The first was called "The Anatomy of an Action: Self and Responsibility After Neuroscience" and was lead by Professor Patrick Haggard. Some information about the talk (which explains it quite clearly and concisely) -
Benjamin Libet (1916-2007) was a pioneering scientist in the field of human consciousness. His classic experiment showed that when subjects were asked to press a button, prior to their decision to do so, their unconscious brains had already started getting them ready to act. This implies that things happen in the following order: first comes automatic brain activity, then a conscious decision, then the action itself.
These findings seem to challenge our common sense idea of ourselves. ‘We’ seem to be nothing more than conscious decision-makers with the occasional power of veto over unconscious forces.
These findings seem to challenge our common sense idea of ourselves. ‘We’ seem to be nothing more than conscious decision-makers with the occasional power of veto over unconscious forces.
If this is right, does it put in question personal responsibility? Or does it simply shift us to a conception of indirect responsibility? For example, an athlete and her coaches are all indirectly responsible for the reactions of her unconscious brain through the training of habits, skills and intuitive responses. Is all responsibility for action like this? If so, what does this mean for social policy areas such as education and criminal justice?
After an introduction and explanation of the subject it was then debated by two philosophers - A.C. Grayling and Barry Smith. It was extremely interesting and I got the chance to learn about something that I didn't really previously know anything about. I have to admit I didn't understand 100% of what they were saying, especially when they moved onto debating the subject, but for the most part of the talk it was explained in a really clear easy to understand way. You can listen to the talk here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most recent talk I went to was called "The Hidden Wealth of Nations" with David Halpern.
Richer nations are happier, yet economic growth doesn′t increase happiness. This paradox is explained by David Halpern’s new book The Hidden Wealth of Nations – the extent to which citizens get along with each other independently drives both economic growth and well–being.
Much of this hidden wealth is expressed in everyday ways, such as our common values, the way we look after our children and elderly, or whether we trust and help strangers. It is a hidden dimension of inequality, and helps to explain why governments have found it so hard to reduce gaps in society. There are also deep cracks in this hidden wealth, in the form of our rising fears of crime, immigration and terror.
David Halpern visits the RSA to explore what is happening in contemporary societies - from value change to the changing role of governments - and to offer suggestions on what policymakers and citizens can do about it.
Much of this hidden wealth is expressed in everyday ways, such as our common values, the way we look after our children and elderly, or whether we trust and help strangers. It is a hidden dimension of inequality, and helps to explain why governments have found it so hard to reduce gaps in society. There are also deep cracks in this hidden wealth, in the form of our rising fears of crime, immigration and terror.
David Halpern visits the RSA to explore what is happening in contemporary societies - from value change to the changing role of governments - and to offer suggestions on what policymakers and citizens can do about it.
He gave some amazing examples of societies' values and beliefs, how they have changed and how they compare to different countries throughout Europe. He talked about peoples levels of trust and fear. For example more educated people within the UK have higher levels of trust for other people. But our overall level of trust for others is quite low compared to that of other European countries. He talked about the Easterlin Paradox and how Danish people are apparently the most happy in Europe and they place Love as the thing that provides the most happiness. Whereas the people within the UK aren't particularly happy and we place Money as one of the most important things that makes us happy. He made some suggestions for changing the way we measure the wealth of nations so that we focus less on money and GDP and alter it so that is takes into account citizens wellbeing and quality of life. For example measuring complimentary currencies, placing value on the work of volunteers and utilising peoples skills and encouraging them to be exchanged. Watch the recorded talk below.
No comments:
Post a Comment