  • 00:05:04
    that the foundation of your physics
  • 00:05:06
    no it's not you're not aristotle you've
  • 00:05:08
    been through the enlightenment
  • 00:05:10
    you've had these marvelous scientists it
  • 00:05:11
    was a bit of a struggle it was a bit of
  • 00:05:13
    a struggle
  • 00:05:14
    it took people a while even very
  • 00:05:15
    thoughtful people can be very
  • 00:05:17
    find it very difficult to move away from
  • 00:05:19
    how things appear to them
  • 00:05:21
    to recognize that there could be
  • 00:05:22
    problems with that
  • 00:05:24
    but eventually they've done that and
  • 00:05:25
    most people now accept
  • 00:05:27
    that you know modern physics works in
  • 00:05:29
    the way that modern physics does on the
  • 00:05:30
    basis of
  • 00:05:31
    repeatable observations theories that
  • 00:05:34
    generate testable predictions
  • 00:05:35
    rather than a bunch of people starting
  • 00:05:37
    from what seems obvious or
  • 00:05:39
    as if it were a self-evident truth to
  • 00:05:41
    them right that worked very well for a
  • 00:05:43
    while and
  • 00:05:43
    people did very well at that but it has
  • 00:05:45
    its limits now here's a second related
  • 00:05:47
    point
  • 00:05:48
    there are broadly perceptual processes
  • 00:05:50
    and they influence what seems obvious to
  • 00:05:53
    you
  • 00:05:54
    so it's not just as descartes already
  • 00:05:57
    very insightfully discovered i suppose
  • 00:06:01
    or
  • 00:06:02
    presented to us it's not just that how
  • 00:06:05
    light and other physical phenomena
  • 00:06:07
    are quite different from how we perceive
  • 00:06:09
    those things
  • 00:06:10
    to be it's also that
  • 00:06:13
    the way that we judge even on reflection
  • 00:06:16
    things to be
  • 00:06:18
    without relying on any theory so our
  • 00:06:21
    pre-theoretical but highly reflective
  • 00:06:22
    judgments
  • 00:06:23
    are shaped by these broadly perceptual
  • 00:06:25
    processes
  • 00:06:27
    so this is why i introduced the spiral
  • 00:06:30
    the thing about the spiral is that a
  • 00:06:31
    large number of people
  • 00:06:34
    will say that the bull will exit the
  • 00:06:37
    spiral
  • 00:06:38
    on a spiral trajectory the ball will
  • 00:06:41
    exit the spiral
  • 00:06:42
    on a spiral trajectory now of course
  • 00:06:45
    this is wrong so
  • 00:06:46
    it turns out i didn't know this before
  • 00:06:47
    but i do know i haven't done much
  • 00:06:49
    physics
  • 00:06:50
    the ball's supposed to exit on a
  • 00:06:51
    straight line so if you drew a straight
  • 00:06:52
    line with your finger
  • 00:06:54
    well done you got that right if you drew
  • 00:06:56
    the spiral you're like most people
  • 00:06:57
    you're like me
  • 00:06:58
    and you're mistaken but here's the thing
  • 00:07:01
    that mistake is not based on any actual
  • 00:07:04
    observation
  • 00:07:04
    right it's never happened that something
  • 00:07:06
    has left a spiral tube and moved in a
  • 00:07:09
    spiral
  • 00:07:09
    so we can't have made the mistake
  • 00:07:11
    because we've observed this happen
  • 00:07:12
    because it doesn't happen so how is it
  • 00:07:15
    that so many people
  • 00:07:16
    51 and mccloskey and colleagues study um
  • 00:07:19
    how is it that so many people make this
  • 00:07:20
    mistake
  • 00:07:21
    right and i've you know when i've asked
  • 00:07:23
    people in lectures as well
  • 00:07:24
    i get around this figure perhaps more
  • 00:07:26
    because i've got philosophers in the
  • 00:07:27
    room
  • 00:07:28
    mainly so why is it why is it that we
  • 00:07:31
    make this mistake
  • 00:07:32
    the answer i think is because there are
  • 00:07:34
    broadly perceptual processes that
  • 00:07:36
    structure our thinking there are broadly
  • 00:07:38
    perceptual processes
  • 00:07:39
    that structure our thinking and we have
  • 00:07:41
    to make an effort to move away from them
  • 00:07:42
    why do i think that well part of the
  • 00:07:44
    answer is a phenomenon called
  • 00:07:46
    representational momentum so let me step
  • 00:07:49
    back and tell you about that
  • 00:07:50
    if we're going to argue that something
  • 00:07:51
    is consequence of broadly perceptual
  • 00:07:53
    processes
  • 00:07:53
    this is going to get a bit a bit
  • 00:07:55
    intricate a bit detailed
  • 00:07:57
    so here's what representational momentum
  • 00:07:59
    is so glad you asked
  • 00:08:01
    yep i'm going to tell you this is
  • 00:08:02
    representational momentum
  • 00:08:04
    so what you see is a rectangle
  • 00:08:07
    on the screen and this is presented
  • 00:08:09
    statically for 250 milliseconds then
  • 00:08:12
    comes the next image that one goes away
  • 00:08:13
    and you see the same rectangle but just
  • 00:08:16
    tilted slightly around
  • 00:08:17
    250 milliseconds so quarter of a second
  • 00:08:20
    here's another quarter of a second all
  • 00:08:21
    the rectangle's slightly further over
  • 00:08:23
    and then you're given a probe
  • 00:08:27
    you're going to probe so same rectangle
  • 00:08:29
    again and the question is
  • 00:08:30
    is this rectangle in the same position
  • 00:08:33
    as the one you previously saw it in or
  • 00:08:34
    not
  • 00:08:35
    yes or no do you think this is the same
  • 00:08:37
    or do you think this is different
  • 00:08:39
    yeah so you've got here three quarters
  • 00:08:41
    of a second
  • 00:08:42
    then a rectangle appears and you've just
  • 00:08:44
    got to say same position or different
  • 00:08:45
    position
  • 00:08:46
    as the position that you last saw the
  • 00:08:47
    rectangle in
  • 00:08:49
    and what you can see here i've lined it
  • 00:08:50
    up so they are basically here they're
  • 00:08:52
    basically in the same position i think
  • 00:08:53
    now here's the here's the phenomenon his
  • 00:08:56
    representational momentum
  • 00:08:57
    representational momentum is this effect
  • 00:09:01
    people tend to be most likely to judge
  • 00:09:03
    that the rectangles are the same
  • 00:09:05
    when the rectangle has continued moving
  • 00:09:08
    on a little bit
  • 00:09:09
    in the same way that it was moving
  • 00:09:10
    before it stopped
  • 00:09:12
    so i take the term representational
  • 00:09:14
    momentum to be a kind of joke
  • 00:09:15
    it's as if the representation that you
  • 00:09:17
    have of the rectangle has a bit of
  • 00:09:19
    momentum and keeps on moving
  • 00:09:21
    even after the rectangle really has
  • 00:09:23
    stopped
  • 00:09:24
    so what's happening here why is there
  • 00:09:26
    representational momentum
  • 00:09:27
    why is it that when you see sorry i've
  • 00:09:30
    gone the wrong way
  • 00:09:31
    when you see this final display you're
  • 00:09:33
    inclined to judge that it was the same
  • 00:09:36
    as you had before when it's moved on a
  • 00:09:38
    bit rather than when it's exactly the
  • 00:09:39
    same
  • 00:09:40
    why is it that you think that well the
  • 00:09:42
    answer i take it is this
  • 00:09:43
    there are broadly perceptual processes
  • 00:09:45
    in you which are
  • 00:09:47
    updating the location of the rectangle
  • 00:09:49
    so your
  • 00:09:50
    engagement with the perceptual world
  • 00:09:52
    involves a lot of fragmentary
  • 00:09:53
    information coming in
  • 00:09:54
    perceptual processes that try to fill in
  • 00:09:56
    the differences
  • 00:09:58
    and what you're seeing here is is
  • 00:09:59
    perceptual process is filling in the
  • 00:10:01
    difference
  • 00:10:02
    they're just moving that rectangle on a
  • 00:10:03
    little bit more for you
  • 00:10:05
    now this is very helpful to us because
  • 00:10:07
    we can use
  • 00:10:09
    the phenomenon of representational
  • 00:10:11
    momentum
  • 00:10:12
    to study the origins
  • 00:10:15
    of certain false beliefs about the
  • 00:10:16
    physical world that people have
  • 00:10:19
    so koznet koscievny kozevnikov
  • 00:10:22
    and hegeti did this for objects launched
  • 00:10:26
    vertically
  • 00:10:27
    so famously an object which is traveling
  • 00:10:31
    vertically suppose that you've got
  • 00:10:35
    two objects which are the same with
  • 00:10:37
    respect to
  • 00:10:40
    density and shape one is larger than the
  • 00:10:43
    other
  • 00:10:45
    if they're launched vertically using the
  • 00:10:46
    same force
  • 00:10:48
    which will travel higher the larger
  • 00:10:49
    object or the smaller object
  • 00:10:54
    same force in relation to their mass
  • 00:10:56
    which one will travel higher
  • 00:10:58
    the smaller or the larger object now if
  • 00:11:00
    we're newtonians about this
  • 00:11:02
    we'll either say it makes no difference
  • 00:11:04
    at all or if we take into account
  • 00:11:05
    air resistance um it will actually be
  • 00:11:09
    the gosh if we take a look at air
  • 00:11:12
    resistance would be the larger object
  • 00:11:13
    won't it
  • 00:11:14
    because proportionately this should be
  • 00:11:15
    less air resistance i think that's right
  • 00:11:17
    i'm terrible at physics don't take my
  • 00:11:18
    word for it
  • 00:11:19
    but but if on the other hand if we're
  • 00:11:21
    impetus theorists
  • 00:11:23
    um we'll think the opposite will make
  • 00:11:24
    the opposite of the newtonian
  • 00:11:26
    prediction we'll think that the smaller
  • 00:11:28
    one goes up i really should have looked
  • 00:11:30
    this up and pretended to be good at
  • 00:11:31
    physics before i started today sorry
  • 00:11:33
    about that
  • 00:11:35
    and this of course is related to that
  • 00:11:36
    famous experiment where objects were
  • 00:11:38
    dropped from a tower
  • 00:11:39
    all those years ago where objects were
  • 00:11:41
    dropped from a tower
  • 00:11:43
    so here's here's the thing if you ask
  • 00:11:45
    novices about this
  • 00:11:46
    what you find is that novices will give
  • 00:11:48
    you generally incorrect responses
  • 00:11:50
    they'll give you responses which are
  • 00:11:51
    clearly wrong and they'll do so
  • 00:11:52
    consistently they're not answering a
  • 00:11:53
    chance
  • 00:11:54
    they've got a wrong view about the world
  • 00:11:56
    a view about the world that was created
  • 00:11:58
    in i think the 17th century if i've got
  • 00:12:00
    that right
  • 00:12:00
    whereas if you ask experts in this case
  • 00:12:02
    students who've taken a physics degree
  • 00:12:04
    they're mostly going to give you the
  • 00:12:05
    right answer they're not perfect but
  • 00:12:07
    they're pretty much
  • 00:12:07
    all the way there but here's the
  • 00:12:09
    interesting thing whether
  • 00:12:11
    you're a novice or an expert if we use
  • 00:12:14
    representational momentum
  • 00:12:16
    to test your predictions about the two
  • 00:12:18
    objects what we'll find is that in both
  • 00:12:21
    cases
  • 00:12:21
    your representational momentum makes the
  • 00:12:23
    wrong prediction
  • 00:12:25
    your representational momentum makes the
  • 00:12:27
    wrong prediction
  • 00:12:28
    it thinks that the larger object will
  • 00:12:32
    slow down more quickly
  • 00:12:34
    than the smaller object even though it
  • 00:12:36
    won't
  • 00:12:37
    even though that's clearly wrong and you
  • 00:12:38
    could never have observed that
  • 00:12:40
    why is this interesting because it tells
  • 00:12:43
    us
  • 00:12:44
    that the mistaken impression that people
  • 00:12:46
    who haven't studied physics have people
  • 00:12:48
    like me
  • 00:12:49
    is linked to their broadly perceptual
  • 00:12:52
    processes the processes which are
  • 00:12:54
    responsible for
  • 00:12:55
    phenomena like representational momentum
  • 00:12:58
    we have a bunch of false impressions of
  • 00:13:01
    the world
  • 00:13:03
    entirely false impressions of the world
  • 00:13:05
    things that we could not possibly have
  • 00:13:07
    observed because of the way broadly
  • 00:13:10
    physical process
  • 00:13:11
    broadly perceptual processes work in us
  • 00:13:15
    now why would that be well here's the
  • 00:13:17
    thing any cognitive process whatsoever
  • 00:13:21
    has to make some kind of trade-off
  • 00:13:23
    between speed and accuracy
  • 00:13:25
    the faster you want something to be
  • 00:13:27
    computed
  • 00:13:28
    the less accurate you can be so for
  • 00:13:31
    example if you're
  • 00:13:32
    if you're trying to reach a decision
  • 00:13:34
    about what to buy or something like that
  • 00:13:35
    the faster you need to make the decision
  • 00:13:37
    probably the less information you can
  • 00:13:39
    consider or if you do consider lots of
  • 00:13:40
    information you won't be able to
  • 00:13:41
    consider it in as much depth
  • 00:13:44
    and this principle speed versus accuracy
  • 00:13:45
    trade-off applies to every cognitive
  • 00:13:48
    process
  • 00:13:48
    and has been known about for over a
  • 00:13:50
    century and studied by cognitive
  • 00:13:52
    psychologists
  • 00:13:53
    over over a century all cognitive
  • 00:13:55
    processes
  • 00:13:57
    involve a trade-off between speed and
  • 00:14:00
    accuracy
  • 00:14:01
    so here's henman who did a very um
  • 00:14:03
    strange experiment in a way
  • 00:14:05
    he had just asked people to compare the
  • 00:14:07
    length of two lines where the lines
  • 00:14:08
    could either be very different in length
  • 00:14:10
    or
  • 00:14:10
    rather similar in length and he made a
  • 00:14:13
    series of interesting observations
  • 00:14:14
    including
  • 00:14:15
    that when people make a wrong judgment
  • 00:14:17
    that's generally a shorter judgment
  • 00:14:20
    so here's the thing when we're thinking
  • 00:14:21
    about cognition
  • 00:14:23
    a process can be one that occurs
  • 00:14:25
    relatively quickly or it can be one
  • 00:14:27
    that occurs relatively slowly
  • 00:14:31
    when we're dealing with those relatively
  • 00:14:33
    fast processes and if we've got
  • 00:14:34
    something broadly perceptual that needs
  • 00:14:36
    to move at roughly the speed that
  • 00:14:37
    objects around us are moving right so
  • 00:14:39
    that we can interact with them
  • 00:14:40
    those perceptual ones have to be about
  • 00:14:42
    as fast as things that we're interacting
  • 00:14:44
    with
  • 00:14:44
    are the priority here has got to be the
  • 00:14:47
    utility over consistency
  • 00:14:49
    and the way that that process achieves
  • 00:14:52
    this
  • 00:14:53
    is by limiting its accuracy so it
  • 00:14:55
    doesn't have a super accurate model of
  • 00:14:57
    the physical that has a
  • 00:14:58
    an impetus model of the physical by
  • 00:15:00
    contrast when you look at a slower
  • 00:15:01
    process
  • 00:15:02
    the priority here is to get more
  • 00:15:04
    consistency that's more important than
  • 00:15:06
    just being useful
  • 00:15:07
    and you could have a more sophisticated
  • 00:15:10
    kind of physical understanding so you
  • 00:15:11
    could have newtonian physics or some
  • 00:15:12
    kind of relativity
  • 00:15:13
    just really depends on how long you're
  • 00:15:15
    prepared to spend invested
  • 00:15:17
    in your physical study why do i say this
  • 00:15:20
    well i say this because koznet
  • 00:15:22
    nikov and hegerty say this this is
  • 00:15:24
    really their idea but i think it's a
  • 00:15:26
    correct idea they say that to
  • 00:15:30
    extrapolate on the basis of
  • 00:15:32
    imperceptible forces such as friction
  • 00:15:34
    and air resistance
  • 00:15:35
    would require a time-consuming analysis
  • 00:15:38
    lots of different factors lots of
  • 00:15:40
    different information involving fairly
  • 00:15:42
    complicated intricate computations
  • 00:15:45
    but in order for our perceptual
  • 00:15:48
    processes to give us the survival
  • 00:15:50
    advantage
  • 00:15:51
    we need that extrapolation to be fast
  • 00:15:53
    and not to consume too much
  • 00:15:55
    in the way of scarce cognitive resources
  • 00:15:57
    like working
  • 00:15:58
    memory that means effortless
  • 00:16:01
    the advantage they say of the impetus
  • 00:16:02
    theory so broadly aristotelian way of
  • 00:16:05
    thinking about the physical
  • 00:16:06
    is that it allows us to extrapolate
  • 00:16:08
    objects motion quickly
  • 00:16:10
    without large demands on attentional
  • 00:16:12
    resources
  • 00:16:13
    that's because in effect the idea of
  • 00:16:14
    impetus you know if i push something
  • 00:16:16
    along the idea is that it
  • 00:16:18
    gains impetus from my push and as it
  • 00:16:19
    moves along it loses that impetus
  • 00:16:21
    what impetus does in effect is to wrap
  • 00:16:23
    up together
  • 00:16:24
    factors like friction and air resistance
  • 00:16:27
    gravity and the rest
  • 00:16:28
    they're all nicely wrapped up into a
  • 00:16:30
    single variable which greatly simplifies
  • 00:16:32
    computations and within a wide range of
  • 00:16:37
    everyday cases that impetus theory
  • 00:16:40
    the much simpler theory will give you
  • 00:16:43
    the same
  • 00:16:44
    results as would a more complicated
  • 00:16:47
    computation taking into account friction
  • 00:16:49
    air resistance and the rest
  • 00:16:51
    so for many ordinary everyday purposes
  • 00:16:54
    you've got nothing to lose by
  • 00:16:56
    adopting the simpler theory so what have
  • 00:16:59
    i suggested so far
  • 00:17:01
    um first of all as descartes noted
  • 00:17:04
    perceptual impressions of the world
  • 00:17:07
    differ from how the world is
  • 00:17:09
    modern physics is quite different from
  • 00:17:11
    aristotelian physics
  • 00:17:12
    aristotelian physics was based on how
  • 00:17:14
    people just thought the world was
  • 00:17:16
    on the basis of their broadly perceptual
  • 00:17:18
    experiences
  • 00:17:20
    secondly the views that you have
  • 00:17:24
    prior to any theory your pre-theoretical
  • 00:17:27
    views of the world
  • 00:17:28
    are shaped by broadly perceptual
  • 00:17:29
    processes it may be that you spent a
  • 00:17:32
    long time like aristotle
  • 00:17:33
    thinking and reflecting on how the world
  • 00:17:35
    is it doesn't
  • 00:17:37
    mean that those perceptual processes
  • 00:17:39
    won't lead you to predict
  • 00:17:41
    that the ball coming out of the spiral
  • 00:17:44
    will move on a
  • 00:17:45
    on a circular motion or a spiral motion
  • 00:17:47
    will continue to move in a spiral
  • 00:17:49
    however reflective you are you're
  • 00:17:50
    probably still going to get to that
  • 00:17:51
    conclusion
  • 00:17:52
    without modern physics and thirdly
  • 00:17:54
    there's a good reason for that
  • 00:17:56
    there's a reason why the perceptual
  • 00:17:58
    processes should shape our conception of
  • 00:17:59
    the world in that way
  • 00:18:00
    and that's because they need to be fast
  • 00:18:03
    and in order to be fast
  • 00:18:04
    they need to trade off accuracy
  • 00:18:07
    but then steve why is this relevant to
  • 00:18:11
    our concern with ethics you've just been
  • 00:18:12
    talking about physics
  • 00:18:13
    what's going on here aha i'm so glad you
  • 00:18:16
    asked
  • 00:18:17
    well think about it this way suppose we
  • 00:18:19
    applied thompson's method or rules
  • 00:18:21
    method or the method of any of these
  • 00:18:23
    ethicists
  • 00:18:24
    to the case of attempting to discover
  • 00:18:26
    things about the physical world
  • 00:18:28
    right well then we'd end up with a
  • 00:18:30
    broadly aristotelian approach to physics
  • 00:18:32
    so we'd end up with a broadly
  • 00:18:34
    impetus-based theory of the physical i
  • 00:18:36
    suppose at least if we were doing really
  • 00:18:37
    well
  • 00:18:38
    um and then of course we'd be unable to
  • 00:18:40
    do things which involve
  • 00:18:42
    moving outside of the situations that
  • 00:18:46
    in our evolutionary history we've
  • 00:18:47
    occupied we'd be unable to do things
  • 00:18:49
    like
  • 00:18:50
    landing a robot on a comet
  • 00:18:53
    right why is that because when you're
  • 00:18:54
    dealing with robots on a comet
  • 00:18:56
    you've got to deal with variations in
  • 00:18:58
    air resistance because you're in a
  • 00:18:59
    vacuum
  • 00:19:00
    and variations in gravity and all that
  • 00:19:02
    kind of thing variations in factors
  • 00:19:04
    which have been largely
  • 00:19:05
    constant throughout humans evolutionary
  • 00:19:07
    history at least in the situations that
  • 00:19:09
    humans have been able to do anything
  • 00:19:11
    about
  • 00:19:13
    so i think that's true and why is that
  • 00:19:15
    true well that's because
  • 00:19:18
    whether something seems obvious even if
  • 00:19:20
    you give it a lot of reflection whether
  • 00:19:22
    something seems obvious to you
  • 00:19:23
    pre-theoretically
  • 00:19:24
    depends on these fast broadly perceptual
  • 00:19:26
    processes
  • 00:19:27
    and those processes gain speed by
  • 00:19:29
    sacrificing accuracy
  • 00:19:30
    so if you rely on how things seem to you
  • 00:19:33
    what seems obvious and what not
  • 00:19:35
    together with reflection but no deep
  • 00:19:37
    theorizing generating
  • 00:19:39
    predictions testing those predictions
  • 00:19:41
    repeating rinsing if you don't use
  • 00:19:43
    in effect modern scientific processes
  • 00:19:46
    you end up
  • 00:19:47
    limited to broadly aristotelian view of
  • 00:19:50
    the physical world
  • 00:19:52
    okay very good but why does that relate
  • 00:19:55
    to ethics well here's the thought
  • 00:19:56
    if we apply thompson's method or rules
  • 00:19:58
    method of reflective equilibrium
  • 00:20:01
    in attempting to discover things about
  • 00:20:02
    ethical principles
  • 00:20:04
    we're also going to be unable to deal
  • 00:20:06
    with unfamiliar problems
  • 00:20:09
    steve what do you mean by unfamiliar
  • 00:20:11
    problems i'm glad you asked
  • 00:20:13
    well things like landing a robot on a
  • 00:20:15
    comet is an unfamiliar problem in the
  • 00:20:17
    case of the physical
  • 00:20:18
    because it involves variation in factors
  • 00:20:20
    that haven't varied over our
  • 00:20:21
    evolutionary history
  • 00:20:22
    so air resistance on the whole has been
  • 00:20:26
    for practical purposes kind of constant
  • 00:20:28
    given what humans have been up to
  • 00:20:29
    for most of the last uh tens of
  • 00:20:31
    thousands of years
  • 00:20:33
    likewise with gravity yeah the
  • 00:20:34
    variations that humans have faced in
  • 00:20:36
    gravity
  • 00:20:36
    haven't been relevant to their practical
  • 00:20:39
    projects over tens of thousands of years
  • 00:20:42
    sorry gone too far so in the ethical
  • 00:20:45
    case an unfamiliar problem
  • 00:20:46
    would be a problem where again the
  • 00:20:48
    factors that vary
  • 00:20:50
    are not factors that humans practically
  • 00:20:52
    speaking have had to deal with
  • 00:20:53
    in the tens of thousands of years of
  • 00:20:55
    their evolutionary
  • 00:20:56
    history so you could imagine that we
  • 00:20:59
    have
  • 00:21:00
    artificially intelligent machines who
  • 00:21:02
    move around the world and have
  • 00:21:04
    preferences
  • 00:21:05
    of their own or you could imagine that
  • 00:21:06
    we have the possibility of
  • 00:21:08
    transplanting uh brains from one body to
  • 00:21:11
    another or
  • 00:21:12
    that we have the possibility of growing
  • 00:21:14
    clones or you could imagine the
  • 00:21:16
    possibility of
  • 00:21:17
    uh genetically engineering plants or you
  • 00:21:20
    could imagine that we could
  • 00:21:21
    grow animals and farm them uh not not
  • 00:21:24
    sort of in the ways that people
  • 00:21:28
    humans have been doing for thousands and
  • 00:21:29
    thousands of years but rather by putting
  • 00:21:31
    them into
  • 00:21:32
    very small cages in large factories and
  • 00:21:34
    so on and all of these will be
  • 00:21:35
    situations which are i suppose from an
  • 00:21:37
    ethical point of view
  • 00:21:38
    quite unfamiliar in this technical sense
  • 00:21:41
    um
  • 00:21:41
    it involves changes in ethically
  • 00:21:43
    relevant considerations
  • 00:21:44
    where those ethically relevant
  • 00:21:45
    considerations have been continuous
  • 00:21:48
    for most of the tens and thousands of
  • 00:21:49
    years of even
  • 00:21:51
    humans evolution history or if they have
  • 00:21:52
    varied humans haven't been able to
  • 00:21:55
    or interested in dealing with variations
  • 00:21:57
    in them
  • 00:21:59
    so i think this is then quite
  • 00:22:00
    straightforward if we apply thompson's
  • 00:22:02
    method or rules method
  • 00:22:04
    in attempting to discover ethical
  • 00:22:05
    principles then we shouldn't think that
  • 00:22:07
    we're going to come up with a theory
  • 00:22:09
    that deals with unfamiliar problems any
  • 00:22:11
    more than we would in the physical case
  • 00:22:13
    and that's because whether something
  • 00:22:14
    seems obvious even after much reflection
  • 00:22:18
    will depend on the fast processes in
  • 00:22:20
    this case the processes that shape our
  • 00:22:22
    ethical senses and those fast processes
  • 00:22:26
    will gain speed by sacrificing accuracy
  • 00:22:28
    those are fast processes which
  • 00:22:30
    are tailored to the familiar situations
  • 00:22:34
    and unlikely right because there's no
  • 00:22:36
    reason for them
  • 00:22:37
    to be able to deal with unfamiliar
  • 00:22:39
    situations
  • 00:22:42
    okay very good so let me then try to
  • 00:22:44
    finish the comparison here so i'm
  • 00:22:45
    thinking
  • 00:22:46
    there are faster processes there are
  • 00:22:47
    slower processes the faster ones tend to
  • 00:22:50
    prioritize utility over consistency
  • 00:22:52
    whereas when you're thinking more slowly
  • 00:22:53
    you go for consistency
  • 00:22:55
    over utility and if we think about
  • 00:22:57
    ethics
  • 00:22:59
    relying on the fast processes there is a
  • 00:23:01
    model of the ethical that underpins them
  • 00:23:03
    and the work of philosophers like
  • 00:23:06
    thompson
  • 00:23:06
    is providing us with a sense of what
  • 00:23:08
    that model might be like
  • 00:23:10
    right the tricky thing is just as
  • 00:23:12
    aristotle and followers of aristotle
  • 00:23:14
    have found it's very difficult to come
  • 00:23:16
    up with a
  • 00:23:17
    consistent model here because the
  • 00:23:18
    processes that you're
  • 00:23:20
    reflecting or the principles which are
  • 00:23:23
    encoded in the operations or reflected
  • 00:23:25
    in the operations of those
  • 00:23:28
    processes are not ones
  • 00:23:31
    where consistency is terribly important
  • 00:23:32
    for so it can be very
  • 00:23:35
    can be very difficult but it can be done
  • 00:23:37
    right aristotle showed us
  • 00:23:38
    that you can come up with a rather
  • 00:23:39
    beautiful elegant theory of the physical
  • 00:23:42
    on the basis of informal observation
  • 00:23:46
    and reflection alone
  • 00:23:50
    now here's the interesting thing though
  • 00:23:52
    suppose that we
  • 00:23:53
    try to move away from that what would we
  • 00:23:55
    come to here
  • 00:23:57
    what would we come to here what's the
  • 00:23:59
    what's the alternative
  • 00:24:02
    is it a singer or green would say
  • 00:24:03
    something like a form of
  • 00:24:04
    consequentialism well why should we
  • 00:24:06
    accept that that's not obvious at all
  • 00:24:08
    in the case of physics we've got
  • 00:24:10
    theories that generate
  • 00:24:12
    a whole range of readily testable
  • 00:24:14
    predictions and a fairly large
  • 00:24:15
    enterprise of testing those predictions
  • 00:24:17
    so we've got an alternative basis for
  • 00:24:19
    accepting theories in the case of physic
  • 00:24:21
    in the physical in the case of ethics we
  • 00:24:24
    don't seem to have
  • 00:24:25
    any comparable reassurance there so it
  • 00:24:27
    doesn't seem like we should necessarily
  • 00:24:29
    plug those in here at least that would
  • 00:24:30
    be very controversial
  • 00:24:33
    so here just here the analogy i agree
  • 00:24:36
    with you you saw this coming did yes
  • 00:24:38
    okay all right
  • 00:24:39
    sorry you saw this coming half an hour
  • 00:24:41
    ago i apologize um here i think the
  • 00:24:43
    analogy breaks down
  • 00:24:44
    we don't actually know what to put in
  • 00:24:45
    here or i don't know what to put in here
  • 00:24:48
    right where am i well you would say to
  • 00:24:49
    me steve where's the argument
  • 00:24:52
    and there isn't one this is a preview
  • 00:24:53
    and what i've offered you is a view
  • 00:24:55
    which is entirely unsupported so i don't
  • 00:24:58
    expect you to accept this view and i'd
  • 00:24:59
    be horrified if you thought
  • 00:25:00
    the view was correct because i've given
  • 00:25:02
    you no reason for it there's no reason
  • 00:25:04
    to accept this view at all
  • 00:25:05
    that's what i intend to do in the rest
  • 00:25:07
    of this lecture and the next
  • 00:25:08
    slowly and in a sort of really
  • 00:25:10
    circuitous way
  • 00:25:12
    is to provide a defense that this is a
  • 00:25:14
    correct
  • 00:25:16
    view as opposed to the various other
  • 00:25:17
    views that people have offered
  • 00:25:19
    why is the view relevant because it has
  • 00:25:21
    some consequences the first consequence
  • 00:25:23
    is this
  • 00:25:24
    we've been asking whether scientific
  • 00:25:25
    discoveries could undermine or support
  • 00:25:27
    ethical principles and i think the
  • 00:25:29
    answer to that question
  • 00:25:30
    is no they could not the reason for that
  • 00:25:34
    is very simple
  • 00:25:36
    scientific discoveries about physical
  • 00:25:38
    cognition
  • 00:25:39
    do not undermine or support discoveries
  • 00:25:42
    about the physical
  • 00:25:43
    right we don't we don't support or
  • 00:25:45
    reject
  • 00:25:46
    theories about the physical on the basis
  • 00:25:48
    of discoveries about physical
  • 00:25:50
    cognition that would be
  • 00:25:53
    unexpected i'm not saying it's
  • 00:25:55
    completely impossible but
  • 00:25:57
    you know it's so bizarre that it
  • 00:26:00
    wouldn't really be
  • 00:26:01
    it's not really a possibility i think
  • 00:26:02
    that we need to discuss in lots of depth
  • 00:26:05
    i think we should take the same attitude
  • 00:26:07
    with ethics done properly
  • 00:26:09
    i think if we're doing ethics properly
  • 00:26:11
    if we're not relying on things which we
  • 00:26:12
    know
  • 00:26:13
    are going to give us
  • 00:26:17
    resources that are only suited to
  • 00:26:19
    dealing with familiar
  • 00:26:20
    situations in that technical sense then
  • 00:26:24
    we should not think of
  • 00:26:27
    discoveries in moral psychology as
  • 00:26:29
    having any relevance whatsoever here
  • 00:26:31
    no direct relevance whatsoever
  • 00:26:36
    does that contradict what i said about
  • 00:26:37
    foot that's a very good question i'm
  • 00:26:39
    glad you asked that question
  • 00:26:40
    so what i said when we were discussing
  • 00:26:42
    philippa foote and her message of
  • 00:26:43
    trolley cases was this
  • 00:26:45
    if foot's method of trolley cases works
  • 00:26:50
    then there's a direct role for
  • 00:26:53
    discoveries in moral psychology to play
  • 00:26:55
    in ethics and i stand by that
  • 00:26:57
    if we go with foot's method then i think
  • 00:27:00
    there's a fairly clear way for
  • 00:27:02
    discoveries about moral psychology to
  • 00:27:03
    work
  • 00:27:05
    but what i'm suggesting here is that we
  • 00:27:06
    shouldn't follow foot's method
  • 00:27:08
    of trolley cases i think that's a
  • 00:27:10
    mistake foots method of trolley cases if
  • 00:27:12
    you remember involved thinking about
  • 00:27:14
    why it is that people make judgments
  • 00:27:16
    about this situation or that situation
  • 00:27:18
    judgment's based on informal observation
  • 00:27:20
    and reflection
  • 00:27:23
    rather than any attempt to be systematic
  • 00:27:25
    in their thinking any
  • 00:27:26
    more advanced methods um and then try to
  • 00:27:29
    work back from those two
  • 00:27:30
    ethical principles and i think that
  • 00:27:32
    that's about as mistaken as it would be
  • 00:27:34
    in the physical case so that we
  • 00:27:35
    shouldn't do that
  • 00:27:38
    so what i'm what i'm saying here is not
  • 00:27:39
    inconsistent with what i suggested
  • 00:27:41
    before as long as you're careful about
  • 00:27:42
    that conditional
  • 00:27:46
    all right good now i know many people
  • 00:27:47
    disagree so many people here will be
  • 00:27:49
    much more sympathetic to the idea that
  • 00:27:51
    foots method or
  • 00:27:52
    thompson's method which i think those
  • 00:27:54
    are different of trolley cases is the
  • 00:27:56
    way to go here
  • 00:27:57
    and that's fine that's absolutely fine
  • 00:27:59
    you've just got to argue your point
  • 00:28:00
    just as i've got to argue mine haven't
  • 00:28:02
    done that yet but there's another
  • 00:28:04
    question which is could scientific
  • 00:28:05
    discoveries
  • 00:28:06
    change how humans do ethics and i think
  • 00:28:09
    they probably could i think scientific
  • 00:28:11
    discoveries about moral cognition show
  • 00:28:13
    that moral cognition works in
  • 00:28:15
    roughly ways sorry in ways analogous to
  • 00:28:18
    some
  • 00:28:19
    of the ways in which physical cognition
  • 00:28:20
    works and that the two things are
  • 00:28:22
    limited in the same ways and i think
  • 00:28:24
    that could change
  • 00:28:25
    how we do ethics so here it's almost
  • 00:28:27
    like things are backwards i think in the
  • 00:28:29
    case of the physical what happened is
  • 00:28:32
    that
  • 00:28:33
    people for a long time pursued the kind
  • 00:28:36
    of aristotle
  • 00:28:37
    thompson method of doing physics
  • 00:28:40
    and then lots of interesting physical
  • 00:28:42
    theories came along and there was a big
  • 00:28:45
    kind of problem because people were torn
  • 00:28:46
    between thinking gosh it just seemed so
  • 00:28:48
    obvious to me that that thing was going
  • 00:28:49
    to move
  • 00:28:50
    you know the small thing is going to
  • 00:28:51
    move faster slow down less than the big
  • 00:28:54
    thing
  • 00:28:54
    right or the bigger thing is going to
  • 00:28:55
    drop faster than the small thing it just
  • 00:28:57
    seems so obvious to me but the theory
  • 00:28:59
    tells me something else right it seems
  • 00:29:00
    so obvious to me
  • 00:29:01
    that the world is like this but the
  • 00:29:02
    theory tells me something else how do i
  • 00:29:04
    deal with those two things it's only
  • 00:29:06
    much later that we discovered things
  • 00:29:08
    about physical cognition
  • 00:29:09
    i think what's happening in the case of
  • 00:29:10
    ethics is almost the opposite we don't
  • 00:29:12
    have
  • 00:29:13
    a systematic way of doing ethics in the
  • 00:29:16
    way that we have
  • 00:29:17
    modern scientific methods but we do have
  • 00:29:21
    some discoveries about the moral
  • 00:29:24
    psychology
  • 00:29:26
    the the underlying abilities and those
  • 00:29:28
    underlying abilities already tell us
  • 00:29:29
    that the
  • 00:29:30
    way of doing ethics based on how things
  • 00:29:32
    seem to you
  • 00:29:33
    on reflection can't actually get us to
  • 00:29:37
    truths about ethical principles
Tags
  • ētika
  • morālā psiholoģija
  • kognitīvie procesi
  • Descartes
  • spriedumu pieņemšana
  • fiziskā kognīcija
  • tagadnes spriedumi
  • kognitīvā psiholoģija
  • filozofija
  • ētiskie principi