Tip: click a paragraph to jump to the exact moment in the video.

1. 00:00 Evening. Here we are. We are both We are both recording. Yes. So, Sam, good evening. Thank you for having me on. Good afternoon. Great pleasure and honor. Thank you. May I introduce you to the onlooker? Well, I’m Sam I’m Sam Vaknin. an author of books on on among other things
2. 00:27 personality disorders and I’m a professor professor of psychology. I have a YouTube channel um aonomous aonomous YouTube channel Samvakn I think that’s enough of an introduction. Let’s focus on the on the topics not on me. May I may I tell the audience a little bit about
3. 00:47 what you invented? I you are in the driver’s seat. It’s your show. Oh, I’m a ho. I’m a guest. Okay. I’m a guesser. You’re not a definition for anything. Okay. A short rundown. Some of the concepts I’m invented. Narcissistic abuse, dual motherhood, hall of mirrors, pseudo
4. 01:08 identity, primary and secondary narcissistic supply. The inverted narcissist. Flying monkeys. Boovering. Narcissistic fleas. Cerebral. Cerebral. Somatic. narcissist devalue and discard snapshotting as well as photoshopping. I I just say that
5. 01:33 uh to go no contact in se 27 stages cold therapy cold empathy and more recently the mother’s gaze and now something I really like music of abuse millennient covert MPD Sam invented and develops an intracychic activation model called IPAM which proposes that individuals experience
6. 02:02 reality through both internal and external environments and that their personalities are compromised comprised of various self states which are automatically activated relating to the specific environment. So I I have a uh
7. 02:26 I tried to make the questions really short but they are BS questions because they don’t really have nice answers. No, because that made me think which happens. How does neural activity coincide with thought? Because if you say coincide, police doesn’t like the word coincide.
8. 02:54 They don’t like coincidences. Is did you mean the mental thus is not reducible to mere physical states? Please elucidate. Uh so first of all just a correction. Uh thank you for the list. Yes please. It’s um go ahead. Um but one minor correction. I I did not
9. 03:17 invent the value and discard. I invented only the discard phase. Devaluation and idealization have been described by many scholars that preceded me. And so it’s not my original contribution. That’s a minor minor correction. It’s impressive and and how how you succeeded to compile
10. 03:35 such a list. Um it’s not exhaustive but it’s representative. It’s impressive. Yeah. Regarding your your question um this is the famous uh psychophysical problem. It’s a famous body mind problem. When we see um events taking place in confluence with or in
11. 04:01 correlation with other events, we tend to commit the error mistake of attributing causation and that is not some that is the famous philosopher Hume. Um similarly when there is a what we call a mental event or a psychological event and at the same time we’re able to measure
12. 04:28 activity and blood flow in specific regions of the brain. We tend to commit the fallacy of saying the changes in the regions of the brain have caused the mental or psychological event when actually the causation the error of causation is absolutely unclear.
13. 04:49 We could equally forcefully claim that it was the psychological or mental event that had caused the changes in the brain rather than the other way around. So the argument against this second type of causation is yes but if we give someone a medication
14. 05:06 that suppresses the activity in that region they are incapable of experiencing the psychological and mental event. So if we give someone anti-depressants they are incapable of experiencing depression. It’s like that means proof that means that the pa the the prime
15. 05:27 mover and the the cause the causitative agent is the brain and that mental and psychological events are derivative. Again, unfortunately, this is a fallacy because you cannot from the outcomes of an intervention, you cannot deduce with certainty the error of causation.
16. 05:54 So perhaps for example, when you give someone medication, you are suppressing the psychological and mental event and consequently there’s no activity in the brain. In other words, it’s hubris. It’s highly vlorious and arrogant to claim that we have any knowledge as to
17. 06:17 what is a mental event, what is a psychological, what is the mind, what is consciousness. We we don’t have what we do know is that we possess a unique internal experience or what we experience as internal experience and we are able to verbalize
18. 06:38 it or attempt to verbalize it somehow to communicate it somehow and that this experience is idiosyncratic. In other words, every human being has an experience that is incomparable to every other human being and cannot be effectively communicated.
19. 06:54 uh intersubjectively. In other words, the assumption of an intersubjective space where the where two minds can meet and somehow can compare notes and can communicate and can influence each other. This is highly a highly dubious proposition. There is no way for me to know that you
20. 07:12 possess a mind. There is no way for me to know that you’re human. And there is no way for me of course to to prove that you are not a robot for example or an artificial form of artificial intelligence. Absolutely no way. In principle it’s not a question of time.
21. 07:28 It’s not like in 100 years time I will have a way. In principle there’s no way. We call this an undecidable uh theorem or undecidable propos proposition proposition. It’s similar to the question is there a god? In principle, there’s no way to prove that there is a goal and there’s
22. 07:48 no way to prove that there is no goal. And similarly, there’s no way to prove what is consciousness or even that consciousness exists and is not being simulated. We have no idea. We have no idea what is a psychological process or a psychological event or a
23. 08:10 psychological or mental experience. None. zero. The fact that we believe that we have access to such events and that we believe that we are experiencing them doesn’t prove that we know what they are. Even the experience of a psychological event may be a psychological event.
24. 08:35 Even that is an artifact. Even that leads to infinite regression. It’s in other words, it’s an undecidable proposition. It’s something we should not be discussing because it’s an utter waste of time. Yes, there is no way for me to say anything
25. 08:54 intelligent on with regards to God, with regards to consciousness. You already did with regards to too late. Well, anything meaningful. I I provided you I provided you with a lot of negation but I was not able to make a positive statement of any kind.
26. 09:13 Therefore I think these subjects are metaphysical. They should be completely excluded from scientific discourse and that scientists for example neuroscientists attempt to discuss consciousness or psychology or is laughable. laughable and yes non-disiplined hubristic and frankly
27. 09:41 stupid okay I have a second stupid question now no the question was not stupid what these people are doing is stupid question was not stupid at all so what is your view on the status of the wave function collapse and reality if if they re if they relate Because
28. 10:04 there’s there there are 10 juries still out making up their mind at least if you don’t count the religious side because there’s also the co-arising intermingling and it looks like if we throw enough dots we are bound to hit the board sometime. So what do you think
29. 10:30 about this? There are two I think yes I think there are two two possible ways to to look at this three possible ways actually the first way is to say that the wave function which is essentially a map a map of probabilities. Mhm. First way approach is the wave function reflects
30. 10:53 ignorance reflects our limitations as observers our inability to simultaneously encompass the entire universe. In other words, God would not have a wave wave function. If God were to develop quantum mechanics, there would not be a wave function in it for
31. 11:09 sure because God can see all the collapses simultaneously. God does not deal with probabilities. God deals with deterministic variables. I mean, if God were to exist, of course. Yes. A godlike view. Um so wave functions are seem to be unique to limited sentient beings.
32. 11:33 Beings whose brain is is finite and cannot grasp the infinity of the universe and is therefore reduced to dealing with probabilities and cannot grasp nothing either. Yes, the we can discuss ignorance a bit later. I think the foundation of all our
33. 11:53 certainties is is ignorance but we can discuss it later. So this is one approach. The wave function reflects our limitations as observers. The second approach is the wave function is actually out there physically. The particle is everywhere simultaneously
34. 12:14 and it is our consciousness or our measurement. Doesn’t have to be consciousness. It is the act of measurement that forces the particle to coalesce and emerge and be realized in a specific location at a specific moment, a specific. So the collapse is brought on
35. 12:36 by an act. The act doesn’t have to be conscious. Of course, the measurement could be affected by a machine, a device, totally unconscious device, not artificial intelligence, a very primitive device actually. So it’s not oscilloscope oscill absolutely not true that it requires
36. 12:53 consciousness. It’s complete new wave uh BS but it does require measurement and it is true that measuring devices in our environment are created by humans. So maybe indirectly there is human involvement. But this is also not completely true because there are many
37. 13:14 measuring devices in the universe which are not human. and have nothing to do with humanity. Actually that in in reality everything measures everything all the time. Bacteria measure, viruses measure, vir measure. I mean everyone but galaxies measure.
38. 13:35 Measurement is the act of transfer of information in order to modify functional operational parameters. So it could happen even in the inanimate world where one substance measures the presence of another substance and then reacts to it. For example in in with catalyst. So
39. 13:59 measurement is a property of reality. It has nothing to do with a measurer as a human being or as a sentient being or even as a machine. It’s how elements in reality relate to each other. They measure each other all the time. And so the second approach is the wave
40. 14:20 function collapses becomes transitions from pro probabilistic to deterministic via an act of measurement. The third approach is my approach. It’s new. It’s a new approach. Good. Therefore, it’s highly speculative. Mhm. I I propose that our brains
41. 14:45 are collapse detect detecting machines. In other words, our brains are capable of detecting only events of collapse, only collapsed events. But we could conceive of another mind or another type of brain which would be able to perceive and interact with all the probabilities. So
42. 15:16 I’m suggesting that our physics is skewed and biased by the fact that we possess a highly idiosyncratic and specific type of brain. It is a brain that evolution is designed to detect collapse. Why would evolution do that? Because detecting collapse is helpful to survival.
43. 15:40 Yes. Useful. It’s useful. If you were to detect probabilities, all probabilities, if you were to detect the entire wave function, you would be paralyzed. Yes. And the tiger would eat you. M if you were to detect probable tigers, millions, zillions,
44. 16:00 quazillions of probable tigers, you would never be able to spot the real one who is about to eat you, which is about to eat you. Evolution therefore designed our brains to to detect that which that which has collapsed. But I don’t think it excludes the
45. 16:21 possibility of detecting detecting other states of reality. It’s just we don’t have the equipment for this. So this is the third approach in a nutshell. Yeah, that was great. I have a more as an artist I have a concerning I I was quite impressed by Isaac. So, and psychoticism.
46. 16:51 So, it’s a it’s an it’s a question concerning creativity or higher creativity. It’s like I’m from the scene, let’s say. And how about the relation of Isenian psychoticism, higher creativity and self as a dream state? Yeah. Well, first of all, it’s very
47. 17:19 crucial to disambiguate. Psychoticism has nothing to do with psychosis. Of course not. Many many people make I hope so. Sorry. I hope so. Well, I’m not sure. I’m not sure. Psychotic states have led to major major cre interesting outcomes. Yes.
48. 17:40 Psychotic states have led to religions. Psychotic states have led him led Yung to his work. psychology is is a is a child of of psych the psychotic state of Jung and and so I I would psychotic state is simply an unusual way of looking at the world and in essence I
49. 17:59 think it’s creative by definition but okay we leave it aside psychoticism not about psychosis no psychoticism is simply uh in a way um a way of looking at the world so that you can decode or decipher it. You can see in it, you can see into the bowels
50. 18:21 of the world, into the intestines of the world rather than the skin of the world. It’s a deeper deeper kind of insight, deeper kind of of uh penetration of of reality that then allows you to rearrange elements and components in a way which is both synoptic and completely novel.
51. 18:41 Psychoticism is uh very seriously linked to novelty to a synotic view panoramic view ability to an ability to connect that which appears to be disperate and nonconnected and so this is psychoticism it’s a it’s a crucial element in creativity not the
52. 19:02 only one but a crucial element according to I think I think also suggested that there are neurotic people neuroticism M and he did not link neuroticism to creativities surprisingly because many other scholars did. That includes to logic and Freud. Freud suggested that neuroticism
53. 19:23 is a way of symbolically rearranging reality. So it’s an act of creativity. And while Eisen beg to differ, he thought that psych neuroticism has nothing to do with creativity. I think all of them are right. I think creativity requires a modicum of mental discomfort.
54. 19:48 I think creativity is a highly uncomfortable state to be in a highly uncomfortable process to experience and endure and often leads to highly uncomfortable outcomes both to the individual and and to society at large. Yes, we could reduce creativity to discomfort and distress.
55. 20:12 And because it is an unc what we call an egoistonic state because it’s a it’s a condition of alienation. It’s a condition of estrangement from oneself. Mhm. The artist is forced to communicate with oneself. Let me try to to explain this. Yes. I think it’s a crucial insight and
56. 20:35 the foundation of my work on the psychology of art. Very good. Whereas in healthy normal individuals, there is no difference between who you are and yourself, between you and yourself. You are one and the same. There is no daylight. And therefore
57. 20:56 there is no need to bridge any distance because there’s no distance. There is a total confluence identity in time and in space between yourself and who you are. In other words, you are yourself and nothing but yourself. Whereas the artist experiences something we call
58. 21:19 estrangement. It’s a divorce from oneself. It’s a distance between you and yourself. It’s as if your self was a separate entity, not you. And that creates a lot of discomfort as I said and distress and it goes dison and anxiety. It gives rise to anxiety.
59. 21:42 Art is anxolytic. It’s an attempt to reduce anxiety. And it attempts to reduce anxiety in two ways. One, master the world, control the world. symbolically of course you use paper and ink you use a computer screen you use but it’s an act of mastery it’s a
60. 22:05 mastery act and the world an attempt to render the world malleable submissive permeable and perhaps ultimately more comprehensible more understandable so this is the first role and the second role is a private language In an attempt to bridge the gap between you and yourself,
61. 22:32 you create a private language. The bridge is a language. You’re faced whereas a normal healthy person is faced with a single subject, you are fa faced with two subjects. You, the creating artist, and your self, which you often reject, which you often
62. 22:53 estrange from. which you often hate, which you often loathe, which you often want to put distance from, which you you know. So there are these two subjects competing inside you and this creates the interubjective dilemma because we have just said in my first
63. 23:13 answer that there is no way for two minds to communicate. So you desperately you become focused on creating an idiosyncratic private language which will allow you to create a communicative bridge between your two competing subjects. And when you externalize this private
64. 23:38 language we call it art. Art is this private language. But art is not about communicating with other people. No, never mind what you think or I mean never mind what people think. It’s not about other people. That’s why art that’s why art is compulsive. Even if
65. 23:58 you were to be isolated in solitary confinement in a prison, you would continue to create. You would continue to generate art in the absence of viewers and observers and critics. you would still generate art. You can’t help it. You can’t help it because art is a
66. 24:16 dialogue between the two subjects that comprise your mind. The two subjects, the competing subject you artists are domous. They are not a unitary entity. Artists, they are in I would say that art is a strong indicator of dissociative identity disorder. Art is a strong
67. 24:39 indicator of multiple personality if you wish if we borrow a metaphor or simile. Yes, more like a metaphor. I don’t take it personal. So part of you needs to talk to the other part because what’s the alternative? Alternative is going crazy. Alternative is psychosis.
68. 24:57 A part of you needs to talk to the other part. So you create this language that bridges the gap between these two parts of you and then you externalize this language. is called art. And throughout all this you engage in something called hyperreflexivity. Hyperreflexivity
69. 25:15 is the annexation of the world. Making the world an integral part of yourself. Uh controlling the world by assimilating it. Not immersing yourself in the world which is what a politician does, what a businessman does. Not immersing yourself in the world but immersing the world in
70. 25:39 yourself. This is known as hyperreflexivity because this is exactly the core clinical feature of psychosis. This is exactly what the psychotic person does. Think think about it for a minute. The psychotic person has a has a voice in his mind and the psychotic person says
71. 25:59 it’s not in his mind in my mind. It’s out there. The psychotic person has an image in his mind. He says, “It’s not in my mind. I can see it. It’s out there.” The artist has an image in his mind. He says, “It’s not in my mind. It’s on this piece of canvas or paper. That’s where
72. 26:21 it is.” So there is a strong affinity between psychotic states and art because of this hyper reflexivity. the dig digestion of the world and you need to digest the world because it terrifies you. It’s a lot of anxiety and you need to make internal peace to
73. 26:44 cope with this and the internal peace is brought on by this private language that outsiders call art but the artist should call internal dialogue. That’s how I see it. Great. very well spoken for a non artist. Your your voice is very low in very very well spoken for a non artist.
74. 27:13 Actually, I’m an artist. I I write uh I of course I’ve written and published short fiction. I won Yes, I know. I won international prizes for poetry. So, I’m I’m a bit of an artist. Of course. And of course, I’m crazy. So, that qualifies, you know.
75. 27:35 I think we can move on to the next question if you’re ready. I don’t have so many questions. All right, then we can call it a day. Feel free. I I just wanted to say uh really your very rare black pearl in an ocean of bodily fluids. We are all in without a pedal
76. 28:02 and thank you for having me on. Thank you for the time and for everything. Thank you. And now it’s really too late for pessimism. Well, we are way beyond that. We are in in dystopia. Don’t need to be pessimistic anymore. Certainty negates pessimism. We are certain. We’re in
77. 28:21 dystopia. Pessimism is about the future. Yes. We the future is behind us. Yes. Okay. Thank you ever so much. Thank you for having me. Really I enjoyed this talk. Thank you. It’s unusual. Uh very unusual for me. Maybe a second time in my life I zoomed. Okay.
78. 28:44 So have a good time there. Where are you in so if I may ask? In spent some time. Yes. Yes. Yes. I spent a few years in South Korea in the 80s. Why would you do that? In in the 80s. Oh my god. In the 80s. It changed just a little bit. Oh, I know. I visited South Korea afterwards.
79. 29:05 Okay. In the 80s it was still a very poor place and and you know emerging it’s kind of emerging place and so on. It was still highly traditional highly traditionalist and it had very many unique features which are commonly attributed by white people to Asians
80. 29:23 and so I I was I was immersed in an Asian environment but I liked I like South Korea. The only problem were the flights. The flights were like 40 hours and all. Yes. Yes. Yes, it’s a little faster. Okay, you have to fly off. Yes. So, have a I wish you a wonderful day.
81. 29:42 Thank you. You too. Take care. I hope to see you in in Soul sometime. Yeah, next time I visit. Absolutely. Okay. Bye. Take care.