Dr. Edward F. Kelly: Consciousness is More Than a Product of Brain Activity
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 พ.ย. 2016
- (Please note: All rights reserved)
"Consciousness is More than a Product of Brain Activity"- a lecture presented by Dr. Edward F. Kelly author/editor of 'Irreducible Mind' and 'Beyond Physicalism', and director of the Ray Westphal neuro-imaging lab at UVA DOPS. In this video, Dr. Kelly presents his research and ideas regarding the nature of mind and brain, as well as the overall implications of shifting the current scientific paradigm beyond the limitations of mainstream material science.
The UVA DOPS faculty gathered to offer public lectures at the Boston Museum of Science on September 17th, 2016, as part of a special one day event, "Do We Survive Death? A Look at the Evidence". This event was sponsored by Tracy Coen.
The Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) is a research unit within the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia Health System. The research faculty of the Division are known internationally for their expertise and research integrity in the investigation of phenomena relevant to the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world.
For more information about the research being done at the UVA Division of Perceptual Studies, please visit our website at www.uvadops.org
Find us on Facebook at / uvadops - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments proving that consciousness cannot be
generated by the brain. Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is. In other words, they are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, as well as subjectivity, implies the existence of a conscious mind, who can choose a specific point of view and arbitrary criteria. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it moment by moment, and in every moment consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes.
Here comes my third argument: It must also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to hyotehsize that such system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore is nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics.
Based on these considerations, it would be completely unreasonable to assume that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain
So death is a Pavlovian Condition where the "brain conditions the mind?"
do you have published material you can refer us to?
This deserves at least a blog post if not a TH-cam video. Kindly make either of these two so that your argument can be easily referenced
Why do you try so hard to make your arguement into a big word salad?
i think thats duelist , im a duelist too
Science is proving something exists beyond materialism. From quantum physics to neuroscience.
That may be. However the speaker is neither a particle quantum physicist nor a neuroscientist.
Science can prove little of anything useful at all. Science guessed too much.
@@Lalakis he’s literally a neurosurgeon
I am so glad that Dr. Kelly and others are breaking the barriers and introducing the world to this new field that have been ignored for long time by West. Can you imagine how powerfull and better will become once we learn more and more about consciousness. Will this change the world ?
Most definitely
Just hoping I live long enough to see this happen.
I had an NDE in August 1971 so I've known about this for a long time. I actually thought it real to start with but I ended up rationalising it over the years as a vivid realistic dream until I read a magazine in 1989 describing NDEs exactly how I had experienced it. That sent a shiver down my back to realize what I had gone through was real, I can tell you. lol
It was just a dream... You didn't die, right...
@Max Mustermann
It is so simple, ether the definition of death is wrong, or mor likely the measurements of the vital signs were wrong. If the person has memories, rhen he didn't die.
@@amitaimedan if a person is having conscious experiences 1 minutes with no blood flow, it proves NDEs. the problem cpr is always performed and u cant guarantee 0 blood flow. its not about "death" or watever, its about no blood flow for more than 30 seconds.
@@estring123
So, what is your point?
@@c.c.9539
Atheists are individuals, not a religious or a cult. I know what I know and understand what I understand.
Interesting talk. Thanks.
Very interesting video, and certainly gives one food for thought as they say.
What did you feel was the 'food' for thought - where was the systematic setting out of the evidence?
We are not bodies with souls, we are souls with bodies.
No.
@@eddielopez2373 Bike
@@arnevajsing7120 sup, dee?
For too long the medical community has embraced materialism. Leaving out the spiritual care. A very empty and unbalanced way to take care of patients.
"Spiritual care" Makes me nauseous, brrrr.
It used to be a wide open door in simpler times and primitive cultures with nothing to show for it but disaster. Medical science does not owe any favours to the spiritual charlatans of all the many types and these people should find something useful to contribute to humanity anyway.
Churches exist for spiritual care. We used to have spiritual doctors. Most people died horribly and young. And those that didn’t often lived with untreatable pain.
@Margaret what are u taking about ?
Next time you or your children get sick go visit a spiritual healer instead of a "materialistic" trained medical doctor.
This man is a true visionary.
re-visionary....the panpsychists of today are only rejuvenating ancient theories held by religion and philosophy...it is only that we have been blinded by science for the last few hundred years that we have lost sight of our soul
he is simply following the facts with an open mind.
People ask, if there's a soul, why the hell does brain damage cause someone to change.
The same reason why someone good at video games starts to suck if we break the controls.
Problems entering inputs
I recommend looking up IP on TH-cam where he argues against this very point
@@lokieleven2694 IP? Intellectual Property
I was wonderin where Captain Kangaroo went. Just kiddin, love this stuff, thanx.
Reductionist/materialist science is fading away(whether the materialists like it or not).
Recognising the reductionism of classic positivism does actually not mean that materialism is int trouble. They are not the same thing.
Materialism and concepts of embodiment are doing very well and are in fact part of the latest turn in science across both the natural sciences and the humanities.
There is currrently nothing in the standard models of physics that allows for invisible influences that leaves space for "immaterial influences" which is in and of itself a nonsensical term. The immaterial cannot have physical agency or it's effects would be detectable when looking at the behaviour of matter. Nothing like that has been detected.
Quantum physics is not a loophole in that regard as it operates on and applies to a different level than the physics that govern everyday existence. These are VERY well understood in terms of fundamental components and adding "some force to" it would require us to throw away something which has been demonstrated to be true over and over and which has massive explanatory power in favour of something that has no explanatory power and struggles to make sense even at the most basic level of language or conceptualization. Which is another way of saying someone has their work cut out for them if they want to be bringing some notion of the immaterial or the teleological into modern physics.
What is changing in science is more of an openness to complexity in systems, in terms of causality - that is to say more holistic approaches along with what is really a long held realisation that all truths are partial and contingent. Partial and contingent however does not mean everything goes or everything is equally valid or relevant.
Partiality and moving away from "clockwork" theories the universe certainly invites an inclusiveness to many modes of thinking, being and doing - but that does not excempt anyone from adhering to the scientific method if what they want to be doing is science and not something else. There is a fair bit of nonsense going on in the humanities (of which I myself is part" about "different logics". This is fine as it applies to understanding the thinking and world views in different cultures but it does not mean that you can have your own logic where 2+2=7.3 just because you are living in the amazon.
There is a fundamental level where the classic rules of logic apply strongly enough that they have afforded us all the wonders of modern science, that various speculative approaches have been unable to match - in fact they have remained unable to even define themselves, explain anything, establish consistency and most of all jive in any way with observation and experimentation.
No, reductionism and materialism are not fading away. In regards to the subject of consciousness being brain activity, please read, "The Soul Fallacy" by Julien Musolino. It's highly worth reading.
+exaedeth107 You don't know shit about what reductionism is. If you want to hypothesize consciousness exists out of body, then do so. I see no reason it could not happen. But, you will TURN PEOPLE AWAY from your beliefs if you IMMEDIATELY start out with ATTACKS on people with certain philosophies.
How about I call all CAPITALISM shit? Because, it is. Socialism and communism CAN be INFINITELY superior economic systems to capitalism.
+whynottalklikeapirat Well said. This shithead exaedeth107 makes me ashamed to agree with the newagers on ONE point: I see NOTHING of known/proved science that would CONTRADICT/make it impossible for consciousness to exist outside a physical body. But I am like you: there is NO evidence (yet) for it.
"reductionism and materialism are not fading away. In regards to the subject of consciousness being brain activity, please read, "The Soul Fallacy" by Julien Musolino. It's highly worth reading."
Well said!
A fascinating talk and I'm very open to all these ideas. However, I started to listen to this talk with great enthusiasm and was constantly waiting for some graphs, data, vidro footage of psi types phenomena but there was none! Does anyone know if during this meeting data were presented that has been published in high impact psychological journals? Love to you all, Stu
Yes it is. It's energy phenomenon can alternate health issues.
A late night radio talk show had a guest, who said that the people, who have death, their spirit/soul still have consciousness. From paranormal actuvities, I'm convinced there are spirits/souls without bodies.
If we look back at our lives we can see the influences that made us what we are and where we are in this life. Sometimes the guidance came in the form of experiences of varying degrees of intensity. Some of them may have been wonderful happy experiences, others frightening or tragic, But whether they were giant world shaking experiences or just tiny repetitious joys and sorrows such as experiences like the ones that happen to us every day. These are what shaped us, made us what we are; placed us where we are. Often, if we take the time, we can see how an experience we had 50 years ago dovetails with something that happened only yesterday. Set the stage for it, so to speak, made it happen. There is a guiding force. Reality does exist. It just might not exist here. Like Dungeons and dragons, it may be that we are simply characters in a video game. it is our players who is real; playing this game together. in wherever that place is where reality actually does exist.
I always come back to Omar Khayyam. We are...
"But helpless pieces in the game he plays
Upon this chequer-board of nights and days;
Hither and thither moves, and checks, and slays,
And one by one back in the closet lays."
Beautifully written
Feelings, in my opinion, have to do with the temporary contrast. For example, the taste of an apple = an apple to stretch over time.
Matter is energy, energy is matter.
That is, to stretch an apple in time means to turn it into light in some way. Light is a code. The configuration of the code is in a temporary pause. A thought process.
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
Matthew 6:22
Guard your heart with all diligence, for from it flow springs of life.
Proverbs 4:23
Science has yet to catch up as we humans are to develop our ability to describe and define what happens. Basically, when we know, science will know because we will be able to define these things.
Interesing. But just wondering why all these studies are happening on UVA only!!
we have a field of food for thought when we think we find ourselves outside of the scope of our imagination and it shares the tree of life and it bears it's fruit / food for thought / knock and you shall enter
The brain can be likened to a radio picking up a signal. In the case of humans the signal is embodied, and can then learn to operate the machinery of the body. Have you ever observed a baby trying to learn how to operate the machinery it suddenly finds itself “trapped” in? Consciousness informs matter, and then inhabits it through embodiment, so that it can further expand and experience it’s own creation.
The counter argument -
theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-brain-is-not-a-receiver/
'....so that it can further expand and experience it's own creation' - much like the universe. :-)
The brain is not a radio reciever at all. You can't just make stuff up as you see fit. This idea has no support whatsoever and there is no virtue in believing with no other reason than simply the fact that the idea appears mesmerizing or charming.
@@fisterB well theres no evidence to support that synapses and neurons are the only thing responsible for conciousness
@@awakenedhigherself9961 Imagine taking that same argument to the digestive system. You would take it apart and say 'why, it is just a tube, the real digestion must take place somewhere else'. So you did'nt see all the wondrous molecular parts that make it work. Then you make an argument from personal incredulity and now you are looking for something in a ghostly otherworld that doesn't exists. That would be a sad outcome in that case, unless you find some comfort in being wrong.
We should keep an open mind for such a 'non local' possibility, which I suppose, is all you need to hear to hop onboard. But we should also be honest, that it didn't really solve the problem, it just moved it away. Secondly we now need to find that other hidden and unsupported phenomenon along with a method of transmission. That is the evidence you should be talking about, evidence for whatever it is you or the next person has the good manner to suggest today or next week and I am not really sure what you are actually suggesting. Maybe you could give a hint?
Thank you. You are the Galileo of our time, confronting a rigid orthodoxy which is threatened by the facts of phenomena not consistent with their scripture. When something clearly IS, but cannot be because it violates certain laws, the laws need reexamination.
It takes "consciousness" for a man to facilitate his requirement, should a man lose his "conscious state" his actions is taken as null & void (in the court of law).
He’s talking about quantum mechanics. Robert Lanza is excellent to follow
It is hilarious how totally unqualified cult leaders talk about a subject that not even the greatest theoretical physicists of our time can compehend
What is the name he wouldn't qoute?
Graças o Deus permitir sempre felicidades e muitos anos atrás da passagem da passagem da passagem da manhã e o mesmo horário da passagem
We need a combination of eyes, brain and light to see. Doe it mean we need brain plus something something else to be conscious?
Out of body experience is proof that mind is not a brain.
I appreciate Dr. Kelly's refutation of physicalism, but his alternative is to accept substance dualism and that leads back into the mind-body problem. If we accept idealism we can keep irreducible consciousness without the mind-body problem.
What?
yes it is called the Soul
Do you have any demonstrable evidence for the existence of a soul and how it functions?
@@eddielopez2373 What evidence do you have that the aliens exist have you seen it no? So why believe it? Because people say so are there even Scientists? Where is Scientists have you seen it? What evidence do you have?
@@eddielopez2373 I have no idea, what the secular world, reguards as a soul. In the theological world, a soul, is a life, and mortal, not immortal. Problem is, dictionary definitions, throw in spirituality, and imply that the soul, is reguarded as immortal.
According to the God of the bible, he breathed life, into Adam, and he became a living soul.
Gen. 2:7
It means, that when Adam died, he became a dead soul. God, also declares the soul, to be mortal, NOT, immortal. It has caused religion, to be a minefield of confusion and deceit.
Ezekiel 18:4,20
Psalms 22:29
Spirit, is a better word for the non physical existence of entities.
It would be good to translate such books into different languages, for example, into Russian.
The brain is an area of neurophysiology activity. Neurophysiology activity consists of electrochemical reaction. Thus at any given time, the brain state is defined by a subset of electrochemical reactions, derived from a large set of possible reactions. Consider the phenomenon of a. conscious thought. As at any given time the brain physical state consists of a collection of electrochemical reactions (events), it can be inferred that they are collectively responsible for the conscious thought. This means that at least in part, simultaneous events are responsible for thought. In other words, thought creates a connection between simultaneous events. This is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity, which states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light and thus excludes the possibility of connection between simultaneous events. Consider the memorizing of, say, the value 5. This would necessarily involve more than 1 point in space as, say, if it is assumed a single electron records 5 by taking a particular potential. Then it by itself cannot define (or know) 5, as its magnitude would be defined only with respect to another datum or event defined as a unit potential, thus involving at least 2 simultaneous events. Consider the experience of vision. While we focus our attention on an object of vision, we are still aware of a background and, thus, a whole collection of events. This would mean at least an equal collection of physical events in the brain are involved.
Take the experience of listening to music. It would mean being aware of what went before. Like vision, it would probably mean that while our attention at any given time is focused at that point in time, it is aware of what went before and what is to follow. In other words, it spans the time axis. Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience. While focusing at a particular point in time of their composition, they are nevertheless aware of what went before and what is to come. The rest of the composition is like the background of a visual experience. Experiencing the composition in this way, they are able to traverse it in a similar fashion to which a painting is observed. In this sense, an average person in comparison can be seen as having tunnel hearing (like tunnel vision) when it comes to music, thus making it very difficult for him or her to reproduce or create new music. It can be seen that consciousness is a 4-D phenomenon. If it is a physically explainable phenomenon, such an explanation would involve EPR type effects and as such physical explanations at a quantum level will be involved.
philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS
"(...) it can be inferred that they are all collectively responsible for conscious thought (...)"
There is no logical basis for this deduction. You're using what you would like to prove in order to prove it...
The point is that evidence strongly suggests consciousness is a layer above brain activity. Did you not listen to the entire talk?
Buddha worked it all out 2600 years ago.
"Meaning" is a construct of the mind, is it not? If so, what does "meaning" mean to the universe?
The universe is a tree falling in the woods…
I'm not taking sides but why is materialism automatically equated with nihilism here? One can clearly be a materialist and still have an over arching monistic view of the universe and thus of meaning. Look at the opening lines of Lucretius' 'On the Nature of Things' where Venus the goddess of love is employed metaphorically to describe such an overarching and atomistic unity.
If you're a materialist you deny that there are things that can't be measured. It's as simple as that ...
Tom Campbell explains all
"... what happens when we die ..."
I think the answer is self obvious - we break down into goo and are (eventually) absorbed into and recycled into/by the universe.
What will happen eventually to the universe is the real toughie. Despite the hundreds of millions of other opinions, I just don't go along with heavens, hells, and omniscient omnipotent creators who know the past/present/future - such "knowledge" would make them redundant from the onset.
If I had to have 'religious' beliefs I would opt for reincarnation. But my memories now (of prior incarnations) are strictly limited (to zilch), so what's the point of it all if we don't remember the lessons?
At 23:00 what was he talking about? God?
People who are interested in the concept of consciousness they should investigate Hinduism
Why?
bhagavd gita
@Margaret true
WHAT MORE PLEASE WHAT DO YOU MEAN OR IS THAT YOU ARE A GOOD CHISTIAN?¡
Bill ma,he
Tô aqui esperando aqui terça feira e horário normal e o valor da entrada da passagem da passagem e horário da passagem da manhã e o valor e o valor da entrada e horário da passagem da passagem e horário da manhã e horário normal e horário da manhã
If there are some people (07:00) who can consistently make guesses that outperform random chance, for example with hidden cards, why not record videos of them doing so and share the evidence with everyone, including the most stubborn skeptics, instead of just claiming that such people exist? Failing to record their feats is not something that can be "taken to the bank", as this guy puts it.
Let's not confuse purpose with meaning. Using them interchangeably is a slight of hand used by those who depend upon a (usually religious) sense of purpose to experience meaning. Meaning is a human quality that comes from experiencing things from a human perspective and with reference to human values. The universe could be completely absurd and you would still have to divorce yourself from your own basic humanity to consider loving or nurturing your own child meaningless. We do not depend upon universal purpose or even survival to experience meaning.
whynottalklikeapirat,
One might consider that BOTH 'purpose' and 'meaning' are human constructs. And that without an observer (US), or 'fabricator', both become completely 'meaning'-less. But to humor the moment, I suggest that both depend upon the other for relevance. One becomes pointless without the other. You're right in that they should not be used interchangeably (it wouldn't be good english), but one cannot really attain relevance without the other...an important point to make.
IF the universe was completely "absurd", I sincerely doubt that such things as 'nurturing' would even/could even exist as a valuable, or even possible construct. There would be no point to it. Nurturing would be as an offshoot of BOTH purpose and meaning.
Your last sentence is quite difficult for me to grasp. As I see it, we DO depend upon universal 'purpose' in order to give meaning to our existence. Granted, it's a concept (the God concept) that we overlay upon our experience of existence, but nevertheless, we DO overlay it. However, it has only the objective reality that we give it, or so it might seem.
'Purpose' is what gives us our raisin d'etre/meaning. It is why we get up in the morning. It is WHY we nurture our own. An existence without a sense of purpose would be quite an empty experience. By its very nature, purpose implies meaning - meaning implies purpose.
At least that's the way I see it...
Reality seems to me to be a blank slate upon which it creates whatever it wants. THIS is what it wants here at the moment. It’s “purpose” is to live. To experiment. To occupy itself. To play. Etc.
1984 NWT Jehovah Witness vs 1966 Jerusalem Bible ..... I was born in 1985
We survive death because we are not alive. This life seems real but it's not. Reality exists somewhere else.
If we look back at our lives we can see the influences that made us what we are and where we are in this life. Sometimes the guidance came in the form of experiences of varying degrees of intensity. Some of them may have been wonderful happy experiences, others frightening or tragic, But whether they were giant world shaking experiences or just tiny repetitious joys and sorrows such as experiences like the ones that happen to us every day. These are what shaped us, made us what we are; placed us where we are. Often, if we take the time, we can see how an experience we had 50 years ago dovetails with something that happened to us only yesterday. Set the stage for it, so to speak, made it happen. There is a guiding force. Reality does exist. It just might not exist here. Like Dungeons and dragons, it may be that we are simply characters in a video game. it is our players who is real; playing this game together. in wherever that place is where reality actually does exist.
I always come back to Omar Khayyam. We are...
"But helpless pieces in the game he plays
Upon this chequer-board of nights and days;
Hither and thither moves, and checks, and slays,
And one by one back in the closet lays.
Somehow the nonsense he spouted made you more comfortable in your own woowoo allthough it is not related in the slightest, except of course, in the utter contempt of science and rational thinking. When you leave science behind you will fly off in any random direction. Granted, your story is a new one, to me at least...did you just make it up right now?
One thing Dr. Kelly did not mention but probably knows is that the Bible directly addresses all of these phenomena in some depth. The best known is that the human spirit survives after physical death. Some supernatural events are attributed to the Spirit of God, and some, including mediums and much of what we call paranormal are attributed to fallen angels, who are also spirits. King Saul visited a medium when was depressed after failing as Israel’s king because of his repeated disobedience to God, and the story is told in detail. Some phenomena may simply be perceptions of our human spirit.
Only a monotheist would intrude with such reductionistic dogmatism.
G vi agora agora tô falando sério e horário da manhã r viu se ela for lá te falo ok obrigada pela atenção mas estou se sentindo confortável e horário normal hj e o mesmo valor e horário normal
Su
???? .....
N R G
These things cannot be proven. Not science but still u need proof and the scientific method is critical.
This talk reminds me a bit of most books on martial arts.
It starts with fifty percent of the data being all about the "master" who came before. Then it describes the wonders of the particular style and how well it worked in the past, with no proof or evidence being given...
Then finally, you get a basic hint at what to do. "Punch them in the nose".
Except that we aren't given that last bit here. It ends at the second point above.
*I am not saying that there is no validity here, I'm suggesting instead that I'd love a talk instead about studies, biological and "other" provable effects being demonstrated and sings of reproducibility. We have seen a century of psychical research that tells us the old stories...
It's time to push the science forward.
You described this talk PERFECTLY.
Dale - regarding your martial arts analogy for lack of science - see my channel.
Maybe the problem is that your knowledge comes from Skeptical Inquirer, Susan Blackmore and other social psychology types. There's a great book called 'Rhythms of the Brain' and the first paragraph was on the paranormal experience that Hans Berger had and motivated him to explore EEG as a mechanism. HPC is a big topic now. I go to Deep Learning conferences and it is now clear the CS folks will be getting involved in this area as it may be key to AI
See that's the thing, it's an introduction to his, he's obviously not going to go through the whole book on the talk, it's similar to other talks being given there.
When you fall asleep you stop being conscious. Therefore brain function = conscious experience. Discuss
That has been debunked many times I wish I could remember the arguments used against it. I believe one is when one is put under there are many times where the patient while asleep are able to remember/ hear what is going on during their operation which defeats the logic of your argument. There are other examples as well
Why dont theze dudes start reading The Manual of the body !!!And start eating the right things and Start To Meditate???????????????
Y se e horário normal hj e o valor e horário da manhã e horário da passagem da manhã e horário da e o mesmo valor e horário da passagem da manhã r e horário normal hj f xi w se ela quiser ir lá e horário da passagem e horário
DO ANY OF YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST?
Probably not, most scholars regard him as a fictional character composed out of more than 5 real people. You mean resurrection? Can't happen and you know it. The passage of an immense interval of time since this event does not make it more plausible, not in the slightest.
That woman should stop moving her foot. Very distracting.
Imagine if it was a stinky one? 😂
😂😂😂
This seemed like a bunch of words that didn't say much, with no solid scientific basis, in order to sell books.
Right, he was selling a book, that is all. But guys like him are like flypaper for quantum/consciousness/woowoo sellers especially from mysterious eastern religions claiming that western science has been unfair to whatever ghost story they support. Somehow they all know a whole lot about consciousness but they rarely agree, except that the idiots in western science freely admits that we have all the work ahead of us. As if that is a position more shamefull than knowing it all from a vision or some similar path to 'wisdom'.
Oh for Christ's sake, how many times already has this been said in the comment section? do you really expect Dr. Kelly to read all 1000 pages of the book in less than 30 minutes? seriously? you can buy the book or search for a PDF file for it online and read it.
@@fisterB hmm ..but both ancient and modern eastern society and modern day western society seems to be having NDEs and OBEs seem these realms not ghost or disincarnated beings who clearly have no body or mind..and .ost haven't even met from other sides o the world. Hell I had an NDE I'm American but Americans and American science is all over the place when it comes down to explaining this stuff without 'spirituality', shamanism, etc being brought up..either its realtor not but something is happening we are just be arguing on what is material and immaterial at this point..
Believing somthing does not make it a fact.
Did he share anything of substance in this talk other than unsubstantiated opinions? What is his argument against "physicalism"? He has a manner of speaking without conveying information.
Hm... beside citing William James etc yes where was the scientific argument?
I agree that he didn't say much of substance. Though on the other hand he's written a book about it.
Did you expect him to cover the entire contents of the book in 25 minutes? It is an introduction. Anything presented in such a limited format could easily be dismissed. Read the books if you want to see the complete evidence.
This Family Guy dude is no Guru from india !!he is a self proclaimed Wise guy Who is confusing the shit out himself hahahahahha
I dumped religion and don't intend to accept that materialism is false until it can be proven false. In other words the burden of proof in on the one making the claim. You must demonstrate that Consciousness is more than a product of brain activity otherwise you are just inventing another religion.
What about recent studies showing coma victims are aware of the world around them despite the brain damage?
Religious nonsense.
Yes, so much of it, they just keep pulling every imaginable concept out of the ass with no rules and no obligation to the truth. But we so much want to believe that we are 'more' and that ugly old comfortable lie that we somehow can exist after death is at the root of the problem. I don't deny that our existence is unreasonably short but there is no excuse for wishfull thinkning. Who wants eternal existence anyway? There is nothing sweet about that.
Flat out devastating to UVa reputation, to have such hogwash spouted by its faculty.
UVa reputation has been lost a long time ago
Bunch of wishful thinking woo woo BS.
None so blind as he who will not see.