Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2016
- It is time to debunk the long standing idea that consciousness is somehow separate from the body, as we look at astounding new evidence that proves it is, in fact a biological process created by the brain. Aside from the three traditional perspectives we use to study the mind (the personal, the behavioral and the neurological), we can now use the evolutionary perspective, which entails a radical change in the way the history of conscious minds is told.
- วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Antonio damasio is brilliant.
Brilliant sir
Thank you sir🙏
Brilliant talk. Real effort at knowing based on understanding.
Great thinker
This is one of those mega "sell the meat robot paradigm".
@@Bringadingus double Dutch. I don't get what you are talking about.
Traduzco: Es hora de desacreditar la idea de larga data de que la conciencia está de alguna manera separada del cuerpo, mientras observamos nuevas y asombrosas pruebas que prueban que es, de hecho, un proceso biológico creado por el cerebro. Aparte de las tres perspectivas tradicionales que usamos para estudiar la mente (la personal, la conductual y la neurológica), ahora podemos usar la perspectiva evolutiva, que implica un cambio radical en la forma en que se cuenta la historia de las mentes conscientes.
Do not ruin sacrosanct human body!! Your academic theory is different reality!! Humans can change according to their environment!1
3:00 quote: "It is because we have a self"
Wrong philosophy starts with false language.
You don't have a self. That would require for a self to have yet another self.
@@ilmlya
If you say _i_ are you pointing to yourself or are you pointing to yet another _self_ which is not yourself?
I see what you odid there ;)
And you did the right thing
@B Sto
Well, as Dennett and Hofstadter pointed out in "The mind's I": "ARE you a brain? Or do you HAVE a brain?"
So let me rephrase this question just for this argument: "Are you a self? Or do you have a self?".
In both cases, I believe there is no correct dualistic answer.
For, you cannot assert that you ARE a brain without decreasing the meaning of who you are - as in: if we are only a brain (which we are not only), then there is no such thing as personality, individuality: what you called self.
And in the same way, you cannot say that you HAVE a brain, for the brain would to be consider, then, only as an apparatus of your body (let's say like your finger) which would not be so fundamental in determining WHAT and WHO you are. And by saying this, you would be saying: I AM self and the brain has no part in it.
Now, the reason I posed this question to you is to just let you see that if we have to talk about difficult arguments like the self, the mind, the I - the being, in general, and the human being, in this specific case -, it is almost impossible to be able to talk about them without incurring in some paradoxes due only to the limits of our language.
Cause, if you carefully think about it (and especially, if you read author's like Damasio), it will become clearer to you that when he talks about "self", "having a self" and whatsoever, it is NECESSARY (for we do not possess any other terminologies than this) to talk about in this terms and this terms only. And that because our Self (or what we call the Self) it is a concept that, in itself, it is very evanescent.
And the truth about it is that you neither ARE only, nor HAVE only, a Self as much as you are not nor have only a Mind-Brain. For we are mixture of both. We are a Self, but at the same time the Self is something that we posses.
Again, this misunderstanding it is not only due to the limit of our languages, that provides us as the best result a word that can represent multiple concepts (the Self, as in your own person-being, and the one about your own personality).
But, as I hope you can see from this comment of mine, the language itself it is unclear, because the concept itself it is unclear.
And what Mr. Damasio is doing in his work is just to fragment this very fugacious concept into a very accurate description of its different parts which constitutes in altogether what you would call: your self.
Or at least that's what I think :)
@@MrRocknr
i can point at my brain, but i cannot point at my self. As a schizzophrenic i can point at voices who have their special affinities with parts of my body. So maybe i have a body talking in various persons.
The word self has a very clear function as a reference.
Sometimes we need new words for new concepts or else we make idiots from idiots.
@@iwilldi then, I have a question for you: what exactly do you mean when you talk about self?
And how else would you describe what is generally acknowledged as self both in philosophy and neurobiology?
Cause, it’s easy to critique by demolishing everything and judging, less easy to do it while creating something anew.
Also, and what about conscience? Is it something you would say you cannot point out just as much as the self?
Are these two different concepts for you or just two faces of the medallion?
And even in the cases of schizophrenia (which has been studied quite a lot and it is a specific study case in neurobiology), those voices you called persons (but rather you should say personalities), it has been highlighted that, despite showing always different personalities, the self in those people it is split, but not because of this you would say that there is no self or that it is not one self.
I guess that as only as you’re only judging concepts that you and only you find inappropriate, without arguing in a more wide way what you mean by any of these concepts, the only idiot making himself an idiot is you. And the only false philosophy (considering that the one from Damasio is both, philosophy and science) I’m afraid that it is yours, for it is the only one that does not have any fundaments at all except your own judgement