The Brain creates the Mind

[CovenantOfLove]

sounds like Crowley

[qcon81]

oh sir....brain creates the mind!!! okay...could you pls enlighten me what type of molecules can process love,hate,anger,joy,meaning n............i need to know sir!!!

[SolRosenberg84]

@qcon81

It probably can't be reduced to individual particles - much how a city can't be reduced to single cars.

Emergent properties and all that jazz.

[qcon81]

@SolRosenberg84 there u go..u fell in your own trap. emergent property..n how a city cant be reduced to single cars. why did u so blatantly ascertain that ur brain creates ur mind then..arent u reducing the whole reality to matter by saying that ur brain creates mind??u need to update yourself on what modern scientific views on reality is. u shudnt just quote some pages from random books..brain creating mind is an obsolete concept in physics today.pls dont even bring that up.

[SolRosenberg84]

@qcon81

Good job beating up that strawman.

I was stating that emotions, clearly the result of interactions of large numbers of competing networks within the brain, cannot be reduced to individual brain cells. Its like trying to reduce the flow of traffic in an entire country to a single car.

Brian creating the mind an obsolete idea? I'm pretty most all of neurology would like to have a word with you. Try googling "Ramachandran". Read one of his books. Stop reading Depack Chopra.

[qcon81]

@SolRosenberg84 even the most fundamentalist materialistic physicist would hesitate a little .familiarize yourself with david bohm's model of q.mechanics(u can understand more on half baked concept of emergence from a rather deeper and enlightened perspective) or Roger Penrose model(the most recent one)according to which space-time geometry(similar to concept of brahman in hindu/vedantic tradition of the east) is the source out of which emerge mind and matter

[qcon81]

dd

[qcon81]

when we talk about what gives rise to mind or brain we are going to planck's scale which means matter's way out of the window to be even considered anyway near to fundamental aspect of reality. to give rise to mind wave function has to collapse on itself(at least if not by the observer(mind) as copenhagen interpretation would suggest)..only then we come to level of mind or/matter, after the self collapse

[qcon81]

@SolRosenberg84 ..so u have to go to higher level which is not MATERIAL to even speak of your brain or mind in the first place. u simply cannot say ur brain creates ur mind. u seem to have superficial and obsolete sources of information on whihc u need to work on buddy. pls do more research before you so confidtoently ascertain your views on a public platform

[qcon81]

@SolRosenberg84 also so if your brain creates ur mind pls tell me why experiments have confirmed that making the subjects focus on positive thoughts produce oxytocin.does it conclude BRAIN createts mind ie molecule creates thought??or vice versa??

[SolRosenberg84]

@qcon81

Or, quite simply, the brain changes itself - the idea that is best supported by the evidence gathered so far. I would recommend you read Norman Doidge's book "The Brain That Changes Itself". Also google, "nueroplasticity" - the brain has interesting physical mechanisms that allow for it to be incredibly flexible.

Also, as to what you were talking about, there are neurotransmitters and chemicals related to all emotional states of mind. Put simply, the brain makes its own drugs.

[qcon81]

neuroplasticity huh ..i am not new to tha term sir..,n go to buddhist or sufi islam or kaballah and ask them what their views were considered until it was confirmed that structure of brain can be changed...they always said that brain could be rewired only to be mocked at by then infantile neuroscience...well now they conform to what they had always asserted for centuries..u just have to wait to c waht more is on the way..

[qcon81]

...brain changing itself..can u go deeper than that claim of yours or u r just stuck at it...so the brain in changing all the time...as if by chance!!(now dont recommend me richard dawkins to read on'meme' or soemthing)... n now i think i am doomed because appparently my atoms in my brain are going to change my brain structure with no heed to any intelligence..

[qcon81]

@SolRosenberg84 imay go insance next minute..because my brain is changing itself without information directing it or governing in any sense...(solely atoms are going to dance around and bring aboiut change) game over!!reality is stuck at atoms, it wont go any further

[qcon81]

@SolRosenberg84 te question of focusing on positive thoughts to produce oxytocin is not explained by ur statement that there r N.T and chemicals related to emotional states because there has to be some information that need to be processed before the brain knows its the time to produce oxytocin as a response to happy thought or else it will not produce oxytocin the next time he focuses on happy thoughts (if brain is just mannifesting at different levels to produce differnet chemicals)..

[qcon81]

@SolRosenberg84 for otherwise, there r no sane experiments that can show that focusing on happy thoughts will produce stress hormones...how is the brain discerning what it has to produce in response to different stimuli..shudnt there be information from a different level which has to be outside the level n scope of matter??!! now to this, u will tell me to refer back to emergent property in nature

[qcon81]

@SolRosenberg84 okay wht u r saying is right but only partially..if u subscirbe to that view u have to first quit saying brain creates mind so BLATANTLY as if you have proved it to be a fact(at least by the way u present urself in the video)if you want to look a at such comlex level u cannot differentiate brain and mind and state one creates the other.

[qcon81]

@SolRosenberg84 .look at the totality,the whole which give rise to the parts(the brain and the mind both)...u r simply being victim to the form of language and mode of thinking( in terms of which u make sense of the reality) by separating the aspects of one undivided whole to independent parts and holding the deluded view tha one must create the other..u r just misleading yourself about your own conviction by subscribing to such idea..

[qcon81]

@SolRosenberg84 in fact the reverse is true as well since experiments have been done both ways..this should enable you to infer that mind and matter are both simultaneous expression of one fundamental reality which is transcendental and of course immaterial. (such ground of reality by even a kindergarnen level of logic CANNOT be MATTER. pls go gather a little more updated and deeper understanding of the matter before u post them.bye

[IntrepidMoocher]

My, that's quite an impressive array of smoking paraphernalia you have littered around your room. I'm very surprised it hasn't opened your mind to perceive the spiritual. Or are we keeping it firmly closed?

[SolRosenberg84]

@IntrepidMoocher

Depends what you mean by spiritual - that damn word is used in so many ways.

Do I believe in a hidden magical world which conveniently enough seems to follow to rules of human abstraction and pander to emotional security? Fuck no!

Do I occasionally see the cosmos as a single entity, in which all things are connected? Of course.

[olympic66power]

i do agree with you about mind and brain connection but there have been studies on death where energy leaves the body. what i am saying RF waves WHERE EXITING THE BODY. I THINK SOME CHINESE MONKS WHERE ABLE TO CREATE ION FIELDS OUT SIDE THE BODY

[SolRosenberg84]

@olympic66power

CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL

[1mind1humanity]

...without also containing a phenomenological account. Neuroscience can at best correlate brain waves with what an individual reports feeling or experiencing at the time certain brain activities occur, but correlation does not imply causation. Neuroscientific studies do not measure minds, they measure brain waves in relation to their respective first-person accounts.

[SolRosenberg84]

You don't really keep up with the lit do you? We don't just study normal people, ask them questions, piss them off, etc and record what their brains are doing. Quite often study is directed at people with damage to specific parts of their brains, and the changes to their minds after the change to their brain has taken place.

For example, if you split someone's corpus collosum, their mind is split into two different minds with divergent opinions.

[1mind1humanity]

@SolRosenberg84 I understand all that. What I said boils down to two points:

1.) More attention needs to be given to how we define mind and brain.

2.) Neuroscience may be limited in attempt to adequately do that.

I try to keep up with the lit the best I can :P

[SolRosenberg84]

If you damage the "wiring" in the brain that connects the visual cortex and area linked with emotional memories, but leave the part connecting emotional memory and audio intact - than you end up with an individual who cannot recognize their mother as their mother, but will immediately identify their mother if she phones them.

These are just the absolute tip of the iceberg. Everything in Neurology I've ever heard about points to one conclusion - that the mind is a function of the brain.

[1mind1humanity]

@SolRosenberg84 And just to be clear, I don't disagree with you. What I said concerns the nature of the study and definition of "brain" and "mind."

[1mind1humanity]

@SolRosenberg84 Also, I don't believe I said that neuroscience was limited to studying normal people. If that's how it came off, that's not what I meant.

[1mind1humanity]

I think more attention needs to be given to how we define mind and brain before calling them the same. For example, a brain is a physical organ that can be objectively verified as existing while "mind" does not share this characteristic of being objectively verifiable, it is rather ontologically subjective and experienced through a first person view. Because neuroscience depends on empirical evidence and an objectivist epistemology, its study of the mind is incomplete...(Cont..)

[fortruth8989]

You are smart and funny... but incorrect.

[ChuckyJesus666]

I've tasted some chicken from KFC which I thought maybe was pre-cambrian....

[AFearlessAngel84]

These videos are so hot. I could listen to you all day SR84. (ps. I the 84's on our names are a random coincidence. Much like almost everything else.)

[uberpaine]

Personally, I guess I think that's an interesting way of believing something within the realm of scientific evidence, but without "hiding in the gaps" as you say.

[uberpaine]

Oddly enough, there's a philosopher of religion named John Hick who believes that, as evidence suggests, we are "completely annihilated" when we die. Or, basically, our consciousness, because it is created by the brain, dies completely when we die.

However, and this is the interesting part, he believes that God will "recreate" us in some form of future existence. You know? It's not like traditional reincarnation where some nebulous part of our current existence actually lives on past death.

[greycloud24]

sounds like fear of death to me. what evidence does he have to support this belief other than hope?

[uberpaine]

He's not making a dogmatic claim. He's just stating what might be the case religiously after evaluating things with reason.

His whole thing is making all religious beliefs reasonable within the realm of what know from science. To him, all must stand up to scrutiny from science, etc. So, the whole "recreation" thing is merely his statement of what seems to be scientifically possible as far as the afterlife.

[uberpaine]

Maybe it sounds like some sort of "fear of death" or "mere hope," but...isn't that the whole purpose of religion. Der. ;) He's just trying to make this thing of "mere hope" stand the test of reason.

[DisforDubby]

Sol, you and I have a lot in common!!

[lambecolin]

The head trip has it right.

Man is now going ahead to back-engineer the brain connections.

Electronic thought is predicted by 2025-Google RAY KURZWEIL.

By 2045 a single machine will out-perform the whole human race.

[TheJesusrox]

sol

try to prove me wrong that jesus is not real

i know in my heart he is very real i just want ur opinion

praise jesus

[scienceminded]

This isn't the right video for that.

Historical science isn't based on

'proof', proving anything isn't the issue. It's about reliable and consistent accounts.

Given the many inconsistencies between the gospels and the fact that no contemporaries of Jesus actually wrote about him I find it 'unlikely' we have the whole, if accurate, story of his life.

I don't believe a man survived in a fish for days or in a young earth, so it isn't hard for me to think they exaggerated about Jesus as well.

[creationofself]

Wow. I just realized you and I are complete opposites. I thought I may benefited from listening to such a perspective but I know now that I am wrong. I can only listen to so much of it.

[scienceminded]

For the most part he just quoted people on neuroscience, with a title like "the brain creates the mind" I wonder what were you expecting to find? I think it's important to understand that our experiences have a physical effect on us, and that physical part of us in turn, changes how we see and feel the world, it's what makes humanity so capable of complex emotion, thought and imagination.

If you have trouble being profound, simply tell the truth.

[SolRosenberg84]

Thats too bad. I've generally enjoyed your comments, even if I don't agree with them.

[SpazzzDog]

The big question I think is the consciousness-mind connection. There's certainly a correlation between the two as you describe here. But is it really possible to deduce consciousness to the individual firing of neurons? I'm biased to say no because the system is so complex and non-linear. The theory of emergence seems to be a much better suited explanation for the origins of consciousness.

[honky42]

Dude-- nice collection of water pipes.

[sapperbloggs]

I'm a psych student.

Can you give a full reference for the left-right prefrontal cortex activation and association with happiness and anxiety?

I'm curious as to what imaging technique was used to measure this. One of the biggest issues with current imaging techniques is that they're either accurate (clear, precise imaging... eg. fMRI), or they're functional (you can do things whilst being imaged... eg EEG). They're never both.

I'm curious how these claims were measured.

[SolRosenberg84]

Good question.

The study done on the brains of long term meditators used MRI scans and can easily be found by googling "Meditation experience is associated with increased

cortical thickness". It is in full pdf format and is one of the first results.

[SolRosenberg84]

I cannot find a clear source on the other two experiments (I've found fragments though - the original left to right ratio finding was by Goleman in a study from 2003, and the experiment showing right to left ratio changes in Promega employees who meditated was published in Psychosomatic Medicine in 1997)- but I have been able to find that they used fMRI for recording brain activity.

There was also some suggestion that Davidson also used EEG at some point, but I can't find a clear source.

[scienceminded]

Some imaging devices CAN in fact scan in real time, but all the scans he has talked about either measure size or baseline activity as far as I recall.

Did he mention that they were measured to change in a laboratory scan or just produced the same structural and baseline data? I could be wrong.

[SandInTheWind7]

Great points. I have been interested in this line of thought -mind has physical reality in the brain- for a while. If your interested in reading more about neuroplasticity I have to suggest 'Evolve your Brain' by Admit Goswami, some great stuff in there.

[pfarabee]

@ 2:41 you said that not only does the brain create the mind, but the mind can change the brain. Of course, you immediately clarify yourself and say, "They are the exact same thing", which is also not entirely correct. (involuntary systems, etc)

I know it's nitpicky, but really the mind doesn't change the brain.. the BRAIN changes itself. Mind is simply an aspect of the brain

Thus, for life after death to exist, the BRAIN would have to go on, not the mind, which we can see is not the case

[SolRosenberg84]

You are absolutely correct. It would be better to explain it as the brain changing itself. It explains what is going on more accurately.

[EllyMcCormack]

The irony is SolRosenberg84 isn't at University, and has very little qualifications.

Society is missing out on so much if it cannot offer the right opportunities to the brilliant minds of our time like SolRosenberg84 and thousands more.

[DynaCatlovesme]

It's important to realize that something that is possible for some people may not be possible for all people. An extreme example would be a person who can voluntarily hold his breath for 15 minutes. The fact that one person can do it absolutely proves that it's possible for humans to hold their breath for 15 miinutes, but it remains impossible for almost all humans.

[HonestDiscussioner]

I'm going to get that audio book. Thanks for the recommendation.

[CognosSquare]

I have waited for this video so long. Favorit'd.

[ubergossen]

Sweet video. I'd be down for any book recommendations for good books on the brain that MY brain can actually understand.

[omghitbycar]

i love your vids,your so funny, while being smarticus, nice accent

[ubergossen]

I happened upon Sol Rosenberg while perusing wikipedia the other day, wasn't even looking him up. Interesting to know your usernamesake.

[IceHammer58]

Could you recommend books you read?

Like writing it on your channel or something, please!

[diotecktec2]

@IceHammer58 Yes, I would appreciate this too Sol. :)

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

The mind is simply a side effect, of an active brain...

[gassmanw]

i did watch a bbc horizon program on meditation and i did in fact know that the mind can changed the brain.

perhaps you could get a website stream of Horizon because its very interesting.

[aPaThEiSt]

Legalise LSD.

[Loves2spooge696]

Love your videos. Keep em' coming!

[GetMeThere1]

Actually, hearing you state it....I'm not so sure that a PreCambrian chicken would necessarily spell death for EVOLUTION. It would be a great mess for the history of life as laid out by paleontologists, though.

Given what evidence we have, it would actually be more reasonable to assume that some aliens happened to leave some KFC lying around than it would to just discard evolution outright.

[joegt123]

Well, obviously, the theory wouldn't be just thrown out the window because of such a discovery. I mean what are you going to do? Just throw it out of teaching in schools until you find out what really happened? What happens if Evolution was still correct? Some number of generations of children would go untaught in such a large part of science.

Things would simply be thrown into SERIOUS question until the truth was discovered.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

Heart rate and body temp can actually be changed by deep meditation, as well. Real physiological responses- as has been known in martial arts for a thousand years.

[ShwaNerd]

This is Most Excellent

[SlimD11]

Great video,

Wow I just noticed that bong on your shelf.

Nice :)

[AnarchistOpposition]

SolRosendale, you should check out "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett. He goes more a bit more into detail than Jeff Warren, altho "The Head Trip" is an excellent introduction to the subject.

[SolRosenberg84]

Cool, I'll look it up.

Thanks for the recommendation.

[Tyrtamus]

Interesting stuff. Great vid.

[Whuppee]

Well done.

Thanks for the book recommendation; will definately add it to my list.

[MagnusIan]

This reminds me. I gotta go pick up a copy of Steven Pinker's "How the Mind Works."

[JonathanClement140]

How exactly do you define "mind"? Or consciousness?

[SolRosenberg84]

"Mind is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes."

Thats a wiki definition, but its pretty much identical to how I defined the word for this video.

[Signofthedollar]

Consciousness is the faculty of awareness. Thus it is my basic means of survival.

[JonathanClement140]

But how do you know whether something is actually sentient, or if it's just a machine reacting to stimuli? From a scientific point of view, sentience doesn't exist, yet we all know it does. There's really no logical reason for sentience to exist, seeing as how life works completely independently from it.

[NotWhollySane]

How do you know that all the atoms in our brain acting together is somehow greater then the sum of it's parts and bypasses determinism? A single water molecule is not wet. But put a bunch together and you get wetness. Why can't a whole bunch of atoms working together create sentience in the same way that a bunch of water molecules create wetness?

[Cyrathil]

"or if it's just a machine reacting to stimuli"

That's actually my understanding of one of the points to the Turing Test. If they both are able to pass all the definitions of "sentience", they both are sentient. There's no real reason why a machine can't be sentient(aware of itself in its environment), barring current limitations in programming, except our bias that we're the ones who are sentient.

[creationofself]

I have been in a mood. Need time to my own world views. These past few months I have been setting them aside for varies alternative views. Reached my limit for now. Digestion phase. BTW I genuinely like you as a person, or form what I know of you. Seems you are very big into self awareness and restraint as am I.

[barkatthemoon6]

Y'know, I actually heard someone try to make the argument that emotions can't be tested for. What a ridiculous statement this is, yes? But in all seriousness, I don't understand why people still try and argue this type of stuff. It seems kind of stupid for a denialist to try and say that neurochemical sciences, which are still only somewhat understood, "must" be wrong because it would go against the existence of a soul when a soul would be outside of conceivable reality and untestable.

[MrMagneticPelican]

Even if the soul was outside of "conceivable reality" would there be a reason to believe that it existed?

[barkatthemoon6]

There isn't. I don't believe one exists. In rereading my comment now, I realize it sounded different from how I wanted it to sound. Sorry if that confused anybody.