Daniel Dennett's brain gets removed!! Part 1

[nightvidcole]

Although I am not the world's hugest fan of science fiction, a tad now and then never hurts......

[sonofagunM357]

thanks for uploading this

[Naturalist1979]

6:55

[C4ContemporaryArt]

I'm SOOO happy to see this again...!!! Had the tape about 10-15 years ago... and gave it (stupidly) to an ex-gf... thank you ...!!

[Melvin6566842]

Thanks for posting this, I was about to upload it myself, than I found it:)

[italianchappy]

Great video. I've just read Susan Blackmore's book in which she was talking of this experiment. Our ordinary sense of identity is only a meme. What our true identity is ? What if our brain itself is where the whole universe creates an interface to glimpse a part of himself ?

[italianchappy]

Many years ago I was catholic. Then I abandoned a single religion and I was fascinated by Nisargadatta Maharaj and Advaita theories (and their "sister doctrines" you find among all mystics of almost every culture). I think these scientific developments are compatible with those doctrines.

[82abhilash]

Advaita philosophy is very compatible with science, but then again so is unitarianism and deism, what makes it more interesting to you?

[italianchappy]

In the years I was involved with yoga and reading mystics of every tradition I became used to the idea there isn't a subject of actions, a doer or a separate entity responsible for actions. This was the illusion, id est believing to be something separate and distinct, in duality. When I started to read Blackmore, Dennet, Harris, Dawkins, these idea got reinforced. As Blackmore writes:"There is no center of action where a self might reside". [to be continued]

[italianchappy]

Blackmore writes again: "...the verbal story we tell ourselves, which includes the idea that there is an author of the story, or a user of the brain's virtual machine. Dennet calls this the bening user illusion. So maybe this is all we are, a centre of narrative gravity, a story about a persisting self who does things, feels things and make decisions; a benignn user illusion. And illusions do not have locations [and consistency]" [to be continued]

[italianchappy]

So, paradoxically, it seems to me that the perfect atheism and the perfect theism could coincide. Or I could ask if "there is no God" could be the other face of "There is God Only" and all the other things are illusion.

[italianchappy]

"tat twam asi" makes sense

[82abhilash]

In other words redefine God as everything that is in the universe, everything that ever was and ever will be. God is the Cosmos. My only concern there is that in a world where people have a tendency to attribute everything to God rather than seek real explanations, this will have the effect of people not looking for real explanations. Simply put, we will become prey to our old tendency to anthropomorphize God and that will stand in the way of real progress. (continued)

[82abhilash]

I realize the remarkable parallel between Vedic traditions and the physicalist philosophy of present day. But there is a point where they do diverge, and that is Vedic traditions interprets the physical world as the effect of the ultimate reality, a consciousness called 'Brahman'. While physicalists say, you can explain consciousness as a brain event.

[italianchappy]

Some reflections:

- when we speak of "everything that is in the universe" we think of the summation things, starting from what we see. The way we see things relies on our perception system, so that science argues that a mosquito or another animal with a different system could see the same thing in a very different way (think of colours perception). In other words our idea of the TOTALITY of things as summation of what we see can be naive and simplistic. The reality of this totality of being ...

[italianchappy]

The reality of this totality of being could be very different from our idea and UNITARY. How from the ONE is created the illusion of the many things we don't know. Indeed, the fact that I like this point of view does not restrain me at all from searching and being curious of scientific explanations. What's more it's not anthropomorphic. There's not a separate personal God with volitions and ideas or even feelings like in the judeo-christian-islamic tradition

[italianchappy]

Indeed, even mystics of this judeo-christian-islamic tradiion were able to overcome the ordinary vision of their respective tradition. You hardly can say what's the difference from Meister Eckhart theory, the Sufi one and Advaita Vedanta.

[italianchappy]

I wrote:" How from the ONE is created the illusion of the many things we don't know".

Maybe the very perception systems (brains, nervous systems) are the way this illusion arises, together with the illusion of separate subjects responsible of deciding and doing things. Beyond the illusion there is the only unexperiencable Reality, underpinning all the illusions that you can watch, but you cannot point at saying it coincide with the Ultimate without-name. Neti-Neti.

[82abhilash]

Ok that is an interesting idea. But how do you go about verifying it? The brain is capable of illusions, but it is also capable of recognizing that it is capable of illusions and that is a check and balance. It is one thing to say that we have incomplete information of our universe, and quiet another to say it is all an illusion.

[italianchappy]

> Ok that is an interesting idea. But how do you go about verifying it?

Forgot to replay this, and it's important. Indeed I stated I "like" this monistic idea. But I dunno if it's true. Technically I keep on being an agnostic with this liking, fascination, to Advaita Vedanta type of philosophy

[82abhilash]

That is kind of where I stand as well. I am atheist with respect to most religions in the world. With respect to Hinduism, I am mostly agnostic. Hinduism is a big package with its share of moral values, social science, real science, pseudo science and superstition. The problem is it has never been objectively studied. The British colonialists and Christian missionaries only wanted to know enough to denounce it; believers only enough to follow. Indology as a study is still its infancy.

[italianchappy]

> Indology as a study is still its infancy

That would be fascinating. When you ask a child what he will do when grown up, he usually wants become cop, scientist, doctor. When I was 5 y.o. my answer was "the Indian guru". I'm serious, that was my idea. The fact is that nobody in my family had any interest in these things. I dunno why and how I thought of that. Prolly tv. I'll visit India a day. Maybe I'll get enlightened and I will really become a guru one day. I'll let you know :)

[82abhilash]

If you like Indian philosophy, I would reccomend being an Indologist rather than an 'Indian Guru'. One Indologist who I would reccomend is Koenraad Elst, he is Belgian and in my opinion very objective. But in India, you invoke controversy by being objective. So some people try to label him as a fundamentalist. There is this pressure to be politically correct in these matters, it compromises on intellectual honesty. Then of course there are those with hidden agendas trying to confuse the issue.

[italianchappy]

Thank you 82abhilash. I really appreciate your advise. I've just opened Elst's website now.

[82abhilash]

My argument never was that people are incapable of visualizing a God that is not anthropomorphic. My argument was most people don't. Philosophers may see thing differently. But for the longest time, societies have been built around the presumption of an anthropomorphic God.

[italianchappy]

yes, ordinary people have always make up an idea of God. This also is the reason I like "negative theology" (the western way to say Neti-Neti). Only few mystics were able to be coherent with this principle, and usually religions opposed it. This is why I like Dawkins&Co's criticism of religions. People think of God as the entity who can benefit them through prayer. I guess even in India. I've not any knowledge of real religious practice there. All my ideas come from solitary reading and musing

[82abhilash]

And that is why I do not want to use the word 'God' because using it differently only confuses the issue.

[italianchappy]

It's right. This is the reason I use the world only with those I guess they can understand. Otherwise if asked about my ideas I simply state that I'm an agnostic non-religious guy.

[82abhilash]

And yes, Indians are no different. Theologians may have sophisticated concept, but the common man does not and as far as he or she is concerned he need not.

[82abhilash]

I agree and might I add we have the potential to overcome and are continually overcoming the limitations of our senses. We have infrared goggles, echo location devices, radar, infrared detectors, and many of the like which extends our sensory perceptions and opens new areas of exploration.