Patrick Haggard - How Brain Scientists Think About Consciousness
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.พ. 2024
- Support the show with Closer To Truth merch: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Is consciousness a scientific problem to be solved? Or a philosophical problem that will remain a mystery? What do scientists who study the brain think? And why do they think the way they do? These leading brain scientists share their intimate ideas about how the brain generates consciousness.
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast with new episodes every Wednesday: shorturl.at/hwGP3
For member-only exclusives, register for free today: shorturl.at/ajRZ8
Patrick Haggard is a neuroscientist and current Deputy Director of the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London, where he is a professor in the department of Psychology.
Get free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Swiss Stage DAY 5 // FPX vs TH | FUT vs LEV](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r61uDZTmu44/mqdefault.jpg)
Much love for your holistic and inter-disciplinary efforts.
Thank you so much for your support 💫
thank you!
To say that brain activity IS consciousness would necessitate a threshold where consciousness comes into existence. That sort of step function implies any system with sufficient computational complexity can become conscious. The debate will be settled if an when we can test AI for consciousness.
"That sort of step function implies any system with sufficient computational complexity can become conscious."
I strongly disagree. Not ANY system. Why would that be the implication?
@@andreasplosky8516 Why would it not be the implication? If what consciousness is, is complex electrical signals, then it doesn’t matter what medium they’re produced in.
We would have to be certain that we have a valid and exhaustive description and understanding of consciousness alongside a convincing enough perception that our ability to measure / observe / quantify the potential consciousness effectively and definitively is valid.
What would be the implications of that threshold you mention? Doesn't it appear true that there's certainly a threshold (or requirement) of at least some level of biological complexity to give rise to consciousness at least in our understanding of how it's arisen in us humans?
Saying that perceptual experience is consciousness doesn’t work. We experience perceptions in unconscious states, and many organisms have perceptual experiences but we don’t infer that they’re conscious.
we experience awareness in unconscious states but not perception. Perception requires one to be conscious
@@starc.That would be true if one doesn’t consider dream states to be perceived. In dream states one experiences visual, auditory, tactile, proprioceptive, and feeling (qualia). One could argue that these perceptions are entirely internally derived, but it seems that many of our awake perceptions involve illusory elements that have more to do with internal states than environmental stimuli.
@@TheRealTomWendel ye those are internal I was thinking of perception as something of the external when writing that comment because we are talking about being conscious. While sleeping we aren't always dreaming so for most of the unconscious sleep nothing is being perceived. Per-ceive originally translated from Latin to 'entirely take' and now dictionaries say its taking in, understanding, realizing. Can we take what we already have inside of us? Even in a dream state our mind isn't fully functioning its largely switched off. I don't see that the understanding or realization processes are running in dream states most of the intellectual processes have to rest its more of an experience a regenerative ride. At best perhaps dreaming implies semi-perception or semi-consciousness but I still doubt it and will stick to perception being applied only for waking states.
@@starc.Fair enough. I appreciate your perspective.
Consciousness begins in the mind not the brain.
"Most of what we are is non physical, though, our lowest form is physical. All life on our planet has the lowest form, the Body. Our Body is an Animal and the other type of Body on our planet is a Plant. Bodies are bound absolutely to Natural Law, which is the lowest form of true Law. Natural Law is a localised form of Law and is derived from the Laws of Nature. Natural Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of species, members of species, and the material sources of a planet.
The lowest non physical form of what we are is the Mind, which is a Process. There are other forms of life on our planet that have both a Body and a Mind, however, so far as we currently know, there are no Plants and only some Animals that have a Body and a Mind. The lowest forms of Mind, Instinct and Emotion, are predominantly bound to Natural Law. The next higher form of Mind is Intellect which is bound predominantly to the Laws of Nature. Intuition, the highest form of Mind, can be bound or not to both Natural Law and the Laws of Nature separately or together, or to higher forms of Law altogether. Intuition is the truest guide for our Selves.
The next non physical form of what we are is the Self, which is an Awareness. There are relatively few other forms of life on our planet that have a Self. The Self is not bound to any form of Law other than One's Own Law. It is the only form of Law that cannot be violated.
The foundation of what we are is the highest non physical form of what we are. The highest form of what we are is the Being, which is an Existence. The Being is not bound to any form of Law originating within Existence. The Being is bound absolutely to The Law.
Existence, and the Laws of Nature which are the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements within Existence, cannot Be without The Law being The Law.
So, what is The Law?
In a word, The Law is options.
Definition
option: a thing that is or may be chosen.
The word 'option' does convey the idea of The Law in its most basic sense but does not clarify all of what The Law is.
Free Will does describe how our species experiences The Law but does not convey all of what The Law is.
In clarifying what The Law is;
The capitalised form of the word 'The' indicates the following noun is a specific thing.
Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements subordinate.
Together, the words 'The' and 'Law' (in that exact order,) is a proper noun indicating;
the singular form of Law that all other forms of Law and all other Laws are founded upon,
the singular foundation upon which Existence is founded,
the singular foundation upon which Non Existence is founded,
the singular foundation connecting Existence to Non Existence,
the concept of options, and
Free Will.
However one thinks, believes, guesses, hopes, or "knows", whether by a Big Bang, a creation story, a computer program, an expansion of consciousness, or whatever means by which Existence could have come to Be, the option for Existence to not Be also exists. Existence and Non Existence, the original options connected by the very concept of options, connected by The Law. Outside of space and before time. Extra-Existential.
As we experience The Law in our Being,
The Law is Free Will.
The First Protector of The Law is Freely Given Consent.
The First Violation of The Law is Theft of Consent."
- Goho-tekina Otoko
I wish he was asked to define consciousness - I think having a clear idea of what he views as consciousness would have made his viewpoint a bit easier to understand.
He didn't get to the nitty gritty
though he may have been just about to.
We who are conscious know what it is to be conscious so
how could a definition, mere words, add to that knowledge?
I think what you want is an explanation of
how a brain acquires and maintains a self that is conscious.
I believe an explanation can be had but
to understand the explanation one must have
a working knowledge of the relevant aspects of the
biochemical and anatomical functioning of sense organs, neurons, muscle fibers and
their interactions and also
have a very clear and thorough understanding of the meanings of the words
'pattern', 'movement', 'process', 'code', 'represent', 'abstract' and 'reflect'
as well as having an appreciation of the fact that
the referents of these words each have an existential status that is
radically different from that of a material existent.
If one already has all that then
the next step would be to read Julian Jaynes' great book,
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind",
impressively well written with the flavour of Darwin's "Origin of Species".
Darwin's book is about the evolution of bodies.
Jaynes' is about the evolution of minds.
Agreed! In my books, activation of sensory organs is not conciousness.
He said consciousness is a consequence of brain activity in the first 30 seconds of the video!!
I think his example of perceiving a flash of light is enough to know what he means by consciousness, and I think it's the commonsense notion which most people have of what consciousness means.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Consciousness begins in the foundation of the Mind the Instinct process.
I don’t agree. I think consciousness is more than that, I watched a video of a unicellular microorganism just like ameba with a knife like process that attacks other mono-cellular life forms, how can this be explained! I think consciousness is what drives evolution. It is part of a bigger thing that needs to be discovered
Are you suggesting that consciousness may be far more abundant amongst the range of living creatures that currently exist and we're currently failing to acknowledge it generally or do you acknowledge any validity in the somewhat well established (generalisation) view that humans exhibit a consciousness that is profoundly different at least in some ways and potentially far more capable of producing complex outcomes than those somewhat reduced (currently at least) potentials we tend to think we correctly acknowledge in all, but certainly to an increasing extent in most, other animals we exist alongside?
Aatmiya Brahman
HARE KRSNA
Consciousness is a combination and coordination of mortal, material energy and eternal conscious entity.
Consciousness is a manifestation of ether, air, fire, water, earth ( inferior energy) and mind, intellect and false ego (superior entity).
Superior entity consumes inferior energy and this is the reason for the uni to be the such a dynamic state.
😮😊❤
Exactly what new information is gained by that experiment? “When you stimulate neurons you can produce sensation.” Yes we’ve known this for some time. It happens any time you experience sensation through your sense organs. It’s analogous to hot wiring a car instead of turning the key.
I think it's for the benefit of those who don't know that
sense organs play an important role concerning of what we become conscious.
If you threw your radio hard against a concrete wall so much so that the circuitry within it gets damaged or flawed so it makes only grinding noise, is that an indication that the radio is the primary source of the intelligent information that it previously broadcast?
The radio is a receiver and the signal is outside, so if you smash your radio to bits inside your house and then you get in your car and open the radio the signal would be still there, just like a live news broadcast on your t.v upstairs, but is now broken, your t.v down stairs will receive the show...hope that helps..💫💙🙏
Ugh. Again with the radio analogy.
@@halcyon2864 no. It doesn’t make sense at all.
@@offtheradarsomewhere. because there has never been a single shred of evidence to suggest consciousness resides outside the brain. All indications show consciousness is a result of brain function. If you remove the brain, a person is no longer conscious. This is a fact, common observation.
@@dr_shrinker why doesnt make sense?
It looks like we are for the most part unconscious which sort of is continuous and for a little part conscious which seems to be discrete of sorts. Of sorts since the brain seem to be able to go in continuous mode in eye vision situations for instance. Also a brain is not digital*. It looks like consciousness is a sort of lightweight version of the unconscious here since it is very much reduced (discrete-ish) compared to the unconscious (continuous-ish) aside from representing just a little part of both as a whole in a individual.
*''Unlike a digital computer, the brain does not use binary logic or
binary addressable memory, and it does not perform binary
arithmetic. Information in the brain is represented in terms of
statistical approximations and estimations rather than exact
values. The brain is also non-deterministic and cannot replay
instruction sequences with error-free precision. So in all these
ways, the brain is definitely not "digital."
At the same time, the signals sent around the brain are "either
or" states that are similar to binary. A neuron fires or it does not.
These all-or-nothing pulses are the basic language of the brain. So
in this sense, the brain is computing using something like binary
signals. Instead of 1s and 0s, or "on" and "off", the brain uses
"spike" or "no spike" (referring to the firing of a neuron).''
It may be that the strength of a neuron firing, the pattern of multiple incoming firings, and the latency between firings are also significant. Levels of chemicals released between neurons may also be significant. The brain is fiendishly complicated.
@@simonhibbs887 I think the "strength of a neuron firing" does not vary.
"In neurons, the rapid rise in potential, depolarization, is an all-or-nothing event that is initiated by the opening of sodium ion channels within the plasma membrane." - Google
The neural discharge timing pattern may be *the* critical part of thought encoding. Adding complexity is the fact that the timing pattern is defined/controlled by, on average, 20,000 synaptic inputs (to say nothing of the many chemicals able to influence the downstream synapse ion output rate (Serotonin, Dopamine, Glutamate, Acetylcholine, Norepinephrine, Epinephrine, Histamine, GABA, LSD...)).
(It has recently become my belief, as a general schema, that
synapses are analogue logic gates which constitute
the foundation of human logic wherever it manifests in culture.
Thus neural discharge timing patterns constitute
the representations which are thoughts and
synapses are responsible for how thoughts interact, influence and
modulate each other,
timing patterns and synapses working together
is the process of thinking).
Finally, someone with a rational and factual position on consciousness. So many others allow the woo woo to muddy up their thinking that this is quite refreshing. Our consciousness is so obviously advantageous for an organism to have, and thus makes complete sense evolutionarily speaking. My perception of reality is accurate enough to keep me from dying quite successfully, and spawned another generation. Our sense of self evolved right along with our cognitive consciousness for that very purpose. So this business of mystery surrounding consciousness is just mental masturbation brought on by those who want to control us using claims of the supernatural, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The cosmic snake oil. My BS detectors went off long ago on this subject.
@@LifesInsightWe are mammals, descended from fish. Nothing mere about it.
Some organisms are reactive, not conscious.
We can easily build robots that mimic them.
Some organisms behave instinctively, not consciously.
We are close to building robots that mimic them.
Some organisms are conscious.
I am one of them,
of this I am absolutely certain.
I am certain you too are conscious... but not absolutely.
I believe we ought not build artificially conscious humans
because of the potential for creating vast incomprehensible horror
during the development process.
Once we know everything about us then ok.
I've got nothing against replicants though
(smarter, stronger, faster, sexier and
able to choose when to make a permanent exist from existence) and
would not be upset to see them replace us...
all part of the evolutionary process.
i dont actually find his argument that impressive of a rational argument. by just some relatively basic understanding of philosophy of science, his argument is quite easy to show why his argument doesnt show what i take it's supposed to show.
on your point on consciousness as an evolutionary product, i just want to point out that the idea that organisms became conscious as a result of evolutionary pressures, that's actually compatible with a perspective that there is still consciousness without any brain.
>So this business of mystery surrounding consciousness is just mental masturbation brought on by those who want to control us using claims of the supernatural, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
thats an interesting perspective. but im not sure thats actually true. i suspect there has been incentives from people with power and money for people to be religious in certain ways and to certain extents, but im not sure about that being the case with the mystery of consciousness, as you put it.
"for which there is no evidence whatsoever."
its interesting that you say no evidence whatsoever. but i dont actually know that this idea is true that consciousness coming from brains is this rational idea with evidence behind it whereas the idea that conscioiusness doesnt come from brains and/or is nonphysical (if thats what you mean) doesnt have any evidence behind it. that's almost taken for granted but without much critical thought applied to that perspective, it seems
@@highvalence7649 Name one thing that is conscious that is not alive.
Patrick Haggard makes a lot of sense. He is up against a great prejudice humans have towards wanting consciousness to be something special that humans have that can't be explained scientifically. If consciousness is something special or supernatural that makes humans something special or supernatural to the extent it may allow them to exist beyond death.
It really is not about consciousness. We are for the most part unconscious, which actually is mysterious, which is way more important. They come in pairs. Consciousness does not exists on its own. Also you cannot look inside peoples head and tell what they are seeing or thinking. And we do not have access to mystical experiences since those happen spontaniously. So scientific research has plenty limitations. Other than that what happens after we die we have no access to. Understanding the brain does not magically tell us everything about that..there is no relation there whatsoever..
Yep, it's all about the fear of non existence with these people. Or in other words, death. Which is not surprising considering that everything we do is about survival.
Maybe, but there are plenty of scientists who work within the field of neurology who would disagree with the causation argument. You sound like someone who subscribes to nihilism @@wthomas5697
@@wthomas5697 *"Yep, it's all about the fear of non existence with these people."*
... Existence is the set of all things that exist. Existence is also the direct opposite of Nonexistence. With this in mind, can you offer me a *logical reason* for why "Existence" would ever surrender any of its set members over the null set of Nonexistence (which is its antithesis)? ... How does "Existence" benefit in _any way_ through becoming "Nonexistent?"
@wthomas5697
Its not just humans. All living things have a strong disposition for self-preservation.
First we agree on what consciousness means and then proceed to debate. Here people are debating without agreeing on what they are debating.
Consciousness = memory x sensory awareness x thought
-binding
Thanks.. by that definition, would you define an Ant has consciousness.
I think his breakdown of consciousness into "perceptions" and "thinking" is good enough for this conversation. It's uncontroversial-at least in this context-and comprehensible to anyone who knows a reasonable amount of English. Demanding an exhaustive definition here or claiming that we don't agree on what a perception, e.g. of a flash of light, is would be unnecessary, and I question the motivation behind such a demand.
the brain produces consciousness? Do the lungs produce air?
What do the lungs have to do with consciousness?
the mind produces it, and that mind is dependant on the physical structures of the brain. The lungs produce breath dont they? Get a better analogy.
its called an analogy Dr. @@dr_shrinker
breath is air. Lungs dont produce air. There is literally no proof that the brain produces consciousness. And whilst we are at it, and you are clearly so clever, please define consciousness for me @@starc.
@@chilledtorsion breath isnt just air words dont have the exact same meanings breath is exhaled air. Something is producing that exhalation process it doesn't just materialise out of nothing for no reason despite what some redacts are trying to have us believe. Expecting others to answer questions after you put them down while publicly exposing your own great intelligence without awareness of the self-embarrassment isnt a way to get what you want. This isn't a circus you're in the wrong place
For me analytic idealism is the best explanation. Check Bernardo Kastrup
Anyone here Who thinks we can in light of the neuroscientific evidence be confident that there's no consciousness without any brain involved? I dont agree with that statement and im seeking discussion on that question.
You wouldn't have a question if you didn't have a brain.
What do you mean by 'brain' and
what do you mean by 'conscious'?
Since i am challanging a certain perspective, I mean by brain what those who endorse this perspective mean by brain, which i take to be something in a world outside consciousness from which consciousness arises.
By consciousness i assume or presume they mean phenomenal experience, what-it-is-like, as some people say
Consciousness may be something larger than what we are trying to imagine/assume right now. It may be extremely difficult to define in isolation. One day when this correlation is established reasonably that day we may find scientifically what consciousness is. Please try to link what all you have produces on the same subject in order to have clearer overall picture (with excuse), if possible. Thanks and keep up your good work
considering all kinds of different things can influence your conciousness, like drugs, trauma, illnesses, electrical stimulation, surgery it is foolish to think that anything other than the brain produces conciousness.
the brain doesn't produce it the mind does. That mind is dependant on the physical structures of the brain for its function tho
Consciousness must be physical to cause physical effects of future events. If consciousness weren’t physical, it would violate the laws of energy conservation….energy/work from nothing.
Your statement you provided hinges on the assumption that consciousness must be physical to cause physical effects of future events and that if it weren't physical, it would violate the laws of energy conservation. However, this argument overlooks the possibility of non-physical or metaphysical influences on physical events. It also assumes a strict adherence to current scientific understanding, which may not encompass all aspects of consciousness and its potential effects. Additionally, the notion of consciousness being non-physical doesn't necessarily entail the creation of energy from nothing; it could involve interactions with existing physical systems in ways not yet fully understood. Therefore, while it's important to consider scientific principles, it's also essential to remain open to alternative explanations and possibilities beyond our current understanding.
Anyway it's important to note that consciousness Hass to be physical because it violates the law of energy conservation this is a philosophical assertion rather than a scientifically proven fact. The nature of consciousness and its relationship to physical phenomena are topics of ongoing debate and exploration in fields such as neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and physics. While some theories propose that consciousness emerges solely from physical processes in the brain, others suggest the possibility of non-physical or metaphysical aspects of consciousness that may interact with the physical world in ways not yet fully understood. Therefore, whether consciousness must be physical to conform to the law of energy conservation is a complex and open question.
Movement is not a material object.
Yet movement cannot exist in the absence of material objects.
Process is constituted by collectivities of related relative movements
(of material objects).
Process is also an abstract notion (as is collectivity).
Being conscious is a process.
The physical includes both material objects and immaterial movements.
Movement is to mind as matter is to brain...
in a nutshell (with lots of missing details).
Though every atom be present,
there are no conscious frozen brains
(despite the nonsense in Vanilla Sky).
@@Allenryan819 list one example where/when a non-physical thing has created physical work.
I used to wonder were music comes from until I heard a DJ scratching records then it all made sense.
Music comes from your ears 😂
@offtheradarsomewhere. I mean am I supposed to believe there is a band playing music inside phone or something? Obviously my phone makes the music right?
@@wagfinpis can't tell you who created the music, but the music definitely comes from your ears🤣🙏
Yeah? Well you need to do some push-ups.
And henceforth,you lose your consciousness after an accident
I wonder what they about schizophrenia
Elephants.
Regarding schizophrenia, it is generally considered to be a complex neurodevelopmental disorder involving a combination of genetic, environmental, and neurobiological factors. While the precise cause of schizophrenia is not fully understood, research suggests that alterations in brain structure and function, neurotransmitter imbalances, and genetic predispositions may play a role in its development.
Even if consciousness were to involve non-physical aspects or processes beyond the brain, it's possible that disturbances in brain function, such as those seen in schizophrenia, could still affect the experience of consciousness. For example, disruptions in neural circuits or neurotransmitter systems may lead to alterations in perception, thought processes, and self-awareness characteristic of schizophrenia.
In summary, while the relationship between consciousness and brain function is complex and not fully elucidated, disturbances in brain structure and function are believed to contribute to the symptoms of schizophrenia, regardless of whether consciousness is solely a product of brain activity or involves non-physical aspects.
Planck Time
Dang it, this talk just started to get interesting at the end. Let's not beg off the hard questions.
oye , just try to sit alone keeping all your understanding & memory beside , consciousness has a vast mind integrated into every mind , it tell you everything about itself ,but you want everything in a moment, meditation is very powerful process to understand reality , no one can explain reality except yourself, yes who knows reality can just guide you in the direction with some hints , which are beyond the understanding of your traditional & classical minds , consciousness is not interested in your memory data , which you always try to vomit in reality, it has all the knowledge about everything & all sciences , its searching something new & fresh , which is its purest form & GOD ,
this timeline is sifting & consciousness is in the process of deleting every old memory data & science , you will see a lots of changing happening in this coming decade, o ra ra ri ri ra ra ra RAY
much more better way than all know now , yaara o pyaara god bole tou bhagwan sabka ek consciousness ray
he makes a lot of sense, just like a lot of others, but they don't factor in a "why"...
Survival.
The running of civilization
(which has been a tremendous aid to our survival and flourishing).
So if some complicated neural circuits take place in some particular area of the neocortex they produce consciousness, otherwise not. What an explanation! What produces consciousness in other animals without neocortex and with pretty different brains? Some of them are even without brain. Many living organisms are much simpler than our i-phones, and yet they are living, i.e. conscious beings.
All living things are conscious to the extent that they need to be to survive. Only deluded humans buy the argument that it is something more than natural.
Only human beings are conscious and even then,
only when not in deep and dreamless slumber mode.
If you think that unlikely then perhaps you've forgotten
what 'reactive' and 'instinctual' behavior can accomplish.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL You believe that reactive behavior can explain life! But how do you discern what is just a mechanical or chemical or electrical reaction and what is a real living reaction? You know what a living reaction is from your own experience, that is, from a first-person perspective. You wouldn't say that a billiard ball is capable of living reaction, you even consider animals to be zombies.
@@kitstamat9356
"You believe that reactive behavior can explain life"!
No.
"But how do you discern what is just a mechanical or chemical or electrical reaction and what is a real living reaction".
There is no difference.
An atom of oxygen in a free floating water molecule in the ocean has exactly the same nature as an atom of oxygen that is participating in the tricarboxylic acid cycle within almost every cell in every warm blooded mammal. (The energetic disintegration of molecules of adenosine triphosphate is the source of the warmth that drives the Brownian motion in cell fluids so that various particles get around to their various reaction sites (at a rate that is proportionate to the temperature (astonishingly quick because the distances traversed are so extremely miniscule))).
"You know what a living reaction is from your own experience, that is, from a first-person perspective"
Absolutely not.
I know what reactions are because I learned about them in physics, chemistry, biology and electronics classes.
"You wouldn't say that a billiard ball is capable of living reaction"
The reactions of billiard balls to impacts is entirely explained by physics.
"you even consider animals to be zombies"
Not at all.
Animals behave according to their instincts and survive and thrive within their ecological niches with no need for being conscious, unlike us.
@kitstamat9356
"You believe that reactive behavior can explain life"!
No.
"But how do you discern what is just a mechanical or chemical or electrical reaction and what is a real living reaction".
There is no difference.
An atom of oxygen in a free floating water molecule in the ocean has exactly the same nature as an atom of oxygen that is participating in the tricarboxylic acid cycle within almost every cell in every warm blooded mammal.
(The energetic disintegration of molecules of adenosine triphosphate is the source of the warmth that drives the Brownian motion in cell fluids so that various particles get around to their various reaction sites (at a rate that is proportionate to the temperature (astonishingly quick because the distances traversed are so extremely miniscule))).
"You know what a living reaction is from your own experience, that is, from a first-person perspective"
Absolutely not.
I know what reactions are because I learned about them in physics, chemistry, biology and electronics classes.
"You wouldn't say that a billiard ball is capable of living reaction"
The reactions of billiard balls to impacts is entirely explained by physics.
"you even consider animals to be zombies"
Not at all.
Animals behave according to their instincts and survive and thrive within their ecological niches with no need for being conscious, unlike us.
A radio has many components to make it a radio, some think it's the aerial that receives the signal, but without everything else there's no signal, the body and the brain is the radio, the signal is outside. Consciousness is not physical get over it..💫💙🙏
Itd be nice if you could show this to be the case.
@@dustinellerbe4125 it would be even more beautiful if you could show it 💙💫🙏
@@offtheradarsomewhere. did you even watch the video and listen?
Inventions often mimic nature.
Like airplanes mimic birds.
I dont understand consciousness.
Is my ignorance good evidence that Brahma created the world ?
Although Haggard makes an interesting point about magnetic stimulation of neurons, it's only evidence that brain activity causes the CONTENT of conscious qualia. Unfortunately for his argument, causing the content of consciousness isn't the same as causing consciousness. An analogy is the tree falling in a forest, which is necessary but not sufficient to cause a subjective mental experience. Also necessary for the mental experience of the sound is the presence of a conscious observer, and clearly the falling of a tree does NOT 7:13 cause the presence of a conscious observer to hear it.
Perhaps some progress toward solving Chalmers' Hard Problem will be made by neuroscientists carefully studying the differences in brain activity between brain states that are conscious (examples: normal wakefulness & dreaming) and brain states that are nonconscious (examples: deep sleep & anaesthetized).
The falling of the tree does not cause the observer, but the content of the conscious experience is not itself the falling of a tree either. I don’t think it’s clear that the content of experience and the experience itself are distinct. People who meditate deeply report that on introspection they do not find evidence for an inner observer. They say there are only experiences and the self is a construction of the mind.
This makes sense, because the idea of an inner self that observes and is aware of our mental experiences is incoherent. Such an inner self must also have experiences, so if an inner self is necessary to have experiences then our inner self must also have an inner self, and so we get an infinite regression of selves. I think the answer is that there are only experiences. The only container they have is the body.
@@simonhibbs887 : I did NOT say "the content of the conscious experience is the falling of the tree." I said the falling of the tree is necessary (but not sufficient) to CAUSE the content of the conscious experience. In other words, I said "if X and Y then Z" and I don't understand why you think I said "Z is X."
I think the result of introspection is inconclusive. Introspection proves the existence of the experience, and I think it follows logically that the experience is experienced by an experiencer. (I experience, ergo I am.) But introspection can't prove whether the experience and the experiencer are distinct, because the two alternatives -- distinct or not -- would presumably produce the same experience.
>simonhibbs887 : One more point. I don't see why you think there would need to be an infinite regression if "an inner self is necessary to have experiences." How does a self having an experience imply a self also has an inner self?
@@brothermine2292 I didn’t say you said what you think I said you said. I said it.
I think a separate experiencer doesn’t work, for the reasons I gave. The nature of introspection is that it is recursive. Experienced and experiencer are one and the same. A hierarchy either leads to an aware self that’s not aware of itself, or an aware self that must have an inner self that is aware, which is either not aware of itself, or has an inner self that us aware, etc, etc. Hierarchies don’t work. The experiencer is an experience.
Tree falling in the forest is an old one pal , we all know we need a ear or a machine to pick up the molecules of air to record the sound, just as vision needs to observe the electromagnetic field, even if where blind, death and dumb and other we are still conscious.. what was your points maybe I missed it .
Consciousness is a mystery.
And like all mysteries, it provides succour for suckers.
And a means of generating income for preachers.
Consciousness begins in the foundation of The Mind, the Instinct Process
@@starc.
That reminds me of something Popeye said
Consciousness is a consquence of cortical neural activity? Why not the other way around. This would cover whole brain hence more fundamental.
_"How Brain Scientists Think About Consciousness"_
They dont. They just think about the brain and confuse brain wth consciousness.
Have you ever seen a conscious person without a brain? 😅
@@dr_shrinker That wou;d be like assuming that the music is being created by the radio set when you havent even shown how. Just one big assumption lol
Have you ever seen a study or a theoretical framework explaining how brain generates consciousness? Nope. There's not even a purely physical definition for consciousnesss from any of the major branches of science that couches it exclusively in physical terms.
The question remains: How to derive subject from object (i.e., how to get conscious subjects from any arrangement of unconscious objects).
The whole claim that brain (a physical object) is somehow producing consciousness (an aware subject) is total kaka... Especially in light of the fact that atoms (objects) are 99.9999999% empty space, and the universe is made up of only 4.5% baryonic matter, the rest being "dark energy" (70%) and dark matter (25%), i.e. stuff that doesn't even fit the definition of a physical object lol
I think you need to go do more homework :)
@@Corteum. You haven’t answered my question. Have you ever seen a conscious person without a brain?
@@dr_shrinker _"But you ignored my question. Let me repeat. Have you ever seen a conscious person without a brain?"_
Your question contains and unproven assumption. Do you know what it is? I already pointed it out to you, but apparently you missed it (again).
@@Corteumstill
Have you ever seen a conscious person without a brain?
avoiding the question?
This is a “yes or no” question.
I am a spiritual being having a human experience. That's enough.
Your are a spiritual Being having a spiritual experience in a 3D world 💫💙🙏
Your spirituality only exists as long as your brain continues to function.
@@reason2463 your brain only exists through your spiritually, however what you believe is true, if you believe in nothing you will see nothing, if you believe in miracles you will experience them everyday, your perceptions will create the life you believe, we are all right in what we believe 💙🙏💫
@@offtheradarsomewhere. Why don't you try believing that you have all the money to pay your bills the rest of your life? If it's like you say and you believe something it magically becomes true you will never have a need for any money again. SMH
You're a mammal inspecting its navel.
If the scientist leaves the third question “what do we mean by consciousness?” to the philosophers, then how can he really answer the first two?
also, what about about fungi / mycelium? They don’t possess a brain, yet they are responsive, they form complex relations with surroundings (plants etc), have sex, hunt and fend off attackers. (I’m quoting Merlin Sheldrake’s book here*). What is that all about, if not consciousness?
(1:00) *PH: **_"But it's also the product of that very complex and very fantastic machine that that is the human brain."_* ...I have no issue with consciousness being produced by the brain. However, I DO have an issue with those who claim that consciousness is just an "illusion." Every one of us subjectively experiences our own self-aware consciousness and we recognize "ourselves" as individual universes operating within a macro-universe.
So, is Consciousness really an _"illusion?"_ An "illusion" requires the existence of what something actually is and ALSO what it "appears" to be. Both conditions must exist in order for you to recognize any illusion.
*Example:* When you see _heat mirage_ off in the distance on a hot blacktop road, you are witnessing the _"illusion"_ of water pooling across the road. In reality, there is no water on the road; it's just the way light rays are refracting due to heat waves rising up from the pavement. ... Regardless, we still know that "water" DOES exist, and that's why you can recognize this as an illusion.
So, for someone to claim that consciousness is merely an "illusion," they have to explain how we are able to recognize what our consciousness is ... without it actually "existing."
You’ve seen the interviews with Susan Blackmore, and she has given such explanations. She says that conscious experience does exist, it’s just that there are a lot of common misconceptions about it, and she explained what she thinks some of those are.
@@simonhibbs887 *"You’ve seen the interviews with Susan Blackmore, and she has given such explanations. She says that conscious experience does exist, it’s just that there are a lot of common misconceptions about it, and she explained what she thinks some of those are."*
... Susan is quoted as saying, _"It's something that's not what it seems to be."_ In my example I used *heat mirage.* We know that there isn't really water on the road up ahead, yet that's how it "appears" to us. The fact remains that everything involved in that heat mirage scenario actually DOES exist: water, roads, eyeballs, heat, distance, heat waves, etc. We observe the "illusion of water" because we already have "water" as a reference point.
With that in mind, how do we have the recognition of "consciousness" without it being real like the water is in my heat mirage scenario?
BTW: Susan struggled throughout that entire video to explain what consciousness is (and isn't) in regard to an "illusion." She struggled, because an "Illusion" is simply swapping one thing that necessarily exists for something else that exists.
If either part of the illusion is nonexistent, ... then there is no illusion.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC She gives a clear, specific account of exactly what she thinks is illusory in the first one minute of the interview. Things most people assume about consciousness that she believes are not true. th-cam.com/video/UuPeMImz-a4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=5eGOQ7rUB19h2BLf
4:45 limited forms of awareness are displayed by all life forms... they all need to be aware of their surroundings... the question is what is the simplest structure of molecules that displays such functionality and how did it form 🤔
We call it Evolution
it's called life...
Wrong to confuse 'reactivity' and 'instinct' with being conscious.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL imo, there's different levels of consciousness starting from the most basic to the most advanced which knows and is aware of all there's to know... what do you think consciousness is...
@@r2c3
Consciousness is the label we apply to the abstraction that
is the self-being-conscious-process.
The generation is rather simple. Only connect different loops with constant activity. The mystery is how the individual particle impulses form an unity over space and time.
The problem (the way I see it) is that we don't know exactly how *thinking* actually came to be in the 1st place. And, *WHY??* We can watch the circulation in the brain, and say "Oh. Look HERE - why, when we ask *this* particular question, *this* part of the brain lights up! Every time! " Well, ok, that's interesting - It may even be a clue - maybe. But, also, *maybe it's not* But we still have no clue about *why* any of this motion we detect equals *thinking*. The *god* explanation is just a cop out that's weak on *truth verification* . We have NOT figured it out, yet. But we'll keep on trying, *because we can't help it* . Figuring things out is how we've survived in the first place.
Some of us understand how and why
though it's pretty tricky to explain it.
Read Julian Jaynes' great book,
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"
to get the beginnings of an inkling.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Thanks, I will. I see it was published in 1976, but that's not TOO long ago, but it means I should get off my lazy butt and check for any updates, as well.
@@catkeys6911
Sadly, the author died back in '97 before he could publish his second book (to be titled, "The Consequences of Consciousness").
Still, there is a Julian Jaynes Society some of whose members occasionally publish books related to the theory.
They have a presence on Facebook and perhaps other places.
And there may still be an international conference held every two years in Charlottetown, PEI.
Super extra smart guy pretends to understand conciousness.
The brain produces (creates) consciousness and my lamp produces (creates) light.
He, to me, sounds deluded; that there ISN'T an independent Nature outside the brain. But that of course can't be, otherwise he wouldn't be having a conversation. Therefore one wonders at the linguistic dissonances that RLK seems to ignore.
Consciousness is not a simple phenomena.
The NDE is unique. According to Dr Sam Pania' research observations some patients have double experiences: the experience of consciousness locally and dream-like spiritual experience(similar experience to dream in sleeping state).
The operative phrase is "near death experience". It is not actual cessation of all bodily functions.
But still local experience only hearing only!@@reason2463
Very interesting.
Can you list the physical part and/or sensory parts those are still workings in ND body or list of references of the related works? @@reason2463
His way of proving that consciousness is the result of brain activity is very common among neuroscientists: every time you stimulate your brain you will see different flashes of light in your consciousness. Therefore, they conclude that consciousness can be produced from outside, just by mechanical stimulation of the brain! That's how superficial they are. What will happen if you approach a dead body and stimulate its brain in the same way? Nothing, right? Therefore, if there is no consciousness there is no reaction of consciousness. It's very interesting that they haven't noticed that likewise if you stimulate your consciousness from within, just by your thought, you will have the corresponding brain activity. Therefore, the correspondence between the content of consciousness and brain activity is a two-way street. But this could not be the case if consciousness is a product of brain activity.
None of it happens without a living brain, and if your brain dies, then all your questions about it die with you. Name one thing that is conscious that is not alive.
"you will see different flashes of light in your consciousness"
No!
You will be conscious of light flashes.
Consciousness is not a something that is owned.
There is no such thing as consciousness.
Conscious is what you are.
When you are not conscious you are non existent.
You claim physical stimulation of the brain alters consciousness, then you conclude consciousness is independent of the brain? What?
@@reason2463 Name one thing that is alive that is not conscious.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I just summerized his explanation, that's not my view. I agree that consciousness is not something we have but something we are. I could also subscribe to the statement „When you are not conscious you are non existent,“ but you speak as if you know when you are not conscious. How can you know that? Memory is not very reliable in this case. What sinks into a deep sleep at night is not consciousness but our senses. Consciousness is withdrown from our senses at night - that's all.
NDE speaks otherwise.
There is nothing that is showing informational signal motion or transferring within the near death body in the process.
NDE is not only involved experiences but memory to be recalled later.
The experience appears like without apperant causation.
There’s a lot of recent evidence this using true. New instruments show that there can be spikes in brain activity as much as 20 minutes after loss of blood pressure. Older EEGs could not reliably detect activity below the threshold of millions of neurons, so such claims have always been implausible. Now we know they’re just plain wrong.
@@simonhibbs887
Not only that but surely the physiological and biochemical changes imposed on cells by approaching death are able to affect the dendrites, synapses, somas and axons such that neural discharge timing patterns (i.e. thoughts)
influence memory creation/recording in a way that's closely analogous to the effects of LSD?
How Consciousness and free will are related ?
Some people say that brain activity concerning a decision or action happens before we are conscious of that activity, and therefore we don't have free will. I say I freely willed this text to be written. The point is, the entire process happens naturally in the brain. The rest is woo woo BS.
Being conscious and being free are related
in that both are abstractions at play,
placeholders in our language games.
THERE IS 88% DARK MATTER IN THIS TIMELINE,
IF ITS GOES BELOW 1 % AT 87% YOUR DIGITAL MEMORY IS CREATED &
AT 86% HUMAN MEMORY IS created , ONE% EACH FOR MIND & BRAIN
ALL ENLIGHTEN BEINGS KNOW WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS WANT,
THAT'S WHY THEIR SILLY ACT ARE MEMORY & HISTORY,
REST ARE STRUGGLING TO DIE OUT OF DESIRES
YAARA GOLDI KA PYAARA ONE GOD CONSCIOUSNESS RAY
great, now consciousness and gravity are comparable since they're both statistical artifacts of a prior state in which conditions were different
MIND IS THE TOOL OF CONSCIOUSNESS , BRAIN IS THE TOOL OF MIND , WHEREVER THERE IS ANY OF ONE OF THREE , REST 2 EMERG WITHIN , THAT'S TRINITY MIRACLE OF GOD OF EXISTENCE IS RA THE ALMIGHTY GOD ,
Guys predict How figuret out conscieusness though inside brains activities are neurosience elemtary. Why he doesnt show up conscieusness as light from outside to brains though perception? Why neuros proceendings when them make up conscieusness? Are this guys neurosience researcher seriously?
THAT is your evidence? Sad. My doctorate is in music and vocal science. If I used that type of wishful speculation for a voice I would ruin many students. Nobody can be sure about the filter thing, either. But, this is pathetic. You remind me of the worn out professor I taught with at university. They taught what nobody would pay them to practice.
If Quantum fluctuations activate Universes, they certainly activate neuron, proteins, etc.
There’s a man, a perfect example of someone who believes his life, his entire being, is nothing more than flesh and bones animated by electrons in his brain….
Scientists like him unsettle me. He’s like a robot 🤖
OK, then. You explain it better.
No, it's totally impossible to tell religious people apart from atheists without following them to church or not. Or else by facial piercings.
A pattern is not the matter that serves as its substrate.
Consciousness is not a consequence of brain activity. Brain works as a FILTER .
Where is your proof for this claim?
😂
@@myintkt13Where’s the proof *against* mind-body duality? And you can’t just say “we have no evidence” as proof, this is about speculation.
>WritingCountingOriginal : Since the initial commenter provided no evidence or reasoning to support the claim, it makes more sense to call it bs than speculation.
go through these books--
1. 'Evidence of the afterlife' by Jeffrey Long, M.D radiation oncologist
2. 'Consciousness Beyond Life' by Pim van Lommel world-renowned cardiologist
3. 'Dying to wake up' by Rajiv Parti, MD Chief of Anesthesiology at Bakersfield Heart Hospital
4.. 'After' by Bruce Greyson, MD Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine
@@myintkt13
All that to end up say nothing more than 'I choose to ignore what I can't answer coherently.' Typical head-in-the-sand materialist answer. He says he doesn't want to answer philosophical questions as a dogmatic materialist.
OK, I'll bite. What is consciousness and where does it come from?
@@reason2463 there is no bait for you here...I don't know any more than these two, or anyone else does. I'm simply proposing that admitting that one does not know is more in line with intellectually honest scientific pursuit than simply ignoring the question because it is difficult.