Some people just don't get it do they. They are so fanatical in pursuing their subject of choice. . They just can't see the wood because of the trees.
I figure the definition of an individual consciousness can be analogized to typing on a computer.
Let's say you open up microsoft word and type the word consciousness then type consciousness over and over again. They look the exact same but each are different (so even if they're brains indentitical to yours it would produce different consciousness').
But even if one's consciousness changes once there it at least one letter in that place it remains the same individual.
He's talking about homeostasis: the brain strives to maintain the body's biochemical systems within the limits necessary to survive (think of body temperature). His idea that the self is a stable brain process - a homeostasis of the mind - seems plausible and i'd like to see him develop that. But i think he's wrong about the brain stem: yes, it is essential for wakefulness but it isn't part of the self IMO.
Consciousness and awareness are always mixed up. I'd say that if there is an A and there is a B, any function/relation between them in a real world is consciousness. Awareness is consciousness in more complex systems. As he said, ego is just an image of ourselves in our brains to which we relate every other image.
I find this rather unsatisfactory, as I find his book of the same name, as it does not in the slightest touch upon the 'hard problem of consciousness': how matter is/causes mind - he only speaks of correlation.
At 9:10 he says the mystery of consciousness is diminishing because of knowledge of brain-mind correlation, but of course this in no way diminishes the problem. Lack of deep thought here.
@Ontologistics i often thought and read about what other people wrote about the "hard problem of consciousness", i shifted my perspective on this phanomenon. I once focused on the incompatibility of the two categories matter and mind/subjectivity.
I think we should all accept that complex structures like the brain somehow produce this state of subjectivity. Just in the same way we accept that our perception of infinity is a phanomenon.
@Ontologistics My thoughts exactly. Some people just don't get it do they. They are so fanatical in pursuing their subject of choice. . They just can't see the wood because of the trees.
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
I know that my comment below lacks some clarity but I didnt have enough characters. and that some people may agree or disagree on both because of the way Ive written them but basically am just asking because i am curious to what people think about consciousness. So basically do you think consciousness can exist by the structure, function and connection of our bodies/brainstem/brain (2nd) or is it more complex and having all the material in front of you is not enough - or even to explain it (1st)
1. Consciousness is more than just the physical body of a human (in other words its not just a bunch of neurons in the brain attatched to the rest of the body doing their complex communication stuff and then forming this consciousness)
2. Consciousness is just a bunch of cells (neuron, muscle, epithelial and any type of cell in our bodies and you can make a consciousness)
For people who agree on the 1st, vote me up, for people who go for the 2nd vote me down (I DONT CARE AT ALL IF IM VOTED DOWN)
its interesting that in a deep meditative state the sense of being a single seperate being from the rest of the universe is gone.This has been shown physically using brain scans to be the deactivation of a certain part of the brain, associated with the feeling of a 'self'. What is this then? Conscious or unconscious?
If you don't mind feeling like your skull is about to burst with sufficient force to rip a hole in the fabric of space and time, I'd recommend Thomas Metzinger's book "Being No One," about a similar topic to this...
@oxygen69able Just because the self is inferred doesn't mean that it is illusory. Consider the altered state of local anaesthesia: you don't feel the drilling but your teeth haven't disappeared! Of course i may be wrong but IMO self is literally central to consciousness.
The whole thing can be explained by the metaphor of containment. Having the idea of being contained in a body will automatically generate an experiencer, a "self," which naturally goes away when unconscious. The only neurology necessary is the same we'd use to consider a firefly in a Bell jar.
A joy to listen to such a clear speaker! It seems he has cornered what is necessary for consciousness to arise, but not necessarily what is sufficient. What is sufficient is the minimal elements that, if present, irrevocably lead to the arising of consciousness and especially of a conscious self. The final piece is the jump from the external description in terms of the contents of the brain, and the actual subjective/internal experience of a self, not likely accessible to 'objective' science.
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
Wow.... it's not often that I have so much difficulty trying to follow what the speaker is saying in these TED talks. lol. With that being said, I still learned a lot!
@nerhu59 I've been studying about a year and half actually buy Nyway. I can tell you that it is a common fallacy to think the stem affects the brain parts with such potency. If you read "Scientists Lie" by Dr Ken Hovind then you'll see. You youtube noobs think you know everything, go read a book.
this speaker talks like he has an answer to parts of the workings of the brain. but the vagueness of what he is saying tells me that he(and the rest of the world) knows near nothing about the matter. we are not ready to make these kind of theories.
@stijnhaki He is not being vague, and he knows a lot more than nothing. He is using clear and simple language because he is speaking to intelligent people who are not experts in his field. Yes, he dares to speculate in ways others have not, but you can be assured that he has an excellent understanding of the kinds of evidence in experimental neuroscience and its limitations. Also, who are you to make the unqualified judgment that we are not ready to make these kinds of theories?
@thejameslehman If you do not think our knowledge of the brain is vague, then you must be very easy to please or dont yet realise the brains complexity. Working very hard to try and understand something doesn't mean that he (and the rest of the neuroscience community) has made substantial progress in the actual understanding of the workings of the brain. (I dont consider bits and peaces of conclusions to be understanding something)
I've been studying the brain for atleast 2 years now and this is aload of complete bollocks! Why did he bring.the brain stem up?? Has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BRAIN!
@ElBurroSabeMasQueYo You're a complete idiot if you think after two years you know more about neuroscience and neurobiology than Dr. Damasio. And yes homeostasis maintained by the brain stem affects biological, and by extension, cortical activation. Not only that, but it acts as a major pathway for most nerves(certain crainial nerves are excluded) Go study some more.
@nerhu59 And that explains what about consciousness. The persons who first discovered synapses, neuro transmitters etc . . many years ago could have put up their hand and proclaimed they had discovered the nature of consciousness. . How is this guy any different. He's a brain specialist . . so what ? Do we think jet engine engineers have all the answers regarding gravity ? Of course we don't.
@English0pium This talk can only begin to elucidate the nature of consciousness, if you would like to know, pick up one of his books, or one of the thousands of journal articles written about it. Grow the fuck up while your at it, there is no "observer" wtf are you talking about, it is a global communication process no "observer" needed, might as well ask how all those individual pixels on the tv "turn" into a complete picture if they are not communicating between each other...
@nerhu59 The observer being the self . . . Or do you not exist ? Am I arguing with a robot ? no you see pixels, TVs, etc . . etc . . do not 'experience' consciousness
@English0pium I like how one one (1) scientist discusses a deterministic possibility and you come roaring in about how all scientists have "militant atheism", talk about a straw man! Go troll another video, one with less science content, because apparently you can't begin to handle it. Stay cool opium man! Deuces
Good speech. Nice theory. However I'm more interested in the study of subjective experiences itself. For example, what would it feel like if you were a bat? How much pain can a shrimp feel? These are the actually difficult problems for which science provides no answer.
I 'll make a prediction. Neuroscientists will discover that human consciousness stems from the brain period. The brain has evolved 100 billion neurons with each containing numerous synaptic chemical bridges to pass on information deciphered from sensory input. The brain is a super duper meat computer you inherited from the genetic blueprint completely beyond your control. It has the ability to collect and process information creating an identity.
@English0pium genetics, experience, and memory that makes you, you. Since their out growths from a brain that came from a random conception, why couldn't it happen again as another life.
It's controversial, but my point is if your birth was beyond your control then why couldn't it happen again. Not "you", but a new you. As any lifeform
I don't see how consciousness can actually be studied at all. There's no evidence for it other than your own subjective experience. It can't be proven or measured by any means. This is demonstrated by the 'philosophical zombie' hypothesis. You can study the brain's mechanical processes to the very last detail, but this won't explain how any of these processes give rise to intangible experience. Consciousness is the anomaly that shows physicalism cannot explain human nature.
a) You cannot "prove" anything about reality, not just consciousness. Why pick on it?
b) It can't be quantified easily, but do you really have no way of differentiating between someone/something that is conscious and someone/something that isn't?
c) How are you so certain of what's not possible? Btw, it's most likely computational, not mechanical processes that are of interest here.
d) It seems you decided on a conclusion and then attempted to rationalized it.
a) I'm picking on it because it's what allows the perception of reality in the first place.
b) No you have no way of quantifying it, see 'philosophical zombie'.
c) I think sometimes an assertion of certainty is needed where people think that certainty about these things exists. The only thing I really know for certain is that there is consciousness.
d) I would say the same for people who try to explain consciousness as arising from matter.
@brianv00 I If you do not see how consciousness can actually be studied at all, it seems likely that you do not know much about the evidence and arguments of those who study consciousness.
@thejameslehman How would you respond to the fact that there is no scientific evidence for consciousness? I've said this before and my intentions haven't been understood, so to state them clearly, I'm not suggesting consciousness doesn't exist, only that it cannot be shown, proven, measured, or studied at all using scientific methods. Interested to hear your thoughts on this.
No one leaves their body, ever. Are you seriously saying that when one dreams, they travel to a literal "dream world"? If not, is it not easier to explain day dreams and "out of body experiences" as the result of the same mechanisms which create dreams?
If the brain were a mere interface between the body and mind, a change in the brain would not result in a change in the mind, ie. alcohol would make you dizzy, without impairing your judgement. All that you are is in your body.
@ionz75: "If the brain were a mere interface between the body and mind, a change in the brain would not result in a change in the mind" I disagree. What we have is proof of correlation not causation. Take for example brain damage resulting in cognitive problems. The filter model would say that the brain damage did not damage cognition directly, but rather damaged the brain's ability to allow consciousness to be experienced. The resulting effect is the same of course.
Could you please link direct me to what you consider to be a good explanation of this "filter model"? I frankly have nothing to go off of when interpreting your posts. It seems to me that even if your hypothesis leads to the same effects, it does so by positing an extra, unneeded, untestable entity, much like saying "God did it" in response to any scientific question.
@ionz75: The model is commonly referred to as the 'reducing valve'. If you have trouble finding information about it I could try to dig up some old links for you. I would agree that it complicates the situation, but I would disagree that it's unneeded, because it would actually explain more of what we know surrounding mind and brain.
@ionz75: We do similar things in other fields of science when we hit a roadblock. In quantum physics new hypothetical particles that we have no way of detecting or directly interacting with are postulated because their existence would bridge gaps in our understanding. The Higgs boson is a perfect example of this.
Anything which exists in a meaningful sense can be detected by the scientific method. Hypotheses make testable predictions, and correct predictions support the hypothesis, and any entities posited thereby. The LHC was built, in part, to test the predictions inherent to the Higgs. Tell me, what testable predictions does your hypothesis make? First, though, what specific, unexplainable phenomena makes your hypothesis necessary in the first place?
@ionz75: Sorry for the late reply. "what specific, unexplainable phenomena makes your hypothesis necessary in the first place" 1. Severe hydrocephalus, where some patients with a miniscule fraction of the brain mass of a normal person have shown above average intelligence and seemingly normal cognition. 2. Terminal lucidity, where those with severe brain damage, who can't even remember the names and faces of family members or converse regain their mental faculties as they near death.
The human brain is plastic and in many areas redundant, and varies greatly in cognitive function even when size does not, ie. a genius and an ignoramus will likely have about the same size brain. If a genius can be produced by a normal sized brain, why can't an average intelligence come from a diminished brain?
As for terminal lucidity, the brain's chemistry likely changes near death, which could hypothetically "awaken" memory or reasoning skills.
@ionz75: I don't think severe hydrocephalus can be explained that easily, it is a genuine neurological mystery. In the most severe cases the brain is not reduced by a small amount - patients can be left with barely any brain remaining, and even in this group there have been people with high intelligence and seemingly no deficits. See John Lorber's work, which was published in the Lancet. Googling 'where is consciousness flatrock' brings up a large general article on the subject too.
@ionz75: Also I could accept your explanation of terminal lucidity in cases involving mental illness, but I think it's lacking when it comes to severe brain damage, such as in a patient with advanced brain cancer.
@ionz75: 3. Organisms without synapses or brain mass showing surprising intelligence. Single cell paramecium can learn, avoid predators, find food, mate, and have sex. Single cell slime molds have been able to recognize and memorize patterns, and unlearn those patterns when they no longer apply.
@AnduinX An ants nest is more intelligent that an ant, a brain is more intelligent than a neuron. However intelligence is not the same thing as consciousness.
@ionz75: 4. Accurate veridical perception during NDEs. This is anecdotal, but I still find it to be a very big hole in the physicalist model. If you go to any NDE forum, you’ll find the place littered with such stories. There are numerous notable accounts of veridical perception involving medical staff or others compiled in case studies by NDE researchers. It may not be ‘proven’ scientifically – yet, but that’s only because it has not been studied scientifically on a large scale.
@ionz75: “Tell me, what testable predictions does your hypothesis make?” 1. If the filter were correct, then it would follow that brain damage or brain inhibition would not always result in loss of cognition. In theory if you could selectively damage the filter’s ability to inhibit consciousness in an area, it might result in increased mental abilities.
That's not a testable prediction. "Would not always" and "might" protect it from falsification, making it useless. Would your theory not predict that damage to an area would result in elevated consciousness every time? If not, why?
@ionz75: There are areas of the brain that we can reasonably predict what happens when we damage them, such as the visual cortex, or the speech area. Still, I would be hesitant to say that everybody would react in the same way to something like controlled brain damage. People don’t even react the same way to drugs like SSRIs, of which there has been extensive testing. Maybe in the future it would be possible.
@ionz75: But don’t think it’s necessary for everybody to react the same predictable way in order to test the hypothesis though. You just need to show a break in the correlation between mind and brain. If enhanced consciousness can be demonstrated following brain damage or controlled inhibition of the brain, then that would be something notable.
@ionz75: There are some examples of this that I can point to now. For example, savant-like skills can sometimes be artificially induced in normal healthy individuals by inhibiting the left anterior temporal lobe (LATL). Additionally recent psychedelic drug testing (Psilocybin) in Europe have shown that while people report mind-opening experiences of vastly increased conscious awareness, the only measurable change in the brain is a slight decrease in activity and blood flow in key areas
@ionz75: 2. Things such as veridical perception during NDEs would not be in conflict with the filter model of consciousness. I would put that forward as something testable, as that is exactly what the awareness during resuscitation study is attempting to do now.
@AnduinX Simple awareness during resuscitation test: On a high shelf in the intensive care ward put an unusual, attention grabbing object such as a pair of red slippers. Ask people if they saw anything unusual while floating on the ceiling.
@ionz75: Well, hypothetically if veridical perception was proven false, it wouldn’t logically invalidate the model, but it would render it less useful and more of a thought experiment as the only reason it might be preferable to the physicalist model is because it could explain things that conflict with mind=brain while not conflicting with any of the other correlations we have observed between mind and brain.
@Tapecutter59: I'd question both of the assumptions you made there. I don't think that consciousness is reducible to physical material, and there's a lot of room for debate about whether the world around us is physical in a materialist sense. If physical material turns out to be something more along the lines of information, then materialism goes out the window.
@AnduinX Not sure why I am bothering to respond to a youtube comment, but did you even watch this video? Are you aware that if you damage specific areas of the brain, specific facets of your consciousness are altered or destroyed? Do you think this means nothing? Aldous Huxley died in 1963. Our knowledge of the brain's workings since then has increase by a factor of what? A hundred? A thousand? More? You need to re-evaluate.
@kusotarre: Yes I'm aware that you can damage specific areas of the brain and take out speech, or motor function, or vision, etc - and no, I don't think that this means nothing. The correlation is undeniable. What I deny is causation. Since everything we have learned since Aldous Huxley's death has been correlatory, I don't see why the time of his death bares relevance. Nothing new has come forth that specifically points to physicalism, and plenty of things point to the filter.
@kusotarre: For example the filter model of consciousness has no problems accomodating severe hydrocephalus, terminal lucidity, brainless organisms demonstrating learning ability, or veridical perception during NDEs.
@ionz75: If by elaborate you mean explain mechanistically how the brain filters consciousness, then sorry to say I have no answers anymore than physicalism can provide you the answers to its own hard problem(s). The 'filter' model of consciousness that I'm speaking of is Aldous Huxley's 'reducing valve' view of the brain, and it can offer a logical alternative explanation for everything the physicalist model of consciousness can explain - and more.
Where is it that we go when we sleep? Who is the one that wakes up? The SELF is that, which alone is capable of experiencing consciousness..rest is all theorizing. The answer, as the yogis and other masters say, lies within and not without.
Also, most of the talk is fluff since it doesn't really explain anything well (because that would take hours) and only has about 3 minutes of what his position actually is. Just disappointing from a researcher.
As a neuroscientist, let me assure you that he really has no basis for this belief. Personality altering circuitry is present throughout most of the brain, so this is not mediated primarily by any part of the mesencephalon (the specific name for the region he is looking at, though not just the red area). The fact that the area can mediate conciousness does not in fact mean that that is the root of personality. He is extrapolating something he has no right to, and no basis to.
@xamphor As an"undergraduate neuroscientist,"I don't think personality is related to this talk.And,he is saying the PAG & other mesencephalon brain areas CONTRIBUTES to the construction of a primordial self.Clearly, he describes an autobiographical self which is,of course, not a function of the brain stem.He is saying the mesencephalon is able to map the body and interpret bodily changes(relative to homeostasis)playing a role in the construction of qualitative states, or feeling states.
People do in fact dream under anesthesia,many patients actually report dreams shortly after extubation.I believe that others possibly forget them upon awakening due to normal reasons,pain and other factors.
Well. He gave some reasons why we should care. So I guess asking again is silly. Still, I don't get what the fuss is all about with self-knowledge and self-reference.
so if someone is brain dead and somehow we are able to "fix" them but the process would also fundamentally change their memories, would they be the same person after we "fixed" them? are you the same person who woke up this morning as the person who went to bed last night? funny thing about consciousness is that the more i know about it, the less i believe in an individual self.
Google - "I am a strange loop". This (very interesting) clip is discussing a model of the model of self contained with the self , which is the overall model that contains all the other models.
Mind is recursive models of self all the way down, which would seem to imply mind can never FULLY understand itself.
@Tapecutter59 Yeah, understanding the self is not going to happen anytime soon with the current theories. I read GEB, but not Strange Loop. My problem with that the supposition of a "model" is that also requires a mind to envision the concept of "model"; which leads us to chasing our own tails again. As for the speaker, we don't need a body milieu to have a concept of self (paralyzed, etc). If you count the 'brain chemistry' as body, then that is just another dead end. I'm with you on this.
Actually your sense of self goes away if too much of your body is without feeling. If you use an injection to temporarily paralyze your arm, and then see someone else touching his arm, you feel the touch on your own arm. Only when you see an arm being touched, and you feel no skin response, you know its someone else. If you lose sensation of your whole body your self sort of dissolves and you are one with everything... And a plant. Buddhists induce it using meditation.
@kurtilein3 That can happen, but paralysis victims would differ with you. Ofcourse, they change, but they still have a self. As for the example you gave of numbing with an injection...we can take it a step further and study amputees. Patients who have lost limbs experience "phantom limb." In fact 70% of amputees experience this. They still believe the limb moves and acts the way it did. It could be the brain is trying to maintain the "whole." So, body is not necessary.
There are two things that need to be differentiated, unfortunately english is my second language so im not sure if my choice of words is perfect here, i would call it "paralysis" and "numbness". Stephen Hawking is paralyzed, he cannot move, but the skin of his body still has sensation, he feels his body, so his sense of self is unaffected. Numbness is the opposite, you dont feel the limb, while maybe still able to move it. Thats the consciousness-threatening condition.
@kurtilein3 Stephen Hawking proves the point. Doesn't counter it. He is paralyzed with virtually no neuronal activity between his brain and body (except for a few to his finger, face, tongue). He still has a self. In fact a very strong sense of self. I use paralysis as an extreme case of numbness, b/c we all know that paralysis causes permanent parasthesia. We don't need to define the two. Everyone knows the difference. The point stands that you do not need a body to have a sense of self.
Search for "Ramachadran" on TED (first name: VS or Vilayanur, so just search for the family name), you should find two talks, both are really awesome and add to the information in this talk. Ramachadran found a way to make phantom limbs permanently disappear, together with the phantom pains they sometimes cause. He also describes these induced-numbness experiments.
@kurtilein3 I've seen Ramachandran's work on phantom limb PAIN. He deals with the pain part and has only helped one or two individuals eliminate the "phantom" part. So, that doesn't help us If anything, VS work goes against Damasio's. In fact, the Edge article by VS points out the differeneces between him and Damasio. I'll send you the link. VS makes the point that you can simulate the connections with the body and still have the self. No "body" needed.
@Tapecutter59 Your definition of mind seems to disprove itself as being a viable model since it requires an infinite regress. Besides, your conclusion kind of denies your having a clear definition. Still, I'm curious then what your definition of body would be, perhaps in contrast.
I don't feel like i can summarise it. that is the mark of a great communicator. clear and concise with buckets full of information. no wolfe! love it!
We are biological computers with ram and a hard drive. Ram is the present and the hard drive is the past. In hindsight is where the human experience evokes its self. It is when we pull from that hard drive that we experience consensus in the sense that what we pull is imperfect and we have to fill in the blanks with either truth or with the make believe. It is that difference that makes life magical or devastating.
I'm sure Antonio Damasio is a smart man, but he came to TED to talk about having a cyst in his left retina ...spent more than a minute talking about it 6:15 No, Mr. Dr. Damasio, I'm really not as fascinated as you are by that. ...have you tried glasses? ...still have vision problems? ...what are you talking about? ...a flowchart? ..at 13:40 ...and you have a theory? ...what? 14:04? No brain stem, no conscious mind? ...that's it?!
Bet he has a brontosaurus theory too. (Monty Python)
@Studi0376:15 It was highly related to what he was trying to explain. When covering a nerdy subject it's important to give concrete examples to every now and then to keep the audience alert.
@vo0sto0 I suspect you've just never heard better speakers. Me, I prefer reading his books because I agree with others about Damasio being terrible on stage. I also prefer his earlier work. Now, he just seems to be retreating to his brain as the rest of his body ages when his earlier work was the opposite in trying to get people less brain obsessed.
@English0pium You commented 19 times. Lololololololol. Me 2 times. A troll is a troll.
Like I say, I've been studying this for at least 2 years.
ElBurroSabeMasQueYo 1 week ago
Terrible terrible video
English0pium 1 week ago
Some people just don't get it do they. They are so fanatical in pursuing their subject of choice. . They just can't see the wood because of the trees.
English0pium 1 week ago
As with lots of other videos regarding the subject . .he sheds no new light on consciousness. .
What a dissapointment
English0pium 1 week ago 2
Saying biology can explain conciousness is like saying that understanding how a jet engine works tells you everything you need to know about gravity.
These 'scientists' should be more open minded and stop focusing on militant atheism.
English0pium 1 week ago
This is bullshit and wasted my time. Still does not begin to explain conciousness.
English0pium 1 week ago
I figure the definition of an individual consciousness can be analogized to typing on a computer.
Let's say you open up microsoft word and type the word consciousness then type consciousness over and over again. They look the exact same but each are different (so even if they're brains indentitical to yours it would produce different consciousness').
But even if one's consciousness changes once there it at least one letter in that place it remains the same individual.
deanmullen10 1 week ago
He's talking about homeostasis: the brain strives to maintain the body's biochemical systems within the limits necessary to survive (think of body temperature). His idea that the self is a stable brain process - a homeostasis of the mind - seems plausible and i'd like to see him develop that. But i think he's wrong about the brain stem: yes, it is essential for wakefulness but it isn't part of the self IMO.
slartibartfats 3 weeks ago
@slartibartfats Biology of the brain, body etc does not explain conciousness. It's bullshit.
English0pium 1 week ago
Was hoping for a great video on consciousness, got a mediocre one.
MrOnkL 3 weeks ago 3
@MrOnkL I know . . what shit
English0pium 1 week ago
Consciousness and awareness are always mixed up. I'd say that if there is an A and there is a B, any function/relation between them in a real world is consciousness. Awareness is consciousness in more complex systems. As he said, ego is just an image of ourselves in our brains to which we relate every other image.
etherial82 1 month ago
I find this rather unsatisfactory, as I find his book of the same name, as it does not in the slightest touch upon the 'hard problem of consciousness': how matter is/causes mind - he only speaks of correlation.
At 9:10 he says the mystery of consciousness is diminishing because of knowledge of brain-mind correlation, but of course this in no way diminishes the problem. Lack of deep thought here.
Ontologistics 1 month ago
@Ontologistics i often thought and read about what other people wrote about the "hard problem of consciousness", i shifted my perspective on this phanomenon. I once focused on the incompatibility of the two categories matter and mind/subjectivity.
I think we should all accept that complex structures like the brain somehow produce this state of subjectivity. Just in the same way we accept that our perception of infinity is a phanomenon.
Serpico261 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@Ontologistics True. it's crap
English0pium 1 week ago
@Ontologistics My thoughts exactly. Some people just don't get it do they. They are so fanatical in pursuing their subject of choice. . They just can't see the wood because of the trees.
English0pium 1 week ago
CROSSEYEDXDD
emflavahs 1 month ago
This guy isn't very smart
steamednotfried 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 month ago
And nyck vorel wins the award for the biggest faggot of 2012 for posting this to facebook.
cancereverywhereigo 1 month ago
I know that my comment below lacks some clarity but I didnt have enough characters. and that some people may agree or disagree on both because of the way Ive written them but basically am just asking because i am curious to what people think about consciousness. So basically do you think consciousness can exist by the structure, function and connection of our bodies/brainstem/brain (2nd) or is it more complex and having all the material in front of you is not enough - or even to explain it (1st)
cypts1 1 month ago
1. Consciousness is more than just the physical body of a human (in other words its not just a bunch of neurons in the brain attatched to the rest of the body doing their complex communication stuff and then forming this consciousness)
2. Consciousness is just a bunch of cells (neuron, muscle, epithelial and any type of cell in our bodies and you can make a consciousness)
For people who agree on the 1st, vote me up, for people who go for the 2nd vote me down (I DONT CARE AT ALL IF IM VOTED DOWN)
cypts1 1 month ago 2
@cypts1: I voted you up, I think that consciousness if fundamental :)
AnduinX 1 month ago 2
its interesting that in a deep meditative state the sense of being a single seperate being from the rest of the universe is gone.This has been shown physically using brain scans to be the deactivation of a certain part of the brain, associated with the feeling of a 'self'. What is this then? Conscious or unconscious?
tysonsflag 1 month ago
If you don't mind feeling like your skull is about to burst with sufficient force to rip a hole in the fabric of space and time, I'd recommend Thomas Metzinger's book "Being No One," about a similar topic to this...
Sylocat 1 month ago
@Sylocat haha thanks!
gagzy1989 1 month ago
His hair plugs are a testament to the desperate clinging of his bloated ego.
oxygen69able 1 month ago
@oxygen69able too true
English0pium 1 week ago
His premises are flawed. What about altered states? Meta-consciousness or awareness without the "I" . The ego is not fundamental to consciousness.
oxygen69able 1 month ago 6
@oxygen69able This are simply states where the brain information isn't integrated in a regular way.
401Nero 1 month ago
@oxygen69able Depends from which paradigm you you are making your argumentation
oanabarbu10 1 month ago
@oxygen69able Just because the self is inferred doesn't mean that it is illusory. Consider the altered state of local anaesthesia: you don't feel the drilling but your teeth haven't disappeared! Of course i may be wrong but IMO self is literally central to consciousness.
slartibartfats 3 weeks ago
The whole thing can be explained by the metaphor of containment. Having the idea of being contained in a body will automatically generate an experiencer, a "self," which naturally goes away when unconscious. The only neurology necessary is the same we'd use to consider a firefly in a Bell jar.
jodyrrr 1 month ago
A joy to listen to such a clear speaker! It seems he has cornered what is necessary for consciousness to arise, but not necessarily what is sufficient. What is sufficient is the minimal elements that, if present, irrevocably lead to the arising of consciousness and especially of a conscious self. The final piece is the jump from the external description in terms of the contents of the brain, and the actual subjective/internal experience of a self, not likely accessible to 'objective' science.
shbleher 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 month ago
Wow.... it's not often that I have so much difficulty trying to follow what the speaker is saying in these TED talks. lol. With that being said, I still learned a lot!
asdfgoogle 1 month ago
@nerhu59 I've been studying about a year and half actually buy Nyway. I can tell you that it is a common fallacy to think the stem affects the brain parts with such potency. If you read "Scientists Lie" by Dr Ken Hovind then you'll see. You youtube noobs think you know everything, go read a book.
ElBurroSabeMasQueYo 1 month ago
@ElBurroSabeMasQueYo One medium is more truthful than the other? Lies can get written down as easily as they can be videoed.
Guardwork 1 month ago
Comment removed
English0pium 1 week ago
this speaker talks like he has an answer to parts of the workings of the brain. but the vagueness of what he is saying tells me that he(and the rest of the world) knows near nothing about the matter. we are not ready to make these kind of theories.
stijnhaki 1 month ago
@stijnhaki He is not being vague, and he knows a lot more than nothing. He is using clear and simple language because he is speaking to intelligent people who are not experts in his field. Yes, he dares to speculate in ways others have not, but you can be assured that he has an excellent understanding of the kinds of evidence in experimental neuroscience and its limitations. Also, who are you to make the unqualified judgment that we are not ready to make these kinds of theories?
thejameslehman 1 month ago 2
@thejameslehman If you do not think our knowledge of the brain is vague, then you must be very easy to please or dont yet realise the brains complexity. Working very hard to try and understand something doesn't mean that he (and the rest of the neuroscience community) has made substantial progress in the actual understanding of the workings of the brain. (I dont consider bits and peaces of conclusions to be understanding something)
stijnhaki 1 month ago
this fascinates me
Tammy87960 2 months ago
I've been studying the brain for atleast 2 years now and this is aload of complete bollocks! Why did he bring.the brain stem up?? Has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BRAIN!
ElBurroSabeMasQueYo 2 months ago
@ElBurroSabeMasQueYo You're a complete idiot if you think after two years you know more about neuroscience and neurobiology than Dr. Damasio. And yes homeostasis maintained by the brain stem affects biological, and by extension, cortical activation. Not only that, but it acts as a major pathway for most nerves(certain crainial nerves are excluded) Go study some more.
nerhu59 1 month ago
@nerhu59 And that explains what about consciousness. The persons who first discovered synapses, neuro transmitters etc . . many years ago could have put up their hand and proclaimed they had discovered the nature of consciousness. . How is this guy any different. He's a brain specialist . . so what ? Do we think jet engine engineers have all the answers regarding gravity ? Of course we don't.
English0pium 1 week ago
@English0pium This talk can only begin to elucidate the nature of consciousness, if you would like to know, pick up one of his books, or one of the thousands of journal articles written about it. Grow the fuck up while your at it, there is no "observer" wtf are you talking about, it is a global communication process no "observer" needed, might as well ask how all those individual pixels on the tv "turn" into a complete picture if they are not communicating between each other...
nerhu59 1 week ago
@nerhu59 It's garbage. He does not explain 'sense' of self . . You can go round and round in circles. !
English0pium 1 week ago
@nerhu59 You have no ideas of anything about this subject
English0pium 1 week ago
@nerhu59 The observer being the self . . . Or do you not exist ? Am I arguing with a robot ? no you see pixels, TVs, etc . . etc . . do not 'experience' consciousness
English0pium 1 week ago
@English0pium I like how one one (1) scientist discusses a deterministic possibility and you come roaring in about how all scientists have "militant atheism", talk about a straw man! Go troll another video, one with less science content, because apparently you can't begin to handle it. Stay cool opium man! Deuces
nerhu59 1 week ago
@nerhu59 Troll ? For posting a few comments. You are the one who needs to grown up. You thick American cunt.
English0pium 1 week ago
@English0pium Lustig, aber ich nicht in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika zu leben .. Tschüß
nerhu59 1 week ago
@nerhu59 So explain consciousness to me then. . Tell me about the brain stem . .
Oh yeah that's it ! Of course . . the brain stem ! Now it's all clear !
You dumb cunt
English0pium 1 week ago
Good speech. Nice theory. However I'm more interested in the study of subjective experiences itself. For example, what would it feel like if you were a bat? How much pain can a shrimp feel? These are the actually difficult problems for which science provides no answer.
boxiness 2 months ago
I 'll make a prediction. Neuroscientists will discover that human consciousness stems from the brain period. The brain has evolved 100 billion neurons with each containing numerous synaptic chemical bridges to pass on information deciphered from sensory input. The brain is a super duper meat computer you inherited from the genetic blueprint completely beyond your control. It has the ability to collect and process information creating an identity.
You are the universe becoming conscious.
metalsusa1 2 months ago
@metalsusa1 And chemicals and hormones move across synapses and electrical impulses . . and then what ? Who is the observer ?
English0pium 1 week ago
@English0pium Your brain is the source of your self aware consciousness/identity.
Your brain comes from your genetic blueprint, your identity develops 18 months later through. (Part 1)
metalsusa1 1 week ago
@metalsusa1 Explain where physicality ends and self awareness begins.
English0pium 1 week ago
@English0pium genetics, experience, and memory that makes you, you. Since their out growths from a brain that came from a random conception, why couldn't it happen again as another life.
metalsusa1 1 week ago
@English0pium 200 characters sucks!
It's controversial, but my point is if your birth was beyond your control then why couldn't it happen again. Not "you", but a new you. As any lifeform
metalsusa1 1 week ago
@metalsusa1 Yes . . I know . . . . And now describe self awareness to me and how it manifests . . who or what is experiencing.
English0pium 1 week ago
cholesterol is the most important food for a healthy brain which inturn makes for a healthy conscience.
irishgeal1 2 months ago
I don't see how consciousness can actually be studied at all. There's no evidence for it other than your own subjective experience. It can't be proven or measured by any means. This is demonstrated by the 'philosophical zombie' hypothesis. You can study the brain's mechanical processes to the very last detail, but this won't explain how any of these processes give rise to intangible experience. Consciousness is the anomaly that shows physicalism cannot explain human nature.
brianv00 2 months ago 2
@brianv00
a) You cannot "prove" anything about reality, not just consciousness. Why pick on it?
b) It can't be quantified easily, but do you really have no way of differentiating between someone/something that is conscious and someone/something that isn't?
c) How are you so certain of what's not possible? Btw, it's most likely computational, not mechanical processes that are of interest here.
d) It seems you decided on a conclusion and then attempted to rationalized it.
SoftwareEngineer3 2 months ago
@SoftwareEngineer3
a) I'm picking on it because it's what allows the perception of reality in the first place.
b) No you have no way of quantifying it, see 'philosophical zombie'.
c) I think sometimes an assertion of certainty is needed where people think that certainty about these things exists. The only thing I really know for certain is that there is consciousness.
d) I would say the same for people who try to explain consciousness as arising from matter.
brianv00 2 months ago
@SoftwareEngineer3 You might be interested in The Primacy of Consciousness lecture by Peter Russell on YouTube. Very interesting!
brianv00 2 months ago
@brianv00 I If you do not see how consciousness can actually be studied at all, it seems likely that you do not know much about the evidence and arguments of those who study consciousness.
thejameslehman 1 month ago 2
@thejameslehman How would you respond to the fact that there is no scientific evidence for consciousness? I've said this before and my intentions haven't been understood, so to state them clearly, I'm not suggesting consciousness doesn't exist, only that it cannot be shown, proven, measured, or studied at all using scientific methods. Interested to hear your thoughts on this.
brianv00 1 month ago
uffffffffffffff too dence lecture of all time at ted
tayyab00001 2 months ago
the brain is an interface between the body and the mind,
you don't take your brain with you when you have an out of body experience,
or when you leave your body when you daydream,
the "self" is your spirit and your intelligence as an individual
the "self" existed before you were born into a body
baznet 2 months ago
@baznet
No one leaves their body, ever. Are you seriously saying that when one dreams, they travel to a literal "dream world"? If not, is it not easier to explain day dreams and "out of body experiences" as the result of the same mechanisms which create dreams?
If the brain were a mere interface between the body and mind, a change in the brain would not result in a change in the mind, ie. alcohol would make you dizzy, without impairing your judgement. All that you are is in your body.
ionz75 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ionz75: "If the brain were a mere interface between the body and mind, a change in the brain would not result in a change in the mind" I disagree. What we have is proof of correlation not causation. Take for example brain damage resulting in cognitive problems. The filter model would say that the brain damage did not damage cognition directly, but rather damaged the brain's ability to allow consciousness to be experienced. The resulting effect is the same of course.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@AnduinX
Could you please link direct me to what you consider to be a good explanation of this "filter model"? I frankly have nothing to go off of when interpreting your posts. It seems to me that even if your hypothesis leads to the same effects, it does so by positing an extra, unneeded, untestable entity, much like saying "God did it" in response to any scientific question.
ionz75 2 months ago
@ionz75: The model is commonly referred to as the 'reducing valve'. If you have trouble finding information about it I could try to dig up some old links for you. I would agree that it complicates the situation, but I would disagree that it's unneeded, because it would actually explain more of what we know surrounding mind and brain.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@ionz75: We do similar things in other fields of science when we hit a roadblock. In quantum physics new hypothetical particles that we have no way of detecting or directly interacting with are postulated because their existence would bridge gaps in our understanding. The Higgs boson is a perfect example of this.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@AnduinX
Anything which exists in a meaningful sense can be detected by the scientific method. Hypotheses make testable predictions, and correct predictions support the hypothesis, and any entities posited thereby. The LHC was built, in part, to test the predictions inherent to the Higgs. Tell me, what testable predictions does your hypothesis make? First, though, what specific, unexplainable phenomena makes your hypothesis necessary in the first place?
ionz75 2 months ago
@ionz75: Sorry for the late reply. "what specific, unexplainable phenomena makes your hypothesis necessary in the first place" 1. Severe hydrocephalus, where some patients with a miniscule fraction of the brain mass of a normal person have shown above average intelligence and seemingly normal cognition. 2. Terminal lucidity, where those with severe brain damage, who can't even remember the names and faces of family members or converse regain their mental faculties as they near death.
AnduinX 1 month ago
@AnduinX
The human brain is plastic and in many areas redundant, and varies greatly in cognitive function even when size does not, ie. a genius and an ignoramus will likely have about the same size brain. If a genius can be produced by a normal sized brain, why can't an average intelligence come from a diminished brain?
As for terminal lucidity, the brain's chemistry likely changes near death, which could hypothetically "awaken" memory or reasoning skills.
ionz75 1 month ago
@ionz75: I don't think severe hydrocephalus can be explained that easily, it is a genuine neurological mystery. In the most severe cases the brain is not reduced by a small amount - patients can be left with barely any brain remaining, and even in this group there have been people with high intelligence and seemingly no deficits. See John Lorber's work, which was published in the Lancet. Googling 'where is consciousness flatrock' brings up a large general article on the subject too.
AnduinX 1 month ago
@ionz75: Also I could accept your explanation of terminal lucidity in cases involving mental illness, but I think it's lacking when it comes to severe brain damage, such as in a patient with advanced brain cancer.
AnduinX 1 month ago
@ionz75: 3. Organisms without synapses or brain mass showing surprising intelligence. Single cell paramecium can learn, avoid predators, find food, mate, and have sex. Single cell slime molds have been able to recognize and memorize patterns, and unlearn those patterns when they no longer apply.
AnduinX 1 month ago
@AnduinX An ants nest is more intelligent that an ant, a brain is more intelligent than a neuron. However intelligence is not the same thing as consciousness.
Tapecutter59 1 month ago
@AnduinX
All of those things can be achieved with chemical signals.
ionz75 1 month ago
@ionz75: 4. Accurate veridical perception during NDEs. This is anecdotal, but I still find it to be a very big hole in the physicalist model. If you go to any NDE forum, you’ll find the place littered with such stories. There are numerous notable accounts of veridical perception involving medical staff or others compiled in case studies by NDE researchers. It may not be ‘proven’ scientifically – yet, but that’s only because it has not been studied scientifically on a large scale.
AnduinX 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnduinX
"It may not be ‘proven’ scientifically – yet, but that’s only because it has not been studied scientifically on a large scale."
Until it is "proven," that claim is unjustifiable. Any scientist worth his salt knows anecdote is nearly worthless.
ionz75 1 month ago
@ionz75: “Tell me, what testable predictions does your hypothesis make?” 1. If the filter were correct, then it would follow that brain damage or brain inhibition would not always result in loss of cognition. In theory if you could selectively damage the filter’s ability to inhibit consciousness in an area, it might result in increased mental abilities.
AnduinX 1 month ago
@AnduinX
That's not a testable prediction. "Would not always" and "might" protect it from falsification, making it useless. Would your theory not predict that damage to an area would result in elevated consciousness every time? If not, why?
ionz75 1 month ago
@ionz75: There are areas of the brain that we can reasonably predict what happens when we damage them, such as the visual cortex, or the speech area. Still, I would be hesitant to say that everybody would react in the same way to something like controlled brain damage. People don’t even react the same way to drugs like SSRIs, of which there has been extensive testing. Maybe in the future it would be possible.
AnduinX 1 month ago
@ionz75: But don’t think it’s necessary for everybody to react the same predictable way in order to test the hypothesis though. You just need to show a break in the correlation between mind and brain. If enhanced consciousness can be demonstrated following brain damage or controlled inhibition of the brain, then that would be something notable.
AnduinX 1 month ago
@ionz75: There are some examples of this that I can point to now. For example, savant-like skills can sometimes be artificially induced in normal healthy individuals by inhibiting the left anterior temporal lobe (LATL). Additionally recent psychedelic drug testing (Psilocybin) in Europe have shown that while people report mind-opening experiences of vastly increased conscious awareness, the only measurable change in the brain is a slight decrease in activity and blood flow in key areas
AnduinX 1 month ago
@AnduinX damn strait any change in the brain is huge
DOUGIEfoshizzle 1 month ago
@ionz75: 2. Things such as veridical perception during NDEs would not be in conflict with the filter model of consciousness. I would put that forward as something testable, as that is exactly what the awareness during resuscitation study is attempting to do now.
AnduinX 1 month ago
@AnduinX Simple awareness during resuscitation test: On a high shelf in the intensive care ward put an unusual, attention grabbing object such as a pair of red slippers. Ask people if they saw anything unusual while floating on the ceiling.
Tapecutter59 1 month ago
@AnduinX
So if such perception cannot be shown to exist, then your theory is false, correct? If not, then that is not a testable hypothesis.
ionz75 1 month ago
@ionz75: Well, hypothetically if veridical perception was proven false, it wouldn’t logically invalidate the model, but it would render it less useful and more of a thought experiment as the only reason it might be preferable to the physicalist model is because it could explain things that conflict with mind=brain while not conflicting with any of the other correlations we have observed between mind and brain.
AnduinX 1 month ago
I don't think the brain creates consciousness at all, rather, it acts as a filter for consciousness. Materialism is on the way out, IMO.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@AnduinX "Materialism is on the way out, IMO."
Great, PM me and I'll tell you where to send all your stuff.
For we are living in a material world and I am a material....Grandpa.
Tapecutter59 2 months ago
@Tapecutter59: I'd question both of the assumptions you made there. I don't think that consciousness is reducible to physical material, and there's a lot of room for debate about whether the world around us is physical in a materialist sense. If physical material turns out to be something more along the lines of information, then materialism goes out the window.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@AnduinX Not sure why I am bothering to respond to a youtube comment, but did you even watch this video? Are you aware that if you damage specific areas of the brain, specific facets of your consciousness are altered or destroyed? Do you think this means nothing? Aldous Huxley died in 1963. Our knowledge of the brain's workings since then has increase by a factor of what? A hundred? A thousand? More? You need to re-evaluate.
kusotarre 2 months ago
@kusotarre: Yes I'm aware that you can damage specific areas of the brain and take out speech, or motor function, or vision, etc - and no, I don't think that this means nothing. The correlation is undeniable. What I deny is causation. Since everything we have learned since Aldous Huxley's death has been correlatory, I don't see why the time of his death bares relevance. Nothing new has come forth that specifically points to physicalism, and plenty of things point to the filter.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@kusotarre: For example the filter model of consciousness has no problems accomodating severe hydrocephalus, terminal lucidity, brainless organisms demonstrating learning ability, or veridical perception during NDEs.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@AnduinX
"Acts as a filter for consciousness"?
Please elaborate.
ionz75 2 months ago
@ionz75: If by elaborate you mean explain mechanistically how the brain filters consciousness, then sorry to say I have no answers anymore than physicalism can provide you the answers to its own hard problem(s). The 'filter' model of consciousness that I'm speaking of is Aldous Huxley's 'reducing valve' view of the brain, and it can offer a logical alternative explanation for everything the physicalist model of consciousness can explain - and more.
AnduinX 2 months ago
FINALLY intelligent youtube comments to support the video!!
jesuspeteable 2 months ago
Where is it that we go when we sleep? Who is the one that wakes up? The SELF is that, which alone is capable of experiencing consciousness..rest is all theorizing. The answer, as the yogis and other masters say, lies within and not without.
ranjanchadha 2 months ago
0:15 =]
LuckyMarketGameplay 2 months ago
Also, most of the talk is fluff since it doesn't really explain anything well (because that would take hours) and only has about 3 minutes of what his position actually is. Just disappointing from a researcher.
xamphor 2 months ago
As a neuroscientist, let me assure you that he really has no basis for this belief. Personality altering circuitry is present throughout most of the brain, so this is not mediated primarily by any part of the mesencephalon (the specific name for the region he is looking at, though not just the red area). The fact that the area can mediate conciousness does not in fact mean that that is the root of personality. He is extrapolating something he has no right to, and no basis to.
xamphor 2 months ago
@xamphor As an"undergraduate neuroscientist,"I don't think personality is related to this talk.And,he is saying the PAG & other mesencephalon brain areas CONTRIBUTES to the construction of a primordial self.Clearly, he describes an autobiographical self which is,of course, not a function of the brain stem.He is saying the mesencephalon is able to map the body and interpret bodily changes(relative to homeostasis)playing a role in the construction of qualitative states, or feeling states.
JMLudwig 2 months ago
O que ele diz é interessante, mas este fulano é CHATO à brava... só podia ser um português... por isso é que a nossa educação está como está.
E, vejam, NÃO diz "dr." ou "prof." ou "eng." em frente do nome... se fosse cá (em Portugal), era um escândalo.
leonidasx666 2 months ago
People do in fact dream under anesthesia,many patients actually report dreams shortly after extubation.I believe that others possibly forget them upon awakening due to normal reasons,pain and other factors.
sqru2 2 months ago
Which part of the brain thought using Comic Sans was a good idea?
coreyladas 2 months ago
@coreyladas The part responsible for not giving a flying fuck.
ZeZeBatata69 2 months ago
@coreyladas THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!
raydredX 2 months ago
love this guy , classical professor type !!
VoiceOfAleppo 2 months ago
Now the version edited for rednecks:
Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood.
MastermindX 2 months ago
Mental brain mastrubation.. I LOVE IT!
kimkjederseg 2 months ago
Whaaaaa??
elizzievb 2 months ago
what is this guys finding/point. i watched but dont see what he is trying to say.
brod2man 2 months ago
@tapecutter59 oh really? A model of a model of a model of a self model? Lol
mattysimsoficial 2 months ago
Excellent talk, a bulwark against the spiritualists and immaterialists who want to keep ourselves a mystery.
niriop 2 months ago
Can cows fly? If so, what makes them fly?
bilaba70 2 months ago
I have no penis.
Fuzzy192006 2 months ago
Well. He gave some reasons why we should care. So I guess asking again is silly. Still, I don't get what the fuss is all about with self-knowledge and self-reference.
DerEchteSenf 2 months ago
so if someone is brain dead and somehow we are able to "fix" them but the process would also fundamentally change their memories, would they be the same person after we "fixed" them? are you the same person who woke up this morning as the person who went to bed last night? funny thing about consciousness is that the more i know about it, the less i believe in an individual self.
greycloud24 2 months ago
Consciousness is cool.
ErichoTTA 2 months ago
Google - "I am a strange loop". This (very interesting) clip is discussing a model of the model of self contained with the self , which is the overall model that contains all the other models.
Mind is recursive models of self all the way down, which would seem to imply mind can never FULLY understand itself.
Tapecutter59 2 months ago
@Tapecutter59 Yeah, understanding the self is not going to happen anytime soon with the current theories. I read GEB, but not Strange Loop. My problem with that the supposition of a "model" is that also requires a mind to envision the concept of "model"; which leads us to chasing our own tails again. As for the speaker, we don't need a body milieu to have a concept of self (paralyzed, etc). If you count the 'brain chemistry' as body, then that is just another dead end. I'm with you on this.
qigong1001 2 months ago
@qigong1001
Actually your sense of self goes away if too much of your body is without feeling. If you use an injection to temporarily paralyze your arm, and then see someone else touching his arm, you feel the touch on your own arm. Only when you see an arm being touched, and you feel no skin response, you know its someone else. If you lose sensation of your whole body your self sort of dissolves and you are one with everything... And a plant. Buddhists induce it using meditation.
kurtilein3 2 months ago
@kurtilein3 That can happen, but paralysis victims would differ with you. Ofcourse, they change, but they still have a self. As for the example you gave of numbing with an injection...we can take it a step further and study amputees. Patients who have lost limbs experience "phantom limb." In fact 70% of amputees experience this. They still believe the limb moves and acts the way it did. It could be the brain is trying to maintain the "whole." So, body is not necessary.
qigong1001 2 months ago
@qigong1001
There are two things that need to be differentiated, unfortunately english is my second language so im not sure if my choice of words is perfect here, i would call it "paralysis" and "numbness". Stephen Hawking is paralyzed, he cannot move, but the skin of his body still has sensation, he feels his body, so his sense of self is unaffected. Numbness is the opposite, you dont feel the limb, while maybe still able to move it. Thats the consciousness-threatening condition.
kurtilein3 2 months ago
@kurtilein3 Stephen Hawking proves the point. Doesn't counter it. He is paralyzed with virtually no neuronal activity between his brain and body (except for a few to his finger, face, tongue). He still has a self. In fact a very strong sense of self. I use paralysis as an extreme case of numbness, b/c we all know that paralysis causes permanent parasthesia. We don't need to define the two. Everyone knows the difference. The point stands that you do not need a body to have a sense of self.
qigong1001 2 months ago
@qigong1001
Search for "Ramachadran" on TED (first name: VS or Vilayanur, so just search for the family name), you should find two talks, both are really awesome and add to the information in this talk. Ramachadran found a way to make phantom limbs permanently disappear, together with the phantom pains they sometimes cause. He also describes these induced-numbness experiments.
kurtilein3 2 months ago
@kurtilein3 I've seen Ramachandran's work on phantom limb PAIN. He deals with the pain part and has only helped one or two individuals eliminate the "phantom" part. So, that doesn't help us If anything, VS work goes against Damasio's. In fact, the Edge article by VS points out the differeneces between him and Damasio. I'll send you the link. VS makes the point that you can simulate the connections with the body and still have the self. No "body" needed.
qigong1001 2 months ago
@Tapecutter59 No comment.
jgbloyd 2 months ago
@Tapecutter59 Your definition of mind seems to disprove itself as being a viable model since it requires an infinite regress. Besides, your conclusion kind of denies your having a clear definition. Still, I'm curious then what your definition of body would be, perhaps in contrast.
jgbloyd 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012 - at least take a chance to see what he stands for and don't ignore him like the media
AbdurRahman1776 2 months ago
Very interesting topic
frozencold199 2 months ago 2
wow, that lecture was thick with information :D
I don't feel like i can summarise it. that is the mark of a great communicator. clear and concise with buckets full of information. no wolfe! love it!
stephen1475 2 months ago 4
This is awesome! =)
jl3487 2 months ago
I had trouble summarizing what I learned after watching this...
stewinsalot 2 months ago 2
@stewinsalot Don't worry, I did as well. He did quite the lecture on neurology. All we needed is a bulleted power-point and I'd be back in school.
aStaircase 2 months ago
2:10
*sees comic sans*
FUCK THIS SHIT (ノಠДಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
syk0saje 2 months ago
@syk0saje Bad move.
CymroGoch 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We are biological computers with ram and a hard drive. Ram is the present and the hard drive is the past. In hindsight is where the human experience evokes its self. It is when we pull from that hard drive that we experience consensus in the sense that what we pull is imperfect and we have to fill in the blanks with either truth or with the make believe. It is that difference that makes life magical or devastating.
dude12nothin 2 months ago
Comment removed
dude12nothin 2 months ago
Mr. Damasio looks amazingly like Jonathan Pryce...
tmafkap 2 months ago
drink some water, please
sukablianah2 2 months ago
Interesting data. Underwhelming analysis.
t3tsuyaguy1 2 months ago
Yes, as theory suggests: Mary Sidney Herbert authored Shakespeare's works. Now, what part of the brain comes genius?
carefulcarpenter 2 months ago
Jonah Lehrer is much easier to understand.
MrPlaid81 2 months ago
I'm sure Antonio Damasio is a smart man, but he came to TED to talk about having a cyst in his left retina ...spent more than a minute talking about it 6:15 No, Mr. Dr. Damasio, I'm really not as fascinated as you are by that. ...have you tried glasses? ...still have vision problems? ...what are you talking about? ...a flowchart? ..at 13:40 ...and you have a theory? ...what? 14:04? No brain stem, no conscious mind? ...that's it?!
Bet he has a brontosaurus theory too. (Monty Python)
Studi037 2 months ago
@Studi037 6:15 It was highly related to what he was trying to explain. When covering a nerdy subject it's important to give concrete examples to every now and then to keep the audience alert.
TheLivirus 2 months ago
Great topic, boring speaker.
artbasss 2 months ago 6
@artbasss Nah, I personally think that this man is not a boring speaker at all.
vo0sto0 2 months ago 18
@vo0sto0 I suspect you've just never heard better speakers. Me, I prefer reading his books because I agree with others about Damasio being terrible on stage. I also prefer his earlier work. Now, he just seems to be retreating to his brain as the rest of his body ages when his earlier work was the opposite in trying to get people less brain obsessed.
jgbloyd 2 months ago
@artbasss i found the speaker easy to understand, and interesting. You're the boring/bored one
DaNZOmen 2 months ago
I am, am I ?
benaberry 2 months ago
cough*
benaberry 2 months ago
I think....there was a lot more coughing than usual...hmm
uber301 2 months ago
This was fascinating - thank you TED
2plus2make4 2 months ago
the holographic universe book is great book, i am not a computer, at all, annunnaki created
aaronCapricorn 2 months ago
"Life is but a dream." - Person who wrote "Row, Row, Row Your Boat"
MrOnairos 2 months ago
Why do such a large numbers of dumb asses watch TED?
I find it a sad commentary on the state of education of the masses challenging this scientists knowledge of the mind with their nonsense.
azcentralsurprise 2 months ago