David Eagleman - Are Brain and Mind the Same Thing?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ธ.ค. 2023
- Get free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
For the brain and mind to be the same thing, mind must be entirely the output of brain. This means the mind must be the brain-literally, identically. If so, then the physical world is likely all that exists. But if mind and brain are not the same thing, then what? Could there be extra stuff in the physical world? Could reality go beyond the physical?
David Eagleman is a neuroscientist and writer at Stanford University.
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on the mind-body problem here: bit.ly/3Z2PP0N
Register today to get free subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
![[UNCUT] รัฐสั่งหยุดปล่อยคลื่น! แต่หยุดพลังปะทุ “น้องหญิง” ไม่ได้ I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RmQh47eIiV0/mqdefault.jpg)
Very clearly stated and very honest. We just don’t know the whole story. Will we one day? I believe so.
I agree that he stated his position, and what I think should be the default position of everyone- that we simply don't know- very well. But I strongly disagree with the notion that the best science is done when we consider "all" hypothesis equally. That is simply not true- and never has been. And used to, ppl seemed to have enough common sense that you didn't need to be this particular about how you stated things- but that's no longer the case. This is now the battle cry of the new age woo woo crowd- that it's unfair that their hypothesis or theories aren't being treated equally with real, well researched, peer reviewed science. That's a 3rd grade notion of fairness and only the uneducated would really think it makes any sense- but it's gained traction and seems to be the prevailing argument I see online nowadays. It's sad and pathetic, and these guys should be very careful about how they speak and what they say- otherwise their words will be coopted by this same crowd to try and promote their pseudoscientific b.s.
Years ago I read an interview in the NYT of the neuroscientist who had just published a book about the brain. The journalist asked: "Why don't we understand how the brain works? ". The scientists replied "Because if the brain were simple enough for us to understand it, we wouldn't be smart enough to.".
It just takes Time, we are just 30-40 years into a proper investigation compared to 3 billion years our brain had to evolve
Love this quote, thanks for sharing 👍
Don’t get the quote. If we were able to understand, we would also be smart enough to understand. So …?
@@clarkfoerster if brain isn't complex we would have been an simple species not a complex one...
@@ManiBalajiC Right, in other words we are smart enough to maybe understand how the brain of a flatworm works because that brain is very simple compared to our brain. But we are not smart enough to understand how the human brain works because it is too complex for us to understand.
"Polluting" is an interesting word choice. Even horribly "destructive" ideas (initially) give us a rock to bounce back from.
Brilliant! He offers the higher perspective view, which is neccessary point how to get to the truth. Brilliant!
The radio analogy is a good one. I also like thinking of the brain as a movie projector. You have this machine with film in it spinning away and projecting a flickering light called a movie. If you shake the projector, the images shake. If you cut out some film you skip some plot. You’d be a projector materialist and say the projector IS the movie, but we know that’s not true. I believe consciousness is akin to the light behind the film. The pure, white light, when filtered through a film slide creates an image. Even if you smashed the projector to pieces, light still exists. We are this divine light and for now we experience human bodies and minds but when the body dies our light is still here.
The brain is like the cockpit of an aircraft and the soul is the pilot. The brain cannot think.............Falun Dafa.
Lights go out.
In any event, while the radio analogy does provide a good example of how a materialist explanations can be incorrect, there are several problems with it.
The first is this idea is often cited as a refutation of materialism, when it clearly isn't. Radios are a demonstrably materialist phenomenon; it's just that there's more going on than can be seen by considering the radio alone. The radio materialist isn't aware of broadcast towers and radio waves and the fact that there are actual people talking or playing music being broadcast and received by the radio; none of these components are immaterial.
Now of course there is the more fundamental ontological question of "What is matter?" but certainly redio receivers, radio waves, broadcast towers, and the people and recordings broadcast are all material things in the ordinary sense of the term.
So radio materialism would be an inaccurate and incomplete explanation of the radio the complete and accurate explanation is still a materialist explanation.
Another problem with the radio analogy is that it lacks the critical property of interest here, which is subjective experience.
The Bushman radio materialist falsely concludes that the broadcast is generated entirely by the radio and nothing else, and falsely thinks the broadcast has been destroyed just because it can't be heard on the broken radio when it continues to be heard on other radios.
But that's nothing like our brains with respect to consciousness. We know from subjective experience that when your brain is damaged or altered your subjective experience is altered or suspended.
If the radio analogy were correct we would never experience altered states of consciousness or have periods of unconsciousness; we would merely appear to go unconscious to others.
@@b.g.5869 The soul exists in another dimension than this one so the body would blow up but the soul is immortal..................Falun Dafa............. Only God can destroy your soul.
@@jeffforsythe9514 Even if this were true it's irrelevant to the pilot/cockpit analogy because pilots and cockpits aren't in separate dimensions.
@@b.g.5869 Sorry, but people live in this dimension so the analogy is a good one, did it not explain to you the functions of both the brain and the soul, give me a better one. The soul can move to any one of the trillions of other universes and dimensions but modern day people have cast out the Divine and settled for gluttony, very sad. I could have used a car and its driver also but today there are driverless cars. Stupid, in my opinion, America has turned work into a four letter word (pun) and work is wonderful.
My favorite consciousness theorist! Tubes of light, awesome!
Of course, nobody has a theory about how those microtubes of light results in consciousness.
@gordonquimby8907 look up Anirban Bandyopadhyay's and Andrés Emilsson gomez
@@gordonquimby8907"The mind can't possibly emerge from something as crude as a system of pulleys - so it must be a system of levers."
The brain is like the cockpit of an aircraft and the soul is the pilot. The brain cannot think.............Falun Dafa.
All of these conversations can be summarized as "We know when the brain does something we experience something, we haven't really got any further than that"
The brain is like the cockpit of an aircraft and the soul is the pilot. The brain cannot think.............Falun Dafa.
@@jeffforsythe9514 nothing even remotely confirms soul , might exist but it has no reason till what we investigated
@@ManiBalajiC Why do you think you need confirmation, why do you want there to be no soul, it is because you have lost touch with yours, Try to find that part of you that is Divine, it is in there somewhere, believe me.
Yes we have! But in the negative way: never trust your brain about consciousness. It just made it up
Absolutely love this channel ! Please continue this amazing project.
...thanks for the nostalgic journey down radio memory lane! 📻
The 'if you've just tuned in now' moment had me questioning if they could see me! 👀
Brain damaged patients display considerable changes not only in their physical capabilities, but also in their decision making and even their personalities. They report this themselves. If their consciousness and decision making capacity is non-material then this experience and the source of those decisions should be unaffected by any brain damage. I now the argument is that the 'receiver' is damaged and so the signal gets scrambled when it arrives at the body, but that's not what we observe.
The patient's own report of their inner experience is different, and their decisions aren't scrambled in a random way. Their decisions are still reported by them to be intentional, and the pattern of decisions changes in systematic ways aligned with the new personality. That means the decision making process itself has changed, which clearly indicates it's the damage to the brain that was the cause, and therefore it's the brain that is making the decisions.
Regarding Eagleman's suggestion of a room that blocks these signals, if the brain is receiving signals and the brain is a physical system then the signals must be physically causal. That means we should be able to observe the differences that these signals make in the brain. Decision making can involve from tens of thousands, up to millions of brain synapses, so such an effect should be fairly easily observable.
Are you still a reductionist? 😉
@@NeilEvans-xq8ik You mean a fan of the most successful, productive approach to knowledge ever adopted by human kind. The basis of modern science and all of the engineering and technology we have developed over the last few hundred years? Including the computer and telecoms infrastructure that is enabling you to read this comment? Sure. It seems to working out ok so far.
If the receiver has different parts each responsible for different things then that's compatible with it being scrambled in a non-random way and still being a receiver. And people can even report that they are not blind when they are, so self-reporting is not the most accurate thing. As for the signal, it could be exactly what we observe right now: apparent randomness, noise, because we observe the real causal factor.
I suppose I don't see a reason why a non-material consciousness couldn't still be localized in the brain, and the means by which consciousness manifests couldn't be impacted by damage to the physical structure of that brain. Consciousness isn't a behavioral pattern. It's the experience of behavior. Changes in behavior as a product of damage to the control center of the physical body don't necessarily imply a change in conscious awareness itself, only the means by which that consciousness is able to experience the material world. I think it's a bit premature to categorically rule out a non-material explanation of consciousness, at least not one based solely off behavioral deviation.
@@ioioiotu I can understand the receiver hypothesis if actions became dissociated from intentions. So the non-material mind decides, but the action is scrambled at the receiver end. That's not what people with brain damage report though. Their intentions in terms of their preferences, propensity to lover or anger, the actual way they think and decide changes. It can change so much that people close to them, loved ones, say they have become a different person. Not just in actions, but in attitudes and even beliefs. That only makes sense if the physical change to their brain also changed the way they think and feel, which implies that this is a physical process.
I love both these guys! Intelligent, insightful and open to new perspectives but unwilling to accept them without evidence. I wish more people were like that.
Awesome!
Excellent.... thanks 🙏.
Radio analogy is wrong. If you are stuck at figuring out where the signal is coming from because you haven't discovered radio waves, this means you must have explained everything else that's going on in the radio - that signal is coming from the antenna, then it's being amplified and then it causes the speaker membrane to vibrate and produce the sound. We are not there with the study of the brain. We can't explain how the interaction between the neurons create mental states, memories, thoughts, etc. Only once we have fully explained that, and there is something left, then we can say, there may be something extra that we need. Until then, we should work hard to explain how the brain works. Coming up with ideas about souls, or quantum effects, does nothing to help with this. Going back to the radio analogy - if you accidently stumble on a theory of electromagnetism, it won't help you if you haven't understood everything about the internals of the radio - electricity, transistors, sound waves, etc. So we should remain patient and wait for the truth, instead of making stuff up 🙂
Every analogy has limitations, but the radio is much closer than you think. The link between the material brain and that which is really YOU is electromagnetism, just like with the radio. But the brain does not have ONE antenna, it has hundreds of billions!
Known science: each neuron has an electrical impulse run through it when stimulated. That electrical impulse would create an electromagnetic field around that neuron (Faraday's Law). Likewise, experimenters can cause an individual to see red (or not) via electromagnetic fields placed near the back of the brain.
Consciousness is your spirit (which is not material so it must be something like a field) reading the electromagnetic fields around the neurons processing the sensory inputs to the brain ( which would be like a symphony for there are so many notes sounding at once) and then impacting the brain by creating fields around action oriented neurons. Your spirit is not external, it occupies the same 3-D space as the brain while you are alive. Upon death, the spirit/brain bond is broken, and the spirit can move on. This is evidenced by the Near Death Experiences so many hundreds of thousands of people have experienced.
Yes, most of what the brain does is subconscious or unconscious which is the result of the hard wiring of the brain. Stuff we don't need to be conscious of, so the spirit need not be involved (it doesn't listen to every single neuron). The Chief Executive of a large complex organization need not monitor and make decisions for every employe. The executive focuses only on what is important for them to focus on.
And before you say this is crazy.... Remember Eagleman and Kuhn both agree materialism doesn't even have a theory about how it would have a theory about what consciousness is. This model explains consciousness, creativity and original thought, and Near Death Experiences, as well as the fact that people experience the spiritual. Of course, if you damage part of the brain, you make the link between the spirit and the brain garbled.
The most intelligent and convincing take on that topic I've come across so far...
That guy is great! I think this is the most intelligent discourse about the mind body problem and its different hypotheses.
Is digestion same as stomach?
Namaste! Good question. Are you approaching this topic from a Vedanta perspective? If you are, good. In my view, Westerners are too narcissistic with their Anthropocentric view of the world -- and I say that as a Westerner who used to be a hard-core and narrow-minded materialist. But -- Vedanta, Buddhism, and other Eastern perspectives have made me question the "pure materialist perspective," especially the one that puts "consciousness" at the center of human thought and only human activity. From a scientific perspective, even looking at the Mycelium Fungal Networks, the ecological system, the Cosmos -- the Vedanta approach is worth noting for it clearly is corroborated by Nature itself. So, I am still unsure and I do NOT claim to have the answers (like Westerners). I am still "seeking." Cheers.
Well the radio analogy makes sense why we get "crazies"; their receivers pick up poor "Wi-Fi" signals.
I have used the radio analogy many times myself.
Interaction is fundamental ( not just to consciousness, but to what we call nature).
Conscious experience is the interaction between brain substrates and external input or from within the brain structure. The nature of the interaction is key.
The brain is like the cockpit of an aircraft and the soul is the pilot. The brain cannot think.............Falun Dafa.
How does neuro plasticity factor in? And what does that say about any requirement for a specific configuration of neurons for a given experience?
The brain is like the cockpit of an aircraft and the soul is the pilot. The brain cannot think.............Falun Dafa.
Great Sir David Eagkeman . Fantastic research and fantastic understanding. In the clasical text of Acupuncture medical science which is believed to be at least 5000 years old , brain is referred as "Seat of Mind". Thankyou you so much for your valuable research information.
Sir David Eagleman....it will equally great if research is extended to the body mind relationship. I have heard Osho speaking that body and mind are not two seperate entities. They are one organic unity . In fact it is wrong to call body and mind , but it is rather right to say "bodymind",
@@sujok-acupuncture9246Good point. I guess the whole circuitry between brain and body to keep up homeostasis is relevant for studying the mind, as evolution built up from there / 'on top' of it. We're probably missing something very basic if we only focus on the brain itself
The brain is part of the body. It's a major part. Nobody talks about disembodied lungs having a separate existence or a separate role...
@@0The0Web0 yes . Very excellent point you have raised. In fact in the process of self healing any part of body brain definitely should be playing the most important role. Only top researchers can reveal such links. Thankyou very much for bringing up a important information.
@@bozo5632 Thanks for your scientific information. Yes heart and lungs seems to have their brain of their own. Even in brain dead patients they function without any hindrance.
The radio analogy is totally apt. And about him opening it up to "bad ideas" shouldn't the data dictate ideology, rather than the other way around? We have pretty solid NDE evidence that the mind at least temporarily supersedes the brain.
I wonder why Robert would say that the ejeculation of other ideas other than alluding to physicalism is destructive to humanity?
Look at all the hate , racism, bigotry, science denial, etc the religious introduce into society and culture. Can you imagine the even more harm they would do if allowed to publish their crackpot destructive ideas without having to go through the gauntlet of peer review and the whole scientific process?
IMO Robert was referring to everlasting souls and warring religions that are destroying mankind.
@@gilremigio1405 It is true that many religions have committed so much atrocities so much so that the mere mention of religion in an intellectual forum will cause much aversion in honest minds. However to cross out allusion to any religious concepts will be going to the other extreme. That is why I agree with the guest when he said that in science you entertain all forms of ideas so as to search through them to get you closer to truth.
Robert was saying there are people in the scientific community that say those things. Robert himself keeps an open mind.
@@jeremymanson1781 l know that of him. However in this case he was leaning too heavily.
Great name
That was good
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
He’s saying that neuroscientists study the brain as a material product, and therefore most believe in materialism. However they have not disproved the possibility that something else is going on. His point is that so far we just don’t know.
what happens with microtubules in brain neurons when go from sleep to wake, unaware to aware?
Mind is ultimately in relationship with Nature. Brain filters or channels mind, alongside culture.
How does culture work? So works the brain? How does the mind work? Pushing or deviating against culture, or attuning to it?
@Robert Lawrence Kuhn -- Have you talked to Jeff Hawkins?
In order for "brain" and "mind" to be the same thing, you'd have to change the meaning of the words.
Like a flashlight… parts produce light
This is the subject of many of my arguments. Perhaps I have come up with a reasonable answer, if not logical, in regards mind and brain.
Metaphysician philosopher
Grumpy old man! Lol I watch your channel for years and years and youre always so patient but not today lol
Hardware and Software create Projection that can "tune in" to the universe around us and within us. Quantum DNA will eventually help solve the mystery.
Is software the same as hardware ? They both live inside my computer.
Where does the game go when I turn off the power ?
Software is just code. In the computer the game sits as instructions saved on disk and not in active memory when power is turned off.
In the human body software is in the dna. Those instructions are executed by human machinery just like hardware executes the computer instructions
@@jayadasd
So what is the game I am playing ?
It doesn't look like code or hardware.
Has it got an independent life ?
Think about reality in terms of PROCESSES and not objects
Conceptually, the state of consciousness can be described to be ontologically inextricable from active mobility.
Non-conceptually, the state consciousness is nothing at all other than active mobility.
Birds and bunnies and lizards and butterflies all have minds, of which Homo sapiens’ minds are just more complex versions of.
100%
If neurons connected - write on memory, pruning of synapses - delete from memory. MATER is MEMORY, but even memory is a dynamic PROCESS.
All those people moving in the background are distracting indeed! Other videos of this series do not show them.
Nature follows a known path or paradigm. They emphatically deny idealism because its spooky, but no different than saying tables and chairs came out of the microphysical world. Just that brains, as far as we know, are the most highly evolved mechanisms.
A radio can play what is being broadcast by some radio wave source. Many radios can play the same song broadcast by a station. So unless there is a unique radio station for each person out there, only then radio analogy has a remote chance of making sense. Each person has their own unique consciousness. Mutiple brains do not share and play the same consciousness. Therefore, it does not make sense to apply radio analogy.
Mind is a PROCESS, brain is MEMORY imprinting of that process
I AM
synoepds oratomus is my consciousness i blood from onualios so what is your synopsas or neuro actvity if what powers you is pottasium and melecular be quantum someday or qauntum
QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck, Bohr etc.
It's not at all material. All objects are essentially ideas. It's astonishing how mistaken scientists can be about what they think they are studying.
His logic about the experience of the color red is baffling I can't even entertain anything else he says lol
Truly mind boggling how he was allowed to say that nonsense without it getting checked.
Refreshing to see a younger scientist with an open mind who is not tied to a materialist agenda, nor to the mind as filter. Too many scientists today decide one path is right and spend their entire careers going down a wrong road. If Einstein had done this he would never have made the contributions he did. He thought "outside the box" and if any question needed this kind of thinking it is "what is consciousness?".
"materialist agenda" sounds like a conspiracy involving the dreaded "they"
"Are "brain" and "mind" the same "thing"? Sounds like a good question, doesn't it "?"
human brain awareness of time and energy in quantum wave becomes mind?
Everyone treats the question of how the brain creates the mind is something different and special from other questions. But, it’s not. Here’s a similar question: how do two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom make water? No one knows. They just do. The water is wet and fluid. How does wet fluid water come from two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms?
How do you deal with this problem? Read Edmund Husserl!
Mind is what the brain _does._ It’s the activity undergone by the brain.
One of many brain activities, and not even the most important.
Or introduce ideas remotely.
Very nice effort. However, it would have been much satisfying to outline, maybe, in generic terms, where this conclusion may lead us all in near/far future and some probable implications this have overall (or in case things come up otherwise). This is suggested keeping in mind the education and experience of gentlemen undertaking the session. Keep up the good work.
Brains experience. Experience emerges from the brain. If you damage the brain you effect the experience.
Is the music and the radio the same thing. Switch off the radio. The music is still there in the room.
The brain as a receiver. But more of a material reception... Is this still a form of solipsism? 🤔🧐
If mind and brain are not the same, assume one day humans are able to assemble a General Artificial Intelligence entity that is in all respects indistinguishable from a human, could we then say that that GAI had acquired a mind independent (or above and beyond that) of the apparatus from which it arose?
All I know is that this is all a simulation. Many people have been trapped here for a VERY long time through incarnation including myself to keep reliving this same exact memory over, n over, n over again. I literally have know idea how to escape this or if im even meant to. All i know is this is my hell.
I continue to marvel at the widespread belief within much of the scientific community (cited in this interview) that we must not entertain certain possibilities because doing so would invite religion into the conversation.
It’s such an absurdity for these three reasons just to start:
1. There has been and likely always will be religious people attempting to connect their beliefs to whatever is happening in science at the time, regardless of what that might be. Not everyone is a fundamentalist. Many religious folks don’t see science as implicitly contradictory to their religion.
2. Sorry to say it, but virtually everyone - even including super smart and educated scientists - has some unchecked assumptions of their own operating somewhere in their life. That is to say, religious thinking is everywhere whether you believe in an anthropomorphic deity or not. Just because we value logic and reason doesn’t mean we’re immune to magical thinking; in fact, I’d suggest that when we are most convinced that we are immune is when we tend to be most susceptible.
3. This is the big one - You’re making an argument from adverse consequences. It’s fallacious to say that we must not believe (or consider) something might be true based on the possibility that said belief may bring about reactions we don’t care for. I’m sorry that sometimes Deepak Chopra annoys us by using the word “quantum” wrong. But his doing so doesn’t mean we shouldn’t study quantum mechanics.
I think one of the biggest obstacles to developing a better theory of consciousness is that a sizable chunk of the scientific community is a priori deciding what they are and are not willing to consider possible based on this fallacy. I promise, dogmatic religious believers will continue to believe regardless of what science discovers. Stop worrying about it and let’s start opening our minds to possibilities beyond a strict, material/mechanical-only model.
If existence exist as something what is that something, and if existence exist as all things what knows all things?
Suppose there are two minds. The first mind hears "Yanny" and the second mind hears "Laurel." These minds are clearly distinct.
What characteristics are necessary for mind x to be identical to mind y?
Why is that needed? Your mind is not identical to any other mind.
@@gordonquimby8907 Suppose materialism is true. Does this imply if that brain x is identical to brain y, then mind x is identical to mind y?
@@mesplin3If A=B then B=A. That's not materialism, it's logic.
@@bozo5632 Suppose materialism were false. Does that imply that even if brain x were identical to brain y, then mind x isn't necessarily identical to mind y?
@@mesplin3 If you assume logic is false, then what good would it do to try to answer you?
Try to imagine a situation where A=B but B does not equal A. Try to imagine a married bachelor.
Yea they are.
I guess his question really is, is quantum mechanics local or non-local?
Are the rules of chess the same as the game of chess ?
Why aren't these interviews dated?
software and hardware both exist in a computer.
The four fundamental forces hint that our reality is an effect of something outside our current knowledge. These four forces are likely related to a 'Binary-Mind' at a basic level (simply yes or no, not gender analogous). Electromagnetic Fields are intrinsic to the 'Mind'. Consciousness as we know it is a dynamic higher-ordered EM-Field. Subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules possess a basic static version. Consciousness is a complex nested modulated Electromagnetic Field built up from the layered EM-fields of atoms to cells to organs to the whole body. Our brains produce an EM-Field, as well, while tuning to this local higher-order field that our bodies and to some extent the environment produce. The part of us that makes decisions, uses this complex local EM-Field, to say yes or no.
It does strike me as odd that so few scientists and philosophers consider EM fields as a candidate for a consciousness substrate. I mean, it's right there, staring us in the face.
The brain is like the cockpit of an aircraft and the soul is the pilot. The brain cannot think.............Falun Dafa.
Just say the brain has quantum effects - what would the implications of that be/mean?
Brain - computer hardware
Mind - computer software
Consciousness - internet signal
Without the last one, your computer is basically dead.
The brain is like the cockpit of an aircraft and the soul is the pilot. The brain cannot think.............Falun Dafa.
This dualism issue will never go away. Even if it becomes certain that there is no mind outside of the brain, and once the brain dies, the mind dies, people will still figure out a way to explain the evidence away. They do this with many other subjects.
There is no evidence, there is no theory, not even a theory of a theory.
I do however want to make a distinction between mind and consciousness, mind (thoughts, feelings, perceptions) is affected by the condition of the brain, consciousness is not.
The brain is like the cockpit of an aircraft and the soul is the pilot. The brain cannot think.............Falun Dafa.
We areFall Divine beings in flesh bodies but have lost touch with the Divine......................Falun Dafa
04:22 09:00
Yes they are the same thing
No, they aren’t the same thing. See? Isn’t this fun?
"The "ALL",,, is "MIND".
" The "UNIVERSE",,, is "MENTAL"...
Hermes TrisMegistus
Science is in its early stages of describing consciousness. To progress, we need to debunk (bad) theories that "are not" consciousness once and for all. Perhaps applying quantum theory is the answer.
You mean like the Copenhagen school suggested? Or maybe in the way Roger Penrose has theorised? David Deutsch's perspective is that quantum theory is not relevant to consciousness at all, and is instead explicable in terms of the theory of computation alone. Personally, I can't seem to decide between Deutsch and David Bentley Hart, who suggests consciousness is as fundamental to reality as Being itself, and is as forever beyond the scope of explanation as that is. As opposed to each other as they seem, I can't help but think that they may in fact complement each other in some way... 🤔
Consciousness arises with biology or out of biology. Physics is too far removed… Why not just say we need quantum physics to explain human culture or economic theory? Imo, Penrose thinking about consciousness is like when Newton spent the last 20 years of his life looking for numerological patterns in the Book of Revelations. Finding nada!
More exploration into the likely quantum underpinnings of consciousness. The microscopic machinery of the brain are, no doubt, governed by the science of the small.
th-cam.com/video/2tSQAN5OmRM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=RbCzEM3mB7bul4Tt
@NeilEvans-xq8ik and @longcastle4863
Copenhagen is old school. Many Worlds is where it's at!
We cannot explain the emergence of consciousness. You're right; it would be like describing the emergence of culture. You're right; it's beyond the scope of explanation. That's the complexity of consciousness for ya! I mean, we should be able to understand consciousness and how it works.
The mathematics of the Standard Model is as fundamentally accurate as possible. The neurons in our brains follow physical laws. The cells in our brains are quantized.
I like to follow the thinking of Stephen Wolfram, where we can use computation to define rules on how things work. Wolfram would say, "We need to have a narrative. We need to take the natural world and put it into a narrative we understand".
Maybe the computations of quantum computers will one day result in an explanation. Then we could dismiss all the other woo-woo.
How does the conscious brain really work? It appears to go through a quantum computation comparing a superposition of possible states, then chooses amoungst the imaginary universes best suited to its real preference frame.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
I just like words... Pay no mind... Unless.😂
Brain, the thing between your ears...
mind, a collective response generator made up of the brain.
consciousness, input stimulus that causes response, also causes qualia.
cognition, the feedback process that takes the output of the last computations and uses them as inputs for the next... Transformer in the brain.
awareness, a dual understanding of the body space, and kinetic space being separate but together.
"self" awareness, insight of mind, meta cognitive psychology. Realizing that the thing between your ears, seems to be where the "self" resides.
Meta cognition, being able to use logic and first principles to "self" reflect on the driver of this consciousness we experience, as a separate piece of the world. (The sensation of a forward projective will/consciousness... The ego.)
Meta physics/phenomenology, attaching language to qualia in such a way as to try to make the explicit emotional output state, communicable, even if the pathway taken by each brain differs as to how it arrives at this output...
Engineered pedagogy, hopefully one day this will be early childhood development, based on phenomenological definition building, (the ice cube is cold, while passing around an ice cube.) Shared material interaction... passing around the ice cube... leading to arbitrary but agreement based language, saying the ice cube is cold. Having each student repeat this as they receive the ice cube.
@@Robert_McGarry_Poems Simply brilliant!
But don't we know the whole story? We know neurons are made of quarks and electrons, and we know everything in our natural, material world that interacts with those things. Where is the consciousness field, force or particle that interacts with the stuff we're made of?
The size of particles of matter decrease another million times while their energy increases.......................Falun Dafa
Explication of this topic will reveal Nous.
These guys should drop a fat tab together because they almost get it, but not quite.. talking about the brain and mind and no word about psychedelics? That is dissapointing. There lies the key to most of these questions. I think it's fair to assume by now that no: mind and brain aren't the same thing. But the mind is a product of the brain and consciossness in a sense. I'd say your mind is all your beliefs, hopes and dreams and thoughts and identity..The ' You ' or the ego so to speak. At the core is your consciousness, that is somehow connected to your ego which is experiencing this reality THROUGH all the functionalities that your brain/body has. 'You' are essentially controlling an earthly space suit made out of flesh and bones to navigate this space here in this particular corner of space and time in the universe. But that is just my two cents.. i don't see why it should be anything less or ' more ' than that, it's a beautiful biological / universal process that we are very familiair with and it repeats itself over and over and over until.. well, an eternity? Not quite sure on infinity yet..
The brain is the hardware and ...there are mental planes in the "9cloud"
The "something else" is the life process. Only a living brain/body has a mind. Not a dead one.
Which makes me think the abiogenesis folks will probably create consciousness in the lab before the AI people do.
@@longcastle4863
That's a really interesting point.
The mind is what the brain DOES. So the mind and the brain are not the same, in the sense that a computer is not the same as the software that runs on it. Also from the description: "For the brain and mind to be the same thing, mind must be entirely the output of brain. This means the mind must be the brain-literally, identically." But what about "functionalism"?
1) If mind, then [some physical brain, of which our wetware is one example]. Physicalists assume this; theists maybe not.
2) If [some physical brain -- other than our wetware], then mind is possible. Seems, at least, possible under physicalism.
3) Possible mind in 1) CAN EQUAL mind in 2). Seems, at least, possible under physicalism (e.g., Sci-Fi scenarios).
But if 3) is true, mind CAN'T equal brain, because brain in 1) NOT EQUAL to brain in 2). Note that a "possible mind" can be a "superset" of all the "possible brains" that can generate/do them, idk.
BTW, I still consider myself a "physicalist", although I'm also functionalist, because functionalists have more fun.
Did a ghost open the door behind Robert?
Is the sensation of mind or feeling your nervous system, but not your brain, due to the biological fact your brain has no feelings, but your nervous system does?
ja true: we opened the door that can never be closed again - like the gates to hell...
Are the car and the driver the same thing?
No but the gazelle and the thing that decides to graze on the Serengeti is the same thing.
Not a good comparison. Try to open a door in your body, climb out, and walk away. Brain/mind/body are a integrated system.
@@browngreen933 He is not disputing it's integrated. He's merely (very rightly) pointing out that there is a difference between the car (the brain) and the driver (mind) which is correct. The brain is the seat of the soul.
@@browngreen933 Some are capable to do it and all are able to do it when dying. When you drive your car, you and the car are integrated sistem.
@@Arunava_Gupta
Who is to say the mind is the driver? It seems to me all the mind does is work for the body, satisfying its biological needs and keeping it out of danger.
Stomach and digestion aren't the same thing either.
The Brain is Fiscal the Mind Consciousness is immaterial Conceptual by Nature' the Mind and Consciousness is not Dependent on the fiscal Brain, to be a Naturalist, you have to Believe Brain Mind and Consciousness is one thing
''brain and mind somehow connected'' And that is all we ever are going to know since you can take it only so far with scientific method. Once things get at a certain amount of complexity science is shut out.
Interestingly i read about stuff they discovered because they had some help of AI. What that does is stretch those limitations by a bit.
Oh, so we hit a hard problem we can't solve, so we better make stuff up? Sounds like we need to think harder and develop theories that can handle higher levels of complexity 🤠
The scientific method has got us to the moon and back and allowed us to create medicines and vaccines that have more than doubled the life expectancy of human beings. Don’t worry, the scientists will figure out consciousness and then the religious will have to find a new gap to try and squeeze their god into.
And this is known as "the argument from incredulity or ignorance"
@@degigi2003 It is not about theories it is about proof....low hanging fruit, high hanging fruit, unreachable fruit...deal with it.
@@fortynine3225I wouldn't use the phrase "Interestingly I read about stuff..." if I wanted my statements to be taken seriously. There's no low or high hanging fruit right now. The interviewee doesn't represent all of neuroscience. Nowhere in the history of science have humans looked at every single hypothesis, they go with the ones they think most likely, are within their economic means, or support their viewpoint and start testing. His analogy overlooks the fact that it's within the bushman's capability to study and eventually duplicate what he's found, and that he can be taught by another human what he needs to know to replicate the receiver. The quantum / photon bit was pretty dumb, if he's not going to defend it I have no idea why he brought it up other than to give the illusion that things are more complicated than they are.
and if you have an early onset alzheimers disease, you can live a lifetime in misery of feeling that something is wrong with your innmermost sense of self without it being identified as a physical illness ... like with Robin Williams
We have been put on this planet to suffer, but people all became fun-seekers instead, Now, all everyone does is practice gluttony, very sad, we are actually Divine giving beings........................Falun Dafa.
@@jeffforsythe9514 thats a cheap moral narrative to cling on to in the face of meaninglessness ... religious self-harm has its own pitfalls, and some denominations dont even want medical treatment. surely you agree that this is the wrong interpretation of scripture? yes, there is suffering, but there is no need to create suffering in the face of this fact
@@z0uLess There are a million different paths to follow, it is up to your ability to discern good from bad, Falun Dafa is the right one, period.
@@jeffforsythe9514 thanks for demonstrating the distilled and pure breed of bigotry by not accepting any oppinion than your own
@@z0uLess My name is Jeff. I do not have opinions concerning the Divine, I am very lucky and know the truth...............Falun Dafa
While people talk AI will walk
why we believe illusion is an illusion or not?why cant we trust another beings? why we create somesort of partiality? if brain creates mind then we all are in the same ship but the story is different
I don't think my brain differs much from that of my cat. She doesn't seem to think very highly of my brain, as she will scratch me without compunction on the slightest pretext. I have no reason to think that what my brain does differs much from what any other organ does. There is no hierarchy in nature. The bladder isn't inferior to the brain. I don't look down on ants. Sometimes I wish I were one of them.
I believe the tongue taste buds simultaneously combine tightly together to create extra blood flow to the tongue base root so the taste buds become more sensitive to touch and taste and smell and also create a little tease mouth orgasm from seeing and hearing what you eat...
This Bud's for you.
READ THIS!
Perhaps one of the most important episodes ever! Eagleman’s description of how we get Closer to Truth starting at 7:30 is so important. We should be open to all hypotheses and weigh the data to get the best picture. His analogy of the radio is actually very good, it just misses the mark slightly.
Idea #1: While a radio has only one antenna, the brain’s neurons act as hundreds of billions of antennas. Faraday tells us the electrical impulse in neurons would create an electromagnetic field around the neuron. Experimenters can influence what people experience by applying an electromagnetic field close to the brain. In one episode of Closer to Truth, a neurologist describes experiments where subjects were made to “see” red (that was not there), as well as block the experience of red that was there. The data supports this Idea #1.
Idea #2: Your spirit is something akin to a field occupying the same 3-D space as your brain, while you are alive, perhaps on a different dimension. Physicists say that everything is made of matter, or it is a field, and the spirit is not material so it would have to be a field. Theoretical physicists are comfortable with the idea of additional dimensions, even if they can’t prove them. Crucially, hundreds of thousands of people who have had a Near Death Experience say they experienced leaving their body. All these points are consistent with Idea #2.
Idea #3: Human consciousness is the interconnection of the spirit and the brain through electromagnetism. Consciousness is your spirit reading the electromagnetic fields around the neurons processing the sensory inputs to the brain (which would be like a symphony for there are so many notes sounding at once) and then impacting the brain by creating fields around action oriented neurons. This model also allows for original thought and creativity as your thinking is not limited to how the brain is hardwired. Emotions are a spiritual state (a downcast spirit) that are certainly influenced by the information coming from the brain, and the brain is influenced by the chemicals produced in parts of the body (or consumed). Experiences influence how the brain operates (epigenetics) which can influence your mental health and emotional health. As with Eagleman’s radio, people end up getting their wires crossed which garbles how the spirit is experiencing the world. Mess with some of the brain components and your consciousness gets garbled. Mess with enough (death) and consciousness at this human level stops. But the experience of those who have had NDE’s shows that our consciousness at a different level continues, indicating we are not just our brain.
And if Quantum Mechanics is an important part of our brain, then your spirit would be the observer QM requires.
This presents a fairly complete picture of consciousness and is supported by our experiences as well as scientific data. How about the picture we have from the materialist theory? Oh, that’s right, as Kuhn points out at 2:13, materialists don’t even have a theory of what a theory could be. It is hard to weigh the merits of one hypothesis with another when there is no other hypothesis… or even a theory of how what the other hypotheses could be.
BTW, the study of science is good, even though humans have used it for horrible purposes and have destroyed our environment. The creative arts are good even though humans have written horrible untruths about other people and fascists have used it to manipulate people. Likewise, looking into the spirit is good even though people have corrupted religion to do horrible things.
Idea #4: Sense organs transduce impinging environmental energies into neural discharge patterns that are the encoded representations of the energy. These encoded representations, in their parallel millions, flood into the brain where, via synapses, they modulate the representations being maintained by subsequent neurons. Since neural discharge patterns are representations and thoughts are representations it's no leap to suggest they are one and the same.
Thus a self is conscious of representations only.
If one accept that the word 'self' is referring to a thought then one can understand that modulation of the self thought is what being conscious means.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Sorry - Your Idea #4 seems to take several leaps of logic, such as where things that are a representation of something - become the something. Not true. The word "apple" is a representation of a piece of fruit, but it does not become an apple that you can eat. The spirit reads and influences the patterns of neural discharge in the brain, but it is seperate from the brain.
@@gordonquimby8907
"take several leaps of logic"
I left it to your imagination and to your knowledge of biology and neurology
to extrapolate representations subsequent to sensor input.
I may have been wrong to assume you could.
And of course there is also the possibility that
the meaning you extracted from my comment
did not correspond to the meaning I intended.
"where things that are a representation of something - become the something"
I am amazed at your ability to misinterpret so completely.
Self evidently, a painting of an apple does not become an apple.
Light from an apple paints a picture on the retinas and the images are encoded in
the discharge timing patterns of the neurons that connect the retina to the brain.
This is perfectly analogous to how a digital camera works.
Much experience and learning and feedback are required before one becomes able
to recognize an apple and even more before one can label it with language.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Why do people feel the need to insult others? The leap of logic I objected to started with your "If one accept that the word 'self' is referring to a thought".... which is a thought about the word "self", it is not that which is actually YOU. Then you modulate your thought of self and that is what consciousness is. ???? Maybe I didn't fully understand what you were trying to say. Maybe you didn't fully understand what I was trying to say. But there is no need to insult people.
@@gordonquimby8907
I agree, there is no need to insult people.
I did not offer any.
Perhaps I've been too terse?
When quite young I believed my self was my body only but
that was before I began to think about mind and the nature of self.
Now I hold that the relationship between my self and my body is one in which my self is the owner of my body (even as I know that my body is the essential substrate of my self).
By 'self thought' I mean something rather complex.
If you are not a self thought then what do you think YOU are?
Do you see that one's self ceases to exist during deep and dreamless slumber?
Do you see that your self is resurrected every time you awaken?
To say that brain and mind are the same thing literally is logically false. Brain and mind can only be identical metaphorically speaking.
Mind works better as soon as you give birth.. then it switches on