I'm not sure I agree with your summary of what neuroplasticity is...
I've never read or heard of a neuroscientist promoting the notion that the mind creates a special force that precedes the brain....Classic chicken and the egg, but simply the mind cannot precede the brain as without a brain, there is no mind.
My take is that it is the study of how thought patterns (physical phenomena, i.e. electrical and chemical signals passed from neuron to neuron) can have an effect on brain structure.
I like to think of the mind as an emergent property of the brain; it is a special quality that is more than the summation of its components. For example, your life is an emergent property of your physical components. If you laid out all your particles in a random fashion, you would not have life. However, this idea is fairly romantic and mystical. It may be the case that when someone says the mind is acting on the brain it is simply THE BRAIN ACTING ON THE BRAIN.
How can you reach the conclusion of special non-physical quality from physical components....hardest argument for Dualist to handle....It's just not possible.
@paintitblack01 A special non-physical quality from physical components isn't that unbelievable. You have a mass (physical) causing gravity (not really physical?). You have a magnet (physical) causing a magnetic field (not really physical?). Also, dualism says that the mind and the body exist separately from each other; the mind can exist without the brain. I don't actually know what the mind is, though.
Your view of NP represents the pre-NP NOTION of a static mind and therefore NP is seen as ONLY related to repair remedy. In reality, it is only when repair is at issue that NP becomes overtly observable. The rest of the time it is an ever-present dynamic we haven't learned to gauge, separate from the mere storage of info or develop constructs around to increase the latitude of learning to allow NP to provide interconnections that make problem resolution successful every day in everybody.
Okay, I don't make videos, so I hate to critize other pplz videos. But here it goes anyway. While I'm interested in what you have to say, I can't help but be distracted at the fact that when u talk, u never look at the camera. Why does it matter, well when I watch someone's video and they are looking at the camera, it feels more personal, more interesting, easer to keep my attention. So, though I enjoy what u ahve to say, I'd like ur to look in the camera when u talk :P
Very interesting stuff as usual, I've been particularly interested in plasticity of the brain since a good friend of mine almost died of a massive head injury. Coincidentally, another friend also suffered a similar injury last saturday, but he's ok now we think.
What sort of clients do you have? I mean what sort of job do you have in which you would be taking on clients with brain injuries? Some kind of psychology or medical job?
It's a job working at a therapeutic institution for the intellectually disabled and people with acquired brain injuries. So, by working as a therapy aid like I did, you deal with both medical and psychological care. These days I'm just in the business office.
So why is there a mind? And how does this mind exist, if it is not simply part of the brain? I guess those are the golden questions right? lol Great Vid Man!
Thanks, and props. I haven't the foggiest as to why there is a mind, any more than I know why there is the physical. They are indeed golden questions.
Will we take Tibetan reports of "the rainbow body" as valid evidence on this question of energy preceding the body?
The late Jack Schwartz used to say, "the soul isn't in the body, the body is in the soul."
Btw, psychiatrist Stan Grof who did work research with LSD, reported that they could give huge doses of LSD to obsessive-compulsive people and they wouldn't trip.
Check it out. The universal mind is as close as your fingertips : ) try "Nambkhai Norbu" or "Sogyal Rinpoche" if you have trouble getting quality links.
why cant we explain awareness mechanically. We explain everything else this way. we explain knowledge of language or knowledge of science as mechanical neural activity. why must the knowledge of knowledge be different. what gives us license to make knowledge of knowledge exceptional. Isn't it only just another piece of information.
thats a curious response, you didn't answer my question. but to answer yours: the body (or mind) is such a machine. everything is mechanical. a camera and the brain are the same, just one is more complex than the other. we as machines are aware. why is it then that knowledge of knowledge is different from all other knowledge. it seems to me just another piece of information, and arbitrary to treat it as anything different. thanks
You believe a human is such, but my inquiry was to have you give an example of a machine that is aware of its knowledge, to act as a model of human awareness. If you are unable to name a machine that is aware, then how do you propose to argue that humans conform to such a model? A camera has knowledge, it knows the colors of the rainbow, but it doesn't know that it knows the colors of the rainbow. That, I argue is unique to human awareness. So, name a machine that is aware of what it knows.
If you cannot, then your inability to explain human awareness in terms of physical mechanics is the reason why we cannot, by your own reasoning, explain human awareness in terms of physical mechanics, which was your original question. I did not ignore it.
i dont think its necessary for the human to conform to a model, rather the human is the model. therefor i agree with you, awareness is unique. but i never disagreed on that. im curious as to why the uniqueness of awareness denotes the mind as seperate and not a product of mechanical brain functions.
Consider what you're saying: I asked for you to define a model so we can understand human awareness, you say the model is you own conception of human awareness. It's like answering the greatest of questions, "why" with the worst of answers, "because I said so."
quite the contrary. it is not self-justifcation, rather recognition of its uniqueness. i have always worked under the assumption that we can only infer awareness from what we know about all other knowledge. is this an incorrect method. you would say yes. according to you the brain is not a machine because its aware. its aware because it knows its knowledge. but i dont know why this characteristic allows the brain to transcend machinery. why is it unreasonable to consider awareness as mechanical.
The brain is a machine. The mind is not a machine. That is the purpose of this video. Knowledge of knowledge is not a mechanical concept, knowledge of knowledge is a transcendental concept. That is the nature of the mind, and what I've been calling human awareness. Human awareness expresses characteristics that are different than mechanical phenomenon. That is why it is unreasonable to consider awareness as a mechanical.
you are relieving yourself of justification. you must provide a reason for your assertions, which you are not doing. what are these characteristics of awareness that are different from other forms of knowledge. what makes this form different, and why. these are questions that must be answered before your claim has any validity. otherwise it remains only an interesting idea but not a theory. again - what makes the knowledge of knowledge different from any other.
My answer has been thus: The mind is not a mechanical phenomenon because the mind has the capacity to know that it knows. Mechanical phenomena cannot ever know that it knows. That is my reasoning. My justification lies in the camera example, which when reduced can explain any mechanical means of knowing. In every such example, the knowledge of ones knowing is absent from mechanical phenomenon. Because of this, the mind, since it knows that it knows, can not be mechanical.
the brain is not like camera because its aware. It aware because its not a machine. Its not a machine because its not like a camera. Its not like a camera because its aware.
That is to address your account of circular reasoning. We can't debate if we're talking about different things. My argument has been, from the beginning, that the mind is essentially different from the brain, because of its capacity of knowledge, specifically, its unique capability to hold knowledge that it knows. (cont.)
The mind, therefore, holds a characteristic that is different from mechanical phenomenon, and that difference forces us to understand the mind differently than a mechanical phenomenon. Now, again, if you would like to challenge that premise, you need to provide for me a mechanical phenomenon that knows that it knows. If you can find no example but the brain, then you concede to me that the human brain is different from any mechanical phenomena, and therefore, ought to be explained differently.
"then you concede to me that the human brain is different from any mechanical phenomena"-Jericomovie
Not necessarily. Just because we don't have mechanisms that are aware does not mean that there could be no such thing. However, I agree that we can not liken the brain to mechanical things that we know of at this point in time. But, seperating mind and brain can be a bit tricky, seeing as how effects on the brain can have large effects on the "mind" as seen through behaviour.
As I understand it, this notion of awareness that we're speaking about has innate relationship with transcendental phenomena, thereby denying any purely physical thing to be "aware." If you'd like to propose a counter explanation of awareness, you're welcome to entertain such and we can talk about it.
As for the brain having an effect on the mind, I believe if we are to entertain the notion of the mind, we need a more refined theory than what is commonplace. (cont.)
Memory is found in chemical messages stored in the brain. If I was to maniacally saw your scull open and run electricity over your cortex, you would have a flood of images, thoughts, and memories come to awareness. These then, are things of the brain. The notion of mind that I would venture to defend would have to be one that is in line with a go-between of the physical and the transcendental. Awareness and mind, then may very well be interchangeable.
i'm also playing devil's advocate. my knowledge of psychology is very limited, so i could be absolutly off here. but it seems like a fascinating topic.
If the advocacy is in hopes of clarifying my argument, or otherwise understanding my argument more thoroughly so that you can come to a better decision about the matter for yourself, the advocacy of any devil is genuinely welcome.
Thanks so much for the explanation of 'mind'. that helps a lot. it seems to me if the mind is "awareness of knowledge", then the brain has to precede the mind. you first have to know (the brain) before you can know that your know (the mind). Second, it doesn't seem as though the mind is seperate from the brain but the mind as knowledge-of-knowledge is a conceptual product of the brain. i dont see a reason why we cant explain it as it probably is - as a mechanical mental phenomena.
We can't explain awareness of knowledge, or knowledge of knowledge as I mention it in the video, as a mechanical phenomena, because mechanical phenomena cannot know that it knows. The brain alone is just that, a mechanical phenomena, like the camera when it "knows" the color red. For something to know that it knows, however, it must do so through something that is not mechanical in nature. Our only alternative is the mind.
Try the book by Dr joe Dispensa titled Evolve your Brain, it fantastic i highly reccomend it.
jamesvhawk 1 year ago
I'm not sure I agree with your summary of what neuroplasticity is...
I've never read or heard of a neuroscientist promoting the notion that the mind creates a special force that precedes the brain....Classic chicken and the egg, but simply the mind cannot precede the brain as without a brain, there is no mind.
My take is that it is the study of how thought patterns (physical phenomena, i.e. electrical and chemical signals passed from neuron to neuron) can have an effect on brain structure.
paintitblack01 1 year ago
I like to think of the mind as an emergent property of the brain; it is a special quality that is more than the summation of its components. For example, your life is an emergent property of your physical components. If you laid out all your particles in a random fashion, you would not have life. However, this idea is fairly romantic and mystical. It may be the case that when someone says the mind is acting on the brain it is simply THE BRAIN ACTING ON THE BRAIN.
JoshRom 2 years ago
do educate me.
jericomovie 2 years ago
@JoshRom lolwut?
nice way to paraphrase Dualism....
How can you reach the conclusion of special non-physical quality from physical components....hardest argument for Dualist to handle....It's just not possible.
paintitblack01 1 year ago
@paintitblack01 A special non-physical quality from physical components isn't that unbelievable. You have a mass (physical) causing gravity (not really physical?). You have a magnet (physical) causing a magnetic field (not really physical?). Also, dualism says that the mind and the body exist separately from each other; the mind can exist without the brain. I don't actually know what the mind is, though.
JoshRom 1 year ago
Is the book "The brain that changes itself" ?
cclose27 3 years ago
thank you for this i have Neuroplasticity i can actually mental feel the movements in my mind i have A.S
LatinaAmante 3 years ago
Your view of NP represents the pre-NP NOTION of a static mind and therefore NP is seen as ONLY related to repair remedy. In reality, it is only when repair is at issue that NP becomes overtly observable. The rest of the time it is an ever-present dynamic we haven't learned to gauge, separate from the mere storage of info or develop constructs around to increase the latitude of learning to allow NP to provide interconnections that make problem resolution successful every day in everybody.
RareBird0 3 years ago
Okay, I don't make videos, so I hate to critize other pplz videos. But here it goes anyway. While I'm interested in what you have to say, I can't help but be distracted at the fact that when u talk, u never look at the camera. Why does it matter, well when I watch someone's video and they are looking at the camera, it feels more personal, more interesting, easer to keep my attention. So, though I enjoy what u ahve to say, I'd like ur to look in the camera when u talk :P
alleyinated 3 years ago
Very interesting stuff as usual, I've been particularly interested in plasticity of the brain since a good friend of mine almost died of a massive head injury. Coincidentally, another friend also suffered a similar injury last saturday, but he's ok now we think.
What sort of clients do you have? I mean what sort of job do you have in which you would be taking on clients with brain injuries? Some kind of psychology or medical job?
leitermann 3 years ago
It's a job working at a therapeutic institution for the intellectually disabled and people with acquired brain injuries. So, by working as a therapy aid like I did, you deal with both medical and psychological care. These days I'm just in the business office.
jericomovie 3 years ago
Very thought provoking video. What is the name of the book you're reading?
AwokenSpirit 3 years ago
So why is there a mind? And how does this mind exist, if it is not simply part of the brain? I guess those are the golden questions right? lol Great Vid Man!
Malasubidude 3 years ago
Thanks, and props. I haven't the foggiest as to why there is a mind, any more than I know why there is the physical. They are indeed golden questions.
jericomovie 3 years ago
Will we take Tibetan reports of "the rainbow body" as valid evidence on this question of energy preceding the body?
The late Jack Schwartz used to say, "the soul isn't in the body, the body is in the soul."
Btw, psychiatrist Stan Grof who did work research with LSD, reported that they could give huge doses of LSD to obsessive-compulsive people and they wouldn't trip.
givebirthathome 3 years ago
I couldn't say. I'm not familiar to with Tibetan reports of "the rainbow body."
jericomovie 3 years ago
Check it out. The universal mind is as close as your fingertips : ) try "Nambkhai Norbu" or "Sogyal Rinpoche" if you have trouble getting quality links.
givebirthathome 3 years ago
Thank you.
jericomovie 3 years ago
why cant we explain awareness mechanically. We explain everything else this way. we explain knowledge of language or knowledge of science as mechanical neural activity. why must the knowledge of knowledge be different. what gives us license to make knowledge of knowledge exceptional. Isn't it only just another piece of information.
crazycrazyguy123 3 years ago
Name me a machine that is aware of what it knows, and I will concede to you that awareness is mechanical, and no exception.
jericomovie 3 years ago
thats a curious response, you didn't answer my question. but to answer yours: the body (or mind) is such a machine. everything is mechanical. a camera and the brain are the same, just one is more complex than the other. we as machines are aware. why is it then that knowledge of knowledge is different from all other knowledge. it seems to me just another piece of information, and arbitrary to treat it as anything different. thanks
crazycrazyguy123 3 years ago
You believe a human is such, but my inquiry was to have you give an example of a machine that is aware of its knowledge, to act as a model of human awareness. If you are unable to name a machine that is aware, then how do you propose to argue that humans conform to such a model? A camera has knowledge, it knows the colors of the rainbow, but it doesn't know that it knows the colors of the rainbow. That, I argue is unique to human awareness. So, name a machine that is aware of what it knows.
jericomovie 3 years ago
If you cannot, then your inability to explain human awareness in terms of physical mechanics is the reason why we cannot, by your own reasoning, explain human awareness in terms of physical mechanics, which was your original question. I did not ignore it.
jericomovie 3 years ago
i dont think its necessary for the human to conform to a model, rather the human is the model. therefor i agree with you, awareness is unique. but i never disagreed on that. im curious as to why the uniqueness of awareness denotes the mind as seperate and not a product of mechanical brain functions.
p.s. i appreciate the discourse
crazycrazyguy123 3 years ago
Consider what you're saying: I asked for you to define a model so we can understand human awareness, you say the model is you own conception of human awareness. It's like answering the greatest of questions, "why" with the worst of answers, "because I said so."
jericomovie 3 years ago
quite the contrary. it is not self-justifcation, rather recognition of its uniqueness. i have always worked under the assumption that we can only infer awareness from what we know about all other knowledge. is this an incorrect method. you would say yes. according to you the brain is not a machine because its aware. its aware because it knows its knowledge. but i dont know why this characteristic allows the brain to transcend machinery. why is it unreasonable to consider awareness as mechanical.
crazycrazyguy123 3 years ago
The brain is a machine. The mind is not a machine. That is the purpose of this video. Knowledge of knowledge is not a mechanical concept, knowledge of knowledge is a transcendental concept. That is the nature of the mind, and what I've been calling human awareness. Human awareness expresses characteristics that are different than mechanical phenomenon. That is why it is unreasonable to consider awareness as a mechanical.
jericomovie 3 years ago
you are relieving yourself of justification. you must provide a reason for your assertions, which you are not doing. what are these characteristics of awareness that are different from other forms of knowledge. what makes this form different, and why. these are questions that must be answered before your claim has any validity. otherwise it remains only an interesting idea but not a theory. again - what makes the knowledge of knowledge different from any other.
crazycrazyguy123 3 years ago
in other words, you have yet to answer *why* is mind not a mechanical concept.
crazycrazyguy123 3 years ago
My answer has been thus: The mind is not a mechanical phenomenon because the mind has the capacity to know that it knows. Mechanical phenomena cannot ever know that it knows. That is my reasoning. My justification lies in the camera example, which when reduced can explain any mechanical means of knowing. In every such example, the knowledge of ones knowing is absent from mechanical phenomenon. Because of this, the mind, since it knows that it knows, can not be mechanical.
jericomovie 3 years ago
i cant help but think this is somehow circular:
the brain is not like camera because its aware. It aware because its not a machine. Its not a machine because its not like a camera. Its not like a camera because its aware.
crazycrazyguy123 3 years ago
Look at my post made before my last.
The brain is like a camera.
The brain is not aware.
The brain is a machine.
It is like a camera because it is not aware.
That is to address your account of circular reasoning. We can't debate if we're talking about different things. My argument has been, from the beginning, that the mind is essentially different from the brain, because of its capacity of knowledge, specifically, its unique capability to hold knowledge that it knows. (cont.)
The mind
jericomovie 3 years ago
The mind, therefore, holds a characteristic that is different from mechanical phenomenon, and that difference forces us to understand the mind differently than a mechanical phenomenon. Now, again, if you would like to challenge that premise, you need to provide for me a mechanical phenomenon that knows that it knows. If you can find no example but the brain, then you concede to me that the human brain is different from any mechanical phenomena, and therefore, ought to be explained differently.
jericomovie 3 years ago
"then you concede to me that the human brain is different from any mechanical phenomena"-Jericomovie
Not necessarily. Just because we don't have mechanisms that are aware does not mean that there could be no such thing. However, I agree that we can not liken the brain to mechanical things that we know of at this point in time. But, seperating mind and brain can be a bit tricky, seeing as how effects on the brain can have large effects on the "mind" as seen through behaviour.
Tazwegian 3 years ago
As I understand it, this notion of awareness that we're speaking about has innate relationship with transcendental phenomena, thereby denying any purely physical thing to be "aware." If you'd like to propose a counter explanation of awareness, you're welcome to entertain such and we can talk about it.
As for the brain having an effect on the mind, I believe if we are to entertain the notion of the mind, we need a more refined theory than what is commonplace. (cont.)
jericomovie 3 years ago
Memory is found in chemical messages stored in the brain. If I was to maniacally saw your scull open and run electricity over your cortex, you would have a flood of images, thoughts, and memories come to awareness. These then, are things of the brain. The notion of mind that I would venture to defend would have to be one that is in line with a go-between of the physical and the transcendental. Awareness and mind, then may very well be interchangeable.
jericomovie 3 years ago
i'm also playing devil's advocate. my knowledge of psychology is very limited, so i could be absolutly off here. but it seems like a fascinating topic.
cheers
crazycrazyguy123 3 years ago
If the advocacy is in hopes of clarifying my argument, or otherwise understanding my argument more thoroughly so that you can come to a better decision about the matter for yourself, the advocacy of any devil is genuinely welcome.
jericomovie 3 years ago
Thanks so much for the explanation of 'mind'. that helps a lot. it seems to me if the mind is "awareness of knowledge", then the brain has to precede the mind. you first have to know (the brain) before you can know that your know (the mind). Second, it doesn't seem as though the mind is seperate from the brain but the mind as knowledge-of-knowledge is a conceptual product of the brain. i dont see a reason why we cant explain it as it probably is - as a mechanical mental phenomena.
crazycrazyguy123 3 years ago
We can't explain awareness of knowledge, or knowledge of knowledge as I mention it in the video, as a mechanical phenomena, because mechanical phenomena cannot know that it knows. The brain alone is just that, a mechanical phenomena, like the camera when it "knows" the color red. For something to know that it knows, however, it must do so through something that is not mechanical in nature. Our only alternative is the mind.
jericomovie 3 years ago