Iain McGilchrist - The Divided Brain and the Search for Meaning
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 07. 2020
- What's inside a black hole? Is consciousness something we can measure? Where did life itself come from? How To Academy Science is a new channel from How To Academy. Subscribe today: / @howtoacademyscience
A tour de force of neuroscience and philosophy, Iain McGilchrist’s theory of the mind's place in the world speaks to everyone searching for happiness, understanding, and meaning in life.
For millennia humans have speculated upon the differences between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Why did evolution lead to humans and many other animals developing two cerebral hemispheres, separated by a groove? No neuroscientist would dispute that there are significant differences; but until now, no-one has understood why.
Dr Iain McGilchrist has an empirical answer to this question - and his ideas have profound consequences for how humans understand themselves and their place in the world. Roaming through the history of Western philosophy, art and literature, this conversation between Dr McGilchrist and science journalist David Malone explores how the competition between the two hemispheres has shaped civilisation and progress and now, in our hyper-rationalist age, threatens to undermine the deepest and most sacred human values.
Fans of Malcolm Gladwell, Susan Greenfield and Antonio Damasio ought not to miss this compelling talk from one of the most exciting thinkers of our age.
What's inside a black hole? Is consciousness something we can measure? Where did life itself come from? *How To Academy Science* is a new channel from How To Academy. Subscribe today: czcams.com/channels/3cHvU3uO2ZSRE4ExlS0MGg.html
I've shamefully wasted far too many hours of my life over the years - but not the one I've just spent watching this! Deeply thought provoking. Thankyou
Iain M. always takes a rather reductive statement from an interviewer (who justifiably does so in order to advance the dialogue with more clarifications for an audience) with such grace (often with a short laugh), then he expands the statement. He rarely corrects unless it is necessary to avoid a misinterpretation. Such attitude requires respect and understanding, the ‘right brain’ to hold on, and being in a rhythm of interaction. I often learn something else from the way he conducts the conversations beyond what he is saying.
What an insightful comment, thank you for sharing.
I have learned from a great deal from the interview and your comment added a little more. Thank you, superbly written.
I agree, not a silky interviewer, but a very thoughtful interviewer.
So true, very humane man as well as being a genius !
Some notes and bookmarks:
26:30 An interesting explanation of schizophrenia as left hemisphere overdrive (similar to right brain stroke symptoms and behaviours)
28:49 A left hemisphere dominant society and finding balance
39:45 One hemisphere shouting down the other
41:03 Intuition and the hemispheres
49:00 Tools to address imbalances in hemispheres
- awareness, noticing the difference
- rebalance education, arts and imagination not just maths and science
- mindfulness meditation and lifestyle, non-judgmental attention and presence, practicing stepping out of schemas and experiencing things as they are
50:56 Hemispheres and genders
53:33 Specialism vs holistic view - particularly interesting in terms of healthcare and wellbeing
55:19 Morals and ethics of an imbalanced society/system, discusses unification and division being of importance for an optimal system (similar to Dan Siegel’s idea of differentiation and integration for a healthy brain, and his Wheel of Awareness meditation practice)
57:10 How/why left hemisphere has become dominant - see the introduction of the new edition of his book “The Master and His Emissary” for a more thorough exploration of this subject
@D R Hope you don't mind me saying, but whatever your perceived imbalances are, I found what you wrote fascinating. It had a thinking out loud quality that I felt a real connection with. Not sure why I felt the need to comment, but I did......so I did.
Have you tried Dr McGilchrists suggestion of mindfulness practice? Its difficult but rewarding in time, is helping me in the search for better balance. Good luck with you. Take care and thanks for sharing.
You really didn't need to cut the guy off for the sake of keeping in under an hour (who cares?), but this was a thoroughly interesting conversation nonetheless. Thank you for sharing!
seriously! If you really have a hard cut off do'n't ask a big question and then cut him off in mid genius. And why would you have such a hard cut off?
It certainly explains a lot about a certain group of people. Right handed ones.
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
So, where/how do you theorise that conciousness arises?
@@JanHough My point is that a rational analysis of our scientific knowledge about brain processes, on the basis of the laws of physics, proves that the properties of consciousness are incompatible with the properties of brain processes and therefore the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property of such processes is disproved by our scientific knowledge. The brain is not a sufficient condition for the existence of our mental experiences.
It is worth considering that the current laws of physics explain with great accuracy all chemical and biological processes, including cerebral processes. Devolopments in physics are expected to refer to high energy processes or cosmology, but it is unreasonable to hypothesize that we will find new laws of physics that will change our descriptions of biological processes. The point is that we do not need new laws of physics to explain biological and cerebral processes, and such processes are perfectly reducible to the current laws of physics, while consciousness is not. Since consciousness is irreducible to cerebral processes and to the laws of physics, the only rational explanation for the existence of consciousness is that an immaterial/unphysical element exists in us and interacts with cerebral processes, and our mind is the result of such interaction.
The nature of such non-physical element and of its interaction with the brain cannot be investigated through the scientific method, since it is not physical. Therefore, the problem to establish the nature of such non-physical element does not belong to the scientific domain, but to the metaphysical domain, and it is a matter of personal beliefs. In conclusion, an honest scientist must recognize that science has some intrinsic limits and that consciousness is certainly beyond such limits.
@@marcobiagini1878 Thank you for the clear conclusion. I always did think that spiritual matters could not be discussed in the physical realm, but to add consciousness to the unphysical realm is a revelation.
The compartmentalisation of the medical profession seems to be a perfect example of the lack of right brain revision in diagnosis as is the failure of specialisation in diagnosing human health conditions
I agree 100%!Thank you for that.
This was amazing in it's entirety.
I have to thank you over and over again for these conversations between Iian McGilchrist and all these new people I am being introduced to and gaining more awareness for my journey to learn more.❤
This is fascinating! Thank you!
Hack ones rt/lt balance- 1) be aware of it, once you see it, I see the whole works differently, Reading and feeling your way into it will readdress that balance. 2) reform education to stop banging on about us getting on about being better machines, but rather focus on making better people/. 3) mindfulness induces a state in which rt hemisphere’s attention is on the world.
Amazing, loved it. Thank you.
Wonder how this would relate to people on the asperger/autism spectrum? Left-brain dominant, etc?
This was so informative thank you
Thank you 🙏🏼 this is fantastic
Love this discussion, a mutual interest in my work as well. Please take a moment to link McGilchrist's book in the show notes and the other books as well. I'm interested and would much appreciate more specific, accessible documentation. Thanks for the excellent info.
Ah, yes. I myself being diagnosed with ADHD(untreated)20yrs ago, plus being left handed, left footed, and have a left master eye, feel very right brain, but it seems that no one wants to talk about this. So here I am watching this video.
The first discussion with JBP turned me on to Iain and his book.. his second discution with JBP is probable what causes this vlog .. 46 comments refreshing to be part of such a small discussion. Another very deep mind concept Iain puts forth is the fact that there is some thing very iratiinal about the brain . And this might have a huge impact in AI and AGI .. the man is on to some thing very important
iain and Jordan have already talked again, the discussion will be released soon!
Great stuff, thx! Nice interview, and good to see a little more exploration of the obviously 'yuge' implications from Sperry & Gazzaniga's famous Split Brain research in the 60's and 70's... that no matter how 'rational' we may be, we're all still literally of 'two minds'. BTW, clinical narcissism and autism/aspergers have both been described as expressions of overwhelming 'Left Brain' dominance, to the point of total _exclusion_ of the Right Hemisphere... which the latter is unaware of, while the former simply chooses to _ignore._
That was excellent, thank you 👍
Love is non-reducible.
Very rude to cut the man off mid answer on a web cast.
Interesting interview though. Thanks.
Might this be uploaded to the How To Academy podcast?
@28:00 - BOOM 🤯! This is EXACTLY what I was expecting to hear in the description of the right hemispherical performance characteristics because it matches up with current hypothesize on some of the more common and ubiquitous psychic phenomenon that everyone is capable of as much as everyone is capable of playing an instrument or producing impressive artwork...
This description also lens credence to consciousness being the fundamental matrix in which spacetime emerges and NOT consciousness being an emergent phenomenon of any sufficiently complex arrangement of spacetime or 3 dimensional matter...
Please explain when a large part of the brain is removed in brain surgery, the neurons in the remaining part of the brain restructures the parts that have been removed. Have you researched this phenomenon?
The right hemisphere has all the ""CONTEXT"
Society has become more left-hemisphere focussed.
Women are more left-hemisphere focussed.
I wonder if the two are connected.
I actually see feminism as a very left brained movement. Atheistic verging on autistic.
Which is quite interesting because it's a movement against the feminine, pushing women into the traditionally masculine role.
I wonder where this is coming from. Everything I've read suggests that woman have more connectivity between the hemispheres, thus more engagement with the right hemisphere than men.
There basic education.. and then there is .. the art's .. Both vital both important .. but i would say different techniques and standards
One thing to think about typically, early trauma results in issues in the right hemisphere, apparently that develops earlier,
what sort of 'issues'?
I've questioned the left-brain/right-brain dichotomy idea. And then I stumbled upon this:
"Twenty-five years ago, scientists thought that our capacities for language were on the left side of the brain and those for music were on the right. But our understanding has come a tremendous way since then. According to Daniel Levitin, a neuroscientist who studies music’s effects on the brain, music affects almost every area of the brain so far studied."
I suspect this is true for every single thing each of us experiences. I suspect when the returns are in from neuroscience, each conscious experience a human being has will register throughout the brain.
If so, every single philosophy, theology, science based on the purported reality of hermetically sealed left-brain/right-brain processing will turn out to be deeply flawed.
There’s a lot of people in the comments that didn’t listen to Dr M . Very detached from the conversation- scary .
This makes me think that trauma creates more of a left brain response, loss of connection etc Would that be right?
Emphirical knowledge is necessary but will never be able to reason with mystical experiences with creativity as it is awareness of the actual experiential that is sacred and mystical or phenomenal.
Isn't this paradoxical on a account of following one theory or doctrine is left brained perspectivly centered?
#IntellectualRockStar
Right hemisphere: "I'm the master"
Left hemisphere: "No. I'm the master". Isn't this characterisation of the issue problematic in itself?
"when nothing goes right - go left"
Computers are great tools.
But horrible masters when they contain programs such as spyware or personalized algorithms that trap kids in endless scrolling.
The Shakespeare quote is from Macbeth.
Light is inside of black holes cause stars and galaxies would not be able exist around them. The force of their vortex would devour them all.
Thank you, very helpful for me because I just have to get along with a schizoid person. The divided brain explains every little thing I observed with ease. It is so simple, so obvious, so why isn't that common knowledge?
It's well known in psychology/counselling psychiatry realms... It just takes a while to whittle down to general public knowledge... But there are plenty books out there.
What about laughter? Do we laugh when the two halves of our brain suddenly make a connection? What does Mr. MRI say?
If trauma happens and aomeone goes too left hemisphere it leads to the powe dominance and control dynamic too far leads to living in teptillian part of the brain. If trauma occurrs and person goes too right hemisphere they end up too trusting, naive and too severe end up in ghe limbic system. Hopefully i got that all correct. EMDR works becauae it gets people out of the survival mode and back into the frontal lobe. Balance is great so binaural beats work well. Its all so interesting.
🕊🦋❤️💞
That’s why irony, they absurd and irrational give us comedy, which we need more than ever now. The surrealists were keen to access the subconcious cause of the brutality and cruelty of war and the futility of it all. ❤️🕊🦋
I think the relentless emphasis on the chosen point of view of left vs right "hemisphere" makes us miss important existing insights. For example:
- about the unconscious from Freud and Lacan
- Lacan's view of the accumulated social knowledge as the broken big other
- about conflict and lines of agreement between subjectivity and objectivity
Also why should we insist on "balance" of two things that are so fundamentally different? One cannot measure that balance without some external normative assumption.
I think if you listen closer and follow Iain M you will find there is no one vs the other it is finding that the left has been overemphasized and both sides are needed for us to move through life.
Very nice video and interview. There is always a danger in over simplification, as would be the case in implying that the left hemisphere is masculine and the right feminine, or in even saying that the left hemisphere has taken over the world leading to pathology, etc. Still there is a need to generalize McGilchrist’s work enough to make a theory, even at the risk of over generalizing. I am thinking that a case can be made for the idea that the left hemisphere is sensitive to the contents of awareness, whereas the right side is sensitive to the supporting context of awareness. This makes meaning derived from the synthesis of contents with context. Why this is important is that these two sensitivities can be related to two ways of looking at time, or the way time bifurcates letting us look through two respective windows: the left looks forward deductively; and the right looks backward inductively. This theory now explains why brains divide into two halves, something McGilchrist was still looking for in this video. The brains divides in half as a result of the strange attraction coming with time that naturally bifurcates into a forward looking window and a backward looking window. This natural tendency is right there to be seen in the particle-wave duality of physics, where the wave side is the backward window representing context, and the particle side is the forward window representing contents, of course assuming the this theory correct, and that consciousness emerges from a panpsychist view of reality.
REDUCTIVE is the word you're looking for. lol
@@Troca. Been 3 months, but my vague memory is that he could've substituted his rambly loquacious critique with the single word "reductive" and that no nuance or other value would've been lost.
@@Troca. Been 3 months. Can't remember.
@@Troca. No worries. :-)
Don't understand why this interview could not be EXTENDED by another 5 minutes for the last question? What's the RIGIDITY all about?? Left BRAIN THINKING?
i know--it was like he booked a dental appointment directly after this interview..
I think that if you interview very productive people, who are always very busy, you need to be very respectful of their time if you want to have a good reputation as an interviewer. If they say they have 60 minutes available you bring the interview to a close at 60 mins without forcing them to do so. If you take 90 minutes of time when they agreed 60 they may keep talking because it's awkward for them to stop but afterwards they might think you rude.
@@samhQC good point Sam--but in order to avoid the obvious awkwardness for the audience (who have invested 60 minutes of THEIR very valuable time) the interviewer should offer an explanation for the abrupt cut-off or otherwise fashion another more easy ending for his interview.
@@TheFaceZone Forgive this hyena but what a wonderfully ironic left-brained comment. "He said some things about content or depth or something but what really stood out to me was his deviance from CZcams "procedure" which baffled me and left me rather unsettled". Outstanding.
@@alexdemetriou707 hi Alex...i'm wanting to follow you...you mention "He said some things about content..."--who is "He"? You also mention "deviance from CZcams 'procedure'"--what is this CZcams procedure?👀
First
So left hemisphere 😂😂
The interviewer is such an obstacle!
Note that grifter Sam Harris hasn't had McGilchrist on his podcast.
@@Troca. As a supposed neuro scientist you'd think he have him on but it's too triggering for little Sam and his TDS.
@@Troca. Trump Derangement Syndrome
He just had him on.
Mr howard seems pretty occupied with Mr harris.
Mr mcgilchrist was on Sam's podcast just the other day.
@@bellezavudd Thanks for obsessing over me for 6 months. Yes I listened to it. At least Ian was intelligent in the conversation. ;)
what a horrible interviewer, he has to learn to allow his guest to speak, so many times he cuts Iain off when he was about to say something pivotal.