Colin Blakemore - Are Brain and Mind the Same Thing?
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast for new episodes every Wednesday: shorturl.at/hwGP3
For the brain and mind to be the same thing, mind must be entirely the output of brain. This means the mind must be the brain-literally, identically. If so, then the physical world is likely all that exists. But if mind and brain are not the same thing, then what? Could there be extra stuff in the physical world? Could reality go beyond the physical?
Watch more videos on the mind-body problem: bit.ly/3Z2PP0N
Register for a free account and get exclusive member benefits: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Professor Colin Blakemore, Ph.D, FRS, FMedSci, HonFSB, HonFRCP, was a British neurobiologist who was Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Oxford and University of Warwick specializing in vision and the development of the brain.
Shop Closer To Truth merch like T-shirts and notebooks: bit.ly/3P2ogje
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.
Among the best talks on this subject I've seen on this channel. I'm saddened to learn that Dr. Blakemore died in 2022.
Congratulations on 600k subscribers!
Thank you so much 💫
@@CloserToTruthTV You're welcome!
I absolutely love the talks and discussions!! ❤
I love this show! Thanks so much for all the hard work you clearly put into it. 🙂🙏🏻
Thanks for making all this interviews available for free! This channel is so valuable, I predict is about to explode in terms of popularity.
It is normal for organs to vary function based on feedback from their own products.
To even ask the question whether consciousness has a functional role in our lives is preposterous. Without consciousness there is no experience!
This is a marvellous channel in many ways but the sheer volume of scientists running around believing that the brain causes consciousness without even the faintest theory to explain it is staggering! Open yourselves to the possibility that the brain doesn’t cause consciousness and you will make rapid progress in your understanding!
BRAVO
There are some who say, "Perception of light is not possible without the light. But it does not necessarily mean Perception is Light. What I understand is that consciousness and mind are all the properties of the brain. We are not able to define consciousness or mind because we still do not understand fully how the brain functions.
There are some who understand well enough. At 10:00 when Colin mentioned the catch phrase, "Minds are what brains do" I recognized it having my self often said it. That 'doing' is immaterial is a big clue as to the great likelihood that it's true.
Light lights perception
@@halcyon2864 When one exists one is conscious of something. When one is non existent one cannot be conscious of anything. When one is conscious one is conscious of something. When one is conscious of nothing one is non existent. There is no such thing as consciousness. There is only being conscious of. A billiard ball moves when hit by another. The billiard ball is reactive, not conscious.
@@halcyon2864 There are trillions of living organisms on this planet but among them only I, to an absolute certainty, am conscious. I am certain you too are conscious but not absolutely. Ditto for most other people. All the other animals are not conscious, instead they run on instinct which evolved to fit them very nicely to survive and thrive in specific ecological niches. The human species was also instinct driven for most of its existence but when its groupish nature hit on language and discovered agriculture... civilizations arose. These civilizations became a unique ecological niche in which cultural evolution, evolution of the mind, eventually made us conscious.
Actually, you perceive light even when there's no light, e.g. when dreaming, or when seeing the colorful shifting shapes in meditation...
You go to a performance by an orchestra of a symphony - are the orchestra and the music it makes the same thing?
And can the music then tell the orchestra how it would like to be played?
the mental stuff that correlates with brains and is affected by brains may may be the same thing as the brain (or the same thing as some processes within the brain) but maybe consciousness extends beyond the brain. and maybe there's nothing nonmental.
Maybe not
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y yes these are presumbely both possibilities
I believe it is far more likely that being conscious is a process and since process is an abstract notion, being conscious is essentially abstract. Abstract entities are immaterial, do not occupy space and the concept of location does not apply to them. The same goes for thoughts of course. The key point about thoughts and the being conscious process is they cannot exist free of a material substrate.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL why wouldnt they be able to exist free of a material substrate?
@@highvalence7649 "why wouldnt they be able to exist free of a material substrate?" Of what would they consist?
Look it’s quite simple. When someone sees a face the activity observed in the brain is the third person view of that first person experience. One doesn’t cause the other, they are correlates! The cause of both is mentation.
Materialists / emergentists about consciousness point to the neroscientific evidence to support their claim. however here's an alternative perspective: there is nothing non-mental, so the brain is a mental thing also, and the mental stuff that correlates with brains and is affected by brains is just mental things affecting mental things. a brain (a mental thing) affects our conscious experience (another mental thing) like if we damage the brain (a mental thing) we damage the mind (a mental thing). the evidence is as much (or little) evidence for this perspective as it is for there being no consciousness without any brain causing or giving rise to it.
What neuroscience describes and what you are referring to as the brain/correlates consists of nonmental properties. How is it a mental thing? How is what you are claiming consistent with neuroscience? It strikes me as a semantic trick.
It seems to me that if you say mind is something other than brain that is an assertion and places the burden of proof on the one making the assertion. Where we find brains we find minds. I know of no data that appears to show that mind exist without brain.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Those are two different claims. Mind can be different from the brain but still ontologically dependent on brain that is to say mind is not the brain but depends on the brain or needs brain to sustain it hence no brain, no mind.
@@anteodedi8937 That's still an assertion that puts the burden of proof on you
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y the burden is on anyone making a claim. and it so happens i am not making the assertion that mind is something other than brain. im rather saying the evidence doesnt support the one idea any more than the other. " I now of no data that appears to show that mind exist without brain" well do you know of any data that appears to show that mind exists only as the brain?
Conscious mind is a product of the brain that can be stimulated by an electrode and modified by a chemical. It is one of the final products of this organ, which represents the ultimate amplification of the signals of perception. This mind, or state of consciousness feeds back to the brain and helps mediate the body's relationship with external reality. In a similar way, autonomic signals to the iris mediate the optic nerve's relationship with photons. When reading brain activity associated with consciousness, the instrument used has imperfect sensitivity and resolution.
What do electricity and chemicals think about?
@@Samsara_is_dukkha How can a tree come from a seed? How does Pride shape objectivity? How is a summary a reflection?
@@dominicmccrimmon "Conscious mind is a product of the brain that can be stimulated by an electrode and modified by a chemical." This initial assertion rests entirely on an unproven assumption. There is exactly zero evidence that chemicals and electricity produce consciousness either in brains or elsewhere. Most human physiological functions and activities, including the signals of perception of anything whether amplified or not, are totally unconscious which means that consciousness is not necessary for the human organism to function. Meanwhile, consciousness displays properties that have nothing whatsoever to do with perceptions. The creation of totally abstract art forms such as music or the mental investigation into the possibility of extra-terrestrial life of which there are no examples and therefore no physical perceptions being prime examples.
@@Samsara_is_dukkhaSuppose we could switch off a person’s conscious experience with a chemical substance, and then switch it back on again by chemical means. Would that count as a demonstration that consciousness depends on chemicals? The inference and extrapolation of patterns and information from inputs is a deterministic process, for which we have complete logical and computational account.
@@simonhibbs887 The conscious experience is routinely switched off whenever we sleep and whenever we administer anaesthesia. Additionally, the conscious experience is also modified by psychoactive substances such as LSD, MDMA, psilocybin, cannabis, caffein, alcohol, etc. and by psychotropic drugs (equally psychoactive although deserving of a different label due to their legal status which is a bit of a joke) such as antidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, mood stabilizers and stimulants. Can we infer from that that chemicals cause consciousness? Of course not. The best conclusion we can reach is that chemicals can affect consciousness and we've known that for a very, very long time. On these topics, much could be said about the dream state alone that we are still a long way from understanding. Can we infer a particular dream from a particular chemical signature? You tell us. While the dream state is for most part and for most people an unconscious process, the experience of lucid dreaming has been well documented everywhere since ancient times ranging from Greek philosophers to Buddhist monks and more recently by various Western scientists. Since lucid dreaming is accessible to all provided a fairly simple voluntary training of the mind (aka Dream Yoga), would that count as a demonstration that brain chemistry depends on consciousness? Then of course, we now have literally millions of people reporting Near Death Experiences with verified conscious awareness while declared clinically dead, I.E.: no heartbeat, no breathing and no measurable brain activity (meaning no gag reflex, no pupil dilation when exposed to a bright light and occasionally no brain waves showing on an EEG whenever a EEG machine is connected to the person during the experience which is admittedly quite rare). "The inference and extrapolation of patterns and information from inputs is a deterministic process, for which we have complete logical and computational account." Apart from reinforcing your belief-system, I am not sure what this assertion means exactly. From what I can make out, it seems that your understanding of consciousness is limited to a one way system (information from inputs) in spite of the fact that it is chronically falsified by properties of consciousness ranging from imagination and creativity to ecstatic mystical experiences that have nothing to do with any external input and everything to do with an inner source.
This is the second time today I heard Robert talking about zombies!
It's part of his struggle to justify an early belief that the human mind is magically exceptional.
Rob Zombie?
There are physical-law-breaking science-fiction zombies as documented on TV but there are also philosophical zombies as proposed by thinkers of the Cartesian persuasion who suggest that if a perfect copy of you were created in an instant, as though by Star Trek Transporter tech, that copy might behave exactly as you would but would not be conscious because the tech was not designed with transporting your consciousness in mind. Such thinkers imagine consciousness to be a 'something', not matter but equivalently existent in a non physical realm imagined to be something like a fifth dimension or existing some way even more exotic. Me, I think the realm of the abstract comes closest to their conception. The realm of the abstract is for some not trivially easy to grasp.
🧠 Exploring the distinction between the brain and the mind, and the ongoing debate regarding their relationship. 00:20 🧠 Exploring the relationship between brain activity and mental experiences, focusing on finding neural correlates of consciousness. 02:02 💭 Exploring the impact of consciousness on human capabilities and questioning its necessity in cognitive processes. 04:16 🧠 Debate on emergent consciousness from brain activities vs. top-down causation involving subjective state and physical brain machinery. 06:20 🧠 The concept of mind extends beyond the brain, encompassing external factors like memory, social relationships, and shared knowledge. 08:41
🧠 Exploring the distinction between the brain and the mind, and the ongoing debate regarding their relationship. 00:20 The brain is acknowledged as necessary, but the debate lies in whether it is sufficient for defining the mind. While the brain is a tangible, physical organ, the mind remains a concept without a clear understanding of its composition.
🧠 Exploring the relationship between brain activity and mental experiences, focusing on finding neural correlates of consciousness. 02:02 Understanding the challenge of linking brain activity to subjective mental experiences due to the private nature of consciousness. Seeking to identify measurable representations of mental states through neural correlates of consciousness, based on the assumption that mental states are generated by brain states. Examining changes in brain states corresponding to changes in mental states, particularly in the context of perceptual interpretation of visual scenes.
💭 Exploring the impact of consciousness on human capabilities and questioning its necessity in cognitive processes. 04:16 Correlation does not imply causation in examining consciousness and functionality. The concept of a zombie highlights the debate on whether consciousness plays a functional role in human life. Questioning the necessity of consciousness in enhancing human abilities and the significance of its contribution to cognitive processes.
🧠 Debate on emergent consciousness from brain activities vs. top-down causation involving subjective state and physical brain machinery. 06:20 Emergent consciousness theory from brain activities causing subjective state, then influencing brain changes. Skepticism towards top-down causation involving consciousness acting on brain without evidence or clear mechanism. Critique of non-dualist claim of emergent brain activities forming consciousness without supernatural elements.
🧠 The concept of mind extends beyond the brain, encompassing external factors like memory, social relationships, and shared knowledge. 08:41 Extended mind theory suggests the mind is not confined to the brain but includes external elements like memory and social interactions. The distributed mind concept involves the collective action of multiple brains sharing knowledge through language and interactions.
With this setting, the gentleman just need a glass of whiskey 😁
Lmao right
And a sigar.
Posted '16 hours ago'. Recorded way back when. Like - WHEN GUYS? Colin Blakemore DIED in June 2022 - recycle old material from your archives by all means, but please, please, please PUT IN THE DESCRIPTION THE DATE OF THE RECORDING!🙏
A Brain you can examine..well physically speaking anyway,but conciousness and mind' l believe is a different beast altogether,difficult to examine in physical world?...what say you?? ...well done C.T.T. 600k😊
But We extend out of the mind. There is a 3d space I occupy, I can feel my feet and fingers and know they are not inside my head, it just seems like consciousness is centered in the head because that is where my bodies eyes and ears are. Most of the Body runs on autopilot all through your life, the Brain controls that, can consciousness make it better, yes, knowing to eat right and exercise the right way can make the stuff that runs on auto pilot work better, and you can also decide to go the other way and make things harder by over indulging. Consciousness steers the body like a boat, there is drift after every conscious action. Sometimes the body takes over and you have a "instantaneous" reaction where you ask yourself what just happened and have no idea how you just i.e. jumped straight up 4 feet from standing (to avoid some injury or object). Cats have a lot of those moments or they are practicing.
I think what we actually do is create a simulative model of the external world from sense data, and this is the world of our experience. It's not the real physical world, it's a virtual world, a mental representation of the external world created by information processing activity in our brains. We know the world of our experience isn't the real world, because they can diverge, such as when we perceive things that are not there, or differently from the reality, such as hallucinations, optical illusions and such. However we can resolve these discrepancies by testing through action to verify what is real. Note that when we do this it's always our perceptions that proved to be wrong, reality always wins. That's how we know that the external world is real and the world of our perceptions is an illusion. So our mind does create a world, but it is an ephemeral one personal to us. In the case of bodily sensations, people who lose limbs report feeling sensations in the lost limb, such as tingling or itching. This is because the brain still has a mental model representing the lost limb, and the absence of sensory stimuli from the limb, or confusing signals from the nerves that lead you to the limb, can result in imagined sensations.
How you "feel" and conjecture is just that...conjecture of a mind that was shaped by evolution over the years to keep its vessel alive long enough for itself and it's children to pass on genes...not to figure out how consciousness truly operates, and is probably why so many people posit religious and pseudo-science quasi-mystical explanations for consciousness. The egocentric need to pretend to know something that others don't, and the need to rebel against authority also seem to contribute to these beliefs.
Are thought and consciousness the same thing.
Thought is a type of conscious activity, but there are others, such as being in pain.
With no consciousness, there is no you.
Is software the same as hardware ? Is a record player the same as music ? Daft questions !
Not the same, but each is produced by the other, in a top-down, and a bottoms-up manner. The record can not produce the player. Yet, in the case of the brain, the brain creates the thought, and the thought creates the brain.
Software in a computer exists as patterns of electrical potentials in memory chips, and electrical currents in circuits. These are physical phenomena.
@@simonhibbs887 An example of software is a spreadsheet. You will not find a spreadsheet inside memory chips. No matter how hard you look. Never mind 😁
@@willp9226 A man can invent a story, but a story can't invent a man.
@@tedgrant2 Spreadsheets are data and code, which is patterns of electrical potential stored in transistors. What part of that is not physical? Are the transistors not physical? Are the electrons in the patterns of electrical potential not physical?
He is limited to materialism. But mass is built on massless like photons and gluons connected with the whole universe of quantum fields.
I think your comment, while somewhat contradictory, is much closer to what it is than most others.
It's RLK 😎
So much mental gymnastics to avoid dualism. Tiresome.
Hello im stil young but i think brain controls mind created by consciousness becouse consciousness is one. Everywhere (thats how we comunicate (higher vibrations)). Consciousness this perfection like we understand big bang.
Try to act by not thinking.
@@halcyon2864 GB TV
If consciousness were a cosmic force of some sort that brains could tune into, then babies would arrive fully conscious, and people would have very similar levels of consciousness. Which isn't the case.
@@willp9226 consciousness creates diferent realities So maybe we where born created by conscious reality
@@user-hs9tl7et3e Consciousness is certainly relational to different perceptions. Usually based on ignorance.
The scientific approach (contrasted with a philosophical one) is hopelessly beset with the problem of basing 100% of what it knows of brains on colors, shapes, odors, flavors, & textures... 'the brain' is just a collection of those objects of consciousness. The story of the brain, in other words, is all science has going for it in the competition for ontological standing between mind and brain... mental and material.
Conscious awareness of pain, leads one to take an Aspirin. The conscious mind perceives pain. It decides to alleviate the pain. It, through your brain tells your body to walk to the medicine cabinet and get an Aspirin. Mind the product of the brain is obviously the ultimate decider of the body - where decisions are required. One doesn't have to decide to breathe. One doesn't have to decide to digest one's lunch. No mind is needed. The mind is needed to write a poem, or bake a cake. Case closed. The mind is something and nothing at the same time.
And if its conscious then has the higher deciding property or function than the brain which is material....
Please have Dr. Peter Fenwick the Neuro-Psychologist/Physiologist to talk about NDE especially in cardio patients where during cardiac arrest brain function shuts down yet NDE continue to present.
Yes would be good. Also Sam Parnia but I think he's been on before!
Brain function doesn’t shut down during cardiac arrest, even on EEGs tracing brain activity it continues for several minutes after loss of blood pressure. When a patient ‘flatlines’ during cardiac arrest they are talking about the heart rate monitor which has nothing to do with brain activity. However EEGs are very crude and can only detect brain activity across brain regions, involving hundreds of thousands, or millions of neurons. Activity below that level is not detectable on EEG. This is not an opinion, it is an easily verifiable fact that I encourage you to confirm for yourself. Anyone with medical knowledge saying lack of EEG reading means zero brain function is wilfully deceiving you. This is not a mistake a conscientious professional can make by accident. More modern high fidelity brain activity scanners have shown that neural activity can and does continue, and can even significantly spike, well over ten minutes after EEG would show nothing.
You act like that is some proven science. You are talking about someone's "perception" of a nde...which can't be proven to have taken place at any specific time except that which was reported by the patient.
@@brad1368Have you read the work of Sam Parnia or Pim La Pommel?
brain's an organ. mind's a terrible thing to waste.
brain=hard drive, mind=software, consciousness=operating system~ GOD Thanks!
we have yet to see real linking of minds via ai - this should hit smb sector in 5 years and will be a big wave of innovation and sort of symbolic of a universal mind manifested, it should out think and out innovate big tech ai eventually according to some prognostications - we will learn more about collective universal mind from efforts like this and it will spur on discovery and innovation no doubt #education #cybernetics
There is absolutely nothing in the anatomy of the brain that would suggest that consciousness emerges from the brain. The neurons in the cerebral cortex are essentially the same entities that are found in the kidney and the excretory system. The neurons in the brain are not some strange and mysterious things that are not found elsewhere in the body. Their form and function is well-understood. If in the other parts of the body they act as wires for transmission of signals, then in the brain also they can do nothing else but act as wires for signal transmission. This means that there must be some additional entity to experience and feel the signals (brought in by the neurons). This additional entity is the immaterial person-like entity often referred to as the 'soul," "mind" or "conscious personality."
You are completely ignoring the structural arrangement of the neurons. That's what makes pretty much the whole magic with digital computers. Not individual logic gates which are very basic but how they are arranged together. Except that unlike the neat designed hierarchical structure which we understand through and through in the case of digital computers, brains have multilayer neural networks which are mathematically very opaque. So we don't understood brain function at all. All our insights are very broad, we just talk about areas of the brain involved in certain things. Serious neuroscience is in its infancy
@@bozdowleder2303 Structural arrangement would make no difference to my analysis. The different types of neuronal circuit arrangements are well known. The field is not in infancy. In fact, there's absolutely nothing left to study; it's a dead end (as far as the materialistic search for consciousness is concerned). Different kinds of feedback loops and relays are essentially the neuronal arrangements in the brain. These are found in the other parts of the body also. No matter how you arrange, a group of neurons will either fire or not fire. It's all actually very simple in essence, not difficult to understand. The point I am making is, the output of any neuronal arrangement can only be a signal. Neurons are signal propagating and conducting entities. So, the data pertaining to the objects of the senses will be conveyed by the (hierarchy of) neurones starting with the sensory receptors and finally it will arrive at the cerebral cortex. Now, the cerebral cortex is also all-neuronal. The different neuronal arrangements within it will either propagate or inhibit the data. Therefore from the bottom to the top, it's all signal propagation. But subjective experience would mean that there must be a conscious feeler of the signals brought in by the neurons. But the brain is all-neuronal; it can only propagate or inhibit. Therefore, in view of this disjunction , an immaterial conscious entity, soul or irreducible mind, becomes necessary.
@@Arunava_GuptaYou're talking of what consciousness feels like, not what it is. We need to understand what's actually happening not the surface subjective phenomenon. Also it's completely false to say we know how to parse multilayer neural networks. Which of course we can certainly do with digital computers. And it's not one signal in practice. A large number of input signals changed into a large number of outputs which dynamically changes both the network of neuronal connections and the role any subcircuit will play in the coming bit. So the output isn't a signal but a sequence of activity of the entire system That's another big difference. The hardware itself changes over time and different subsystems play different roles at different times. The trouble with systems that evolved is that they're much less a case of fixed functionality for different parts. We see this in cell biology as well. The same protein performs multiple functions. So you can't look at a small part of the works and say I know what this does. We don't even know how cells work but we have a slightly clearer idea of what ends up happening. Not so with the brain
@@codyjackson5664 You are complicating unnecessarily. Neurons are just like any other cell in the body but specialized by means of two unique morphological characteristics, the dendrites and the axon, solely for the purpose of signal propagation and conduction. They are like wires bringing in the data of the external world. So there must necessarily be another (non-neuronal) entity conscious by nature to feel and experience these signals. The neurons are not conscious by nature. You may route and reroute the signals through neuronal circuits; and amplify and multiply them. But this doesn't make any difference to my analysis. Because whatever operation you perform, the output will always be signals (action potentials), by virtue of the structure and function of the neurons. And these signals will have to be felt and experienced for subjective conscious experience to arise. For, perception is integral to conscious experience. It's an undeniable fact. The "we know nothing about the brain " is a clever trick developed by the materialists to avoid embarrassment because they can clearly see a dead-end in front of them! The introduction of an immaterial (extra-neuronal ) conscious personality solves the hard problem of consciousness beautifully. Systematically put: 1. There are the objects of the senses 2. There is the data pertaining to the objects of the senses 3. There are the receivers (sensory receptors) and conveyors (neurons) of this data. 4. And, finally, there is the conscious apprehender and feeler of this data ("soul," "conscious personality"). Easy, wasn't it!
Are a TV set and TV program the same thing?
Is it possible for the brain to appear to be totally alive and healthy, but for the mind and consciousness to be completely absent? If not, then wouldn't this suggest that the mind and the brain were the same thing?
What do people mean when they say that someone is unconscious?
That's the zombie argument (in reverse).
The spirit of wisdom, the spirit of understanding, the spirit of council, the spirit of strength, the spirit knowledge, the spirit of the good fear of the truth and reality of the God of gods, the number of man. We all need to acknowledge the Spirit of the Lord to live.
😂😂😂
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y The spirit of man.
The brain is the visible part of a human body while the mind is like a computer processor of the invisible waves into the visible brain and everything else we ( AI ) observe.
Brad, get the help that you need.
....the brain is the hard ware and the mind is the result of the hardware functioning.
Why was Francis Crick the discoverer of DNA; which is also the largest molecule in nature fascinated by consciousness?......Planck Time
Because he knew DNA wasn’t the cause of life. He wanted to go deeper, to the substrate of all experience.
IMO there is no difference between the brain and mind. The relationship is brain is to mind, as car is to travel. As soon as we fully understand the brain, the mysteries of mind and consciousness will vanish.
While the car creates travel, travel does not create the car. In the case of the brain, the brain creates mind, and the mind creates brain.There is botha top down and bottoms up reality.
@@willp9226 There is no “mind”, as there is no “consciousness”. The mind and consciousness are just the output of the brain. That is what the brain does. As we don’t yet understand the brain, we don’t yet understand how it creates the mind.
@@bobusa1960 The brain generates the mind, and mind generates brain. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We understand plenty of the brain, especially to know that mind, even thoughts generate brain. Literally.
(2:25) *CB: **_"You can't put an electrode into it; you can't see it through the microscope."_* ... Agreed. There are two sides to every coin. "Brain and mind" are the same as language and speaking, sheet music and singing, and senses and sensations. The former is the *physical side,* and the latter is the *nonphysical side* of the same coin. Both represent different forms of information, and both exploit the other to produce new information. The continuing *exchange of information* between the physical and the nonphysical is how "Existence" is necessarily structured.
Agree. Also it is how we change, evolve and ré-organise our identity. It's a system in motion.
So you believe that there are activities of physical objects that would not occur without exchange with the non physical. What does such an interaction look like? If we were to observe a physical object having an exchange with the non physical, what change in the physical object would we see happen?
@@simonhibbs887 *"So you believe that there are activities of physical objects that would not occur without exchange with the non physical"* ... Yes. *"What does such an interaction look like?"* ... The appearance of the physical object would incur an observable change, but the nonphysical information that caused the change would not be able to be observed. It can't ... because it's _nonphysical information._ *"If we were to observe a physical object having an exchange with the non physical, what change in the physical object would we see happen?* ... You could attach a heart monitor to me while I'm lying in bed. I then start thinking about how much time I have left to live, and my heartrate would instantly start to increase. The only information that's causing this reaction are my "thoughts" about situations that are nonphysical like time, my "self," accomplishments left unobtained, and the potential end of my existence (all of which cannot be swished around in a test tube or shoved under a microscope). Now, this all makes perfect sense, but you will hijack my "nonphysical part" and claim that just because it's happening inside my physical body and my physical brain is forming these thoughts, therefore it's all physical. ... It's the same debate we've had all along.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I’d like to be more specific, where is the non-physical interaction itself happening, in a neuron? So would we observe a neuron firing, with no physical chemical or electrical cause? How would that happen, electrons gaining energy potentials for no observable reason, chemical bonds breaking or forming, gaining or losing energy for no apparent reason? What is the non physical process that is causing these specific changes, where is it occurring, what parts does it have, and how do they operate?
@@simonhibbs887 *"I’d like to be more specific, where is the non-physical interaction itself happening, in a neuron?"* ... I am not a neuroscientist, but I would think the same neurons that are processing sensory information and physical substance are processing the nonphysical information. We don't have "special neurons" tasked with handling nonphysical data. *"How would that happen, electrons gaining energy potentials for no observable reason, chemical bonds breaking or forming, gaining or losing energy for no apparent reason?"* ... They're happening for the same reason getting hit in the head with a baseball causes all of those effects cited in your list. It's all physical and nonphysical information working it all out. The 'reason" for it all is to further expand the database of information known as "Existence." *"What is the non physical process that is causing these specific changes, where is it occurring, what parts does it have, and how do they operate?"* ... Quite a laundry list. *"What is the non physical process that is causing these specific changes"* ... In my heart monitor scenario, my personal, nondimensional information is available everywhere just like 1 + 1 will always = 2 anywhere you happen to be in the universe. Dimensionless information is not restricted to lightspeed. Once NPI is produced, it is everywhere (boundless). However, a physical object exchanging information with other physical objects would be subject to physical limitations (such as lightspeed). Our brains are "generating" new physical/nonphysical information during every moment while also "reacting" to other nonphysical/physical information that's already out there. How a brain processes a nonphysical construct such as "infinite existence" is beyond me in the same way that explaining how a physical brain can create something abstract (like "infinite existence" ) that you can't examine under a microscope is beyond you. *"where is it occurring, what parts does it have, and how do they operate?"* ... I can only offer you a generalized response. I know you love the physical world. Physicalism is your lovechild. However, Physicalism requires a *multidimensional arena* to be made manifest. We can strip a 3-dimensional object of one of its dimensions and end up with a "virtual" 2-dimensional object. It's "virtual" because no such object is known to exist. You can do the same with the 2-dimensional object and end up with a "virtual" 1-dimensional line ... which is also not known to exist. You can do the same once again and end up with a "virtual" 0-dimensional point. We recognize these lesser-dimensional objects using our brains and we use them every day in our digital design processes ... even though they don't physically exist. That's "Existence" telling you that "nondimensional information" is more fundamental and more important than all of your physical structures combined. Since I can "strip away" your physicalist structures down to "virtual" structures, it makes sense that *nonphysical Information* is what orchestrated your brain. Then your physical brain generates even more nonphysical information along with everyone and everything else This cycle will repeat until "Existence" gets whatever it is that it wants. And when all is said and done, all that will be left is a "greatly enhanced" version of the *nonphysical information* that started it all to which all of your "physical stuff" was shamelessly exploited in order to generate it. It's no different than what an artist does by exploiting physical "canvas and paint" to generate nonphysical information that's far more significant that what the physical canvas and paint can offer on their own.
The mind articulates through thought or speech what the brain is processing. The mind is also spiritual as it can't be replicated through biology. So I see it as both physical and spiritual and is the connection to consciousness.
Of course brain and mind aren't the same thing, just like computer and computation aren't the same thing. Computation is a process and output of the computer. Mind is a process and output of the brain.
Hi mikel, there is no computation/process that emerges from the hardware of a computer. When computation/process accompany the wetware of our 3lb meat-brain we have good reason to wonder deeply how that happens and if there is something more than physics/chemistry at play. We don't just shrug our shoulders and conclude that "Mind is a process and output of the brain". Cheers.
Brain activity is the mind. They are not two independent things.
You have to explain the essence of and what brain activity is, its faculty and activity with the sense perception organs. Too, you have to explain principles and universals, what intellect and reason are, how both are of the universe and mind of man. Belief doesn't matter. Can you Reason or not.
@@S3RAVA3LM Neuroscience describes brain activity, plus sense perception, felt emotions, and motor activity. No, principles and universals do not have to be explained, and nor does intellect and reason have to be explained to understand the source of the so-called "mind." Correct, belief doesn't matter, and yes, I can reason.
Yes, principles, universals, form, virtues, Truth, Justice, intellect, reason, love, beauty, Wisdom, relation, attraction and repulsion, being, essence, nature(s), love, unity, oneness, harmony and Soul, have to be explained because they are universal, therefore did not arise merely by man's brain, and do affect the activity of brain, nor can be reduced to the brain, although they do come through man, and how is a question. Too, the essence of the brain needs to be explained just like a blueprint of a structure. The blueprint was first devised prior to, therefore implying intellect and abstract realm and a kind of consciousness or awareness. All is consubstantiality.
@@georgegrubbs2966How does the brain activity cause and work with mind, reason, logic, intellect, externals, realization, and the ability to acknowledge such universals? How did the brain discover self and liberation, why is Truth and justice which are universals, have such an effect on brain actvity that you claim to be the cause of all experience that is circumscribed to the brain organ? There is thought, and who's it? There is logic, and who's it? There are the universals and laws, and either the brain produced them, or brains activity is influenced by them, in the latter case, it's not merely brains activity. Why is the brains activity what it's alleged to be? Is brain the principle of reason? How does the brain act upon things, such as the sense organs? Does brain act upon itself? Where did the reason arise if brain does act upon itself? You state brains activity is the mind, therefore you claim brain acts upon things and the universals, implying brain has more power and is principle to things universal. But what is this deity that you exult in brain organ? Did brain give itself power, energy, essence, volition, intellect, order and faculty to act upon itself, as in activity...all this is the brains activity? What is the essence of all such activites? Did brain give itself the essence, too? Who is this guy called brain? How did he make personality, and recollection, and piety. If evolution is the source of brains activites then it's not merely the brains activity, and brain is influenced by something external, thus can in no way be principle as you claim.
@@georgegrubbs2966If evolution is the source of development in brains activites then it's not merely the brains activity, and brain is influenced by something external, thus can in no way brain be principle as you claim. Something else acts upon the brain....such as the universals, yet you claim universals doesn't need be explained.
I would gander many professionals think the mind and brain are the same thing and lean on it like a crutch. Behind every topic like this is a legal element that is really at the heart of the debate of mind and matter.
Consciousness is evolving. Some people evolved from rabbits, so they like to eat vegetables. Some people evolved from foxes, so they like to eat meat. 🐇🦊🐈 Mice can't evolve directly into humans, dogs can't evolve directly into tigers ,but spiders can evolve into cats, and chickens can evolve into dinosaurs.🐁🐕🕷🦖Some people will evolve into taller human beings, and some people will evolve into chimpanzees, because chimpanzees are older species than humans.
Can I have blue cheese dressing with that salad, please?
Funny!!!!
Thumbs Up
Consciousness is not epiphenomenal. If it is our science cannot be relied on because we're not free to choose any variables, we're not in control of the experiment, we're not in control of rhe models we build etc etc.
Regardless of whether consciousness is epiphenomenal or not (and I don’t think it is), there is still an agent acting in the world choosing those variables. If that isn’t us, who is it?
@@simonhibbs887 in the strict materialist view there is no agent, only quantum fields and space-time. Compatiblists would have it that "somehow" conscious agents exist despite believing materialism is correct. I have no idea how though 🤷🏻
@@adamsawyer1763 In the materialist view the agent is the physical person.
@@simonhibbs887 but macroscopic objects are not fundamental, only space-time and quantum fields are considered fundamental and therefore casual. All the macroscopic theories supposedly could be explained in terms of quantum mechanics and general relativity. I don't believe this is very plausible personally, i just believe that's the hardcore materialist position and the only materialist position that is self consistent to my mind.
@@adamsawyer1763 Persons are contingent macroscopic objects, they’re not fundamental. They are composed of fundamental particles which are causal, therefore macroscopic objects are causal, that’s just general to macroscopic objects.
Is the lake the result of the H2O molecules?
Great stuff chaps - but I think LANGUAGE, I'll say it again: dirty little WORDS.......... might be a more important factor... no?
Hello, it’s time you had Bernardo Kastrup on. You keep saying your lifelong interest is consciousness and yet you won’t have on the very person that can best explain it to you!
I don’t think there’s a 1-1 interview, but Kastrup was on one of the round table discussions. Not sure if it’s on KZhead but I have watched it on the website.
Examples contrasting contradictory formulations from classical theories with their potential non-contradictory counterparts using infinitesimal/monadological frameworks: 1) The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics Contradictory: Standard Copenhagen Interpretation If a system interacts with a measurement device, the quantum state undergoes wave function collapse into an eigenstate of the measured observable. This introduces an ad-hoc, unphysical process that is inconsistent with the deterministic Schrödinger evolution. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Relational Quantum Mechanics |Ψ>total = Σn cn |Un>system |Vn>apparatus Measurement = Modulation of relations between |Un>, |Vn> By treating measurements as interactions modulating relational correlations between monadic system and apparatus states |Un>, |Vn>, collapse can be avoided while preserving definite records. 2) Renormalization Issues in Quantum Field Theory Contradictory: Renormalization via infinite subtractions Feynman diagrams contain divergences like ∫d4k/k2 = ∞ which must be absorbed by redefining parameters. This ad-hoc renormalization procedure lacks physical justification and does not converge in realistic models. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Regulator Approach ∫d4k/[k2 + ρ2]1/2 < ∞ (ρ is infinitesimal regulator) All calculations manifestly finite using infinitesimals ρ Introducing infinitesimals avoids true mathematical infinities from the start, removing the need for unmotivated subtractions. 3) Paradoxes in Set Theory Contradictory: Naive Set Theory Russell's Paradox, Burali-Forti Paradox arise from unrestricted set comprehension axioms. These paradoxes undermined early attempts at formalizing abstract set theory foundations. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Topos Theory / Categorical Set Theory X ≃ Y ⇐⇒ ∃n, IsEquivalent(X,Y) in (∞,1)-Category(n) U: ∞-Topos → ∞-Groupoids (univalent universes) Representing sets/classes as higher identifications up to homotopy equivalence in (∞,1)-categories avoids the self-referential paradoxes. 4) The Problem of Mental Causation Contradictory: Classical Property Dualism Mental properties and physical properties are distinct. But how can the mental cause any physical effects/behavior? This is the core paradox of the mind-body problem - mental causation seems impossible on dualist premises. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Monadic Neutral Monism Qsystem = Usystem|0> (mental state from monad perspective) Physical = RelativeState(Qsystem, Qenv) If mental states are monadic perspectives and physics arises relationally between monads, mental causation is simply the modulation of physical relative states via monadic perspectival transitions. 5) Paradoxes of Subjective Experience Contradictory: - The Explanatory Gap and Hard Problem of Consciousness - Integrating First/Third-Person Accounts of Mental States - The Binding Problem of Unified Perceptual Experience Classical theories struggle to coherently model the existence of subjective first-person experience from their third-person formalisms. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Monadic Idionamic Phenomenology |ωn⟩ = Rn|Ψ⟩ (Witnessed State from Universal Wavefunction) |Ωn⟩ = ⊗i |ωn,i⟩ (Bound Unified Perceptual State) Qualia(|Ωn⟩) = Feel(|Ωn⟩) (Qualitative Experience) Grounding subjective experience in witnessed monadic perspectives |ωn⟩ on the universal wavefunction, with unified percepts |Ωn⟩ as bound tensor factorizations, allows modeling qualia phenomenology. In each case, the classical theory encoded contradictory axioms, ad-hoc procedures or encountered paradoxes from over-idealized separability assumptions. The non-contradictory monadological approaches resolve these by: 1) Treating measurements, renormalization, set-theory, mental states as pluralistic relational patterns 2) Using infinitesimals to avoid unrenormalizable infinities 3) Representing abstract objects categorically 4) Grounding mental and physical in a neutral monadic metaphysics By realigning the mathematics with a metaphysics of irreducible relational monadic pluralisms, the new frameworks are able to dissolve contradictions in a way faithful to the coherent unified structure of reality and experience. The promise is finally achieving a maximally general, non-paradoxical unified knowledge.
Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox? A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions. Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity? A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality. Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia? A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer. Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.? A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism. Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc? A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start. Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc? A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality. By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense.
I think the mind simply emeges as a function of brain function.
Its interesting it has higher priority function in decitions that are conscious. So the brain is not the main component. The mind has to be independent function, not the function that emerges as support
Hello stuford, ahhh, ok, and I suppose that music is just what emerges when the sheet symbols organizes themselves to a certain level of order and complexity. In other words, music is just what sheet symbols do; music is naturally emergent. No mystery. Hmmm? I’ll consider that.
3:28 - Vase/face illusion. Very interesting, how the neural correlates change depending on whether faces or a vase is being observed. Substantiates my own thesis, regarding illusions as associative (CS Peirce). That the neural correlates change depending on the associations that are being made is very significant indeed. 5:58 - "This state of being aware is somehow able to act downwards on our brains and change the physical structure of our brains?" Exactly. 6:36 - "... the emergent consciousness top-down causes changes in the brain." Pure genius. The synthesis of top-down with bottom-up causation. 8:46 - Robert introduces extended mind. That's culture, imho. Culture is the key to providing the associations coming from the top-down, outside-in, to wire the brain. Culture is an integral part of the top-down train of causation. Sir Colin Blakemore is right, there is nothing "magical" about this, no need to go all woo and mysterian. Replying to Robert's extended mind conjecture, Blakemore mentions language - funny that he didn't mention culture, because culture is key. CULTURE *is* distributed/ collective mind - again, nothing woo about this. Association (Peirce) is key to understanding the top-down direction of causation, from culture, to brain, to neuron... and even, to matter itself (something I'm researching wrt Feynman diagrams). Association - humans do it, animals do it, cells do it, neurons do it (eg, ER Kandel's research on aplysia) and subatomic particles do it. Too bad Blakemore's not with us anymore. Robert's tapping into a goldmine. This is a paradigm unfolding.
I just checked with ChatGPT on why culture didn't seem to feature much in Blakemore's research. And ChatGPT confirms that "In summary, while Colin Blakemore’s specific research may not have directly addressed cultural wiring, the broader field of neuroscience acknowledges culture’s profound impact on brain development and function." It does indeed seem that Blakemore overlooked the role of culture in wiring the neuroplastic brain. Culture seems to be the missing part of the puzzle in Robert's extended-mind conjecture at 8:46. Factor in culture, and we might discern an outline for a robust synthesis of association (Peirce) as top-down causation throughout all levels.
Nous, cit, mind is the principle of all existential living creatures capable of finite consciousness and mind. Is essence and activity the same thing? The medium here is faculty - essence, faculty, activity. The essence engenders faculty; faculty produces activity.
If you wouldn't ask whether a horse and galloping the same thing, then why would you ask that about brain and mind? One is a thing and the other is an action performed by that thing. Why is that so hard to understand?
@@halcyon2864 You have no way of knowing that it isn't that simple or how much I may have reflected on it. Romanticizing what could actually be a very simple question as if it's some kind of impenetrable metaphysical mystery may have its poetic appeal, but it is neither knowledge nor wisdom. It's just being satisfied with daydreaming and insisting that others should be too.
@@halcyon2864 Does anyone really grasp quantum mechanics? Feynman's quote "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics". Maybe consciousness will be forever like that. We can only study things which yield to the scientific method. As they said you can study how physical states might correlate to conscious perception, but does that exhaustively describe consciousness? Does seem to me there's a gap. If my understanding is correct, it's what Dave Chalmers calls the hard problem of consciousness.
FINALLY WEST MAN FOUND THAT MIND AND BRAIN ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. ! EAST KNOWS THIS FOR THOUSANDS YEARS!
Nope. Nagarjuna most definitely did NOT endorse dualism. 2nd Century AD.
In the classical Acupuncture Medical text , the brain is referred as 'the seat of mind'.
😂
It needs a system approach to be really understood. No way to reduce conciousness, whatever it is, whatever we may call it, just to our closed inner biology. Things seems to be a lot different vs. the way we experience them by the fact we are human beings. What we experience isn't a confident measure of anything around us in any way. No matter if we apply science or any method, our relationship with the world has fundamental problems impossible to solve. We are drowned in questions about what everything is all about. We are missing more than "something". Anyway conciousness as human beings may think it is, could be something totally wrong as we lack of knowledge about other important things related to. May be we have no idea what it really means as we don't know how the real deal is, how is the whole picture. Nothing in this world works isolated as a natural phenomena. Keep in mind that.
Hi C T T, the answer is in the question!, if they were the same thing why have two different words?. Thee are many other examples of similar confusion, d=such as the difference between seeing and looking, listening and hearing. In this case the brain is a clearly identifiable biological organ that is indeed a 'thing', the mind on the other hand has no material substance of any sort, at best it could be a sequence of electro-chemical activities but they are so transient and insubstantial. The mind therefore is an idea, a concept not a 'thing' at all. Cheers, Richard.
"Drink", "beverage", and "potation" are three different words but the same thing. Language is not as reliable an ontological roadmap as you're assuming.
@@thejimmymeister Hi James, thank you for this response, I do appreciate the critical aspects of it. On the face of it I think you are substantially correct but as usual the devil is in the details. On the understanding that we want to be able too communicate clearly and unambiguously it concerns me that we should try to make even quite subtle distinctions between words that can and are often used interchangeably. The examples you offer for instance are not exactly the same, the first is a generic term used both as a verb and a noun and as such comes under the heading of 'active' noun. Beverage on the other hand is more strictly just a noun and applies to the liquid, in a similar but more nuanced manner the third relates to the specific nature of the beverage in terms of its composition or compilation. This means that the proper use of each is dependent on specific context. this one would not say that one has indulged in the act of beverage to describe a drinking session, likewise I would refer to a beverage when discussing the range of drinks available. I do accept and agree that none of this can ever be set in stone but the distinctions I am wanting to make in respect of 'brain' and 'mind' are significant and important in resprct of the differences between them. I am arguing that regardless of which word we use for which 'thing' they are indeed different 'things' thus deserving of different words. As I write this I clearly see an issue!, I have used the same word, thing, in reference to two subjects that have nothing in common!, one is a physical; reality and the other is not!. I suspect that because most 'normal' people are not aware of this distinction for them using the same word for both is sensible and understandable, on that angle I am entirely satisfied with the lack of reliability in language but not pleased by it!. Cheers, Richard.
@richardharvey1732 You know as well as I do that there is not a difference in a thing even though we can call it both a "drink" and a "beverage." Anyway, there's nothing about the polysemy of "drink" that isn't also true of "mind" and "brain." "Mind" can be a noun or a verb ( _my mind is spinning_ or _mind your manners_ ), as can "brain" ( _I have a brain_ or _I want you to brain him_ ). Every word's meaning is context dependent. I believe that you have good reasons for believing that "mind" and "brain" are not the same thing (as do I, for what it's worth), but I don't think you're providing a good argument when you write that we have two different words for them so they are more than one thing. In other words, I don't think the first reason you gave for holding your position is a good reason to hold your position. (I also doubt that it actually _is_ the reason you, or anyone else, holds your position.) This is a point about philosophical method.
@@thejimmymeister Hi James, thank you for this reply, this reminds me of one good reason that I do these comments. I do not know what will come of them and this thread is pure gold!. I think what you say is substantially true and I was being lazy and a trifle cryptic. I also think that it is only by the application of sensible dialogue like this that any reliable information exchange can develop. As you say context is the most significant factor. I am reminded of the time that I read of the word 'grok', invented by the author, Robert Heinlein I think, which he coined to describe that strange sensation one sometimes feels when one of those lightbulb' moments occur with absolute understanding of a novel concept, the whole thing appears so clear and exact. This does seem to me to be related to concepts that are non-linear and concern a range of disparate ideas that have arcane relationships, one thinks one grasps the 'whole' thing in all its complexity. The trouble with such things would be that they are very difficult to communicate clearly because it takes too long to tell the whole story. What I then do is attempt simplification and compression which always leaves out vital components. What I am trying to get at here is that while I very likely do have a 'position' I do not actually know what it is nor do I wish to hold it I am quite certain that real knowledge is always dynamic and the act of decision is always fabrication, as in the injunction to' make up your mind', an obvious work of fiction!, like making up a story. An odd thought crossed my mind earlier on this theme, the idea that dogma is always false!, this of course one of those peculiar tautologies like me calling myself an inveterate liar!. Cheers, Richard.
i know you can stop the mind and the brain still be rolling
You can stop the brain, and the mind keeps on rolling.
Consciousness is a mental fund for the increase of wealth of health. Walking is the recursion intertwined with the living cache that automatically request both breath and strength and saves it in you alone. Running is a iteration version that takes a lot of resources from man disorganising the three major muscles: cardiac, skeletal, and smooth - CSS muscles. 12 noon is a hill many have not crossed the right way. I don't expect many to understand me let alone ask me what I meant and how to implement it.
Mind is like Windows on a Dell(brain)
Yes, duh.
might neural correlations of consciousness in brain becomes mind with causation, both the awareness and cognition of causation, where causation is time greater than space?
The brain is to mind is as a racer is to speed. Without the first, there can be no emergent property, is the possible but not inevitable result of the first.
5:30 i'm not following here (as he is not doing hahaha)
Mind is brain, brain is mind. But subjectivity of consciousness is something different.
Tiger hunt Bird fly Man just asks why, why, why. Tiger sleeps Bird lands Man just wants to understand
Because understanding helps man to avoid the tiger and eat the bird. It's called evolution.
I agree it is pretty obvious how consciousness adds more… It sits on top of the fundamental mammal who is competing for survival. It allows you to be a super competitor, aware of all your surroundings to the extent of exploiting and obtaining deeper control of the other earth elements. Apex predators exploit the lesser aware species, the wolf chasing the rabbit, you can make the choice to wait, make the choice to pounce based on the observation of awareness of the other creature for survival you become a strategic conscious manipulative creature. Then the Buddha comes along and teaches you how to transcend those subconscious parts of your brain (like your sexual apparatus) you do not have to exploit the earth, you can transcend the domination of it. Be aware of it and be in harmony with it.
If zombies are possible, then consciousness doesn't do that. Exploiting and obtaining deeper control, waiting, pouncing at the right time-all of this could be done without any conscious experience or awareness. There could be a purely mechanical wolf which, upon light reflecting off of a rabbit and into some kind of actuator (i.e. upon the mechanical wolf "seeing" the rabbit), took off chasing the rabbit without ever having any experience.
@@thejimmymeisterIf electric cars are possible, petrol engines don’t propel cars because all of that could be done without burning fuel. It’s quite possible that there are ways intelligent social behaviour could be implemented, or evolve, that inherently come along with consciousness and other ways it could evolve or be implemented that do not. The existence of one implementation does not preclude the possibility of the other, nor does it prove consciousness in epiphenomenal. It may well be an implementation detail.
@simonhibbs887 That's not a good analogy. A zombie isn't like an electric car; it's like a petrol car with no petrol. If petrol cars with no petrol still ran, then we would certainly be justified in saying that petrol isn't what propels a petrol car. Likewise, if a wolf without consciousness still caught the rabbit, we would be justified in saying (as I did) that consciousness isn't what allows wolves to catch rabbits. In both cases, it's not clear what the petrol or consciousness would be adding.
@@thejimmymeister You’re focusing on the the analogies, but haven’t engaged with my actual argument. Consciousness doesn’t have to be additive. It could just be a necessary consequence of a specific type of implementation approach, that is not a necessary consequence in other implementation approaches.
@simonhibbs887 Your actual (meaning: literal) argument was that "The existence of one implementation does not preclude the possibility of the other, nor does it prove consciousness in epiphenomenal." I didn't engage with this argument because it is irrelevant. No one suggested that the existence of one implementation precludes the possibility of any others or that the existence of one implementation proves that consciousness is epiphenomenal. (I suggested that the possibility of _two_ things, namely zombies and conscious animals, would imply epiphenomenalism.) I tried to interpret you charitably, though. In doing so, I came to the conclusions that you (1) didn't understand what a zombie is, (2) affirmed the possibility of both conscious and non-conscious things with the same behavior, and (3) opposed epiphenomenalism. I concluded (1) because zombies are physically identical to conscious beings but you used the analogy of electric and petrol cars, which are not physically identical to each other; (2) because you wrote "It's quite possible that there are ways [...] that inherently come along with consciousness and other ways [...] that do not" and "The existence of one implementation does not preclude the possibility of the other"; and (3) because you wrote "nor does it prove consciousness is epiphenomenal." These three things do not constitute an argument, but (1) and (3) are at least relevant. (2) is neither an argument nor relevant but makes up so much of the comment that it cannot be charitably ignored in interpreting the comment. (It would be relevant if the conscious and non-conscious things with the same behavior were also physically identical-that is, if one was a zombie version of the other-but no part of your comment suggests you meant that.) If there is some other argument which I have missed, please let me know what it is or where it might be in your comment. I engaged with (1) by clarifying what a zombie is. I engaged with (3) by clarifying why it's difficult to ascribe a causal role to consciousness if zombies are possible. I did not engage with (2) because it is irrelevant. If any of my three conclusions are wrong, please tell me which one(s). I'm especially interested in (3). In your first comment, you seemed to oppose epiphenomenalism, but now you seem to endorse it because your second comment says that consciousness "doesn't have to be additive." Note that the original comment I first responded to called it "pretty obvious how consciousness adds more" and that my responses have all been attempts to show how this is false-that is, how it may not be additive-if zombies are possible.
Brain-mind :: hardware-software. The two are different but interdependent for functionality. Can we move on please?
Prove your assertion please
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y *"Prove your assertion please"* ... What is it that you want him to prove? Computer software and hardware are "interdependent" in order to function. That's fairly obvious, so do you believe that a brain and thoughts aren't equally interdependent? ... If not, then what good is a brain that can't think anything?
@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Brains are not computers and minds are not software. Those are metaphors at best.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y *"Brains are not computers and minds are not software. Those are metaphors at best."* ... Wheels are not hockey pucks, but they both roll in the same way. Basketballs aren't volley balls, but they both bounce in the same way. A rope is not a chain, but they both hold things together. ... The list goes on and on. Not allowing *any comparisons* of what we commonly observe to other aspects of "Existence" that display similar characteristics is a disingenuous argument at best.
@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC The point is that they do not function the same way.
Hahahahaha
what?
'Where is the object, and where is the subject, if I'm operating on my own brain?' 🧠 ~ Wilder Penfield neurosurgeon
Mind is dependent on neurons. Loss of neurons results in profound degradation of mental capacities.
The mind is just a debatable word & the brain is a very real and measurable thing which configures all the information your senses receive. 'The mind' has no idea of it's surroundings, whereas the brain is completely aware right down to the subatomic level.
@@halcyon2864 There are many theories about the mind, but the brain is scientific fact. The brain is where all our sensory input is processed & We cannot function without it.
There are so many starting assumptions in this dialog that it becomes virtually meaningless. Psychosomatic disorders show that the mind has significant effects on the entire organism. If the mind was a purely emergent product of the brain, psychosomatic disorders would not exist and we would only observe mental dysfunctions resulting from physical dysfunctions, I.E.: clear and direct causation from the physical to the mental. In the case of psychosomatic disorders, the causation is reversed. It follows that the mind has causal powers unexplained purely by physical reasoning.
It's obvious that current understanding of Mind is essentially NIL!...not surprising, as we have no 'circuit diagram' for the brain, and Minimal understanding of the potentially Infinite numbers of signal pathways (between neurons) that the brain generates. The brain is doing computation, but the computations are way beyond our current understanding.
Are stomach and digestion the same thing? Are respiration and lungs the same thing? Mind is not a thing. It is a process. It is what brain does.
You’re making a claim. How do you know that?
@deanodebo Just like one does not find digestion without a stomach, one does not find mind without a brain.
Are wood and fire the same thing? Without wood there is no process of burning, I supposed. And then I look to the Sun. I see a process, and no wood. Just like Nous, cit, mind, that the Wisemen taught. Man being a conditioned experience of it.
@@SandipChitale what is 3 made of? My mind understands the number quantity 3. So what’s 3 made of? We know how digestion works. So explain how mind works. What’s 3 made of?
@deanodebo Show us an occurrence of human mind without a human brain.
Why he doesnt show up though neurosience proceendings? They are talking about are rambling . Neurosience doesnt knows nothing about consciousness so far. Guys shows consciousness is nill evidence. Good conversation but wortheless neurosience proceendings.
Its not brain & mind. Its Logic & instinct which are both in brain. Logic is re-writeable, variable but instinct is engraved which is fixed. When instinct translate into language with thinking, you call it mind.
You totally do not get it at all.
I would say the mind is to the brain in much the same way that software is to the computer.
..you are obviously ignoring the fact that your mind can freely choose to believe in NON-PHYSICAL SUPERNATURAL GOD that defies your physical material science garbage...
Is the software of the computer emergent?
@stevekranz9826 in both cases, I believe so. I speak of both man made software and the mind within the brain as well.
@@mrtadreamerHave you really thought that through? I've been a software developer for decades and can tell you with 100% certainty that software never "emerges" from the h/w. Never. Did I misunderstand you? There certainly is a relationship between s/w and h/w but neither causes the other. They are dependent on one another; yet they are fully distinct. There is a parallel here -- that many would rightfully imagine -- with the relationship of brain and mind.
@stevekranz9826 I looked up the term emergence, but I'm not the sharper knife in the drawer. I probably missed something. I consider the software of a computer system as an analog of the soul of a living person. The hardware as an analog of the brain. What I find oddly in line with my thinking are the recent claims by the developers of the new AI technology are the claims that AI is becoming sentient and self-aware. It all sounds like sci-fi to me.
If I have true empathy I KNOW what everyone and everything is feeling because I AM
Jeffrey M Schwartz has proved in his book titled " The mind and the brain " that by use of our will power we can change the neuroplasticity of our brain.
If the mind is an activity of the physical brain, then any mental effort is also by definition a physical change in the brain. In other words under physicalism it is a physical change in the brain that constitutes making a decision. Therefore we should not be surprised that decisions are associated with such physical changes, which might well include alterations to neuroplasticity.
@@simonhibbs887 Schwartz describes the mind as mental force and thinks it is different from the brain because by treating his patients with OCD his patients by mentally refusing to give in to their compulsions by use of their will power seemed to reconstructor the neuroplasticity of their brains.
@@williamburts3114 I understand that, but it’s not a logical inference. Neuroplasticity is a physical characteristic. If it was changed by exerting a mental effort, that indicates that exerting a mental effort is a physical change in the brain. That is entirely consistent with physicalism.
@@simonhibbs887 I understand your point of view, but Schwartz believes that " mental force " is something more subtle than the physical brain because it's something that can't be seen. He believes in a " mind over matter " approach.
@@williamburts3114 Sure, he can believe in it, but such is not indicated or required by the evidence.
I suggest that the mind is an integral aspect of the soul, and that the brain is simply the physiological means by which a soul/mind is awakened into existence. Indeed, the physical body and brain are nothing more than the metaphorical equivalent of a higher form of *"placenta"* that is discarded at the moment of death, which is when the soul/mind will be born (again) into its true and eternal form in a higher (transcendent) context of reality.
Your comment indicates you adhere to the 'dualist' tradition. When the tradition began, people were hallucinating the voices of dead relatives with no conception, not the faintest clue that there was such a thing as hallucination. In this state of ignorance there was but one conclusion they could reach. They were absolutely convinced their relatives lived on, here and now, but invisibly and untouchable. This is completely understandable. But today we know about hallucination and with LSD, we can cause them to manifest any time we want. We don't conclude our hallucinations are real though. Instead we realize the neural substrate of our thinking process has been changed and that these changes are responsible.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL *"...Your comment indicates you adhere to the 'dualist' tradition....In this state of ignorance there was but one conclusion they could reach. They were absolutely convinced their relatives lived on, here and now, but invisibly and untouchable...."* Yes, and your comment seems to indicate that you adhere to the tradition of *"Naive Realism"* where one has an extremely superficial apprehension of reality. Indeed, the "naive realist" finds it difficult, not only to comprehend the illusory ("holographic-like") nature of reality (as has been revealed via research into the quantum realm),... ...but also finds it difficult to entertain the notion that there might be more to reality than meets the physical eye. This is completely understandable. And that's because humanity's general level of consciousness seems to have been *"attenuated"* (some more than others) in such a way to prevent us from seeing above and beyond the illusion of objective reality. _______
If such a transcendent soul exists, then why cling to life? Can our souls see, hear, feel just as well or better than we currently can? If so, why bother evolving eyes or ears? Why not just rely on our soul/mind, much like how we rely on it to make choices? If your idea of soul/mind is that we’ll become a much greater being after death, this is another way of saying our current life is less meaningful. Is it possible that our current life is so finite and meaningful, that the idea of an eternal soul was developed as a wishful thinking to cling to life?
@@KeanuReevesIsMyJesus *"...If such a transcendent soul exists, then why cling to life?..."* Because, like I stated in my first comment, our physical body and brain represents the physiological means by which our souls are awakened into existence. So, we need to cling to this life long enough on earth to physically mature (sexually) in order to bring others into existence via the same reproductive process that brought us into existence. I suggest that, contrary to popular assumptions, our souls did not exist prior to our birth on this planet.
@@TheUltimateSeeds again…why cling to life? Even your repeated answer suggest life is only meaningful to bring other souls into existence. So for those who are no longer infertile, or never wanted to raise children will have no use of our current life. Why cling to life?
Id love to see this guy debate Robert Sapolsky. I don't think it would go well for him.
Yes .brain is phisical part while mind is working of brain.
Al final nos vamos a encontrar todos. Así es la muerte. Las buenas personas como tu no tienen que temer la muerte. Eres un sabio que me enseñó que la vida es para comer y beber bien disfrutando al máximo trabajando para no vivir del cuento. Te quiero, has sido bueno para mí, me has ayudado, y tienes tus defectos, como los tenemos todo. Tu vida te la llevas contigo y todos los demás por la eternidad del Tiempo. El Tiempo creó el universo de una eterna existencia de uno mismo. El tiempo se acaba y morir ateo es triste y además no tiene sentido. ¡Aguanta campeón! ¡Aupa! ¡cada momento importa! Solo necesito que me entiendas. ¿Confías en mí? Soy un psicólogo y persona de muchos talentos y he descubierto que Dios es literalmente todo lo que existe pasado presente y futuro. Si existe es Dios y si no existe no es Dios. Tu eres Dios para mi. Gracias de todo corazón. Hasta pronto o tarde, porque no sabemos cuando vamos a morir. Te seguiré escribiendo tanto como pueda. Soy una buena persona y te quiero bien.
It’s rather obvious the Blakemore has fallen victim to the p-zombie nonsense, as has our esteemed host. Nothing to see here, folks.
Brain is your cellphone in your hands and mind is cellphone tower
The Mind is what the Brain does. -- Steven Pinker
And I suppose that music is just what emerges when the sheet symbols organizes themselves to a certain level of order and complexity. In other words, music is just what sheet symbols do; music is naturally emergent. No mystery. Hmmm? Cheers.
The brain is the computer and data storage, the mind is the software with algorithms.
The brain, the mind, the soul, the consciousness are all one - the working brain. Anything else is a creation of the human brain.
Yes. They are. End of story. But these folks can't handle that reality
Brain is a thing. Mind is a function of that thing.
Maybe the brain operates the entire physical body whilst the mind controls visible information/vision/sounds etc into comprehension?
Persons don't like 'soul' because they can't touch it. Simple physics knows that no object thing, prior to its being, could bring itself into being. Maybe people aren't yet ready for truth - there is the subjective, and you can't touch it with your sense instruments. Such realizations evince those who've put the time in. Not everybody can be the boxing world champion. The great erring of people since times past, they don't want to learn from the world champion but rather some dude because he flashes a PhD or something. Why listen to inferior men when you can stand on the shoulders of giants - why? Does acknowledging soul make certain persons feel silly? Because of their outlook upon religion? So they're not exactly dispassionate like they portray themselves after all. Is funny because they think they're smart by looking down upon persons of religion, while follow the consensus and status quo, but in the eye of the true man in Philosophy, are but children incapable of overcoming their mind and condition How else could it work? Do persons know what they're claiming, indirectly, when they deny soul. They look really silly.
This guy's opinions are the classic ignorant "I can't directly understand it, so it's unlikely".... This is a REAL PROBLEM in science today...
Brain and mind cannot be compared as the brain is the bio comp, mind is the processed information by the brain gathered from perception, experience and genetic memory.
Hi aporist, there is no computation/process that emerges from the hardware of a computer. When computation/process accompany the wetware of our 3lb meat-brain we have good reason to wonder deeply how that happens and if there is something more than physics/chemistry at play. We don't just shrug our shoulders and conclude that "mind is the processed information by the brain". Cheers.