Peter Tse - Are Brain and Mind the Same Thing?
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 01. 2024
- Watch more videos on brain and mind: bit.ly/3Z2PP0N
For the brain and mind to be the same thing, mind must be entirely the output of brain. This means the mind must be the brain-literally, identically. If so, then the physical world is likely all that exists. But if mind and brain are not the same thing, then what? Could there be extra stuff in the physical world? Could reality go beyond the physical?
Shop Closer To Truth merchandise like mugs and hoodies: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Get free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Peter Ulric Tse is Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience in the department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Dartmouth College. He holds a BA from Dartmouth, and a PhD in Experimental Psychology from Harvard University.
Register today for free to get subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Patterns can't create a conscious mind. But a pre-existing conscious mind must observe a pattern for it to have any meaning at all.
"Patterns can't create a conscious mind".
Patterns ARE what a mind IS except process, not pattern.
Process is simply the dynamic version of pattern.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Tse is describing patterns of neuronal activity that correlate with conscious experience. He doesn't know how the activity could create actual conscious experience. He just believes that it does.
@@ianwaltham1854
How do you define the existential status of an abstraction?
he didnt answer the question he just elaborated on the mechanics of the brain
I think this debate is intresting, yet truly non-ending. I mean, I do believe mind and brain are the same thing in a way, but saying that brain creates a mind is a way too put it that I dont find convincing. Simply because all the world we know of, and I mean ALL of it is mind. And it is really the collective mind that we end up calling "physical". The mind is the only constituent of the physical description of the world, including our brain.
However, the representation of the collective mind that our ego has is very limited and incomplete, which doesn't exactly allow to figure out the features of the mind (which is nothing in itself). It should be also noted that at the end our mind and collective mind are also the same thing, and they are only one consciousness.
There can be only one consciousness ever, and our experience is the representation of that consciousness. The quest of the reality is to find out why this representation is exactly this way, and the only plausible answer is that is because there is one possible representation of reality. This should be because this representation exactly the same as "nothing" or "everything". But as it doesn't make sense to me, I cant really understand it...at least for now
I'm surprised at how many people STILL refuse to accept that the activity of brain is none other than what we call "consciousness".
People are blinded by the fear of death and seeking some fancy way of continuing to exist in some form of life even after death.
Firstly there is no contradiction in brain = mind assertion.
Secondly it matches our experience. When you are sleepy you yawn due to the oxygen deficiency and your ability to concentrate on or think over something drops significantly. This indicates the state of brain and consciousness is inseparable.
People who think the world without consciousness is unimaginable should realize that we lose consciousness EVERYDAY when we are sleeping.
The "ALL", is "MIND".
The "UNIVERSE",,, is "MENTAL"...
As I Gaze, upon the Stars in the night sky,,,
I Realize,,, I See My Own Reflection...
I really don't think the two are the same from my perspective. The universe spends too much time relaying information in ways that are not understood because of the size of the matter involved... We are a part of this evolving process at seemingly the highest point - and that means to me the conscious-consciousness.
consciousness/Consciousness:
“that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”.
As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture.
According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05).
There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child:
“Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”.
In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
To correlate a physical phenomenon with comprehension process does not explain the comprehension process. Mind is the final consumer of the signals reaching the brain. Brain processes this information to send that information to a non-physical domain. Don’t say that this process is comprehension.
"Mind is the final consumer of signals reaching the brain."
Not really true at all- most brain activity and mental processing is unconscious. Only certain activity gets "pushed" to conscious level, generally driven by adaptive strategies to drive us to action (e.g. hunger)
The mind is imprinted in cells that are constantly recycling themselves but if the neurons stop firing up the mind would slowly disintegrate because it is not a part of the brain.
Yes, the mind is the operating brain.
To answer the title question (before watching the video):
Well, yes, but also no.
I'm a substance monist and a panpsychist (or protopanexperientialist?
There is only one metaphysical substrate. You can call it the physical world, or just 'reality', or whatever else you want to call it, the only important factor here is that all of it is unified as a single substrate or substance. That is to say that everything that exists is of the same kind, or type, of substance.
'Mind', in the way it's typically used in these types of conversations, generally refers to the capacity to have experience. The contents of that experience are irrelevant (to this discussion), we're just talking about having any ability to experience anything whatsoever.
Now, let's briefly switch gears and talk about empiricism. Empiricism is knowledge derived from the senses, i.e. from awareness (subjective experience). It stands in contrast to rationality, also called reason, which is knowledge derived from thought (and there are endless debates on wjich of these has ontological primacy, but empiricism is given higher priority in science as it's difficult to imagine reasoning about anything one has not first had a sensoey experience of).
We also need to understand Karl Popper's falsifiability test for scientific knowledge. Falsifiability means that if you cannot devise an experiment, even in principle (meaning even as a thought experiment) which could, at least in theory, prove a claim false, then that claim is not even an empirical, scientific claim. In short, if there is no means to even test a hypothesis (such as the claim that a Creator exists 'outside' of space and time, since by definition it is impossible to measure anything outside of space and time) then it's not a proveable/disproveable claim at all - i.e. not even a 'scientific question'.
With these two given definitions of empiricism and falsifiability - the very bedrock of the scientific method - consider thos:
The claim that ANY part of reality exists independently of awareness of itself is wholly unfalsifiable,.and therefore not a scientific claim, nor is it testable in any way.
This inevitably leads us to the unassailability of the solipsist argument, no matter how unsatisfyimg that may be to most, and the reason why I'm a panpsychist.
Empirically, I cannot logically separate my perception of the universe from the existential existence of the universe, therefore, as far as I CAN know, the entire universe possesses at least rudimentary self awareness.
I call this primitive self awateness protoconsciousness, only to distinguish it from tje fact that some parys of it are more evolved conscipusness.
Very very careful guy not to cross boundary he crossed anyhow. Now the question is, are we not what we seem to be, with other words are we just led to think with the brain something else that is just in the brain? Bravo, sir
Yes!
Mind, Consciousness, are just a more complex mind...!
What is the mystery ...?
it is SO fun watching these brilliant scientists dancing around this "simple" question that is impossible to answer.... unless you believe in some sort of "universal consciousness"..
A spark (and then ignition) derives from, but is not a spark plug. Structure determines function which elicit events to be modified by inputs from adjacent structure/function elements. It seems reasonable that an almost infinite amount of such processing might emerge as a conscience experience for the beholder.
Are brain and mind the same thing? Are society and culture the same thing? Same question. Cultures have "thoughts" that are analogous to thoughts at the individual personal level. Traditions, technology, history, news and markets account for city-level "thoughts" that are acted upon by human agents. Not unlike brains and neural agents.
The modern, human-plastic city, comprised of people making choices, is an ideal metaphor for the neuro-plastic brain, comprised of neurons making choices.
Human-plastic, telecommunications-entangled cities form into functional specialisations just as neuro-plastic, DNA-entangled brains do.
Where there are brains we find minds (almost always). Show me a mind separate from a brain. I doubt you can.
If mind survives death of the body then obviously you wouldn't be able to see it or communicate with it.
Prove creatures that don't have brains like jellyfish don't exist. I doubt you can.
Brain = spatial extension (1D, 2D, 3D, etc; contingent on their predecessor)
Mind = no spatial extension (0D; necessary, having no predecessor)
Yes for the same reason that one cannot find the meaning of a printed sentence by looking at the atoms of the ink with which it's printed (or the photons from a screen, vibrations in the air, etc.).
Being conscious is a process and
process, like pattern, is an abstraction.
This makes of my self an abstract entity and
what gives thoughts and minds their immaterial flavour.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL
The 1D, 2D and 3D parts of us are natural but the 0D of us is not-natural.
I like that.
They're not the same. Jellyfish for example exhibit intelligent (not mindless) behavior, and yet it's a proven fact that they don't have brains. There are many other sea creatures that also have no brains and are very similar to jellyfish in this regard, so they are far from being the only example.
I like coming across comments like this. So many materialists like to reify themselves. They're like car salesman.
Exhibiting intelligent behavior is not the same as consciousness. You're the one attributing intelligent behavior and a robot could also seem to exhibit intelligent behavior but have no brain or consciousness.
@@Resmith18SRIrrelevant. Who says robots can't have consciousness?
@@elgatofelix8917 How would you ever prove a robot was conscious? Because it told you it was? Without a brain just like any machine it would never be conscious in any way like we are.
@@Resmith18SR
I am conscious.
Of this I am absolutely certain.
About you I am certain but not absolutely.
Depends in how you define these, simple analogy would be one is HW and another is SW
Are the microphone and the singer the same thing? Same question.
0:38 ... 1:13 ... 2:46 Leaky Integrators: they have a time consent on the order of say 30 milliseconds and if inputs two action potentials or mare arrive at the same time that might depolarize or excite the neuron to the extent that it will fire but if two spikes or action potentials arrive outside of that window it's a as if they're completely independent you're constantly resetting the system but because of this physical mechanism of detecting patterns namely simultaneity detection or coincidence detection it's a game changer because now patterns in energy for the first time in the history of the universe can be causal of subsequent events in the universe. 3:23 ... 4:25 ... I think a key step in this criterial causation that neurons realize is that neurons can reset other neurons criteria for firing so it's almost one analogy would be you know speaking and the shaping of your mouth so if I were only to measure the vibrations of your vocal cords I'd have no idea what you're saying I just get right coming off your ovcal cords what's happening is that the energy coming off you vocal cords is then filtered through this the filter of your mouth and it is that very rapidly changing waiting on or shaping that leads to you being able to speak now on that analogy action potentials are like the energy that gets funnel through the system but the synapses the synapitc weights that are rapidly changing allow the action potentials to take on a voice so that the neurons can speak to each other. 5:18 ... 8:42 okay so what is the implication of that for the traditional claim of an identity between brain and mind. 8:51 ... the key insight I think is that cells are not just their amounts of energy they're their organization of energy and in fact you know I mean it's obvious that you might be completely physically differentthan you were yesterday I could probably replace every atom with you know a different atom so what's kay about you is your organiztion. 9:28 yes mental events are entirely realized in physical envents namely neuronal events. but what what's key about them is that they're realized. 9:36 ... 10:50 so yes uh information is realized physically it's realized physically in spatial temporal organizations of neuronal activity but that doesn't mean that it's identical to the amount of the energy, right, so I think that it's possible to be um a phsyicalist and I'm a hsicalist it's possible to be an identity theorist and I would say that I'm that too but it's focusing on two different aspects energy there's the physical component of energy which is you know the amounts but then there's the question of the organization of the energy until now I think it's been heard for people to really grasp that the organization of the energy itself can be causal and so the criterial calization that I'm discussing is a mechanism whereby patterns in energy particularly in neuronal inputs can be causal not only of brain events changes in the universe because my brain events can then cause me to do somehting physical in the world.
Robert, where do you find this insanity!?
A few years ago, I experienced the difference between uneducated and educated ones. The answers are very interesting.
Metaphysician philosopher
The brain is just a computer that allows our consciousness/mind to have agency in this existence.
Brain/mind are the same thing.
@@dr_shrinker brain, mind, body are all the same thing
@@markb3786 I agree, but I assumed it was implied brain and body were synonymous. But you’re correct.👍🏻
@@dr_shrinker False
@@markb3786 the brain is only part of the body. The body is not entirely the brain. So they're not the same.
Many experts think only in terms of the action and output of constituent parts. The string (maybe) organizes up to the level of the cell and then up to the organism. At some point -brain then mind. Lots of organisms have brains but not minds. How does that explain, jealousy, or rage or ennui? The mind is an emergent property of the brain. The personality, of the mind. The expression of personality or reaction to external events or internal ones - rapture, rage, wonder etc. must be products of the personality. This discussion of the inner workings of the brain does nothing to illuminate or explain the complexities and wonder of the human mind.
6:02 non-biological and biological are both part of the physical vs non-physical... so, consciousness is part of complex physical arrangements vs non-complex physical objects... but how did that complexity arise from physical to biological structures... do physical (non-biological) objects have the ability to self organize into functional switches or receptors or do we need to introduce an abstraction layer into the problem 🤔
I think the ability of different kinds of atoms to dance with each other is the foundation from which all else is descended.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL it could be like you say, but there's variability in the way atoms are arranged and functionality is attained from those very same atoms... this line of thought works fine for known variables but cannot be applied to other situations where unknown forces could also be possible and play an active role in one outcome vs another 🤔
@@r2c3
Yes, but still, we can only use what we know in the formulation of our theories.
Seems to me Identity Theory comes closer to truth than any other theory that has been discussed on this channel.
This interview was far too short to explore the theory in any kind of depth but
the nice thing about what Peter Tse was saying is that there is no appeal to magic in it.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL "magic" or not there's many unanswered questions that need to be addressed and looking under the light post for answers doesn't guarantee success...
@@r2c3
I think a great deal of the confusion about the concept of the conscious is illustrated by René Magritte's painting, The Treachery of Images. The painting is of a tobacco pipe under which he's written "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (This is not a pipe). The painting of a pipe represents a pipe but is not a pipe.
This illustrates exactly what thoughts are. Thoughts represent but are not what they represent. (I'm sure all this is perfectly clear to you).
René has used paint to create an image of a pipe but the paint has no relationship to the nature of a pipe (except existence).
In analogous fashion the discharge timing patterns of neurons have absolutely no relationship to the nature of the world but like paint, are able to represent the world in encoded fashion.
A thought of one's body is not one's body but merely represents it. This body representing thought may be what we are referring to when we use the word 'self.
Since it is one's self who is conscious...
do you see the conclusion towards which these thoughts are striving?
Energy is not publicly observable (like a brain would be) and not not publicly observable (like a thought would be). So energy can be what the mind is made of...just like physical things are
My take on your argument is:
Brain matter produces consciousness.
Consciousness is energy.
Thus, the law of conservation is preserved.
However, this argument is unfalsifiable because:
Consciousness belongs to the individual.
We cannot read individual minds.
Thus, we cannot publicly observe what this energy is.
If we cannot know what consciousness is, then we must stop asking.
And that is just not good science!
do neuron correlations have patterns or forms of organization?
Brain has ≈ a 100 billion neurons, say,
each of which maintains a discharge timing pattern that zips down its axon.
Each neuron owns ≈ 20 thousand synapses on average.
It's the neural discharge timing patterns of 20 thousand upstream neurons that via those synapses, defines the timing pattern of each single neuron (on average).
(Thus the meaning of a timing pattern has a widely distributed source.
From these few facts one can catch a glimpse of how extremely complex brains and
thought storage is).
(Note also the influence of the current chemical makeup of the interstitial fluid.
Add some LSD to that fluid and all the discharge timing patterns change as do the meanings that those patterns represent (which is what makes an acid trip so extraordinarily entertaining)).
First you have to define what a soul is!
Is software the same as hardware ?
There's a sense of opposite in recovering your spatial, but not temporal , coordinates by retracing your steps and maybe even more so when you turn around * , therefore is logical representative for absence not, ¬ , a euphemism for infinity?
* The complement of one in list one, two, three, is two, three and the geometric opposite of, '' said "ri".
Funny, what he says about spike timing influencing the NMDA receptor sounds a mechanism akin to the fotoelectric effect to me! They both only happen at a certain frequency!
How is something happening at a certain frequency akin to something happening due to simultaneous inputs to the same neuron? Seems like an awfully big stretch to me- and it sounds like something someone who buys into the Electric Universe theory would say.
Do you know what spike-timing means? That is what he is talking about (amongst also simultaneous input, whic he actually doesn't mention. He mentions simultaneous stimulation of a system, not a neuron). Spike timing is the osccilating wavelike electrical signal moving through the neuronbody that causes the synapses to emit their neurotransmitters, in a peak and trough like fashion, or more precisely to emit or not emit. But this depends on the electrical wave signal moving through the neuronbody which has a wavelength: this is the essential part of the spike timing. Spike - timing means peak of wave (=spike) timing (=frequency)@@stoneysdead689
@@Robinson8491Thanks for that explanation, I was fuzzy on some of the details. I think simultaneous inputs is what he means when he says co-incidence detection. That the inputs are co-incident.
*Brain and mind coexist within the same arena.* ... If I'm standing in a room, I am both a part of the room and separate from the room.
Congratulations! Peter Tse's comments have come closest to truth.
(Actually it surprises me that
the many brilliant minds interviewed on this channel have all missed the mark so widely).
I'm also fond of Peter Tse but please enlighten us with your theory
@@Robinson8491
Too briefly...
Not entirely my theory.
My beliefs are based on the theory outlined in Julian Jaynes' great book,
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind",
in combination with a fundamental understanding of how neurons and their synapses work.
To which I speculatively add...
The discharge timing patterns of neurons are to what the word 'thoughts' is referring.
The self is a thought (what else could it be).
The modulation of the self-thought by other thoughts is the essence
of the being conscious process.
The behavior of the voluntary muscles is controlled directly by the self-thought
(though no doubt via a network of unconscious neural processes).
No!
so where does the taste of garlic come from?
Mr. Kuhn,
is a radio and music the 'same thing', (?)
have You ever been in school.
The path of evolution does not proceed by books written about physics, biology, math and engineering. The path of evolution moves by the principle of survival
One of the characteristics of consciousness is self organization or self programming. The pattern therefore, is not what brings about consciousness but rather it is consciousness that brings about the pattern or organization. This is true of the male and female gametes. If the presence of the foundational element of consciousness (life) is lacking, meaning dead, the gametes will never self organize or form the required intricate pattern. They will simply disintegrate, rot. Consciousness therefore comes first and then the pattern follows. The study of the mind-body problem should start with the study of the gametes, not the neurons.
" it is consciousness that brings about the pattern or organization." He is referring to sensory inputs- are you claiming consciousness controls the patterns of our sensory inputs? That seems a bit silly to me- surely it's not what you meant. He is saying that certain patterns of sensory input produce certain conscious states- which seems obviously true to me.
How is "self organization or self programming" characteristic of the being conscious process?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I think he's referring to the way our brains seem to unconsciously organize sensory inputs into patterns which then seem to activate internal programming. Driving is a great example- your senses pick up information you're not even aware of, your brain organizes that info, creates an internal model of your surroundings, and activates the appropriate program to make you react, without you even having to be conscious of the process sometimes. It's of course better if you are- but we all know most ppl aren't- they're talking on the phone, playing with the radio, etc.
At least that's what I think he's referring to- I could be completely wrong because he kind of lost me with that first post. I may be completely misunderstanding his point.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Well, self programming and self organization is always intrinsically tied to the functionings of consciousness. First of all, consciousness is a little different from consciousness awareness. Consciousness is synonymous to being alive in the animal kingdom. Gametes are alive but are not consciously aware of their existence. However, with the presence of consciousness (life) within the gametes, the male and the female gametes unite and continue with the process of self organization and self programming. If a gamete or both are not alive (lack consciousness), the process of self organization and self programming is stalled despite the availability of all the necessary chemical compounds or structures in those gametes. But with the presence of consciousness the process goes on into adulthood resulting in the development of the complex neuron networks that make up the brain.
The above process is seen in all animals. Consciousness (the life element) is inherited from the parent(s) and it goes on programming and organizing itself into a separate creature.
@@stoneysdead689 please see my response to REDPUMPERNICKLE's comment
hahahahaha... I like this one
MIND is what the brain DOES. Qualia is the subjective experience of a brain DOING mind.
BRAIN is what the MIND does. Qualia is the subjective experience of a Mind DOING a brain.
@@earth1710 :)
@@todrichards1105 ;)
I can't speak for everyone else here, but my mind isn't a wrinkly pile of fatty nerve bundles pulsating with blood. That's what my brain is, sure, but my mind isn't. That's just speaking personally though and I don't want to presume what everyone else is experiencing.
Calling mind and brain identical is the stupidest, most pathetic attempt at saving materialism I've heard. I mean, materialism is false even with it's best arguments, but this one just reveals how desperate some materialists are; that they would put forth something so silly just to hold on to their beloved worldview.
How can you say they are the same thing? The answer is simple: by carelessness of thought, or abuse of language and logic.
Clearly mind is a higher level/order function of the brain.
Hi Closer to Truth, if we start with the idea that we have different words for different things then of course brain and mind are not the same thing. It could I think be argued that while brain can be identified as the whole cerebral organ with many components but entirely of organic substance mind has not been identified as any part of that organ!. This indicates that the important difference between the two is that while the brain and its parts can be said to be actual real things mind cannot!.
This leaves us in that strange hinterland of distinction and definition where any assertion that 'things' with no material form can be claimed to 'exist' that defines existence as other than simple material form, this then allows almost unlimited confusion that makes all and any sensible explanation of anything very much more difficult!.
Reverting to the original contention then I will state that as far as I am concerned for the sake of clarity, that while descriptions of material things like the brain are the product of human imagination the things described are 'real'. Other ideas like consciousness, mind, feeling and all that without any material substance do not exist in the same way at all and therefore do not have to conform to any of the normal systematic rules of evidence.
Cheers, Richard.
No
Make mine a double talk.
Identity Theory is kindergarten for neuroscience
Evolution its so intelligent!!
Right
@@halcyon2864 i agree
@@halcyon2864 perfect
No they arn't. Khun described how they differ at the start. Tse is describing neuronal activity he believes is the cause of conscious mind. That is all.
Yes, it is. End of story.
Short answer is no.
Brain is something you and I are born with.
Mind I ra something you and I created when we are kids.
But they're the same!
Flesh is flesh, spirit is spirit.
Earth is flat at the center of the universe and there are witches, all over again. Has humanity really learned nothing. Refusing to let go of baseless assumptions while facing the obvious: conciousness is fundamental.
The brain is the hardware,mind is the software.
MIND is what the brain DOES.
Thank you todrichards1105.
I like this analogy. Especially since software is nonphysical.
Tse would not agree. Watch from 6.15. He says brain components, temperatures, synapses are key to how the system works. You can't just copy the neuronal activity (software) to another system(a computer) and expect to get an artificial conscious mind.
@@ianwaltham1854
The computer would have to run a program capable of simulating every part and interaction of what brains are doing (including input from the senses and output to the muscles, perhaps involving a virtual reality like the one we are not absolutely certain that we are not in).
Edit: "every part and interaction" that makes even the slightest contribution to the being conscious process.
@@elgatofelix8917Software is physical. It exists in your computer as a pattern of electrical charges in memory chips. It functions by triggering electrical signals, creating cascading patterns of charges in other chips, etc. it’s an entirely physical process, which is why we can engineer it.
In Jaquard looms the software was encoded in cards with patterns of holes that activated functions of the loom. I actually saw the ‘modern’ version of punched cards being used in a data centre on a school trip when I was a child, and you probably remember copies of software on floppy discs and CDs. Actually CDs had holes burned in the reflector layer, in a way they were just versions of punched cards too.
To have some software is to have a physical copy of it, because it is a physical phenomenon, which is what allows it to be physically causal.
I like the idea that a pattern of energy can be causal. What's unclear to me is how that differs from the concept of "capable of doing computations". I mean, it might serve as a definition of the latter, idk.
The idea of a "functional human", strictly with respect to certain kinds of qualia, is that it has a part of its (functional) nervous system that correlates with real external-world changes and another part of its nervous system that reads the correlations in the former module as "meaning" for what's happening in the real world. Both modules are probably in the brain. If the correlative sensitivity of the first module to the external world, and the meanings represented by the second module for first module states are the same for two agents that are implemented DIFFERENTLY (e.g., me and Commander Data), then we might argue their "qualia" (strictly defined as the meaning of what's happening in the external world vis a vis their sensory systems) are the same. This would be a very sketchy/incomplete, but functional, definition of sensory qualia. Of course, I haven't said anything about how "meaning" is represented. Some hard problems remain hard, but not impossible?
'Meaning' may be encoded and represented by neural activity in a way analogous
to the way the meaning of this sentence is encoded and represented.
Except of course neural activity is dynamic and can 'directly' give rise to consequences whereas these sentences are static and entirely dependent on the neurons of the reader to extract their meanings.
As neurosience guys shows mind and brains system are true though neurosience proceedings. Is he really neurosience scientist? Guys shows mind brains is rambling neurosience.
There is no smell of garlic, there's only smelling. Language is the problem.
identity theory ftw
Yes, and closest to truth.
I like motorcycling. Some people like discussing the science of the crank, gaskets, timing-chain, piston etc., but they don't enjoy riding. The fact is, without the world, nature, the 4 cheif elements, the roads, the air, the sun light, the experience, the joy.....without That! what would a piston, crank shaft, etc, even be and mean?
There is a creative faculty of God, known as Maya. Does the brain and mind predicament really matter, or matter as much as some will have you believe? Let's just acknowledge the fact that this is. Because the brain is transitory, it cannot be fundamental. Arguing hardware vs software - is this proper; is this the argument that will lead us to Truth?
Everything is transitory including inflation according to Janet Yellen.
Transitory is irrelevant to the existence of a pattern.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Patterns change over time. Aren't they all impermanent?
Elon Musk
LoL I was thinking the same thing! This guy must be his long lost twin! 😂
Mind is something the brain does. No brain, no mind. Let's not complicate the issue with religious nonsense.
But we are desperate to do so because we must have meaning and purpose!
What does religion have to do with this? Is every marine biologist religious who observes that jellyfish exhibit intelligent behavior (not mindless behavior) DESPITE HAVING NO BRAIN. Explain that, Einstein!
The existence of many sea creatures including jellyfish proves you are WRONG.
@@markb3786Exactly, it's not as convoluted and complicated as people want to make it out to be. Organisms are dynamic living systems and the brain's activity produces consciousness.
Actually, no. Without the sense perception organs, their activites with the external world, there'd be no consciousness of sound, forms, feels, etc. and thus no mind.
No world, no activities, no memory, no Soul, no relations = no mind.
Rick, you've always been an ultra ignoramus.
Dumb question. Mind is brain activity.
The brain is inside the universe the mind is outside the universe outta world vs inner world comes together more like Mega universe when Jesus said he the mega and Apha the mind is more powerful that God mindset rich mind the brains is the open eye making symbol too the Widsom of christ there both anit christ and the christ there was twins brothers they are dark and light The mind is heaven the brains is Hell lol ❤❤❤❤❤
Maya is not an evil. It's the creative faculty of God. The design of mind is, by default, strictly dual, especially when there's little Wisdom. When one contemplates creativity, art, symbolism, one acknowledges division, contrast, contradistinction, and this division or 'other thans' is how such art speaks to the experiencer - force and motion, inertia or rest, attraction or repulsion, such grandeur stopping you in your tracks or is ignored because it's flat. Can such an experience, be it art or life in general, have such meaning, impact, and realization without this Maya, or without ignorance, without a dual mode? I don't believe so. The mind is by default dual. Overcoming the mind is very difficult the Wiseman teach. Some do not want to over come the mind. You know, this body isn't just a body, it's a proving grounds, a test - can you maintain your weight without over eating and getting fat; do you have the discipline to work out and stay fit; are you passive and docile or do you have direction from Intellect with the route of Reason; does the senses and impulse direct your attention and energy; do you have the Willpower to overcome the mind so the mind no longer conditions you; are you aware of the false sense and notion of being grouded or logical, that is actually based on the influence over you by others? This is a trial. Who are you fooling? Do you really know yourself? Do you seek to Know thyself or is it just silly because your boyfriends don't bother, therefore you're not going to?
How else are you going to discover the Truth about brain and mind? Cut open the brain, see for yourself - do you see any consciousness there? Or the Self. Some of the unscrupulous persons claim that brain is Principle and that the Truth is a product of the brain!! This is madness!!! Considering such ignoramus is an insult to yourself.... then where exactly is this 'brain' ? What is this blueprint, the one that we all experience?
If you want to believe you're the brain, go ahead. I'm going to acknowledge God, and the faculty of creativity that is Maya. I wont be identifying with a notion, empirical information, my country or past, or anything transitory in general. This is, This remains; the body and all transitory can fade away - i am That!