The greatest virtue of this video is instead of dwelling on abstract philosophical concepts, she really goes into detailed examples, on what happens within the developing brain. These are all examples we can relate to.
@@jeffforsythe9514 You’re correct. It’s simply not possible for discrete physical quanta to create an emergent conscious first-person awareness (and qualia). This is because emergent “things” are not situated in actuality, but in a mind. Emergence is simply a mental representation of a situation or pattern. In order to then say that, from discrete physical quanta an emergent second thing (consciousness) can come, you would need a mind prior to the physical to “create” it. So either consciousness is the non-physical soul, or it is the mental representation in the mind of one prior to matter-God. So in a way, you’re are stuck with either a soul, or a Godlike being, or both. I choose both.
@@TheDemolition2000 Stuck with a soul? You are a precious being stuck in the mud, which in earth. Lose all attachments here and then you return home which is Heaven.
@@jeffforsythe9514 You must have misunderstood what I was saying there. I’m talking to those who don’t already believe in a soul (atheists/materialists), I’m telling them that because we know for a FACT that we are conscious, then they are “stuck” with one of these three conclusions, as in they MUST accept one of these three conclusions: (1) that a soul exists (your consciousness is an immaterial soul), (2) that a God-like being exists, or (3) that both a soul and a God-like being exists. I said “stuck” there because the atheist/materialist has absolutely no wiggle room to escape the conclusion, they MUST logically accept one of those three options as being true, there is no escape route to take.
With all the things that we’ve discovered about consciousness, it sad that scientists very often continue to conflate causation with correlation. The brain is contained within the body, but the body is contained within the mind.
“We are all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.” Anil Seth … neuroscientist.
Interesting. Trying to relate this to a whole different way of seeing things and that is the Buddhist notion of no-self (anatta). Buddha claimed for instance that there is seeing, but no seer, hearing but no hearer, etc. Without assuming he lost his mind we have to inquire where was this vision of reality coming from? It seems this "non-dual" version of the subjective/objective duality may mean that even though these personalized connections are made by the brain there can be a transcendent understanding that they all create a construct only, and that this construct, although necessary in our cultures we create, are nonetheless a kind of fiction or illusion or whatever term we'd like to use. This fascinates me, and I'm continually trying to relate Buddhist philosophy with contemporary scientific theories of mind.
You are getting at really good point . And i prefer hinyana or Theravada version of Buddhism, I feel like Buddha was greatest psychologist and philosopher of that time . Even better than today's psychologist who are trapped in some branch of it , instead of looking at whole picture like Buddha did.
For every behavioral event ( every action, every feeling, every thought ), there is a corresponding physical event or series of physical events taking place in the body, ultimately involving the chemical and electrical properties of the nervous system. “An introduction to physiological psychology.” A. M. Schneider and B. Tarshis
The reason materialism will always just remain a perception is because there will always be an explanatory gap problem due to our subjective or inner reality not being able to be observed by us as if it were some material object that has physical properties, so it is inconceivable how such a reality can be observed by examining the brain and that is why there is the hard problem of consciousness. It is the subjective self that is aware of the function of the senses being outlets that allow us to perceive the objective world. Our senses being material can only give us experience of material phenomena that has physical attributes of form, taste, smell, sound, and physical texture but since consciousness is devoid of physical attributes it will always remain inaccessible for our senses too perceive. And since consciousness cannot observe itself like some physical object that rides along the stream of consciousness there will always be an explanatory gap problem that will make consciousness and it's origins not observable by any material means thus materialism will always just remain a perception and not an observable truth.
Examining the brain as examining the contents of a computer tells nothing about what electronics are doing to cause. The term "hallucination" is poorly defined. That we more or less are constantly hallucinating and what they have termed hallucination is rather abnormal firing of neurons, abnormal paths, blockers ....... The hard problem has nothing to do with material. Rather has to do with program, receptors, receivers, neurological paths forming patterns. That the mental disability causes abnormal function is not the damage of brain component. Rather the abnormal firing, paths, blocks and so on caused by the damaged brain/hard drive. Consciousness is simply an action. Memory is simply the same action. That humans event verbs and nouns, telephones and computers is not just by chance. They were driven to copy functions. of the brain.
@@ltwig476 You have two perceptions: one being that brain produces consciousness the other being that consciousness produces brain. The way i see it consciousness is the manifesting and maintaining principle. Our bodies goes through every ten years or so a process of cell destruction and rejuvenation brain included but this process only continues as long as consciousness is present within the body so to me consciousness Isn't simply a action but is that which makes actions possible.
@@williamburts5495 I somewhat agree. What do we do about the simple aquatic life that science has proven does not have consciousness? Their processes of cell regeneration keeps going forever. I'm-in-between dualism and materialism. I'm claiming conscience as functionalism. Where the brain has a function but not as controller. The controller is more in the learned paths of the neurons. It's an action. They intern reflect back on the brain, teaching it their needs.This way, regardless if every cell in the brain is replaced by a new one, it relearns what the neurologic paths need. We could say these paths are critical memory but can have other multiple functions. It is very hard to explain ourselves with these limited tools and not in person. I try my best and I'm sure you the same. Thanks William
@@ltwig476 Does the simple aquatic life have a brain? The life symptoms of an organism is that it is born, then it grows, it stays around for some time, produces by-products, dwindles, then dies if these simple aquatic life forms follows this process then i would say that they have consciousness. The question that has to be asked is the brain the cause of growth? If not, it's continual manifestation is dependent on consciousness being present.
@@williamburts5495 If the simple aquatic life have conscience, we might then agree that all forms of life, trees etc. have conscience and the brain is not the cause. If the need to keep consciousness as material acting agents of molecular and lower quantum levels of attraction, we are still confronted with questions of why each and everyone one of those attractions. If it is rather an outside force, we are stuck describing said force and why it would possibly act or even exist. A different realm that we can never know is always a possibility but is something science generally views a lazy cop-out.
Great video, I remain confident that the brain does not produce consciousness, but is a processor and interface to the field of awareness that we describe as the mind. Every living being is accessing this field of mental activity, hence we are one as we actually share the same source of mind, but as she describes, each unique being uses their container of mental activity differently due to our unique human experiences, brain development, belief systems, etc... Mind came before matter. The brain is a product of consciousness and not the other way around. I'd love to chat with these two, maybe they'll invite me someday!
By all evidence, the mind does not exist without the brain. Mind is most likely emergent from brain activity and plasticity. Damage the brain, and the mind is lost or diminished. The connections people feel are effected when their mind/brains perform in similar ways and by the fact that they've had sufficiently common experiences.
The large majority of people how no idea what is possible... How do you think people became savants, wonder kids with exceptional mental abilities, they're locked in their mental sphere, and they experience self much more intense than an average person. There might be some genetic predisposition to those anomalies, but it amounts only about maybe 15% or so, rest is achieved by persistent training. In other words, anybody can become a savant, including you. Let me give an example, how different we really are and why. Some people get up in the morning and think of nothing special, they hum a simple melody when driving to work and have learned how to numb their brain during the next 8 hours, think as lest as possible. They're aware of time and their actions, but don't want to trigger any not necessary mental abilities, because this makes them feel depressed or confused, also angry. Many people don't grow up in good families, they were not thought to pay attention in school, read books, solve logical problems and have all sorts of other deficits. Could be they live in a very primitive environment or simply can't, for some other reason, like medical, social, psychological,... So they evolve a very different perception of self, composed of simple thought models and ideas. Some people can't even visualize their own body, they never bother to examine every pore of their skin and hairs, like the body is only an external object somehow, devoid of any significant details beyond what they can sense directly. Spiritual people and intellectuals are quite the opposite, they hardly ever leave their mental sphere, every single thought they have is expanded and branched into many concepts and mental images. They experience self as another self, with infinite layers inside, if this description makes any sense. It's always about them, like the entire universe is radiating outwards from their physical presence. It's like living in a constant state of deep meditation, so they experience many mental states and phenomena not known to average folks. But that doesn't mean they can do like Neo in the Matrix movie, it's possible in certain situations, but can't imagine kung fu without actually practicing martial arts, athletics and acrobatics. Once they do try and learn a new physical skill, they relive the experience many times in their minds and expand sensations as far as imagination allows them. This means they can train some ability to a perfection, but can't perform complex and efficient actions because it's just to much to simulate and repeat every single little thing so many times, life is simply to short for that. So we have this strange spiritual difference in personal experiences, this is why is so hard to unite people around common goals. We are literally completely different psychologies, our perception of own life and the world is not the same. This is also why some people are so poor, thinking doesn't always mean products can be useful to other people, so most sensitive and intelligent individuals end up like a homeless person, mentally ill or worst. But think about who is actually driving human conscious evolution, generals wins wars, politicians are building civilization, farmers are producing food, workers are extracting natural materials and carry stuff around, only a small fraction of people can see beyond what we are and what we do. And from those very few, most of them are lost or became insane, only a small minority of intellectuals are actually capable of better understandings and finding efficient solutions to old problems. So brains do make minds, but mind also makes mind, and better brains.
You don't half bang on about something you don't really know. The problem, as posed by the Buddha themself, is in CONCEPTUAL thinking. It is precisely this that is AVOIDED in meditation and it is precisely that which has caused so many problems. You probably think the world is a better place for all the wonderful inventions mankind had created to make life 'easier'. Good luck to you, please take some psylocybin and reflect on your 'self'. You don't really exist. ✌🏻
@@divinewind7405 Well, Buddha didn't exist also then, come to think about it ;) Of course, we exist, it's just not like stacking Lego bricks in some room. How does it feel to be a plastic brick? Don't know, nobody will ever know because lumps of plastic can't sense and think. Perhaps concepts are all there is, don't want to instruct my brain to become a lump of carbohydrates. Meditation is such a general term, can be used for invention of a comfortable chair or help a person to climb a mountain, some use it to play beautiful melodies or memorize Pi to many decimals. It's like asking what is the essence of coffee, people can chew coffee beans, simply poor some water over them and drink it or boil a really good, proper cup of hot coffee, it depends on a person.
“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when it’s components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” Stephen Hawking
yah i heard a 3yo youtuber say the same thing about where her cool ideas come from. no wonder christof koch, the guy in charge of finding the NCC with crick, abandoned physicalism. we like hawking have to give up our magical thinking at some point.
@@5piles Well ... we can count on the fact that the pope ... along with billions of others ... don't have any intention of giving up "their" magical thinking. Those in religion are determined to believe that the universe was created. Example ... When in 1927 the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître created the Big Bang theory, it followed that the Big Bang theory would be enmeshed with the idea that the universe was created by a god, as Stephen Hawking learned when he visited the pope. ... "In 1985, I attended a conference on cosmology at the Vatican in Rome. The gathering of scientists had an audience with Pope John Paul II. He told us that it was okay to study the workings of the universe, but we should not ask questions about its origin, for that was the work of God." Stephen Hawking
Love your video. I do wonder, however, why is it that most scientists ( as in Einsteins case) have their major achievements in their youth, instead of growing more mentally capable later in life?
I have noticed that as I age I find it more difficult to remember fancy new words like 'ontology', 'epistemology' and their ilk. Perhaps this is because time has done so much pruning of my network that there are simply not enough branches left on which experience can hang a concept. I am glad that there is now an external memory available in which all it takes is a double click to highlight then right click on the popup menu to google search. Although I have begun to suspect that the external memory might have a deleterious effect on the neurology that underlies a good internal memory, even in young people.
Simple. We get busy with work, family and society’s demands. That sucks up a lot of time and energy. When we were younger, we had a lot more time to explore and daydream. I started adding more idle time in my day with no electronics and ideas started popping in my head. I also started exploring again and my curiosity of how things work has returned. I get out of the house.
This is a good example, because everybody here is smart enough to experience what she was describing by himself. Here, yes, but that doesn't mean all people share the same general mental dynamics, not really. So we should ask, why not, if mental fitness is common to all humans, appropriate technics and exercises should become a part of upbringing and obligatory school system. Why not make all people smarter, if this is how things actually works. Another important fact she mentioned is individuality, since personality is supposed to be the origin of the mind. So perhaps we should look at development of personality in healthy child brains, if there's a pattern why mental abilities are so different. There could be something distinct to families, cultures or various communities that makes people more or less intelligent. It's not genetics, but something certain people are doing wrong and can be fixed by education. Nobody wants to be dumb, it's not fun and is also bad for the business. There's something that bother me in her concept, she mentioned how domesticated animals also develops personalities. If intelligence is driven by individual self perception, theoretically we should be able to make cats and dogs smarter, by teaching them how to use cognitive skills and mental visualizations better. Some pets do behave way smarter than the rest of their species, that is also a common fact. The question is why, since animals doesn't express their individuality, they seem to have no sense of I. How can an animal project itself in its mental sphere if it can't separate self from environment, therefore can't control the own emotional drives or instincts. And most of all, why animals can't learn symbolic language, it seems to be tied to ability of imagining and processing ideas. Or these phenomena would mean we got mind wrong somehow, like mental fitness is not so important for development of various skills and behaviors. Then we're left with another question, what is smart good for, in general biological frame of reference. In other words, why is so good and useful to make yourself be able playing a piano. Because this would mean, people with less developed minds are somehow on a right track, they don't complicate so much, wasting time and energy for nonsense. We listen to the music because it mesmerizes us, those vibrations sends our minds to another dimension and induce various intensive emotional states. On the other hand, there's plenty of people or pets with very low practical skills, but they perform marvelously in certain simple tasks that benefit society. I'm not saying, it's good to be a jackass, then again, sometimes being a jackass is not such a bad thing.
then you have abandoned the basic principles of science, which is to develop a method of rigorously observing the phenomenon you seek to understand. until then i guess enjoy the blabbing.
What scientists don't want to even consider is the spiritual aspect of a human being, especially if they believe in a mindless evolution of humanity. The Bible talks about a spirit which is what energizes our brain and we become living beings. That is where our consciousness come from, the brain along with the spirit produces the personality in accordance to how the spirit interacts with the brain, it is not just a physical phenomena, it is also spiritual.
Spirituality is a form of imagination. It is part of the mind/brain. Any connection felt to other minds or the universe is an illusion which can be comforting and occasionally useful.
Fascinating person Susan. Robert is a pretty cool interviewer, but it looked like Susan was still playfully torturing men, when suggesting they go out and have a sensory good time. I would have liked to hear her thoughts on consciousness, and whether she thought that the mind encapsulated consciousness. Perhaps it is on another snippet of the interview. Incredibly brilliant interviews Robert. It is great to get these different views. You bring intelligence but no ego to these interviews. Well done.
The mind arises from the physical brain. We know the laws of particles and forces at a fundamental level. There is no extra force, particles or waves that indicates duality.
@@tahamohammedi5898 Science as rigor has only existed a couple hundred years, and neuroscience far less than that. We're still in the position of working out the definitions. There's no reason to believe we'd have meaningful answers yet.
@@tahamohammedi5898 Are you sure about that criticism? Can you precisely define what you mean be "simplest mental activity"? Have you made a good faith effort to survey the literature in that precise area? Have you done the prerequisite work to educate yourself on the underlying chemistry, biology, and physics? Do you understand that conclusions on complex phenomena are often inferred from simpler model systems?
Linguistic thought may indeed be movements within the brain; but linguistic thought is not imagination, memory, riding a bike, eating and smelling. Understanding communication and communicating with others involves understanding the voice box and written language as well. These things are learned with effort and not automatic. What mechanisms make them learnable? Is there one mechanism or many and where are those mechanisms located in the body?
@@jeffforsythe9514 The soul in Nature exhibits mind. Without the world to perceive the senses have no objects, the body has no food and the brain cannot combine the senses and body to survive: live. Slime molds have no stomachs or brains yet they eat. Is the "intelligence" to eat more or less soulful as the intelligence to read?
@@tahamohammedi5898 I guess eg by suggesting that you live on eternally after death, and by convincing people that afterlife is more important than the one we have right now.
I clicked thumbs up but there's so much more to it. Although the core concept at the heart of evolution theory is very simple, it takes thick books to explore its immediate conceptual environment. I mean, I believe the duality notion came about at the same time, integral to and as a direct consequence of the way society and language evolved the concept of a conscious self. I am of course referring to bicameral theory. So, if bicameral theory is close to the truth then we have only been harmed for two thousand years and only seriously since we began the struggle to replace conservatism with democracy.
@@chrisdistant9040 If there is no afterlife, any importance you put on life is purely subjective and objectively meaningless. So if life is meaningless then there's nothing that helps or hurts quality of life objectively. So it doesn't matter if god doesn't exist, so it's not really worth talking about imo.
The neuronal trees in our brains contain the information that enable our minds to remember the past and imagine the future. We have yet to figure out how that process works at the molecular level despite having a good understanding of brain chemistry.
My thoughts become your thoughts when you read what I have written. And of course vice versa. Why zoom to the molecular level when you already know that the trees you mentioned are responsible for so much of thinking?
Yes, Mr. Clements. We can identify a particular brain region where memories are stored by measuring elevated neuronal activity when a test subject is asked to recall a past event. But we do not understand, yet, how it is that the firing of those neurons enables the subject to bring to mind that memory, as if watching an old movie.
@@samuelthomasperkins Mr. Clements? "we do not understand, yet, how it is that the firing of those neurons enables the subject to bring to mind that memory" True dat! Optimistically speaking, whenever I see the wounded beamed directly to the medbay of a starship, I am reminded that we live very near to the beginnings of our history. Thus our new and relatively crude technology means the best we can do is theorize about just how the brain and mind are related. But, if forced to choose one theory only then it seems to me self evident that we must choose from among those based on evidence and eschew any based on magic. How then to account for the apparently immaterial nature of mind given how radically different that is from the nature of matter? I'd bet the answer will be found in the appreciation that matter has two radically different aspects. These are, 'existence' and 'movement'. Those who can't imagine how matter's mere existence can possibly be responsible for something so ephemeral as being conscious are absolutely right but that is because they are neglecting to consider matter's movement. What is the existential status of movement? Seems to me 'movement' is an abstract notion. As such 'movement' per se is immaterial. I cleave to a theory that says it is the immateriality of the 'movement' going on in the brain that is fundamentally responsible for the immaterial nature of the mind and for our being conscious. (I've written the above for myself and whoever reads it, not specifically for you, Abe, with whom I am in agreement).
Saying people emerge from the brain is like saying the computer emerges from silica! Or a driver emerges from a car, or a train emerges from a tunnel, or money emerges from banks..... etc. New properties don't establish correlations or causation. In fact, unique properties point to new things. Airplanes have wings, cars have wheels, therefore airflight emerged from cars!, no, flight emerged from our desire to fly.
The brain just moves the body. The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
@@uninspired3583 i have read that study, and the person did not have a full out of body experience. they had the sensation of floating. that is different to a full blown out of body state whereby the person is able to verify things that happened whilst they were unconscious. there are many studies on this. good luck.
@@jeffforsythe9514 demonstrably untrue. In neuroscience we can explain how light is picked up by photo receptors, translate to neural action potentials, sending signals to visual processing and then access memory and language centres. The brain does all of this. Nowhere do we find a brain interacting with a soul, this is an ancient idea from a time before we understood what air is.
@@uninspired3583 There are millions of recorded cases of the soul leaving the body during operations or accidents. The brain is still in the body but the soul is immortal.
My mother was right when she said "The wealthy have problems too, they're just different problems" ............... i.e. Robert Lawrence Kuhn concentrates on being better at "ping-pong" when going to sleep.
@Vlasko60 These have been found and observed for millennia. Have you ever experienced spirits or demons? These are intelligent conscience with no physical bodies and or brains
She makes perfect sense, unfortunately. I was hoping for a pleasant afterlife. It's sad to think at the time of death, it is just lights out and no more thinking. I imagine a little boy wanting to go back and spend another glorious night at the circus, but is told, 'Sorry, that's impossible. The circus has already left town. It's over, dear.' 'But I don't want it to be over.' 'What we want and what we get are often two different things, but reality always wins out.'
@@psmoyer63 because its theory of mind #435345 that still fails to present a single observed emergent property of mind in any asserted basis of emergence anywhere inside any skull of even the simplest brain. theyre just blabbing.
See videos of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Mind is not Self. Mind is a myriad of images and experiences that play (like a movie) on the screen of consciousness or Self. I guess brain produces Mind. I have heard that consciousness is a reflection. Not sure how this works.
Kaiser Basileus yes I think so. I think that self is that part of the mind which understands 'other', reflexively applied. That is, self is as deep as your understanding of other beings. Mind comes before self.
@@paulwary Self is malleable, not inherently tied to the strict limits of our embodiment. We can feel personally diminished when a loved one dies, or have phantom limb syndrome.
@@havenbastion The problem of self is not about self-esteem, or mood, its more fundamental than that. And phantom limbs seem to be explicable at the level of simple neuronal circuits in the spinal chord or sensorimotor cortex. They need not overlap with the mechanism of 'self' at all.
You need to explain why other animals etc with brains cannot perform in the same way as humans. If consciousness was just based on a physical brain, then we would expect that we would not be unique in our ability to make advanced cars and aircraft, or utilise nuclear power.
@@julianmann6172 We fell here from heaven and need to find our way back home but instead so many of us have chosen to "play in the mud"............falun dafa
What I like about her explication is the sense that 'brain' is coextensive with life, like mind is coextensive with life. How Brain makes Mind? Sometimes the most difficult problems are just badly phrased questions. The home has been replaced by a machine I guess. I've never tried to write a definition of mind (though I've taken a few whacks at 'Mind'...), but I guess I would try to summarize what seem like the obvious points, that the mind is creativity, thinking and emoting, the awareness of creativity, thinking and emoting, the fact of existing in time and the world, and the awareness of time and the sensate world, awareness of memories in time and the world and the imagined world, and projections in time and the imagined world, and then I guess some of the tools of language and the abstract and social constructs we make and use to understand ourselves and the world.
I think mind is tough to conceptualize because it cannot be abstracted, is not a thing. It is in some sense in life itself, maybe life itself, very possibly in everything. The possibility of conceptualization. It is the possibility that there can be things which are not things.
In the exercise of choice, does brain decide mind, or mind decide brain? It seems from the analogies presented the decision preceded the physical change.
First of all, people are mistaken when they conclude that the brain thinks, it does not. The soul(mind) does all the thinking and then orders the brain to move the body. It is your soul that is reading this comment right now, not your brain.
I think 🤔 there is mind(m) particles and consciousness(c) particles. They are smaller than Planck length and the number grows as we get to teenager adults and they flow through neuronal connections. More connection more CM particles as emergent phenomenona.
Why don't you invent mind particles detector and prove it. (Hint: people have already measured all sorts of radiations coming from human brains, they can even decode words in our minds, nobody discovered anything else worth mentioning.)
If that's the answer you're looking for, then some applicable knowledge would be going outside and jogging a good distance (exercise and spatial stimuli) may specifically cause neurogenesis in the hippocampus. (Edit: format errors)
Well not really no, because exercising the mind is about making our pattern recognition systems more useful. So what we're doing is training the quality of the connections rather than just merely adding more. Think of it like two screens have a picture of the same face, but one face is a little blurry. They both have the same number of pixels, but one is more accurate. In the case of the brain sometimes it is a matter of forming new connections, but sometimes it's a matter of changing or even removing connections. If it was just about size, the sperm whale would be the dominant species.
@@uninspired3583 "So what we're doing is training the quality of the connections" Plus, keep in mind, those connections are of excitatory and inhibitory kinds making it easier for all those connections (average of 20,000 synapses on each neuron) to *maintain* the discharge frequency of the neuron and thereby maintain the 'meaning' encoded by that frequency so that the same person may awaken in the morning, approximately. Approximate because the other big part of the function of all those connections is to permit subtle adjustments to that frequency encoded meaning. Si?
It’s amazing how materialism has become a religion. Materialist can’t answer any questions about awareness of qualia, yet they still blindly say THE BRAIN MUST… instead of looking at non physical explanations.
Materialism, blah blah blah, materialism, blah blah blah. LOL Have some original thoughts, instead of fighting the strawmen produced by your own eager imagination.
She does not seem to understand the question. If you blow the mind or lose the mind, the mind is still very much there. Experience-mind-remains. Refining techniques to spatio-temporally map neurons is great, but this is like reducing chip size, while never touching the user experience.
Yes imagination can make a huge difference, but it originates in physical sensations and movements. We see someone as morally upright because it makes sense from our experience of the centrality of being able to stand up straight for being able to do things and assume any responsibility for doing things. In other words, the physical movements and sensations come first. The imaginative movements follow.
First, ideas and thought originate in the mind, the soul. Then the soul orders the brain to perform all movements. It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
@@jeffforsythe9514 So let's assume that the soul =the mind. So it is not equivalent to the brain, but more to our consciousness, as it develops over time from simple beginnings to mature adulthood. Do you agree so far?
@@earthjustice01 The soul, consciousness, gives the orders to the brain and all the brain does is pertaining to the body. All of our souls are immortal and when the body, including the brain, dies, the soul is reincarnated..........falun dafa
Why is it so hard to get that everything takes place in the mind? We don't need "matter" to explain the mind as what we see as matter is the appearance of metal processes.
@@devinclements2313 as she said : Science, she says, “can answer some questions but not others, such as the meaning of life, or what is love. Of course, someone can say that love is when you have a rise in the hormone oxytocin, but that’s just rather silly ... The subjective feeling you have does not trump or invalidate what’s going on physically in the body. On the other hand, just because what you can point to correlates to what is going on in the body, does not detract from the subjective state.” The fact that both dimensions exist “has very big implications for accountability”.
@@devinclements2313 i would say the experience of "feeling alive" breathing (a key component in meditation also) and just "breathing to be alive". Are the same physical action with 2 very different purposes and meanings.
People have hearth removed and replaced by artificial pump, their personality and mental abilities stay intact. But touch the brain and person is gone forever.
I think this video is going to see more engagement than usual To Kuhn: bring on Peter Hagoort. Please! "Peter Hagoort is director of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics"
is this not just physicalism/functionalism again? Please explain how quality follows from quantity. I am tired of neural correlates not explaining qualia such as the taste of garlic or the colour of a rose . All this understanding of the ''engineering' will not get us there
i wasn’t aware someone found the Mind in the brain. Its an entire body, not in the body. This cracks me up. I would tell you all about it, but thats privileged, Initiated, knowledge. *Not for the profane* -Know Thy SELF*
Great video! Here's what I've gleaned from this and many other videos & talks on this subject - 1. Consciousness is fundamental to existence and everything else, space-time is NOT. 2. The brain is a physical organ that acts as a 'conduit' switch to gain access to consciousness (the universal shared 'mind'), [conduit 'on' = life, 'off' = death]. 3. Every single cell of our bodies have a memory, and hence a 'mind' of its own. 4. There is an individuality to each one of us, a result of upbringing, beliefs, ego, etc - also sometimes referred to as individual 'consciousness'. Interestingly, Hinduism (before it became a religion) discovered this thousands of years ago, and is written in the ancient scriptures called Upanishads, where they refer to the concepts of 'Atman' and 'Brahman' - "Atman is the essence of an individual, Brahman is an unchanging, universal spirit or consciousness which underlies all things. They are discussed and named as distinct from one another, but they are not always thought of as distinct; in some schools of Hindu thought, atman is Brahman."
Consciousness is a property of our minds, and a mind is a property of a brain. It did not exist before a mind capable of being conscious evolved, and there are many more primitive forms of consciousness in minds simpler than ours, as there will be higher levels of consciousness if human minds evolve further, or we engineer it. There's no conduit because consciousness requires an active brain, without it consciousness cannot exist.
Watch and understand Robert's question at 6:36 What he's trying all the time is to get the right information on how to practically create artificial consciousness. Robert, what you're looking for it has already been done. What the woman says here is true but it is just part of simple and decent observations with no help whatsoever in Robert's quest.
Unfortunately, I had to get out of the video. She spoke so rapidly and with her accent, I barely understood anything she said. That's sad because I really am interested in this topic.
So true! I had to listen to it 5 times to really get it, but it was worth it:) And you can turn on the automatic subtitles, they're almost completely accurate!
I agree. That confused me for a bit. A wonder if they look closer at ‘thinking about something produces the neurons’ and see that it is the awareness of thinking that does this. All of the examples they used for thinking (from tennis swings to learning maps take a large focus or awareness rather than just capturing and playing with thoughts). Curious.
All right. Let's assume that brain creates thought. Then can brain exist independently? brain needs blood, air, and nutrition. And blood, air, nutrition come from the nature. And the nature come from the universe. Then brain alone is really thinking?
Hmm? I always have doubts about (professors) people bringing unwritten facts from Our ancestry as ‘Truths’ - She stated “We know that” ! hundreds of thousands of years ago we were? She is far to locked into her own conclusions of “know that”.... about the known percentage 0.000001% of the 4% of presumed knowledge when there is 96% of which we humans know zero about! Any Science (opinion) is a tool...not a tool box!
"... felt inner experiences that constitute WHAT we are." A PERSON is a lot more than what is in the lead-up list and in this video! Although I thought (maybe) this talk might deal with WHAT we are, and have ideas about a basis for personhood (as opposed to merely personality), it is really quite a superficial talk - as to what Dr Greenfield thinks the "mind" is. She deals instead with rather humdrum stuff, no surprises here; our neural nets in our brain build connections and adapt as they do so, and can be induced to do so, etc. Perhaps it is the title and lead-up that are pretentious.
@@jeffforsythe9514 Dichotomy. Decartes postulated there are "thinking thing" (self awareness/soul) and "extended thing" physical body. The problem with the body is that you don't have direct knowledge of it, but all you have are representations of the body in your mind, which are not the body itself, but only empirical sensations. Empiricism is not able to provide us with the truth, it is useful in practical terms. What you are saying is pure faith and I respect it.
Very very cool discussion but she didn’t answer the question. How does brain make mind? - “obviously we can’t study……” she dodged the question then tried to say a bunch of smart stuff…….”until someone comes up with…….” And “until the no…” and then she went on and on and on and on about issues brains have………..lame……….
Greenfield: "The mind is the personalization of your neural activity driven by your unique experiences in life." "you understand something in terms of something else." Antisthenes, 4th century BCE: One cannot define what a thing is. However one can explain what a thing is like . For instance, one cannot say what silver is, but one can say it is like tin. - note: he said this long before a modern science was able to determine atomic weights, and thus compare the elements on objective measures.
@@jeffforsythe9514 Self is personality, not just an aspect. What is the soul? My guess is that either you are a Fundamentalist Christian or a New Age type. I'm leaning towards the FC.
@@earthjustice01 I have been a Buddhist monk for the past 16 years when the Lord gave me his blessing. I practice Falun Dafa, from the school of Buddha...................truthfulness-compassion-tolerance. Personality is one of the qualities of the soul.
The ultimate creative capacity of the human brain may be for all practical purposes~ Infinity. Your mind can be compared to an undiscovered gold mine. Makes no difference if you're 17 or 70. The only thing about a man- that is a man-is his mind Everything else... you can find in a pig or a horse. The human mind is the one thing that separates us from the rest of the creatures on earth. Each of us has a tendency to underestimate his or her own abilities. We should realize we have within ourselves a reservoir of great abilities, even genius. To get the things we want from life- is a matter of solving the problems which stand between where we now are - and the point we wish to reach.
This is incorrect. We are limited to recombining properties of previously experienced things. As a demonstration, imagine a color you've never seen before. If imagination was truly infinite, there would be no problem achieving this.
@@uninspired3583 Limitations are imposed upon one's self. Mindset.. You can physically get yourself sick with the mind as well as get yourself better with the mind
@@uninspired3583 I not talking about taking a placebo effect/ pills.. You can do it willingly. The mind can go as far as you let it.. Don't let nobody tell you different.
Why do smart people talk with such certainty yet disagree fundamentally? In 50 years time, if all these people were still alive, most assertions will turn out to be nonsense.
Thats how learning happens. We investigate the things we don't know yet, talk about various explanations, and see which explanation best fits observation. The fact that we have various explanations just means the process isn't done yet. The system is working.
The greatest virtue of this video is instead of dwelling on abstract philosophical concepts, she really goes into detailed examples, on what happens within the developing brain. These are all examples we can relate to.
The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
@@jeffforsythe9514 Nope, she pretty much put that misconception to rest.
@@jeffforsythe9514 You’re correct. It’s simply not possible for discrete physical quanta to create an emergent conscious first-person awareness (and qualia). This is because emergent “things” are not situated in actuality, but in a mind. Emergence is simply a mental representation of a situation or pattern. In order to then say that, from discrete physical quanta an emergent second thing (consciousness) can come, you would need a mind prior to the physical to “create” it. So either consciousness is the non-physical soul, or it is the mental representation in the mind of one prior to matter-God.
So in a way, you’re are stuck with either a soul, or a Godlike being, or both. I choose both.
@@TheDemolition2000 Stuck with a soul? You are a precious being stuck in the mud, which in earth. Lose all attachments here and then you return home which is Heaven.
@@jeffforsythe9514 You must have misunderstood what I was saying there. I’m talking to those who don’t already believe in a soul (atheists/materialists), I’m telling them that because we know for a FACT that we are conscious, then they are “stuck” with one of these three conclusions, as in they MUST accept one of these three conclusions: (1) that a soul exists (your consciousness is an immaterial soul), (2) that a God-like being exists, or (3) that both a soul and a God-like being exists. I said “stuck” there because the atheist/materialist has absolutely no wiggle room to escape the conclusion, they MUST logically accept one of those three options as being true, there is no escape route to take.
I remember watching Susan giving the Royal Institution Christmas Lecture on TV, back in 1994. She doesn’t seem to age.
With all the things that we’ve discovered about consciousness, it sad that scientists very often continue to conflate causation with correlation. The brain is contained within the body, but the body is contained within the mind.
At least somebody gets
What do you mean the body is contained within the mind?
@@devinclements2313 All of your experiences and senses of where your arms are takes place in the mind.
The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
Everything comes from consciousness/mind
I really like this interpretation. It's the one that's made the most intuitive sense to me so far.
Ego tries to dominate us everywhere. Fundamentally I am not the body and not the mind. I am nothing just like everything else. 😌
I would say you are not nothing you are everything being you.
Not exactly, The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
Were you told that your whole life, that you actually see it like that..
So sad demon
@@raspberrypi4970 not me
@@jeffforsythe9514
??
“We are all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.” Anil Seth … neuroscientist.
Amazingly explained. I love this gurl
Agreed. Perhaps the most engaging guest I've seen on this series.
Isn't gerl with an e.
Her conclusion at the very end ... the Mind "is physical ... is part of the brain"
Except, I can easily kick a brain like a football, but I've had less luck with a mind.
@@geralddecaire6164 Since Mind = Brain, you can kick Mind as well (just clean your shoes afterwards)
The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
@@jeffforsythe9514 What is a "soul" and why is "mind" insufficient as an explanation for what the brain does?
@@chikkipop The brain just takes it's orders from the soul. You, the soul, is reading this comment right now.
Interesting. Trying to relate this to a whole different way of seeing things and that is the Buddhist notion of no-self (anatta). Buddha claimed for instance that there is seeing, but no seer, hearing but no hearer, etc. Without assuming he lost his mind we have to inquire where was this vision of reality coming from? It seems this "non-dual" version of the subjective/objective duality may mean that even though these personalized connections are made by the brain there can be a transcendent understanding that they all create a construct only, and that this construct, although necessary in our cultures we create, are nonetheless a kind of fiction or illusion or whatever term we'd like to use. This fascinates me, and I'm continually trying to relate Buddhist philosophy with contemporary scientific theories of mind.
You are getting at really good point . And i prefer hinyana or Theravada version of Buddhism, I feel like Buddha was greatest psychologist and philosopher of that time . Even better than today's psychologist who are trapped in some branch of it , instead of looking at whole picture like Buddha did.
For every behavioral event ( every action, every feeling, every thought ), there is a corresponding physical event or series of physical events taking place in the body, ultimately involving the chemical and electrical properties of the nervous system.
“An introduction to physiological psychology.” A. M. Schneider and B. Tarshis
The reason materialism will always just remain a perception is because there will always be an explanatory gap problem due to our subjective or inner reality not being able to be observed by us as if it were some material object that has physical properties, so it is inconceivable how such a reality can be observed by examining the brain and that is why there is the hard problem of consciousness.
It is the subjective self that is aware of the function of the senses being outlets that allow us to perceive the objective world. Our senses being material can only give us experience of material phenomena that has physical attributes of form, taste, smell, sound, and physical texture but since consciousness is devoid of physical attributes it will always remain inaccessible for our senses too perceive.
And since consciousness cannot observe itself like some physical object that rides along the stream of consciousness there will always be an explanatory gap problem that will make consciousness and it's origins not observable by any material means thus materialism will always just remain a perception and not an observable truth.
Examining the brain as examining the contents of a computer tells nothing about what electronics are doing to cause. The term "hallucination" is poorly defined. That we more or less are constantly hallucinating and what they have termed hallucination is rather abnormal firing of neurons, abnormal paths, blockers ....... The hard problem has nothing to do with material. Rather has to do with program, receptors, receivers, neurological paths forming patterns. That the mental disability causes abnormal function is not the damage of brain component. Rather the abnormal firing, paths, blocks and so on caused by the damaged brain/hard drive. Consciousness is simply an action. Memory is simply the same action. That humans event verbs and nouns, telephones and computers is not just by chance. They were driven to copy functions. of the brain.
@@ltwig476 You have two perceptions: one being that brain produces consciousness the other being that consciousness produces brain. The way i see it consciousness is the manifesting and maintaining principle. Our bodies goes through every ten years or so a process of cell destruction and rejuvenation brain included but this process only continues as long as consciousness is present within the body so to me consciousness Isn't simply a action but is that which makes actions possible.
@@williamburts5495 I somewhat agree. What do we do about the simple aquatic life that science has proven does not have consciousness? Their processes of cell regeneration keeps going forever. I'm-in-between dualism and materialism. I'm claiming conscience as functionalism. Where the brain has a function but not as controller. The controller is more in the learned paths of the neurons. It's an action. They intern reflect back on the brain, teaching it their needs.This way, regardless if every cell in the brain is replaced by a new one, it relearns what the neurologic paths need. We could say these paths are critical memory but can have other multiple functions. It is very hard to explain ourselves with these limited tools and not in person. I try my best and I'm sure you the same. Thanks William
@@ltwig476 Does the simple aquatic life have a brain? The life symptoms of an organism is that it is born, then it grows, it stays around for some time, produces by-products, dwindles, then dies if these simple aquatic life forms follows this process then i would say that they have consciousness. The question that has to be asked is the brain the cause of growth? If not, it's continual manifestation is dependent on consciousness being present.
@@williamburts5495 If the simple aquatic life have conscience, we might then agree that all forms of life, trees etc. have conscience and the brain is not the cause. If the need to keep consciousness as material acting agents of molecular and lower quantum levels of attraction, we are still confronted with questions of why each and everyone one of those attractions. If it is rather an outside force, we are stuck describing said force and why it would possibly act or even exist. A different realm that we can never know is always a possibility but is something science generally views a lazy cop-out.
Great video, I remain confident that the brain does not produce consciousness, but is a processor and interface to the field of awareness that we describe as the mind. Every living being is accessing this field of mental activity, hence we are one as we actually share the same source of mind, but as she describes, each unique being uses their container of mental activity differently due to our unique human experiences, brain development, belief systems, etc...
Mind came before matter. The brain is a product of consciousness and not the other way around. I'd love to chat with these two, maybe they'll invite me someday!
By all evidence, the mind does not exist without the brain. Mind is most likely emergent from brain activity and plasticity. Damage the brain, and the mind is lost or diminished. The connections people feel are effected when their mind/brains perform in similar ways and by the fact that they've had sufficiently common experiences.
The large majority of people how no idea what is possible... How do you think people became savants, wonder kids with exceptional mental abilities, they're locked in their mental sphere, and they experience self much more intense than an average person. There might be some genetic predisposition to those anomalies, but it amounts only about maybe 15% or so, rest is achieved by persistent training. In other words, anybody can become a savant, including you.
Let me give an example, how different we really are and why.
Some people get up in the morning and think of nothing special, they hum a simple melody when driving to work and have learned how to numb their brain during the next 8 hours, think as lest as possible. They're aware of time and their actions, but don't want to trigger any not necessary mental abilities, because this makes them feel depressed or confused, also angry.
Many people don't grow up in good families, they were not thought to pay attention in school, read books, solve logical problems and have all sorts of other deficits. Could be they live in a very primitive environment or simply can't, for some other reason, like medical, social, psychological,... So they evolve a very different perception of self, composed of simple thought models and ideas. Some people can't even visualize their own body, they never bother to examine every pore of their skin and hairs, like the body is only an external object somehow, devoid of any significant details beyond what they can sense directly.
Spiritual people and intellectuals are quite the opposite, they hardly ever leave their mental sphere, every single thought they have is expanded and branched into many concepts and mental images. They experience self as another self, with infinite layers inside, if this description makes any sense. It's always about them, like the entire universe is radiating outwards from their physical presence. It's like living in a constant state of deep meditation, so they experience many mental states and phenomena not known to average folks.
But that doesn't mean they can do like Neo in the Matrix movie, it's possible in certain situations, but can't imagine kung fu without actually practicing martial arts, athletics and acrobatics. Once they do try and learn a new physical skill, they relive the experience many times in their minds and expand sensations as far as imagination allows them. This means they can train some ability to a perfection, but can't perform complex and efficient actions because it's just to much to simulate and repeat every single little thing so many times, life is simply to short for that.
So we have this strange spiritual difference in personal experiences, this is why is so hard to unite people around common goals. We are literally completely different psychologies, our perception of own life and the world is not the same. This is also why some people are so poor, thinking doesn't always mean products can be useful to other people, so most sensitive and intelligent individuals end up like a homeless person, mentally ill or worst.
But think about who is actually driving human conscious evolution, generals wins wars, politicians are building civilization, farmers are producing food, workers are extracting natural materials and carry stuff around, only a small fraction of people can see beyond what we are and what we do. And from those very few, most of them are lost or became insane, only a small minority of intellectuals are actually capable of better understandings and finding efficient solutions to old problems. So brains do make minds, but mind also makes mind, and better brains.
You don't half bang on about something you don't really know. The problem, as posed by the Buddha themself, is in CONCEPTUAL thinking. It is precisely this that is AVOIDED in meditation and it is precisely that which has caused so many problems. You probably think the world is a better place for all the wonderful inventions mankind had created to make life 'easier'. Good luck to you, please take some psylocybin and reflect on your 'self'. You don't really exist. ✌🏻
@@divinewind7405 Well, Buddha didn't exist also then, come to think about it ;)
Of course, we exist, it's just not like stacking Lego bricks in some room. How does it feel to be a plastic brick? Don't know, nobody will ever know because lumps of plastic can't sense and think. Perhaps concepts are all there is, don't want to instruct my brain to become a lump of carbohydrates.
Meditation is such a general term, can be used for invention of a comfortable chair or help a person to climb a mountain, some use it to play beautiful melodies or memorize Pi to many decimals.
It's like asking what is the essence of coffee, people can chew coffee beans, simply poor some water over them and drink it or boil a really good, proper cup of hot coffee, it depends on a person.
The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. It's not complicated. Whatever patterns are in the mind are "spiritual".
She is brilliant at bringing it down to a level anyone can understand
“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when it’s components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” Stephen Hawking
yah i heard a 3yo youtuber say the same thing about where her cool ideas come from.
no wonder christof koch, the guy in charge of finding the NCC with crick, abandoned physicalism. we like hawking have to give up our magical thinking at some point.
@@5piles Well ... we can count on the fact that the pope ... along with billions of others ... don't have any intention of giving up "their" magical thinking.
Those in religion are determined to believe that the universe was created.
Example ... When in 1927 the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître created the Big Bang theory, it followed that the Big Bang theory would be enmeshed with the idea that the universe was created by a god, as Stephen Hawking learned when he visited the pope. ... "In 1985, I attended a conference on cosmology at the Vatican in Rome. The gathering of scientists had an audience with Pope John Paul II. He told us that it was okay to study the workings of the universe, but we should not ask questions about its origin, for that was the work of God." Stephen Hawking
Love your video. I do wonder, however, why is it that most scientists ( as in Einsteins case) have their major achievements in their youth, instead of growing more mentally capable later in life?
I have noticed that as I age I find it more difficult to remember fancy new words like 'ontology', 'epistemology' and their ilk. Perhaps this is because time has done so much pruning of my network that there are simply not enough branches left on which experience can hang a concept.
I am glad that there is now an external memory available in which all it takes is a double click to highlight then right click on the popup menu to google search.
Although I have begun to suspect that the external memory might have a deleterious effect on the neurology that underlies a good internal memory, even in young people.
Einstein's most revolutionary ideas came at his latter age, witnesses were saying he was thinking about physics right before his death.
Perhaps because humans, as well as everything else that is alive go through birth, growth, stasis, decay then death.
Simple. We get busy with work, family and society’s demands. That sucks up a lot of time and energy. When we were younger, we had a lot more time to explore and daydream. I started adding more idle time in my day with no electronics and ideas started popping in my head. I also started exploring again and my curiosity of how things work has returned. I get out of the house.
@@daveduffy2823 The true meaning of life is trying to return home, which is Heaven....................falun dafa
Wonderful, thank you.
This is a good example, because everybody here is smart enough to experience what she was describing by himself. Here, yes, but that doesn't mean all people share the same general mental dynamics, not really. So we should ask, why not, if mental fitness is common to all humans, appropriate technics and exercises should become a part of upbringing and obligatory school system. Why not make all people smarter, if this is how things actually works.
Another important fact she mentioned is individuality, since personality is supposed to be the origin of the mind. So perhaps we should look at development of personality in healthy child brains, if there's a pattern why mental abilities are so different. There could be something distinct to families, cultures or various communities that makes people more or less intelligent. It's not genetics, but something certain people are doing wrong and can be fixed by education. Nobody wants to be dumb, it's not fun and is also bad for the business.
There's something that bother me in her concept, she mentioned how domesticated animals also develops personalities. If intelligence is driven by individual self perception, theoretically we should be able to make cats and dogs smarter, by teaching them how to use cognitive skills and mental visualizations better. Some pets do behave way smarter than the rest of their species, that is also a common fact. The question is why, since animals doesn't express their individuality, they seem to have no sense of I. How can an animal project itself in its mental sphere if it can't separate self from environment, therefore can't control the own emotional drives or instincts. And most of all, why animals can't learn symbolic language, it seems to be tied to ability of imagining and processing ideas.
Or these phenomena would mean we got mind wrong somehow, like mental fitness is not so important for development of various skills and behaviors. Then we're left with another question, what is smart good for, in general biological frame of reference. In other words, why is so good and useful to make yourself be able playing a piano. Because this would mean, people with less developed minds are somehow on a right track, they don't complicate so much, wasting time and energy for nonsense. We listen to the music because it mesmerizes us, those vibrations sends our minds to another dimension and induce various intensive emotional states.
On the other hand, there's plenty of people or pets with very low practical skills, but they perform marvelously in certain simple tasks that benefit society. I'm not saying, it's good to be a jackass, then again, sometimes being a jackass is not such a bad thing.
Well thought out.
The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
The most objective aproach possible so far ever exposed on subject (as far as meself at least) .
And served with bits of utmost dry , dark humor .
then you have abandoned the basic principles of science, which is to develop a method of rigorously observing the phenomenon you seek to understand. until then i guess enjoy the blabbing.
All your chats are fascinating, but this was amazing, closer to truth...
What scientists don't want to even consider is the spiritual aspect of a human being, especially if they believe in a mindless evolution of humanity. The Bible talks about a spirit which is what energizes our brain and we become living beings. That is where our consciousness come from, the brain along with the spirit produces the personality in accordance to how the spirit interacts with the brain, it is not just a physical phenomena, it is also spiritual.
Spirituality is a form of imagination. It is part of the mind/brain. Any connection felt to other minds or the universe is an illusion which can be comforting and occasionally useful.
Fascinating person Susan. Robert is a pretty cool interviewer, but it looked like Susan was still playfully torturing men, when suggesting they go out and have a sensory good time. I would have liked to hear her thoughts on consciousness, and whether she thought that the mind encapsulated consciousness. Perhaps it is on another snippet of the interview. Incredibly brilliant interviews Robert. It is great to get these different views. You bring intelligence but no ego to these interviews. Well done.
The mind arises from the physical brain. We know the laws of particles and forces at a fundamental level. There is no extra force, particles or waves that indicates duality.
The duality is one of metaphor. Biology is the substrate of brain. Desires are the substrate of mind.
@@havenbastion limbic system
and yet still there isn't no theory that explains the simplest mental activity in terms of brain activity
@@tahamohammedi5898 Science as rigor has only existed a couple hundred years, and neuroscience far less than that. We're still in the position of working out the definitions. There's no reason to believe we'd have meaningful answers yet.
@@tahamohammedi5898 Are you sure about that criticism? Can you precisely define what you mean be "simplest mental activity"? Have you made a good faith effort to survey the literature in that precise area? Have you done the prerequisite work to educate yourself on the underlying chemistry, biology, and physics? Do you understand that conclusions on complex phenomena are often inferred from simpler model systems?
Linguistic thought may indeed be movements within the brain; but linguistic thought is not imagination, memory, riding a bike, eating and smelling. Understanding communication and communicating with others involves understanding the voice box and written language as well. These things are learned with effort and not automatic. What mechanisms make them learnable? Is there one mechanism or many and where are those mechanisms located in the body?
The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
@@jeffforsythe9514 The soul in Nature exhibits mind. Without the world to perceive the senses have no objects, the body has no food and the brain cannot combine the senses and body to survive: live.
Slime molds have no stomachs or brains yet they eat. Is the "intelligence" to eat more or less soulful as the intelligence to read?
@@kallianpublico7517 Every living thing has it's own unique soul......................falun dafa
Physiologically aware of each other does not mean one or the other derived from either
We can detect chemical reactions. Not thoughts.
But those chemical reactions can be decoded back into words, by using computers.
The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
Thanks for the video!
In my opinion, dualism has harmed the species more than any other general philosophy.
How so?
@@tahamohammedi5898 I guess eg by suggesting that you live on eternally after death, and by convincing people that afterlife is more important than the one we have right now.
I clicked thumbs up but there's so much more to it.
Although the core concept at the heart of evolution theory is very simple,
it takes thick books to explore its immediate conceptual environment.
I mean, I believe the duality notion came about
at the same time, integral to and as a direct consequence of
the way society and language evolved the concept of a conscious self.
I am of course referring to bicameral theory.
So, if bicameral theory is close to the truth
then we have only been harmed for two thousand years and
only seriously since we began the struggle
to replace conservatism with democracy.
@@chrisdistant9040 If there is no afterlife, any importance you put on life is purely subjective and objectively meaningless. So if life is meaningless then there's nothing that helps or hurts quality of life objectively. So it doesn't matter if god doesn't exist, so it's not really worth talking about imo.
@@chrisdistant9040 there is no importance of the life you are living now if after death (that can be tomorrow) there is absolute eternal nothingness.
Susan Greenfield is totally brilliant 🤩
The neuronal trees in our brains contain the information that enable our minds to remember the past and imagine the future. We have yet to figure out how that process works at the molecular level despite having a good understanding of brain chemistry.
Do mean like why do certain molecules = remembering the past?
My thoughts become your thoughts when you read what I have written.
And of course vice versa.
Why zoom to the molecular level when you already know
that the trees you mentioned are responsible for so much of thinking?
Yes, Mr. Clements. We can identify a particular brain region where memories are stored by measuring elevated neuronal activity when a test subject is asked to recall a past event. But we do not understand, yet, how it is that the firing of those neurons enables the subject to bring to mind that memory, as if watching an old movie.
The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
@@samuelthomasperkins
Mr. Clements?
"we do not understand, yet, how it is that the firing of those neurons enables the subject to bring to mind that memory"
True dat!
Optimistically speaking,
whenever I see the wounded beamed directly to the medbay of a starship,
I am reminded that we live very near to the beginnings of our history.
Thus our new and relatively crude technology means the best we can do is theorize about just how the brain and mind are related.
But, if forced to choose one theory only
then it seems to me self evident
that we must choose from among those based on evidence and
eschew any based on magic.
How then to account for the apparently immaterial nature of mind
given how radically different that is from the nature of matter?
I'd bet the answer will be found in the appreciation that matter
has two radically different aspects.
These are, 'existence' and 'movement'.
Those who can't imagine how matter's mere existence can possibly be responsible for something so ephemeral as being conscious
are absolutely right but that is because they are neglecting to consider matter's movement.
What is the existential status of movement?
Seems to me 'movement' is an abstract notion.
As such 'movement' per se is immaterial.
I cleave to a theory that says
it is the immateriality of the 'movement' going on in the brain
that is fundamentally responsible for the immaterial nature of the mind and
for our being conscious.
(I've written the above for myself and whoever reads it,
not specifically for you, Abe, with whom I am in agreement).
How do we know that it is not the other way around, i.e., that the mind generates the brain?
Saying people emerge from the brain is like saying the computer emerges from silica! Or a driver emerges from a car, or a train emerges from a tunnel, or money emerges from banks..... etc.
New properties don't establish correlations or causation. In fact, unique properties point to new things.
Airplanes have wings, cars have wheels, therefore airflight emerged from cars!, no, flight emerged from our desire to fly.
This is not about a flaying man, it is why people think they can fly after they have seen a flaying man.
@@xspotbox4400 because we imagine that we can. Imagination, not brain chemistry or electrodes.
Wow, "smart people" have really lost their minds!
The brain just moves the body. The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
@@jeffforsythe9514 the brain is a sponge. The person does everything!
It is not how the brain makes the mind; it is the brain and the body makes the mind.
Curious how Graham turned out.
the out of body experience would suggest mind and brain are very much separate. And indeed consciousness.
Out of body experience can be produced by stimulating the right temporal lobe with electrodes
@@uninspired3583 i have read that study, and the person did not have a full out of body experience. they had the sensation of floating. that is different to a full blown out of body state whereby the person is able to verify things that happened whilst they were unconscious. there are many studies on this. good luck.
@@Dion_Mustard there are no sound studies where such things have happened.
The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
@@uninspired3583 studies by dr sam parnia, dr peter fenwick, dr pim van lommel, all have good books with many years research. start there.
GREAT description of a “MIND” vs a ‘brain’. 👍🏼👍🏼
Do the brain cells / neurons experience more energy when grow and branch from increased activity?
Brains are just receivers for "Mind at Large"...as Huxley would say.
Her way of explaining is very engaging and easy to understand. Not sure if this proves that "brain makes mind" but it was interesting nonetheless.
The brain only controls the body, the mind or soul is where all thought originates.
At what age this personalization of neural connections in brain starts? From the day one?
We don't all start with the same brain, differentiation occurs genetically and then later by experience
The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
@@jeffforsythe9514 demonstrably untrue.
In neuroscience we can explain how light is picked up by photo receptors, translate to neural action potentials, sending signals to visual processing and then access memory and language centres.
The brain does all of this. Nowhere do we find a brain interacting with a soul, this is an ancient idea from a time before we understood what air is.
@@uninspired3583 Guess again, sorry.
@@uninspired3583 There are millions of recorded cases of the soul leaving the body during operations or accidents. The brain is still in the body but the soul is immortal.
My mother was right when she said "The wealthy have problems too, they're just different problems" ............... i.e. Robert Lawrence Kuhn concentrates on being better at "ping-pong" when going to sleep.
What does wealth have to do with imagining ping pong?
@@uninspired3583 Perhaps, ping pong as opposed to concentrating on a scheme to obtain water or food or shelter.
Actually the wealthy have a “Choice” Not have those problems!
The poor does not.
Nonsense. Mind uses brain. Brain is the radio. Mind is the program.
The brain is the adapter that enables spirit to enter physical
What is the transmitter and can you provide any evidence for that interpretation?
No, it's a 3d printer connected to a USB drive.
What is imagination? What are morals or conscience? What is the minds eye? How do blind people see in their dreams?
@Vlasko60 These have been found and observed for millennia. Have you ever experienced spirits or demons? These are intelligent conscience with no physical bodies and or brains
Great discussion. I like her examples...
She makes perfect sense, unfortunately. I was hoping for a pleasant afterlife. It's sad to think at the time of death, it is just lights out and no more thinking. I imagine a little boy wanting to go back and spend another glorious night at the circus, but is told, 'Sorry, that's impossible. The circus has already left town. It's over, dear.' 'But I don't want it to be over.' 'What we want and what we get are often two different things, but reality always wins out.'
Why does youtube put the comments in the corner when i turn to full screen? Annoys the piss outta me
An amazing and wonderful discussion. Really "solves" the mind / brain problem.
no lol
@@Ravenstudios-s5o why lol
@@psmoyer63 because its theory of mind #435345 that still fails to present a single observed emergent property of mind in any asserted basis of emergence anywhere inside any skull of even the simplest brain. theyre just blabbing.
See videos of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Mind is not Self. Mind is a myriad of images and experiences that play (like a movie) on the screen of consciousness or Self. I guess brain produces Mind.
I have heard that consciousness is a reflection. Not sure how this works.
Self is a sub-set of mind, just like consciousness.
Kaiser Basileus yes I think so. I think that self is that part of the mind which understands 'other', reflexively applied. That is, self is as deep as your understanding of other beings. Mind comes before self.
@@paulwary Self is malleable, not inherently tied to the strict limits of our embodiment. We can feel personally diminished when a loved one dies, or have phantom limb syndrome.
@@havenbastion all those are experiences that play on the screen of consciousnezz.
@@havenbastion The problem of self is not about self-esteem, or mood, its more fundamental than that. And phantom limbs seem to be explicable at the level of simple neuronal circuits in the spinal chord or sensorimotor cortex. They need not overlap with the mechanism of 'self' at all.
That's really so insightful and is worth rewatching! 👌
What is meant by connections between brain cells?
This lady is amazing 👏
You need to explain why other animals etc with brains cannot perform in the same way as humans. If consciousness was just based on a physical brain, then we would expect that we would not be unique in our ability to make advanced cars and aircraft, or utilise nuclear power.
The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
@@jeffforsythe9514 I tend to agree, although there is interaction between the physical and spiritual.
@@julianmann6172 We fell here from heaven and need to find our way back home but instead so many of us have chosen to "play in the mud"............falun dafa
Mind is a Higher Vibrational Frequency Energy which is connected to the physical human Brain Using hyperdimensional technology Links.
Wonderful guest and explication. But like butterfly says: The mind is time, the mind is space, a horn rush, a bass flush for minds to taste.
Though I sort of got caught up in the circularity of 'minds are unique' 'brains are also unique through experience' 'that unique brain is mind.'
What I like about her explication is the sense that 'brain' is coextensive with life, like mind is coextensive with life. How Brain makes Mind? Sometimes the most difficult problems are just badly phrased questions. The home has been replaced by a machine I guess. I've never tried to write a definition of mind (though I've taken a few whacks at 'Mind'...), but I guess I would try to summarize what seem like the obvious points, that the mind is creativity, thinking and emoting, the awareness of creativity, thinking and emoting, the fact of existing in time and the world, and the awareness of time and the sensate world, awareness of memories in time and the world and the imagined world, and projections in time and the imagined world, and then I guess some of the tools of language and the abstract and social constructs we make and use to understand ourselves and the world.
I think mind is tough to conceptualize because it cannot be abstracted, is not a thing. It is in some sense in life itself, maybe life itself, very possibly in everything. The possibility of conceptualization. It is the possibility that there can be things which are not things.
In the exercise of choice, does brain decide mind, or mind decide brain? It seems from the analogies presented the decision preceded the physical change.
First of all, people are mistaken when they conclude that the brain thinks, it does not. The soul(mind) does all the thinking and then orders the brain to move the body. It is your soul that is reading this comment right now, not your brain.
They're part of the same thing, inextricably linked. Choice is mostly an illusion.
Wonderful woman
I think 🤔 there is mind(m) particles and consciousness(c) particles. They are smaller than Planck length and the number grows as we get to teenager adults and they flow through neuronal connections. More connection more CM particles as emergent phenomenona.
Why don't you invent mind particles detector and prove it.
(Hint: people have already measured all sorts of radiations coming from human brains, they can even decode words in our minds, nobody discovered anything else worth mentioning.)
How small is truely smaller and so on and so on and so on, to Infinity and beyond 😁
The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
The mind or the soul is conscious and that is where all thought originates.
🤯🤯🤯🤯 incredible video thanks!!
Excellent!
When a person increases brain activity by exercising the mind, are there any physical changes affecting the brain to help increase neuron capacity?
Yes, more neuron branches grow, increasing surface area and capacity for connections with other neurons.
Do you mean neurogenesis? I think that happens in the hippocampus and olfactory bulb?
If that's the answer you're looking for, then some applicable knowledge would be going outside and jogging a good distance (exercise and spatial stimuli) may specifically cause neurogenesis in the hippocampus. (Edit: format errors)
Well not really no, because exercising the mind is about making our pattern recognition systems more useful. So what we're doing is training the quality of the connections rather than just merely adding more.
Think of it like two screens have a picture of the same face, but one face is a little blurry. They both have the same number of pixels, but one is more accurate.
In the case of the brain sometimes it is a matter of forming new connections, but sometimes it's a matter of changing or even removing connections. If it was just about size, the sperm whale would be the dominant species.
@@uninspired3583 "So what we're doing is training the quality of the connections"
Plus, keep in mind,
those connections are of excitatory and inhibitory kinds
making it easier for all those connections
(average of 20,000 synapses on each neuron)
to *maintain* the discharge frequency of the neuron and
thereby maintain the 'meaning' encoded by that frequency
so that the same person may awaken in the morning, approximately.
Approximate because
the other big part of the function of all those connections
is to permit subtle adjustments to that frequency encoded meaning.
Si?
Neurons that fire together wire together - Donald Hebb
EXCELLENT!
It’s amazing how materialism has become a religion. Materialist can’t answer any questions about awareness of qualia, yet they still blindly say THE BRAIN MUST… instead of looking at non physical explanations.
What non-physical explanations do you propose?
Materialism is not a religion. Not even close
Btw with time she went quite far away from materialism
Materialism, blah blah blah, materialism, blah blah blah. LOL
Have some original thoughts, instead of fighting the strawmen produced by your own eager imagination.
@@mikel5582 I'd phrase it the other way - what physical explanations can there ever be?, if absolutely everything is taking place in the mind.
Me and my brain have good ol cognitive times together on a regular basis.
She does not seem to understand the question. If you blow the mind or lose the mind, the mind is still very much there. Experience-mind-remains. Refining techniques to spatio-temporally map neurons is great, but this is like reducing chip size, while never touching the user experience.
The mind can be shocked but usually regains it's consciousness. The brain only controls the body.
But what is consciousness within which the 'personalised mind' has its life? That is the real question. What or who is the witness of the mind?
.“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don’t know the answer.”
Yes imagination can make a huge difference, but it originates in physical sensations and movements. We see someone as morally upright because it makes sense from our experience of the centrality of being able to stand up straight for being able to do things and assume any responsibility for doing things. In other words, the physical movements and sensations come first. The imaginative movements follow.
First, ideas and thought originate in the mind, the soul. Then the soul orders the brain to perform all movements. It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
@@jeffforsythe9514 The soul? So when you are a newborn, ideas just originate from your soul?
@@earthjustice01 Yes, and our first thought is mommy dearest.
@@jeffforsythe9514 So let's assume that the soul =the mind. So it is not equivalent to the brain, but more to our consciousness, as it develops over time from simple beginnings to mature adulthood. Do you agree so far?
@@earthjustice01 The soul, consciousness, gives the orders to the brain and all the brain does is pertaining to the body. All of our souls are immortal and when the body, including the brain, dies, the soul is reincarnated..........falun dafa
Why is it so hard to get that everything takes place in the mind? We don't need "matter" to explain the mind as what we see as matter is the appearance of metal processes.
@Vlasko60 A brain is our perception, it's a mental concept, in fact everything is mental, that's the point
For something to exist it must be matter. Thoughts consist of matter, not molecules or atoms or quarks but much smaller particles.
She became a quite spiritual person as time passes... And really i dont find conflict with what she says and spirituality.
Give me examples lol I'm struggling spiritually
@@devinclements2313 as she said : Science,
she says, “can answer some questions but not others, such as the meaning of life, or what is love. Of course, someone can say that love is when you have a rise in the hormone oxytocin, but that’s just rather silly ... The subjective feeling you have does not trump or invalidate what’s going on physically in the body. On the other hand, just because what you can point to correlates to what is going on in the body, does not detract from the subjective state.” The fact that both dimensions exist “has very big implications for accountability”.
@@francesco5581 in other words the experience of breathing is just as real as taking the breathe itself?
@@devinclements2313 i would say the experience of "feeling alive" breathing (a key component in meditation also) and just "breathing to be alive". Are the same physical action with 2 very different purposes and meanings.
@@francesco5581 can you elaborate please?
In my opinion, brain and heart are making consciousness; Consciousness and environments (freewill.....) are making a mind.
And a foot, in a mouth...
People have hearth removed and replaced by artificial pump, their personality and mental abilities stay intact. But touch the brain and person is gone forever.
The heart is a simple muscle. What people metaphorically call heart is actually all in the brain.
Wow, what a smart lady !😐
Actually, I'm pretty sure the Mind makes brains...
The brain does not think, it just takes it's orders from the soul(mind). It is your soul that is reading this comment right now.
@@jeffforsythe9514 Actually, I'm pretty sure the Soul makes the mind.
@@alandunlap4106 You are pretty sure of a lot of things. The soul is the mind, good day.
@@jeffforsythe9514 Actually, you're right. Each soul ends up just a drop in the Ocean.
@@alandunlap4106 No, your soul is a wonderful, precious, divine thing, have a good day.
If I were to become a London cab driver at age 60 would my hippocampus grow?
Yes it would.
So there is hope.
I think this video is going to see more engagement than usual
To Kuhn: bring on Peter Hagoort. Please! "Peter Hagoort is director of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics"
is this not just physicalism/functionalism again? Please explain how quality follows from quantity. I am tired of neural correlates not explaining qualia such as the taste of garlic or the colour of a rose . All this understanding of the ''engineering' will not get us there
"thinking is movement confined to the brain"
The brain's only function is controlling the body, it receives it's instructions from the mind, the soul.
@@jeffforsythe9514 the mind does not exist without the brain. Mind and brain are two sides of the same coin. Soul is just something we made up.
Replacant(sic) ??
i wasn’t aware someone found the Mind in the brain. Its an entire body, not in the body.
This cracks me up.
I would tell you all about it, but thats privileged, Initiated, knowledge.
*Not for the profane*
-Know Thy SELF*
Humans try an separate what shouldn't be separated..
The body is a temple and works in unison
@@raspberrypi4970 exactly correct. The intellect is A dissecting instrument.
good for survival, yes.
bad if i want to “Know” anything in its entirety.
Great video! Here's what I've gleaned from this and many other videos & talks on this subject -
1. Consciousness is fundamental to existence and everything else, space-time is NOT.
2. The brain is a physical organ that acts as a 'conduit' switch to gain access to consciousness (the universal shared 'mind'), [conduit 'on' = life, 'off' = death].
3. Every single cell of our bodies have a memory, and hence a 'mind' of its own.
4. There is an individuality to each one of us, a result of upbringing, beliefs, ego, etc - also sometimes referred to as individual 'consciousness'.
Interestingly, Hinduism (before it became a religion) discovered this thousands of years ago, and is written in the ancient scriptures called Upanishads, where they refer to the concepts of 'Atman' and 'Brahman' - "Atman is the essence of an individual, Brahman is an unchanging, universal spirit or consciousness which underlies all things. They are discussed and named as distinct from one another, but they are not always thought of as distinct; in some schools of Hindu thought, atman is Brahman."
Consciousness is a property of our minds, and a mind is a property of a brain. It did not exist before a mind capable of being conscious evolved, and there are many more primitive forms of consciousness in minds simpler than ours, as there will be higher levels of consciousness if human minds evolve further, or we engineer it. There's no conduit because consciousness requires an active brain, without it consciousness cannot exist.
@@tschorsch Can you share some studies/research/videos that show this?
@@dragonskinavi Can you share some research that shows Hinduism is superior to Christian Sky Daddy or Santa Claus?
@@markb3786 Religion is not a competition. Hinduism never claimed to be "superior." All paths lead to the same source.
Watch and understand Robert's question at 6:36
What he's trying all the time is to get the right information on how to practically create artificial consciousness.
Robert, what you're looking for it has already been done.
What the woman says here is true but it is just part of simple and decent observations with no help whatsoever in Robert's quest.
Unfortunately, I had to get out of the video. She spoke so rapidly and with her accent, I barely understood anything she said. That's sad because I really am interested in this topic.
Try the automatic subtitles. I’m French and I understand so you will understand too ;)
So true! I had to listen to it 5 times to really get it, but it was worth it:)
And you can turn on the automatic subtitles, they're almost completely accurate!
Imagine yourself listening to the video and understanding every sentence she said.
@@xspotbox4400 I did try that. I'm usually really good at understanding accents. (I'm American).
@@yhyuk Thanks. I didn't think about subtitles. That's a good idea. I'll remember that for future videos.
She's supposed to be explaining how the brain makes the mind, but it sounds more like she's explaining how the mind makes the brain.
I agree. That confused me for a bit. A wonder if they look closer at ‘thinking about something produces the neurons’ and see that it is the awareness of thinking that does this. All of the examples they used for thinking (from tennis swings to learning maps take a large focus or awareness rather than just capturing and playing with thoughts). Curious.
Neither is true. The mind, which is the soul gives the brain it's orders concerning the movement of the body.
The mind is what the brain does. You cannot have a mind without the brain,
All right. Let's assume that brain creates thought. Then can brain exist independently? brain needs blood, air, and nutrition. And blood, air, nutrition come from the nature. And the nature come from the universe. Then brain alone is really thinking?
Hmm? I always have doubts about (professors) people bringing unwritten facts from Our ancestry as ‘Truths’ - She stated “We know that” ! hundreds of thousands of years ago we were? She is far to locked into her own conclusions of “know that”.... about the known percentage 0.000001% of the 4% of presumed knowledge when there is 96% of which we humans know zero about! Any Science (opinion) is a tool...not a tool box!
"... felt inner experiences that constitute WHAT we are." A PERSON is a lot more than what is in the lead-up list and in this video! Although I thought (maybe) this talk might deal with WHAT we are, and have ideas about a basis for personhood (as opposed to merely personality), it is really quite a superficial talk - as to what Dr Greenfield thinks the "mind" is. She deals instead with rather humdrum stuff, no surprises here; our neural nets in our brain build connections and adapt as they do so, and can be induced to do so, etc. Perhaps it is the title and lead-up that are pretentious.
she is only choosing studys that fit her opinions on the matter of the brain and mind connections.
Mind is not an effect of a brain, it's the other way around.
We are humans, consisting of body and soul. The brain takes it's orders from the soul and the body is controlled by the brain.
@@jeffforsythe9514 Dichotomy. Decartes postulated there are "thinking thing" (self awareness/soul) and "extended thing" physical body. The problem with the body is that you don't have direct knowledge of it, but all you have are representations of the body in your mind, which are not the body itself, but only empirical sensations. Empiricism is not able to provide us with the truth, it is useful in practical terms.
What you are saying is pure faith and I respect it.
Very very cool discussion but she didn’t answer the question. How does brain make mind? - “obviously we can’t study……” she dodged the question then tried to say a bunch of smart stuff…….”until someone comes up with…….” And “until the no…” and then she went on and on and on and on about issues brains have………..lame……….
What's with the barely literate video titles? "How brain makes mind? Me Tarzan.. you closer to truth"
Greenfield: "The mind is the personalization of your neural activity driven by your unique experiences in life." "you understand something in terms of something else."
Antisthenes, 4th century BCE: One cannot define what a thing is. However one can explain what a thing is like . For instance, one cannot say what silver is, but one can say it is like tin. - note: he said this long before a modern science was able to determine atomic weights, and thus compare the elements on objective measures.
You personality is an aspect of yourself. Your self is your soul. Nothing more, nothing less, your soul
@@jeffforsythe9514 Self is personality, not just an aspect. What is the soul? My guess is that either you are a Fundamentalist Christian or a New Age type. I'm leaning towards the FC.
@@earthjustice01 I have been a Buddhist monk for the past 16 years when the Lord gave me his blessing. I practice Falun Dafa, from the school of Buddha...................truthfulness-compassion-tolerance. Personality is one of the qualities of the soul.
@@earthjustice01 Don't lean too far you might fall over.
@@jeffforsythe9514 what is the soul?
So... Yes?
The ultimate creative capacity of the human brain may be for all practical purposes~ Infinity.
Your mind can be compared to an undiscovered gold mine.
Makes no difference if you're 17 or 70.
The only thing about a man- that is a man-is his mind
Everything else... you can find in a pig or a horse.
The human mind is the one thing that separates us from the rest of the creatures on earth.
Each of us has a tendency to underestimate his or her own abilities.
We should realize we have within ourselves a reservoir of great abilities, even genius.
To get the things we want from life- is a matter of solving the problems which stand between where we now are - and the point we wish to reach.
This is incorrect. We are limited to recombining properties of previously experienced things.
As a demonstration, imagine a color you've never seen before. If imagination was truly infinite, there would be no problem achieving this.
@@uninspired3583
Those who say they can't and those who say they can are both correct
That's why I said; maybe for all practical purposes...
@@uninspired3583
Limitations are imposed upon one's self.
Mindset..
You can physically get yourself sick with the mind as well as get yourself better with the mind
@@raspberrypi4970 placebos only get you so far.
@@uninspired3583
I not talking about taking a placebo effect/ pills..
You can do it willingly.
The mind can go as far as you let it..
Don't let nobody tell you different.
Interesting conversation, I like the way she doesn't have that pretentious upper class British accent.
06:27
We live in a Computer Programm
I agreeeeeee
Probably an 8-bit simulation.
Because humans are Charlatans
Prove it
@@eternalblue4660
Do you require energy/Programming(DNA(RNA)) or information like all things do to
C:\Run😂😂
It's all symbolic to me
We _are_ the program.
😆 it's like saying doctors make disease. Though it is true to some extent.
doctors make disease - 100% :)
Man to my heart, loves ping pong
She is talking about Memory not Mind. She is way off the point, which is sad after all the knowledge she has no clue about herself
@Vlasko60 lol find someone else for your fun fight online
Brain - hardware (RAM)
mind - software
Why do smart people talk with such certainty yet disagree fundamentally? In 50 years time, if all these people were still alive, most assertions will turn out to be nonsense.
Thats how learning happens. We investigate the things we don't know yet, talk about various explanations, and see which explanation best fits observation.
The fact that we have various explanations just means the process isn't done yet. The system is working.