John Mazziotta - How Do Human Brains Think and Feel?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 มิ.ย. 2024
- Nothing means anything without our brains. Not science, not theology, not politics, not love. Everything we know and do-all the sense of human thought, all the feelings of human emotion, all the fullness of human achievement-all are the product of the brains in our heads. By what processes do human brains work? How much can science discover?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on brain structure and function: bit.ly/3n0S7yY
John Mazziotta, MD, PhD, is the Executive Vice Dean of the David Geffen School of Medicine and Associate Vice Chancellor at UCLA. A distinguished researcher and prolific writer, Dr. Mazziotta is currently Chair of the Department of Neurology, Director of the UCLA Brain Mapping Center, Associate Director of the Semel Institute, and Professor of Neurology, Radiological Sciences and Pharmacology.
Register for free at CTT.com for 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.
Discussing structures in the brain is, of course, important. But these don't explain causation (which distinguishes between top-down and bottom-up causation). Bodies wire brains, and this is key to understanding the mind-body problem. At 3:32 - cultural issues are touched on, and that's top-down causation. At 5:48 "so when you see different areas lighting up" - again, that's correlation. How they're all connected up, interconnected, etc are correlation. Correlation is not causation. At 7:17 "It's in context as well". Precisely. Causation relates to a different emphasis - meaning, semiotic, choices, experience, CS Peirce, hence the relevance of context and meaning and the idea that bodies wire brains.
Causation is the key. We will NEVER explain consciousness causation , so to speak, because brain does not produce consciousness. We can explain correlation, not causation. Consciousness is MORE than brain.
I would have been happy with "in a vat wetly", but this is ok too. The interesting question for me is whether this research will help us build Cmdr. Data. Not sure, but I suspect not. It might help us diagnose some mental diseases or sociopathy. It might also help AIs (or other people) read human minds someday.
Data was a weird idea really. He wasn't an embodied AI as much as a simulated human. The simulation was so compelling that they would (not) even allow him to be dissected for study even though he was clearly a mechanism and not alive. Even as a machine he was pretty useless since he had his own agenda. Can you imagine your self-driving car telling you that it is busy elsewhere when you need it to drive you somewhere? If you make a useful machine, it has to do what you want or it ceases to be useful.
@@caricue If you're referring to the ST:TNG episode I remember you left a "not" out of your comment. That is, starfleet would *not* let sleazy scientists dissect him because he was a legitimate "new life form". From the point of view of the history of the series, I'd describe him as functional human/crewmate (i.e., capable of being put in command, which he was on one episode), and if he had his own agenda that's what made him as human as Picard, and his loyalties were pretty clearly aligned to starfleet (as Picard). For what it's worth, Data interests me in terms of the philosophical question "what it is like to see red". I suspect if Data could exist (and of course he's fiction right now), his sense experience of #RED might be the same as mine, but I won't argue that here (it's just an interesting philosophical question).
@@heresa_notion_6831 Thanks for catching the missing "not" in there. It was definitely a Freudian Slip. You make some good points, and within the context of the story, Data was acting like a separate life form with his own agenda and opinions. My own bias is against the idea of making an automaton with consciousness and a self since this would open it up to suffering, and if its agenda didn't align with ours, it could be the most dangerous thing to exist.
This topic aligns nicely with the current controversy over AI. Personally, I don't think it is possible to make something like Data since a mechanism, no matter how complex, would never be alive, so there would not be anyone in there. I don't think it's possible to even imagine a living machine since we only have us carbon based units to go on. So while I would love to have a Data-like robot, it would have to be my slave and be updatable in case it ever got any other ideas. Peace.
@@caricuethat raises questions about what we truly want. I’ve refused to do things I was asked to do by a senior manager because in my opinion it was too risky, and part of my job is to assess and mitigate risk. Engineers working in cyber security have to refuse requests from management. So sometimes we want people with specific expertise and information to act autonomously. Why shouldn’t that apply just as well to some software agents? For example I can imagine an AI tasked with running a nuclear power plant to refuse certain requests to increase output or put the reactor in various states to refuse based on estimations of excessive risk. If it estimates that the human is making a decision based on insufficient, or wrong information, or flawed assumptions maybe we’d want the system to say no.
@@simonhibbs887 Safety limits don't have anything to do with AI. Airbus planes will ignore inputs to the controls that it calculates will cause the plane to exceed specifications.
In terms of "excessive risk", I would submit that a strong AI would never be put in charge of something like a nuclear power plant specifically because it might decide to disregard the goals of its creators, and that's assuming that strong AI is even possible. Data was just a plot device and the murderous chick from Ex Machina was also just a human fantasy.
They will eventually make something that is able to simulate most human behavior by brute force, but the thing will still just be a dead object and will have no internal experience or consciousness. It's axiomatic that dead things don't feel anything.
And then there was Emergence!
Let the enlightenment begin…
Have you ever considered that without reductionism, there is no need for the entire idea of emergence? The whole just has whatever properties that it has regardless of the properties of its parts.
@@caricue Although the brain seems orderly, it's complexity generates more than it's parts. Without reductionism, this video, and for that matter the study of the brain, is null and void.
And emergence was Good
@@quantumkath I am not against reductionism as a way to study nature. You look at the parts to get insights into the whole, but when you decide that you can build up the parts and use them to explain the whole, you end up with properties seeming to "emerge" from nothingness. Emergence is just the admission that reductionism only works in one direction.
1:20 why are they using a keyboard and mouse from 1995 is what I wanna know
Screen easy on vision and with years of experience, a mouse works faster than one finger swiping and tapping. Also they have thousands of files so RAM on a computer can be larger than mobiles maybe. I think it may be old fashioned but has its place, just as a mobile does. jmo.
It's an older interview
Lol I made a similar comment on why they are using Windows XP
@@judemorales4U The OP wasn't asking "why aren't they using mobile devices?" or "why aren't they using touch screens?", they were asking "why, if they're using desktop computers at all, why are they using models nearly 3 decades old? Why not newer desktop computers and mice?"
@@topfueljunkie100 ok.
Brains is highly developed Beings, (Intelligence-Beings)
they live in their own heaven, (Organ-Level)
they is also Individual, Feel and Think according to their Nature.
We have the Brain as is in level and harmony,
with our developing-standard, (Organism-Level) (Gravity-Beings)
As the Developing Perspectives is different, Organ/Organism,
We will only the have the same brain for a shorter period.
How can you say "how do human brains think and feel" when you should say: ''how can human beings think and feel''?
Because it's the brain that does the thinking and feeling.
Is your toe thinking right now?
Is the center of your experience in your elbow?
The interview did not answer the question.
The scientist answered where the processes occur, not how they occur.
Unfortunately a common problem with many of these vids. Also seems like asking why do I like the 5th Symphony by analyzing the ink on the score. The where is much easier than the how or why.
Agreed - title of video is nonsense; this is nothing to do with "how brains think and feel".
At this stage neuroscientists are akin to a primitive society using voltmeters to "measure" potentials in control signaling in a 747 in flight, and titling their research paper "why airplanes go to specific airports". (and they don't know there is a cockpit with pilots...)
If you learn to read between the lines in these short videos he kinda did. 4:10 He said that the Singulet, the white area between the two hemispheres, seems to be connected to likes and dislikes. And that the function involves different structures depending on the context of the situation and that different parts will respond differently depending on different reactions.
Back when I was in school they taught a course called logic (dont remember the complete name it was over 50 yrs ago) and they said that the brain uses 'logic' to process information and make distinctions regarding that information. A similar vs dissimilar process. The similar were grouped together with a certain quality and dissimilar were given a separate distinction and those dissimilar in a similar way were grouped together and a continuum of distinctions were made using this process. Basically the more distinctions and connections regarding similarity and dissimilarity you were able to make the more intellectually proficient you were within certain areas like say zoology or types of writing style for instance.
The part he is very vague about and I respect him for that is after mentioning the amygdala which is responsible for emotional reactions like fear, anger and being anxious, is that the amygdala will more likely get involved...along with other areas of the brain depending on the presumed/assumed threat level perceived, from annoying to phobic.
Like any other complex system the brain's ability to use this logic paradigm is both simple in function and interdependently complex because of the number of distinctions made about one phenomenon during the lifetime of say a socially active adult. For example say a person likes the color purple and has many fond childhood memories regarding that color, the process is pretty straight forward. If however there is an extremely traumatic experience later in life in which the color purple plays a very big part in the emotional memory of the experience there will be different parts of the brain that will need to be recalled to make sense of the experience...looking for similarities and dissimilarities in order to process the situation in a healthy manner. So memories regarding childhood experiences, births, deaths, friendships & betrayals, etc need to be brought into play during this process and they are all stored in their own little (folder) at different areas of the brain and they all have to be processed to make sense of the situation. And this uncovering of the areas involved can get quite complicated and interdependent because everyone's life experiences are unique to them.
So yeah he kinda did but we just dont know enough about the functions of the brain regarding emotions to go much further than he did.
Aesthetic Judgement?--
We always want to focus on the brain as if nothing else matters, but in reality, the human body is a complete multifunctioning system - _just like a car!_ When an engine is removed from a car, it becomes utterly useless without anything for it to operate. This same scenario should apply to the human brain, but for some reason we don't perceive it that way. ... If a fully functioning brain could be removed from the body, we perceive this as "freedom."
No, most people are aware that if you removed your brain you would die
Car engines don't think, and people are more than machines that merely move around & eat. If Stephen Hawking's brain had been kept alive in a jar when his body expired, he could still presumably produce useful thoughts. And perhaps his thinking would no longer be distracted by mundane signals from his flesh.
You really don't wanna get closer to truth, I made contact and it's not pretty.
I am going through that process right now. I would say, for me, it is very painful yet liberating.
@Dano Max Made contact with what?
@@elonever.2.071 Can you explain?
Jerry Seinfeld is a neuroscientist?
Remember that episode "The Butter Shave" where George and Jerry grew mustaches to take "a vacation from ourselves"? This is Jerry taking that vacation.
Or what about "The Bizarro Jerry"? Maybe this is him?
@@topfueljunkie100 lol 😂
Windows XP in a 2023 video 😒
Quincy Jones don't look gay but he probably is.
Man, the comments on this channel always have people thinking they know better than researchers.
The smugness is off the chart. Either it's someone spouting woowoo, or someone who still thinks like a 15 year old.
What is it that attracts all the besserwissers? Usually they stick to the more "alternative" channels. Maybe these bite sized surface level glances are all they can digest?
Human brains do not think and feel. No, it is the self-aware *agent* (the "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of our consciousness that thinks and feels.
Unbelievably shallow and therefore useless.
But hey, who doesn't like to pretend to be smart? 🤣
If you listen carefully, he admits that everything he says is pretty much nonsense and useless, but what else is there for a brain scientist to work on? They have to do something to keep their jobs.
@@caricue 👍 These people need to be given a broom and assigned a street.
Guys not show though neuroscience how figure our brains funcions. Blah blah . Lack Science proceedings.
networks don't have taste. Person's do, who create those networks.