V. S. Ramachandran on the Uniqueness of Human Consciousness

Clip from an interview with V. S. Ramachandran from The Science Network, creators of the Beyond Belief Conference:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-science-studio/take-the-neuron-expr...

In this clip, he describes his view of the nature of human consciousness and how it is inexorably linked to qualia, language, meaning and the sense of self. He also proposes that there are aspects of consciousness that are uniquely human.

In the full interview, which runs for nearly two hours, topics include Galileo, phantom limbs, mirror neurones, synasthesia, metaphor, evolutionary psychology, culture and more.

V.S. Ramachandran is Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Professor with the Psychology Department and the Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego. A former BBC Reith Lecturer, he co-authored Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind, with Sandra Blakeslee, and is the author of A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness.

Visit http://thesciencenetwork.org for similar content.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• human
• consciousness
• self
• qualia
• subjective
• experience
• language
• meaning
• mirror
• neuron
• solipsism
• homunculus
• psychology
• science
• neuroscience
• neurology
• ramachandran
• interview

[Keovar]

One thing I am conscious of is that the YouTube system for suggesting associated videos is fucked, since it says some Deepak Chopra quackery is up next. Yeah, no thanks, unless I get to see Dr. Ramachandran talk circles around Chopra while he's spouting misapplied jargon and fluffy vague platitudes. Unfortunately, Chopra is financially unable to recognize science without the pseudo- in front of it, even if he turned out to be mentally capable, so Rama would be wasting his time.

[theinquisitor]

@Keovar ironically Chopra has the same level of understanding of words like quantum and qualia as the youtube algorithms do. When he talks I just hear white noise. I find it reprehensible that in this time of unprecedented knowledge, people like Chopra commit intellectual vandalism and mislead people towards bullshit when real answers are available. I suspect that if we could quantify the damage he did to the education of the general public, his actions would be recognisably criminal.

[Keovar]

@theinquisitor

Yeah, I get the irony and know the tag and title comparison systems are blind, I just wanted to vent a bit. If scientific terms were too obscure and difficult to say (let alone make a sound-bite out of) it would have the opposite effect of Sagan's Cosmos series, pushing people away from science rather than making it approachable. Unfortunately, the psuedoscience quacks jump on the neat-sounding words and subvert then into their form of disorganized religion.

At least Rama is cool!

[theinquisitor]

@Keovar yeah I remember an interview Richard Dawkins did with Chopra where Dawkins got him to admit that his use of the term quantum theory was poetic rather than literal. Chopra then had the gall to accuse physicists of being the ones who "hijacked the word for their own use". I've noticed a tendency among professional bullshitters to project their own flaws onto those who criticise them. I think it's so when we say "no that's what you do!" it inevitably sounds weak and reflexive. Slimy fucks.

[Keovar]

@theinquisitor

To bring this back on topic, yet tie it into your projection observation:

When we criticise someone, fairly, cynically, naively, or even as a strawman, how much of the model of their mind and motives is actually based on out knowledge of them, and how much of it is us taking our mental model of ourselves and putting a mask of the target on it? Is every negative opinion we have of another a reflection of who we fear we might be in a different circumstance?

[theinquisitor]

@Keovar good question. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I suspect it's a bit of each. To take an extreme case, obviously we can say a murderer is a bad person without necessarily projecting our own homicides onto them. Regarding whether we fear we would do the same, if we accept that there is no contra-causal free will, we necessarily would do the same as the person we are criticising, given the same genetics and experiences. I do fear that me bringing up free will is opening a Pandora's box

[JBeezie428]

@falgorian1 haha yeah...say it with a southern accent....that's the effect I was going for...

[falgorian1]

@JBeezie428 In that case, you got me ha ha. I read it and just thought, wtf? This guy......

[JBeezie428]

@falgorian1 haha man lighten up! I was joking! 

[falgorian1]

@JBeezie428 Idiot. Religion is not a science, it's a man made thought to create comfort in fear.

[krraa]

test 1:31

[HomuncuIus]

rrrrrraw

[mggentry]

The first 2/3rds were a bit rambly but the last 1/3rd was spot on and something really big in the pathophysiology of some strokes

[shakeyourdimsims]

when my rrrrdrdrdrdrdrdrdred neurons fire :D

[Keovar]

@goldie0800

That was the post I replied to, so obviously I saw it.

Where was I using personal attacks? Those so-called spiritual leaders are not here, so even if I'd expressed only unrelated ad-hominems, rather than frustration at their charlatanry, it still wouldn't be personal because they aren't in the conversation.

You're the one making it personal with attacks, as if your vain and pretentious posturing makes you better, when all you need is gullibility to attain your level of 'wisdom'.

[goldie0800]

@Keovar - You'll notice my post of "All down through history..." is nestled under the post above and I'm commenting on the disrespect shown to spiritual leaders in our world. When you cannot use sound logic it seems that insults are the best these offensive commentators can do. That is not how to conduct an educated discussion, in my opinion.