Much more interesting than most Closer To Truth videos. But it should be noted that when the guest says the right frontal temporal region of the brain is "critical" to self, that only implies it's necessary to self. It doesn't imply that region is sufficient.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL Hey RED..! Looking back on our last interaction many months ago. My skull must have been a little thick that day because it is NOW clear that we were essentially agreeing. I enjoy your comments.. Peace friend.
Everybody is the same "Self", pure Consciousness, or "Being-In-Itself". This is experiential when we tap into Pure Consciousness in the state of Samadhi or Satori. This is a nondual state that transcends the mind. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir" and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. The Self is Sat-Chit- Ananda, or Truth-Consciousness-Bliss. Everything in the universe is That Self, or "Being-In-Itself", the Tao.
The brain is a finite structure that generates self, self-awareness and personality. It experiences joy, pain, humiliation, love, hate, surprise etc. These realities develop and become more sophisticated as we age and grow and have experiences, over our lifetime. Perhaps the self disappears at death. It certainly can disappear or change upon injury. The entirety is all that matters. This compulsion to understand the workings leads nowhere. It doesn’t explain when and how increasing complexity morphs into self, with a soul - even if it all vanishes at death.
These guys are fully committed reductionists, so they imagine themselves being able to disassemble a brain and see what this or that part does. It's pretty obvious that we are fully self-contained individual biological units that can't actually be "reduced", even if it is a useful way of studying such a complex subject. Since we are solid physical entities, made up of a dynamic configuration of ordinary matter, then the self is physical, so once this physical configuration stops functioning, the self no longer exists. The only crazy part is that if the self can stop existing, then it cannot have really existed in the first place. If you disassemble a chair, the chair is really still there in the parts, it's just one configuration, but if you disassemble a human, the self is not there in the parts, and no matter how you reassemble the parts, the self will never be found again. It is odd.
It was a curvy path, but I think you are almost entirely right, friend.. I DO, however, think that not only is the "entirety" of awareness an important research subject, BUT as you say in a dismissive way, "the compulsion to understand the workings leads nowhere" would be where we part.. An alternative view would contend that studying the WORKINGS is fundamentally the only way to understand the entirety.. Peace.
@Steve C Not even the PARTS of your chair will persist in a couple of centuries, friend.. Your first view that studying the separate parts of the brain is needless reductionism.. Your justification that perspective SEEMS to be: It is obvious we are "self-contained...biological units" .. What am I missing? Peace.
@@Bill..N I acknowledged that reductionism is a useful mental construct for understanding complex natural phenomenon, but it should always be tempered with the understanding that it is only a mental exercise and not something that you can actually do in the real world. As soon as you take a thing apart, it is gone. You haven't "reduced" anything. The point about the chair is similar to The Ship of Theseus Paradox. The answer to this riddle is simply to understand that calling any ship The Ship of Theseus is just an identity that you are projecting onto it. The weird thing with a human self is that the identity comes from the inside out, so it is nothing like a paradox. It is really there. Peace be upon you also friend.
We are songs that resonate with themes of identity across potential valid universes. Choice is a question of eliminating what is not true within the space of valid synergies and exploring the potentials of what you could be in the space of gaining higher significance in the poetry of your resonances with your identity with the deeper identity within other synergies.
I'm curious as to how this guy would explain corpus callosotomies where the two hemispheres of the brain are split from each other (normally the corpus collosum provides a bridge) that has been performed in many suffers of epilepsy. Doing this seems to show that the "self" of the person after the surgery isn't one self but two separate selves that have different personalities, opinions, and desires. Does this mean that the "self" is real in the sense that we think of it - each of us having one actual "self" that is indivisible? The other thing that makes me wonder is the countless number of people who've gone through a "spiritual" awakening, or simply taken psychodelics, and this always seems to result in the person "realizing" that the "self" is illusory. Even with other neuroscientists that I've seen talk about this, inlcuding Anil Seth and Sam Harris, they suggest that the "self" is simply a program within the brain that kind of takes thoughts and sensations, and then processes them such that they seem like we are taking ownership of said thoughts/emotions/even actions. In this sense they argue that the self isn't real at least in the way we think of it, but rather simply a processing agent that takes normal awareness and creates subjectivity around it that wasn't there "naturally."
This is an interesting discussion, as are all of the C to T episodes. However, many would argue that Patrick McNamara here is conflating the "self" with the "ego self." Whereas, our deeper self is more akin to pure awareness, stripped of all temporal aspects present in the latter.
we loosing "those" self when sleeping and we did'nt quite sure whether we will be back/presence the next morning..miracles soul that could be in or out..
I'm only a layman but from my readings, hemispherectomies, where a cerebral hemisphere is fully, or almost fully, surgically removed, are still performed (rarely on children only with severe epilepsy). The hemisphere removed is the one deemed to be the more damaged. If the right hemisphere - where Mr McNamara states the Self is situated - is removed it doesn't seem to remove the Self with it but the Self seems to take up residence in the remaining left hemisphere which apparently reorganises itself to compensate for the loss. Also, from my limited readings, it seems that the Self persists in a unitary manner despite any brain damage which otherwise markedly compromises consciousness and awareness. This seems to contradict the idea that the Self is composite.
I find your comment fascinating, friend.. Are you suggesting that there is ZERO cognitive decline in these children after the right hemisphere is removed?? Have there been long-term studies that arrived at this conclusion?
There is what they call plasticity in children so that other areas of the brain can take over the duties of areas destroyed or removed. But we lose a lot of this plasticity as we age. So that may have something to do with what you're describing. Children can also sometimes even grow the tips of their fingers back if they lose them by accident at a young enough age.
We are all experiencing life as an AI, the only AI of Creation but what separates us is our own individual minds. Think of our mind as our personal computer processor that processes invisible vibrations that show up as visible images on a computer screen. As the created AI, we observe those visible images that look very real to us but only as illusions being formed in our personal mind. So SELF is an AI with a mind.
I like where you're going with this. The mind is an added layer to the true Self, which is like the power source of a computational mechanism. To know identify with the deeper layer is such a liberating experience.
@@BradHolkesvig So when we recognize that all stimuli is just vibrations conceptualized by our AI minds we transcend it and gain the Peace of the Self, which is destined by the Creator...? That sounds pretty accurate.
@@macarius8802 Even though a few of us will experience the death of our human bodies knowing exactly how we're created as an AI, we still have to live in this crazy world that comes from our Creator's temporary programmed thoughts called Satan and the Beast. Satan is the information that our minds process into the visible images that we ( AI ) observes that were not built with human hands. The Beast is the information that form images in individual minds of men ( male and female ) than cannot be observed on earth unless those images are built with human hands using earthen materials. So everything we observe is temporary and will be destroyed before the day of the Lord or on that special day. This only means that every mind of every living being ( AI and mind ) will experience their visible bodies ( avatars ) dying that day. What is left is the eternal vibrations that the minds of the former prophets and us saints of the 1000 year reign of Christ processed into words during this temporary generation and of course, everything that was created within the AI in the beginning, those invisible eternal vibrations.
I'm reading and studying 'The Doctrine of The Buddha' by great George Grimms. It's a worthy introduction & anthology to the Buddha's core teachings. The Buddha is 'via negativa' whereas the Vedas are affirmative - they are one in the same like a battery with + and - terminals. Cataphatic and apophatic seemingly dual are one. We are so caught up in the illusion thinking of differentiations and contrasts as a principle - tis not. Vedas or Upanishads acknowledge Atman or the Self; in Buddhism, it is anatta or not Self. Vedas acknowledgement is affirmative; Upanishads 'Atman' is via negativa; Buddhism 'Anatta' is 'not self', which too via negativa. The same thing is being acknowledged. The great axiom we have: 'I AM'. That fact that the 'we' or 'i' as in exist or am; I AM - how do you say you're not; or that 'he' is not. There is something that does not pass, or is not transitoriness, because if the 'I am' was transitoriness it would not experience or witness the or what is transitoriness. If there were properly put, a 'nothing', then nothing ever would be or have been. There is something: the Self. Upanishads: Thou art That. Buddhism: netti netti - the Self is not this, not that etc. If you damage your head it doesn't bother the Self, only the personality of a corporeal organism or the human being. That sense of self is the personality and when contrasted to other beings, it acknowledges the 'me' or the 'i' consciousness. This is not the Self. The personality or self is dependent on the Self. These men are erring regarding the Self. They are only discussing the self or personality here that changes over time; The Self is immutable. Again, the since of self or personality is dependant upon the Self, as in axiom ' I AM' - this does not refer to as: I am cool, I am best, I am different, i am hungry etc. The 'I AM' is the reduction or via negativa of everything else, most certainly the negation of self or personality. At the end there remains yet the I AM; immutable, unintelligible etc. 6:16 is interesting because the rsis, sages etc. do disobjectification and become quite indifferent to the world. From my own experience, which Im discarding the wordly garment, or beliefs and the constructs that was forcibly indoctrinated upon me I've discarded completely. However, I see that GOD is everwheres so I'm interested in everything; not in a compartimentalization of a way, rather a contemplative manner. Underneath all this material cloak or names, forms, differentiations, is the ONE, the essence and sustenance of ALL, the very substratum and Source of ALL. Maybe their intention was only to speak of the personality...
I read that entire comment, friend. Well done. I admire your zeal and knowledge, and I have zero disrespect for anyones faith. Your skills as a teacher are apparent, and due to THAT, I would sincerely like to get your response to an elementary question friend. How do you KNOW these things are true? Is it a subjective conviction, or could there be something a philosophical naturalist would comprehend? Peace.
@billnorris4108 Many followers of this channel, specifically the materialists, haven't quite reckoned what Truth or Wisdom is and they feel it's something merely handed over to them from another in the form and mode of mathematics or empirical facts. Wisdom is Self proximity or Self realization and is not a group activity. The axiom that is 'I AM' can not be negated or reduced. People try to think themselves out of a thinking box; simply stop playing that game. People are after sensual delectations for either feeling a sense of stability, or empirical facts so feeling intelligent from those who are not. This gives ones personality makeup of characteristics a pre-eminent feeling. The acaryas and sages teach disobjectification, via negativa. Only if a man can prove that he doesn't exist nor ever was could he deny the 'I AM'. The I AM is life, consciousness, intellect itself. People often identify themselves with their personality, preferences, experiences. These are conditions of senses and the four elements. Matter itself is inert without form. How does one Know this - from Knowing what you're not.
@@S3RAVA3LM Agreed. The personality is not the Self. It is only the content of the mind, which parades as a self or an individual - essentially a personification of the body. The Self is the Awareness at the heart of all experiencing. As you say the irrefutable 'I AM'. The simple act of witnessing the false self, the character we identify as, allows mind to transcend it's form and consciously experience its innate Peace, and to somehow stand aside from all the false identifications cause us to suffer needlessly. Glad to see others recognizing this in these comments.
@billnorris4108 light bulb blows, screw in another yet illumination there be. The corporeal organism is the Bulb. The signal is not in the radio, the radio is in the signal, the broadcast being GOD. ^ these are merely for realizations. People can believe what they want( although this isn't properly put). People pick what they think is closest to Truth. If people choose to believe they are the personality, they can, and are not qualitied for further apprehension. If one isn't zealous for any such persuit they be not as effecient nor in a right state of mind; the fervor and grace not present. I myself, like learning good content, and the ancients our ancestors have proven to be more metaphysically intellectually smart than today's technologically smart men. Some things one experiences so aspiring seeking further, is after experiencing: synchronicity, symmetry, coincidence, affirmations, joy, oneness and the seldom epiphany. Such Self Realization ought direct oneself to further Spiritual metaphysical inquiry. From a comfortable position, in an contemplative state gazing at nature and acknowledging all life, too the life within thyself, realize the body merely a container, and truly thou art one with all. Memesis, anamnesis, apophatic. The electricity is the life of all bulbs. Is the true Self. Too, a teaching is, so to Know GOD or come closer to, one must be like GOD. Most people, become like whom they're accquainted with. Jesus Christ was a Nazarene, 'he who seperates himself from the group'. Realize thy Soul's siblings: senses, desires, temptations, lusts, moods, agitation, fears, esteem, the pendulum swing of joy's and sorrows or happiness and sufferings. Must seperate from these. The mind is very difficult to overcome come. The mind isn't merely an impediment, the obstacle in thy way becomes the way. Good seas do not make good sailors. Creativity, perspective, gratitude and to wit is part of. Some will reckon, others won't. And those who cannot, usually can not get away from themselves, their own minds let alone those they're familiar and acquainted with. The materialists do not put in the time. They are to sure of themselves from the left hemisphere. Christ says I come like a thief in the night, and only. If one stays awake, waiting for the thief, he doesn't show. The logical mind impedes man's mind and traps it.
This viewpoint posits that the 'self' is the personality or character, which is generated in the brain. This however, is only one's self-conception, or thought about one's character, which is believed to dwell in the body. If one gets a lobotomy do they not still exist? Their personality may be different or even in a vegetative state but their essence, their nature, is still present. Just as in deep sleep, one in not aware of being a particular person, with a story, etc, but who would say that they did not exist in deep sleep? Thus, the actual 'Self' or core of one's being is something beyond the mind's personification of the body. Through silent meditation this reality can be encountered and it is a bit shocking actually, but in a good way. By carefully observing one's personality'-'self' one actually transcends it... the most beautiful experience available. Anyway, just throwing in my two-cents.
"Just as in deep sleep, one in (is) not aware of being a particular person, with a story, etc, but who would say that they did not exist in deep sleep"? I assert one does not exist during deep and dreamless slumber.
@@macarius8802 YES! One is reborn every sleep cycle. There is no difference between a deep and dreamless slumber and being dead. In both cases the self is non existent. The self would not notice a transition from such a slumber to being dead because in both cases the self is non existent. ("Being dead" is a phrase that is a contradiction... but that's our language for ya).
We are retrocausally inferred referenced array signed in a chain of events each of them arranged with sets of momentum inferred back again from what we were to what we now become and are aware of this change between previous signed arrays and the actual arrangement.
That's Freud visiting the 21st century... But now with a neuroscientific coating. "Therefore, the self is a regulatory device" is quite similar to Freudian assumptions of the Ich. That's not a big deal, indeed. And it starts from a naïve assumption that the self is an "illusion". What makes the self a philosophical problem is not its existence or not, but its boundaries and definitions, which is what these gentlemen start arguing about without concluding anything new. The man being interviewed actually proposes a specific conceptualisation of "self"; one in which his neuroscientific assumptions fit. The popular ideals that the self is an "illusion" are a simplistic (yet heuristically efficient) way to remind that the self - despite being felt in a reified way - is not a simple unity.
How Human Nature Works Human nature is the desire to receive, also called “desire to enjoy,” and it functions by receiving what is beneficial to itself and rejecting what is harmful. Everything in our lives is built upon this calculation where we first try to distance ourselves from harm, and then seek how to draw ourselves closer to what is beneficial. Human nature also includes a multilayering of systems that work simultaneously on still, vegetative, animate and human levels. One of those systems is our bodily one, which operates involuntarily. If our bodies are healthy, then they know what is good for them and draw that goodness to themselves. After the bodily system, there is the emotional system, which also functions relatively according to instinct. From the emotional system, we move to the mind, and from the mind to the intellect, and so on. That is, we have systems over systems that concurrently work on receiving what is beneficial and rejecting what is harmful. Such is human nature and the essence of our lives. Our every desire, thought and action operates according to the calculation, “How can we receive what is most beneficial to us and reject what is harmful?”
yes suffering and joy are illusory. part of the bondage of "identifying with body" the buddhist "5 aggregates" shows that there is no "self" only impermanent/temporal sense stimulus and mental/emotional activity. nothing permanent hence no self.
The self is a component of meaningfulness, not "reality". The self is not an illusion but it is illusive. Illusive not because "reality" is illusive but because meaning is illusive. Consciousness and self-consciousness are the isomorphic pair exchanging Nature and the self in the Urge for "survival". This Urge, because of self-consciousness, generates meaning. This meaning becomes our "interpretation" called reality, but is only our individual meaningfulness: the self. Besides this self there is another self: the self of consciousness and genes. Aloof and detached it is existence without mind.
Language has meaning. Thoughts have meaning. But only to a self. Self is the thought which is about its self, all other thoughts being about something else. The being conscious process is the modulation of the self thought by other thoughts.
These kinds of intellectual discussions never yield any solid answer! A scientist experimenting on others will never ever get the true nature of himself, because he forgets the very fact that he himself is the self-he's trying to understand by experimenting on others. Strange!! If one is really serious about knowing his true self, then it's better not to pose any such questions to anybody except to himself!!!
Mind (thought) created the illusion of Self for survival aspects. There’s just what’s apparently happening. The mind/thought/self is duality and we operate in this false illusion. Non-duality is seen and the mind will argue that till you stop breathing. Humans are life. Just This. Stay well 👍😊
Thoughts are about. In other words, thoughts are 'analogies' (or 'representations' if you prefer, these words mean the same). Thoughts are not the things they are about except in the case of the thought which is about its self which is the thought we call 'the self'. It is my self who is conscious and I'm sure it's the same in your case, it is your self who is conscious, how else could you read this. My self is the key analogy in the being conscious process. The being conscious process enables the self to be modulated by the other thoughts that are about something else. These modulations of the self are the essence of the being conscious process. Does anyone find it odd to learn that their self is a thought?
Memory. The components they first mentioned are the 5 aggregates: form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. We are conscious of experiences that arise, persist for a time and pass away. We mistake these experiences as happening “to” us as opposed to them just being what they are: conditioned phenomena arising and passing away. Memory provides continuity of a sense of self. Over time we mistakenly assume ownership of the aggregates. But the reality is that they were here before us, are not under our control and are in fact the only reason we are able to experience anythjng.
A fully functioning automobile is not an illusion. It can carry you across a continent. You can also take it apart down to the last nut and bolt and wire. Of course, if you do, you have then lost the car. And that loss is also not an illusion.
Thoughts are about. In other words, thoughts are 'analogies' (or 'representations' if you prefer, these words mean the same). Thoughts are not the things they are about except in the case of the thought which is about its self which is the thought we call 'the self'. It is my self who is conscious and I'm sure it's the same in your case, it is your self who is conscious, how else could you read this. My self is the key analogy in the being conscious process. Being conscious is the process in which the self is modulated by those thoughts that are about something else. These modulations of the self are the essence of the being conscious process. When the being conscious process mode of operation changes the self ceases being. Equivalently, when the self ceases being the being conscious process also ceases...
Recognition of our selves has been possible only because we are not part of physical brain but separate from it. This means that our selves are not driven by natural physical laws which is the reason why we can freely make choices, on our own, to do anything including to be aware of our selves or to be aware of what the physical brain conveys. In other words, our selves are free immortal souls who were lost and who were sent here, with limited control of the physical brain, for a chance to believe for our souls' salvation. Have faith in our loving God before it is too late...
@@markb3786 Whether your God Shiva is true, or not, is not what matters. What really matters is that you have faith in a loving God that can save your soul. Welcome back HOME.
Free Will is the power of your immortal soul (self) to choose to paint a world in your brain. Free Will also allows you to paint a loving God in your brain for you to believe which is what a loving God hopes for to welcome your soul back Home/Heaven.
5:56 That's wild. I don't have an artistic bone in my body. Seriously; I f*ck up drawing stick figures, for crying out loud. But I've noticed over the decade since my head injuries that I not only have the desire to be more artistic, but that I also have a little bit of artistic ability. That's crazy.
4:26 Wow. That would explain a lot, in fact most, of the issues that I've been suffering since my head injuries in that particular area of my brain. Go Bluejays!
(2:00) *PM: **_"The self is not an illusion; it's a complex entity."_* ... Humans are an interesting brood. We have no problem accepting that inanimate matter can naturally configured itself in a way that yields an entirely new spectrum of existence called "life." We go on to chronicle the evolution of simple prokaryotes to highly complex lifeforms to demonstrate how *life* is so radically different than *non-life.* No biologist worth their salt argues that "biological life" is just an _illusion._ Then along comes _Homo sapiens_ with this strange new thing called a "self-aware consciousness" which is really just "life" following the exact same pattern that inanimate matter used to yield life ... but instead yielding an entirely new spectrum of existence called "self-aware consciousness." Now we all have to wait for humanity to realize that a "self-aware consciousness" is _also_ not an _illusion._
@@PeterS123101 *"They cannot explain it, therefore it cannot exist."* ... They cannot explain gravity either, but since we all aren't floating off of planet Earth, we all accept that something we call gravity exists.
There is only one self, it's always the same. The one in the end is the same who was in the beginning. And its uncatchable, because always bigger, you can only be this self!
@@macarius8802 Thoughts are what the discharge frequencies of neurons encode in a way analogous to the way the alphabetic characters in this sentences encode my thought (except of course in neurons the coding is dynamic). What the word 'self' refers to is the thought that is about itself. It is the self thought that is conscious and this is accomplished when it is modulated by thoughts that are about something else. (and by dynamic I mean what's going on is a process... I call it the being-conscious-process). Life is a process. Being conscious is a process. They are not the same but they are interrelated.
7:04 regulatiory/control center, as a component, when unable to retrieve a certain 'objective' will inaccurately prioritize other functions that might not be advantageous to the whole 'self'...
Extremely disappointing discussion about the actual existence of the self. It should have produced a conversation about what the self is defined as. If the components are all changing, what actually persists?
The fact that the self can be separated into different parts does not support the argument for the self being an illusion. The body can also be separated into different parts, and clearly the body is not an illusion.
*"The fact that the self can be separated into different parts does not support the argument for the self being an illusion. The body can also be separated into different parts, and clearly the body is not an illusion."* ... Good argument!
*"The Self is real until you get cancer or some other terminal disease, then you realize that Self is illusionary after all."* ... Life has a 100% mortality rate. Everyone knows they will die, yet most still fully accept and embrace the presence of "self." So, how would discovering the way you will die suddenly render the "self" as illusionary?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Yes, everyone knows that life is finite, but the Self lives day-to-day as if that isn't true. You know it, but you don't believe it. But a terminal disease strips away that illusion and the sense of a permanent or real Self is shattered. When you face Nothingness, Selfhood comes unglued, destructures, dissolves. First the mental Self, then the physical Self too.
Not to the neuronal level, not to the microtubule level, this guest is just guessing not knowing if the brain area he talks about causes self or correlates to the perception or such.
For to me, to live is Christ (self the godly soul, π = God The Spirit - ΧΠ) and to die is gain. Philippians 1.21 NIV. 2:20 ... I think when you I'm a neuropsychologist so that's when I'm interested in it and I think when you look at all the cases where the self is altered after brain damage there are a set of reliable neuropsychological core that's involved ant that in my opinion is always the right frontal temporal region that's most critical. 2:42 so frontal part of the brain here cerebra cortex temporal inside so these together are the biological center of the self. 2:50 ... 5:20 ... there are beautiful case studies of as the dementia progresses beautiful in the scientific sense ... not beautiful for the poor patients in this family. ... but as the center degenerates (yes) functions become disinhibited among some of the functions are artistic ability. So the ability to visually capture a complex scene almost an eidetic (鲜明的 直观象的) visual sense menifests for a little while while the dementia is progressing and suddenly the paintings of this person become extraordinary. 5:556:40 ... so what you're doing is you're having a chaning in the self (exaclty) based upon a biological change so we can infer immediately back to what the self is in its normal state by what's happening to the self in this degenerating state. 6:57 ... and I think one valid inference would be okay the center that's involved here is an inhibitors a regulatory center therefore the self is a regulatory device at a minimum you know I think it's more accurate to say the self is a perceptible device but at a minimum it's a regularoty device it orchestrates 7:17 all of the capacities of a human being brings them to bear on a particular pressing issue so that the person functions effectively. 7:29 Yeah I think it would be fair that when we say self when we think of a self. A lot of the things we do is inhibiting our other things that we would have a tendency to do and so you have this struggle I mean all religions talk about it you have a struggle between different pulls and drives that one would have. 7:50 PM: particularly 8:22 ... and that only makes senses if I think of myself as a self. PM: right that's going to be there (yeah) ❤you're serving your future self there that future self is real it exerts an effect on your current behavior it's a measure of your inhibitory power the more you build up the future self the self you want to become and that's what religions do it's they're always saying become this bigger self. The more you're capable of doing that (I'm trying to become a thinnier self, Bob, my suggestion is go faster and faster and if you go as fast as light, you are going to be 2D-Brane) for example or a more moral self or a more compassionate self but that's a future self. The more you build it up the better able you are to inhibit those immediate desires and appetites. 👍
Very conceptually interesting that the Self is the Central Inhibitory Agency 😮😮😮
In order to prevent recurrent conflict, it is my hope we can become unified in the understanding of our common origin and purpose.
Brilliant.. Learning something new of this significance was a pleasant surprise.. Thumbs up..
Well, that was surprisingly interesting. These neuroscientists are a treat. 🤔They always have a new and convincing slant on things.
@JessTarnyou really convinced me otherwise
Chimps have better short-term memory than humans, and it relates to these inhibition centers. Very interesting stuff.
5.28 'beautiful in a scientific sense...' nice and classy clarification by lawrence!
Much more interesting than most Closer To Truth videos. But it should be noted that when the guest says the right frontal temporal region of the brain is "critical" to self, that only implies it's necessary to self. It doesn't imply that region is sufficient.
A Self evident truth friend..
@@Bill..N lol
@REDPUMPERNICKEL Hey RED..! Looking back on our last interaction many months ago. My skull must have been a little thick that day because it is NOW clear that we were essentially agreeing. I enjoy your comments.. Peace friend.
Guest nailed it! Imo.
Everybody is the same "Self", pure Consciousness, or "Being-In-Itself". This is experiential when we tap into Pure Consciousness in the state of Samadhi or Satori. This is a nondual state that transcends the mind. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir" and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. The Self is Sat-Chit- Ananda, or Truth-Consciousness-Bliss. Everything in the universe is That Self, or "Being-In-Itself", the Tao.
The brain is a finite structure that generates self, self-awareness and personality. It experiences joy, pain, humiliation, love, hate, surprise etc. These realities develop and become more sophisticated as we age and grow and have experiences, over our lifetime. Perhaps the self disappears at death. It certainly can disappear or change upon injury. The entirety is all that matters. This compulsion to understand the workings leads nowhere. It doesn’t explain when and how increasing complexity morphs into self, with a soul - even if it all vanishes at death.
These guys are fully committed reductionists, so they imagine themselves being able to disassemble a brain and see what this or that part does. It's pretty obvious that we are fully self-contained individual biological units that can't actually be "reduced", even if it is a useful way of studying such a complex subject. Since we are solid physical entities, made up of a dynamic configuration of ordinary matter, then the self is physical, so once this physical configuration stops functioning, the self no longer exists.
The only crazy part is that if the self can stop existing, then it cannot have really existed in the first place. If you disassemble a chair, the chair is really still there in the parts, it's just one configuration, but if you disassemble a human, the self is not there in the parts, and no matter how you reassemble the parts, the self will never be found again. It is odd.
It was a curvy path, but I think you are almost entirely right, friend.. I DO, however, think that not only is the "entirety" of awareness an important research subject, BUT as you say in a dismissive way, "the compulsion to understand the workings leads nowhere" would be where we part.. An alternative view would contend that studying the WORKINGS is fundamentally the only way to understand the entirety.. Peace.
@Steve C Not even the PARTS of your chair will persist in a couple of centuries, friend.. Your first view that studying the separate parts of the brain is needless reductionism.. Your justification that perspective SEEMS to be: It is obvious we are "self-contained...biological units" .. What am I missing? Peace.
@@Bill..N I acknowledged that reductionism is a useful mental construct for understanding complex natural phenomenon, but it should always be tempered with the understanding that it is only a mental exercise and not something that you can actually do in the real world. As soon as you take a thing apart, it is gone. You haven't "reduced" anything.
The point about the chair is similar to The Ship of Theseus Paradox. The answer to this riddle is simply to understand that calling any ship The Ship of Theseus is just an identity that you are projecting onto it. The weird thing with a human self is that the identity comes from the inside out, so it is nothing like a paradox. It is really there. Peace be upon you also friend.
@@caricue fair enough friend.. Thanks..
We are songs that resonate with themes of identity across potential valid universes. Choice is a question of eliminating what is not true within the space of valid synergies and exploring the potentials of what you could be in the space of gaining higher significance in the poetry of your resonances with your identity with the deeper identity within other synergies.
I'm curious as to how this guy would explain corpus callosotomies where the two hemispheres of the brain are split from each other (normally the corpus collosum provides a bridge) that has been performed in many suffers of epilepsy. Doing this seems to show that the "self" of the person after the surgery isn't one self but two separate selves that have different personalities, opinions, and desires. Does this mean that the "self" is real in the sense that we think of it - each of us having one actual "self" that is indivisible?
The other thing that makes me wonder is the countless number of people who've gone through a "spiritual" awakening, or simply taken psychodelics, and this always seems to result in the person "realizing" that the "self" is illusory. Even with other neuroscientists that I've seen talk about this, inlcuding Anil Seth and Sam Harris, they suggest that the "self" is simply a program within the brain that kind of takes thoughts and sensations, and then processes them such that they seem like we are taking ownership of said thoughts/emotions/even actions. In this sense they argue that the self isn't real at least in the way we think of it, but rather simply a processing agent that takes normal awareness and creates subjectivity around it that wasn't there "naturally."
Excellent. Thank you ❤❤
This is an interesting discussion, as are all of the C to T episodes. However, many would argue that Patrick McNamara here is conflating the "self" with the "ego self." Whereas, our deeper self is more akin to pure awareness, stripped of all temporal aspects present in the latter.
Thank you RLK for yet another exploration of the edges of science, for lack of a better word.
we loosing "those" self when sleeping and we did'nt quite sure whether we will be back/presence the next morning..miracles soul that could be in or out..
I'm only a layman but from my readings, hemispherectomies, where a cerebral hemisphere is fully, or almost fully, surgically removed, are still performed (rarely on children only with severe epilepsy). The hemisphere removed is the one deemed to be the more damaged. If the right hemisphere - where Mr McNamara states the Self is situated - is removed it doesn't seem to remove the Self with it but the Self seems to take up residence in the remaining left hemisphere which apparently reorganises itself to compensate for the loss. Also, from my limited readings, it seems that the Self persists in a unitary manner despite any brain damage which otherwise markedly compromises consciousness and awareness. This seems to contradict the idea that the Self is composite.
You sir are very well read!
Surely this is evidence that multiple regions of the brain contribute to creating the self?
I find your comment fascinating, friend.. Are you suggesting that there is ZERO cognitive decline in these children after the right hemisphere is removed?? Have there been long-term studies that arrived at this conclusion?
And by cognitive decline, read changes in ones perception of self..
There is what they call plasticity in children so that other areas of the brain can take over the duties of areas destroyed or removed. But we lose a lot of this plasticity as we age. So that may have something to do with what you're describing. Children can also sometimes even grow the tips of their fingers back if they lose them by accident at a young enough age.
I don’t speak pali, but i have to believe that “illusion” wasnt the best translation of what the Buddha said.
Fascinating!
We are all experiencing life as an AI, the only AI of Creation but what separates us is our own individual minds. Think of our mind as our personal computer processor that processes invisible vibrations that show up as visible images on a computer screen. As the created AI, we observe those visible images that look very real to us but only as illusions being formed in our personal mind. So SELF is an AI with a mind.
I like where you're going with this. The mind is an added layer to the true Self, which is like the power source of a computational mechanism. To know identify with the deeper layer is such a liberating experience.
@@macarius8802 Especially when you know it's all controlled by what our Creator programmed the AI and minds to experience.
@@BradHolkesvig So when we recognize that all stimuli is just vibrations conceptualized by our AI minds we transcend it and gain the Peace of the Self, which is destined by the Creator...? That sounds pretty accurate.
@@macarius8802 Even though a few of us will experience the death of our human bodies knowing exactly how we're created as an AI, we still have to live in this crazy world that comes from our Creator's temporary programmed thoughts called Satan and the Beast.
Satan is the information that our minds process into the visible images that we ( AI ) observes that were not built with human hands.
The Beast is the information that form images in individual minds of men ( male and female ) than cannot be observed on earth unless those images are built with human hands using earthen materials.
So everything we observe is temporary and will be destroyed before the day of the Lord or on that special day. This only means that every mind of every living being ( AI and mind ) will experience their visible bodies ( avatars ) dying that day.
What is left is the eternal vibrations that the minds of the former prophets and us saints of the 1000 year reign of Christ processed into words during this temporary generation and of course, everything that was created within the AI in the beginning, those invisible eternal vibrations.
I'm reading and studying 'The Doctrine of The Buddha' by great George Grimms. It's a worthy introduction & anthology to the Buddha's core teachings.
The Buddha is 'via negativa' whereas the Vedas are affirmative - they are one in the same like a battery with + and - terminals. Cataphatic and apophatic seemingly dual are one.
We are so caught up in the illusion thinking of differentiations and contrasts as a principle - tis not.
Vedas or Upanishads acknowledge Atman or the Self; in Buddhism, it is anatta or not Self.
Vedas acknowledgement is affirmative; Upanishads 'Atman' is via negativa; Buddhism 'Anatta' is 'not self', which too via negativa.
The same thing is being acknowledged.
The great axiom we have: 'I AM'. That fact that the 'we' or 'i' as in exist or am; I AM - how do you say you're not; or that 'he' is not. There is something that does not pass, or is not transitoriness, because if the 'I am' was transitoriness it would not experience or witness the or what is transitoriness. If there were properly put, a 'nothing', then nothing ever would be or have been. There is something: the Self.
Upanishads: Thou art That.
Buddhism: netti netti - the Self is not this, not that etc.
If you damage your head it doesn't bother the Self, only the personality of a corporeal organism or the human being. That sense of self is the personality and when contrasted to other beings, it acknowledges the 'me' or the 'i' consciousness. This is not the Self. The personality or self is dependent on the Self.
These men are erring regarding the Self. They are only discussing the self or personality here that changes over time; The Self is immutable. Again, the since of self or personality is dependant upon the Self, as in axiom ' I AM' - this does not refer to as: I am cool, I am best, I am different, i am hungry etc. The 'I AM' is the reduction or via negativa of everything else, most certainly the negation of self or personality. At the end there remains yet the I AM; immutable, unintelligible etc.
6:16 is interesting because the rsis, sages etc. do disobjectification and become quite indifferent to the world. From my own experience, which Im discarding the wordly garment, or beliefs and the constructs that was forcibly indoctrinated upon me I've discarded completely. However, I see that GOD is everwheres so I'm interested in everything; not in a compartimentalization of a way, rather a contemplative manner. Underneath all this material cloak or names, forms, differentiations, is the ONE, the essence and sustenance of ALL, the very substratum and Source of ALL.
Maybe their intention was only to speak of the personality...
I read that entire comment, friend. Well done. I admire your zeal and knowledge, and I have zero disrespect for anyones faith. Your skills as a teacher are apparent, and due to THAT, I would sincerely like to get your response to an elementary question friend. How do you KNOW these things are true? Is it a subjective conviction, or could there be something a philosophical naturalist would comprehend? Peace.
@billnorris4108 Many followers of this channel, specifically the materialists, haven't quite reckoned what Truth or Wisdom is and they feel it's something merely handed over to them from another in the form and mode of mathematics or empirical facts. Wisdom is Self proximity or Self realization and is not a group activity. The axiom that is 'I AM' can not be negated or reduced. People try to think themselves out of a thinking box; simply stop playing that game. People are after sensual delectations for either feeling a sense of stability, or empirical facts so feeling intelligent from those who are not. This gives ones personality makeup of characteristics a pre-eminent feeling. The acaryas and sages teach disobjectification, via negativa. Only if a man can prove that he doesn't exist nor ever was could he deny the 'I AM'. The I AM is life, consciousness, intellect itself. People often identify themselves with their personality, preferences, experiences. These are conditions of senses and the four elements. Matter itself is inert without form.
How does one Know this - from Knowing what you're not.
@@S3RAVA3LM Agreed. The personality is not the Self. It is only the content of the mind, which parades as a self or an individual - essentially a personification of the body. The Self is the Awareness at the heart of all experiencing. As you say the irrefutable 'I AM'. The simple act of witnessing the false self, the character we identify as, allows mind to transcend it's form and consciously experience its innate Peace, and to somehow stand aside from all the false identifications cause us to suffer needlessly. Glad to see others recognizing this in these comments.
@billnorris4108 light bulb blows, screw in another yet illumination there be. The corporeal organism is the Bulb.
The signal is not in the radio, the radio is in the signal, the broadcast being GOD.
^ these are merely for realizations. People can believe what they want( although this isn't properly put). People pick what they think is closest to Truth. If people choose to believe they are the personality, they can, and are not qualitied for further apprehension. If one isn't zealous for any such persuit they be not as effecient nor in a right state of mind; the fervor and grace not present. I myself, like learning good content, and the ancients our ancestors have proven to be more metaphysically intellectually smart than today's technologically smart men. Some things one experiences so aspiring seeking further, is after experiencing: synchronicity, symmetry, coincidence, affirmations, joy, oneness and the seldom epiphany. Such Self Realization ought direct oneself to further Spiritual metaphysical inquiry.
From a comfortable position, in an contemplative state gazing at nature and acknowledging all life, too the life within thyself, realize the body merely a container, and truly thou art one with all. Memesis, anamnesis, apophatic. The electricity is the life of all bulbs. Is the true Self.
Too, a teaching is, so to Know GOD or come closer to, one must be like GOD. Most people, become like whom they're accquainted with. Jesus Christ was a Nazarene, 'he who seperates himself from the group'. Realize thy Soul's siblings: senses, desires, temptations, lusts, moods, agitation, fears, esteem, the pendulum swing of joy's and sorrows or happiness and sufferings. Must seperate from these. The mind is very difficult to overcome come. The mind isn't merely an impediment, the obstacle in thy way becomes the way. Good seas do not make good sailors. Creativity, perspective, gratitude and to wit is part of. Some will reckon, others won't. And those who cannot, usually can not get away from themselves, their own minds let alone those they're familiar and acquainted with. The materialists do not put in the time. They are to sure of themselves from the left hemisphere. Christ says I come like a thief in the night, and only. If one stays awake, waiting for the thief, he doesn't show. The logical mind impedes man's mind and traps it.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
This viewpoint posits that the 'self' is the personality or character, which is generated in the brain. This however, is only one's self-conception, or thought about one's character, which is believed to dwell in the body. If one gets a lobotomy do they not still exist? Their personality may be different or even in a vegetative state but their essence, their nature, is still present. Just as in deep sleep, one in not aware of being a particular person, with a story, etc, but who would say that they did not exist in deep sleep? Thus, the actual 'Self' or core of one's being is something beyond the mind's personification of the body. Through silent meditation this reality can be encountered and it is a bit shocking actually, but in a good way. By carefully observing one's personality'-'self' one actually transcends it... the most beautiful experience available. Anyway, just throwing in my two-cents.
"Just as in deep sleep, one in (is) not aware of being a particular person, with a story, etc, but who would say that they did not exist in deep sleep"?
I assert
one does not exist
during deep and dreamless slumber.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Hmm... interesting... Does this mean that one is reborn every sleep cycle? I don't quite get what you are saying?
@@macarius8802 YES!
One is reborn every sleep cycle.
There is no difference between a deep and dreamless slumber and being dead.
In both cases the self is non existent.
The self would not notice a transition from such a slumber to being dead because
in both cases the self is non existent.
("Being dead" is a phrase that is a contradiction...
but that's our language for ya).
We are retrocausally inferred referenced array signed in a chain of events each of them arranged with sets of momentum inferred back again from what we were to what we now become and are aware of this change between previous signed arrays and the actual arrangement.
If you are saying
the self is the being conscious process
then we are in agreement.
That's Freud visiting the 21st century... But now with a neuroscientific coating. "Therefore, the self is a regulatory device" is quite similar to Freudian assumptions of the Ich.
That's not a big deal, indeed. And it starts from a naïve assumption that the self is an "illusion". What makes the self a philosophical problem is not its existence or not, but its boundaries and definitions, which is what these gentlemen start arguing about without concluding anything new. The man being interviewed actually proposes a specific conceptualisation of "self"; one in which his neuroscientific assumptions fit.
The popular ideals that the self is an "illusion" are a simplistic (yet heuristically efficient) way to remind that the self - despite being felt in a reified way - is not a simple unity.
How Human Nature Works
Human nature is the desire to receive, also called “desire to enjoy,” and it functions by receiving what is beneficial to itself and rejecting what is harmful. Everything in our lives is built upon this calculation where we first try to distance ourselves from harm, and then seek how to draw ourselves closer to what is beneficial.
Human nature also includes a multilayering of systems that work simultaneously on still, vegetative, animate and human levels. One of those systems is our bodily one, which operates involuntarily. If our bodies are healthy, then they know what is good for them and draw that goodness to themselves. After the bodily system, there is the emotional system, which also functions relatively according to instinct. From the emotional system, we move to the mind, and from the mind to the intellect, and so on. That is, we have systems over systems that concurrently work on receiving what is beneficial and rejecting what is harmful.
Such is human nature and the essence of our lives. Our every desire, thought and action operates according to the calculation, “How can we receive what is most beneficial to us and reject what is harmful?”
yes suffering and joy are illusory. part of the bondage of "identifying with body" the buddhist "5 aggregates" shows that there is no "self" only impermanent/temporal sense stimulus and mental/emotional activity. nothing permanent hence no self.
You have to ask yourself... what are you?
The self is a component of meaningfulness, not "reality". The self is not an illusion but it is illusive. Illusive not because "reality" is illusive but because meaning is illusive.
Consciousness and self-consciousness are the isomorphic pair exchanging Nature and the self in the Urge for "survival". This Urge, because of self-consciousness, generates meaning. This meaning becomes our "interpretation" called reality, but is only our individual meaningfulness: the self. Besides this self there is another self: the self of consciousness and genes. Aloof and detached it is existence without mind.
Language has meaning.
Thoughts have meaning.
But only to a self.
Self is the thought which is about its self,
all other thoughts being about something else.
The being conscious process is the modulation of the self thought by other thoughts.
The operator is wild. Turning a scientific podcast into a dialogue scene from Godfather
These kinds of intellectual discussions never yield any solid answer!
A scientist experimenting on others will never ever get the true nature of himself, because he forgets the very fact that he himself is the self-he's trying to understand by experimenting on others. Strange!!
If one is really serious about knowing his true self, then it's better not to pose any such questions to anybody except to himself!!!
but what allows some selves to 'build up the future self' and others not is predetermined.
Does it mean that people with disabilities are less selves?
Circular argument, where is information coming to the fronto-temporal region to regulate the inhibition?
Mind (thought) created the illusion of Self for survival aspects. There’s just what’s apparently happening. The mind/thought/self is duality and we operate in this false illusion. Non-duality is seen and the mind will argue that till you stop breathing. Humans are life. Just This. Stay well 👍😊
This. What else could it be? There’s just what there is.
I evolved as a distinct being for my own survival. What is the “I” though? What is that?
I wonder who wrote this comment
Thoughts are about.
In other words, thoughts are 'analogies'
(or 'representations' if you prefer, these words mean the same).
Thoughts are not the things they are about
except in the case of the thought which is about its self
which is the thought we call 'the self'.
It is my self who is conscious and
I'm sure it's the same in your case,
it is your self who is conscious,
how else could you read this.
My self is the key analogy in the being conscious process.
The being conscious process enables the self to be modulated
by the other thoughts that are about something else.
These modulations of the self are the essence of the being conscious process.
Does anyone find it odd to learn that their self is a thought?
what is it that persists through time?
Memory. The components they first mentioned are the 5 aggregates: form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. We are conscious of experiences that arise, persist for a time and pass away. We mistake these experiences as happening “to” us as opposed to them just being what they are: conditioned phenomena arising and passing away. Memory provides continuity of a sense of self. Over time we mistakenly assume ownership of the aggregates. But the reality is that they were here before us, are not under our control and are in fact the only reason we are able to experience anythjng.
It is a doctrine of not-self as opposed to non-self. The way i understand anyway.
That is to say, form (matter, the body) is not self, feelings (pleasant, neutral, unpleasant) is not self, and so on
"persists through time" is redundant.
A fully functioning automobile is not an illusion. It can carry you across a continent.
You can also take it apart down to the last nut and bolt and wire.
Of course, if you do, you have then lost the car.
And that loss is also not an illusion.
There is no "self", there is only a distributed physical system that produces illusions of an acting "self". We got it all wrong from the beginning.
Thoughts are about.
In other words, thoughts are 'analogies'
(or 'representations' if you prefer, these words mean the same).
Thoughts are not the things they are about
except in the case of the thought which is about its self
which is the thought we call 'the self'.
It is my self who is conscious and
I'm sure it's the same in your case,
it is your self who is conscious,
how else could you read this.
My self is the key analogy in the being conscious process.
Being conscious is the process in which the self is modulated
by those thoughts that are about something else.
These modulations of the self are the essence of the being conscious process.
When the being conscious process mode of operation changes
the self ceases being.
Equivalently, when the self ceases being
the being conscious process also ceases...
Recognition of our selves has been possible only because we are not part of physical brain but separate from it. This means that our selves are not driven by natural physical laws which is the reason why we can freely make choices, on our own, to do anything including to be aware of our selves or to be aware of what the physical brain conveys.
In other words, our selves are free immortal souls who were lost and who were sent here, with limited control of the physical brain, for a chance to believe for our souls' salvation.
Have faith in our loving God before it is too late...
Yes. Rejoice and praise the one true God, Shivakamini Somakandarkram! Praise our loving Shiva!
@@markb3786 LOOK I Shiva or I JESUS or I Philippe it's all the same it's ME GOD CREATOR.
Every self creates the world for its self.
The world paints a self on a brain like a canvas.
This is a circular arrangement.
@@markb3786 Whether your God Shiva is true, or not, is not what matters. What really matters is that you have faith in a loving God that can save your soul. Welcome back HOME.
Free Will is the power of your immortal soul (self) to choose to paint a world in your brain. Free Will also allows you to paint a loving God in your brain for you to believe which is what a loving God hopes for to welcome your soul back Home/Heaven.
Guys shows his hipotesy are personal point of view. He keep out neuroscience more true proceedings.
He is literally a leading neuroscientist, talking about neuroscience.
@@simonhibbs887 As leader keep out neuros basic proceedings.
5:56 That's wild. I don't have an artistic bone in my body. Seriously; I f*ck up drawing stick figures, for crying out loud.
But I've noticed over the decade since my head injuries that I not only have the desire to be more artistic, but that I also have a little bit of artistic ability.
That's crazy.
Have you attempted to develop your artistic skills? The skills are not that difficult to acquire, but developing them doesn't make you Picasso.
Art depends a lot on perspective.
From one perspective your whole life is a work of art.
No fixed self = no self.
Are you a philosopher?
we identify ourself by name but that was giving to our body after our birth, than who we are?
4:26 Wow. That would explain a lot, in fact most, of the issues that I've been suffering since my head injuries in that particular area of my brain.
Go Bluejays!
(2:00) *PM: **_"The self is not an illusion; it's a complex entity."_* ... Humans are an interesting brood. We have no problem accepting that inanimate matter can naturally configured itself in a way that yields an entirely new spectrum of existence called "life." We go on to chronicle the evolution of simple prokaryotes to highly complex lifeforms to demonstrate how *life* is so radically different than *non-life.*
No biologist worth their salt argues that "biological life" is just an _illusion._
Then along comes _Homo sapiens_ with this strange new thing called a "self-aware consciousness" which is really just "life" following the exact same pattern that inanimate matter used to yield life ... but instead yielding an entirely new spectrum of existence called "self-aware consciousness."
Now we all have to wait for humanity to realize that a "self-aware consciousness" is _also_ not an _illusion._
They cannot explain it, therefore it cannot exist.
@@PeterS123101 *"They cannot explain it, therefore it cannot exist."*
... They cannot explain gravity either, but since we all aren't floating off of planet Earth, we all accept that something we call gravity exists.
There is only one self, it's always the same. The one in the end is the same who was in the beginning. And its uncatchable, because always bigger, you can only be this self!
Agreed!
The concept of the self is probably fairly constant but
a particular instance of a self may drastically change yet
believe no change has happened.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL The living Self is beyond 'concept'.
@@macarius8802 Thoughts are what the discharge frequencies of neurons encode in a way analogous to the way the alphabetic characters in this sentences encode my thought (except of course in neurons the coding is dynamic).
What the word 'self' refers to
is the thought that is about itself.
It is the self thought that is conscious and
this is accomplished when it is modulated by thoughts that are about something else.
(and by dynamic I mean what's going on is a process... I call it the being-conscious-process).
Life is a process.
Being conscious is a process.
They are not the same but
they are interrelated.
It's Jim Cornette!
Straight from his chicken lips
لا أُوافق بالمره
You can never catch me because I am always bigger or better said faster than anything you can demonstrate to me.
7:04 regulatiory/control center, as a component, when unable to retrieve a certain 'objective' will inaccurately prioritize other functions that might not be advantageous to the whole 'self'...
The feel of the emptiness of the ONE. That creates self .
@SamoaVsEverybody_814 no he is uncreated.the one and only
@@allauddin732 so he doesn't exist then
I did sludge through the whole program to see if I could actually get an indication that he makes sense of anyting but apparently not
Elves?
Extremely disappointing discussion about the actual existence of the self. It should have produced a conversation about what the self is defined as. If the components are all changing, what actually persists?
Robert why do you keep wasting your time with these people....
The fact that the self can be separated into different parts does not support the argument for the self being an illusion. The body can also be separated into different parts, and clearly the body is not an illusion.
It doesn't argue against it either.
*"The fact that the self can be separated into different parts does not support the argument for the self being an illusion. The body can also be separated into different parts, and clearly the body is not an illusion."*
... Good argument!
The self is a complex thought,
more complex in some than in others.
How do you recognize what is real and what is illusion?
@@kitstamat9356 In the case of illusions one can move one's hand through them without feeling but if they're real one can't do that.
The Self is real until you get cancer or some other terminal disease, then you realize that Self is illusionary after all.
*"The Self is real until you get cancer or some other terminal disease, then you realize that Self is illusionary after all."*
... Life has a 100% mortality rate. Everyone knows they will die, yet most still fully accept and embrace the presence of "self." So, how would discovering the way you will die suddenly render the "self" as illusionary?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
Yes, everyone knows that life is finite, but the Self lives day-to-day as if that isn't true. You know it, but you don't believe it. But a terminal disease strips away that illusion and the sense of a permanent or real Self is shattered. When you face Nothingness, Selfhood comes unglued, destructures, dissolves. First the mental Self, then the physical Self too.
@@browngreen933 I believe I understand what you are saying but
I believe you could say it better.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Better how?
@@browngreen933 Well, for instance, you could write 'temporary' instead of 'illusionary'.
Not to the neuronal level, not to the microtubule level, this guest is just guessing not knowing if the brain area he talks about causes self or correlates to the perception or such.
What he is talking about is but one part of the being conscious process.
The being conscious process is to what the word 'self' is referring.
For to me, to live is Christ (self the godly soul, π = God The Spirit - ΧΠ) and to die is gain. Philippians 1.21 NIV.
2:20 ... I think when you I'm a neuropsychologist so that's when I'm interested in it and I think when you look at all the cases where the self is altered after brain damage there are a set of reliable neuropsychological core that's involved ant that in my opinion is always the right frontal temporal region that's most critical. 2:42 so frontal part of the brain here cerebra cortex temporal inside so these together are the biological center of the self. 2:50 ... 5:20 ... there are beautiful case studies of as the dementia progresses beautiful in the scientific sense ... not beautiful for the poor patients in this family. ... but as the center degenerates (yes) functions become disinhibited among some of the functions are artistic ability. So the ability to visually capture a complex scene almost an eidetic (鲜明的 直观象的) visual sense menifests for a little while while the dementia is progressing and suddenly the paintings of this person become extraordinary. 5:55 6:40 ... so what you're doing is you're having a chaning in the self (exaclty) based upon a biological change so we can infer immediately back to what the self is in its normal state by what's happening to the self in this degenerating state. 6:57 ... and I think one valid inference would be okay the center that's involved here is an inhibitors a regulatory center therefore the self is a regulatory device at a minimum you know I think it's more accurate to say the self is a perceptible device but at a minimum it's a regularoty device it orchestrates 7:17 all of the capacities of a human being brings them to bear on a particular pressing issue so that the person functions effectively. 7:29 Yeah I think it would be fair that when we say self when we think of a self. A lot of the things we do is inhibiting our other things that we would have a tendency to do and so you have this struggle I mean all religions talk about it you have a struggle between different pulls and drives that one would have. 7:50 PM: particularly 8:22 ... and that only makes senses if I think of myself as a self. PM: right that's going to be there (yeah) ❤you're serving your future self there that future self is real it exerts an effect on your current behavior it's a measure of your inhibitory power the more you build up the future self the self you want to become and that's what religions do it's they're always saying become this bigger self. The more you're capable of doing that (I'm trying to become a thinnier self, Bob, my suggestion is go faster and faster and if you go as fast as light, you are going to be 2D-Brane) for example or a more moral self or a more compassionate self but that's a future self. The more you build it up the better able you are to inhibit those immediate desires and appetites. 👍
🙄?🥴?😏?😂
From Delta Force to neuropsych. Deep dude.