Reddit Reddit reviews On Being Certain

We found 6 Reddit comments about On Being Certain. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Health, Fitness & Dieting
Books
Psychology & Counseling
Popular Neuropsychology
On Being Certain
Check price on Amazon

6 Reddit comments about On Being Certain:

u/theodysseytheodicy · 4 pointsr/quantum

Recommended reading:
On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not, by Robert Burton.

> You recognize when you know something for certain, right? You "know" the sky is blue, or that the traffic light had turned green, or where you were on the morning of September 11, 2001--you know these things, well, because you just do.

> In On Being Certain, neurologist Robert Burton shows that feeling certain―feeling that we know something--- is a mental sensation, rather than evidence of fact. An increasing body of evidence suggests that feelings such as certainty stem from primitive areas of the brain and are independent of active, conscious reflection and reasoning. In other words, the feeling of knowing happens to us; we cannot make it happen.

> Bringing together cutting-edge neuroscience, experimental data, and fascinating anecdotes, Robert Burton explores the inconsistent and sometimes paradoxical relationship between our thoughts and what we actually know. Provocative and groundbreaking, On Being Certain challenges what we know (or think we know) about the mind, knowledge, and reason.

https://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/031254152X

u/river-wind · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

>There is nothing special going on. Just as CreepyCoyote said, you are merely the result chemical reactions and electrical signals interacting in a complex network of neurons. There is nothing else no matter how much you don't want to accept it.

While I agree that you are almost certainly correct, please explain to us how consciousness arises from those chemical reactions and electrical signals.

What GSpotAssassin is pointing out is that while we all agree that all evidence appears to point to there being nothing supernatural at play, we have not yet actually answered the question of the exact mechanism of consciousness.

regarding "stuff you just don't think feels right": I just finished reading "On Being Certain" which talks about the difference between knowledge and the feeling of knowledge, and how those two interact in decision making.

While it's not 100% pertinent to your post, I think it's a great book should be mentioned in this conversation somewhere.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031254152X/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0312359209&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1TVXVGD2WHY14EZFSAYZ

u/dbzer0 · 2 pointsr/Anarchism

>Oh, so you don't agree with the dualistic conception of mind and body? Then how do you explain the fact that you would still be capable of thinking even if your legs and arms were chopped off?

I think you do not understand dualism. The dualism does not exist between brain and the rest of the body. It exists between a disconnected "mind" and the body, which includes the brain.

Even if your dualism revolves around the brain and the rest of the body, you would still be wrong as the brain is part of the body itself and secondly the way we perceive the world is defined by the whole of our bodies and not just the brain. You should read more about how human thought is formed, what affects it and why the idea of dualism is a necessary illusion that the brain creates in order to provide incentive for our actions. This is a good book to start.

Chopping extremities and organs off does not change any of this. Just because I can function with less organs does not mean that something exists within each of us that is somehow separate from the rest of our bodies. It just means that our bodies are capable of functioning with less.

>It can't be a "fact" because slavery has existed, and in some parts still does exist. If it were a "fact" that people controlled their bodies, then slavery, i.e. ownership over other humans, could not be possible. But it is possible.

Slaves still control themselves. They are simply coerced (or brainwashed) in following the orders that others give them.

If you want to oppose slavery, just go ahead and oppose slavery (there's many other perfectly valid reasons to do so). There's no reason to imagine a mind-body dualism in order to do this.

>Where? All I see is that you simply asserted that ownership does not exist. But mere assertion is not scientifically permissible.

When you make anything more than an assertion based on linguistics this might hold some water. Until then, I am content to dismiss your assertions immediately.

>If it is, then aren't we simply arguing over whether or not the dualistic concept holds, rather than the logical implications of holding either view?

You want to argue that mind-body dualism holds? I suggest you start by considering all of these first.

>where the mind can exist without the body (i.e. some advanced life support system that keeps alive a floating head or brain or whatever).

What mind exists? How do you know it exists? How can this "brain in a jar" communicate that it exists? Do you realize how much you must advance into pure science-fiction in order to even make a coherent case for dualism?

>If I hold the mind to be strictly biological, i.e. physical, then am I logically permitted to hold the dualist concept?

No, because you have no means of separating between the two.

>I think that it is impossible for me, or anyone, to own their own minds,

Ah, but then, by your own argument and the use of your language (i.e "own their own minds"), you have already conceded that we do in fact own our minds. That there is something external to our minds that is doing the owning. Do you see how absurd it is to argue with linguistics?

>I don't see any reason why ownership of external physical objects to the body is metaphysically valid, but the body, which is also external to the mind, can't be owned.

Because, again, the body is not external to the mind. You have simply made an arbitrary separation between the meat that does the thinking and the meat that does the acting, even though this is a very very very simplified understanding of how human bodies work and ignores all the many nuances that affect our behaviour which do not lie with the brain or even controlled in any meaningful sense by it.

>I don't know. Maybe the dualist view is wrong, but the fact that one can still think and form thoughts even though they lose a limb somehow gives me the impression that the mind is separate from the body.

It's very easy to get impressions, but it is also unscientific.

u/koreth · 2 pointsr/funny

I think it's something like, "These people only think the way they do because they are ignorant and haven't been exposed to the truth yet. This (book|pamphlet) is so self-evidently true that I can't imagine how someone could fail to be convinced."

One book I recently read that shed a lot of light on this general subject area for me was "On Being Certain" by Robert Burton, a neurologist. In some respects this is the most depressing book I've read in years.

u/awkward_armadillo · 2 pointsr/atheism

A descent selection so far from the other comments. I'll throw in a few, as well:

​

u/Taome · 1 pointr/Neuropsychology

You might want to read more deeply into the notion that reason and emotion are "easily separated." See, e.g,

Robert Burton (neuroscientist), On Being Certain (see also this for a short intro to Burton's book)

Antonio Damasio (neuroscientist), Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain and The Feeling of What Happens