Neuromania? The possibilities and pitfalls of our fascination with brains

[normativeRandroid]

Taylor attributes the growth of neuroscience materialism to the perceived failure of behavioral economics such as H. economicus. 1st u have to know that man is the rational animal however his economic decisions will be affected by the gov't system (laws, regulation, taxes,etc.) under which he resides. So it is not that man isn't rational as theorists devised but that certain gov't laws are irrational and thwart man's rational choices. Simply put Taylor uses bad economics to justify bad science.

[lkuzmanov]

the man is flat out wrong and arrogantly so

[CammieSpectrum]

Tallis has a Revolutionary Position here: knowing the brain states with extreme precision is not nearly as useful to Understanding Ourselves than is commonly believed. Antonio Damasio is Important, and some study of the brain helps in our understanding of ourselves, but Neuromaniacs think 'ourselves' is nothing but these neural processes functioning according to rigidlly applying hidden mechanisms that govern all the behavior of charged molecules(a Field of Quanta wth rigidlly applying Law)

[niriop]

I read Tallis' article in New Humanist, and his argument for a transcendental mind was basically "A rock cannot think; therefore, consciousness is immaterial."

[Lekozza]

‘Man is more than an overdeveloped monkey’

You can say that again!

" And God went on to say: 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness....'" - Genesis 1:26

[critiacrof]

22:34

Does anyone know this website?



[BarbarianGod]

@critiacrof I'd also like to know the url :/

[broadcaster1star]

I believe Professor Raymond Tallis is missing a point regarding the processes in brain, and the cultural processes that he puts forward to be relatively independent of the neurological processes. I think a more derivative understanding of social and psychological phenomena should open a path for "coding" those into neruological terms... All that said, he is right about the dangers of neurological reductionism.

[HConstantine]

@broadcaster1star I don't understand what you could mean by 'reductionism'? What else could be responsible for mental functioning aside from the brain? (and please, please, don't say magic).

[broadcaster1star]

@HConstantine Well I dont think I can explain to you the point if that didnt go accross in a 30 + min video :)

His main, and possibly only strong and good point is that "the illusion that we can understand all we need to the about the human mind can be understood through neurology, is a dangerous one." This is the reductionism I'm talking about. If you get my point.

[urquiza78]

We dont look, we listen

[g4ur4v]

scientists trying to save their jobs ahaha

[edmonjel]

if this guy didn't have a British accent, I probably wouldn't agree with him

[BoStevoD]

By far one of the RSA's best debates yet!

[AutumnKitten]

The brain can not identify the difference between a waking moment and the dreaming. We are beings, creatures stuck in the 'in between' of the Universe trying to understand itself through us as to why It was created in the first place. We ourselves, the whole 7billion of us, are collectively inside a massive Universal brain trying to figure everything out like a child does asking the simplest questions with: How, Why, Where, What and When.

[reebee011]

I wanted to listen to what he had to say but unfortunately he was a poor speaker - talked to fast, didn't really explain his points properly. Found myself tuning out after about 5-6 minutes & went back to watching Big Bang Theory repeats.

[rage1331]

@reebee011 Past 16 minutes or so, the other two get into it. Its rather interesting if you have the time.

[martyyu]

Philosophy is as useless as religion.

[Grigori7]

@martyyu that's an interesting philosophy you got there.

[Shitsuren]

@martyyu Without John Locke's liberal theory, you'd probably not have liberty, democracy, or basic rights.

Epicurus was "the original atheist," who advocated the principle of refusing to believe in anything intangible.

Rene Descartes created analytical geometry, discovered the laws of refraction and reflection, and invented the superscript notation still used today to indicate the powers of exponents.

.....

[Shitsuren]

..Aristotle was the first to have written systems by which to understand and criticize everything from logic to ethics, politics, literature, even science.

Avicenna proposed that Venus is closer to the earth than the Sun, and rejected (then) astrology as a true science, since everything in it was based on conjecture, not evidence..

Philosophers are innovators. Dismissing philosophy (which is not dogmatic, but meant to provoke thought) while accepting everything science says is a bit mulish..

[martyyu]

@Shitsuren The contributions of Descartes and Avicenna you cite are science based and not about philosophy. As for the others, that's like saying Kashrut law saved people from trichinosis and red tide toxins, i.e., they were relevant for their time but are not useful now. For instance, I appreciate the contributions of Jung and Freud but I would never apply their teachings in contemporary clinical psychology.

[Mroziwanman]

Pure sophistry. He may have a point but he surely does not make it

[paskal007r]

one guy that just repeats his dogmas without giving any proofs of them... this may be the last video I see from RSA.

[SLRist]

Suffer a simple lack of blood to the brain - e.g. fainting and it all goes away - there is no sensation. Anyone who's fainted - or had a general anaesthestic - can quite easily imagine that there's nothing 'magic' about the function of the brain. It's just a very complex chemical computer.

[TroySmithforD]

Fantastic discussion!!! FANTASTIC!!!!

[TheSkyHitler]

I don't find reality all that appealing................so I'll make up my own.

[sotijas]

this was a weird lecture

none of it really struck me, it's like i couldnt hear a word in my boredom...

you guys can do better

[shephronqpan]

lame...... take DMT. or get rid of NPC (non player characters) out of simulacra. they just emulate and spread false infos.

[WaffaMargus]

How can i rate this video when i like one speaker and the other one fallowed was just ... about obvious things that is already in our minds and just mixing them around with lame examples.

We do not need any hardcore studies to understood most of the things mentioned here - we just need to open up our eyes.

It's kind of not nice to mix up people who have so big leap between understandings.

[specialmike140]

this guy drank the kool-aid long ago, and cannot get over it.

[spiltteethy]

neuroscientist Penfield : "When I have caused a conscious patient to move his hand by applying an electrode to the motor cortex of one hemisphere..Invariably his response was: ‘I didn’t do that. You did.’...“For my own part, after years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier and logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements”

[Ramsez]

empathy or whatever 20:50

[LoquaciousApe]

Tallis seems like the type of man who'd assault Newton's work, arguing that his calculations are useless and we already know everything relevant to our daily lives about gravity.

[spiltteethy]

@LoquaciousApeG. K. Chesterton:  "It is obvious that the materialist is always a mystic... he deals entirely

with mysteries, in things that our reason cannot picture; such as... objective matter becoming subjective mind."

[featuringfranklin]

Yeah, not impressed with this guy.

[jssherrard]

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise..." ~Thomas Jefferson

[miskee11]

Stupid shit. What a fucking moron. Everything we see or experience is dealt by our brains. It's not a spiritual experience.

[Bobbiethejean]

This guy is a snooty, superior, blatherskite grandiloquizing about how "science can't explain blah-blah-blah therefor I'm going to do an Irish jig around the matter instead of just coming right out and saying THEREFORE IT MUST BE MAGIC!" I am embarrassed for this man jumping through hoops to rationalize belief in magical nonsense.

[Smidge204]

I've noticed that occasionally theRSA posts videos like this that seem more to pander to "alternatives" than provoke actual discussion. Most of this guy's talk boils down to "Emotions can't be empirically understood because they don't FEEL like electrochemical reactions!" - one big fat argument from ignorance wrapped in a veneer of substance dualism. Dear RSA: giving equal time to people who are clearly not qualified to discuss the topic in the name of "balance" is not really productive.

[areteist1]

@DusteDdekay so I assume you have some scientific experience to base your opinion on? like 35+ years of neuro-scientific research?

[DusteDdekay]

@areteist1 My opinion is based on my current understanding of the universe, my framework for understanding the universe is severely limited, which I believe to hold true for most of mankind, the data on which I base my opinion, is my own interpretation of the scientific articles I've read and the philosophy, both eastern and western I've studied. It might not be correct, but it's the best my mind can come up with as of now. But I believe (as do we all?) to be standing on the shoulders of giants.

[Artifactorfiction]

Sorry, but he's talking bollicks

[TheIrony2013]

@jssherrard

The whole idea of a soul is that it is *NON MAERIAL*. To ask the question 'where' for such a thing is meaningless. Just put your mind to work a bit and you will uncover many paradoxes and puzzles related to your awareness. It is a great folly to believe that things improvable automatically cannot be true.

[jssherrard]

@TheIrony2013 Where is the dividing line between the non-material and the non-existant? Wishful thinking? Just because our awareness is a puzzle does not imply that it is insoluble, and the answers will be found by those who pursue objective truths through intellectually honesty means. Not by those who assert non-falsifiable claims based on nothing more than the assertion itself. If we have a soul, the existence of such would fall within the purview of science and reason. Not supernatural magic.

[TheIrony2013]

@jssherrard

Something immaterial cannot have a ‘dividing line’, my friend. Only something of material can be divided. These questions are again meaningless. ‘Wishful thoughts’ are immaterial, that is true. Yet I still experience myself having them. They are *REAL* because I know I am myself thinking them.

[jssherrard]

@TheIrony2013 You misrepresent what I have said, I suspect intentionally. The point I am making is that the non-material and the non-existant are equivalent. And no, 'wishful thoughts' are not immaterial, but a product of your entirely material brain. The intellectually honest default position is one of neutrality. Show me independently verifiable, theoretically falsifiable, objective evidence in support of your position, and then I will agree. Not before. We need not disprove the supernatural.

[TheIrony2013]

@jssherrard

Then that implies the entire Universe as we perceive it can also be just a product of the ‘material brain’ and there is no way to prove the physical world to be ‘real’. How do you distinguish between processes of the ‘brain’ and physical reality? Is Blue, red and yellow real, or just processes of the brain? What about smell, taste and sound? How about physical sensations? Is this world real, or only an illusion?

[jssherrard]

@TheIrony2013 Remove the word 'just' and you are actually pretty close. We do NOT experience the world directly, but through the functioning of our brain. Colors are qualia, labels our brain creates to assign to specific stimulus. Red light is not intrinsically red, but a specific frequency within the electro-magnetic spectrum. The majority of that spectrum is entirely outside our range of vision, yet none of it is inherently more or less 'visible'. We experience the world second-hand...

[jssherrard]

...However, that does not justify the word 'just'. The real-world exists and acts as the stimulus from which our brains create the experience. It may be that this is not ultimately provable, but the opposite position, the idea that it is all just in our heads, is not supported by evidence. How can you ultimately prove anything to be 'real'? In that context you can't. But so what?!? Descending into existential mumbo-jumbo gets us nowhere! Happily, science and reason work without magic or faith.

[TheIrony2013]

@jssherrard

One experiencing magic would know if it is true. No words can adequately be exchanged for an experience. And just because your brain cannot manifest a particular experience, that does not imply that others cannot have that experience in their reality. A Newtonian model does not describe all my experiences, and therefore I cannot be acdept it as complete. Regardless if magic is 'real', or not, it is certainly possible to have the experience of it.

[jssherrard]

@TheIrony2013 "One experiencing magic would know if it is true." How? People are fooled by obviously fake magic and optical illusions all the time! How would you 'know'? Through subjective emotions? It is obviously true that other brains can manifest greatly differing experiences. For instance, many insects can see much farther into the ultraviolet than humans. One experience is not somehow more real, but so what? This fact lends absolutely no credibility to the idea of a soul...

[jssherrard]

At no point did I suggest the "Newtonian model" as a complete understanding of anything. I would suggest, if you are interested in learning something about actual-reality and not just 'believing', that you allow yourself the opportunity to study more about science, logical fallacy, and what it means to be intellectually honest. We can experience much that seems real but is ultimately not so, yet much of what is so is hidden from our human senses. Science has the proven capacity to illuminate.

[TheIrony2013]

@jssherrard

Actually, I am software developer, of 30 years plus experience. I have formal training in Boolean algebra (logic) and understand several branches of mathematics fully. I study Mathematics, Logic, Astronomy, Physics, Philosophy, and the Occult and am open to a whole host of other subjects. The idea that you presume I have no knowledge on such subjects highlights the folly of your reasoning.

[jssherrard]

@TheIrony2013 Folly? Given the sophomoric silliness of your previous assertions, I think I can be forgiven for entirely doubting your credentials. But if you are being genuine... shame on you for knowingly spewing anti-scientific nonsense and spiritual drivel! If you possess half the education you claim, your childish wallowing in willful ignorance is entirely without excuse. Or perhaps you are simply a troll. I neither know or care. Either way you are entirely beyond any further consideration.

[Kojak7snap]

@TheIrony2013 It is thoroughly irrelevant that your feelings have not been described in words. Of course there is no way to do so; our understanding is currently limited, and our language built on our ignorance. You can experience many things, but while our interpretations of reality may differ, and while those interpretations are the only way we can experience reality, there remains a reality independent of our interpretations. Some mental models demonstrably work better with that reality.

[TheIrony2013]

@Kojak7snap

That could indeed be true, but there is no way to know the nature of it. I see absolutely no reason to presume that. I think it is evident from the varieties of viewpoints out there that we are all programmed to experience what we believe and are taught. Only when we can break out of our training and conditioning can we begin to comprehend and appreciate the true magnitude of the possibilities of this Universe.

[jssherrard]

@TheIrony2013 "To ask the question 'where' for such a thing is meaningless." How entirely convenient! Not to mention blatantly intellectually dishonest. To assert *MAGIC* and then defend it by such gibberish is transparent nonsense. And then you have the gall to suggest that I need to "...put your [my] mind to work..." I never asserted the absolute non-existence of a soul; however, I do expect more evidence than the mere word of people like you. If you have no evidence, you have nothing!

[Dixavd]

@jssherrard I think he is trying to suggest (I am really not an expert in this field and I have toruble concerntrating on what he has said but from what I surmised I got this understanding) Is that our conciousness is formed within our brain but without the senses; sight, smell, touch, hearing, balance, temperature, kinesthetic etc... there is no centext to them and ths not a mind or idea of self. Saying that taking the brain on its own is taking away the context.

[areteist1]

@Dixavd right. his theory is difficult to grasp. and this is an embarrassment, a hit to the ego of all those who feel themselves of intellectual superiority.

[spiltteethy]

@jssherrard Dr. Eccles said the hope for a physical explanation for mental events is wrongheaded, they are not “simply derivative of aspects of nerve endings. There is no evidence for this whatever." He proposed that “the self-conscious mind” serve to integrate the disparate brain processes into a unified consciousness, since there are no materialist explanations. It is a genuine scientific hypothesis “because it is based on empirical data and is objectively testable.”

[Raysyns]

@jssherrard I think his argument is not bad for pointing out how when we look at fMRI scans, it is implicit for telling what parts of the brain do things, also different cultures might have differently developed brains meaning these parts might work differently. I think it is an important idea, saying "Surely, no scientist is arguing for the existence of a soul?", is missing the point. I thought he was trying to say people are too confident when looking at the brain to explain a cause.

[Shitsuren]

@jssherrard Cool story, bro. You should get advanced degrees in Neurology and Biochemistry, and get to making some new discoveries. Accepting what's fed to you (whether by religious fanatics, or scientists, or neurologists), and not venturing to prove or disprove anything new is equally lazy. It's easy to sit around on the internetz, asking away and criticizing-- 13-year-old girls do it. If you had something to contribute, that'd be better.

[TheIrony2013]

The error with this kind of reasoning is everyone seems to be thinking the same thing. Jehovah Witness thinks they are superior; Muslims do, as well as the Jews and Catholics and Atheists. Seems like everyone thinks they are superior or special. It’s a major error to believe you have the authority to decide who is valuable and who is not.

[chickenmanstan]

@TheIrony2013 I think that there are people who define their self-value through their beliefs, but not everyone who holds beliefs, considers their value higher than others. Belief is unrelated to humility.

[TheIrony2013]

@chickenmanstan

I'm sorry about my comment. I posted it accidentally to the wrong video and didn't know how to delete it. It was intended for anothe video I was watching. I'm surprised you could make any sense out of it. Sorry again. No harm indended.

[chickenmanstan]

@TheIrony2013 Don't worry about it.

[Malvisk]

ok, I've come to the conclusion that this guy isn't addressing his talks to me =)

[xjustamem0ryx]

can current science only measure the part(s) and not the sum(s)?

[xjustamem0ryx]

it does raise a good point about how our pursuit of science can easily become a fetish driving us toward agendized justified meddling rather than objective description and well-being.

[CammieSpectrum]

the brain & dna do not cause our personality differences, they enable the expression of Personality Differences, which are not part of the brain or any hidden realm that exists; explanation is not part of what exists. causation is not an explanation. how mechanisms are not explanations, they are what is in need of explanation

[stephenpaquet]

@DusteDdekay Yes I agree and I think just maybe he see's neuroscience as a threat. Neuroscience is now going into his realm philosophy and quite possibly explaining it ether better or first ether way not good for Philosopher's.

[areteist1]

@stephenpaquet afraid of neuro science? he's a neuro-scientist!!! has been so for 30+ years!!! are you a neuro scientist? are you qualified to comment ?

[DusteDdekay]

@stephenpaquet I agree, philosophy USED to be about the fabric of the mind,the experience and the understanding of the universe, it's right there in the name "philosophia".. He should join the research instead of working against it.

[spiltteethy]

@DusteDdekay Your in denial because yr precious opinion is basically chemical and electrical activity in a lump of meat...despite the plethora of evidence from neuroscience to the contrary

[DusteDdekay]

@spiltteethy Which evidence is that (assuming circular reasoning is not permitted) ?

[spiltteethy]

@DusteDdekayDr. Wilder Penfield known for ground-breaking work with epilepsy noted that “The mind of the patient was as independent of the reflex action as was the mind of the surgeon who listened and strove to understand. Thus, my argument favours independence of mind-action.” Penfield also stated that if we liken the brain to a computer, it is not that we are a computer, but that we have a computer.

[spiltteethy]

@DusteDdekaySir John Eccles, a neurobiologist :

"My Hypothesis is that the self-conscious mind is an independent entity that

is actively engaged in reading from the multitude of active centres in

the modules of the liaison areas of the dominant cerebral hemisphere.

The self-conscious mind selects from these centres in accord with its

attention and its interests and integrates its selection to give unity of

conscious experience from moment to moment."

[spiltteethy]

@DusteDdekayEccles said the hope for an eventual physical explanation for mental events is wrongheaded in principle because mental events are not “simply derivative of aspects of nerve endings. There is no evidence for this whatever.” Eccles - “ my strong dualist-interactionist hypothesis . . . has the recommendation of its great explanatory power. It gives in principle at least explanations of the whole range of problems relating to brain-mind interaction.”

[spiltteethy]

@DusteDdekay Eccles notes its impossible to develop a materialist expla of “how a diversity of brain events come to be synthesized so that there is a unified conscious experience of a global or gestalt character” Eccles proposed that “the self-conscious mind” serve to integrate the apparently disparate

brain processes into a unified consciousness.Eccles claims that his interactionist idea is a genuine scientific hypothesis “because it is based on empirical data and is objectively testable.

[spiltteethy]

@DusteDdekay 1 no physical properties are self-presenting 2 at least some mental properties are self-presenting 3) therefore, at least some mental properties are not physical properties

Self presenting properties are directly present to the subject immediately and the subject has private access to. Whatever ways someone else has of finding out if I'm thinking about a pink elephant (brain scans, etc)I have a way of knowing this by immediate awareness of it.

[spiltteethy]

@DusteDdekay Physical objects (like brains) are public objects, no one is in a privileged position regarding them. In fact a scientists knowledge of my mental states will ultimately depend my first person reports; but the scientist knowledge of the physical states of my brain will not depend on any first person report. I mean, scientific knowledge isn't even possible without the subject reporting his own mental states to the outside observer because he alone has private access to them.

[neurel111]

Everything you do is done by your brain, and many things which you experience have already been shown to be by the brain. That man makes baseless claims, I call him a fool.

[colourmegone]

Hmm, could it be that his objections to the findings of science are based on the fact that they're sad news for philosophers? If human behaviour is based strictly on neurological function which itself is a result of evolution there seems little room for philosophy.

However we have progressed to a degree now where we could take control of our social development, if we so desired, and that means that philosophical questions should occupy each one of us.

[zassounotsukushi]

29:33 Self-help books make me miserable and worse as a human being? :(

And then he goes and tells me to choose better friends! It's like saying all advice is wrong and hurts you. Here is some advice. One sentence. It will change everything.

Shiny-head who speaks after him makes more sense though. I guess I kind of agree with what he said. AA probably has the human mind (or at least patterns) figured out from experience. We all need a kick in the pants somedays.

[fabiochrist]

he got it right...

[yoomazir]

talk about an opportune moment to talk about brains, I've just finished playing Old World Blues...

[yasirali]

wow.... brain freeze! 

[ProtonMass]

I'm at the part of the speech where Taylor is talking about games and learning and rewards. And I'm thinking to myself, Jonathan Blow should talk on RSA. Check some of the speeches he has made on the possibilities of games.

[dairules]

first



[JamesHaskin]

@dairules apparently this video has absolutely nothing to do with you lol