How would you explain the book DMT : THe spirit molecule , Where Dr. Rick Strassmen was told by the government to test DMT on I think it was 70 different people. And everyone seemed to go to a similar place and experience similar things. Which is different from other psychedelics because it didn't seem like it was the brain interpreting it any you putting your own style on it. Also How the brain lets out mass amounts of DMT when your dying. It's an interesting read
YOu claim to know how the brain works, but, you really have no idea how it works. Why don't you tell us how it works. Why don't you break it down for us ignorant christians. I challenge you to explain to me how one simple cell works, why does it becomes a neuron and then why it connects to other neurons, you know, all those good and juice details, I mean, you seem to know so much about how the brain works.
this is a very good video...you are going a bit too fast, for most of us, however. I realze it is not your fault that most people aren't as smart as you, but what you are saying is correct, and very important!
It must be a real struggle for these characters who fancy themselves as rational intelligent theists.
The mind tricks and contortions they have to subject themselves to, in order to keep up the beliefs they hold, in an ever more educated world. Must be a struggle.
It's far far easier for the likes of Geerup, Yokeup, Shockofgod and 4G. Who refuse to put themselves through this torture, and prefer to NOT think at all.
You do realize that your matrix thought experiment only bolsters my argument? If physicalism is true then we can develop a theory that fully explains the world according to the language of physics and chemistry. However, you're saying that the only way to communicate subjective experience is to give someone else that same subjective experience.
I've actually realized that the whole thought experiments regarding potential brain hook ups are flawed - as we have no idea what would happen at all. If mental experience could be shared via a direct connection, I'd imagine that still might be a tick against substance dualism - how could something which is supposedly not reliant on physical matter transmit itself via physical matter? But, as I said, pure mental masturbation right now.
Anyways, that doesn't really matter anywhere near as much as the results of the experiments on split-brained patients, synesthetes, and unique individuals like Michelle Mack (an woman with only one brain lobe since birth.)
I'd recommend reading more neurology literature before making arguments about conciseness. One cannot make accurate arguments about an aspect of reality without first checking what we already know from evidence.
its difficult for brain experiments and neuroscience to be important in this debate beyond figuring out what causes our minds to have their features. But understanding what consciousness *is* requires introspective reflection. Understanding our own qualia requires, once again, introspection, not brain surgery.
And if someone you know has a loved one who developed dementia, I'm sure you'd recommend they read up on introspective reflection to deal with the situation.
The aspect of awareness known as qualia may only be studied via introspection at the moment, but wait a few years. Things people once thought to be evidence of dualism, such as phantom limbs, have slowly but surely been shown to be neurological phenomenon. If the trend continues, your "soul of the gaps" game have a time limit.
Science is unrelenting this way. Empiricism has found explanations for things long thought to have their basis in non-corporeal interactions; from the movement of the heavens to the variation among species. Every one seemingly impossible to figure out until someone actually did it.
Sitting on our asses, thinking long thoughts about the mind and brain will not solve problems or give us any real answers. Doing experiments, observing phenomenon, and forming theories with testable predictions will.
I'm gonna have to make a video response because you clearly do not understand the nature of identity relationships or Leibniz' law of the indiscernability of identicals.
What does indiscernibility of identicals have to do with the fact that things previously thought to be evidence of dualism keep getting refuted and that introspection cannot have a meaningful effect on the degeneration of the mind? It seems like you enjoy pulling out complex sounding words and references in order to avoid actually making an argument about statements at hand... but I'm sure you have a great way of disproving this statement with lorentz transformations or Minkowski manifolds.
are you saying we should be able to create a language complicated enough to explain everything in the brain. You can not make your neurons fire and see an elephant on demand. they fired because light hit the nerves, not because you made them do it. but you think language should be able to do this?
@migkillertwo You can not control your experiences. even if you know how heat is transmitted you can not make yourself feel heat. To say it is magic because we don't know every detail of a complex emergent property, is not very smart.
Well mig, as I've already explained, we do not currently understand the mechanisms that create conscious experience at the cellular level - if it can even be broken down to the level of individual neurons.
However, we do know a plethora of both chemical and physical influences which can drastically change brain activity, resulting in changes to an individual's experience of reality, sense of self, perception, feelings, level of empathy, baseline temperance, and much, much more.
Its not just that we merely do not happen to have a completely developed physicalist reduction of consciousness, its that ITS NOT POSSIBLE to have such a reduction of consciousness.
Also, it is unlikely you will be able to break down consciousness to the level of physical interactions between atoms in brain neurons - the Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes that quite impossible. Perhaps it can be broken down to interactions between grouping of nuerons (which is basically what lobes are, except on a macro level), but then again, I haven't done the research, so I don't know.
You know, I've yet to ask - what is your actual position/argument?
I would also like to second SolRosenberg84's question of what you DO believe. If substance dualism is correct and there is a soul what happens in the severed corpus callosum cases? Does the soul become divided? Does it remain intact? Can one half of the brain (personality, soul) go to heaven and the other to hell? Is it all just a magical mystery we can never (sorry split brain folks) know?
If the processes that create awareness, qualia, and the sense of self are non-physical, than why can they be affected, and in extreme cases deactivated, by physical phenomenon?
For example, I recently saw a wonderful TED talk by neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor, in which she describes the experience of having a massive stroke in her left lobe - and what it felt like consciously to have only your right lobe running (the parts where her left lobe comes back briefly are great.)
@SolRosenberg84 : Sol - you're not addressing migkiller's point. He said that "if
physicalism is true, then it should be possible to explain all properties of consciousness in terms of physics and chemistry.".
You then respond "If the processes that create awareness, qualia, and the sense of self are non-physical...". Migkiller isn't talking about the brain processes that are coincident with consciousness; he's talking about consciousness itself.
@migkillertwo Exactly. Unless you are trying to make an argument from ignorance? We learn more and more about the physicality of the brain and its effect on our subjective experience every year. Will we ever be able to explain it all? Who knows, I guess God of the gaps is fine since the gaps keep getting smaller and smaller.
I don't want to sound like I'm kissing ass or anything but WOW. You're fucking smart. I've watched about four of your vids so far. They are all very good.
This just isn't working. I'll be posting a video shortly to try and sum up my argument and present it in a more complete form than 500 characters will allow me to.
You are still making a mistake - observing neurons will never give one access to the potential experiences those nuerons are creating - only direct connection can.
Knowing the function of nuerons, no matter how exact, would never give you the experience of those nuerons. If you could take that neural information and create an audio visual representation of it in real time you would be getting closer to experiencing what the neurons are creating, but not exactly.
Actually, solrosenber84, if you wired one person's brain to another person's brain, you wouldn't be sharing experiences, you would likely become one single consciousness. You wouldn't be able to share your experience with a different brain because each brain colors all input differently based on its unique life. It would only be possible to truly share experiences with another brain on if that brain is exactly identical to yours.
wow...this part of neural science truly excites me. Have you been following Patricia Churchland's youtube lectures? I actually get goosebumps listening to what she has been working on :D
To obtain the actual experience of seeing as another sees, you would have to be able to "walk a mile in their neurons". We can't do this yet.
The experience the brain creates cannot be shared via any other method - not because it is dependant on something that lacks substance, but because it is the holistic combination of incredibly massive amounts (100 billion nuerons with up to 10,000 connections each) of information in several varieties encoded in a complex language.
Its like trying to understand how fun a certain video game may be by reading over the binary. All that information codes for something that must be combined into one cohesive package before it can be "experienced."
In theory you could actively compare and contrast experiences if both brains could fully transmit their entire experience to one each other (thats the hard part). Both would think about "red" and if the signals match with little difference than blammo, thats one philosophical conundrum down. If not, and there really is a significant difference, and it would be confirmed that different people may indeed experience different colours for red despite labelling all these colours as "red."
Actually, we already know that we actually don't see the exact same colours. Small differences in individual nervous systems and the structure of the the individual's eye itself may be factors - not to mention people who are trichromatic or colour blind.
I'd imagine if we really could communicate directly through experience with my hypothetical machine, we'd learn if the differences between how we see colour is really significant or not.
If you could encapsulate the activity of 100 billion neurons and send it through a machine to another human being, you would indeed be sending them your entire subjective experience of reality.
Of course, this is just a thought experiment at the moment. No such machine exists yet, but there are tantalizing clues and discoveries suggesting it is indeed possible. Optogenetics is a good example of this.
Alright, so I haven't studied neurology but I have a pretty basic understanding of how it works. My question is this:
The left eye passes information to the right side of the brain and the right eye to the left. If the corpus callosum is severed then the two halves do not communicate, but how does the information from one eye pass to the opposite side of the brain with it cut?
Someone corrected me down the page - apparently the connection isn't left eye to right hemisphere, right eye to left hemisphere, but rather left side of each retinal image to right hemisphere and right side of each retinal image to left hemisphere.
>Subjective experience however, is characterized by an irreducible quality.
The key question is why does it appear to have irreducible quality? I'd argue that because it is of such an unbelievable complexity and relies on processes we do not yet fully understand it leaves us with no way to actually transmit the massive amount of information that makes it up, not to mention encode it in such a way that nothing would be left out. It is still a problem of communication and not magical brains.
In my opinion the human experience of consciousness is the result of purely material physical mechanisms/nothing supernatural, but the human brain is by far the most complex and most mysterious biological organ on the planet. Science has quite a ways to go in terms of deciphering the brain.
>Science has quite a ways to go in terms of deciphering the brain.
Damn strait. We're currently trying to figure out how an engine works with a thermometer. Its working pretty well, and making some awesome findings, but we are still a long way to go from perfectly understanding how consciousness operates and originates with a high degree of certainty.
There is growing evidence of people who have had heart and liver transplants 'inheriting' certain characteristics of the dead donor, tastes in food or music for example. This phenomenon, admittedly needing a lot more research, is known as 'cellular memory'. If there is any truth in this then it knocks the stuffing out of SolRosenberg84's claim that human personality is nothing more than a matter of brain chemistry.
>claim that human personality is nothing more than a matter of brain chemistry.
Thanks for the strawman. My argument is that human consciousness is most likely created by the interactions of 100 billion neurons. Its not merely a chemical soup as you seem to be implying, it is a vast network of information.
(continued from previous post) That is why mentally retarded people are not held responsible for breaking the law in a court of law in the same way that normal people are. That is why when someone suffers from a severe brain disorder, such as bipolar disorder, they make different moral decisions than a normal person would. Hence, there is no spirit, working independent of our physical brain. If there was a spirit dictating our moral decisions, then the brain is superfluous. It clearly isnt.
MigKiller and other Christian apologists, who posit the existence of a conscience, soul and thoughts outside of the physical substance of the brain, can be summarily dismissed as promoting a falsehood by pointing out one very obvious fact. If the brain gets damaged, our cognitive functions, such as mathematical reasoning, memory, linguistic capacity, and yes, even our moral decisions, become encumbered and diminished (continued).
I'm not sure you don't go too far when talking about a "Matrix-like" connection between brains. There would surely be a sharing of sensory data, but I don't see a reason to presume anything further. It's one of those things we won't know 'till we do it, and it's ethically questionable if we should do it if it becomes possible.
Small nit pick however. The connection isn't left eye to right hemisphere, right eye to left hemisphere, but rather left side of each retinal image to right hemisphere and right side of each retinal image to left hemisphere.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if enough of your neurons were connected to another person's through electronics. Could the two consciousnesses merge into one?
Um, but like, there is one thing in the brain you can't cut in half....
It's called the pineal gland.... There's like, only one of those in there... And um, some say, (i'm not saying this true), but some say the pineal gland is the "seat of consciousness". Crazy that there's only one.
So if this is true, with the split brain experiment the half with the pineal gland attached would be like, conscious.
And the half without the pineal would be like, a "philosophical Zombie" (look that up)
The pineal gland is not the seat of consciousness - thats just a Descartes quote.
No lobe of the brain is actually the seat of human consciousness - consciousness seems to be made up of many different lobes and components interacting and conflicting. There are some theories on where the sense of self and qualia come from, but little more than that.
/watch?v=LaVoiXbaVZU
Unfortunately, the mechanism which creates consciousness probably lies at the quantum level, and is not yet understood.
You have presented no evidence that the pineal gland is linked to qualia or the sense of self.
Many other vertebrates have pineal glands, yet very few show signs of a sense of self. This pretty much discredits the whole pineal gland argument. The sense of self and the attribute of qualia must arise from some other mechanism, perhaps the one that is mentioned in the video I sent you.
Also, the Pineal gland is not connected to either of the two frontal lobes - it is found directly off the centre of the brain. Cutting the corpus callosum has no effect on it whatsoever.
7:30 No. Consciousness is not a network. Mental activity does not equate to consciousness. Magical, no. Mysterious, definitely.
fishybishbash 8 months ago
How would you explain the book DMT : THe spirit molecule , Where Dr. Rick Strassmen was told by the government to test DMT on I think it was 70 different people. And everyone seemed to go to a similar place and experience similar things. Which is different from other psychedelics because it didn't seem like it was the brain interpreting it any you putting your own style on it. Also How the brain lets out mass amounts of DMT when your dying. It's an interesting read
JG129 9 months ago in playlist SolRosenberg84
YOu claim to know how the brain works, but, you really have no idea how it works. Why don't you tell us how it works. Why don't you break it down for us ignorant christians. I challenge you to explain to me how one simple cell works, why does it becomes a neuron and then why it connects to other neurons, you know, all those good and juice details, I mean, you seem to know so much about how the brain works.
cmpresents 11 months ago
Brains are not magical, they are designed.
cmpresents 11 months ago
there is no immortality...but electro-chemical energy could dissipate from us when we die...
gergsar 1 year ago
this is a very good video...you are going a bit too fast, for most of us, however. I realze it is not your fault that most people aren't as smart as you, but what you are saying is correct, and very important!
gergsar 1 year ago
Withdrew my snide comment, Sol. Apologies.
DrDeist 1 year ago
Comment removed
DrDeist 1 year ago
Comment removed
DrDeist 1 year ago
PLEASE BECOME A PROFESSOR. I WILL ENROLL THE SECOND YOU DECIDE WHERE. kthxbai
303username 1 year ago
No wonder this vid has 108 vote ups and only 3 votes down. Epic win!
supersmash43 1 year ago
Had to deal with a dualist last month, this video rocks so hard.
geoporcupine 1 year ago
It must be a real struggle for these characters who fancy themselves as rational intelligent theists.
The mind tricks and contortions they have to subject themselves to, in order to keep up the beliefs they hold, in an ever more educated world. Must be a struggle.
It's far far easier for the likes of Geerup, Yokeup, Shockofgod and 4G. Who refuse to put themselves through this torture, and prefer to NOT think at all.
martiangrundy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are smart and funny... but incorrect.
fortruth8989 2 years ago
Like energy.
Shedding the physical body and existing as energy through ascension would grant us immortality.
Jerig128 2 years ago 3
You do realize that your matrix thought experiment only bolsters my argument? If physicalism is true then we can develop a theory that fully explains the world according to the language of physics and chemistry. However, you're saying that the only way to communicate subjective experience is to give someone else that same subjective experience.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
I've actually realized that the whole thought experiments regarding potential brain hook ups are flawed - as we have no idea what would happen at all. If mental experience could be shared via a direct connection, I'd imagine that still might be a tick against substance dualism - how could something which is supposedly not reliant on physical matter transmit itself via physical matter? But, as I said, pure mental masturbation right now.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Anyways, that doesn't really matter anywhere near as much as the results of the experiments on split-brained patients, synesthetes, and unique individuals like Michelle Mack (an woman with only one brain lobe since birth.)
I'd recommend reading more neurology literature before making arguments about conciseness. One cannot make accurate arguments about an aspect of reality without first checking what we already know from evidence.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
its difficult for brain experiments and neuroscience to be important in this debate beyond figuring out what causes our minds to have their features. But understanding what consciousness *is* requires introspective reflection. Understanding our own qualia requires, once again, introspection, not brain surgery.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
And if someone you know has a loved one who developed dementia, I'm sure you'd recommend they read up on introspective reflection to deal with the situation.
The aspect of awareness known as qualia may only be studied via introspection at the moment, but wait a few years. Things people once thought to be evidence of dualism, such as phantom limbs, have slowly but surely been shown to be neurological phenomenon. If the trend continues, your "soul of the gaps" game have a time limit.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Science is unrelenting this way. Empiricism has found explanations for things long thought to have their basis in non-corporeal interactions; from the movement of the heavens to the variation among species. Every one seemingly impossible to figure out until someone actually did it.
Sitting on our asses, thinking long thoughts about the mind and brain will not solve problems or give us any real answers. Doing experiments, observing phenomenon, and forming theories with testable predictions will.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
I'm gonna have to make a video response because you clearly do not understand the nature of identity relationships or Leibniz' law of the indiscernability of identicals.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
the mind is not the brain it is what the brain does
Ishta5 2 years ago
What does indiscernibility of identicals have to do with the fact that things previously thought to be evidence of dualism keep getting refuted and that introspection cannot have a meaningful effect on the degeneration of the mind? It seems like you enjoy pulling out complex sounding words and references in order to avoid actually making an argument about statements at hand... but I'm sure you have a great way of disproving this statement with lorentz transformations or Minkowski manifolds.
AHBritton 2 years ago
are you saying we should be able to create a language complicated enough to explain everything in the brain. You can not make your neurons fire and see an elephant on demand. they fired because light hit the nerves, not because you made them do it. but you think language should be able to do this?
Ishta5 2 years ago
if physicalism is true, then it should be possible to explain all properties of consciousness in terms of physics and chemistry.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
@migkillertwo You can not control your experiences. even if you know how heat is transmitted you can not make yourself feel heat. To say it is magic because we don't know every detail of a complex emergent property, is not very smart.
Ishta5 2 years ago
Well mig, as I've already explained, we do not currently understand the mechanisms that create conscious experience at the cellular level - if it can even be broken down to the level of individual neurons.
However, we do know a plethora of both chemical and physical influences which can drastically change brain activity, resulting in changes to an individual's experience of reality, sense of self, perception, feelings, level of empathy, baseline temperance, and much, much more.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
@SolRosenberg84
Its not just that we merely do not happen to have a completely developed physicalist reduction of consciousness, its that ITS NOT POSSIBLE to have such a reduction of consciousness.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Also, it is unlikely you will be able to break down consciousness to the level of physical interactions between atoms in brain neurons - the Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes that quite impossible. Perhaps it can be broken down to interactions between grouping of nuerons (which is basically what lobes are, except on a macro level), but then again, I haven't done the research, so I don't know.
You know, I've yet to ask - what is your actual position/argument?
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
I would also like to second SolRosenberg84's question of what you DO believe. If substance dualism is correct and there is a soul what happens in the severed corpus callosum cases? Does the soul become divided? Does it remain intact? Can one half of the brain (personality, soul) go to heaven and the other to hell? Is it all just a magical mystery we can never (sorry split brain folks) know?
AHBritton 2 years ago
If the processes that create awareness, qualia, and the sense of self are non-physical, than why can they be affected, and in extreme cases deactivated, by physical phenomenon?
For example, I recently saw a wonderful TED talk by neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor, in which she describes the experience of having a massive stroke in her left lobe - and what it felt like consciously to have only your right lobe running (the parts where her left lobe comes back briefly are great.)
/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SolRosenberg84 : Sol - you're not addressing migkiller's point. He said that "if
physicalism is true, then it should be possible to explain all properties of consciousness in terms of physics and chemistry.".
You then respond "If the processes that create awareness, qualia, and the sense of self are non-physical...". Migkiller isn't talking about the brain processes that are coincident with consciousness; he's talking about consciousness itself.
DrDeist 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Exactly. Unless you are trying to make an argument from ignorance? We learn more and more about the physicality of the brain and its effect on our subjective experience every year. Will we ever be able to explain it all? Who knows, I guess God of the gaps is fine since the gaps keep getting smaller and smaller.
AHBritton 2 years ago
They also have rat neurons that can fly flight simulators. Terrifying, but that's awesome.
Keippernicus 2 years ago
I don't want to sound like I'm kissing ass or anything but WOW. You're fucking smart. I've watched about four of your vids so far. They are all very good.
exacerbatedtaboo 2 years ago 2
/watch?v=NFsas3PpZWw
its still processing, but it should be done in around ten minutes.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
This just isn't working. I'll be posting a video shortly to try and sum up my argument and present it in a more complete form than 500 characters will allow me to.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
In other words, there will always be a difference between observing a neural network, and connecting to it.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
You are still making a mistake - observing neurons will never give one access to the potential experiences those nuerons are creating - only direct connection can.
Knowing the function of nuerons, no matter how exact, would never give you the experience of those nuerons. If you could take that neural information and create an audio visual representation of it in real time you would be getting closer to experiencing what the neurons are creating, but not exactly.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Actually, solrosenber84, if you wired one person's brain to another person's brain, you wouldn't be sharing experiences, you would likely become one single consciousness. You wouldn't be able to share your experience with a different brain because each brain colors all input differently based on its unique life. It would only be possible to truly share experiences with another brain on if that brain is exactly identical to yours.
DeimosSaturn 2 years ago
wow...this part of neural science truly excites me. Have you been following Patricia Churchland's youtube lectures? I actually get goosebumps listening to what she has been working on :D
thedeeliciousplum 2 years ago
I've never heard of her before - thanks for introducing me to her lectures. They really are quite cool.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
To obtain the actual experience of seeing as another sees, you would have to be able to "walk a mile in their neurons". We can't do this yet.
The experience the brain creates cannot be shared via any other method - not because it is dependant on something that lacks substance, but because it is the holistic combination of incredibly massive amounts (100 billion nuerons with up to 10,000 connections each) of information in several varieties encoded in a complex language.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Its like trying to understand how fun a certain video game may be by reading over the binary. All that information codes for something that must be combined into one cohesive package before it can be "experienced."
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
In theory you could actively compare and contrast experiences if both brains could fully transmit their entire experience to one each other (thats the hard part). Both would think about "red" and if the signals match with little difference than blammo, thats one philosophical conundrum down. If not, and there really is a significant difference, and it would be confirmed that different people may indeed experience different colours for red despite labelling all these colours as "red."
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Actually, we already know that we actually don't see the exact same colours. Small differences in individual nervous systems and the structure of the the individual's eye itself may be factors - not to mention people who are trichromatic or colour blind.
I'd imagine if we really could communicate directly through experience with my hypothetical machine, we'd learn if the differences between how we see colour is really significant or not.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
>but yet the experience isn't in the wire?
If you could encapsulate the activity of 100 billion neurons and send it through a machine to another human being, you would indeed be sending them your entire subjective experience of reality.
Of course, this is just a thought experiment at the moment. No such machine exists yet, but there are tantalizing clues and discoveries suggesting it is indeed possible. Optogenetics is a good example of this.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Alright, so I haven't studied neurology but I have a pretty basic understanding of how it works. My question is this:
The left eye passes information to the right side of the brain and the right eye to the left. If the corpus callosum is severed then the two halves do not communicate, but how does the information from one eye pass to the opposite side of the brain with it cut?
If anyone has an answer, thank you.
uberjinks 2 years ago
Someone corrected me down the page - apparently the connection isn't left eye to right hemisphere, right eye to left hemisphere, but rather left side of each retinal image to right hemisphere and right side of each retinal image to left hemisphere.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Thank you, that makes much more sense.
uberjinks 2 years ago
>Subjective experience however, is characterized by an irreducible quality.
The key question is why does it appear to have irreducible quality? I'd argue that because it is of such an unbelievable complexity and relies on processes we do not yet fully understand it leaves us with no way to actually transmit the massive amount of information that makes it up, not to mention encode it in such a way that nothing would be left out. It is still a problem of communication and not magical brains.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
In my opinion the human experience of consciousness is the result of purely material physical mechanisms/nothing supernatural, but the human brain is by far the most complex and most mysterious biological organ on the planet. Science has quite a ways to go in terms of deciphering the brain.
NewtonsStudent 2 years ago
>Science has quite a ways to go in terms of deciphering the brain.
Damn strait. We're currently trying to figure out how an engine works with a thermometer. Its working pretty well, and making some awesome findings, but we are still a long way to go from perfectly understanding how consciousness operates and originates with a high degree of certainty.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
You hit this one out of the park Sol
CognosSquare 2 years ago
I have two words for you!
SUB'D
and
FAV'D
sharkman9k 2 years ago
Wow. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde takes on a new dimension.
k87jury 2 years ago
There is growing evidence of people who have had heart and liver transplants 'inheriting' certain characteristics of the dead donor, tastes in food or music for example. This phenomenon, admittedly needing a lot more research, is known as 'cellular memory'. If there is any truth in this then it knocks the stuffing out of SolRosenberg84's claim that human personality is nothing more than a matter of brain chemistry.
atticana 2 years ago
>claim that human personality is nothing more than a matter of brain chemistry.
Thanks for the strawman. My argument is that human consciousness is most likely created by the interactions of 100 billion neurons. Its not merely a chemical soup as you seem to be implying, it is a vast network of information.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
(continued from previous post) That is why mentally retarded people are not held responsible for breaking the law in a court of law in the same way that normal people are. That is why when someone suffers from a severe brain disorder, such as bipolar disorder, they make different moral decisions than a normal person would. Hence, there is no spirit, working independent of our physical brain. If there was a spirit dictating our moral decisions, then the brain is superfluous. It clearly isnt.
alphacause 2 years ago
MigKiller and other Christian apologists, who posit the existence of a conscience, soul and thoughts outside of the physical substance of the brain, can be summarily dismissed as promoting a falsehood by pointing out one very obvious fact. If the brain gets damaged, our cognitive functions, such as mathematical reasoning, memory, linguistic capacity, and yes, even our moral decisions, become encumbered and diminished (continued).
alphacause 2 years ago
I'm not sure you don't go too far when talking about a "Matrix-like" connection between brains. There would surely be a sharing of sensory data, but I don't see a reason to presume anything further. It's one of those things we won't know 'till we do it, and it's ethically questionable if we should do it if it becomes possible.
DynaCatlovesme 2 years ago
Coincidentally just posted:
watch?v=t0pwKzTRG5E
DynaCatlovesme 2 years ago
Computer are magical - that's how it works :I
unassumption 2 years ago
win :)
music5freak5 2 years ago
Good one.
Small nit pick however. The connection isn't left eye to right hemisphere, right eye to left hemisphere, but rather left side of each retinal image to right hemisphere and right side of each retinal image to left hemisphere.
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
I knew I'd screw up the details somewhere.
Thanks.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
My homunculus thought your arguement was fallacious but he convinced me to give you 4 stars for the effort.
SaintCog 2 years ago
This Video = So Much Win!
ShwaNerd 2 years ago 5
"Errr, fucker!"
lmao, awesome videos as always
chessdawgz 2 years ago
Another awesome vid, dude. Can't say I know much of anything about neurology, but from what I do know, that makes sense.
Do you happen to have any videos or even articles on that Rat brain tissue thing?
joegt123 2 years ago
There are several in my playlists. I even told Kevin Warwick how to improve the thing ^_^
PinkProgram 2 years ago
/watch?v=1-0eZytv6Qk
Just google "Rat Brain Robot" to learn more.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
..We just get closer and closer to this stuff, don't we? Wonder if it's a good thing or not.
Amazing and terrifying, but good for furthering your point, I think.
joegt123 2 years ago
It would be interesting to see what would happen if enough of your neurons were connected to another person's through electronics. Could the two consciousnesses merge into one?
kinslayer421 2 years ago
>Could the two consciousnesses merge into one?
We can only hope. Increased connectivity, temporary merging of consciousness, a way of communicating beyond mere language - sounds great to me.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
It would be like the gestalts I form with my siblings and Host... though we are all from the same brain o.O
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Around 8:25: "Go google Dr. [R-something]"
Could you spell that for those of us who want to and haven't heard of him?
wanderingivie 2 years ago
Ramachandran!
He's a pretty cool guy, he rolls his Rs and talks about neurology.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Vilayanur Ramachandran
NermalsChannel 2 years ago
Um, but like, there is one thing in the brain you can't cut in half....
It's called the pineal gland.... There's like, only one of those in there... And um, some say, (i'm not saying this true), but some say the pineal gland is the "seat of consciousness". Crazy that there's only one.
So if this is true, with the split brain experiment the half with the pineal gland attached would be like, conscious.
And the half without the pineal would be like, a "philosophical Zombie" (look that up)
ya..
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
The pineal gland is not the seat of consciousness - thats just a Descartes quote.
No lobe of the brain is actually the seat of human consciousness - consciousness seems to be made up of many different lobes and components interacting and conflicting. There are some theories on where the sense of self and qualia come from, but little more than that.
/watch?v=LaVoiXbaVZU
Unfortunately, the mechanism which creates consciousness probably lies at the quantum level, and is not yet understood.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Comment removed
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
You have presented no evidence that the pineal gland is linked to qualia or the sense of self.
Many other vertebrates have pineal glands, yet very few show signs of a sense of self. This pretty much discredits the whole pineal gland argument. The sense of self and the attribute of qualia must arise from some other mechanism, perhaps the one that is mentioned in the video I sent you.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
why do we assume that a sense of self automatically comes with consciousness?
Wouldn't that just be an aspect of a higher or more evolved state of consciousness?
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
Also, the Pineal gland is not connected to either of the two frontal lobes - it is found directly off the centre of the brain. Cutting the corpus callosum has no effect on it whatsoever.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
I see, so the pineal gland is still connected to both halfs?
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
Yup.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
Well then according to this theory both halves are still conscious....
Damn Descartes! He always misleads...
That whole, "I think therefore I am." thing turned out to be false as well..
Anyway, good talk, let's do it again sometime.
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
Agreed.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
The whole "I think, therefore I am" thing turned out to be a little more complicated, rather.
There still is an "I". We just learned more about the "I".
Fjarhultian 2 years ago
@Fjarhultian
Indeed, you are correct. Check out my argument that Mr. Rosenberg is afraid to address:
/watch?v=8OKsIGFAWAA
This topic is touched on thoroughly.
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
Have you seen my "What am I?" video ^_^
PinkProgram 2 years ago
I wonder what happened to your bongs that were in the back ground in the room on the shelf haha
LetsTalkSexTalk 2 years ago
Oh crap. They are in my closet, and I completely forgot they were there.
SolRosenberg84 2 years ago
I will be glad to see them again in the next video then :)
LetsTalkSexTalk 2 years ago