Consciousness & the Social Brain | Michael Graziano | TEDxCornellUniversity
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ค. 2019
- Michael Graziano is a scientist, author, and ventriloquist, who has studied the brain for over thirty years. His TEDxCornellUniversity talk focuses on how a collection of neurons might perceive subjective consciousness in itself and other agents, how consciousness is a part of our social selves, and how we might build conscious machines in the future. Michael Graziano is a scientist, author, and ventriloquist, who has studied the brain for over thirty years. His TEDxCornellUniversity talk focuses on how a collection of neurons might perceive subjective consciousness in itself and other agents, how consciousness is a part of our social selves, and how we might build conscious machines in the future. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.75[2/2] คุยแบบนี้แล้วจะจบกี่โมงพ่ะย่ะค่ะ!!!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N6E8njWH7Zg/mqdefault.jpg)
I absolutely love this theory of consciousness. Everything else I've read and watched feels like people trying to explain something they desperately want to believe but can't possibly prove.
Consciousness and imagination as an evolutionary means to an end. THIS makes sense to me. Thanks so much for doing what you do, sir.
lol he explains nothing and has no novel ideas
For years I thought I'd never understand consciousness. And then a puppet monkey explained it to me. What a time to be aware.
Seriously, this theory is one of the best things I've heard and read about in my life (and I highly recommend the book, "Consciousness and the Social Brain").
Tomasz Ziółkowski I absolutely agree
Keep looking. This guy is so clueless that it's almost unquantifiable.
@@rauxmedia This is why I love the internet. Random guy discredits a published 30-year neuroscientist who teaches at Princeton, with zero explanation!
I think this dude has nailed it.
Really enjoyed this video, especially the approach to space exploration!
Some philosophers of epistemology would say we indeed cannot ever access reality as it is, neither can we represent reality (via language) as it really is
That is because all measurements and representations are underdetermined; we always lack precision or accuracy
At best, we could say we live in a world which is really like an idealized version of the world. So, it is only logical the mind operates using imperfect, abstracted, perhaps idealized representations of the world
OMGGG!!! This guy!!! Speaking our hearts out!!! Thanks doc for articulating it so much better 13:53!!! Another 3, have We inverted (me) trained our brain to notice, observe 3 predominately, or is this genetically predisposed? Or is it being trigger cause of external factors? Like you speaking about something I’m profoundly interested in? Seems like the last line!!! Last Question is the answer!!! More guidance thanks.#!!!😼3:25PM, 27-3-22.
I'll watch this tomorrow
Didn't Kant said basically the same thing in the 18th century?
As in "Transcendent/Transcendental"?
😳OMG Kevin!
I like the puppet show :) However how is this talk about a theory of what consciousness is? Having an evolutionary reason for why we may need something like consciousness is totally different than actually understanding it. Interesting how this professor says many people have a vested interest in keeping consciousness a mystery, while I often felt many scientists have a vested interest in coming up with some (unconvincing) explanation for it. Anyways thx for the talk!
I would suggest his book 'Rethinking Consciousness'.
Better that just think you should better do so, you can understand what was said in this talk
The wonderful thing about science is that theories can be unambiguously WRONG. The frustrating thing about science is that theories can never be unambiguously RIGHT. The best we can hope for is CONSENSUS. Philosophy is different: in philosophy, consensus IS truth, and consensus can never be wrong.
Your comment is just the perfect example of the imperfection of the inner model of your own mind
@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 - I bow to the perfection of your inner model of your own mind. Too bad it can only express disagreement in the form of insults.
Ventriloquism more often indicates lack of awareness. Specifically of the self.
I don’t think you got it...
Dude is a psychologist
This video was waiting for me to make it 300 likes and this comment has to become 40 there we go and example of M Consciousness. finish time at 3:09PM, 27-3-22.#!!!😼
Please it’s a joke, Or is it.#!!!😼
I think we have very good reasons to respect the primacy of subjective experience aka consciousness by calling it a mistery... One would be to be loyal to common sense. "I think we understand what consciousness is." - "We" and "understanding" are subjective experiences taking place within consciousness.
Let me take the example of God.
God has all the power, all the goodness, all the knowledge 'by default'. He hasn't worked hard for it. It's like a 'free fund'.
Similarly, we have consciousness/free will as a 'free fund'. Thoughts come and go in our mind on their own. I myself don't know what thought will come into my mind, say after 5 minutes, 10 minutes etc. It's a 'free fund'.
When thoughts come to our minds 'on their own', it 'seems' to us that we have thought them 'consciously'...
(time stamp) At 12:22 makes it 2 3s M Consciousness!!! I’m so fascinated by this. It is true people would like to keep their M consciousnesss as a Mystery so they can believe in their make shift world. It’s the ability to accept and move beyond is what consciousness should be, trying to understand the reality, though it might shake our beloved believes. We need to always progress.#!!!🐸 Galaxyisxyz.#!!!
You got it!
wow, this was a video that said nothing at all. There was a puppet show, to show what anyone already knows, that yes, we see mind in various things from puppets to plants, and then a renaming of the "hard problem" into "the mysterious problem" and then a sci-fi fantasy about what may be possible some day.
3:28PM imagine the possibility.#!!!😼 of shooting our Consciousness out of our galaxy!!! In an ai robot that can sustain gruelling extraterrestrial condition and trying to find Galactic civilisation!!! Build communities create home beyond our home, once done right human intact in their body could visit without being harmed. Mars is coming!!! This is so coo!!!.
Whattt!!! It’s 3:33pm here in India as this was posted!!!
Is this M Consciousness? How is it happening, is the brain subconsciously targeting these time? 3:36PM, 27-3-22.
Or is it that the comments are too much that it’s just out of sheer probability?.#!!!🤔
This fairy non material contiousness is our spirits. That's why it's something we can not explain.
Erm, what’s wrong with a challenge?
This is a level of ignorance that is difficult to quantify. What passes for sophisticated, learned yet difficult-to-understand theories are often simply what they seem to be: pitiful hybrids of obfuscation, bad logic, and linguistic sleights of hand. Daniel Dennett has competition. Unbelievable.
Mark Lesseraux Indeed. I read the article in new science and was completely bemuddled. His whole approach presupposes consciousness.
@@jimmarkwalder8341 At what point of his theory is consciousness presupposed?
To be honest, your comment seems quite obscure itself. I am curious what part of his theory you refer to, could you elaborate on where you see bad logic?
Your comment made me laugh. I totally agree with you!
Agreed. The Attention Schema Theory is a good explanation for why the brain is aware of certain things, but as an answer to the Hard Problem of Consciousness or the mysteries of Qualia, it indeed falls flat. It's abundantly clear that Professor Graziano doesn't fully understand the nature of the problem and how everything he says is achievable without any sort of conscious experience.
Makes the same mistake as all materialist philosophers.. it is completely irrelevant whether or not are perceptions are accurate or not the point is that they are not material. simply saying oh well its an inaccurate model and dismissing it means nothing
What is your argument for brain contents being entirely immaterial? Thoughts are materially influenced, propagated, and translated, so at one point do you think that the contents no longer possess materiality? I'm writing a paper on Graziano's account and am interested in your perspective.
@@alexquellhorst8974 if the substance of the universe is primarily mental than that is also true of the brain. So yes the brain does produce our particular mental state but the key is that the brain itself is produced by universal perception/mind. The universal mind projects matter and it creates matter and matter is the instrument by which it evolves its perception and that is why our brain acts as an instrument by which we can experience our conscious state
@@soldatheero Given that you're presupposing dualism, what evidence is there that the "substance of the universe" is mental, never mind *primarily* mental? It seems that you're advocating for a sort of unified consciousness view, which is not one that I'm presently sympathetic of.
Perception is completely material, Electro chemical to be exact
@@Andrea-fd2bw "Perception is completely material"
Yes and no.
I try to clarify...
There is matter and there is movement.
Matter is 'concrete', movement is abstract,
they are not the same but neither can 'exist' without the other.
Brain is to matter as mind is to movement.
A frozen brain has no mind happening within it.
('Vanilla Sky' was dualistic nonsense (entertaining but
needing excessive effort to suspend disbelief (for those of
my science fiction loving philosophical persuasion))).
Brain is the substrate necessary for any being conscious process.
Have I been clear?
(Or do I need to say things like
'analogy' and 'thought' are synonymous, etc.)?