I'd really like to see Bernardo Kastrup being interviewed on this channel. He has some quite interesting takes on the hard problem of consciousness (among others)
McNamara rightly points out the separation between cognition and experience, and I wish he went further with the dreaming example. I would say that in the dream - you are both the victim and the assailant. Your mind can only be 1 person in spacetime when it's awake, but can dissolve into many lesser characters in lesser realities when asleep, only because the "accuracy" part of our brain is not awake to correct the record, and continually remind itself that it is only 1 embodied person in a space, during time. The construction of an ego in spacetime is far more useful than just detecting reality based on independent competing signals coming in - we evolved a sense of state, a "source of truth", that's more accurate than all the direct measurements coming in from visuals, audio, random chemistry from food you ate, etc. and it can override signals when they are wrong - that mechanism is conscious (maybe necessarily). It's why an alarm clock is not an alarm clock sound at first when asleep - it could be a voice or music or a horn honking in your sleeping mind - but your accuracy part wakes up and identifies it as an alarm clock. It tells the rest of the brain to calm down, you're not being honked at, and also, time to get up. We don't remember most of dreaming, we only remember it when that "accuracy" part occasionally comes in to calm false signals to keep us sleeping. Consciousness is intermittent during sleep - sometimes you never wake up while sleeping, when the mind is at ease, but if the mind is producing a lot of false positives - say you're stressed out in life presently and the visual cortex keeps presenting you with falling, then your "accuracy" center comes online to say no it's not really a cliff, to allow you to continue sleeping. That "accuracy" part (apparently, a function of the prefrontal cortex) somehow is or is closely correlated with conscious experience. The "taste of chocolate" or the "aroma of coffee" or the "feeling of falling" comes about when PFC groups lesser signals coming in from different regions as 1 object - each of which are presumably unconscious on their own. The consciousness is the identification of the signals as an object. The act of making it an object in time results in a conscious snapshot or a "frame" of experience from the perspective of a remembered self. Importantly, in order to know that it is an object of experience, the signals have to match up with something already "on file" in order to correctly identify it. So it takes repetition of signals to learn even how to perceive, and in the first year of life, before anything has been experienced, there is nothing on file to compare incoming signals with, and so consciousness takes a while to start working even in creatures that evolved it, and it becomes richer over time, as more things are experienced. Eventually it becomes so rich that most of what you see isn't really there - you hear an alarm clock, you know you're late, and jump out of bed. At this point you're living in a completely simulated reality that happens to be more useful than the real thing.
certainly there is much biology involved. but then there are events such as tukdam in taipei 2020 which destroy modern biology and physicalism. you should also be aware that the neural correlates for concentration are known and it is long scientifically established that tibetan monks can remain in perfect single-pointed concentration without impingement by any external stimulus or internal distraction for hours effortlessly. you, 2 seconds on avg, so your opinion of your dream cycle isnt of much value. ppl of the former type can maintain complete lucidity throughout the entire sleep cycle. the ones who can perform tukdam post clinical death have full lucidity over levels of awareness far subtler than deep dreamless sleep, which for someone like you would be something classified as nonexistent. in other words search tukdam taipei 2020 online and wise up a little, little lab technician.
I wonder if schizophrenia is related to those phenomena during dream states where you can simultaneously be yourself *_and_* invent other characters. They seem real in a dream and, from what I understand, seem real to fully awake schizophrenics. I've long thought that we evolved A LOT of mental filters that limit how much our brains are 'free' to do and also how much of the sensory inputs get through.
@@mikel5582 Yes I think it's very similar. And it makes me wonder if something like brain extension through technology is really feasible. It's possible that we lose our sense of identity on both ends: Whether the PFC is under-active (as during sleep) or when it's over-active (as during stimulant-induced psychosis, or in schizophrenics). You can apparently dissolve into many selves without enough prefrontal activity, or you can have too many selves with too much activity. There seems to be an ideal operating state at which a pure self arises, where it is optimally individuated from its environment and at peak harmony with the other bodily systems. That's not to say there aren't other possible brain operating modes that still result in viable selves - brain states we haven't yet tried - even if they're not the most optimal for being a self with an identity, they could still be very useful or interesting experiences. Combine differently trained PFCs with different sense machinery and who knows what experiences are possible. If a bat's hearing input leads to its visual cortex, the question is whether or not that experience ends up more or less the same as when an eye and optic nerve captures the same image. My opinion on it is we will find equally more variation in the universe from changing the size, orientation, velocity, and duration scales at which we make observations. It might be that all senses if evolved perfectly inform us of the same reality - and the real interesting stuff only comes out of other dimensions, e.g. on other space and time scales, that we can explore using technology and/or brains tuned in some way, pharmacologically or otherwise.
What is the 'the "accuracy" part of the brain' for a congenitally blind person learning to negotiate daily tasks in their household and dealing with the challenges of living in the wider community? I don't think it is just about accuracy of perceptual representation via sensory organs and brain. As suggested by the work of ecological psychology theorists of perception like J.J. and Eleanor Gibson, attunement to the environment needs to function over the environment's affordances to action by the organism. For the most part, a blind person cannot form an accurate picture of the world without interactively manipulating its surfaces, navigating paths to avoid obstacles to directed action. They would have to rely heavily on memory of previous encounters, and if things change it is not just a matter of checking sensory perception like sighted people can do. They would have to interact with what is different, and understand how it impedes and enables action. Yet once a blind person, especially if they are not also deaf, acquires language they can develop a conceptual understanding of how the world works. The sighted people they interact with will not consider their conceptualization as essentially different from their own, although it will be considerably less accurate with regards to visible properties. A blind person might "know" that ripe tomatoes are (reportedly) 'red' and (experientially) soft like this and tasty like this, whereas unripe tomatoes are 'green' and feel and taste different. Haptic feedback in fundamentally different from passive perception, it loops through both somato-motor and somato-sensory cortex (and subcortical brain regions) to generate an more-or-less accurate picture of what the environment is like in terms of what it affords for bodily movement, individual action and social interaction.
@@mikel5582 more importantly just as one can develop the ability to become lucid during a dream and no longer remain delusional, likewise lucidity can be built during the waking state. however this will remain impossible for so long as we continue marching in the opposite direction and avoiding developing methods of rigorously observing the object we seek to understand, continuing to persist as mere lab technicians. 1400yrs of lab technicians work was overcome by 1 week of galileo develop a method of rigorously observing the phenomenon he wanted to understand.
*"What the mind of dream character? "* The dream character mind has been simulated by your own mind. Our minds simulate other minds all the time. It's a fundamental function of a healthy mind to be able to do this. It's not surprising we can do it in dream states.
Thats a shallow dive into a deeply complex construction of the dream mind. What do you mean "our minds simulate other minds all the time"? How does it differ from a robot copying what a human dreams? What is happening in the dream to say it is the hallmark of a healthy mind versus a mind that is trapped? How are we certain that the dream character is created by the dreamer alone? And if it's true, what role does dreaming actually have in the world?
@@missh1774 This is an ability evolutionary psychologists call 'theory of mind', it's the ability many animals have to understand that other beings have mental states and reason about those mental states. It's a bit like a computer running a simulation of a character, such as a character in a computer RPG that has knowledge and behaviours tailored to that character. If computers can do it, it seems reasonable brains can do it. Even if you don't think consciousness is computational, it's still pretty obvious the brain does process information.
When your personal computer crashes, you can no longer browse the internet world but you are still there alive and aware watching the crash.... ...likewise. when the brain dies, the conscious soul does not die. However, the conscious soul can no longer use the brain to perceive/manipulate the physical world but is still aware of its self existence... ...it is also your conscious soul who observes dreams when the brain sleeps. Dualism is not just a theory but a proven fact through genuine real experience.. Your life's chance of salvation through faith will soon end, so, have faith before it is too late..
You are very correct 👍. In fact I have been saying so on this forum for quite some time now and commenting frequently that it's the immaterial conscious personality connected to the brain that is the true thinker and feeler of subjective experience, much to the consternation of those fed with materialist ideas. It's an absolute pleasure to finally meet someone who speaks the actual truth 🙏!
It's so funny where mind can go , mind can go so deep it denies itself as the sourse of everything. It can even prioritize matter as all reality rather than itself . Consciousness is everything.
It's nice to think that we are each the central, most important thing in the entire universe that creates all space and time. But suppose we are material beings and the mind and consciousness is a product of the information processing of our neurons. It would fell like you suggest, wouldn't it?
McNamara makes it very clear at 0:35 “I don't think the mind can be reduced to the brain.” Then at 3:31 he declares that there isn’t a “one-to-one correspondence with the computational properties of those neural networks” and “the whole array of mental phenomena we're all familiar with.” There is more to us than the physical body!
@@KestyJoe not at all, its an argument from the fact no emergent property of consciousness has ever been located in any of the billions of animal brains we've slaughtered. his further argument of the fact that there are ppl with perfect function missing entire critical small correlates, large regions, entire brain hemispheres, and even almost the entire brain, yet can function fully or adequately is just more data against the magical thinking that every 10yo is so prone to ie. "my brain thinks", and to which the church of physicalism continues to attempt to pray into existence.
When are you gonna tell us about the locations of your video's Robert. This has to be one of my top 5 CTT interview settings. Thank you! The only agreeable point raised regarding the dream character is "the strategy" aspect. Unraveling the wires and coloured strings from the background to look at as a foreground function, I think sould be articulated with alot more clarity and relevance as real world responses to new patterns.
By way of an analogy, the brain is the violin. The mind is the music, the patterns of mental activity created by the neural networks, that interact with the neural networks; the patterns are self-reinforcing. Like riding a bicycle, mental stability is assured only by our continual movement in reality as the perceptions of reality provide the check points the mind needs to anchor itself in rationality. An inherent mental ability of humans is their ability to hypothesize. What alternatives are possible? What alternatives are more/less desirable. When we are conscious our interactions with reality provide a filter that winnows the alternatives to those most likely. When we are unconscious and dreaming, there is no filter so the mind can be overwhelmed by the alternatives. And the alternative that is selected creates new alternatives.
I think the only scientist Robert hasn't interviewed is Tom Campbell , it would be very interesting to listen to Tom and what Robert might think about 'My Big TOE" Campbell's theory of Consciousness
I like Tom Campbell, but his answer always ends with "it's just data" but he doesn't explain what data is. Anyone can say "consciousness is just ____". Data is a subjective quality that is relative to an observer. Without an observer, you can't call it "information" or "data" - if there is no one to inform. I love his World of Warcraft example, and want him to go deeper into the subject of data, or how you can say a thing has any absolute value independent of an observer since we live in a relative universe.
@@bennyskimCampbell already has gone "deeper into the subject" than you describe. He describes his experiments on accessing the akashic records. That sort of thing is not regarded as proper evidence by the scientific community. But anyone could follow his instructions in methodical way, taking notes etc.
Intriguing idea of a dream character having his/her own mind.... It is intuitively plausible. The last vivid dream I had was about someone I knew 50 years ago and his reaction in my dream seems to fit that theory...
All beings are meant to measure what happens inside the earth and control its function to suit satisfaction of own needs. Appearence of beings on the earth is comparable with the measuring and adjusting devices attached to any chemical reactor. So, just the same way as cooling the thermometer doesn't reduce the temperature it measures in the reactor, our analysing how the bodies of beings function won't help change the defects in the functions of the earth. We must strive to discover the mathematical model of how particle interactions inside the earth (the reactor) develop plants to deliver and sustain beings, to thereafter adjust it to suit our life function, instead of wasting time analyzing bodies of beings (the measuring and regulating tools).
Then how do you explain when someone has a serious brain injury or disease and their personality completely changes? My mother in law developed dementia and I watched her de-evolve into a child who lost her memory.
You didn't hear his argument? His argument was that people feel the person is still there. That the core of the person is there even after brain damage therefore the brain isn't all that's required for mind.... which is an awful argument.
the brain is along for the ride and conditions awareness. just as someone smiling at you conditions your awareness but doesnt turn into it. likewise awareness is not an emergent property observed in any part of your body, nervous system, brain, or particular neural correlate. in fact the multi-decade long, multi-billion mammal brain experimentation, multi-billion dollar research to locate the neural correlate for consciousness ie. the minimal physical structure necessary for base emergent property consciousness failed so amazingly that the lead researcher christof koch is no longer a physicalist stating physicalism requires magical thinking as far as the field knowledge currently stands.
This is because the brain is the ORGAN of the (immaterial) mind. When the organ is affected, the power of consciousness is invariably affected. Because the purpose of the organ is to facilitate the manifestation of the powers of the entity to which it is inextricably bound.
@@Resmith18SR That is yet to be proved. What is already clear is that without the living force, which temporarily dwells not in the brain but in the heart, the whole body,, inclunding the heart, is a lump of dead matter.
I love the dream analogy. I’ve been lucid in many many dreams and it does appear that the dream characters that we interact with do have a mind of their own even though every dream character is connected and directly correlated to one’s own mind. It’s like different aspects of our mind separating and interacting. On that note the idea of “The mind of God” is similar that we are all individual characters that are causality correlated with this one function. Within Gods great dream..
What is incoherent is to extrapolate one's subjective feelings about a subject's "personhood", a word with no formal definition, and conclude that the brain, which has had time to adapt to cortical "thinning", is not one to one with mind. Radiological images tell us very little about microstructure and wiring of brain regions. This argument is just hand waving. We know that brain function is highly adaptable, especially in development, and regions of the brain can take over functions of damaged areas. Moreover, memory and mind are not localized to begin with. If the brain is not one to one with mind, what alternative hypothesis is proffered? Are we back to "spooky stuff"?
I agree with Patrick McNamara but IMO the brain's major role is to operate and control our bodies and it may act as a filter or valve to limit our soul's actual abilities. Is the brain like a receiver that gets input from God?
Yes, one of the primary functions of the brain is to ensure that the sensory data traveling in real time to the (immaterial) conscious personality connected to the brain, does so in a somewhat regulated manner so that the conscious personality is not overwhelmed with data. That may explain the inhibitory modulatory function of certain neurons in a given circuit. God is actually the supreme conscious personality, free from all material influences, who wires together the brain and the conscious personality 🙏.
Another emotional appeal... And, yet again, the "Hey, there are lots of people with incomplete brains that function." Then after that old argument is questioned, he immediately backs off and "visualizes" some kind of mind beyond personhood, self, etc.? And his answer is that there's not a one to one correlation of brain to mind "as far as we can see?" Who is "we" and what is the evidence that allows you to say "as far as we can see?" I don't quite understand this need to have a "nonmaterial mind," but it's clearly a huge deal to a lot of very intelligent people who then make the same general arguments and leave us hungry for some new and compelling evidence for these claims. BTW, I feel pretty confident that the characters in my dreams do not have minds... Speculation is fun and all, but it's pretty clear to me that sometimes I am "out to get me" in my dreams. He jumped the shark there at the end w/ the dream stuff, IMHO.
you seem unaware that there are normal ppl with 120iq born with half a brain, and normal 90iq ppl born with 99% missing brains? thats his argument. pretty basic stuff. youre asserting mind is an emergent property of a thing that doesnt exist. when its liekly the case the thing you think is an emergent property doesnt exist.
I agree with your assessments. To answer your questions about why the nonmaterial mind is necessary is because a material mind is incoherent given that the material is purely physical and mechanical. So if matter is all that truly exists then we end up denying the existence of the mind and all its properties. Now perhaps that's true but it leads to some pretty serious reductios.
@@robertsaget9697 I respectfully disagree... There is no reason that our experience of the activities in our hugely complex and immense brains (more neural connections than there are stars apparently) could not give rise to an operating system that allows us to experience quailia. For instance, what we see is the result of a completely physical process (optic nerve sending signals to the brain) and yet we experience this with incredible fidelity as if we were inside ourselves looking out through windows. That subjective experience of "seeing" is really an interpretive representation of reality, but we still experience it (incorrectly) as "looking out through windows in our heads." I also don't understand why a physical system would be "incoherent." How so? And, I must say that I completely disagree with the frame that that physical systems are reductive as that is all we can observe (one isn't reducing anything if they are merely recording what is experienced)... the assertion that the "non-physical" exists is based primarily in intuitions (philosophical and religious) and, IMO, are a hangover from those essentialist philosophies and religions and don't really have a scientific basis yet (though there may be some evidence of that in the future). Thank you for your thought fully reply. Best to you.
@@christophercousins184 How could qualia or other mental properties arise out of purely mechanical/physical systems? Can you provide an actual explanation or theory and not just correlations?
Mind is not the result of a computation. A computation gives a numerical result that must be observed by a conscious mind for it to have any meaning at all.
Like "consciousness," "mind" must be defined before real progress is made. Otherwise, it's just talk and opinion. Are all "minds" the same or are there levels of "minds"? Do animals have "minds"? Do plants? Do stones? What is required to have the minimum "mind"?
My understanding is that mind is just an another term for agency. So anything that has true agency has a mind. This may well include plants, but not stones.
The term superfluous means that it does not add anything. Consciousness making the brain is a superfluous statement because it does not add anything. There is no way to action upon that framework.
HEART EXPLAINS BRAIN, AS FIRST PUMP CELL UNIFICATION, COLLUDE TO DIVIDE, 3:57 , IS THERE A GRANDER MINDER OF CELL FUNCTION SYMPATHETIC SILVERSKIN LININGS,
What if we took the inside looking out approach. The fabric of reality could be impenetrable. Where moments of lucidity are found, it may not be sufficient to resolve areas of the mind that have lost its place in the world. Self agency for example for elderly or depression, behaviour spikes, maturation etc. Even though it might have been an accidental mental lock in, I want to believe that in the dream you want to practice finding the most versatile signature that will create new thinking patterns. Love does it all the time.
Lucky man! This is rather unusual and quite enviable. Are you of a natural happy/comic disposition in your awake state? I have never had such a dream myself.
Facts, consciousness in general is an emergent phenomenon. This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Guy totally down plays brain injury and Alzheimer’s. I work in healthcare and there is no consciousness without the Brain period.
@@science212 Compute what you like, arrange physical matter how you like. The result cannot be a conscious mind. The result will always be something that can only be understood by a conscious observer.
@@ianwaltham1854 physicalists would simply argue that the understanding conscious mind is a physical state, mistaken as something other. this is called illusionism, the subtlest philosophy of mind underlying metaphysical physicalism. keith frankish is an eloquent proponent of this position unlike his teacher dennett who i really think is sub 60iq. emergence and computation arguments are to be easily dismantled through the absurdity they are.
The brain is the organ of the mind. When the organ is affected the entity to which it is connected will invariably find it difficult to manifest its powers. Take for instance a nerve controlling a muscle. When the muscle is atrophied, there is no muscle to innervate although the innervating entity is still present. It's just an example.
jamenta2 -> *"Psychology lacks empiricism and Carl Jung's psychology was not empirical? It's ludicrous attempting to argue with this level of intellectual ignorance/fundamentalism."* Make up your mind, either it does or it doesn't.
@@johnyharris I wanted to let you know and the rest of the goofball Skeptics psychology is a science. But it's like trying to explain to a 2 year old that storks don't deliver babies.
@@johnyharris use Ur scientific brain , did u ever see something non physical appears for a physical thing .. ! How can science explain the subjective experience of a thought of any human being .. ! He can't , when u people accept that science is indeed limited and it's not the only to come to truths .. that day maybe philosophers can help u with it .
@@billeltot Science is indeed limited but crucially only to an epoch in which it exits. Don't assume you live in the age of total enlightenment, you almost definitely don't. We can't explain the nature of consciousness - yet.
@@johnyharris with the scientific method of today by definition I can't totally explain it no one can .. exactly what's wrong here , u said it Ur self why would I think otherwise as if u already know it's the case , where we already know that the non physical scientifically is incoherent to science , and there is 0 evidence for it to emerge from the physical stuff .. that's a fact yet u didn't like it don't know why .. !!! I'm not assuming ... It's what it is , neither u , u don't know either wether it's indeed the total enlightenment or not , u don't even know wether u gonna someday understand how mind works using this method .. that's an assumption too . Saying that one day we may explain it with a method limited to reading detectible things only seems to me very close minded .
@@billeltot Just as we have zero evidence for consciousness emerging from brain, we have zero evidence for emerging from anything other. You can say it's non-physical but there is no evidence for that either. What we do have are empirical correlations observed in neuroscience. These are not evidence of causation but they do point towards that. The brain is an intensely active organ, what else is it doing other that producing something?
Functionalism explains what the mind is, the brain is the ground for the interactions. The mind-brain identity theory is false but this doesnt make physicalism false.
@@robertsaget9697 no 99% of them are using 1850s physics. 100% of them are untestable. they vary only in variation of interpreting the dogma of their church in which they all belong to.
Mind and consciousness is an emergent phenomena of the physical brain. Karl Popper the philosopher had 3 categories: World 1 which is all entities material world with physical objects. World 2 which is the world of subjective experiences, feelings, emotions, sensations. World 2 emerged from the development of life and in humans it helped the creation of language which created World 3. World 3 is composed of abstract ideas, problems, theories, and arguments. World 3 is the world of Science. Its the ever evolving world of conjectural theories, objective problems and arguments. The World 3 is autonomous and can last longer than their authors and if preserved can be decoded by intelligent beings in the future even if humankind disappears.
Guys absolutely no sense keepe out neuroscience proceeding. He declines How figure out mind formation though neuroscience Standard model step by step. He speaks concern minds are only his opinion impossible an emperism verification.
No it isn't. The conscious mind allows us to think, understand concepts, experience emotion, and constructs an entire world around us. In what way is that a model of the brain?
cool 19th century physics. in real life though we already know that the notion of atoms existing in nature independent of an observer is no longer valid. carry on though. all my 30yo weed gamer bros also think their brains produce thoughts too so its not like youre something utterly boring and repetitive, in addition to using nonexistence physical reality as the basis for your argument. youch.
@@5piles An atom exist independent of an observer. What quantum physics says is an atom is a wave before its observed and behaves like a particle when it is observed.
@@kos-mos1127 no. anton zeilinger "One may be tempted to assume that whenever we ask questions of nature, [...] there is reality existing independently of what can be said about it. We will now claim that such a position is void of any meaning."
@@5piles That quote of Anton Zeilinger is taken out of context. He is saying the laws of physics are not formed independently of the questions being asked. How we frame the problems in physics determine the answers we get from Nature. It’s similar to the saying we seek what we find and we find what we see.
Agreed . For example, "There are people with very little of what constitutes a brain so therefore the brain cannot create the mind". Personal incredulity that something can happen that you don't think is possible is not a strong opening gambit. The brain is incredibly resilient and can re-wire itself to work around issues and the fact that we have a mapping between brain regions and mind functionality show that it does do exactly that. Of course we have found out the mappings as a result of damage to brains over many cases so we cannot map those brains which have developed differently but we have precisely no reason to believe that such a mapping would reveal anything other than which bits of the brain map to which functionality.
@@christophersinger9149 what he fails to mention is these people with brain damage/abnormalities is they have very significant and serious cognitive disabilities. He tried to gloss this over by saying that people close to them feel like the person is still there.
@@christophersinger9149 its also deeply misleading for him to say these people have very little brain. He's talking about conditions like Encephalitis. In fact they have most of a brain its just been compressed in the skull. All the structures are there. but as mentioned they generally have significant or severe mental disabilities.
@@robertsaget9697100% false. There is a case of a guy who happened to have almost literally no brain at all, and still scored 128 on a IQ test, and managed to become a mathematician and a math teacher. Look it up
If, the brain, is fundamental, and brain makes mind, then everything, including everybody, and in everyway, is of the mind, that brain makes - even other peoples brains(including their minds). Where exactly is this place that brain resides, this place that brain is located? And, if everything & everybody, and in everyway, is in mind, and is the mind itself, because of the brain, and all of you in I, and I in all of you, then there must be truly only one mind and brain must then be the illusion. How else then, am I in your head and you in my head? How can there possibly be this level of Unity from a diversity or duality - that being multiple brains, and minds; all unified in one mind, yet what is it and where is this location that allows and causes this unity from an alledged fundamental duality being brain(s). This is why Soul is real. People look at an artwork, you tell them it's the canvas that unifies all the forms, ideas, colors, differences. They call bluff, because they can not see the canvas. Brain and the sense perception organs may or may not make mind, but the construct in mind, from sense consciousness and brain activity does. There would be no Mind of sound had it not been for the ear organ and the faculty of the ear being hearing, and that which the ear sense organ interacts with; there would be no Mind of forms had there not been the eye organ and the faculty of the eye being sight, and that which the eye sense interacts with etc. There would be no Thought or mentation in Mind had it not been for the Intellect... to consider all the different 'minds' (sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, thought) had it(senses) not had contact with the corresponding thing, seemingly outside of itself, for the interaction. Looks like brain makes mind. But are all these things, seemingly without, that the sense perception organs interact with, that being forms, sounds, flavors, odors, tangibles and mentations, that construct and condition the mind, are they too products of that very brain that is the cause of the mind from the start? Remember, if we say brain produces mind, yet we see the mind is conditioned by things seemingly outside of itself - Aporia, predicament, antinomy, paradox. Is not everything then but a figment of the imagination. None of this is real. GOD alone is The Real; the world but an illusion.
they would argue the brain makes your mind and the appearance of others is occurring in your brain/mind. you only create appearances of others you do not create them. others create themselves and their own appearance of you.
I think what the brain does is create an internal informational model of it's own mental state and processes. This model consists of information about our own knowledge, intentions, emotions and such. It's a self referential simulative model, so we can reason about that model recursively. It evolved in part so that we can analyse our own knowledge, attitudes and responses to situations, and come up with strategies to self-modify them, for example identifying new skills we want to learn, or emotional responses we need to better control. So the information processing capabilities of our neurological systems create this model of their own processes, and this is the self we are aware of. So it's a recursive process. We also create a simulative model of the external world from sense data, and this is the world of our experience. It's not the real physical world, it's a mental representation of it created by information processing activity in our brains. We know the world of our experience isn't the real world, because they can diverge, such as when we perceive things that are not there, or differently from the reality, such as hallucinations, optical illusions and such. However we can resolve these discrepancies by testing through action to verify what is real. Note that when we do this it's always our perceptions that proved to be wrong, reality always wins. That's how we know that the external world is real and the world of our perceptions is an illusion. So our mind does create a world, but it is an ephemeral one personal to us.
@@simonhibbs887 brains containing information is mythology. information has a technical definition in science associated with the total entropy of a system. that exists. all this other business about information by which you actually mean semantic information is complete magical thinking. that is not to say there is not a ton of biological mechanisms to be studied but that is a separate thing which is utterly devoid of worshipping a metaphysics and continuously attempting to pray emergent properties that dont exist into existence.
@@5piles Consciousness is a specific phenomenon, and there’s currently certainly scope for disagreement on it. However it’s a fact that the brain processes information in much the way that a computer does. We even build neural network computers based on the neural connections in the brain to process images, music, speech, etc. Now we can even scan the brain to record music the person is listening to and words they are thinking with reasonable accuracy, so clearly that information is there in the brain and being processed. Yet we still see some philosophers say nonsense like denying that the brain can explain things like images in the mind, because this is somehow contrary to physicalism. We obviously now have qualia experiences still to understand, but whatever else is going on in the brain, at this point it’s patently absurd to claim that the brain doesn’t receive and process rich structured information.
@@simonhibbs887 again 'information' having a technical definition in science. images sounds etc do not undergo "processing" and are not "information" of that sort, since there are no blue atoms or music notes molecules to fit the definition of information in science. at best you can describe the information ie. the inverse of the total entropy of a particular system but this does not tell you anything for example about blue, only about the 'information' of the particular neural correlate. hopefully you can see the distinction between mere physical information and semantic information, which has never been observed scientifically but you keep talking as if it has even once.
Good day, Paul. That's an interesting opinion. I'm wondering if you can give an explication of exactly how brains are an idea in mind, without giving verbatim. We're not supposed to just take your word for it are we.
I agree the mind is not a product of the brain. But I will say, mind and personality, are not the same thing. Personality uses mind to function, but all levels of life have mind, but only people have personality. As for "mind," even the lowly slime mold engages in problem solving, which requires some low level mind in order to function, thus mind is not a product of a brain. The brain operates the body on many levels, especially mobility. When our mind gives our body a command, or a directive, it is the brain that carries it out. The brain manages the body electro-chemically as well as hormonally. Within each cell, the nucleus and DNA manage its function.
@@ianwaltham1854 the more we understand about how the brain works, the closer we get to the answer. We’re not there yet, but this lack of knowledge is NOT evidence for your position….but it is your last refuge.
@@todrichards1105 The materialist has faith that there will one day be a materialistic solution to the hard problem of consciousness. Faith is normally associated with religious belief so handwaving definitely exists on behalf of the materialist. Bear in mind the anormity of the task. You must explain how brain activity can be converted into something like the experience of the taste of chocolate or the smell of coffee. Just saying something like "Consciousness emerges from brain activity" or describing some physical activity of the brain then claiming it gives rise to consciousness is not good enough. And of course whatever calculation or algorithm you come up with is always going to give a numerical or logical result for which consciousness is a requirement to understand it. Consciousness as fundamental timeless base reality is a solution to the hard problem of consciousness and how consciousness evolved into existence: It didn't. It was always there. There is of course no proof either way but evidence that brains do not generate consciousness is as follows: 1/ Failure of science to decode brain activity into conscious experience. 2/ Testimony of NDE experiencers and meditators.
@@todrichards1105 the ncc is specifically not findable. also you dont understand how emergent theory functions, otherwise you would understand the implication of saying for example that a specific neural correlate creates the emergent property blue. the problem is physicalism is a standard delusion born naturally in the mind of every 10yo. and then they grow up and use hard-won real science and ruin it with the religion of physicalism
This guy doesn't make sense. Brain 🧠 have remarkable property of plasticity (neural, structural etc). That's a completely physical biological process. That's the scientific reason behind people with Alzheimer's and other injuries still have somewhat functional brain functions.
until extremely recently physicalism was a hard proponent of the brain as a static object. the idiots had to be pulled yelling and screaming into reality.
MIND OF GOD CONSCIOUSNESS Imagination - Process of Pure Creation The process of creation starts with thought - an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone's idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought. This is true of the universe as well. Thought is the first level of creation. Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact. Words are the second level of creation. Next comes action. Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of ALL, the stuff of everything. The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating - or God experienced. Hang on. There's one thing more I have to tell you. You are always seeing what by your terms you would define as the "past," even when you are looking at what is right in front of you. I am? It is impossible to see The Present. The Present "happens," then turns into a burst of light, formed by energy dispersing, and that light reaches your receptors, your eyes, and it takes time for it to do that. All the while the light is reaching you, life is going on, moving forward. The next event is happening while the light from the last event is reaching you. The energy burst reaches your eyes, your receptors send that signal to your brain, which interprets the data and tells you what you are seeing. Yet that is not what is now in front of you at all. It is what you think you are seeing. That is, you are thinking about what you have seen, telling yourself what it is, and deciding what you are going to call it, while what is happening "now" is preceding your process, and awaiting it. To put this simply, I am always one step ahead of you. My God, this is unbelievable. Now listen. The more distance you place between your Self and the physical location of any event, the further into the "past" that event recedes. Place yourself a few light-years back, and what you are looking at happened very, very long ago, indeed. Yet it did not happen "long ago." It is merely physical distance which has created the illusion of "time," and allowed you to experience your Self as being both "here, now" all the while you are being "there, then"! One day you will see that what you call time and space are the same thing. Then you will see that everything is happening right here, right now. This is....this is....wild. I mean, I don't know what to make of all this. When you understand what I have told you, you will understand that nothing you see is real. You are seeing the image of what was once an event, yet even that image, that energy burst, is something you are interpreting. Your personal interpretation of that image is called your image-ination. And you can use your imagination to create anything. Because - and here is the greatest secret of all - your image-ination works both ways. Please? You not only interpret energy, you create it. Imagination is a function of your mind, which is one-third of your three-part being. In your mind you image something, and it begins to take physical form. The longer you image it (and the more OF you who image it), the more physical that form becomes, until the increasing energy you have given it literally bursts into light, flashing an image of itself into what you call your reality. You then "see" the image, and once again decide what it is. Thus, the cycle continues. This is what I have called The Process. This is what YOU ARE. You ARE this Process. This is what I have meant when I have said, you are both the Creator and the Created. I have now brought it all together for you. We are concluding this dialogue, and I have explained to you the mechanics of the universe, the secret of all life. Okay. Now as energy coalesced, it becomes, as I said, very concentrated. But the further one moves from the point of this concentration, the more dissipated the energy becomes. The "air becomes thinner." The aura fades. The energy never completely disappears, because it cannot. It is the stuff of which everything is made. It's All There Is. Yet it can become very, very thin, very subtle - almost "not there." Then, in another place (read that, another part of Itself) it can again coalesce, once more "clumping together" to form what you call matter, and what "looks like" a discreet unit. Now the two units appear separate from each other, and in truth there is no separation at all. This is, in very, very simple and elementary terms, the explanation behind the whole physical universe. Wow. But can it be true? How do I know I haven't just made this all up? Your scientists are already discovering that the building blocks of all of life are the same. They brought back rocks from the moon and found the same stuff they find in trees. They take apart a tree and find the same stuff they find in you. I tell you this: We are all the same stuff. (I and the Father are One Energy) We are the same energy, coalesced, compressed in different ways to create different forms and different matter. Nothing "matters" in and of itself. That is, nothing can become matter all by itself. Jesus said, "Without the Father, I am nothing." The Father of all is pure thought. This is the energy of life. This is what you have chosen to call Absolute Love. This is the God and the Goddess, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. It is the All-in-All, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Source. It is that which you have sought to understand from the beginning of time. The Great Mystery, the Endless Enigma, the Eternal Truth. There is only One of Us, and so, it is THAT WHICH YOU ARE.
as i have been supremely right about past few decades and big umbrellas stil are (psychologies much idiots), recall and review i posted on closer to truth past week, my maine broad and ME have desired this show for many years many years, and theres still the big umbrellas in the expanse
I'd really like to see Bernardo Kastrup being interviewed on this channel. He has some quite interesting takes on the hard problem of consciousness (among others)
No he does not.
@@kos-mos1127 Spoken like a true Dunning-Kruger posterboy.
McNamara rightly points out the separation between cognition and experience, and I wish he went further with the dreaming example. I would say that in the dream - you are both the victim and the assailant. Your mind can only be 1 person in spacetime when it's awake, but can dissolve into many lesser characters in lesser realities when asleep, only because the "accuracy" part of our brain is not awake to correct the record, and continually remind itself that it is only 1 embodied person in a space, during time. The construction of an ego in spacetime is far more useful than just detecting reality based on independent competing signals coming in - we evolved a sense of state, a "source of truth", that's more accurate than all the direct measurements coming in from visuals, audio, random chemistry from food you ate, etc. and it can override signals when they are wrong - that mechanism is conscious (maybe necessarily). It's why an alarm clock is not an alarm clock sound at first when asleep - it could be a voice or music or a horn honking in your sleeping mind - but your accuracy part wakes up and identifies it as an alarm clock. It tells the rest of the brain to calm down, you're not being honked at, and also, time to get up.
We don't remember most of dreaming, we only remember it when that "accuracy" part occasionally comes in to calm false signals to keep us sleeping. Consciousness is intermittent during sleep - sometimes you never wake up while sleeping, when the mind is at ease, but if the mind is producing a lot of false positives - say you're stressed out in life presently and the visual cortex keeps presenting you with falling, then your "accuracy" center comes online to say no it's not really a cliff, to allow you to continue sleeping.
That "accuracy" part (apparently, a function of the prefrontal cortex) somehow is or is closely correlated with conscious experience. The "taste of chocolate" or the "aroma of coffee" or the "feeling of falling" comes about when PFC groups lesser signals coming in from different regions as 1 object - each of which are presumably unconscious on their own. The consciousness is the identification of the signals as an object. The act of making it an object in time results in a conscious snapshot or a "frame" of experience from the perspective of a remembered self. Importantly, in order to know that it is an object of experience, the signals have to match up with something already "on file" in order to correctly identify it. So it takes repetition of signals to learn even how to perceive, and in the first year of life, before anything has been experienced, there is nothing on file to compare incoming signals with, and so consciousness takes a while to start working even in creatures that evolved it, and it becomes richer over time, as more things are experienced. Eventually it becomes so rich that most of what you see isn't really there - you hear an alarm clock, you know you're late, and jump out of bed. At this point you're living in a completely simulated reality that happens to be more useful than the real thing.
certainly there is much biology involved.
but then there are events such as tukdam in taipei 2020 which destroy modern biology and physicalism. you should also be aware that the neural correlates for concentration are known and it is long scientifically established that tibetan monks can remain in perfect single-pointed concentration without impingement by any external stimulus or internal distraction for hours effortlessly. you, 2 seconds on avg, so your opinion of your dream cycle isnt of much value. ppl of the former type can maintain complete lucidity throughout the entire sleep cycle. the ones who can perform tukdam post clinical death have full lucidity over levels of awareness far subtler than deep dreamless sleep, which for someone like you would be something classified as nonexistent.
in other words search tukdam taipei 2020 online and wise up a little, little lab technician.
I wonder if schizophrenia is related to those phenomena during dream states where you can simultaneously be yourself *_and_* invent other characters. They seem real in a dream and, from what I understand, seem real to fully awake schizophrenics.
I've long thought that we evolved A LOT of mental filters that limit how much our brains are 'free' to do and also how much of the sensory inputs get through.
@@mikel5582 Yes I think it's very similar. And it makes me wonder if something like brain extension through technology is really feasible. It's possible that we lose our sense of identity on both ends: Whether the PFC is under-active (as during sleep) or when it's over-active (as during stimulant-induced psychosis, or in schizophrenics). You can apparently dissolve into many selves without enough prefrontal activity, or you can have too many selves with too much activity. There seems to be an ideal operating state at which a pure self arises, where it is optimally individuated from its environment and at peak harmony with the other bodily systems.
That's not to say there aren't other possible brain operating modes that still result in viable selves - brain states we haven't yet tried - even if they're not the most optimal for being a self with an identity, they could still be very useful or interesting experiences.
Combine differently trained PFCs with different sense machinery and who knows what experiences are possible. If a bat's hearing input leads to its visual cortex, the question is whether or not that experience ends up more or less the same as when an eye and optic nerve captures the same image.
My opinion on it is we will find equally more variation in the universe from changing the size, orientation, velocity, and duration scales at which we make observations. It might be that all senses if evolved perfectly inform us of the same reality - and the real interesting stuff only comes out of other dimensions, e.g. on other space and time scales, that we can explore using technology and/or brains tuned in some way, pharmacologically or otherwise.
What is the 'the "accuracy" part of the brain' for a congenitally blind person learning to negotiate daily tasks in their household and dealing with the challenges of living in the wider community? I don't think it is just about accuracy of perceptual representation via sensory organs and brain. As suggested by the work of ecological psychology theorists of perception like J.J. and Eleanor Gibson, attunement to the environment needs to function over the environment's affordances to action by the organism. For the most part, a blind person cannot form an accurate picture of the world without interactively manipulating its surfaces, navigating paths to avoid obstacles to directed action.
They would have to rely heavily on memory of previous encounters, and if things change it is not just a matter of checking sensory perception like sighted people can do. They would have to interact with what is different, and understand how it impedes and enables action. Yet once a blind person, especially if they are not also deaf, acquires language they can develop a conceptual understanding of how the world works. The sighted people they interact with will not consider their conceptualization as essentially different from their own, although it will be considerably less accurate with regards to visible properties. A blind person might "know" that ripe tomatoes are (reportedly) 'red' and (experientially) soft like this and tasty like this, whereas unripe tomatoes are 'green' and feel and taste different. Haptic feedback in fundamentally different from passive perception, it loops through both somato-motor and somato-sensory cortex (and subcortical brain regions) to generate an more-or-less accurate picture of what the environment is like in terms of what it affords for bodily movement, individual action and social interaction.
@@mikel5582 more importantly just as one can develop the ability to become lucid during a dream and no longer remain delusional, likewise lucidity can be built during the waking state. however this will remain impossible for so long as we continue marching in the opposite direction and avoiding developing methods of rigorously observing the object we seek to understand, continuing to persist as mere lab technicians. 1400yrs of lab technicians work was overcome by 1 week of galileo develop a method of rigorously observing the phenomenon he wanted to understand.
This guy is spot on
That was awesome.. two intelligent brains of a different mind.
It's one mind phasing through different brains probably...
Yes, it is valid as far as it goes. It just doesn’t go anywhere.
*"What the mind of dream character? "*
The dream character mind has been simulated by your own mind. Our minds simulate other minds all the time. It's a fundamental function of a healthy mind to be able to do this. It's not surprising we can do it in dream states.
Exactly, IMO, he lost the plot with his dream stuff.
Thats a shallow dive into a deeply complex construction of the dream mind. What do you mean "our minds simulate other minds all the time"? How does it differ from a robot copying what a human dreams? What is happening in the dream to say it is the hallmark of a healthy mind versus a mind that is trapped? How are we certain that the dream character is created by the dreamer alone? And if it's true, what role does dreaming actually have in the world?
@@missh1774 This is an ability evolutionary psychologists call 'theory of mind', it's the ability many animals have to understand that other beings have mental states and reason about those mental states. It's a bit like a computer running a simulation of a character, such as a character in a computer RPG that has knowledge and behaviours tailored to that character. If computers can do it, it seems reasonable brains can do it. Even if you don't think consciousness is computational, it's still pretty obvious the brain does process information.
@@simonhibbs887 thanks. I was gunning for the humans and the peculiar. The thing a designer of robots can envy as unattainable.
When your personal computer crashes, you can no longer browse the internet world but you are still there alive and aware watching the crash....
...likewise. when the brain dies, the conscious soul does not die. However, the conscious soul can no longer use the brain to perceive/manipulate the physical world but is still aware of its self existence...
...it is also your conscious soul who observes dreams when the brain sleeps. Dualism is not just a theory but a proven fact through genuine real experience..
Your life's chance of salvation through faith will soon end, so, have faith before it is too late..
You are very correct 👍. In fact I have been saying so on this forum for quite some time now and commenting frequently that it's the immaterial conscious personality connected to the brain that is the true thinker and feeler of subjective experience, much to the consternation of those fed with materialist ideas. It's an absolute pleasure to finally meet someone who speaks the actual truth 🙏!
It's so funny where mind can go , mind can go so deep it denies itself as the sourse of everything. It can even prioritize matter as all reality rather than itself . Consciousness is everything.
Mind does not go anywhere it is always inside the bran. Matter is what makes up everything.
Mind can also go away. When someone dies, their body still exists. It decays
@@kos-mos1127😂😂
It's nice to think that we are each the central, most important thing in the entire universe that creates all space and time. But suppose we are material beings and the mind and consciousness is a product of the information processing of our neurons. It would fell like you suggest, wouldn't it?
@@simonhibbs887 I laughed at kos-mos reply. Do you think it's an AI bot?
McNamara makes it very clear at 0:35 “I don't think the mind can be reduced to the brain.” Then at 3:31 he declares that there isn’t a “one-to-one correspondence with the computational properties of those neural networks” and “the whole array of mental phenomena we're all familiar with.” There is more to us than the physical body!
And his entire basis for saying that is “I’m not so sure”. It’s essentially an argument from incredulity.
@@KestyJoe not at all, its an argument from the fact no emergent property of consciousness has ever been located in any of the billions of animal brains we've slaughtered. his further argument of the fact that there are ppl with perfect function missing entire critical small correlates, large regions, entire brain hemispheres, and even almost the entire brain, yet can function fully or adequately is just more data against the magical thinking that every 10yo is so prone to ie. "my brain thinks", and to which the church of physicalism continues to attempt to pray into existence.
@@KestyJoe I think that is just the way he expresses himself. He knows what he is saying.
@@gordonquimby8907
I’m not so sure about that 😂
Please can we see an interview with Prof Frank Tipler on omega point cosmology?
Dziękuję ...
I have comedic dreams and often awaken due to laughter, I laugh myself awake. Anyone else have that experience?
Yes, I often laugh at your dreams as well.
When are you gonna tell us about the locations of your video's Robert. This has to be one of my top 5 CTT interview settings. Thank you!
The only agreeable point raised regarding the dream character is "the strategy" aspect. Unraveling the wires and coloured strings from the background to look at as a foreground function, I think sould be articulated with alot more clarity and relevance as real world responses to new patterns.
By way of an analogy, the brain is the violin. The mind is the music, the patterns of mental activity created by the neural networks, that interact with the neural networks; the patterns are self-reinforcing. Like riding a bicycle, mental stability is assured only by our continual movement in reality as the perceptions of reality provide the check points the mind needs to anchor itself in rationality. An inherent mental ability of humans is their ability to hypothesize. What alternatives are possible? What alternatives are more/less desirable. When we are conscious our interactions with reality provide a filter that winnows the alternatives to those most likely. When we are unconscious and dreaming, there is no filter so the mind can be overwhelmed by the alternatives. And the alternative that is selected creates new alternatives.
I think the only scientist Robert hasn't interviewed is Tom Campbell , it would be very interesting to listen to Tom and what Robert might think about 'My Big TOE" Campbell's theory of Consciousness
If Robert ever interviewed Tom Campbell the Materialists would be so triggered their heads would explode.
Tom Campbell believes that consciousness and the brain are correlated, but not reducible to each other.
I like Tom Campbell, but his answer always ends with "it's just data" but he doesn't explain what data is. Anyone can say "consciousness is just ____". Data is a subjective quality that is relative to an observer. Without an observer, you can't call it "information" or "data" - if there is no one to inform. I love his World of Warcraft example, and want him to go deeper into the subject of data, or how you can say a thing has any absolute value independent of an observer since we live in a relative universe.
@@bennyskim Then how did everything get here from nothing?
@@bennyskimCampbell already has gone "deeper into the subject" than you describe.
He describes his experiments on accessing the akashic records.
That sort of thing is not regarded as proper evidence by the scientific community. But anyone could follow his instructions in methodical way, taking notes etc.
Intriguing idea of a dream character having his/her own mind....
It is intuitively plausible. The last vivid dream I had was about someone I knew 50 years ago and his reaction in my dream seems to fit that theory...
I also think that when we understand the brain, something unexplained will be left.
All beings are meant to measure what happens inside the earth and control its function to suit satisfaction of own needs.
Appearence of beings on the earth is comparable with the measuring and adjusting devices attached to any chemical reactor.
So, just the same way as cooling the thermometer doesn't reduce the temperature it measures in the reactor, our analysing how the bodies of beings function won't help change the defects in the functions of the earth.
We must strive to discover the mathematical model of how particle interactions inside the earth (the reactor) develop plants to deliver and sustain beings, to thereafter adjust it to suit our life function, instead of wasting time analyzing bodies of beings (the measuring and regulating tools).
A dream character is my mind like the flowers and any other element in the dream.
Sometimes other body parts do the thinking.
Yes, my Schwantz does all my thinking. 😆
"conscience of an atom"
Yes I'm sure your left buttock is busy contemplating the mysteries of the universe right now.
Then how do you explain when someone has a serious brain injury or disease and their personality completely changes? My mother in law developed dementia and I watched her de-evolve into a child who lost her memory.
It's explained by the fact that our brains are just chemicals and electricity, so you are correct
You didn't hear his argument? His argument was that people feel the person is still there. That the core of the person is there even after brain damage therefore the brain isn't all that's required for mind.... which is an awful argument.
the brain is along for the ride and conditions awareness. just as someone smiling at you conditions your awareness but doesnt turn into it.
likewise awareness is not an emergent property observed in any part of your body, nervous system, brain, or particular neural correlate. in fact the multi-decade long, multi-billion mammal brain experimentation, multi-billion dollar research to locate the neural correlate for consciousness ie. the minimal physical structure necessary for base emergent property consciousness failed so amazingly that the lead researcher christof koch is no longer a physicalist stating physicalism requires magical thinking as far as the field knowledge currently stands.
This is because the brain is the ORGAN of the (immaterial) mind. When the organ is affected, the power of consciousness is invariably affected. Because the purpose of the organ is to facilitate the manifestation of the powers of the entity to which it is inextricably bound.
I heard it but don't buy it.@@robertsaget9697
It is the mind that can explain the brain.
The mind and consciousness cannot exist without a functioning brain.
@@Resmith18SRNDEs suggest it can.
@@Resmith18SR That is yet to be proved. What is already clear is that without the living force, which temporarily dwells not in the brain but in the heart, the whole body,, inclunding the heart, is a lump of dead matter.
Brain is extant with the person. Nature is prior to the person. Can the person transcend brain and Nature?
I love the dream analogy. I’ve been lucid in many many dreams and it does appear that the dream characters that we interact with do have a mind of their own even though every dream character is connected and directly correlated to one’s own mind. It’s like different aspects of our mind separating and interacting. On that note the idea of “The mind of God” is similar that we are all individual characters that are causality correlated with this one function. Within Gods great dream..
The analogy falls apart quick. No matter how powerful a mind is the dream character would no be made of anything upon closer inspection.
The ONE
What is incoherent is to extrapolate one's subjective feelings about a subject's "personhood", a word with no formal definition, and conclude that the brain, which has had time to adapt to cortical "thinning", is not one to one with mind. Radiological images tell us very little about microstructure and wiring of brain regions. This argument is just hand waving. We know that brain function is highly adaptable, especially in development, and regions of the brain can take over functions of damaged areas. Moreover, memory and mind are not localized to begin with. If the brain is not one to one with mind, what alternative hypothesis is proffered? Are we back to "spooky stuff"?
I agree with Patrick McNamara but IMO the brain's major role is to operate and control our bodies and it may act as a filter or valve to limit our soul's actual abilities. Is the brain like a receiver that gets input from God?
Yes, one of the primary functions of the brain is to ensure that the sensory data traveling in real time to the (immaterial) conscious personality connected to the brain, does so in a somewhat regulated manner so that the conscious personality is not overwhelmed with data. That may explain the inhibitory modulatory function of certain neurons in a given circuit.
God is actually the supreme conscious personality, free from all material influences, who wires together the brain and the conscious personality 🙏.
Another emotional appeal... And, yet again, the "Hey, there are lots of people with incomplete brains that function." Then after that old argument is questioned, he immediately backs off and "visualizes" some kind of mind beyond personhood, self, etc.? And his answer is that there's not a one to one correlation of brain to mind "as far as we can see?" Who is "we" and what is the evidence that allows you to say "as far as we can see?"
I don't quite understand this need to have a "nonmaterial mind," but it's clearly a huge deal to a lot of very intelligent people who then make the same general arguments and leave us hungry for some new and compelling evidence for these claims.
BTW, I feel pretty confident that the characters in my dreams do not have minds... Speculation is fun and all, but it's pretty clear to me that sometimes I am "out to get me" in my dreams. He jumped the shark there at the end w/ the dream stuff, IMHO.
nice post
you seem unaware that there are normal ppl with 120iq born with half a brain, and normal 90iq ppl born with 99% missing brains?
thats his argument. pretty basic stuff. youre asserting mind is an emergent property of a thing that doesnt exist. when its liekly the case the thing you think is an emergent property doesnt exist.
I agree with your assessments. To answer your questions about why the nonmaterial mind is necessary is because a material mind is incoherent given that the material is purely physical and mechanical. So if matter is all that truly exists then we end up denying the existence of the mind and all its properties. Now perhaps that's true but it leads to some pretty serious reductios.
@@robertsaget9697 I respectfully disagree... There is no reason that our experience of the activities in our hugely complex and immense brains (more neural connections than there are stars apparently) could not give rise to an operating system that allows us to experience quailia. For instance, what we see is the result of a completely physical process (optic nerve sending signals to the brain) and yet we experience this with incredible fidelity as if we were inside ourselves looking out through windows. That subjective experience of "seeing" is really an interpretive representation of reality, but we still experience it (incorrectly) as "looking out through windows in our heads."
I also don't understand why a physical system would be "incoherent." How so?
And, I must say that I completely disagree with the frame that that physical systems are reductive as that is all we can observe (one isn't reducing anything if they are merely recording what is experienced)... the assertion that the "non-physical" exists is based primarily in intuitions (philosophical and religious) and, IMO, are a hangover from those essentialist philosophies and religions and don't really have a scientific basis yet (though there may be some evidence of that in the future).
Thank you for your thought fully reply. Best to you.
@@christophercousins184
How could qualia or other mental properties arise out of purely mechanical/physical systems? Can you provide an actual explanation or theory and not just correlations?
Mind is computational process in human brain.
Mind is not the result of a computation. A computation gives a numerical result that must be observed by a conscious mind for it to have any meaning at all.
@@ianwaltham1854you are presupposing that computation is simply quantitative but not also qualitative.
How does a computation result in subjective experience? Magic? Is my pocket calculator having a subjective experience when I add two numbers on it?
Mind and meaning is computation. It is just a kind of functional organization. It's digital, not phenomenology. @@ianwaltham1854
Read Philip Johnson Laird. @@ianwaltham1854
By functional activity.
Very easy.
Like "consciousness," "mind" must be defined before real progress is made. Otherwise, it's just talk and opinion. Are all "minds" the same or are there levels of "minds"? Do animals have "minds"? Do plants? Do stones? What is required to have the minimum "mind"?
The hell you trying to say
@@S3RAVA3LM English your first language??
@@georgegrubbs2966 stupid your God?
My understanding is that mind is just an another term for agency. So anything that has true agency has a mind. This may well include plants, but not stones.
@@johnyharris Well, we do not have an "official" definition of "mind" and that is a big problem.
"How Brain Makes Mind" is a statement not a question, the question mark is superfluous.
The term superfluous means that it does not add anything. Consciousness making the brain is a superfluous statement because it does not add anything. There is no way to action upon that framework.
HEART EXPLAINS BRAIN, AS FIRST PUMP CELL UNIFICATION, COLLUDE TO DIVIDE, 3:57 , IS THERE A GRANDER MINDER OF CELL FUNCTION SYMPATHETIC SILVERSKIN LININGS,
Mind is an advanced destiny coherent field .
This just means that the brain is a lot more redundant than expected.
The brain itself is not redundant it is not optimized.
What if we took the inside looking out approach. The fabric of reality could be impenetrable. Where moments of lucidity are found, it may not be sufficient to resolve areas of the mind that have lost its place in the world. Self agency for example for elderly or depression, behaviour spikes, maturation etc. Even though it might have been an accidental mental lock in, I want to believe that in the dream you want to practice finding the most versatile signature that will create new thinking patterns. Love does it all the time.
Lucky man! This is rather unusual and quite enviable. Are you of a natural happy/comic disposition in your awake state?
I have never had such a dream myself.
Mind is an emergent property of the brain
Facts, consciousness in general is an emergent phenomenon. This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Guy totally down plays brain injury and Alzheimer’s. I work in healthcare and there is no consciousness without the Brain period.
Emergence is a concept of mind so cannot be its cause.
No emergent.
Just computation.
@@science212 Compute what you like, arrange physical matter how you like.
The result cannot be a conscious mind. The result will always be something that can only be understood by a conscious observer.
@@ianwaltham1854 physicalists would simply argue that the understanding conscious mind is a physical state, mistaken as something other. this is called illusionism, the subtlest philosophy of mind underlying metaphysical physicalism. keith frankish is an eloquent proponent of this position unlike his teacher dennett who i really think is sub 60iq.
emergence and computation arguments are to be easily dismantled through the absurdity they are.
When the brain is damaged the personality changes. This is documented.
The brain is the mind
The brain is not the mind, it is the filter of the mind. The brain is a dam and the spirit is the water.
Damaged brain causes difficulty and confusion for the conscious mind which still exists despite the damage.
The brain is the organ of the mind. When the organ is affected the entity to which it is connected will invariably find it difficult to manifest its powers. Take for instance a nerve controlling a muscle. When the muscle is atrophied, there is no muscle to innervate although the innervating entity is still present. It's just an example.
@@Arunava_Gupta Very good analogy, friend. I completely agree.
@@ghostgate82 Thank you 🙏.
Psychology is a science, and does use empirical methods.
jamenta2 -> *"Psychology lacks empiricism and Carl Jung's psychology was not empirical? It's ludicrous attempting to argue with this level of intellectual ignorance/fundamentalism."*
Make up your mind, either it does or it doesn't.
@@johnyharris I wanted to let you know and the rest of the goofball Skeptics psychology is a science. But it's like trying to explain to a 2 year old that storks don't deliver babies.
The brain works for survival while you're alive. Once dead, Nature casts you aside like an empty husk.
Thats funny 🤣
Reading these comments make my head spin , are there still people think that mind can be reduced to brain .. !!!
What!? Why on earth would you think otherwise?
@@johnyharris use Ur scientific brain , did u ever see something non physical appears for a physical thing .. !
How can science explain the subjective experience of a thought of any human being .. ! He can't , when u people accept that science is indeed limited and it's not the only to come to truths .. that day maybe philosophers can help u with it .
@@billeltot Science is indeed limited but crucially only to an epoch in which it exits. Don't assume you live in the age of total enlightenment, you almost definitely don't. We can't explain the nature of consciousness - yet.
@@johnyharris with the scientific method of today by definition I can't totally explain it no one can .. exactly what's wrong here , u said it Ur self why would I think otherwise as if u already know it's the case , where we already know that the non physical scientifically is incoherent to science , and there is 0 evidence for it to emerge from the physical stuff .. that's a fact yet u didn't like it don't know why .. !!!
I'm not assuming ... It's what it is , neither u , u don't know either wether it's indeed the total enlightenment or not , u don't even know wether u gonna someday understand how mind works using this method .. that's an assumption too .
Saying that one day we may explain it with a method limited to reading detectible things only seems to me very close minded .
@@billeltot Just as we have zero evidence for consciousness emerging from brain, we have zero evidence for emerging from anything other. You can say it's non-physical but there is no evidence for that either. What we do have are empirical correlations observed in neuroscience. These are not evidence of causation but they do point towards that. The brain is an intensely active organ, what else is it doing other that producing something?
Functionalism explains what the mind is, the brain is the ground for the interactions. The mind-brain identity theory is false but this doesnt make physicalism false.
Does the mind actually exist on a Functionalist account? If so what is the mind's ontological status on a Functionalist's account?
@@robertsaget9697 functionalism is just a type of physicalism. its a meaningless distinction.
@@5piles
Physicalist accounts can differ dramatically. Especially because what is "physical" is ambiguous.
@@robertsaget9697 no 99% of them are using 1850s physics. 100% of them are untestable. they vary only in variation of interpreting the dogma of their church in which they all belong to.
Mind and consciousness is an emergent phenomena of the physical brain. Karl Popper the philosopher had 3 categories: World 1 which is all entities material world with physical objects. World 2 which is the world of subjective experiences, feelings, emotions, sensations. World 2 emerged from the development of life and in humans it helped the creation of language which created World 3. World 3 is composed of abstract ideas, problems, theories, and arguments. World 3 is the world of Science. Its the ever evolving world of conjectural theories, objective problems and arguments. The World 3 is autonomous and can last longer than their authors and if preserved can be decoded by intelligent beings in the future even if humankind disappears.
Guys absolutely no sense keepe out neuroscience proceeding. He declines How figure out mind formation though neuroscience Standard model step by step. He speaks concern minds are only his opinion impossible an emperism verification.
The mind is a model of the brain.
No it isn't. The conscious mind allows us to think, understand concepts, experience emotion, and constructs an entire world around us. In what way is that a model of the brain?
cool 19th century physics.
in real life though we already know that the notion of atoms existing in nature independent of an observer is no longer valid. carry on though. all my 30yo weed gamer bros also think their brains produce thoughts too so its not like youre something utterly boring and repetitive, in addition to using nonexistence physical reality as the basis for your argument. youch.
@@5piles An atom exist independent of an observer. What quantum physics says is an atom is a wave before its observed and behaves like a particle when it is observed.
@@kos-mos1127 no.
anton zeilinger "One may be tempted to assume that whenever we ask questions of nature, [...] there is reality existing independently of what can be said about it. We will now claim that such a position is void of any meaning."
@@5piles That quote of Anton Zeilinger is taken out of context. He is saying the laws of physics are not formed independently of the questions being asked. How we frame the problems in physics determine the answers we get from Nature. It’s similar to the saying we seek what we find and
we find what we see.
Por el sonido de la voz parece que tuviera el brain en los intestinos
Every brain in nature is a computer. ( by natural selection).
But human brain is a conscious computer.
No, animals are conscious as well, any dog owner could tell you that.
Animals are not conscious.
PETA, Peter Singer, Roger Fouts, Frans de Wall and Jane Goodall are wrong. @@ianwaltham1854
This guy has terrible arguments and conclusions.
Agreed . For example, "There are people with very little of what constitutes a brain so therefore the brain cannot create the mind". Personal incredulity that something can happen that you don't think is possible is not a strong opening gambit. The brain is incredibly resilient and can re-wire itself to work around issues and the fact that we have a mapping between brain regions and mind functionality show that it does do exactly that. Of course we have found out the mappings as a result of damage to brains over many cases so we cannot map those brains which have developed differently but we have precisely no reason to believe that such a mapping would reveal anything other than which bits of the brain map to which functionality.
@@christophersinger9149McNamara said brains ARE necassary for mind.
@@christophersinger9149
what he fails to mention is these people with brain damage/abnormalities is they have very significant and serious cognitive disabilities. He tried to gloss this over by saying that people close to them feel like the person is still there.
@@christophersinger9149
its also deeply misleading for him to say these people have very little brain. He's talking about conditions like Encephalitis. In fact they have most of a brain its just been compressed in the skull. All the structures are there. but as mentioned they generally have significant or severe mental disabilities.
@@robertsaget9697100% false. There is a case of a guy who happened to have almost literally no brain at all, and still scored 128 on a IQ test, and managed to become a mathematician and a math teacher. Look it up
Mind is only different than the brain of my as
If, the brain, is fundamental, and brain makes mind, then everything, including everybody, and in everyway, is of the mind, that brain makes - even other peoples brains(including their minds). Where exactly is this place that brain resides, this place that brain is located?
And, if everything & everybody, and in everyway, is in mind, and is the mind itself, because of the brain, and all of you in I, and I in all of you, then there must be truly only one mind and brain must then be the illusion. How else then, am I in your head and you in my head? How can there possibly be this level of Unity from a diversity or duality - that being multiple brains, and minds; all unified in one mind, yet what is it and where is this location that allows and causes this unity from an alledged fundamental duality being brain(s).
This is why Soul is real.
People look at an artwork, you tell them it's the canvas that unifies all the forms, ideas, colors, differences. They call bluff, because they can not see the canvas.
Brain and the sense perception organs may or may not make mind, but the construct in mind, from sense consciousness and brain activity does. There would be no Mind of sound had it not been for the ear organ and the faculty of the ear being hearing, and that which the ear sense organ interacts with; there would be no Mind of forms had there not been the eye organ and the faculty of the eye being sight, and that which the eye sense interacts with etc. There would be no Thought or mentation in Mind had it not been for the Intellect... to consider all the different 'minds' (sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, thought) had it(senses) not had contact with the corresponding thing, seemingly outside of itself, for the interaction.
Looks like brain makes mind.
But are all these things, seemingly without, that the sense perception organs interact with, that being forms, sounds, flavors, odors, tangibles and mentations, that construct and condition the mind, are they too products of that very brain that is the cause of the mind from the start?
Remember, if we say brain produces mind, yet we see the mind is conditioned by things seemingly outside of itself - Aporia, predicament, antinomy, paradox.
Is not everything then but a figment of the imagination.
None of this is real.
GOD alone is The Real; the world but an illusion.
they would argue the brain makes your mind and the appearance of others is occurring in your brain/mind. you only create appearances of others you do not create them. others create themselves and their own appearance of you.
I think what the brain does is create an internal informational model of it's own mental state and processes. This model consists of information about our own knowledge, intentions, emotions and such. It's a self referential simulative model, so we can reason about that model recursively. It evolved in part so that we can analyse our own knowledge, attitudes and responses to situations, and come up with strategies to self-modify them, for example identifying new skills we want to learn, or emotional responses we need to better control. So the information processing capabilities of our neurological systems create this model of their own processes, and this is the self we are aware of. So it's a recursive process.
We also create a simulative model of the external world from sense data, and this is the world of our experience. It's not the real physical world, it's a mental representation of it created by information processing activity in our brains. We know the world of our experience isn't the real world, because they can diverge, such as when we perceive things that are not there, or differently from the reality, such as hallucinations, optical illusions and such. However we can resolve these discrepancies by testing through action to verify what is real. Note that when we do this it's always our perceptions that proved to be wrong, reality always wins. That's how we know that the external world is real and the world of our perceptions is an illusion. So our mind does create a world, but it is an ephemeral one personal to us.
@@simonhibbs887 brains containing information is mythology. information has a technical definition in science associated with the total entropy of a system. that exists. all this other business about information by which you actually mean semantic information is complete magical thinking.
that is not to say there is not a ton of biological mechanisms to be studied but that is a separate thing which is utterly devoid of worshipping a metaphysics and continuously attempting to pray emergent properties that dont exist into existence.
@@5piles Consciousness is a specific phenomenon, and there’s currently certainly scope for disagreement on it.
However it’s a fact that the brain processes information in much the way that a computer does. We even build neural network computers based on the neural connections in the brain to process images, music, speech, etc.
Now we can even scan the brain to record music the person is listening to and words they are thinking with reasonable accuracy, so clearly that information is there in the brain and being processed. Yet we still see some philosophers say nonsense like denying that the brain can explain things like images in the mind, because this is somehow contrary to physicalism.
We obviously now have qualia experiences still to understand, but whatever else is going on in the brain, at this point it’s patently absurd to claim that the brain doesn’t receive and process rich structured information.
@@simonhibbs887 again 'information' having a technical definition in science. images sounds etc do not undergo "processing" and are not "information" of that sort, since there are no blue atoms or music notes molecules to fit the definition of information in science. at best you can describe the information ie. the inverse of the total entropy of a particular system but this does not tell you anything for example about blue, only about the 'information' of the particular neural correlate. hopefully you can see the distinction between mere physical information and semantic information, which has never been observed scientifically but you keep talking as if it has even once.
Brains are ideas. Minds make brains. RLK seems afraid to interview anyone who understands this.
There's no evidence of that whatsoever.
You have it backwards. Brains are real. Minds are ideas.
Because he’s not into ridiculous fantasies. He tries to at least maintain some tether to scientific evidence.
I agree, brain is a concept. External to our conscious minds its just a lump of matter that isn't separate from anything else.
Good day, Paul.
That's an interesting opinion. I'm wondering if you can give an explication of exactly how brains are an idea in mind, without giving verbatim. We're not supposed to just take your word for it are we.
Give me a second
I agree the mind is not a product of the brain.
But I will say, mind and personality, are not the same thing. Personality uses mind to function, but all levels of life have mind, but only people have personality.
As for "mind," even the lowly slime mold engages in problem solving, which requires some low level mind in order to function, thus mind is not a product of a brain. The brain operates the body on many levels, especially mobility. When our mind gives our body a command, or a directive, it is the brain that carries it out. The brain manages the body electro-chemically as well as hormonally. Within each cell, the nucleus and DNA manage its function.
Ok, so mind arises from….magic?
No, no, wait…mind arises from….hand-wavy goof-ball nay-saying empty-headed nothingness.
Much handwaving occurs when materialists try to explain how brain activity could create conscious experience.
@@ianwaltham1854 the more we understand about how the brain works, the closer we get to the answer. We’re not there yet, but this lack of knowledge is NOT evidence for your position….but it is your last refuge.
@@todrichards1105 The materialist has faith that there will one day be a materialistic solution to the hard problem of consciousness. Faith is normally associated with religious belief so handwaving definitely exists on behalf of the materialist.
Bear in mind the anormity of the task. You must explain how brain activity can be converted into something like the experience of the taste of chocolate or the smell of coffee. Just saying something like "Consciousness emerges from brain activity" or describing some physical activity of the brain then claiming it gives rise to consciousness is not good enough. And of course whatever calculation or algorithm you come up with is always going to give a numerical or logical result for which consciousness is a requirement to understand it.
Consciousness as fundamental timeless base reality is a solution to the hard problem of consciousness and how consciousness evolved into existence: It didn't. It was always there.
There is of course no proof either way but evidence that brains do not generate consciousness is as follows:
1/ Failure of science to decode brain activity into conscious experience.
2/ Testimony of NDE experiencers and meditators.
@@todrichards1105 the ncc is specifically not findable. also you dont understand how emergent theory functions, otherwise you would understand the implication of saying for example that a specific neural correlate creates the emergent property blue.
the problem is physicalism is a standard delusion born naturally in the mind of every 10yo.
and then they grow up and use hard-won real science and ruin it with the religion of physicalism
This guy doesn't make sense.
Brain 🧠 have remarkable property of plasticity (neural, structural etc). That's a completely physical biological process. That's the scientific reason behind people with Alzheimer's and other injuries still have somewhat functional brain functions.
until extremely recently physicalism was a hard proponent of the brain as a static object.
the idiots had to be pulled yelling and screaming into reality.
Mind is prerequisite for brain. Brain is a creation of mind
MIND OF GOD CONSCIOUSNESS
Imagination - Process of Pure Creation
The process of creation starts with thought
- an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone's idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought.
This is true of the universe as well.
Thought is the first level of creation.
Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact.
Words are the second level of creation.
Next comes action.
Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of ALL, the stuff of everything.
The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating - or God experienced.
Hang on. There's one thing more I have to tell you. You are always seeing what by your terms you would define as the "past," even when you are looking at what is right in front of you.
I am?
It is impossible to see The Present. The Present "happens," then turns into a burst of light, formed by energy dispersing, and that light reaches your receptors, your eyes, and it takes time for it to do that.
All the while the light is reaching you, life is going on, moving forward. The next event is happening while the light from the last event is reaching you.
The energy burst reaches your eyes, your receptors send that signal to your brain, which interprets the data and tells you what you are seeing. Yet that is not what is now in front of you at all. It is what you think you are seeing. That is, you are thinking about what you have seen, telling yourself what it is, and deciding what you are going to call it, while what is happening "now" is preceding your process, and awaiting it.
To put this simply, I am always one step ahead of you.
My God, this is unbelievable.
Now listen. The more distance you place between your Self and the physical location of any event, the further into the "past" that event recedes. Place yourself a few light-years back, and what you are looking at happened very, very long ago, indeed.
Yet it did not happen "long ago." It is merely physical distance which has created the illusion of "time," and allowed you to experience your Self as being both "here, now" all the while you are being "there, then"!
One day you will see that what you call time and space are the same thing.
Then you will see that everything is happening right here, right now.
This is....this is....wild. I mean, I don't know what to make of all this.
When you understand what I have told you, you will understand that nothing you see is real. You are seeing the image of what was once an event, yet even that image, that energy burst, is something you are interpreting. Your personal interpretation of that image is called your image-ination.
And you can use your imagination to create anything. Because - and here is the greatest secret of all - your image-ination works both ways.
Please?
You not only interpret energy, you create it. Imagination is a function of your mind, which is one-third of your three-part being. In your mind you image something, and it begins to take physical form. The longer you image it (and the more OF you who image it), the more physical that form becomes, until the increasing energy you have given it literally bursts into light, flashing an image of itself into what you call your reality.
You then "see" the image, and once again decide what it is. Thus, the cycle continues. This is what I have called The Process.
This is what YOU ARE. You ARE this Process.
This is what I have meant when I have said, you are both the Creator and the Created.
I have now brought it all together for you. We are concluding this dialogue, and I have explained to you the mechanics of the universe, the secret of all life.
Okay.
Now as energy coalesced, it becomes, as I said, very concentrated. But the further one moves from the point of this concentration, the more dissipated the energy becomes. The "air becomes thinner." The aura fades. The energy never completely disappears, because it cannot. It is the stuff of which everything is made. It's All There Is. Yet it can become very, very thin, very subtle - almost "not there."
Then, in another place (read that, another part of Itself) it can again coalesce, once more "clumping together" to form what you call matter, and what "looks like" a discreet unit. Now the two units appear separate from each other, and in truth there is no separation at all.
This is, in very, very simple and elementary terms, the explanation behind the whole physical universe.
Wow. But can it be true? How do I know I haven't just made this all up?
Your scientists are already discovering that the building blocks of all of life are the same.
They brought back rocks from the moon and found the same stuff they find in trees. They take apart a tree and find the same stuff they find in you.
I tell you this: We are all the same stuff. (I and the Father are One Energy)
We are the same energy, coalesced, compressed in different ways to create different forms and different matter.
Nothing "matters" in and of itself. That is, nothing can become matter all by itself. Jesus said, "Without the Father, I am nothing." The Father of all is pure thought. This is the energy of life. This is what you have chosen to call Absolute Love.
This is the God and the Goddess, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. It is the All-in-All, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Source. It is that which you have sought to understand from the beginning of time. The Great Mystery, the Endless Enigma, the Eternal Truth.
There is only One of Us, and so, it is THAT WHICH YOU ARE.
WOO WOO all aboard the Woo Woo train.
as i have been supremely right about past few decades and big umbrellas stil are (psychologies much idiots), recall and review i posted on closer to truth past week, my maine broad and ME have desired this show for many years many years, and theres still the big umbrellas in the expanse