The fact that the self is an illusion has been known for thousands of years. Siddhartha Gautama, for one, made that abundantly clear in his teachings. Though it's not so easy to fully realize that truth, understanding how it is true is incredibly liberating. That can be done with some study and some open-minded observation of how your own mind works.
Imagine a world centuries from ours now in which the process of information gathering from the reality and recognition to past experiences is also matched to an evolved form of the internet, where the knowledge of all of the humans ever to have lived is readily available to your being at a moments notice, with an invisible interface much like our own, evolutionary selves has created. The possibilities of such biotechnologies is fascinating, as well as plausible.
I saw Metzinger at my university a couple of weeks ago, I can assure you that referring to Aristotle, etc. is intended as a sublime joke. He also called his research on out-of-body experiences a CLM, "does anyone know what a CLM is? A carrier-limiting move". Great guy! Doesn't entirely enjoy giving autographs though it seems :S
Referring to Aristotle as one of his "colleagues" is indeed humorous, but the message is rather serious I believe. He is basically saying that even more than 2000 years ago without any empirical knowledge on the subject of self, people already had the idea that the self does not exist as a substance, it dies with the body. Which is astonishing to say the least.
He starts by saying "self" is not a thing, it's a process; so I was afraid he wouldn't have a point, since, well, most "things" turn out to be processes. But I think he makes things clear by the point he says "you see a podium, not a model of a podium." It's easy to think "hmm I see light from a screen which is showing a podium..." but not easy to think "I seed a model which my brain is making"! Because the model is part of "me". And the difficulty drawing a line between "me" and introspecively available stuff (or subconscious and therefore not introspectively available stuff) comes from the fictional nature of the self.
to all the critics below....for gods sake this is a short public talk...give the guy a break....if you want supporting detail for this talk read his thesis ""Being No-one""...but take your time...I have been reading it for seven years.
The realization that the perceived self is non existent or just a product of the environment leads you to call into question its motives. Emotion is how the ego connects to the world. Anxiety, fear, and especially concerning others impressions of you. The ego is I everything else is other. Its the biggest road block a person faces when trying to improve. The ego hates change. In drug rehab the counselor tells the people to stay away from the people, places, and things connected to the addiction. The ego is nothing but a reflection of a persons people, places, and things. Its only an issue if the person is ruled by it by feeding it, its food is attention.
I don't have a self, but myself just told me that , no I think myself told my myself that I think is myself is myself but I am not sure myself that myself knows I have a self..........Thanks for the great talk Thomas. Learned a lot.
This is an editing mistake, and absolutely NOT the camera person's fault. In the beginning, there were other camera angles that captured the slides, however, whoever edited the video just stopped including those after the first experiment. The camera person's job is to hold one specific angle at all times, but the editor is in charge of managing all the different angles to create an inclusive and comprehensible package. Also note, it could have been a technical issues i.e. the other angle camera malfunctioned or they lost the footage.
All of what he is saying is due to empathy neurons, just because the identity can be displaced, does not mean that the true self is illusionary. The true self is in the quiet of the mind, no matter how many personalities, or dysfunctions there may be.
For me, these were all perfect examples of a "unit of consciousness" operating through a "virtual body," or a virtual "biological avatar," so to speak. So in this interpretation of the data, it's not the self that doesn't exist, it's the body (and everything else in the material universe) that doesn't exist - at least from the superset perspective, or the macro-level of the Infinite Field of Consciousness (to borrow a phrase from Gary Weber). Cheers.
Fascinating. I would not say that the ego doesn't exist: if it is made by the mind, it is a subjective fact, not necessarily always correlated with the body, which is also a subjective fact made by our perception.
Who is "WE" that are "unaware of the medium through which information reaches us"? That remains unanswered, but I commend Dr. Metzinger for cogently explaining how 'WE" as we think we are, i.e. our image of ourselves, is just an illusion.
If you want to watch him presenting the same stuff but with visible slides, check out his TEDxBarcelona talk titled The Transparent Avatar in Your Brain.
In the third experiment, it is the robot hand that inspired him to make a whole body. That is a virtual body. In that experiment, he let a person to wear a googles, in which there is a 3D recorder inserted. So while the person is stroked in the back, he can see the imagine of his back. The feel of that imagine is 2 meters in front of him. After a certain times, he feels to jump into the avatar, that means he identities that figure, like transfer his ‘self’ to that avatar. Another unconscious measure is if you blind that person and pull him back, when you ask him to go back to where he was standing, he always go back to the place between the avatar and their physical body.
Yet the idea that self is a process does not deny it existence, if I divide the universe into things that exist vs. illusions via processes, what can I toss purely on the former?
don't have a self, but myself just told me that , no I think myself told my myself that I think is myself is myself but I am not sure myself that myself knows I have a self..........Thanks for the great talk Thomas. Learned a lot.
Sometimes I really don’t understand the importance of such knowledge which doesn’t add anything to human mankind. So there is no self thing ? And what if I agree or disagree with this? I will stay say this “I am happy”. “ I am proud of myself” do you want me to stop it ? What if I don’t?
Wow! Amazing talk - a complex idea beautifully explained. This will give me something to think about, but wait, hasn’t he just explained that there is no “me”?
i realise this comment is 8 years old, but no he didnt say there is no me, more that what you perceive as "me" is an illusion created by the mechanisms of your consciousness
@fergusruston because Aristotle, Spinoza and himself are all philosophers. You can argue that because he calls them his colleagues, he is giving them "life" and, in a sense, suggesting that their ideas are not outdated and still applicable to the modern society hundreds of years after their deaths.
I really wish the slides were included..I noticed the rubber hand effect when I let my girlfriend borrow my pajamas. I'm used to seeing the pajama pants pattern when I look down at myself and when you're all coiled up together, whose limbs are where is a bit mixed up and I swear it felt like my foot moved when she moved her foot. 😯
i lost my sense of smell about 25yr ago, due to a cranial operation i recieved after a RTA. i have had dreams where i can smell and the moment i wake up there is about 2 or 3 seconds where i am physically experiencing the aroma through my nose. dont know if that means anything, but the second point you made made me think of it x
“... why then thinking that you believe you have a thinking given you the feeling it´s you and not your brain?” It does my mental processes no good - serves no purpose - for them to know the deep details of how they work. They work with or without that knowledge (interesting though it might be). I can, of course, confuse fleeting thoughts with “me” and think that I AM those thoughts or that at least they largely define my essence. That's an unwarranted conclusion - an illusion, one might say.
Interesting, so who/what is the observer that is looking through the window, and that is tricked into constructing this transparent self ?
8 лет назад+7
+Xananta As long as you keep asking about who (which is an object/entity/identification = self) is looking through the window, you'll end up with no answer. You ask such a question because the concept of self clouds you so heavily.
8 лет назад+8
+Xananta The mind is the process, a non-stop stream. Imagine a river, examine those portions of water that flow through the river, one after the other. The one that goes after the other would see the previous. But is it the river seeing itself? Is a passed portion of water (which reached the sea and vanished) the river? Is the yet-to-pass portion of water (which may be still in the sky as clouds) the river? Those portions of water can't see the river, they can only see other portions of water. The same for the so-called 'observer'. As long as you cling to such identification, you'll never see the river.
The only way to answer this, the one which doesn't create more questions than answers, is that the who/what is the process of looking itself, as a whole. Because it is reliable, stable, and integrates information on many different levels "hearing, seeing, feeling, even thoughts etc" into a simultaneous and coherent stream, it strongly appears as a unity, as one-ness. But the unity is nothing that can appear, let alone exist on its own, without being actively sustained by the brain. One could say that from that perspective, in total unconsciousness, like in dreamless sleep phase the who or what disappears, because the whole observation process disappears, and when consciousness reemerges, the brain is able to connect old memory to the now reestablished process and hence restores the unity or one-ness.
I appreciate your presentation DR. Don't you thing that it's not just about the memory of the phantom limb. Maybe she's just experiencing Imitation. She lives surround of bodies and seeing them since she's a baby so she reproduce it. Don't misunderstand me, Soul for me is the basis of who we are...energy is what we are...but we reproduce things with inconsciousness.
Maybe it's completely irrelevant if it's true or whatever or maybe it may brings us a broader possibility to shape the idea of self by making it more flexible and consistent with what we like
Great talk, but isn't this just the Cartesian theatre all over again? Perhaps in his books he explains why his view doesn't fall prey to the objections lobbed at the Cartesian theatre, or how his view is not to be confused with the Cartesian theatre.
Thinking about how many implications and consequences bring this integrated theory that contains not only ideas but also evidence brought by what for many are just new discoveries in many fields; neuro-motor disorders and mental diseases that have to be redefined, a new way of educating people (even for AI), etc. "The Ghost in your genes" video has an increased importance and it seems that changing the pattern of our minds could solve a lot of problems. Universe scientific definition...
Considering how small of an idea this is, there will never be a way to put it into words before it becomes a more far known idea. There is no other way to put this into context through language than referring to the illusion itself.
This proves perhaps, the root of empathy. Perhaps Margaret Thatcher fundamentally misunderstood the question of society in that she said it didn't exist. Or perhaps she was only half right. It also explains why dramatic literature, film and theatre work...religion too as the ultimate representation.
@@zotriczaoh7098 Watched the whole enchilada unravel in America. Really a tragic roller coaster since the 70's, for both the UK and US. It's now descended into a hysterical farce. Hope and pray we haven't gone too far also. Still many good people out there; but my fear is history, when it tips, takes the good with the bad. CHEERS!
Perhaps he was saying great things, but I was entirely unable to focus on it as I was steamed that I couldn't see the visuals that were going along with his talk. My inner voice kept shouting at the video to let me see what everyone else is looking at.
I think I'm finally starting to get it, feeling disturbed and awed at the same time. But since I'm just a representation within a representation, both arising from processes that are integrating data and transparently constructing a coherent "reality" too fast to comprehend, it's no biggie right? Right?!?!!
I have been looking into the concept of the 'self' from a few angles and have formed my own understanding of what is going on inside the brain and what is being talked about by People like Dr Metzinger and people within the 'enlightenment' movement based on Eastern philosophies. My understanding is by no means complete but I have managed to form a working understanding of what is being discussed,examined.Still plenty to get straight/figure out.
Al Sunshine The great spiritual leaders have described enlightenment as an eternal bliss consciousness state! I am interested in your opinions concerning the concept of enlightenment.
My opinion is that words such as enlightenment and bliss need to clarified before they can be discussed.What is 'enlightenment'? What is 'bliss'? Would being in a state of bliss 24/7 be desirable if it was Possible? If there is enlightenment what is the practical value of it? What is the purpose of seeking enlightenment? Can it be used to get more pussy, to boost my bank balance or increase my social standing? Thoughts have a tendency to group together into ideas.Ideas group together into systems.Systems of though become habitual.Habits are hard to overcome,we cling to them,identify with them.We become them.Isn't that what a 'self' boils down to? A dominant system of thinking,feeling,acting? If someone is in a state of enlightenment/bliss isn't it safe to assume(take for granted) that their habitual thought patterns are not the same as someone who isn't in a state of enlightenment/bliss? Can a state of enlightenment/bliss be chemically induced? Can you turn it on and off at will.Will it solve all your problems? What are you searching for from enlightenment/bliss? Start asking questions.Seek clarification.make sense of it in ways that you understand.
I an interested in your opinion about enlightenment,bliss, Anatta (non self) and ego death.What about suffering and compassion and awakening? Best wishes on your search.
Certainly could be. I think the guy needs to read Heidegger's Being and Time. The representationalist perspective gets dangerously close, but I don't see much else that may cause issues. Likely if he doesn't go to far to the level of modelling intentionality he won't have any problem maintaining consistency with Dennett's "heterophenomenological multiple-drafts model" of consciousness.
Strange. I think that everytime he addresses the audience as "you" he refutes his whole argument. He's not dealing with the problem of infinite regress, and like Daniel Dennett, just tries to explain the self away rather than face the awesome and terrifying face of it.
We are constantly dealing with the limitation of our language. But for a scientific explanation one has to circumscribe things as good as possible using the limited language what other choice do we have?
Although I’m not sure what Metzinger’s reply would be, here is a guess. Metzinger is aware that he and the audience members exist in some sense. He speaks of an information processing system that produces the self model. So we are, in a sense, information processing systems. But now ask yourself whether the information processing system that produces your self model is “you”. There is a sense in which it is not - would you agree? My brain - this is something that I don’t directly control. The idea that I own my body, or identical to body, this is illusion.
My brain is a virtual reality device manifesting the illusion created by holographic projection. Then why do I need confirmation and validation of that from the illusion of some other "self" or "selves that I subjectively experience as exrernal ? Even that "externality" might be merely the manifestation of projected illusion: my own ? or someone elses ?
@fergusruston Cont: thereby giving them tribute and suggesting that their works are timeless. Tho you could also argue that he is elevating his own status by putting himself at the same level of the famous philosophers... though I think my first reasoning is more plausible
I’m all for exposing people to this insight, but not acknowledging directly that what we’re discussing is called Buddhism is a huge disservice to the audience.
There is no self. Only a process where the brain is simulating and emulating itself engaging in simulation and emulation i.e. the emulating system and the target system are the same. By tweaking this process, who knows what becomes possible? Changing your self-representation, if the brain could even handle it, would make you what exactly?
A process is a thing. The sun is both a process (the process of fusion). An experience is also a thing. The start/premise, at least, seems to be wordplay.
The process, if I'm not mistaken, is the universe _happening._ How creatures experience the underlying reality of that process is entirely subjective and under constant revision by the brain, including the creature's sense of self. I think that's the crux of the idea, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around it myself.
So, he basically replaces the concept "self" with the concept "being with a self model". But he don´t ask himself the question; who is the one who thinks he is someone?
Yes, I know he says that. And by that he means that the psyche is ever changing, so there is no unchanging entity in the psyche. My point is, who sees those changes? Who is the experiencer of those changes?
+nimim. Marko Mikkilä You don't have access to the construction process, you only see the result. You live through it, but you don't see it, any more than you can "see" the electrons making this screen image. The "experiencer" is the result, not the process. There is no self looking on.
funny, a "seer" separate from seeing and seen! Even funnier, THAT's what we "see-m" to experience. Consciousness creating a tunnel to "separate" itself into subject and object, until it ends up with a video and discussion like this! (and spiritual experiences "trance-ending the tunnel!)
Why this desire to manipulate the subjective reality ? Subjective reality is utterly limitless and random, it can fit itself to anything .What is being explained by Metzinger with due respect will not get us any further. But how about this, what if all reality is subjective and changing ...There is a strong answer that such a reality can end abruptly like a television set being switched off...An end to total perception of everybody and anything anywhere. Everything would disappear in an instant and then remerge much later , only to disappear again
no they are doing a fractal function some form of predictable and proportional between what we feel in any emotions and the sub-reality that we can life. that emotion is sign of connection how we dance will all the existence,
This is exactly ego. You see Mr. Mentzinger as a big fish, while in fact he isn't a definition or any other than you are. The very fact that you are annoyed by his 'wrong assumptions in his pholosophy of mind', is means by the ego to not accept ''what is''.
What does it even mean to say we don't have a self? Who do you mean by "we" in the first place? Wittgenstein already dealt with this in detail earlier. I suggest you read him first.
Why isn't the projection recorded? It seems some critical information and pictures and more things are projected and explained by Thomas. It's funny to see that there are two cameras and that they actually pan, that is, move around, but none actually record crucial part of the lecture, the projections and illustrations. In a certain way, this distracts the whole experience because there is always the wish to look at what he is showing... But these persons controlling the cameras... Oh well...
maybe there is a self that is capable of extending itself to what it sees and perceives with its senses, i think that consciousness is capable of expanding or internalizing, but this guys says totally convinced that there is not a self, just a process... if you ask me that's an idiot conclusion. (my own personal opinion)
In my opinion, it's your conditioning. You've been conditioned to have a particular model of “a man” and another one of “a woman.” When you see a person with the characteristics you've ascribed to “a man,” you experience cognitive dissonance, which makes you uncomfortable. It might help if you understand that it's not your “fault” that this happens; you were programmed that way by others. It is, however, your RESPONSIBILITY to see that you adjust the programming to better match reality.
" ... The Buddha taught the existence of neither Soul nor God. According to early Buddhism there is no such thing as eternal soul in man. The world is empty of self. So does a being. It is not possible to believe that a soul, that is permanent and stable can exist in a being, because all beings are subject to continuous change, death and decay. They are "becoming" continuously.... "
Why aren't the examples not being shown? Really annoying to not understand what is being explained, when the metaphors can't be understood (*neurdivers) and nothing is shown!!! not a good ted video!
I have a self yes it developed grew in the womb. . Still is. I have consciousness. Emotions feelings thoughts, mind, I have a soul and DNA from ancestry. So his invisible interface with no self or soul but consciousness doesn't make since to me. What beings is he trying talk about.
Transparency only stems from the fact that you don't see the process. Your brain generates feelings thoughts etc, and this process does in fact take time. But it is so fast that it appears to you as instant, you can't see the process of this generation, just the result. That is what he means when he says the "window" is transparent.
..or 20 min with DMT. I strongly agree with you. There are very few people who will be able to grasp the concept without that kind of forced dreamstate assistance.
Metzinger does mention in his book that some drug states and unusual mental illness states seem to allow the subject to catch a glimpse of the machinery that is creating the world for each of us. In particular the mechanism that puts all the different modalities together in a single now moment can break down, so we experience seeing and hearing and touching as describing different worlds at the same time.
I haven't read his book yet, but another intersesting thing about this is that many people describe achieving the same mental states through yoga and other physical disciplines. I had attained it a few times through skateboarding in my younger years; particularlly when skating swimming pools. The same feeling being of intimately connected to the rest of the universe and sensing "oneness with god" in the hermetical sense of the word. The same with hallucinogenic trips. My best description of it is a state of mind that is somewhat like holding a bar of soap in the shower, if you hold your palm open and allow it to just be there it stays in your hand, but the tighter you squeeze to hold onto it the quicker it slips throught your fingers.
Edit: In the comment above, please replace "When you see a person" with "When you see a female person" Ah, RUclips, when will you join the 21st century and allow editing of comments?
Interesting talk, but I find it a little dangerous to at one side deny the personal self and on the other hand talk about the brain as a deal thing. Maybe the was a concession to the audience, I don't know. But it needs to be stressed that a brain is a concept of mind, a way of thinking and speaking in the relative to come to an understanding agreement about the working of conciousness. But ultimately, as Meitzinger points out himself, everything is a model of what we think of as "reality" created in and seen by the mind. This of course also includes the concept of a brain. 😘
The only wish i would gift to "scientist Metziner" is a day .. no... a week.. of hand digging a foundation for a house with a shovel. No one will talk to him and his job requires that He Not Talk. He will dig. For 4 hours, then take lunch. Then for four hours more. For 5 days in a row. Then. Then tell me about conscious self. Tell me about your air and your personal well being. Tell me about the greater human consciousness when your hands split and bleed. I look forward to *that* Ted Talk. good day.
So without knowing anything about this guy you just assume he doesn't know what exhaustion is? If you are not interested in the opinion of a philosopher, just quit watching RUclips videos and go digging :)
The fact that the self is an illusion has been known for thousands of years. Siddhartha Gautama, for one, made that abundantly clear in his teachings. Though it's not so easy to fully realize that truth, understanding how it is true is incredibly liberating. That can be done with some study and some open-minded observation of how your own mind works.
Too bad the person videoing this didn't think Metzinger's slides were worth including
Yep, the presentation is more important than the presenter. I think the camera operator was trying to prove that Dr. Metzinger is a self!!!
You are viewing this for free, the rest has been cut, that is the reason why you do not see the slides
@@aglogeo1 we saw the early slides.
Precisely! were not getting half the message - which is kinda ironic considering the subject matter!?
How did you know? Did you ASK that person or were you the Person itself? Otherswise its a projection🙂
Very unprofessional camera work. I would have appreciated being able to view what he was talking about
I totally agree! So frustrating to watch
+firehand1011 check out this version, I think this is a better shot one:
?v=5ZsDDseI5QI
+Xelnod... Thanks VERY much for the link! The useless camerawork on this talk all but ruins it.
Pete Williams you're very welcome!
Thank you! This one has better video.
Without question one of the most life changing talks Ive ever heard. “I was blind but now I see”
Imagine a world centuries from ours now in which the process of information gathering from the reality and recognition to past experiences is also matched to an evolved form of the internet, where the knowledge of all of the humans ever to have lived is readily available to your being at a moments notice, with an invisible interface much like our own, evolutionary selves has created. The possibilities of such biotechnologies is fascinating, as well as plausible.
perhaps we are all being " SELF-ish" in wanting to be able to see the images on the screen behind him ? :)
Read max stirner the unique and its property
Yeah no kidding.
Amazing - back in 2001 this would be considered hippie-stoner talk - now in 2019 it is German Philosophers talking about this! :)
I saw Metzinger at my university a couple of weeks ago, I can assure you that referring to Aristotle, etc. is intended as a sublime joke. He also called his research on out-of-body experiences a CLM, "does anyone know what a CLM is? A carrier-limiting move". Great guy! Doesn't entirely enjoy giving autographs though it seems :S
eriwal723, neat!
Referring to Aristotle as one of his "colleagues" is indeed humorous, but the message is rather serious I believe. He is basically saying that even more than 2000 years ago without any empirical knowledge on the subject of self, people already had the idea that the self does not exist as a substance, it dies with the body. Which is astonishing to say the least.
He starts by saying "self" is not a thing, it's a process; so I was afraid he wouldn't have a point, since, well, most "things" turn out to be processes. But I think he makes things clear by the point he says "you see a podium, not a model of a podium." It's easy to think "hmm I see light from a screen which is showing a podium..." but not easy to think "I seed a model which my brain is making"! Because the model is part of "me". And the difficulty drawing a line between "me" and introspecively available stuff (or subconscious and therefore not introspectively available stuff) comes from the fictional nature of the self.
to all the critics below....for gods sake this is a short public talk...give the guy a break....if you want supporting detail for this talk read his thesis ""Being No-one""...but take your time...I have been reading it for seven years.
Come off it mate I read that over a quiet weekend
Yeah , ... you wish
The realization that the perceived self is non existent or just a product of the environment leads you to call into question its motives. Emotion is how the ego connects to the world. Anxiety, fear, and especially concerning others impressions of you. The ego is I everything else is other. Its the biggest road block a person faces when trying to improve. The ego hates change. In drug rehab the counselor tells the people to stay away from the people, places, and things connected to the addiction. The ego is nothing but a reflection of a persons people, places, and things. Its only an issue if the person is ruled by it by feeding it, its food is attention.
I don't have a self, but myself just told me that , no I think myself told my myself that I think is myself is myself but I am not sure myself that myself knows I have a self..........Thanks for the great talk Thomas. Learned a lot.
absolutely correct...why ignore the screen when he is talking to what is being displayed???
It's taken decades of scholarly study and practice to make Dr.Metzinger realize something that a single mushroom trip would unveil.
killcritter he has done psychadelics
and why the mushroom guy didn`t said anything about his discovery?
11 years old comment I know, but I am sure that Metzinger is very familiar with mushrooms or at least with other psychedelics 🙂
😂
This is an editing mistake, and absolutely NOT the camera person's fault. In the beginning, there were other camera angles that captured the slides, however, whoever edited the video just stopped including those after the first experiment. The camera person's job is to hold one specific angle at all times, but the editor is in charge of managing all the different angles to create an inclusive and comprehensible package. Also note, it could have been a technical issues i.e. the other angle camera malfunctioned or they lost the footage.
His books are wroth ready. Very interesting ideas, although might make the reader very uncomfortable in his own conscious state.
All of what he is saying is due to empathy neurons, just because the identity can be displaced, does not mean that the true self is illusionary. The true self is in the quiet of the mind, no matter how many personalities, or dysfunctions there may be.
For me, these were all perfect examples of a "unit of consciousness" operating through a "virtual body," or a virtual "biological avatar," so to speak. So in this interpretation of the data, it's not the self that doesn't exist, it's the body (and everything else in the material universe) that doesn't exist - at least from the superset perspective, or the macro-level of the Infinite Field of Consciousness (to borrow a phrase from Gary Weber). Cheers.
I like the way your mind works. Well put
Open-minded Skeptic the body and everything doesn't exist? Huh
I would pay serious money to see dr. Metzinger talk with Joscha Bach.
Fascinating. I would not say that the ego doesn't exist: if it is made by the mind, it is a subjective fact, not necessarily always correlated with the body, which is also a subjective fact made by our perception.
Who is "WE" that are "unaware of the medium through which information reaches us"? That remains unanswered, but I commend Dr. Metzinger for cogently explaining how 'WE" as we think we are, i.e. our image of ourselves, is just an illusion.
We are that medium!
If you want to watch him presenting the same stuff but with visible slides, check out his TEDxBarcelona talk titled The Transparent Avatar in Your Brain.
In the third experiment, it is the robot hand that inspired him to make a whole body. That is a virtual body. In that experiment, he let a person to wear a googles, in which there is a 3D recorder inserted. So while the person is stroked in the back, he can see the imagine of his back. The feel of that imagine is 2 meters in front of him. After a certain times, he feels to jump into the avatar, that means he identities that figure, like transfer his ‘self’ to that avatar. Another unconscious measure is if you blind that person and pull him back, when you ask him to go back to where he was standing, he always go back to the place between the avatar and their physical body.
Request: will someone who has contact with Dr, Thomas Metzinger get copy of the slide images and post here? Thank YOU,
I'm at work this is interesting, I'll try to watch it tonight, thanks.
Yet the idea that self is a process does not deny it existence, if I divide the universe into things that exist vs. illusions via processes, what can I toss purely on the former?
don't have a self, but myself just told me that , no I think myself
told my myself that I think is myself is myself but I am not sure myself
that myself knows I have a self..........Thanks for the great talk
Thomas. Learned a lot.
In his book "The Ego Tunnel" there are illustrations of all 3 Experiments with annotations. It's not a hard nor long read.
Sometimes I really don’t understand the importance of such knowledge which doesn’t add anything to human mankind. So there is no self thing ? And what if I agree or disagree with this? I will stay say this “I am happy”. “ I am proud of myself” do you want me to stop it ? What if I don’t?
I wish he spoke about the role of intentionality in this process.
Indeed. Nice to hear agreement in philosophy with dhamma. Thomas is a Buddhist in thought.
The uncertainty of self in the cosmos was a philosophical realization I has in late 2008.
Wow! Amazing talk - a complex idea beautifully explained. This will give me something to think about, but wait, hasn’t he just explained that there is no “me”?
i realise this comment is 8 years old, but no he didnt say there is no me, more that what you perceive as "me" is an illusion created by the mechanisms of your consciousness
@fergusruston because Aristotle, Spinoza and himself are all philosophers. You can argue that because he calls them his colleagues, he is giving them "life" and, in a sense, suggesting that their ideas are not outdated and still applicable to the modern society hundreds of years after their deaths.
Great truth at 10:59 The function of a PhD student is to stroke someones back
Great talk, wish I could have seen the slides.
if anyone knows where to find a version with the projections i'll be much obliged
the camera man thought we're smart enough to visualize what Mr. Metzinger was talking about
I really wish the slides were included..I noticed the rubber hand effect when I let my girlfriend borrow my pajamas. I'm used to seeing the pajama pants pattern when I look down at myself and when you're all coiled up together, whose limbs are where is a bit mixed up and I swear it felt like my foot moved when she moved her foot. 😯
i lost my sense of smell about 25yr ago, due to a cranial operation i recieved after a RTA. i have had dreams where i can smell and the moment i wake up there is about 2 or 3 seconds where i am physically experiencing the aroma through my nose. dont know if that means anything, but the second point you made made me think of it x
“... why then thinking that you believe you have a thinking given you the feeling it´s you and not your brain?”
It does my mental processes no good - serves no purpose - for them to know the deep details of how they work. They work with or without that knowledge (interesting though it might be). I can, of course, confuse fleeting thoughts with “me” and think that I AM those thoughts or that at least they largely define my essence. That's an unwarranted conclusion - an illusion, one might say.
this is why vr will revolutionize the world to come
Interesting, so who/what is the observer that is looking through the window, and that is tricked into constructing this transparent self ?
+Xananta As long as you keep asking about who (which is an object/entity/identification = self) is looking through the window, you'll end up with no answer.
You ask such a question because the concept of self clouds you so heavily.
+Xananta The mind is the process, a non-stop stream.
Imagine a river, examine those portions of water that flow through the river, one after the other. The one that goes after the other would see the previous. But is it the river seeing itself?
Is a passed portion of water (which reached the sea and vanished) the river?
Is the yet-to-pass portion of water (which may be still in the sky as clouds) the river?
Those portions of water can't see the river, they can only see other portions of water.
The same for the so-called 'observer'. As long as you cling to such identification, you'll never see the river.
Khiêm Bảo Thiện Well said! 🙏 ❤️
The only way to answer this, the one which doesn't create more questions than answers, is that the who/what is the process of looking itself, as a whole. Because it is reliable, stable, and integrates information on many different levels "hearing, seeing, feeling, even thoughts etc" into a simultaneous and coherent stream, it strongly appears as a unity, as one-ness. But the unity is nothing that can appear, let alone exist on its own, without being actively sustained by the brain. One could say that from that perspective, in total unconsciousness, like in dreamless sleep phase the who or what disappears, because the whole observation process disappears, and when consciousness reemerges, the brain is able to connect old memory to the now reestablished process and hence restores the unity or one-ness.
I think that is called fractals of mind in reflection of part of fractals of the existence of what could be with what is in connection what is being.
Excellent talk. Why the hell aren't they showing the screen? Probably copyright reasons, but that's asinine.
WHY CANT WE SEE THE SLIDES? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING FROM US TED? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING!?!
Why weren't the slides recorded as well? Poor cameramanship.
I appreciate your presentation DR. Don't you thing that it's not just about the memory of the phantom limb.
Maybe she's just experiencing Imitation.
She lives surround of bodies and seeing them since she's a baby so she reproduce it.
Don't misunderstand me, Soul for me is the basis of who we are...energy is what we are...but we reproduce things with inconsciousness.
Maybe it's completely irrelevant if it's true or whatever or maybe it may brings us a broader possibility to shape the idea of self by making it more flexible and consistent with what we like
Domo Arigato MR Roboto!
There is no self only being here and now
Great talk, but isn't this just the Cartesian theatre all over again? Perhaps in his books he explains why his view doesn't fall prey to the objections lobbed at the Cartesian theatre, or how his view is not to be confused with the Cartesian theatre.
Thinking about how many implications and consequences bring this integrated theory that contains not only ideas but also evidence brought by what for many are just new discoveries in many fields; neuro-motor disorders and mental diseases that have to be redefined, a new way of educating people (even for AI), etc. "The Ghost in your genes" video has an increased importance and it seems that changing the pattern of our minds could solve a lot of problems. Universe scientific definition...
How did the camera man manage to completely neglect filming any of the slideshow?
Hmmm, 'you' don't have a self, isn't the 'you' the self?
Considering how small of an idea this is, there will never be a way to put it into words before it becomes a more far known idea. There is no other way to put this into context through language than referring to the illusion itself.
That is frustrating not to be able to see the images he is referencing for the experiments.
This proves perhaps, the root of empathy. Perhaps Margaret Thatcher fundamentally misunderstood the question of society in that she said it didn't exist. Or perhaps she was only half right. It also explains why dramatic literature, film and theatre work...religion too as the ultimate representation.
@@zotriczaoh7098 Watched the whole enchilada unravel in America. Really a tragic roller coaster since the 70's, for both the UK and US. It's now descended into a hysterical farce. Hope and pray we haven't gone too far also.
Still many good people out there;
but my fear is history, when it tips, takes the good with the bad.
CHEERS!
Brilliant.
Explaining what being a human is like is like a therapist seeing a therapist
They actually do that. It`s not like "you are a therapist, just look in your books" :))
Perhaps he was saying great things, but I was entirely unable to focus on it as I was steamed that I couldn't see the visuals that were going along with his talk. My inner voice kept shouting at the video to let me see what everyone else is looking at.
I think I'm finally starting to get it, feeling disturbed and awed at the same time. But since I'm just a representation within a representation, both arising from processes that are integrating data and transparently constructing a coherent "reality" too fast to comprehend, it's no biggie right? Right?!?!!
I have been looking into the concept of the 'self' from a few angles and have formed my own understanding of what is going on inside the brain and what is being talked about by People like Dr Metzinger and people within the 'enlightenment' movement based on Eastern philosophies.
My understanding is by no means complete but I have managed to form a working understanding of what is being discussed,examined.Still plenty to get straight/figure out.
Al Sunshine The great spiritual leaders have described enlightenment as an eternal bliss consciousness state! I am interested in your opinions concerning the concept of enlightenment.
My opinion is that words such as enlightenment and bliss need to clarified before they can be discussed.What is 'enlightenment'? What is 'bliss'? Would being in a state of bliss 24/7 be desirable if it was Possible?
If there is enlightenment what is the practical value of it? What is the purpose of seeking enlightenment? Can it be used to get more pussy, to boost my bank balance or increase my social standing?
Thoughts have a tendency to group together into ideas.Ideas group together into systems.Systems of though become habitual.Habits are hard to overcome,we cling to them,identify with them.We become them.Isn't that what a 'self' boils down to? A dominant system of thinking,feeling,acting?
If someone is in a state of enlightenment/bliss isn't it safe to assume(take for granted) that their habitual thought patterns are not the same as someone who isn't in a state of enlightenment/bliss? Can a state of enlightenment/bliss be chemically induced? Can you turn it on and off at will.Will it solve all your problems? What are you searching for from enlightenment/bliss?
Start asking questions.Seek clarification.make sense of it in ways that you understand.
Now I am sorry that I asked you. Never mind! Best wishes :)
I an interested in your opinion about enlightenment,bliss, Anatta (non self) and ego death.What about suffering and compassion and awakening? Best wishes on your search.
Certainly could be. I think the guy needs to read Heidegger's Being and Time. The representationalist perspective gets dangerously close, but I don't see much else that may cause issues. Likely if he doesn't go to far to the level of modelling intentionality he won't have any problem maintaining consistency with Dennett's "heterophenomenological multiple-drafts model" of consciousness.
Strange. I think that everytime he addresses the audience as "you" he refutes his whole argument. He's not dealing with the problem of infinite regress, and like Daniel Dennett, just tries to explain the self away rather than face the awesome and terrifying face of it.
We are constantly dealing with the limitation of our language. But for a scientific explanation one has to circumscribe things as good as possible using the limited language what other choice do we have?
Although I’m not sure what Metzinger’s reply would be, here is a guess. Metzinger is aware that he and the audience members exist in some sense. He speaks of an information processing system that produces the self model. So we are, in a sense, information processing systems. But now ask yourself whether the information processing system that produces your self model is “you”. There is a sense in which it is not - would you agree? My brain - this is something that I don’t directly control. The idea that I own my body, or identical to body, this is illusion.
Blindsight brought me here.
My brain is a virtual reality device manifesting the illusion created by holographic projection. Then why do I need confirmation and validation of that from the illusion of some other "self" or "selves that I subjectively experience as exrernal ?
Even that "externality" might be merely the manifestation of projected illusion: my own ? or someone elses ?
The PSM can also be called risidual self image or dream character.
@fergusruston Cont: thereby giving them tribute and suggesting that their works are timeless. Tho you could also argue that he is elevating his own status by putting himself at the same level of the famous philosophers... though I think my first reasoning is more plausible
Would have been nice to see his slides while was talking. Dang
I’m all for exposing people to this insight, but not acknowledging directly that what we’re discussing is called Buddhism is a huge disservice to the audience.
What does it mean to be someone? Easy, It means to suffer.
My Google friends, I like Metzinger's take on this subject - what is the self?
There is no self. Only a process where the brain is simulating and emulating itself engaging in simulation and emulation i.e. the emulating system and the target system are the same. By tweaking this process, who knows what becomes possible? Changing your self-representation, if the brain could even handle it, would make you what exactly?
+Spectre Cyte bascially a lunatic
I see from the comments that a number of psychonauts have watched this. Great.
He reminds me of John Malkovich, both of them great.
A process is a thing. The sun is both a process (the process of fusion). An experience is also a thing. The start/premise, at least, seems to be wordplay.
παντα ρει
The process, if I'm not mistaken, is the universe _happening._ How creatures experience the underlying reality of that process is entirely subjective and under constant revision by the brain, including the creature's sense of self. I think that's the crux of the idea, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around it myself.
So, he basically replaces the concept "self" with the concept "being with a self model". But he don´t ask himself the question; who is the one who thinks he is someone?
+nimim. Marko Mikkilä I think he would say, so far as I understand, that there is no self.
Yes, I know he says that. And by that he means that the psyche is ever changing, so there is no unchanging entity in the psyche. My point is, who sees those changes? Who is the experiencer of those changes?
+nimim. Marko Mikkilä You don't have access to the construction process, you only see the result. You live through it, but you don't see it, any more than you can "see" the electrons making this screen image. The "experiencer" is the result, not the process. There is no self looking on.
The construction process isn´t necessarily the seer. The construction process might be just what makes up the seen and the process of seeing.
funny, a "seer" separate from seeing and seen! Even funnier, THAT's what we "see-m" to experience. Consciousness creating a tunnel to "separate" itself into subject and object, until it ends up with a video and discussion like this! (and spiritual experiences "trance-ending the tunnel!)
powerful.
I want to see the screen!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why this desire to manipulate the subjective reality ? Subjective reality is utterly limitless and random, it can fit itself to anything .What is being explained by Metzinger with due respect will not get us any further. But how about this, what if all reality is subjective and changing ...There is a strong answer that such a reality can end abruptly like a television set being switched off...An end to total perception of everybody and anything anywhere. Everything would disappear in an instant and then remerge much later , only to disappear again
no they are doing a fractal function some form of predictable and proportional between what we feel in any emotions and the sub-reality that we can life. that emotion is sign of connection how we dance will all the existence,
This is exactly ego. You see Mr. Mentzinger as a big fish, while in fact he isn't a definition or any other than you are. The very fact that you are annoyed by his 'wrong assumptions in his pholosophy of mind', is means by the ego to not accept ''what is''.
@ 15:45, he's talking about "pureness". pure beings. can we be pure?
What does it even mean to say we don't have a self? Who do you mean by "we" in the first place? Wittgenstein already dealt with this in detail earlier. I suggest you read him first.
Why isn't the projection recorded? It seems some critical information and pictures and more things are projected and explained by Thomas. It's funny to see that there are two cameras and that they actually pan, that is, move around, but none actually record crucial part of the lecture, the projections and illustrations. In a certain way, this distracts the whole experience because there is always the wish to look at what he is showing... But these persons controlling the cameras... Oh well...
Could you state these wrong assumptions please?
What would Occam have to say about this?
What do you think he would say about it?
maybe there is a self that is capable of extending itself to what it sees and perceives with its senses, i think that consciousness is capable of expanding or internalizing, but this guys says totally convinced that there is not a self, just a process... if you ask me that's an idiot conclusion. (my own personal opinion)
Did this camera man take a cigarette break?
In my opinion, it's your conditioning. You've been conditioned to have a particular model of “a man” and another one of “a woman.” When you see a person with the characteristics you've ascribed to “a man,” you experience cognitive dissonance, which makes you uncomfortable.
It might help if you understand that it's not your “fault” that this happens; you were programmed that way by others. It is, however, your RESPONSIBILITY to see that you adjust the programming to better match reality.
" ... The Buddha taught the existence of neither Soul nor God. According to early Buddhism there is no such thing as eternal soul in man. The world is empty of self. So does a being. It is not possible to believe that a soul, that is permanent and stable can exist in a being, because all beings are subject to continuous change, death and decay. They are "becoming" continuously.... "
Why aren't the examples not being shown? Really annoying to not understand what is being explained, when the metaphors can't be understood (*neurdivers) and nothing is shown!!! not a good ted video!
So, we are trully leaving in a Matrix, the one that we create on our own :)
^^
Did he call Aristotle his colleague...
This guy is not a "colleague" of Aristotle and Spinoza.
I have a self yes it developed grew in the womb. . Still is. I have consciousness. Emotions feelings thoughts, mind, I have a soul and DNA from ancestry. So his invisible interface with no self or soul but consciousness doesn't make since to me. What beings is he trying talk about.
Transparency only stems from the fact that you don't see the process. Your brain generates feelings thoughts etc, and this process does in fact take time. But it is so fast that it appears to you as instant, you can't see the process of this generation, just the result. That is what he means when he says the "window" is transparent.
reupload in layman terms pls
To see the self create itself, one only needs five dried grams in silent darkness....
..or 20 min with DMT. I strongly agree with you. There are very few people who will be able to grasp the concept without that kind of forced dreamstate assistance.
Metzinger does mention in his book that some drug states and unusual mental illness states seem to allow the subject to catch a glimpse of the machinery that is creating the world for each of us. In particular the mechanism that puts all the different modalities together in a single now moment can break down, so we experience seeing and hearing and touching as describing different worlds at the same time.
I haven't read his book yet, but another intersesting thing about this is that many people describe achieving the same mental states through yoga and other physical disciplines. I had attained it a few times through skateboarding in my younger years; particularlly when skating swimming pools. The same feeling being of intimately connected to the rest of the universe and sensing "oneness with god" in the hermetical sense of the word. The same with hallucinogenic trips. My best description of it is a state of mind that is somewhat like holding a bar of soap in the shower, if you hold your palm open and allow it to just be there it stays in your hand, but the tighter you squeeze to hold onto it the quicker it slips throught your fingers.
to think the self create the impression of a self
This perhaps begs the phenomenon of the Resurrection...tink abody it!
Edit: In the comment above, please replace "When you see a person" with "When you see a female person"
Ah, RUclips, when will you join the 21st century and allow editing of comments?
Когда на русский уже переведут?
+Leonid Titov uchi angliyskiy - jazyk interneta. Chuvak tozhe nemets a otlichno govorit.
Interesting talk, but I find it a little dangerous to at one side deny the personal self and on the other hand talk about the brain as a deal thing.
Maybe the was a concession to the audience, I don't know. But it needs to be stressed that a brain is a concept of mind, a way of thinking and speaking in the relative to come to an understanding agreement about the working of conciousness. But ultimately, as Meitzinger points out himself, everything is a model of what we think of as "reality" created in and seen by the mind. This of course also includes the concept of a brain. 😘
he sounds like Dr. Strangelove
@feelthegold why would we want that world?
The only wish i would gift to "scientist Metziner" is a day .. no... a week.. of hand digging a foundation for a house with a shovel. No one will talk to him and his job requires that He Not Talk. He will dig. For 4 hours, then take lunch. Then for four hours more. For 5 days in a row. Then. Then tell me about conscious self. Tell me about your air and your personal well being. Tell me about the greater human consciousness when your hands split and bleed. I look forward to *that* Ted Talk. good day.
So without knowing anything about this guy you just assume he doesn't know what exhaustion is?
If you are not interested in the opinion of a philosopher, just quit watching RUclips videos and go digging :)
Sounds like Robert Anton Wilson rehashed to me.