Matter and Consciousness - Dr Iain McGilchrist
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- Get early access to our latest psychology lectures: bit.ly/new-talks5
It has become customary to talk about consciousness as the great unsolved problem of our age. I argue that consciousness itself is not the problem; the problem is our customary mode of thinking. I will outline the thesis of a new book, The Matter with Things, in which I suggest that, because of our allegiance to a certain model of the world, demonstrably associated with the left hemisphere of the brain, we misunderstand the fundamental nature of the world, and as a result run into predictable problems in trying to make sense of it.
These problems are in evidence all around us in the modern West. For the purposes of this talk I will focus on the relationship between matter and consciousness, and ask: are they two things or one? Are they things at all? If they are different in what way? How necessary are brains to consciousness? And why do we have consciousness at all?
Dr Iain McGilchrist is a Psychiatrist and Writer, who lives on the Isle of Skye, off the coast of North West Scotland. He is committed to the idea that the mind and brain can be understood only by seeing them in the broadest possible context, that of the whole of our physical and spiritual existence, and of the wider human culture in which they arise - the culture which helps to mould, and in turn is moulded by, our minds and brains. He was formerly a Consultant Psychiatrist of the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley NHS Trust in London, where he was Clinical Director of their southern sector Acute Mental Health Services.
Dr McGilchrist has published original research and contributed chapters to books on a wide range of subjects, as well as original articles in papers and journals, including the British Journal of Psychiatry, American Journal of Psychiatry, The Wall Street Journal, The Sunday Telegraph and The Sunday Times. He has taken part in many radio and TV programmes, documentaries, and numerous podcasts, and interviews on CZcams, among them dialogues with Jordan Peterson, David Fuller of Rebel Wisdom, and philosopher Tim Freke. His books include Against Criticism, The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, The Divided Brain and the Search for Meaning, and Ways of Attending. He is currently working on his latest book: The Matter With Things, a book of epistemology and metaphysics, to be published by Penguin/Random House. You can keep up to date with his work at www.iainmcgilchrist.com.
Links:
- Get our latest psychology lectures emailed to your inbox: bit.ly/new-talks5
- Check out our next event: theweekendunive...
- Dr McGilchrist’s website: amzn.to/2IcAnIM
- Dr McGilchrist’s books: iainmcgilchris...
I cannot get enough of Mr. McGilchrist's talks. I feel as if my mind is being rebuilt from the ground up. This talk is, to me, profoundly religious, and I am moving toward a spirit I have never known or understood. I am listening to his talks before I delve into "The Matter With Things" (I am already reading "The Master etc".) I wish I were better at describing how Dr. McGilchrist has changed my life, and how grateful I am to him.
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
it resonates so deep
I'm about four hours into his world and feel the same way. Choked up crying at times.
@@irrelevant2235and I'm okay wwwewewwewwwwwE ee
You know, this man has done more for me than most people. His sincerity and wisdom reaches for that I’m grasping for. But alas it doesn’t need grasping it’s already there, this presents this openness and freedom.
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
@@irrelevant2235
We can agree to disagree respectfully ❤
@@irrelevant2235 There is a theme to your comments and your username
McGilchrist gives the most lucid all-inclusive view I think I've ever heard. Very impressive!
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
@@irrelevant2235 It's determined to appear we have free-will, might as well run with it.
I believe it was David Eagleman who made the analogy that the self is a lot like a mountain in this way: you can call something a "mountain," but in reality if you study closely you really can't define exactly where it begins or ends. In reality it's simply a phenomenon emerging from the whole of the landscape, and is not separate from it. The closer you get to the edges and look closely, you can't say cleanly where one mountain ends and another begins. The brain is rather like the peak. It blends perfectly in with the rest of the mountain, but it's the place that is most uniquely "that" mountain. I think this fits nicely with the idea of the brain/consciousness "emerging" from the fabric of the universe.
Bit flowery. As valid as any I guess
@@ryanclayton6496 A bit hilly, rather.
@@mkor7 LOL. Good one.
@@composerdoh Thanks, thought you might enjoy that :)
Oh please, what a load of codswallop.
It appears that “Reality” is an ever-changing, interdependent co-emergent play between unique individual and collective perceptive experience and energetic phases of form manifestation.
Seems like einstine found the theory that ran the Egyptian era
It helps me remember that my every present moment is deciding my next. Everything I choose to do or don't do. How I do it, what I feel, think, my intention, attitude all matters.. Scary and so very beautiful empowering 😅
Reality in scare quotes is already a problem. The rest was solipsism. Reality is what it is independent of one's willingness or ability to perceive it.
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 you really did not understand the ideas in the video. Dr. McGilchrist, I think, would agree with you, but in a way that is more than about a puny little "I" (or "one", as you wrote it). ;-) Listen a couple of times more, perhaps. Come back to it in a year or two. :-)
@@sunburstrose7860 ha ha
Dr McGilchrist...I hope one of your future books will be poetry...🙏🏽
This is one of the best lectures I have ever heard on any subject.
“Concioussness is a spotlight on a stage” I think as a child I sacraficed a lot to keep as much illuminated as possible, to try and observe what was happening to me in a way that tired me so in other aspects of life.
Thank you for admitting we know nothing. That’s a refreshing recognition of reality. It’s not like it isn’t obvious.
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
I absolutely adore him and his brilliant ideas. I don’t know if he is aware that the ads are interrupting ad nauseam. Seriously, I’ve never heard so many ads in one podcast. Every few minutes. Is it just me getting all of these ads?
Yes, very irritating. A week ago there were far less ads.
Use the browser Brave or a blocker
friendlybus1 Thank you for this advice.
@@Nick_fb I still got loads of ads using Brave.
If you pay for youtube you don't get ads. If you don't pay, you get ads. That's how the platform gets paid for. Basically, there ain't no free lunch.
This gentleman is just an absolute joy to listen to!
me too fell to sleep straight away
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
What is thought? I love Dr. McGilchrist books 📚 ❤
What is the ego? What is the meaning of time? What is love? The observer watching the observed.
We are nature reflecting on nature. ❤ Amazing!!!! I don't see any problem here, indeed!! Crows are very intelligent birds. I call them and they come to me and I feed them, since a child, my grandpa taught me how.
I love you Dr. McGilchrist.
(When one knows, one doesn't know and when one doesn't know , then and only then one may)
Can you tell us how you get the crows to interact with you, I would like to play with crows as well, I admire their intelligence
I'm reminded: Human beings give everything that is, all the meaning that anything ever has.
Yes, What Saint Francis found after a life time of seeking, truly the best answer for my understanding.
" What you are looking for is what is looking ".
Life is truly looking to be more and more like a miracle. The older I get, the more I want to explore the other side. Everything is telling me, that it's going to be an amazing spot to experience.
Thanks for posting and sharing. Very interesting... topic :)
To seek is to find, to find is to know, and to know is to be.
1:36:08 A metaphor is a fine example of an immaterial 'entity' that can be instantiated by the behavior/configuration of matter. 'The ground lay under a blanket of snow.' for instance.
I know the first word of this sentence was the author of this sentence.
It was my self that wrote it.
I is a metaphor instantiated in this sentence and instantiated in a more dynamic form by a subset of my brain's behavior.
disconcerting to see youtube remove showing how many dislikes are gained, not of the person, but of the learning behind this teaching.
The location of our eyes and ears needs to be discussed. If they were elsewhere, our brains would not be candidates for the source of consciousness. And if we have vision and hearing during things like NDEs, that contradicts physical blindness and deafness, so it’s, most likely, a dream before final death. We also have a wonderful clue in that history begins earlier than when we appear, which essentially answers the question of what happens without our consciousness, which is everything. So minus our consistent reincarnation, which is a stretch since the universe probably has periods of no human or even life at all, our own consciousness is not important to the universe.
Thank you so much and so refreshing. I am not a philosopher or very highly educated person but I get ideas abs concepts out of nowhere. I would like to officially records them and then discuss them with relevant specialists to review them and put them in proper professional and academic writings if they are useful for the world,
Do it
Awesome stuff, thank you Dr McGilchrist. One thing i've sensed over the years about Consciousness is that it has a 'frothy' essence and Mind has 'bubble' qualities, and like bubbles; they come in various sizes and prone to inflation, deflation, merging and popping!
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
Ahem, irrelevant: without free will who is left to take anything seriously?
You been taking phychadelics?.
eight minutes in and, wow, you are a wise man. Listening...
What a thoroughly brilliant talk. Great questions, too. Thank you so much for sharing!
A timely reminder about opportunities
What an inspired and inspiring performance. Is it not a bit terrifying that we live in a time when common sense has become so uncommon it has to be so boldly and radically asserted? Probably best to operate on the assumption that it not too late?
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
@irrelevant2235 well without free will it does not matter anyway
I want to hear more about your new book Dr McGilchrist!
Interesting
Should be out in october
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
Philosophy should be at the heart of all learning and the first of all subjects.
Sooo much to take in there.
What a talk. He is amazing.
What he is saying, once felt, will resonate strongly and shape our future in a different direction.
Belief and hope in relationship btwn humanity, nature, energy has to be the one outcome from the many possibilities.
Quantum physics should be at the heart of all learning and the first of all subjects. Without it, nothing would be known of what we really are.
thanks for your time, I have found, the Seth materials, Nature of reality, provides much illumination on this subject
If life is self-emergent, then why do we not see spontaneous life emerging everywhere at all times? My question is not whether an act of "creation" took place, but why did it stop? Why can life only originate from other life, like a distant echo?
BIG BANG ah ah Consciousness arrives from GOD so much for this doctor... GOD is untouchable and is only reached by the presence of Consciousness. Matter is a condition for the purpose of our life wich is the search of our moral improvement in the light of GOD. You must understand that is only from matter that things such as greed and envy arrives from and thats way we are subject to her so that we can prove ourselfs in the light of God in this process some will be able to understand its purpose and give Glory to GOD.
The man is a genius ..the Muhammad Ali of thinkers
Certainly speaks very sophisticatedly.
Your comment makes me laugh. But you’re right McGilchrist is simply brilliant and is the master of his material
More like the iain McGilchrist of boxing
He thinks period. For someone who has not learned how to properly think and manifest then it may seem extraordinary
@@Dialogos1989 naw
Slime molds are actually _single_ cell organisms which is even more incredible.
"Let's not beat around the bush ... let's take slime mold" Fascinating and delightful to listen to!
at 1:14:35 is one of the best quotes I've ever heard anyone say and really made me laugh!
What is the consciousness of? well I say its exactly conscious of what it seems. its not a projection on an internal screen, in a home cinema inside my head, viewed by a homunculus sitting on a cerebral sofa!
Clearest most grounded expression of the concept have heard, nothing woo woo, since in any case there is nothing woo about the idea any more than in its opposite hegemonic.
LOVE this presentation. (Hate the constant irritating, irrelevant commercials!)
This was an incredible talk. Thanks Dr. McGilchrist.
I've spent gross amounts of time on youtube, this was one of the better vids out there, thanks for elaborating more from what I already knew directly in experience to be true. When he said Buddhism, sadly he actually meant to credit it's parent Sanatana Dharma, Dharma Nation channel has 2 videos about Buddhism and I highly recommend listening to it and many of their other vids LOTR Vedic perspective is a fav among many.
I recall from I think the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, which every uni student worth their salt read (or just bought!) in the 1970s, that the body doesn't contain a soul - - rather, the soul contains the body and continually restructures it to "hold it together in physical form" as it were (i.e. consciousness is prior and enables the properties of matter). Watching decades of philosophers tie themselves into knots to explain the reverse from an in/out/algoritmic computer model of cognition has been sometimes amusing, sometimes frustrating. Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics" referred to the Dance of Shiva as holding reality together in structured relationship. (Of course a materialist would point to Lord Shiva's multiple arms and say, indeed it takes a lot of determined thrashing about in empty space to generate consciousness) "😊
@@T-aka-T my goodness how corrupted ur mind has become thru such drivel...hope u haven't wasted too much time on such fallacy.
@@T-aka-T next ull be saying u read von daniken religiously...lol
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
Matter and consciousness is imagined. 💓
You should claim the nobel prize for this discovery
Brilliant
The entanglements of man answering the question of the portal's of the portal's time is a bit different from what we are seeing as the timeline for us to determine the extent of the answer intentions of the portal's is to pace holders of the reality that we use.strange thought.
Wonderful presentation, thank you. For me it resonates as a description of Dialectic monism - the Yin and Yang symbol. Scientific parsimony.
In Egypt all were connected to the mysterious side of the mind, not just the female. Who was the scientist that said in pre history there was a pre established harmony?
@@ejenkins4711 When was pre history? Before the ancient Greeks invented the concept of history? Can archeology extend history back in time?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL check out Randall Carson, the flood 11600 years ago is like a wedge between history and pre history. The can't deny that discovery in Turkey. All they can do is avoid facing the truth that civilization is way older than ever imagined
@@ejenkins4711 As opposed to the older theory ? ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_floods
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL indeed, take into consideration freuds oidipus complex and the fact that a lady was the one that introduced jesus into the collective unconsious. Back then Who would have been the mediator between man and God until the Adam character thought "hold on A fakin minute why can I not see it when she swallows talking about THE APPLE.
Love the analogy of the stage and spotlight ... who or what is in control of moving the spotlight?? I would take the spotlight as attention - I have been trying to fathom whether the real ‘I’ is a passive observer of where this conscious attention goes or there is an ‘I’ that has freewill to move the spotlight of attention
I think one of the greatest displays of intelligence, is the ability to express complex ideas in a simple way.
And therefore....? So what. This is all just mere speculative. The universe does not care about us whatsoever, creationism argued by a guy who wants perhaps to believe that there is a designer? There is no definite agreement regarding fine tuning. But he knows apparently, and makes assertions which I am sure Robert Salporsky would be a useful person to converse with. Not just Peterson.
"It doesn't Matter! Have you got my leg?"
I know, another Tiger in Africa/Matter/Consciousness Joke...
your lecture on Consciousness was, however, no joke! I've enjoyed it twice. Thank you.
At the core of existence are waves of energy and light. Even the hardest rock is being created with waves of energy and light. AND these waves of energy and light are consciousness itself.
Observation affects reality by influencing matter. We project consciousness purposefully when we create religions, and perform rituals and offer sacrifices. Humans learned our chances for a better outcome are increased by focusing awareness and expanding consciousness. This is why people create Gods. We focus our consciousness when we pray for a better outcome for better survival. Rain dances are purposeful and in this world and in the quantum world the probability of rain goes up.
Absolutely delightful talk!
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
Tldr? Even if we assume consciousness to be fundamental, the hard problem still remains. So basically we're back to square one. I think it's just better to say that we don't know at this point. Everything else is a hypothesis not a testable theory
17:56// 32:00// 1:01:00// 1:11:00// 1:12:25// 1:17:35
I can't watch this. I've listened to this numerous times and was so looking forward to seeing this but the camera operator CONSTANTLY messing about with the framing is beyond infuriating. The widest shot that included the backs of the heads of the front row is what should have been set as it shows it is an attended talk and you can see the interactions of those who do, it makes it feel more alive. The other two could've and should've been pulled straight from the feed. This man has saved my life and THIS is what I comment?
#FUNFACT - Tibetan Buddhists have LONG been exploring these realms, while in the WEST, it been actively suppressed. Thank GOD 4 the psychedelic revolution/AWAKENING, huh?
Yes! Western academics usually know nothing of the Perennial philosophy, so spend their lives trying to re-invent the wheel. .
Fascinating. Thank you, sir! What I can't reconcile is how we share the physical. PS You have explained precisely why we will never get to Mars via rocket fuel.
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
Absolutely fascinating! Thank you Iain McGilchrist - although I'll have to watch this a few times in order to understand.
So much wisdom so simply put
A much needed light ✨️ much grattitude
Wow... awesome lecture. So much to process and integrate..
'Consciousness - A user's guide' (book)
The best thing about materialism is the intense wonder we feel when we are freed of it.
We are always free of materialism because it doesn't exist. At the core of what is called materialism are waves of energy and light. With intent, these spin as quarks which are 3 points of light spinning billions of times a second as protons and neutrons. These are atoms which spin and pulsate as positive/negative poles. Atoms are electrical energy fields. We all consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms.
All the subatomic particles we consist of spin and pulsate super-fast, too fast to cause us to be material. Too fast to cause ANYTHING to be material. Therefore, this existence has ALWAYS been magical and eternal as it is constantly being created. You can see this constant creation of us in the book HANDS OF LIGHT written by the physicist Barbara Brennan.
Conscesneus is the part of the space, time and energy what interact with itself regarding of information received from outside and inside #
*CONSCIOUSNESS* needs to be redefined as levels of complexity and kind, not just black/white unconsciousness/consciousness (to include SELF consciousness).
If you define *CONSCIOUSNESS as ability to react to your environment surroundings* thru interfaces/senses
then all quanta-matter is conscious thru their Fields and forces aspects (neutrinos are the most unconscious matter)
- as it gets fractally more complex into biological matter molecule matrices it recombines and recursive flows of energy to eventual intentional choice acquiring more energy to retain search for more energy to maintain matrix existence energy flows leading to self awareness reflection by neurological organs
BOOM higher consciousness
Matter allows a dualistic world which consciousness needs because consciousness at it's base level is probability turned into reality by choice which then solidifies into our individual reality. Without dualism how can you have choice. Perhaps God is the massive probability we come from?
That's very dense so perhaps you will tell me if I understand what you've written by my paraphrase of it...
If matter is all there is,
then choice is impossible because the laws of physics don't permit it.
We make choices all the time.
We make those choices with our minds.
Mind and matter are completely different.
Dualism is thus necessarily the case.
?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL what I was basically saying is that you need more than one time-line or probability to even have the ability to have any free will. One choice is no choice. Therefore it seems to need at the very least 2 possibilities to have any choice at all and if you don't have choices you have to go with the flow regardless of what you mind thinks. Do 5 grams of psilocybin, visit the luminous cloud entities and see how much freewill you have in that singularity. You will learn a lot, but you are not in the driver's seat. Lol.
The good Doctor illustrates beautifully the limitations of the scientific approach.
I know more about consciousness than he does, and I´m a blacksmith !
Consciousness is fundamental, matter derives from it.
Now you know.
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
@@irrelevant2235 I wish I understood your point of view "belief" is a word I avoid (since I never have all the data) but acting as if I have free will seems to work for me.
Certainly my experiences so far in life will to a certain extent direct my actions, but I think you must be going deeper than that ?
experiential is the only way to go as we have no cognitive capacity to analyze the stage
therefore forget the philosophers and thinkers as we only have ourselves for an aid
since we cannot progress, the conclusion comes to a simple one as it is;
conscious disbursement over living matter; then again, isn't all matter conscious as Native Americans always believed that everything has a spirit
Some things clearly have no existence outside of or in the absence of consciousness - colour, for example. Colour may have an outside stimulus, namely electro-magnetic energy of a particular wavelength, but this energy is itself colourless. Only in the mind is colour created, and colour is clearly 'real' even if it has no material quality whatsoever. Time is also meaningless without consciousness, since only consciousness actually provides the interplay of the past and the anticipated that gives rise to persistence. Without it, the whole history of a universe effectively passes instantly. Whatever consciousness is, it is undoubtedly in some sense fundamental.
Consciousness is awareness and is 100% fundamental if we are to consider ourselves on an earth as bodies.
The number of adverts in this presentation is mind-numbing.
Interesting parallels with my thoughts and experiences here.
I've believed for a long time that the machine 'mind' is the biggest human structure humans have created and that although seemingly individual or personal, is effectively one thing expressed in the eternal moment.
I would like to add that through taking LSD in the mid eighties, (not mine), I had a few lucid trips where I encountered 'spirit entities' or what for me represented thought threads not emanating from 'me', which by applying further thought and questioning, seemed to be of false or erroneous provenance.
I remember insisting in my quest for the 'Christ' energy eventually achieving only what I could describe as a cathartic release by connection with a or 'the' perfect spirit.
It took me years to unravel what happened to me but remember being comforted when I read in John 'Test the spirit(s) be of God' and firmly believe there are many spirits bearing 'false witness' or making false claims outside of our own personal existence
7:40 Dr McG defines consciousness as the broadly experiential...all forms of consciousness, but for some reason seems to be removing the idea of collectivization of consciousness promulgated by Jung, by ascribing the additional characteristic of being those determined to have relation only to the subjective process.
This seems odd to me, and possibly a statement that Dr McG would also not wholly agree with, since the collective unconscious as an idea was a (seemingly inevitable) conclusion of the established evidence of biological imprinting.
10:29 partially - perhaps wholly addresses this ....discussion it "it thinks" (in me) rather than "I think" and moving to an idea of the "field of me"
11:30 into Pauli and very covnergent with Jung
The problem is badly understood consciousness has no quantity what so ever nor quality like space and time or and attention it is beyond any normalisation because it doesn't exist due to external or and internal relationship,, imagine the wind making waves on the water but it just gently passes over it and yet we see the effect indirectly.
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!
2:40."Mind is dependent on the brain for its existence." --Lucretius. There is NO proof for this posit. But rather it would be ore correct to say that mind is dependent on the brain for expression in the 3D physical world.
Yes, but imhoo it would have been better to write 'being' instead of 'expression'.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL hey again, Humpty! 😊 The being/existing distinction is rather reliably going through to the keeper...
But the brain is dependent om Brahma. Just enjoy the show.
Surely consciousness is thinking. - thinking, verbal mathematical practical etc. I think therefore there is consciousness.
Not necessarily. If we can solidify consciousness like ice and water. Maybe temporarily thinking stops until it melts or comes in contact with conscious matter.
Why create the “ fallen state” of separateness unless there was a point. A point to recognize the other as aspects of the self
Matter [is] an element [of] consciousness within consciousness that provides the necessary [existence] for creation, and with it inevitably for [differentiation and thence] individuality to arise. All individual beings/creatures bring similar forms into being [which] persist. Each individual is not in itself conformation to matter, but conformation [i.e. intent] itself -- the morpho-genetic field which persistently creates/produces/manifests particular 'material' [i.e. perceptible, experiential, self-conscious/self-aware] forms of/from amorphous elements flowing through them...Existence + Infinity + Eternity + Intent (i.e. "Love") *=* Life + Experience + Perception + Self-awareness/conscience *=* Consciousness
czcams.com/video/O7O1Qa4Zb4s/video.html
'The God of Electricity" probably watching this himself and loving this man and his work just as we do! :)
(think he might have made "an appearance" when Iain said "... 'The Master and His Emissary'..." :)
The root word for matter itself means mother. Matter is the feminine.. It is the passive and the receptive which is animated. Consciousness is the masculine.. It is the movement. it is the spark of change.. It is the disturbance that ripples and causes events. The animating principal.
Dr mcgilchrist, first let me express my gratitude for your work! It certainly is a great joy to me.
Now, I am contemplating an individual, gradually emerging into panpsychism. I'm going to study this idea further. Would it be too much for me to ask you to provide your favorite resources?
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
Please at least halve the number of ads on this? I welcome ads since I don’t subscribe to CZcams, but there needs to be some balance between number of ads and making sense of what McGilchrist is saying.
Have you, @The Weekend University, listened while having ads on?
Thanks again for the upload, just not enjoying the multiple disruptions to keen listening.
The funny thing about hearing Dr Ian McGilchrist say, regarding the subject "Matter and Consciousness": "There has been little or no progress on this, over many decades", that he himself is inside that inquiry, looking at it from the inside of his brain, his consiousness and his material form, his body which is the vehicle that helps him to present his thinking.
Voila, at least, here we've got one possible answer to the question "How are Matter and Consciousness connected?"
In a world of material form, which is planet Earth, there's no other way to convey what's perceived in our human consciousness, than the use of our vocal cords. That's the functional part of this rather complex inquiry, or should I say... investigation?
The aspect that is involved in our consciousness, which is the invisible nature of it, makes it hard for us, humans, to grasp its nature, and its whereabouts. Is it in our brain? Our hearts? Our big toes? At any rate, when it comes down to the understanding of consciousness itself, which is harder than understanding physical form, which is in sync with our sensual perceptions, we need to live with that question about the nature of consciousness for some time, and in the meantime, I perceive us, you and me, as the ones who are as much the changers as the changed. In this time of change, for change is inevitable, it'll catapult many of us into a wider view on what consciousness is, and into the use of our creativity, to find solutions, new ideas, try out new ways.
Voila, again, for this is how free will is helping us to go forward, in the evolution of human kind and its capacities to outgrow limits and realize love in a down to earth way. 🍀
Good lecture
Wow, a real talk
Our innate ability to think about thought gives us reason..reason to question why we do what we do, act the way we act, how emotions can affect thought.
"That which irritates us teaches us something about ourselves."
Carl Jung
These words and language definitions are endless permutations...only way to understand consciousness is to discover your true self beyond physical reality of I. This physical reality is an endless circle therefore we can create endless theories and possibilities but consciousness is beyond this therefore one needs to get out of this circle to begin understanding so called consciousness.
Bravo; thanks!
Important stuff 29:29 1:50:50
Thank you CZcams. I don't have to go into debt for tens of thousands of dollars to dip from this well.
So... matter is consciousness made temporarily manifest by being frozen in time, in a sense?
Thought provoking to say the least…
Bravo! As always your presentation is thought provoking and insightful. Your questioners were mostly annoying and seem to have been mentally absent during your presentation.
It starts at around 1:06 where it's clear that Dr Iain McGilchrist is a free will believer which is ridiculous. Since he's a person who believes in free will, I can't take anything he says seriously.
Love Ian (for the algorithm)
Since when did he leave his materialistic view of the universe? I thought he was a staunch reductionist. It’s good to see that he woke up in a non-religious way. I like that he mentions Schelling the mac daddy of metaphysics. Schelling is probably one of the greatest philosopher besides Schopenhauer. What he has done is just repackage idealism but with a modern twist. All in all, it falls back on infinite consciousness with a big C. All the goes back to Parmenides and Heraclitus if they are read properly as pre-idealists. Parmenides as a subjective idealist and Heraclitus as and objective idealist. Also, I think Rupert Sheldrake finally rubbed off on Ian since the time they had that round table back in the 90s. On that note, PAN it is just a modern repackaged term for idealism in order to ft itself into modern science without the baggage that has come along with idealism throughout the years.
His books show his research and conclusions, so perhaps he didn’t just change his mind but he did a shit ton of homework. He goes even farther than Sheldrake in his scientific research/conclusions. It’s wonderful.
Fully cognate and aware thank you creator
It's not that Consciousness "depends" on "matter", it's that Consciousness Depends on ENERGY... because that is all that matter actually is.
I just made a playlist of around 25 interviews with Mr Mcgilchrist. Recent, older, & of varying lengths. Because his info is amazing.
Your video is the only one on my list having more than 3 advertisements.
Yours has over 20 ads.
Which prompted me to not watch it and remove it from my playlist.
Just saying. ✌
If consciousness doesn't consist of matter, I'm guessing there's going to be a bit of difficulty measuring something that doesn't physically exist.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain.
Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
Nice to see you again...
@@Samsara_is_dukkha Hello, I think we will probably meet again
Bravo! For a Buddhist practitioner like myself I couldn’t stop reading your whole essay. To me it is getting very close to my own experiences after 40 years of regular meditation and practice on watching and learning about what my mind is and is not. Are your insights completely based on purely scientific research and logic or do you also have experiences from meditation to inform you? Anyway, it’s so refreshing to see that science taken to its finest levels will merge with the intuitive wisdom of the spiritual traditions. So often do we hear people referring to what they believe science is telling us about the universe being completely empty of such things as consciousness, mind and spiritual values beyond physical matter.
Would it seem fair of me to observe that it is a stubbornly persistent, empirical fact that consciousness is a necessary condition of all that is and all that may be conceived of?
@ Marco Biagini
{|[(Consciousness) Mind] Brain| Body}
Considering Brain and Body physical..seen..touched..
Mind becomes the medium that the Brain uses..
Consciousness- C as in omnipresent Awareness and ones individual consciousness- IC which often is trying to glimpse in C and returns to IC.
Point 2.
Every process, action etc may have a sequence, but after a certain overcoming of aspect of understanding the older sequence may not be the focus though it may still be there. A newer sequence will still be present with new info and understanding.
There will be multiple foundations of IC though they may still be one. And not divided. They may look divided but they may be not.
Multiple ways of approaching C will have multiple sequences, which after a certain time would not be considered and also would not be necessary for the IC. Because the focus has changed. There is to be 'realized' and once C is realized the need for noting or interpreting would not arise, because it is already there inside of C and the IC is just totally merging with the C.
Just as there would be new jobs in future which may not exist now, we too may not see clearly what C is as something within the System too acts as a medium to be able to see C.
Same way, the way to see C would be same but everchanging. New and old both together.
C would therefore contain billion ICs and C itself would have Super Consciousness- SC
It would be exponential and be beyond the limitations of the Brain. Therefore beyond the limitations of the processes developed by IC unless a directly indirect connection/ connections are used. Therefore the brain and therefore the Mind and therefore the IC have limitations hence only the Glimpse of C. SC would then directly including billions and trillions of galaxies if C includes billions of Brains/Minds.
Therefore connected and not divided. Together but not individual
I know what consciousness is.
The answer is so obvious, but
not for all those big self protecting
Big Ego's.
No! I will not give the answer to anyone...
That you will have to find out for yourself.
🥇 thank you
There was no big bang.
Yes but isn’t consciousness a construct in the sense that it is selective about what it resonates to.? The fact of the brain working largely by inhibitory processes is evidence that the experience is being ‘carved out’ of nature rather than ‘plugging into’ nature. So doesn’t this contradict the concept that consciousness is a manifestation of nature itself? to use his vortex analogy
Without filters on the input, the self process would be overwhelmed with data.
If consciousness structures matter, it can structure the filters that render salient certain aspects of the ground. So the question doesn't get us further along, IMHO.
What he means by inhibition...
The effect of the chemicals emitted by some synapses is
to INCREASE the likelihood of a discharge event
occurring on the downstream neuron to which the synapse is connected.
Thus the receiving neuron is EXCITED towards firing.
The effect of the chemicals emitted by some synapses is
to REDUCE the likelihood of a discharge event
occurring on the downstream neuron to which the synapse is connected.
Thus the receiving neuron is INHIBITED from firing.
The average number of synapses affecting the discharge rate of a neuron
is on the order of twenty thousand.
Thus the discharge rate of a neuron may be adjusted in an extraordinarily subtle fashion.
If one understands the discharge RATE
to BE the means by which INFORMATION IS ENCODED
then one can easily see that the information is maintained
in an adjustable fashion that is somewhat dependent
on the information maintained on a very large number of other neurons
whose influence is felt via those synaptic connections.
aiimpacts.org/rate-of-neuron-firing/
So the effect on the firing rate caused by inhibition and excitation depends on the meaning of the info stored as the firing rate of the affected neuron.
The fact that there may be a preponderance of inhibitory synapses
is simply what it takes for the brain to maintain consistency of mind,
you know,
so that when one awakens in the morning
one feels oneself to be more or less the same person.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL the inhibitors on synapses, seems to be maintaining brain stability (not overloading unnecessary areas of the brain). Freeing other neurons to fulfill other tasks.
@@steveflorida8699 Every brain neuron has, on average, 20,000 synapses controlling its discharge frequency. Some of those synapses are excitatory and some inhibitory.
A single synapse can only affect a neuron in only 1/20000th of that neuron's discharge frequency range.
It is the averaging process that is responsible for the stability of a neuron's discharge frequency.
(Remember, the discharge frequency is how a neuron maintains data.
That discharge frequency can be thought of as an analogy, in other words,
discharge frequency can be thought of as a thought, or at least, and more likely,
part of a thought.
Remember also,
the majority of our thoughts are cycling in memory where only occasionally do they become part of what we are conscious).
I'm sure there are plenty of CZcams sites that can teach you all about sense organs and neurons. I recommend you view them.
Cheers.
As above so below.
Is light not a particle and a wave? Obviously we are consciousness and matter as too aspects of the same reality.
What is attention?
I am a layman, but I believe the so-called 'unconscious' is not unconscious at all, it is the 'conscious' which is unconscious of the 'unconscious', and because the 'conscious' tends to be quite pretentious and autoritarian it calls that which it doesn't understand 'the unconscious'... 🤔😃🤔 And yes, I agree that consciousness and matter are two different aspects of one indivisible phenomenon, Life, God, that of which we sentient beings are all part of eternally. 🙏🙏🙏 And perhaps the lack of integration between the two hemispheres becomes patent in the fact that most people can't use both hands with the same dexterity, which seem to me to be a serious disability, something evolutionarily disadvantageous ... 🤲🤲🤲
In one respect, I think your position that consciousness and matter are two distinct phenomena which arose from a common ground is of use here, but another angle of looking at it would be that subjective and the objective are the two sides of the same coin that is consciousness. The first, your hypothesis, abstracts consciousness from the object, which I think does not correlate with our experience. In our experience, in any instance of consciousness there is always an object of consciousness.