What is the Mind-Body Problem? | Episode 205 | Closer To Truth
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 06. 2021
- How is it possible that mushy masses of brain cells, passing chemicals and shooting sparks, literally are mental sensations and subjective feelings? They seem so radically different. Featuring interviews with John Searle, Ned Block, J.P. Moreland, Marvin Minsky, and Colin McGinn.
Season 2, Episode 5 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth 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.
We’re very close now. Than you Dr. Robert. You’re a rockstar!
Dr Kuhn is quite probably the only person alive who could have interviewed so many super geniuses and held his own
Yes, I have thought the same thing. I wonder what he "really" thinks! :)
This channel is amazing. This has been the number one question in my life and this is the first time I’m seeing a library of serious debate from reputable scientists on the matter. I have my own ideas mostly from reading about Buddhism and Buddhist cosmology and just thinking about all the possibilities. But it’s so refreshing to hear similar views from leading scientists. Thanks so much for this channel! Answering the hard question of consciousness is in my view something very important.
It is the question of utmost importance. Everything else is just noise.
czcams.com/video/BZWp0bnMBbM/video.html
We are not "Temporary Physical Bodies with Souls" but in reality We are "Eternal SPIRITUAL BEINGS or SOULS incarnated in Temporal Physical Human Bodies," Evidence ➡️czcams.com/video/w_LSA__VSVE/video.html
This is not a Belief but is A FACT! OUR Real Nature our seal Self is the Fusión of a SPIRIT- a MIND and a SOUL the fusión of this thee energies is what we really are!
Marvin didn't really explain anything he just said everyone else is dumb, what a great argument, hopefully he developes a unified field theory
Watched a few of these. This one is the absolute best I've seen. Really exposes the huge problem that it is! Great work. Very fascinating.
This has always been one of my favorite episodes.
I love how the intro makes it feel like we're gonna be watching Rosemary's Baby
Thanks much for this video.
One of the best you tube channels!!!!
Yes, Anna Maria. So helpful to my growth and enrichment.
Thanks! It's something really revealing and important. I've been pretty curious about the mind-body problem since I kinda was diagnosticated with DPC
The ability to use a 'metaphor' is a gift. To me, the ultimate demonstration of consciousness and awareness. Something a newborn cannot do meaning consciousness and awareness are imbued over time as the child grows. Before then, its preprogrammed mechanisms.
That is the worst misuse of the terms consciousness and awareness that I've ever heard. Of course an infant is conscious and aware. It experiences life just as much as an adult does. The fact that it can't talk about that experience in metaphors isn't indicative of anything other than the fact that the human brain needs time after birth to form the prerequisite neurons and synapses. This has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness itself.
Marvin Minsky for the win.
Hrmm, could you build a contraption with enough sticks, spools, and strings that it would eventually become aware? And it would actually know that it was aware?
He was trying to cast some spells but his magic is very weak. 🤣
@@MixedMuscleArts that's what separates us (yet) from the computers. They're not aware but simple calculating machines. That's what makes Minsky's argument wrong. Will the computers ever become aware ? For now it seems they can only make it calculate faster and more energy efficient but there's no signs that they are moving any closer to bring computers closer to being aware.
That "What's the mystery..?" At 18:11 Had me lollln 😂
A modern monistic analytical Idealism such as "Bernardo Kastrup's alters" is currently thE best game on the table imo. & as many times as you might hear the word idealism in passing here, such formulations seem to scare these kind of "mainstream truth channels". Check out the new 7 part vid series on the YT channel Essentia Foundation.
Everyting can be a representation of anything else so my consciousness is a representation of everything my body has experienced so far.
How do you know this?
Getting past what happens in the mind as different than what happens in the physical world seems to involve information transfer. I would suggest information transfer encompasses both the physical and spiritual worlds. So a duality sort of between information transfer and the mechanism of stable transfer. I would see this mechanism as a trinity of context, efficiency and identity, producing awareness. Evolution of awareness into consciousness (complex awareness) with information transfer as the driver, evolving as efficient in context with flexible identity. The information both physical and mental thru the process of moving between digital and analog and back. Sense data digitized and reconstructed, expressed digitally thru language as art to be sensed and the process repeats. A membrane that allows two differences.
The brain is a translator (also a restrictor of what we can translate) of the vibrational field around us. It doesn't hold information inside itself it translates that information from the torsion field around us, yes even our memories are just vibrations around us. Kind of like phone or tv signals that are always around us and when we have the right device we can translate that signal into sound and or pictures but only what is a vibrational match to our device. Consciousness the connection between our physical and spiritual bodies. The mind is our awareness of existing and the reality around us on all levels.
rubbish. what evidence do you have for any of this?
@@cosmikrelic4815 Only a knowing that comes from experiencing some of what exists beyond what we call physical reality. It's a world that quantum physics is starting to acknowledge exists but doesn't yet fully accept and can't prove on paper. How do you prove a non-physical world exists by using physical methods to look for it? Open yourself to the possible that reality-world exists beyond what you have been told and you may get a chance to experience it. It's the same place people like Einstein would let their awareness go when they couldn't get an answer in this reality. Life will only show you what you are ready to experience.
@@ronaldfellion there is no manifestation of anything beyond our physical reality. until it does then there is no reason to believe it exists. if you accept anything on your basis you can accept anything. the rest is new-age crap.
@@cosmikrelic4815 There's two logical errors in your comment, the first demands perfect knowledge (there are no manifestation....) then you imply allowing is accepting.
@@projectmalus you only made one error, trying to think. look, it's beyond you, go back to drying the dishes. nothing supernatural has been shown to exist because it has never been shown to manifest in reality. every supposedly supernatural event has been shown to have natural causes, never the other way around.
allowing rather than accepting, what are you talking about? actually i don't want to know, it is probably as silly as you other statements.
What is the relationship of consciousness and mind to language and expression?
Hello. Just found the channel this weekend. Very well done. Where was the pulpit you visited before going to Biola U? The stone looked “mid-Atlantic” somehow.
Marvin's very convincing. If every last detail in a person's brain down to the last atom could be duplicated in a computer then that person's awareness together with all the deepest emotions, love, happiness and personal identity would be associated with the computer, the computer would be alive. The five senses could be inputted to be interpreted by the computer, the brain works in exactly the same way.
However there may well be another realm not based on physics at all. The point is we can't say what is and isn't possible based purely on our experience of this world.
umm yeah, so a persons first person point of view existence is going to magically leave the brain as though it was a self existing entity outside of their brain into a computer duplicate because it replicates their neuronal structure down to the last atom? How the fuck are you reasoning this can possibly happen? Is the exact first person point of view consciousness of a specific individual an always achievable state as though the precise individual as themselves can always be achieved provided all and any unrelated congregation of matter was arranged in the precise state of that particular individuals brain? Or is the person associated with the electrical and potassium ion charges in their brain and all we need to do is siphon those out of the neural networks of their brain and into a computer, as though those particular elements were their 'soul'? The only way such an idea can make any fucking sense at all is if bits and pieces of their brain are replaced very slowly and precisely over a long period of time with artificial pieces until they are completely artificial, but for one we don't have and may never have technology anywhere near advanced enough to achieve this,and if it is achieved we might be wiping out their consciousness and just building a machine and the actual person dies.
@@johncasarino5627 The theory here is that the whole person, mind and soul, is entirely due to the brain structure.
Nothing would leave the brain, it would be left untouched and it would remain conscious.
The duplicate brain in the computer would gradually become that person as the process went on just as the first brain became a person when it was slowly built in the womb.
The person would finally be in the two brains at the same time. It could indeed be extended to any number of duplicate brains as you mention.
Electrons move through neurons in a brain and through silicon in a computer, so long as they move the same way what does it matter what they move through?
If neurons turn out to be essential for life then synthetic neurons could be created and linked to a computer and that's actually been done.
Oooh I know! Teacher let me answer. The mind-body problem is when I want to play Call of Duty and eat pizza but my gut says otherwise.
Lmao so true that is what’s f’d up
That is a true mind body problem
@@deadheadelectric4960 Trve gotta keep it Kvlt. 😂
Since we are talking “consciousness”, it’d help to start with some useful definition. I’d propose that consciousness is the awareness of our own thoughts, perceptions, and emotions.
It is NOT the thoughts, emotions, perceptions themselves. Those are activities and states of our mind. Mind is the software on the hardware of the brain. Our consciousness is the awareness of the states and activities of our mind.
I’d like to clarify that Consciousness is the sense “am”, or “I am”. This isn’t the same as “medically conscious. Just for clarity sake: Medically conscious means a doctor can detect evidence of consciousness in a subject.
Consciousness is not a computational ability. Ability to process bites, and algorithms that implement logical solutions lead to automata that can solve problems. Solving a problem, no matter how complex, is not the same as being aware. The sense that “I am” is consciousness. The sense that I see, feel, taste, think- that’s consciousness.
To me that if an autonomous car is the best example. I sit in the car, and it takes me from point A to B. The car uses sensors to detect obstacles, gps to detect and control direction, a map in the memory to identify a route, an a CPU to solve problems.
None of this is awareness. I, the driver, sitting in the car, possibly aware of all these processes, am not FUNCTIONALLY doing anything. Just observing.
This observer is Consciousness.
Can we make functional automata act as if they were aware? I am sure we would get better and better at it. However, the simulacrum is not the thing it simulates.
What I find cruel is that, if you go by this thinking, then you conclude that consciousness is purely subjective, and not amenable to detection. Since it cannot be detected and it’s existence not proven scientifically, we are stuck with belief and faith.
Good job trying to define it first. I think that itself people will disagree because conscious observation is subjective. Those who sit and meditate are more likely to know exactly what you explained: the act of conceiving and the contents conceived of have separate qualities. Watch your thoughts and wonder where they come from? Do you really control what to think next or does it just appear. It just appears and there you may find what some others mean by consciousness is this perceiver. Of course you can try to reduce it to processes and false view this is actually a separate thing. I don’t know conclusively but neither do I know conclusively that’s not the case. It’s definitely observable and you can come to an empirical understanding in your own mind but the problem is you can’t measure it. People should try meditating.
"It is NOT the thoughts, emotions, perceptions themselves. Those are activities and states of our mind. Mind is the software on the hardware of the brain. Our consciousness is the awareness of the states and activities of our mind."
I agree with the software hardware analogy. But, software can have awareness of its own internal state and activities. And it can change its activities based on current or previous state or current or previous activities.
It sounds like consciousness is just a word, a synonym for the subjective experience of being part of a body with a complex brain such as ours. Not an actual separate thing.
e.g. "The sense that I see, feel, taste, think- that’s consciousness"
analogy if you're techincal: SQL server looking at its transaction log - also stored in SQL on the same server. So the server can say `select * from logs where SENSE = TASTE`. A totally algorithmic system that can introspectively examine itself.
@@johnsolo1701d John, thanks for your reply. I happen to disagree. While I cannot say if something else is having a subjective experience, it is my thinking that an sql machine is following conditional logic, without self awareness. For me to consider it conscious, the machine doesn’t need to do anything.
My Roomba detects dirt, but isn’t conscious. A twister that picks up a car is similarly not a conscious entity.
It is possible you, sir, and I will not agree.
Consciousness is the space between thoughts. When there is nothing..only awareness. During meditation, when my mind is empty of thought forms and emotions...I am consciousness. I am the observer, not the observed. I am present without being involved. I am more than just this physical being that people see and hear. I am the part they don't see. I am the stillness. I am consciousness observing.
@@jackcummings4121 you’re not saying consciousness is MERELY the space between your thought? I also get confused when people say “my thoughts”, then “I am the consciousness”, imputing thoughts to consciousness.
Hi Sir, I have a simple question. Inside a factory at the end of the shift a supervisor and his co-worker are counting the produced objects, the objects are approximately the size of a tennis ball. It is their daily routine,the worker counts the objects as he takes it from the production lot and puts it inside a bag. The role of the supervisor is to keep watch so that there is no mistake while counting. One fine day, before starting the counting process, the supervisor looks at the lot and writes down some random three digit number as quantity of the produced items, in short he assumes that the actual quantity would probably match with that number. Now the question is what are the chances of that actual quantity matching exactly with that random number?
Anyone who deals with brain injured patients should have no doubts. Specific injuries cause specific deficits, including cognitive ones. For someone who believes in a soul, does this mean that particular functions of the soul are attached to specific locations in the brain? So the soul can be divided and that with injuries, parts of it detach? How would that explain anything that is not completely explained by identifying self with brain?
When you are sober you experience thoughts, visuals, feelings and tastes as you are normal. When you are drunk you experience the same but is your quality of experience any different unless you pass out? What if like one of the other posters mentioned, consciousness lives outside and connects to your brian? Another problem is ego. What if consciousness is void of ego and memory and ego and thoughts are a function of memory + feeling which only exist when it is connected to the brain? Just some food for thought.
Also, do some research on people who seem perfectly functional without large parts of their brains. There are a few cases that makes you wonder. Here’s one: czcams.com/video/JPZ9Yc7U0Pc/video.html and another where a baby born pretty much without a brain lived up to 5: czcams.com/video/wu47BpI4ld8/video.html seems pretty conscious to me.
@@NoobTube4148 these people are not neurologically normal and you are confusing different categories of brain pathology. Your examples are not valid objections. Thanks for the suggestion on “doing more research”: I have dealt with such patients professionally on a daily basis for almost 40 years.
@@jeffreyschweitzer8289 ok didn’t mean to be a know it all or insult you. When you say not neurologically normal, are you also sure they are conscious or not? I’m just wondering why people get so angry defending their views on this debate. Sensed it from Marvin in the video too. My understanding is that we haven’t solved this hard problem and is it possible you’re retrofitting your current views into this debate? I’m not trying to insult you, I’m genuinely curious. To me these kids look aware. Obviously not 100% normal yet aware and conscious enough to function in some way which means the process of conceiving and awareness might not be in the physical brain if most of their physical brains are missing?
@@NoobTube4148 clearly a complicated question because you are asking what consciousness is, and that is a different problem from “where” it is. Consciousness is not like an on/off switch where it is there or it is not. There is a gradation of levels of awareness and responsiveness to the environment in a “quantitative” sense of alertness; there are different qualities of awareness (awareness of pain is not the same as being oriented to place and circumstances); and there are specific focal issues like deficits of speech, of memory, or loss of use of an arm or leg. To explain these things based on a soul one would have to suppose that the soul can be reduced, detached, or separated in part from the body in ways that parallel structural injuries to the brain. That seems bizarre if the soul is a separate entity and at best it does not seem to answer any questions not answered through physical understanding of the brain.
I like JP.
Is yoga or meditation ever used in the research of the brain and consciousness.
For example, I like to point out to the strong sensations one has in the Theta and delta mind state. It’s like the mind has a deeper understanding of the self, surroundings and hearing, than the physical attributes. I had this sensation quite some some. So, it’s when the thoughts and feelings are shot down, sensations get stronger. Isn’t that worth studying.
Why yoga..? Its essentially just stretching. You can do more with it but at the end it's just stretching.
@@nahCmeR what about meditation?
@@nahCmeR there are different types of yoga. Hatha yoga is stretching. Most other yoga forms are meditation exercises
@@nahCmeR Don’t mean western , but ancient Eastern yoga.
But of the topic. Don’t make a mistake about the yogic stretching. It’s also to activate particular systems in the body like glands
What about DMT? You aren't going to live forever why waste your time sitting , meditating. We already know sitting is bad for you. And on top of that your goal of trying to clear your mind is not only impossible, any success merely an illusion, but counter productive to building stronger connections in the brain and new neuronal pathways as you would from stimulation with real life. Don't get me wrong if you're having a panic attack go ahead meditate, but don't think you'll reach a state even a fraction as insightful as that which can be attained on psychedelics.
It is sad that even with such a nice car, as Dr. Robert has, one can not get closer to truth!
Of course not, but he did get closer to a great car.
Probably it's this nice car that led him to realise that he is not closer to the truth yet.
Why is everything sad? Such a popular word these days but people don't even know what it means.
Does consciousness program responses for internal subjective mind to evaluate?
How is dualism a theory what does it predict and how can it be tested?
Yeah, exactly. It's just a label for ignorance. It's a way to put what we don't understand in a little box and pretend like we've now explained it. Minsky's take was harsh but accurate.
Well, you could be an object, which we are, but you can observe yourself as an object. There is your dualism. @@bryanreed742
It's all in your head!
Its abstract and so
its neither here nor there nor anywhere and
that is the most curious fact about the existential status of the abstract.
But in the interests of completeness one is forced to add,
abstractions cannot exist absent a material substrate on which to dance.
Abstractions sans substrate are indistinguishable from fictions.
Fabulous, thank you. Have to say tho that consciousness has to precede a brain n body, world. Otherwise there would be no body mind world.
The mind is connected to it’s own logistical realm where we find planning is intrinsic.
Consciousness could be first the brain experiencing external reality (awareness), then second the mind internal subjective emotion (feeling) about the brain conscious experience / awareness?
It is surprising that all science is based on proper definitions to start with. I have not seen scientists agree to a definition of consciousness or even mind. So there is an issue from the start for science to elaborate on something that we don't know how to define, or that no one agree on a definition.
Precisely. We need an operational definition of consciousness
Can the physical / brain be aware of something internal and subjective, even as it makes aware of external and objective? Is the internal and subjective physical or something non-physical?
What a beautiful question @James
Two weeks ago I was in the dentist chair getting a big job done, one person pulling on my lip, another drilling. I was thinking of a philosophical problem of how symbols translate into meaning, an ongoing thought process that morning since I walked to the dentist. Both states were obvious, my awareness a third thing, and I had to fight to keep from laughing because it was so odd.
@@projectmalus You really nailed it, first by finding something that can help you forget both pain and boredom, then by analysing and realising a complex phenomenon such as disjoint existence of consciousness within body. This is a great idea to think of while waiting for a late flight :)
Memory is a structure in the brain look for the biggest structure and link to character job activity etc
The only think I know for sure is the qualia
oh you know her too
Everything seems like a time frame
Wow, J.P. Moreland makes a lot of sense. There are different things you could say of mind you could not say is true of the brain. They are different. Correlated, but different, and someways, independent. Convincing argument. I'd be interested if anyone could debunk this.
He was interesting to listen to. But it's 100% metaphysics. 100% an immortal soul. Because the soul is not technically alive or physical. He is obviously smart and convincing but metaphysics is clearly pretty easy to critcize. Something that is immortal. I suppose something like love or fear is immortal. But these are emotions not an entity like a soul. Emotions exist inside a physical host. What would the host of a soul be since it is not confined to the body? Can a soul exist outside our universe? You see the problem right?
@@richardomier5501 J.P. Moreland struck me as brainwashed.
Human consciousness has an added wrinkle: personality.
19:35 - this guy is awesome
Why do some people see blood and they fainted.its our mind or conciouness that makes sense of what we see,not the brain .
Bear in mind, in regard to the term 'non-physical substance', the word 'substance' is the philosophical term, derived from Aristotle's 'ouisia', which is 'the bearer of attributes'. It is not 'a material with uniform properties' which is the usual meaning of 'substance'.
Thanks, I think :)
How do consciousness and the brain interact? Why would there be neural correlates to consciousness?
The Vedas provide a holistic theory indicating consciousness interacts with the brain because physical objects are produced by consciousness as symbols of meanings. There is no mind-body problem when the body is understood as a detailed concept.
Everything is a technology/ atom up - systems & interactions = time, sense of it inside a box.
If consciousness is some fundamental property of the universe itself, like some field, then it seems it should be everywhere. Neurons or cells perhaps don't have seem to have something like antennas to plug into it. How would primitive cells know that field was there and why would evolution favor cells with very primitive consciousness? Does it give advantages even at very low level??
Does consciousness indicate reality beyond evolution and physical universe? Maybe consciousness has role in physical universe and evolution?
To think that there is a problem is a wishful thinking/hope for mystery which does not exist. Application of occam's razor is in order.
I’m so glad you’ve single-handedly solved this ancient problem, you goofball. Mockery aside, there IS a problem of physical/nonphysical interaction. Surely, though, you’ve solved that. Care to share your immeasurable wisdom?
So, you can explain how purely physical matter can be ordered so it can give rise to something with subjective experience where there was no thing with subjective experience before?
You should publish this finding of yours so you can become a multimillionaire and the most famous / important scientist who ever lived.
@@unconcernedcitizen4092 what if there is no non-physical? physical exists we know for sure.
@@joshheter1517 the reporting of a subjective experience also enamates from the brain state and structure. I have not heard of anything expressing subjective experience without a substrate like a brain, which is the wetware needed to the best of our current knowledge. In future other physical, non biological substrate may be able to do the same.
@@SandipChitale
You know *for* *sure* that idealism is false?
How?
I heard someone say that "The Mind Is what the Brain Does." I think that says a lot.
Thats the functionalist view, but there's also the other view of identity theory. I myself find computer functionalism as the most likely hypothesis (the closest to truth, if you will).
@@felipemldias can you explain what you mean by computer functionalism?
I’d like to clarify that Consciousness is the sense “am”, or “I am”. This isn’t the same as “medically conscious. Just for clarity sake: Medically conscious means a doctor can detect evidence of consciousness in a subject.
Consciousness is not a computational ability. Ability to process bites, and algorithms that implement logical solutions lead to automata that can solve problems. Solving a problem, no matter how complex, is not the same as being aware. The sense that “I am” is consciousness. The sense that I see, feel, taste, think- that’s consciousness.
To me that if an autonomous car is the best example. I sit in the car, and it takes me from point A to B. The car uses sensors to detect obstacles, gps to detect and control direction, a map in the memory to identify a route, an a CPU to solve problems.
None of this is awareness. I, the driver, sitting in the car, possibly aware of all these processes, am not FUNCTIONALLY doing anything. Just observing.
This observer is Consciousness.
Can we make functional automata act as if they were aware? I am sure we would get better and better at it. However, the simulacrum is not the thing it simulates.
What I find cruel is that, if you go by this thinking, then you conclude that consciousness is purely subjective, and not amenable to detection. Since it cannot be detected and it’s existence not proven scientifically, we are stuck with belief and faith. And for that reason, neither of us can convince the other.
Thanks for your attention.
That's like saying flying is what a plane does. It's not an explanation. How does the plane fly? How does the brain produce a feeling of pain? Why is it when there's a song in my head, there's no music in my skull? When I see something green, there's no green thing in my brain, that when I look at my wife there's no love in my brain, and so on. I think it's beyond obvious the mind is not the brain.
czcams.com/video/BZWp0bnMBbM/video.html
@@stevecoats5656 these are all physical stimuli triggering off circuitry in the brain that is stored, recalled and integrated with extrapolation in the case of love. Some of it is pre-built eg fear but it all relates to the physical world around us. The whole process of detecting and processing stimuli collectively is what you perceive is your mind. Although we don't know how a feeling arises in the conscience I'm not sure it follows that the mind is not the brain.
Does the mind use thought and language to describe conscious experience?
"conscious experience" is redundant as
there is no unconscious experience.
I hope we can all appreciate we live in a time where we don’t have to be a rich royal to pay Descartes to teach us in a cold basement or be lucky enough to have studied under Locke and that we can just jump on the CZcamss and search what is the mind-body problem and hear the modern day versions of these scholars discuss it.
If consciousness not only science, then what else?
we know nothing
speak for yourself.
I satisfy my mind with things that are not good for my body.
Human mind is an extended and advanced version of the conscious agent that presents in every quantum of God creation thing inclusive in the smallest particle as observed in double slit experiment as the agent which recognizes the present of the observer. It is unseen matter in contrast to the universal physical matter. The universal physical matter (that makes the body and the brain) is only a signal, the carrier and the transporting agent of information but by itself is blind or can't recognize or feel the information content, conscious agent does. The input information in mind is similar to the diffracted X-ray rays representing the reciprocal lattices of the real crystal. Processed information gives the observed reality.
the first, rather long, sentence is word salad. in the second you are confusing signal and carrier. the signal is usually modulated onto a carrier. you are probably trying to say the brain is a receiver of a carrier containing a signal. problem is, our instrumentation is good enough to see if there is a signal "out there" being received. there isn't.
Parser failure. Information not conveyed.
The mind body problem is a problem for materialist, but it really isn't a problem.
Software and hardware. These exist independently like information and matter.
@Frog Squatch
We have analog computers with analog software (like positioning and timing of cams and lobes).
@Frog Squatch Both computing and physics has duality. Why not the brain also ? If someone tells me entropy and matter is the same, I would ask. What is the matter with you.
The problem is your analogy doesn't map to the mind. Software is designed to run on hardware - written by the people who understand how the hardware works. Consciousness isn't designed, it emerges from the brain as the brain develops.
Without the hardware the software cannot run and without the brain there is no consciousness - this much is roughly equivalent, but the software would have to be written by the hardware as it was growing, and by the hardware, for the analogy to (sort of) work.
To say they (h/w-s/w) exist independently is just not true - they are built to be inter-related (just try running a windows program on a Mac!). Information and matter are also not independent - the brain is matter and the stuff that goes on in it is both material processes and information... It's the same essential 'stuff'.
Information doesn’t exist independently from matter
@@Sam-hh3ry
Hmm, 2×2=4 its an information and it can exist without matter. In fact, it was existing long before any matter.
I have a hard time believing that a robot could become conscience like a human
What if you stepped into a mech robot on Earth and couldn't separate yourself from the mech and lost all recollection that you stepped into the mech but you still had observational awareness within in this mech to try and figure out what was going on. And so you are in this robot and it has a video screen that is a 3D video game and you walk around the video game in this mech and don't have to sleep or eat because the mech is electric powered and it hooks you up to a nutrient drip when you step into it and other bodily functions are handled by the mech. So anyways night and day as the observer in this mech you ponder your existence and try to figure out not only more about the 3d game and who and what you are as a mech but also what might live outside it. But anyone watching him from an Earth perspective will know that their crazy friend Carl is just walking aimlessly around a room in this arcade hooked up to this mech week after week, wondering around the game trying to figure it all out. Carl is convinced that the 3d game is all there is, he forgot where he came from because in this case it's part of the mech game Carl's playing, it's one of the rules.
It’s all fields. There is nothing non-physical. The mind is the program running on the brain.
One "thing" is fundamental. From the fundamental, material existence is projected like a dream. Layer upon layer of course to finer material. Then when you peer deep into matter it is seen to be mostly empty space and "particles" held together by "forces". But, we cannot truly define what a force is and what it is composed of. Science accepts forces because it can see a relationship between various components of matter. But, the force has no tangible material structure. Even if we conveniently define a force as elementary particles there still is space between those particles. Where is the glue that holds them together.
Similarly, consciousness has no shape or physical reality but we cannot deny our own awareness of self. Start with consciousness as the reality, and the mental image of your personal world as the projection from your mind. Dreams are the hint. We believe a dream is real until we wake up.
what "thing" is fundemental and how do you know there is only one. forces are defined just fine by the standard model as interactions. just because they are not a material "thing" in your mind doesn't mean that it si a nonsense. lots of things exist in the platonic world that are not material, it doesn't mean they don't exist in some way or another.
@@cosmikrelic4815 Of course everything we experience has a form of reality. Science has done a brilliant job of unravelling the characteristics of this universe. They are struggling to find that which ties all of their concepts together. The grand unifying equation. Then there are the various anomalies that are difficult to explain such as entanglement and particles vs waves. I am just suggesting that the thing that underlies all may be the same thing that generates all of the brilliant research and discoveries. Turning our back on consciousness because it is too difficult to explain is like halting all further research because we can't actually say where gravity comes from.
@@pentosmelmac8679 you have some good points but you don't seem to understand science. particles and wave stuff is about 80 - 100 years out of date, it is a lay persons position. whose turning their back on consciousness? not me, not people in the video. who?
@@cosmikrelic4815 i have a different point of view. Most of my interest in science comes from youtube so I don't claim to be an expert. A lot of physics seems to point to consciousness as having a greater role than it is given. Anyways, i welcome your replies.
@@pentosmelmac8679 you'll have to explain to me what role physics gives consciousness etc, i don't quite understand.
The problem is a deep misunderstanding of what mind means! The real living is in principle invisible! So there is no problem!
Mind has no meaning. Only language can mean.
Brain is what mind does. All that exists is this infinite field of consciousness.
czcams.com/video/BZWp0bnMBbM/video.html
How can you have a brain without mind then? Like when you’re unconscious for example.
It’s the other way around. We have concrete cases of brains without minds but no proven cases of minds without brains.
@@khaledyasser8293 When you see a brain that doesn't seem to have consciousness, that's because it's your consciousness producing the brain along with everything else in your experience.
@@PaulHoward108 Right, what does prove? No one will dispute that consciousness is required for you to see anything at all. What's being disputed is its role. Is it creating or just detecting the world? You seem to think it's creating it, that it's fundamental, more fundamental than matter. In whichcase:
What about when YOU go unconscious? What brings you back? The fact that you come back from a state of unconsciousness every morning when you wake up consistently means that there must be something more fundamental than your mind, that is keeping your mind together.
That thing is matter. Your brain.
@@khaledyasser8293 The Vedas indicate the universe is a dream produced by one of the forms of the Personality of Godhead (any form of the Personality of Godhead is called Viṣṇu), and we each are infinitesimal portions of Viṣṇu, who maintains everything.
If consciousness is emergent from brains, why do you say "your brain"? The "your" refers to the person, which means a soul. The soul is a real object, and the brain and other body parts are symbols representing the soul's properties. When matter is treated as fundamental, theories about matter are unavoidably incomplete or inconsistent, but that problem is overcome by treating physical objects as detailed concepts.
Is consciousness even supposed to be understood, or only experienced?
why would we seperate concieusness from being part of brain,in the sense that in quantum physic's elements are not what they appear to be ...in this scense, what you call soul, or whatever ,could simply be manifestation of the quantum physical part of our body and mind problem.
So, what constitutes consciousness? Where does the central nervous system fit into the problem of dualism? Why do philosophers insist on an either/or answer? Does an unconscious person still have a mind?
"So, what constitutes consciousness?"
There's no such thing as consciousness.
Being conscious is a process.
Process is an abstract notion.
It is your self who is conscious (think about it for a moment).
Self is simply the word you use to refer to your being-conscious-process.
When your being-conscious-process ceases your self ceases being.
And of course vice versa, when you cease being you cannot be conscious.
"Where does the central nervous system fit into the problem of dualism?"
Dualism says there are two kinds of substances, matter and spirit.
We have an inkling about matter but of spirit we know nothing.
Thus the central nervous system, matter, has no discernible relationship to spirit.
"Why do philosophers insist on an either/or answer?"
I don't know that they do. Maybe some do, others certainly do not.
"Does an unconscious person still have a mind?"
No.
If your self is not conscious then your self has ceased existing.
Your self resumes existing right along with being conscious.
Thus 'self and 'being conscious' are probably a unit.
Can you imagine anything that's not a self could possibly be conscious?
I find the effort to imagine that always ends in incoherence.
I am one of those who holds that
when one is conscious it is always OF something.
And when I am not conscious of anything then
I am not conscious, I am unconscious, I am non existent.
Repeating...
And when my self is not conscious of anything then
my self is not conscious, my self is unconscious, my self is non existent.
If my body died while my self was non existent my self would not notice.
Our minds evolved to think about existents and
this is why it's impossible for us to imagine absolute nothing.
Cheers! that was fun
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL It seems as though we have a paradox in your first answer. "There is no such thing as consciousness. Being conscious is a process." Couldn't you just as easily say that consciousness is the process of being conscious. Therefor consciousness is a process, and if nothing else, does exist as such. Of course that brings into question what constitutes existence. Maybe more to follow. Headed out to photograph horse racing at Oaklawn. Thanks for the reply.
@@kurtissutley1485 Fine, I'll await what may follow. Enjoy your time with horses.
Yay 🤓
Nothing distinguishes you from the next man. He thinks of himself as ,,I,, in the way you and everyone does. This makes us all one. And not just the humans. Everything that has consciousness. We are one whole river of consciousness, not separate entities.
Only in your dreams, i can't associate not even with you, don't even think about sharing my thoughts with mindless animals.
Believing in a consciousness is ideological nonsense, it's not real, nothing is self-aware except most humans.
From my perspective, you are you, have nothing to do with me, except we're all the same species, but that's irrelevant in a modern world beyond obvious facts, global ethics and general laws.
Why is the choice between either dualism 'or' materialism. Perhaps it's something of both, or neither! Consciousness does go deeper (21:30), but we can know it, we are it!!! It is interesting that the philosophers perhaps came closest to answering the question posed.
The brain doesn't exist in a vacuum, separate from the rules that govern the universe. If, for example, the universe is 2-dimensional information that expresses itself in 3-dimensional reality, then the human brain, the most complex object in the known universe, is permeated/steeped/interwoven in that same governing reality. The structure of the brain is inseparable from the underlying structure/fabric of the universe.
The brain then becomes an organ of sense itself, perhaps the sixth sense, the sense that connects our minds with that 2-dimensional information universe. We write our memories in that 2-dimensional reality. Our consciousness emerges from that 2-dimensional universe. That information (our memories) are perhaps permanently recorded. In a sense, if we have existed, we will always exist, as those memories. It would explain a lot, including notions of the spiritual realm, the supernatural realm, and perhaps other things we still have to learn and understand.
Of course those are just ideas, but whatever the ultimate truth, we will finally realise that we are not insignificant specks on a random rock, orbiting an ordinary star.
We are the universe, we are creator and created...
Ask him to explain ALTRUISM.
why don't you try?
JP is not embarrassed to defend dualism. He’s not embarrassed to defend Iron Age fantasy and prejudice so why should that be surprising.
SOLVED=Tom Cambell
It's pretty much gotten to the point where I fast-forward when it comes time to interview the theist. They never seem to add anything useful to the conversation.
The concept of "soul" is just another brain state.
When was this filmed, Searle is talking about computer functionalism in brains, obviously he didn't see Google AI, their smart neural like electronics machine can understand Chinese very well.
Studying the mind brain relationship is meaningful. But even with the AI example you cannot prove that a mind arise in a purposeless Universe and has no purpose . By calling AI e.g. a pattern you have not accomplished anything. The translator is still a translator between two beautiful languages and it's accuracy can be characterized by QoE or KPIs. Purpose meaning is never eliminated. Only detached from the implementation by using the word pattern or information.
@@jozsefnemeth935 I like your first proposition, about why would universe gave rise to intelligent mind, that's a fair question.
But you are wrong about electronic neural networks, it works perfectly well since civilized people must mind precision of language. We have rules of expression, so intention is hidden in the way we choose words and make meaningful sentences. Artificial intelligence is much more than just a translator, depends on ho much data it can associate with a person, more it knows about his life, status, interests, health, location, weather, activity, social relations and such, better it became in guessing temporal intentions and demands.
Talk to Google if you don't believe me, see how robot voice will adjust amplitudes in it's responds, using voice modulation to satisfy your emotional expectations.
I think it was related to the Turing test, giving proper replies without there being awareness there.
@@frankyjayhay Better than public services in my crapy country, at least the machine is not designed for corruption.
For what reason does the brain evolve consciousness?
the same reason as any evolutionary outcome, it helps the species adapt better to its environment. a conscious animal is better equipped to analyze its environment and to empathise with others around it, forming societies.
@@cosmikrelic4815 Evolution is nonsensical and fake.
@@cosmikrelic4815 you only described it's pluses to have consciousness from the evolutionary standpoint, but the question HOW consciousness appeared in our brains, and when did that happen, how it evolved on its own? - still remains.
@@cosmikrelic4815 is consciousness in the environment? If consciousness not in the environment, how would help adapt to environment? Can something evolve if not in the environment?
@@jamesruscheinski8602 what do you mean is it in the environment?
I get the humorous? idea that a team of ancient jedis appeared on Earth and picked straws on who engineers the human body. Then it turns out that the one with a Halloween fetish gets The Straw. The result: even the best looking humans are ‘they-look-cool-but-there-is-wet-and-sloppy-engineering-inside’.
No brain, never mind. If brain is water, mind is H2O, and Conscience and soul are water properties.
Being matter, the body is dead. It seems alive as long as the living force dwells in it.
That’s a pretty bizarre way to explain things.
Creepy. Kinda like a crazy slasher movie character.
No ! Matter includes living matter. The cells are alive. But are totally interconnected.
You can keep cells, and even organs, alive seperate of the body
@@thomasridley8675 parts of you can be alive apart from you?
@@williamesselman3102
You have heard of transplants and cell cultures.
This proves a God imo.
how?
The entire cosmos and everything in it proves God.
There's no debate.
@@S3RAVA3LM well that isn't very convincing. what was the evidence again?
@@cosmikrelic4815 Because it's easier to just say ,,God did it,, instead of saying ,,I don't know, let's try and put our brains to use to try to find out,,.
'A thought is either true or false'. (13:02) Is thinking 'blue' a true or, false thought? This is some strange theological construction...
By “thought” he means “complete thought”: like your English teacher might mention when she’s explaining what a declarative sentence is.
But, even if only some thoughts are true or false, you could run more or less the same argument.
Some thoughts are true or false. No brain states are true or false. Therefore, (at least some) thoughts are not merely brain states.
And, even your examples lend themselves to a similar argument. When you are thinking *of* blue, you are thinking *of* something. It’s hard to say what it could possibly mean for a purely physical state to be *of* something.
@@joshheter1517
We are an all physical state of existence. Unless, you can say we violate the laws of physics.
@@thomasridley8675
What law of physics would be broken by the existence of (for instance) a non-physical mind (as a part of me or in any other form)?
Please be very specific.
@@joshheter1517
You lack evidence of an independent energy source.
Even if a non-material exsitence was possible. It would still need an energy source. And we have yet too encounter anything that wasn't totally material.
Besides, our human centric view seems very ego centric.
We don't even have a specially created biology. We depend the smallest forms of life too even exist at all.
@@thomasridley8675 everything is energy
We are all souls having a physical human experience. The data from the research into NDE'S overwhelmingly tells us so. You can't have a veridical out of body experience if you are just your body and even one single case like this (yet there are many) is proof that our consciousness is not corporeal.
It's not proof.
It is imagination.
I think you do not appreciate the power of imagination.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL oh really? And you know this you be the case because...
@@lindal.7242 You asserted something.
I asserted something different.
If you explain what a soul is made of,
how it is able to experience or
any verifiable fact about it then
I will explain how out of body 'experiences'
may be products of imagination.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL yours would be but a theory based on opinion, mine would be an explanation based on research data.
There is no mind-body problem. There is only a problem if you cast it as the body-mind problem.
TBI Traumatic Brain Injury really kind of settles the issue for me. Your mind, your whole sense of conscious self-aware self can change with a carefully aimed blow of a bat. And a person with Down's Syndrome or a IQ of 25 in the Severe Mental Disability Range; what of their sense of a soul or conscious self-aware self? Hard to get around the dependence of mind on body.
"Hard to get around the dependence of mind on body".
Exactly!
Abstract entities like thoughts and minds are simply matter dancing.
Where there is no matter
there can be no dancing.
And the essence of a dance is its pattern coded process.
I find it very interesting that reflecting is a synonym for thinking.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Have you copywrited _Matter Dancing?_ ; _)_
@@longcastle4863 I have not copyrighted 'Matter Dancing' so do feel free to use it.
I'm sure I've heard people saying something similar, something like, 'Brains are matter and minds are what brains are doing'.
From the begging the bible talks about 2 becoming 1 Adam and Eve, Cain & Abel Abraham had to leave his father's house, Jacob and Esau, John & Christ, it is learning to overcome flesh nature with the spiritual nature, having your mind and heart agree as one whole. Not looking without yourself but the true oneself. The bible is the story of every individual born into this world, ( whirled ) of confusion and beginning that which you are intended to become. Done will deny this truth others will pick up there cross and, raise the serpent mind to the realm of spiritual maturity.
Bro Science can not reach something beyond Time and Space.
The problem I have is I mind watching my body in the mirror
The eye sense data is digitized by jumping synapses or whatever and reconstructed like the dac in audio and visual systems, oversampling to make more real, then sent out digitally again as language, the binary of sticks and stones. The mirror is a blade that cuts down the middle of that.
I have a question to MIT AI professor who seem to completely rule out existence of an entity apart from brain, how do we explain experiences people have had in operation theater, where they were completely unconscious, brain completely non functional and they described the scene in great detail.
Were you there to here the patient?
Or are you talking about someone else's report. i.e. hearsay.
@ about 13:25 I agree with the Christian philosopher JP there is a " soul" or a spiritual component to individual human beings. But i believe he's talking *way* too fast to make his arguments competitive with today's materialist philosophers. And maybe that's because of the way he's being interviewed here. Nevertheless Christian philosophers need to slow the heck *way* down and very carefully choose their semantics. In my opinion science and philosophy shouldn't be mutually exclusive. The goal after all it seems to me is understanding . . . to understand correctly WTF is really going on.
Seems to me religion and philosophy are unhappy bedfellows.
30 million near death experiences around the world is enough evidence that we have a soul
Everyone who ever lived had a near death experience.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL right
@@MMAGUY13 Our lives are so short it's reasonable to assert
every moment is a near death experience.
Pretty good episode except Marvins input, that guys a hack.
I think Marvin has it spot on!
Consciousness is simply integrated focused sense of external sense, internal sense, mental activity, memory and mind linked with feelings and emotions under presence and influence of soul that gives rise of desire for leading to focused, judged, controlled behavioral output. All are interconnected. Full stop. Will talk about flow diagram sometime next.
Consciousness isn't 'simply' anything. It is a hugely complex (emergent) property of the brain. 'Soul' is irrelevant, when all that it brings to the discussion is a different word for personal identity.
@@stueyapstuey4235 that’s the full on materialist view of consciousness. Have you seen cases of people without large parts of their physical brain still seemingly conscious? They are weird cases, of course we need to look at them more seriously but the materialist view that’s so prevalent almost always completely ignores these edge cases, because they are so certain that’s how it works.
@harishkumar india I see, I haven’t come across those explanations. Perhaps the author of this video can share his insight considering he’s got a PhD in neuroscience and is still debating this question.
@@stueyapstuey4235 Identity, personality or intelligence all have zero to do with consiousness.
Consiousness is the window that allows a subjective experience of those in the first place.
Believing it emerges from some physical process in the brain is just as much of a belief as believing there is a non-physical soul.
@@stueyapstuey4235 if you start expanding and going to deep detail steps of what I said in a nutshell, you may find solution to all complexities that are currently bothering. May be I am wrong.
This man/body has a big problem. It's in his mind 😆
Just tell me the purple nightmare fuel head is CGI, and not something someone built...
It is possible that the Bible for instance is an ancient attempt to reveal the workings of the mind through symbolic writing and 'water' is the ancient symbol for the mind where for example still calm water = peace of mind.
The river is deep and the river is wide.
no, the bible is a fairy story.
@@cosmikrelic4815 He's not wrong tho. Gods were ancient attempts to explain what was unexplainable back then. Religion is what greedy fuckups did to take advantage of feeble people with existential crisis. Stupidity is the key factor that binds them all together in this fuckery they call faith nowadays.
The river's water is alive.
@@anameyoucantremember yes i agree. i maybe took the wrong meaning from the OPs post.
Is it truly the universe expanding ? Are not that the red shift data of distance galaxies very old? Is not that implies that the universal expansion was the past event?
Relooking invertedly the geometry of the universe one can sense in one conscious mind that the furthest point (of infinite distance) is center of one mind and the true centre of one mind is now at the infinity of universal inverted geometry of the universe.
Now the new information about the universe is filling the space of one mind (the inverted universal space mentioned above). It is obviously not expanding and now is one information store. One has no information at the infinite distance (or now the centre of the inverted universe in one conscious mind) and with undefinable knowledge at it infinity point (as it represents the infinite knowledge one mind can theoritically acquire but of course impossible because only the Almighty Allah has infinite knowledge).
The centre of one conscious mind C(0,0,0) is representing the niche of the God light that makes a conscious mind possible to recognize all information enter into one mind(which is also the centre of inverted universe [or the reciprocal of the furthest point - the infinity] in universe in one conscious mind). This is explained by the Quran;
Surah An-Noor, Verse 35( English Translation Shakir),
"Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche in which is a lamp, the lamp is in a glass, (and) the glass is as it were a brightly shining star, lit from a blessed olive-tree, neither eastern nor western, the oil whereof almost gives light though fire touch it not-- light upon light-- Allah guides to His light whom He pleases, and Allah sets forth parables for men, and Allah is Cognizant of all things."
Allah Know Best.
It is rare to find such an obvious spewer of empty bs like the "distinguished professor" JP Moreland, even amongst the theists.
Oh, well if a random, anonymous CZcams commenters says so, Im convinced!
@@joshheter1517
Why not, anything you want to believe can be easily made believable, it's not that difficult.
Professor McGinn is the only one of the five participants who spoke with intellectual honesty and curiosity. Minsky is the poorest entry of the five. He's a smug, pompous, arrogant and self complacent talking head.
why? because one of them agrees with you and the other doesn't.
@@cosmikrelic4815 no, but he’s the only one that was in his own words “insulted” by the opposing view. Which is part of the problem with this debate. People are so sure yet we have no proof whichever view. Also what makes it really interesting. But showing anger is to be sure without really having proof, is no good. Everyone’s proof is in some way unmeasurable, so it’s some what subjective.
@@NoobTube4148 who was angry?
@@cosmikrelic4815 Marvin, when he said something along the lines “it’s frankly insulting”. He felt attacked for his view as though any other possibility is preposterous.
@@NoobTube4148 you are projecting, i didn't see it as anger just an excited researcher. he may be a little bigoted but it was an opinion. science will decide in the end.
There is no problem. You looking for a problem?
it's a metaphor for saying we don't know, therefore it is a ,,problem,,
@@Vlad-wl3fw no it's not a metaphor...and I know what his problem is...I just don't happen to share that problem
Joe 'Do some DMT' Rogan.
I only want to see Robert standing in front of the purple brain..
Purple brain
Purple brain