Brain Activity Doesn’t Explain Consciousness | Dr. Raymond Tallis on the mind-body problem
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ต.ค. 2024
- Professor Tallis-a philosopher, poet, novelist, cultural critic, retired medical physician and clinical neuroscientist-discusses the relationship between mind and brain, as well as the big questions about the nature of reality.
Copyright © 2022 by Essentia Foundation. All rights reserved.
www.essentiafo...
00:00:13 Discussion about metaphysical stance
00:01:40 "I can't know, so I take the position not to know"?
00:02:43 Critique of materialism
00:06:26 Conversation on existence of consciousness
00:08:32 Definition of consciousness
00:11:13 Exploration of individual and universal consciousness
00:15:03 Explanation of 'shared consciousness'
00:16:41 Inquiry into free will
00:27:54 Intersection of philosophy and science
00:33:06 Relationship between metaphysics and science
00:47:05 Limitations in understanding reality
00:49:03 Discussion on the mind-body problem
00:51:15 Talk about self and personhood
00:53:18 Hegel's Spiral
00:56:07 Purpose of life
00:57:24 Discussion on the point of evolution
00:59:10 Mention of the "butterfly effect"
00:59:39 Exploration of self and purpose of existence
01:02:22 Art as a medium to share experiences
01:06:57 Understanding of time
Great conversation!
Doctor Raymond Tallis is a very good teacher.
His use of analogies and examples made understanding these tricky ideas much easier! 👍
I love how simply and clearly this man can explain the self evident.
Very engaging conversation. Wonderful interviewer too.
Beautiful description. There is an interesting mathematical distinction between a thing and a process. The set of things leads to the algebraic world limited by Gödels insights while the processes are described in a complementary world, the co-algebra, which in turn is limited by Turings insights. From this reasoning it is evident that life, and probably consciousness, are processes. We are not used to such beasts. Music is a pure process. Still now is a snapshot of all processes that are. Somehow the thought of the habits of nature and our physics understanding extracting laws of what nature usually does, is appealing. I am a process with only incomplete memory and this makes it hard to grasp it all. If our memory would be perfect, we would see a halfsphere of the 4D reality we might live in, but the memory is continuously changing... Therefore, thank you for this enlightening discussion.
"From this reasoning it is evident that life, and probably consciousness, are processes".
We agree that life and being conscious are processes but
in both cases I say most certainly rather than probably
(and also recognize that matter is their substrate
without which no process would or could 'exist'
(except metaphorically and perhaps not even then)).
Since all thoughts are about something (i.e. thoughts represent)
and
our minds are constituted entirely of thoughts,
we can be conscious only of our thoughts and
not of the 'reality' we believe they represent
(even though routinely we take our thoughts and 'reality' to be one).
Conversationally speaking.
Fascinating. Thank you.
The water of brain activity and wine of consciousness. Beautiful ✌️🕉️
...an extraordinary man
extraordinary mind
extraordinary
discussion
thanks
There is no Mind/Body problem! We create the Mind/Body problem by not identifying ourselves with the Mind or Body as cause of living!
It's the same as we can freely choose between a Free or Absolute will!
Identifying with Mind & Body is resulting in becoming aware of:
1- I create myself (Egofullness)
2- I let myself being created (Egolessness)
It's choosing between "living in the body" & "living in the spirit"!
When you become fully aware of seeing the Body or Mind as the cause of living and forming your consciousness, everything will become clear whatever you choose! Good Luck! 🤔❤
Than you Flimpy, well said. Very well said ❤
Raymond Tallis Forever!💎⚡🥊🇬🇧
Consciousness at any level is about giving meaning/qualia to the things! That's what the consciousness do. Hence the confusion with "illusion" category. It is not that consciousness itself is an illusion, but the outcome of it - the world is illusion.
Great conversation.
And if you take it a bit further than Descartes, "you are not your thoughts either". You are the witness, the I AM. The "thing" that stays the same throughout your life.
All is reducible to “consciousness” yet we can’t define it. We sense it, we realize it because it is what makes you you, it has no physical characteristics.
He sounds like a very wise man.
consciousness is fundamental and beyond space time
@@things_leftunsaid how does dirt and water become conscious LOL
@@niftyszn9469 when you dream, everything in that dream is in your consciousness and made of consciousness, there is no water or dirt, there's only an appearance of it.
non-repetitiveness is fundamental and nothing else. Consciousness is just a word for memory storage characteristics. They are all not clever enough because of egoism.
@@Braun09tvconsciousness is memory storage? Okay, but why would non-conscious matter be able to generate memories?
@@PhysicsWithoutMagic memory foam for example
one might imagine that a print out of brain activity is like a print out of the atmospheric conditions - temp pressure humidity etc and these measures might be able to be described in different terms as say a rainy day or a sunny day like wise a happy state of mind or a sad state of mind - some objectivity achieved but nothing is ever its symbolic representation
"nothing is ever its symbolic representation"
Does a symbol in the mirror represent the symbol it reflects?
Is there no thought that represents its self when one reflects upon one's self?
Well, he at some point says that the brain is "for reasons that escape him" necessary for consciousness. I'd argue that this is a materialist position, which would make him a materialist.
no, physicalism means mind is what the brain does, which hes disagreeing with. it is quite different to saying that mind merely depends or is conditioned by brain/body
@@5piles he might be making a mistake by saying it is "somehow necessary" though. Interestingly enough that isn't shown in reality. What we know is there is a correlation between 'brain damage' and changes in behavior and experience. It might however be the case that 'something' that we cannot perceive or have contact with in any way is influenced when there is 'brain damage' which we naively reduce to the brain causing our experience, when in reality there is something underlying that is shared by both the physical brain as we experience it, and conscious experience. Kastrup has the thesis that this is a matter of dissociation of underlying or overarching MAL, of which both brain and personal experience are a manifestation.
It sounds like materialism, yes; physicalism. But he makes it clear that he believes something other than that the hard problem will one day be solved.
I am not certain the brain is even a necessary condition for consciousness. It certainly is necessary for the particular instantiation of consciousness that occurs in this particular physical body, but who's to say if consciousness truly is gone along with the brain, or if it continues in some other form or instantiation.
i thought transcendental idealism
posits a noumenon butballows for phenomenal differences hence subjects can have different experiences
I like the fact that even though Dr. Raymond is an atheist, he's not a reductionist materialist.
"Consciousness" is a common, necessarily vague English word. And so it shall remain.
who is the interviewer
enjoyed listening to him ?
To know the nature of reality,, we have to know the nature of Consciousness.
It is interesting that Prof Tallis says that he is an agnostic, and at the same time, says he may die not knowing what type of a beast he is. He is indirectly asking himself, "who am I"? But his agnosticism stops him from going further to investigate the nature of life, that he is. He may probably die, without knowing what/who he is!
Consciousness can no more be reduced to brain activity than light can be reduced to lamp activity. The lamp transmits the light, the brain transmits consciousness. In neither case can transmission be seen as creation of that which is transmitted.
How is this not Smoke-and-Mirrors materialism? I do think it is. Thanks anyway Essentia.
How so?
I don't know about smoke but
when I think about my self I am reflecting.
Does councousness exists without the brain how could you prove that .
Explain anesthesia, comas and fainting.
What is there to explain?
@@bofinalss-yf2jf If consciousness is non-local, then why are you unconscious under anesthesia for example, which clearly causes a chemical response in the brain.
Maybe your "soul" is still there dormantly until the anesthesia wears off and it goes back into your body when you wake up? But it's like you're not even there, like you're dead during that time.
@@thedarkenigma3834 who says that you are unconscious during anesthesia? If i remember right, there is evidence that shows that you are probably never unconscious. Maybe the ability to memorize or to recall those memories is just inhibited.
Bernardo Kastrup talked about this.
Like people who sleepwalk during deep sleep can navigate through their house, talk to people, etc. So they need to be conscious to do that, but most can not remember it.
materialism starts 'failing' even as it attempts to explain material. to expect it to explain consciousness is unrealistically optimistic. the real failure is the idea of explaining.
Here's a Big Hint:Someone and or something has to collapse the wave function of the atoms that make up your entire body so that those atoms and you exist.
00:18:00 You say you have “Free Will”? ...But first you have to decide who/What is Free Will!? May I suggest- Free Will has to come out of the present or Now! But we are only ever Perception aware of the Past never Of the present! Therefore Free Will is Not yours but arrives from the Conscious Consciousness Which is of the “Absolute Presence Of Zero Time, And is not debatable as Yours to Own!? Regards
So basically, Tallis is intellectually honest enough to accept that materialism no longer holds up in light of quantum physics. Yet, he is still too traditional in his thinking to take the next step. So he stalls out at agnosticism.
no, he is saying that brain is essential yet from that somehow there emerges some supernatural quality of being a subject. doesnt mean hes just a materialist or a dualist hes just saying that theres a lot we dont understand and that because of that we shouldnt take any strong positions except for the one where the brain is essential yet not enought on its own for the emergence of two things that have thoughts about this subject.
@@nicbarth3838
Yes and I think the key to understanding lies in an important difference
between material existents and movements.
There can be no movements in the absence of material objects yet
movements per se are immaterial existents.
I mean, who would deny the reality of movement?
This leads one to suspect that
being conscious may be based on movement,
especially if one thinks,
'being conscious process', which makes sense,
instead of,
'consciousness', as though 'it' were a 'some thing'.
("There can be no movements in the absence of material objects"
disallowing the 'metaphorical usage of movement' as a quibble).
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL hehe as a former atheist I constantly doubted my subjectivity even tho as I kid I realised that it couldn't be doubted. I forgot at some point when I got older, seems like some stuff in life is about re-remembering stuff
It's a shame Professor Tallis didn't bring his Carmen Sandiego hat to this interview.
I don’t understand your objection to panpsychism. All other theories are dualistic. Matter is real and mysterious. Mind is the evolved contaminant of awareness a physical phenomenon. Mind either exists as a structural aspect of matter or it doesn’t exist. Conversely only mind exists and matter is an aspect of mentation. You are a dualist you are consistently proposing the existence of one thing by it opposing another thing this is not a description of mind. I can’t discern your position.
there are known knowns
there are known unknowns
and there are unknown unknowns
Neural activity is not the same everywhere one looks in the brain. There is a rich diversity of neural excitability, synaptic mechanisms, local circuit and long distance interconnectivity, second messenger systems and coupling to gene expression. A "clinical neuroscientist" (as he once was), is primarily exposed to studies of EEG activity and evoked potentials, which are macroscopic epiphenomena far removed from underlying neural mechanisms. The statement that neural activity is insufficient to underlie consciousness is an unsupported supposition. One should be agnostic, but for better reasons, namely, that the issue of consciousness is a scientific question, in which a materialist viewpoint is not a dogma, but rather, the most plausible scientific hypothesis -- and it is so for a plethora of compelling reasons. One reason is that the temporal granularity of our consciousness is essentially the same as the temporal granularity of neural information processing. One cannot experience the individual images presented at 30 frames per second in a video precisely because of the temporal limitations imposed by the time required for neural processing. The qualitative difference between the perception of blue vs. red color begins with different receptors, different information pathways, and ultimately the synthesis of different perceptions. How that synthesis occurs is the $64,000 dollar question. The fact that phenomena such as sound-to-color synesthesia (chromesthesia) have a genetic predisposition points clearly to a biological basis rooted in neural processing.
Idealism isn’t about the physics of the brain, it is about the metaphysics of the brain. Our phenomenal consciousness is closely coupled to the brain’s processing-who could deny that?
What idealism is saying is that all those neurons cannot create the empty feeling of subjectivity, something that if you approach with intuition and introspection (not the intellect) you will understand.
@@josephgrace4725 From your response, it is unclear whether you watched the video. Either way, good luck without the intellect. It's not worth discussing if all you have to offer is "intuition and introspection". You apparently never spent time with psychiatric patients.
@Mike Fuller I am a neuroscientist. Name the neuroscientist who said that consciousness is the random colliding of atoms in the brain. He or she would be laughed out of a meeting. Perhaps you did not understand what you read. I can't give you an introduction to neuroscience here, so if you want to understand the rudiments of the molecular composition of living organisms and brains, take a few courses or crack a few books, because you appear to be reasoning from ground zero
You are the neuroscientist, not I, but from where I stand I see quantitive studies of the brain informing us as to its processing, without approaching the issue of subjective experience. Why are we conscious? Why isn’t experience experienced ‘in the dark’?
I also think it’s unfair to have such a dim view of intuition and introspection. Isn’t our history full of intellectuals utterly convinced they were doing the right thing while committing horrors? Our society at the moment is desperately lacking introspection especially... there are more distractions than ever.
@@josephgrace4725 The people you did not specifically reference were using their intellects to rationalize their Machiavellian ends, or to entertain pseudoscientific beliefs - some of which originated in their intuition and subjective experience - e.g, race superiority, eugenics, dialectical materialism etc. The problem with introspection is that the narcissistic sociopath will have their own unique subjective intuition, as will the schizophrenic and the megalomaniac. That's why the epistemic basis of our collective knowledge hangs on objective measures and use of our intellect. Your method leads to QAnon.
If you want to understand consciousness, you must first define it by its constituent parts, as Dr. Tallis did in the video, and then ask how each component comes about. Consciousness is not a thing, it is a series of parallel neural processes that you access selectively, by multiplexing your attention and awareness. The brain is complex, and it will take years of technical and scientific progress before the question of how "subjective experience" comes about can be addressed at the level of neural mechanisms. You are not going to understand it by sitting still and thinking hard about subjective phenomenology like Descartes.
Taylor Steven Gonzalez Larry Rodriguez Frank
People who believe that electricity moves in wires , may think that consciousness lives within us.
People who think that electricity is a flux around a wire ( that's why transformers work ) will be perfectly ok with the idea that consciousness is around us also
Very obtuse method of arguing for free will without defining it. What he is describing as free will is making decisions- what he neglects is that the decision making process is parametered by discernible variables- thus making it not free.
I propose consciousness emerges as a result of experience through sense organs! is an unborn infant Conscious!!! ?
without consciouness you wouldn’t be aware of any senses
Yes, an unborn infant is conscious
I agree with you, without senses to begin with you wouldn't be aware of anything. Consciousness is a process of attention and consideration. The content of consciousness is filled by perception and re-experiencing of memory. A baby is like a vessel that is being filled.
why does everyone who talks about consciousness never talk about astrology? Our brains are radios and astrology is the signal.
Because we are trying to do science here.
@@godwho5365 So saying everything has consciousness is doing science? Some how Astrology is not?
Because that’s not science or philosophy, just gibberish
@@Sam-hh3ry How would you know? It is obvious you have never study it. So your opinion is gibberish.
😂😂😂