I've been watching a number of these videos of Searle that represent his thinking over a span of forty years. Amazing to see his intelligence, curiosity and energy. The guy is a total phenomenon. A living treasure.
+Charles Justice ... well, maybe I can. Lets begin with 04:34 - such a weak definition, stated in an authoritative manner. The whole lecture was style, with very little substance. > Have you never got up in the middle of the night to go to the loo? If your consciousness was lost at that time, how did the bladder communicate with your brain about the imminent urgency? > Ok, maybe he meant to say "consciousness disappears in deep sleep"... what if a bomb went off nearby - would your brain not register the boom and wake up? The very fact that some external input could be interpreted by the brain, means consciousness never went away. I think the definition of consciousness presented here is nonsense. It was very similar to a religious leader's discourse - delivered authoritatively, but based on a flimsy, "faith-is-a-prerequisite" premise.
+Sam Reads, consciousness requires a certain amount of neurological activity. If the reticular activating system is not activating the cortex, one is not conscious. I would argue contra-Searle that we are not conscious during dreaming. It's only when we wake up and remember the dream that we are conscious. Memory is a necessary part of consciousness.
+Charles Justice ...why? Why is memory or any other brain-related higher function a pre-requisite for consciousness? Aren't you mixing consciousness with sensory complexity? Is there any scientifically valid reason to state that lower lifeforms with less developed brains are not conscious of their own existence? Where is the evidence for such a "leap of faith" generalization? And at what level of neural complexity does consciousness suddenly come alive? How about this "neural complexity-independent" definition for consciousness: *Consciousness is the independent ability of an entity to recognize that it is distinct from its environment.* On a fundamental level, this recognition is ingrained in every living cell. Each cell is independently "conscious" of where it ends, and where the environment begins. Even if it has no well-developed sensory organs, it still is able to recognize on some level that it is a distinct entity, and that there exists (or may exist) something outside of itself. By this definition, all living cells are conscious at varying levels of complexity. More well developed the brain, more clearly is the self-distinction articulated to itself. Brain function only enables an already conscious entity to better recognize the environment outside it. But it is NOT a pre-requisite.
"Existence is Identity. Consciousness is Identification." It's exciting when science deals with philosophical questions. Loved this, and this delightful man!
John Searle is brilliant. This video shows it and his book 'constructing the social world' says it. Simply worth engaging in, which is not to say about many intellectual people these days.
I've read about it in a study, but yes it was only one study and I shouldn't be too sure, but it just makes sense to me. I think about noticing thoughts popping up in my head like noticing pain popping up in my head. You are aware of what happens in your brain, but what happens is ultimately determined by chemistry.
They provide the vital service of getting the ideas out, giving people the opportunity to get involved in great ideas. I think how well it works is really impressive, can you really expect more of them?
I'm reminded of the story of the baby fish who asks his mother about the Ocean. "Where is it?" said the baby fish. "It's everywhere" said the mama fish, "it's all around you." This is the Ocean being a fish, and a fish being the Ocean, complicated or not. The main reporters of this idea, that consciousness is an aspect of reality is not new. Maybe new to westerners, but it is ancient. It stems back to Upanishads, and a tradition of individuals who had deep experience in meditation.
Reality is limitless, space is infinite, time eternal... Within ourselves there is infinite capacity for connection with all things... An infinite potential for growth...
Did I say "Philosophers"? No, I said "Philosophy". Experts on Philosophy, or Philosophers, are crucial for presenting the important fundamental questions and stimulating independent thought. These questions are essential; in fact, a healthy society is contingent on such questions being asked, pondered, and ultimately answered. Philosophy allows an individual to weed out misdirection, fallacy, and dishonesty and finally answer, individually, the most important questions.
Have some sight of the bigger picture would you, Sam is a great speaker but hardly alone in the field of thinking about consciousness, and John does a good job. He needed more time I think. My point being we need to get this information out and the best way to go about doing that is (barring a video going ridiculously viral) to attack it from multiple sources, so be happy John is speaking about consciousness and raising awareness of an obvious thing that seems forgotten in this world.
Those terms weren't used after the introduction describing various older approaches. The repeated message is @02:52 @14:32 consciousness is a biological phenomenon.
It seems I misunderstood his point. Thank you for pointing this out to me! I watched the rest of the video, and it was very interesting. Some of his points I don't quite agree with, but it was a great TED talk.
You're right about the fact that he skimmed over the subject of spirituality, but this talk was not a waste of time. It explains some physical processes very closely related to consciousness and I think it gives us a better understanding of the 'spiritual' aspects.
This helped me realise that no one is right about everything and being right in the past doesn't mean they will be right in the future so look at the logic behind what they say and how they go about things and decide based on this! Also look at past results they had in the area they are talking about. If they had a lot of success in that area. Then chances are higher they will again. :-)
Continuando la tradición de Oxford, Jhon Rogers Searle asume la distinción de su maestro Austin entre una dimensión constatativa y otra dimensión realizativa del lenguaje, como también el desplazamiento y puesta del énfasis analítico en esta última, el cual intensifica respecto de Austin. Lo hace, sin embargo, introduciendo una crítica dirigida al concepto de «regla» de su predecesor y la supuesta generalización que hace de los actos de habla al proponer siempre ejemplos de actos «institucionalmente ligados», como si estos agotasen la totalidad de los actos de habla o reduciendo los actos de habla a los institucionales (como los propios de juicios, bodas etc). Searle señala que los actos de habla en contextos institucionales no son, de hecho, los únicos, pues tales actos también se dan en contextos comunicativos informales y conversacionales. Para ello introduce una nueva distinción entre: 1) «reglas regulativas», las cuales están dirigidas a permitir, prohibir u obligar conductas humanas (las cuales habría priorizado desproporcionadamente Austin) y 2) «reglas constitutivas», que no se encargan de regular sino que constituyen en sí mismas nuevas formas de conducta, porque han sido abstraídas de las condiciones tanto necesarias como suficientes de los casos particulares en los que se cumple el acto del habla, como por ejemplo el de una promesa. Este tipo de reglas son las que verdaderamente rigen tanto en contextos institucionales como informales, en contra de Austin. Este problema continúa el de la fundación de la normatividad del lenguaje, que ya vimos en Wittgenstein.
I believe I the intended meaning of the quote is to say we are getting away from using philosophy to wonder what something is, and instead replace assumption with facts. I don't think philosophy will ever really be truly irrelevant. Science may be able to find concrete things, but to think in and of itself is the ability to philosophize.
Yes, rhetorically of course. What I'm saying is that researchers would have no way of knowing what someone is going to do before they do it because that person NEEDS to receive the input in order to deliver the output. The researchers may be able to detect the decision being made before someone can physically manifesting the output, but that person must first KNOW the input in order to deliver the output.
Much like the speaker, I've long thought of conscious"ness" as being a *process* rather than a thing. Mr. Searle's defining consciousness as a *condition* leads to a similar conclusion as far as it capable of being the subject of scientific study.
Okay, that's a decent argument. However, I will assure you I was not on drugs. I was not "falling asleep", just sleepy. Also, I'm 21 and I've never seen or heard of that movie. Imagination takes time, you have to pick the pieces and set the stage. This was all at once and it literally and physically took my breath away with its weight on my conciousness. I can't explain it, I can only describe it. Even if it was only a construct of my mind, it was a beautiful and vivid construct.
Less relevant does not mean irrelevant. Thinking about how we think and why we do things is still very important. Science won't teach us ethics. It allows us to discover what is. Philosophy still teaches us why it matters at all.
Consciousness is the sum of the human biocomputer's mechanisms that are able to self-monitor some of the other mechanisms. Consciousness is self awareness. Its the ability of the system to be aware of some of its own processes.
I think he's discussing the evidence that much of our conscious thoughts are simply post-hoc explanations to justify our actions. Although we feel we decide to do something and then do it, it might actually be that the "decision" in terms of the conscious choice to act, follows the action. So, when this guy said that his conscious thought "caused" his arm to move, he was only showing a correlation, not causation.
I have dreams sometimes and I know I am dreaming so I try jumping off of things in the attempt to kill myself and wake up. But when I jump in my dreams I always fall in slow motion and it HONESTLY is the most phenomenal feeling.
Consciousness is without a doubt the single most mysterious thing there is. The "easy problem" is: "How does consciousness work?" The "hard problem" is: "Why does a first-person subjective consciousness exist at all?" Consciousness isn't necessary for a brain to work. Imagine 2 brains that are 100% identical to each other. One has a subjective awareness of what it experiences. The other does not. You could never tell which was which. They'd both behave exactly the same to an outside observer.
I'm not sure whether or not he retracted it. My understanding of the passage is that he was targeting a kind of empirically-uninformed practise of inferring essential features of reality. If I remember correctly, his target was specifically Aristotle and the tradition of cosmology that Aristotle largely inspired. Though 'natural philosophy' is certainly an underspecified term, I take it to chiefly refer to this historical tradition.
There is no consciousness apart from cognitive function. By saying "I am conscious of X", one means that one can talk about X, is attracted to/shy away from X, can focus your attention on X, remember X later on and so on. It's a nice term to sum the activity of all of these kinds of cognition. There is no separate 'hard problem' to be solved. By studying cognition, we will eventually come to understand more about our consciousness.
Vision is a sense, just like touch or hearing. Color is an aspect of vision, the differentiation of light as sensed by our 3 cones (red, green, and blue). Other aspects of vision are lightness, saturation, texture, etc...
...imagination might take time because you are consciously trying to produce, but when it comes to these dream like states of the brain it can come in a flash, just like memories. Our memories are stored in clusters and are joined together (diner, waitress, 50s, suits) thus the expression "trail of thought". You're experience sounds very much like an instant flash where you filled in the details of what is normally associated with a typical diner.
Well predictions of up to 10 seconds will only be possible for predetermined instructions. The brain is optimised as to handle some tasks without you having to be consciously aware of them, that saves energy. If someone throws a rock at you, you do not want to stand about and make conscious decisions of whether you should move. Your cerebellum is extremely good at handling repeated tasks. Your consciousness often comes in late in the process and has the ability to inhibit most of your actions.
A philosopher taking a serious stab at the phenomenon through and using scientific knowledge and branching out from there to try and interpret it all. Succeed or not at this for him, this is what philosophy should ALWAYS be about. Here is where we can possibly find real meaning, in my opinion.
Philosophy is at the very foundation of science. It's what makes science work. It's why we know it works. The way Stephen Hawking talks about philosophy as if it is a separate entity from science, like they are two different things, shows that Stephen Hawking isn't talking about all philosophy, or doesn't understand philosophy.
yes i always felt that you were still conscious when you were asleep, just at a different level. The idea that things are an 'illusion' is meaningless, all that is exists, whether they be dreams, thoughts, ideas, concepts. Everything solid in the world began with an idea, even the universe itself.
He's cited over 67 thousand times, has tenure at a research university, and is talking about his primary subject of study. If you think he's an idiot then you really just don't understand him. I suggest reading a few of his articles, especially the most well-cited ones, if you'd like a clearer picture of his views. TED talks are rarely the best venue for complex ideas.
The link is dead. What's to say a person doesn't consciously make a decision, then the researchers see the data within the brain, and finally the arm moves. If someone was to throw a baseball at me WITHOUT me seeing it I would NOT have any reason to move out of the way. But if I had seen the baseball I would be capable of deciding what to do. If our decisions are made before we consciously decide them then why would someone react to the ball after having seen it and not before?
Philosophers and neuroscientists sometimes call consciousness 'the hard problem'. Everyone has opinions about it, and I enjoyed reading some of those below. But people watching Searle's talk should be careful not to miss something. Yes he talks about his ideas on consciousness, but you can read those in books. About 2 minutes into the talk he says something interesting about why 'the hard problem' is so hard. It is because philosophers/scientists and 'religious dualists' make it hard, because they are both wrong about it. They make the wrong assumptions. And people think that materialism and religious mysticism are the only two ways to think about the problem of consciousness. Searle says that is wrong, and the hard problem is not really hard. Maybe he is right.
" I don't see where a mathematician would need philo." A mathematician without philosophy is reduced to a calculator. All humans have philosophy to make sense of information such as physics.
I believe different individuals and animals are conscious on different levels. If you are just staring into a wall and day dreaming you are less conscious of your surroundings than you are if you are for example playing sports or hunting. Free will is something that is hard to prove or disprove in my opinion. When I decide to go against my instincts and my previous training (how I have been raised or taught) what does that mean?
I'm curious what people make of the fact that a person loses a certain specific amount of weight at death. What is that? Is it the soul? If it has weight, is it physical? My reco to anyone trying to increase consciousness levels is to make sure their pineal glands are decalcified & functioning correctly. That means checking your water & fluoride intake, eating right, exercise, & adequate rest. If that's the gateway to our higher selves, or our crown chakras, they need to work correctly.
The questions I'm still left with are: How do neurological phenomena interact together to create a unified conscious field and, how do precise manipulations of those neurological phenomena change the conscious experience? Are there elements of consciousness that some people experience but others don't? Are there learned aspects of consciousness? I should probably just pick up a neuroscience textbook.
03:02 ..."once you accept that, the hard problems go away"... sounds awfully like religion to me. Once you accept god, all questions are answered. On what basis should we accept it? Not one fact or argument was presented to support the statement that consciousness is biological phenomenon. So what should our acceptance be based upon? Faith?
+Sam Reads The belief that consciousness is a biological phenomenon is like faith in that it is a belief. But unlike faith it's a belief based on evidence. That consciousness is only ever found in biological system is a big piece of that evidence. If there's no brain there's no consciousness. Changes in brain chemistry produce changes in consciousness. Many changes in consciousness are accompanied by changes in brain activity. There's a whole lot of evidence that supports the proposition that consciousness is biological. However that might not always be the case, some day someone might build a conscious computer. However there is not evidence and no good reason to believe a consciousness will be found that is not instantiated in some material thing.
+cgm778 What evidence? Is there even a clear definition of the term consciousness? Is there any test to prove or disprove consciousness? Do note that I'm not referring to consciousness as a medical term (which essentially a symptomatic diagnosis and detection of the brain's electrical activity) - i'm talking about the "hard question" of consciousness - self awareness, or the ability of an entity to know that it exists. Searle also speaks about the "hard question" - and in this context, the origin of consciousness is unknown, to say the least. 03:02...The problem I have is the finality with which such statements are made. It's better to acknowledge lack of knowledge so as to keep the field of study open, rather than authoritatively dictate a weak theory. Baseless statements made by influential people can impact university courses, funding, and the general attitude of the public - so closing the door on a subject we know so little about will do more harm than good to humanity.
Sam Reads Consciousness isn't well defined and that is why so many get away with making vague and meaningless statements about it. Typically people define consciousness in terms of awareness but it can also include perceptions and thoughts. It's a medical term meaning level of wakefulness, alertness or being able to respond to the environment. The medical sense is nice because it's useful, clear and can be operationalized. However, the medical term was designed to get something done but the goal of many who talk about consciousness is to claim we can't get anything done or even understand it in any useful way. Some talk about consciousness as if it were a physical force or substance. That approach wasn't useful when desCartes tried it and it's still not today. But mostly "consciousness" is used to mean a broad category of activities. We would be better off trying to understand each of those activities individual so we know if it is even sensible to lump them together under the same "conscious" umbrella. What is the evidence? Again, the evidence that consciousness is biological is biology is required for conscious things. There is never consciousness without biology. What clearer evidence could there be? There is a lot we don't know about awareness, memory, cognition, neurobiology and the various other things under the conscious umbrella. There should be more funding on research in those areas. That funding should be primarily go to approaches that are likely to produce results and not to approaches that don't know what they are talking about or at least can clearly define it. Yes we should have an open mind but with a fine skeptical filter to keep the detritus out.
+cgm778 ... your statement "What is the evidence? Again, the evidence that consciousness is biological is biology is required for conscious things. There is never consciousness without biology. What clearer evidence could there be?" If we haven't defined consciousness, and there is no test to prove consciousness, then how can the above statement be true? How can we test whether something is conscious or not, if there is no clear definition of what it is that needs to be tested? Without a suitable test, this statement is neither provable nor is it falsifiable.
Sam Reads Here are some definitions of consciousness, all of which are only seen in biological things. "Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself." --Wikipedia "the condition of being conscious : the normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you." -Merriam-Webster "The state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings ... The awareness or perception of something by a person .. The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world." - Oxford English dictionary There is no single test for consciousness because consciousness isn't a singular thing. But there are ways to operationalize the various aspects. Any voluntary response can be evidence for awareness. Verbal reports can be used to get at subjective experience. As far as whether my statement is provable or falsifiable ... Proofs should only be required in the fields of logic and mathematics. There is plenty of evidence supporting my claim. However it is easily falsifiable, all it takes is one case of consciousness without a biology creature and it will be proven false.
Well that's simple.... I can't. However, the image/sound/smell was so very vivid and so sudden that I'm positive I didn't just "imagine" it. I was a male in a diner with pastel colors and rounded tables and countertops so I think it was the 60's based on the decor alone. It was either sunrise or sunset because the light was coming in from the rows of windows at an angle. (I think it was sunset because of the pale orange color to the light.) I was wearing a black jacket and sitting with cont
04:34 ...Oh such a weak definition, stated in an authoritative manner. The whole lecture was style, with very little substance. > Have you never got up in the middle of the night to go to the loo? If your consciousness was lost at that time, how did the bladder communicate with your brain about the imminent urgency? > Ok, maybe you meant to say "consciousness disappears in deep sleep"... what if a bomb went off nearby - would your brain not register the boom and wake up? The very fact that some external input could be interpreted by the brain, means consciousness never went away. I think the definition of consciousness presented here is nonsense. It was very similar to a religious leader's discourse - delivered authoritatively, but based on a flimsy, "faith-is-a-prerequisite" premise.
Couldn't agree more with the way you put it "...It was very similar to a religious leader's discourse - delivered authoritatively, but based on a flimsy, "faith-is-a-prerequisite" premise...." Bit isn't "..."faith-is-a-prerequisite" premise...." the common ground of science and religion ? Science is as much based on faith as religion is. We believe there's a physical world out there with no proof whatsoever .We believe that the material world is made of energy but can't define energy. We readily dismiss the idea that information is all there is because it doesn't feel or sound right. Yet all we do is process information . "... the damn thing goes up whenever I decide to do so...". Maybe the question is if there is a damn hand in the first place. Or if space is so fundamental as we think it is.
Science is by definition the opposite of religion and faith. It is based on rationality, logic, proof and consensus. Claims made by science are not the absolute truth. They are theories, meaning that they are just very likely to be true. Not a single "theory" in the way i just defined it is accepted as being objectively true. These theories are constantly reevaluated and researched upon. And the question of whether the physical world is real or not is not in the field of science but of philosophy.
Your brain communicates the urge to your brain subconsciously in your sleep which makes your brain wake up and become conscious to adress the urge and hope your consciousness decides to go use the bathroom
Philosophy will never be irrelavent.... Philosophy's most important lesson is teaching people how to think, reason, and use logic. Their arguments might not be relavent anymore, but the skills used to make those arguments will always be neccisary in all aspects of life.
I might respectfully intrude. Our innate moral compass may be the product of evolution as it helps us look after our kin and ensure the survival of our genes. These subjective feelings of connection and spirit may be evolutionary mechanisms. That said, it doesn't mean that our consciousness and inner experiences are worthless. In fact, worth is subjective which means that our conscious states are the ONLY things that matter. I hope this was a positive contribution to your discussion.
pure consciousness comes from the ancient and all-knowing infinite being within the self, unhindered by the external translating machine known as the mind. meditation allows us to re-meet our true self, and experience a level of awareness beyond the five senses. the mind is the consistent interruption of this field of energy. it is the device that allows us to experience the physical world, while (pure) consciousness is the spiritual realm. we could all be MORE AWARE of our pure consciousness.
Decartes's cogito ergo sum, - "I think therefore I am" is a tautology. There is an "I" on both sides of the "therefore" - therefore it's really I=I and that "I" is the self model. One can just as easily say "I feel therefore I am" or "I stink, therefore I am." It is possible for things like chess programs to think and not have an "I" or "self-model" - Thinking is not what makes you an I. It's the self-model.
I might have just come from Wittgenstein but I promise it's an idea that I already had - words can not do this subject justice. Understanding it (not that I do fully, but I understand enough to know this) must be about the only non-superficially rewarding echo chamber
Google "self-model theory of subjectivity, Metzinger" for more explanation than you can get in a 500 character limited comment. It's about consciousness as a first-person perspective where you are the center of your perceptions. We feel like we are perceiving reality directly but we are only perceiving representations of reality, a model of reality for a model of the self that perceives the world and acts with self oriented goals.
Well,I like this presentation and I like his ideas. A very interesting speech on subject of consciousness that claims the mind-body problema is actually quite simple one and that consciousness must be considered as a fully biological phenomenom.
I think Philosophy and experts who focus on specializing in it are essential for the continuance of a healthy society. Science is important, but it cannot answer many essential questions: what is morality? How should we live our lives? When such questions dissolve into irrelevance, there will no longer be any need for Philosophy. But, as these questions are as relevant today as in the 6th century, I cannot see how Philosophy is not.
I didn't hear one argument, that would explain consciousness as something biological/material. Then at the end he just claims, consciousness has to be accepted as a biological phenomena. Why can't he just admit, that he doesn't have a clue.
I doubt detailed arguments can be presented in a Ted talk. There is a strong correlation between neurological activity and perceived mental states. Of course, correlation doesn't equal causation. But in the absence of more plausible/verifiable hypotheses, consciousness as an emergent phenomenon of neurological activity is consistent with materialist monism.
Materialist monism has no explanation for a subjective experience. That's the key point. You can not ignore this problem away by saying you have to accept that consciousness is a biological phenomena.
DrunkeNsRetroGames Not sure what you mean by "has no explanation". The explanation is that it, consciousness, is an emergent phenomenon i.e. that consciousness is a state of the neurological activity, much like water is a state of a collection of H2O molecules. If you are not satisfied with that explanation and think consciousness is something different, that is fine. But it is still an explanation and fits available data and possible to study based on that explanation.
You can not just say consciousness emerges from neurological activity. That is not an explanation. Mr. Searle can repeat that over and over again, what he does, and still won't solve the problem. How can in an unconscious universe made of matter suddenly emerge a subjective experience? That's the philosophical problem. And there is not a single theory out there that solves this problem.
DrunkeNsRetroGames "You can not just say consciousness emerges from neurological activity." Yes, you CAN say that. That is the concept of emergent phenomena; they emerge from the interactions of things which themselves don't exhibit that phenomenon. If you are not familiar with emergent phenomena, time to educate yourself about them. I am done.
i read the definition of Consciousness over and over again..and i'm still not sure i get what excatly people mean by it...and why people are constantly talking about it. is this some property only humans supposed to possess? how can i test if i have this property? what would a robot have to do in order to be considered conscious?
I think we forget that having an interest in Science is a higher level of consciousness. It is a new perspective of the world. This can be induce with psychedelic drugs. This area of research should be interested in how this happens.
I've been watching a number of these videos of Searle that represent his thinking over a span of forty years. Amazing to see his intelligence, curiosity and energy. The guy is a total phenomenon. A living treasure.
+Charles Justice never heard more bullshit in such a short span of time ..
+SoulRoh, can you actually come up with a decent argument or refutation, or are you just all character assassination all of the time?
+Charles Justice ... well, maybe I can. Lets begin with 04:34 - such a weak definition, stated in an authoritative manner. The whole lecture was style, with very little substance.
> Have you never got up in the middle of the night to go to the loo? If your consciousness was lost at that time, how did the bladder communicate with your brain about the imminent urgency?
> Ok, maybe he meant to say "consciousness disappears in deep sleep"... what if a bomb went off nearby - would your brain not register the boom and wake up? The very fact that some external input could be interpreted by the brain, means consciousness never went away.
I think the definition of consciousness presented here is nonsense. It was very similar to a religious leader's discourse - delivered authoritatively, but based on a flimsy, "faith-is-a-prerequisite" premise.
+Sam Reads, consciousness requires a certain amount of neurological activity. If the reticular activating system is not activating the cortex, one is not conscious. I would argue contra-Searle that we are not conscious during dreaming. It's only when we wake up and remember the dream that we are conscious. Memory is a necessary part of consciousness.
+Charles Justice ...why? Why is memory or any other brain-related higher function a pre-requisite for consciousness? Aren't you mixing consciousness with sensory complexity? Is there any scientifically valid reason to state that lower lifeforms with less developed brains are not conscious of their own existence? Where is the evidence for such a "leap of faith" generalization? And at what level of neural complexity does consciousness suddenly come alive?
How about this "neural complexity-independent" definition for consciousness:
*Consciousness is the independent ability of an entity to recognize that it is distinct from its environment.*
On a fundamental level, this recognition is ingrained in every living cell. Each cell is independently "conscious" of where it ends, and where the environment begins. Even if it has no well-developed sensory organs, it still is able to recognize on some level that it is a distinct entity, and that there exists (or may exist) something outside of itself.
By this definition, all living cells are conscious at varying levels of complexity. More well developed the brain, more clearly is the self-distinction articulated to itself. Brain function only enables an already conscious entity to better recognize the environment outside it. But it is NOT a pre-requisite.
"Existence is Identity. Consciousness is Identification."
It's exciting when science deals with philosophical questions. Loved this, and this delightful man!
John Searle is brilliant. This video shows it and his book 'constructing the social world' says it. Simply worth engaging in, which is not to say about many intellectual people these days.
This Talk deserved more time. It was awesome!
Down to earth, practical, common sense. I love it! I can relate!
I have never been this excited by a philosopher before...
I've read about it in a study, but yes it was only one study and I shouldn't be too sure, but it just makes sense to me. I think about noticing thoughts popping up in my head like noticing pain popping up in my head. You are aware of what happens in your brain, but what happens is ultimately determined by chemistry.
They provide the vital service of getting the ideas out, giving people the opportunity to get involved in great ideas. I think how well it works is really impressive, can you really expect more of them?
Excellent,spot on
That's quite a feat, staying below 15 minutes for such a deep subject. Kudos, Dr Searle.
I'm reminded of the story of the baby fish who asks his mother about the Ocean.
"Where is it?" said the baby fish.
"It's everywhere" said the mama fish, "it's all around you."
This is the Ocean being a fish, and a fish being the Ocean, complicated or not.
The main reporters of this idea, that consciousness is an aspect of reality is not new. Maybe new to westerners, but it is ancient. It stems back to Upanishads, and a tradition of individuals who had deep experience in meditation.
What was the physical process that made Searle decide to move his arm? Describing the process that his decision initiates does not solve the problem.
bingo
06:50 what a clever professor
The comment section on TED videos restores my hope for humanity.
His arguments are in my philosophy textbooks at university! I wrongly assumed all the great philosophers were already dead. :D
Ticia Grant .
Reality is limitless, space is infinite, time eternal...
Within ourselves there is infinite capacity for connection with all things... An infinite potential for growth...
Did I say "Philosophers"? No, I said "Philosophy". Experts on Philosophy, or Philosophers, are crucial for presenting the important fundamental questions and stimulating independent thought. These questions are essential; in fact, a healthy society is contingent on such questions being asked, pondered, and ultimately answered. Philosophy allows an individual to weed out misdirection, fallacy, and dishonesty and finally answer, individually, the most important questions.
Have some sight of the bigger picture would you, Sam is a great speaker but hardly alone in the field of thinking about consciousness, and John does a good job. He needed more time I think. My point being we need to get this information out and the best way to go about doing that is (barring a video going ridiculously viral) to attack it from multiple sources, so be happy John is speaking about consciousness and raising awareness of an obvious thing that seems forgotten in this world.
Those terms weren't used after the introduction describing various older approaches. The repeated message is @02:52 @14:32 consciousness is a biological phenomenon.
It seems I misunderstood his point. Thank you for pointing this out to me! I watched the rest of the video, and it was very interesting. Some of his points I don't quite agree with, but it was a great TED talk.
You're right about the fact that he skimmed over the subject of spirituality, but this talk was not a waste of time. It explains some physical processes very closely related to consciousness and I think it gives us a better understanding of the 'spiritual' aspects.
This helped me realise that no one is right about everything and being right in the past doesn't mean they will be right in the future so look at the logic behind what they say and how they go about things and decide based on this! Also look at past results they had in the area they are talking about. If they had a lot of success in that area. Then chances are higher they will again. :-)
Yes, that's what I have been thinking all the time!
OMGoodness, I hope he doesn't die for many years to come. I want to see more of him.
Continuando la tradición de Oxford, Jhon Rogers Searle asume la distinción de su maestro Austin entre una dimensión constatativa y otra dimensión realizativa del lenguaje, como también el desplazamiento y puesta del énfasis analítico en esta última, el cual intensifica respecto de Austin. Lo hace, sin embargo, introduciendo una crítica dirigida al concepto de «regla» de su predecesor y la supuesta generalización que hace de los actos de habla al proponer siempre ejemplos de actos «institucionalmente ligados», como si estos agotasen la totalidad de los actos de habla o reduciendo los actos de habla a los institucionales (como los propios de juicios, bodas etc). Searle señala que los actos de habla en contextos institucionales no son, de hecho, los únicos, pues tales actos también se dan en contextos comunicativos informales y conversacionales. Para ello introduce una nueva distinción entre: 1) «reglas regulativas», las cuales están dirigidas a permitir, prohibir u obligar conductas humanas (las cuales habría priorizado desproporcionadamente Austin) y 2) «reglas constitutivas», que no se encargan de regular sino que constituyen en sí mismas nuevas formas de conducta, porque han sido abstraídas de las condiciones tanto necesarias como suficientes de los casos particulares en los que se cumple el acto del habla, como por ejemplo el de una promesa. Este tipo de reglas son las que verdaderamente rigen tanto en contextos institucionales como informales, en contra de Austin. Este problema continúa el de la fundación de la normatividad del lenguaje, que ya vimos en Wittgenstein.
Excellent talk. Wish he'd had more time and didn't have to rush through it.
I believe I the intended meaning of the quote is to say we are getting away from using philosophy to wonder what something is, and instead replace assumption with facts.
I don't think philosophy will ever really be truly irrelevant.
Science may be able to find concrete things, but to think in and of itself is the ability to philosophize.
good talk like always
Great talk, if a little rushed. I look forward to advances in the field of consciousness.
Yes, rhetorically of course. What I'm saying is that researchers would have no way of knowing what someone is going to do before they do it because that person NEEDS to receive the input in order to deliver the output. The researchers may be able to detect the decision being made before someone can physically manifesting the output, but that person must first KNOW the input in order to deliver the output.
Excellent talk
Much like the speaker,
I've long thought of conscious"ness" as being a *process* rather than a thing.
Mr. Searle's defining consciousness as a *condition* leads to a similar conclusion as far as it capable of being the subject of scientific study.
Okay, that's a decent argument. However, I will assure you I was not on drugs. I was not "falling asleep", just sleepy. Also, I'm 21 and I've never seen or heard of that movie. Imagination takes time, you have to pick the pieces and set the stage. This was all at once and it literally and physically took my breath away with its weight on my conciousness. I can't explain it, I can only describe it. Even if it was only a construct of my mind, it was a beautiful and vivid construct.
Thank you so mch for sharing this!!
Isn't it interesting how that works? Cheers man.
Less relevant does not mean irrelevant. Thinking about how we think and why we do things is still very important. Science won't teach us ethics. It allows us to discover what is.
Philosophy still teaches us why it matters at all.
Perfect timing for this video :)
LEUKICK too late for me
Searle seems more optimistic about consciousness in this talk, than i'm used to from him.
Sounds great. Thanks for the info
Consciousness is the sum of the human biocomputer's mechanisms that are able to self-monitor some of the other mechanisms. Consciousness is self awareness. Its the ability of the system to be aware of some of its own processes.
What he says is so obviously true that it’s hard to see how anyone can dispute it.
I think he's discussing the evidence that much of our conscious thoughts are simply post-hoc explanations to justify our actions. Although we feel we decide to do something and then do it, it might actually be that the "decision" in terms of the conscious choice to act, follows the action. So, when this guy said that his conscious thought "caused" his arm to move, he was only showing a correlation, not causation.
I agree with basically everything he said.
He is younger than me.
I have dreams sometimes and I know I am dreaming so I try jumping off of things in the attempt to kill myself and wake up. But when I jump in my dreams I always fall in slow motion and it HONESTLY is the most phenomenal feeling.
He explains this with his concept "the chinese room", look John Searle up on wikipedia or facebook. You'll only have to read the first part :)
"Let us know when the field of philosophy itself produces knowledge"
Philosophy is the starting point in the acquisition of all human knowledge.
LOVE THIS GUY!!
Consciousness is without a doubt the single most mysterious thing there is.
The "easy problem" is: "How does consciousness work?"
The "hard problem" is: "Why does a first-person subjective consciousness exist at all?"
Consciousness isn't necessary for a brain to work.
Imagine 2 brains that are 100% identical to each other.
One has a subjective awareness of what it experiences. The other does not.
You could never tell which was which.
They'd both behave exactly the same to an outside observer.
props on the old guy for not passing out and staying conscious after fifteen minutes of not breathing.
I'm not sure whether or not he retracted it. My understanding of the passage is that he was targeting a kind of empirically-uninformed practise of inferring essential features of reality. If I remember correctly, his target was specifically Aristotle and the tradition of cosmology that Aristotle largely inspired. Though 'natural philosophy' is certainly an underspecified term, I take it to chiefly refer to this historical tradition.
There is no consciousness apart from cognitive function. By saying "I am conscious of X", one means that one can talk about X, is attracted to/shy away from X, can focus your attention on X, remember X later on and so on. It's a nice term to sum the activity of all of these kinds of cognition.
There is no separate 'hard problem' to be solved. By studying cognition, we will eventually come to understand more about our consciousness.
Vision is a sense, just like touch or hearing. Color is an aspect of vision, the differentiation of light as sensed by our 3 cones (red, green, and blue). Other aspects of vision are lightness, saturation, texture, etc...
...imagination might take time because you are consciously trying to produce, but when it comes to these dream like states of the brain it can come in a flash, just like memories. Our memories are stored in clusters and are joined together (diner, waitress, 50s, suits) thus the expression "trail of thought". You're experience sounds very much like an instant flash where you filled in the details of what is normally associated with a typical diner.
Well predictions of up to 10 seconds will only be possible for predetermined instructions. The brain is optimised as to handle some tasks without you having to be consciously aware of them, that saves energy. If someone throws a rock at you, you do not want to stand about and make conscious decisions of whether you should move. Your cerebellum is extremely good at handling repeated tasks. Your consciousness often comes in late in the process and has the ability to inhibit most of your actions.
A philosopher taking a serious stab at the phenomenon through and using scientific knowledge and branching out from there to try and interpret it all.
Succeed or not at this for him, this is what philosophy should ALWAYS be about. Here is where we can possibly find real meaning, in my opinion.
Philosophy is at the very foundation of science. It's what makes science work. It's why we know it works. The way Stephen Hawking talks about philosophy as if it is a separate entity from science, like they are two different things, shows that Stephen Hawking isn't talking about all philosophy, or doesn't understand philosophy.
Consciousness is an amorphous and expanding entity.
I can't wait to be a student in his class. In just a few months i will be enlightened on a regular basis.
How is the course? I am also taking a course about his language and institutional fact theory
at 11 minutes he says "we know that's wrong" i think we just hope it's wrong
How can you be so sure? and how do you suppose that works then?
yes i always felt that you were still conscious when you were asleep, just at a different level. The idea that things are an 'illusion' is meaningless, all that is exists, whether they be dreams, thoughts, ideas, concepts. Everything solid in the world began with an idea, even the universe itself.
He's cited over 67 thousand times, has tenure at a research university, and is talking about his primary subject of study. If you think he's an idiot then you really just don't understand him. I suggest reading a few of his articles, especially the most well-cited ones, if you'd like a clearer picture of his views. TED talks are rarely the best venue for complex ideas.
The link is dead.
What's to say a person doesn't consciously make a decision, then the researchers see the data within the brain, and finally the arm moves.
If someone was to throw a baseball at me WITHOUT me seeing it I would NOT have any reason to move out of the way. But if I had seen the baseball I would be capable of deciding what to do. If our decisions are made before we consciously decide them then why would someone react to the ball after having seen it and not before?
Philosophers and neuroscientists sometimes call consciousness 'the hard problem'. Everyone has opinions about it, and I enjoyed reading some of those below. But people watching Searle's talk should be careful not to miss something.
Yes he talks about his ideas on consciousness, but you can read those in books. About 2 minutes into the talk he says something interesting about why 'the hard problem' is so hard. It is because philosophers/scientists and 'religious dualists' make it hard, because they are both wrong about it. They make the wrong assumptions. And people think that materialism and religious mysticism are the only two ways to think about the problem of consciousness. Searle says that is wrong, and the hard problem is not really hard. Maybe he is right.
Which part of "personal" did you not understand?
A lot of authors tried to describe what decides moral. I'm taking note of this book, another point of view can't hurt.
HIS SHIRT IS AN ILLUSION!
Interesting. Consciousness as an emergent property of neurobiological states.
I like it.
" I don't see where a mathematician would need philo."
A mathematician without philosophy is reduced to a calculator.
All humans have philosophy to make sense of information such as physics.
I believe different individuals and animals are conscious on different levels. If you are just staring into a wall and day dreaming you are less conscious of your surroundings than you are if you are for example playing sports or hunting. Free will is something that is hard to prove or disprove in my opinion. When I decide to go against my instincts and my previous training (how I have been raised or taught) what does that mean?
I'm curious what people make of the fact that a person loses a certain specific amount of weight at death. What is that? Is it the soul? If it has weight, is it physical? My reco to anyone trying to increase consciousness levels is to make sure their pineal glands are decalcified & functioning correctly. That means checking your water & fluoride intake, eating right, exercise, & adequate rest. If that's the gateway to our higher selves, or our crown chakras, they need to work correctly.
I'll answer this way, we don't know how gravity works, but clearly it does. :)
Best!
well said indeed !
I completely agree! I believe in balance and dualities, and right-brain vs left-brain is a great example of that very concept. Thanks again! ;D
I once had the same opinion. Then I noticed that those "philosophers" that talk about new fields of research are just surveying the new trends.
The questions I'm still left with are: How do neurological phenomena interact together to create a unified conscious field and, how do precise manipulations of those neurological phenomena change the conscious experience? Are there elements of consciousness that some people experience but others don't? Are there learned aspects of consciousness?
I should probably just pick up a neuroscience textbook.
03:02 ..."once you accept that, the hard problems go away"... sounds awfully like religion to me. Once you accept god, all questions are answered. On what basis should we accept it? Not one fact or argument was presented to support the statement that consciousness is biological phenomenon. So what should our acceptance be based upon? Faith?
+Sam Reads The belief that consciousness is a biological phenomenon is like faith in that it is a belief. But unlike faith it's a belief based on evidence. That consciousness is only ever found in biological system is a big piece of that evidence. If there's no brain there's no consciousness. Changes in brain chemistry produce changes in consciousness. Many changes in consciousness are accompanied by changes in brain activity. There's a whole lot of evidence that supports the proposition that consciousness is biological. However that might not always be the case, some day someone might build a conscious computer. However there is not evidence and no good reason to believe a consciousness will be found that is not instantiated in some material thing.
+cgm778 What evidence? Is there even a clear definition of the term consciousness? Is there any test to prove or disprove consciousness? Do note that I'm not referring to consciousness as a medical term (which essentially a symptomatic diagnosis and detection of the brain's electrical activity) - i'm talking about the "hard question" of consciousness - self awareness, or the ability of an entity to know that it exists. Searle also speaks about the "hard question" - and in this context, the origin of consciousness is unknown, to say the least.
03:02...The problem I have is the finality with which such statements are made. It's better to acknowledge lack of knowledge so as to keep the field of study open, rather than authoritatively dictate a weak theory. Baseless statements made by influential people can impact university courses, funding, and the general attitude of the public - so closing the door on a subject we know so little about will do more harm than good to humanity.
Sam Reads Consciousness isn't well defined and that is why so many get away with making vague and meaningless statements about it. Typically people define consciousness in terms of awareness but it can also include perceptions and thoughts. It's a medical term meaning level of wakefulness, alertness or being able to respond to the environment. The medical sense is nice because it's useful, clear and can be operationalized. However, the medical term was designed to get something done but the goal of many who talk about consciousness is to claim we can't get anything done or even understand it in any useful way.
Some talk about consciousness as if it were a physical force or substance. That approach wasn't useful when desCartes tried it and it's still not today. But mostly "consciousness" is used to mean a broad category of activities. We would be better off trying to understand each of those activities individual so we know if it is even sensible to lump them together under the same "conscious" umbrella.
What is the evidence? Again, the evidence that consciousness is biological is biology is required for conscious things. There is never consciousness without biology. What clearer evidence could there be?
There is a lot we don't know about awareness, memory, cognition, neurobiology and the various other things under the conscious umbrella. There should be more funding on research in those areas. That funding should be primarily go to approaches that are likely to produce results and not to approaches that don't know what they are talking about or at least can clearly define it. Yes we should have an open mind but with a fine skeptical filter to keep the detritus out.
+cgm778 ... your statement "What is the evidence? Again, the evidence that consciousness is biological is biology is required for conscious things. There is never consciousness without biology. What clearer evidence could there be?"
If we haven't defined consciousness, and there is no test to prove consciousness, then how can the above statement be true? How can we test whether something is conscious or not, if there is no clear definition of what it is that needs to be tested? Without a suitable test, this statement is neither provable nor is it falsifiable.
Sam Reads Here are some definitions of consciousness, all of which are only seen in biological things.
"Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself." --Wikipedia
"the condition of being conscious : the normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you." -Merriam-Webster
"The state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings ... The awareness or perception of something by a person .. The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world." - Oxford English dictionary
There is no single test for consciousness because consciousness isn't a singular thing. But there are ways to operationalize the various aspects. Any voluntary response can be evidence for awareness. Verbal reports can be used to get at subjective experience.
As far as whether my statement is provable or falsifiable ... Proofs should only be required in the fields of logic and mathematics. There is plenty of evidence supporting my claim. However it is easily falsifiable, all it takes is one case of consciousness without a biology creature and it will be proven false.
How do we not still need philosophers when all the biggest questions of life are yet unanswered?
Wish he'd debate Dan Dennett on this topic.
can you give an example of a system that cannot be simulated?
Well that's simple.... I can't. However, the image/sound/smell was so very vivid and so sudden that I'm positive I didn't just "imagine" it.
I was a male in a diner with pastel colors and rounded tables and countertops so I think it was the 60's based on the decor alone. It was either sunrise or sunset because the light was coming in from the rows of windows at an angle. (I think it was sunset because of the pale orange color to the light.) I was wearing a black jacket and sitting with cont
04:34 ...Oh such a weak definition, stated in an authoritative manner. The whole lecture was style, with very little substance.
> Have you never got up in the middle of the night to go to the loo? If your consciousness was lost at that time, how did the bladder communicate with your brain about the imminent urgency?
> Ok, maybe you meant to say "consciousness disappears in deep sleep"... what if a bomb went off nearby - would your brain not register the boom and wake up? The very fact that some external input could be interpreted by the brain, means consciousness never went away.
I think the definition of consciousness presented here is nonsense. It was very similar to a religious leader's discourse - delivered authoritatively, but based on a flimsy, "faith-is-a-prerequisite" premise.
Couldn't agree more with the way you put it "...It was very similar to a religious leader's discourse - delivered authoritatively, but based on a flimsy, "faith-is-a-prerequisite" premise...."
Bit isn't "..."faith-is-a-prerequisite" premise...." the common ground of science and religion ? Science is as much based on faith as religion is.
We believe there's a physical world out there with no proof whatsoever .We believe that the material world is made of energy but can't define energy.
We readily dismiss the idea that information is all there is because it doesn't feel or sound right. Yet all we do is process information .
"... the damn thing goes up whenever I decide to do so...". Maybe the question is if there is a damn hand in the first place. Or if space is so fundamental as we think it is.
Science is by definition the opposite of religion and faith. It is based on rationality, logic, proof and consensus. Claims made by science are not the absolute truth. They are theories, meaning that they are just very likely to be true. Not a single "theory" in the way i just defined it is accepted as being objectively true. These theories are constantly reevaluated and researched upon. And the question of whether the physical world is real or not is not in the field of science but of philosophy.
Your brain communicates the urge to your brain subconsciously in your sleep which makes your brain wake up and become conscious to adress the urge and hope your consciousness decides to go use the bathroom
Philosophy will never be irrelavent.... Philosophy's most important lesson is teaching people how to think, reason, and use logic. Their arguments might not be relavent anymore, but the skills used to make those arguments will always be neccisary in all aspects of life.
I might respectfully intrude. Our innate moral compass may be the product of evolution as it helps us look after our kin and ensure the survival of our genes. These subjective feelings of connection and spirit may be evolutionary mechanisms. That said, it doesn't mean that our consciousness and inner experiences are worthless. In fact, worth is subjective which means that our conscious states are the ONLY things that matter. I hope this was a positive contribution to your discussion.
Gotta love Terrence!
pure consciousness comes from the ancient and all-knowing infinite being within the self, unhindered by the external translating machine known as the mind.
meditation allows us to re-meet our true self, and experience a level of awareness beyond the five senses.
the mind is the consistent interruption of this field of energy. it is the device that allows us to experience the physical world, while (pure) consciousness is the spiritual realm. we could all be MORE AWARE of our pure consciousness.
Decartes's cogito ergo sum, - "I think therefore I am" is a tautology. There is an "I" on both sides of the "therefore" - therefore it's really I=I and that "I" is the self model. One can just as easily say "I feel therefore I am" or "I stink, therefore I am." It is possible for things like chess programs to think and not have an "I" or "self-model" - Thinking is not what makes you an I. It's the self-model.
FEELS!!!
I might have just come from Wittgenstein but I promise it's an idea that I already had - words can not do this subject justice. Understanding it (not that I do fully, but I understand enough to know this) must be about the only non-superficially rewarding echo chamber
talk with Gregg Braden about consciousness
This old man rocks.
Take it how you like. It's not a scientific paper it's a close friends personal experience.
Google "self-model theory of subjectivity, Metzinger" for more explanation than you can get in a 500 character limited comment.
It's about consciousness as a first-person perspective where you are the center of your perceptions. We feel like we are perceiving reality directly but we are only perceiving representations of reality, a model of reality for a model of the self that perceives the world and acts with self oriented goals.
Well,I like this presentation and I like his ideas. A very interesting speech on subject of consciousness that claims the mind-body problema is actually quite simple one and that consciousness must be considered as a fully biological phenomenom.
I think Philosophy and experts who focus on specializing in it are essential for the continuance of a healthy society. Science is important, but it cannot answer many essential questions: what is morality? How should we live our lives? When such questions dissolve into irrelevance, there will no longer be any need for Philosophy. But, as these questions are as relevant today as in the 6th century, I cannot see how Philosophy is not.
I didn't hear one argument, that would explain consciousness as something biological/material. Then at the end he just claims, consciousness has to be accepted as a biological phenomena. Why can't he just admit, that he doesn't have a clue.
I doubt detailed arguments can be presented in a Ted talk.
There is a strong correlation between neurological activity and perceived mental states. Of course, correlation doesn't equal causation. But in the absence of more plausible/verifiable hypotheses, consciousness as an emergent phenomenon of neurological activity is consistent with materialist monism.
Materialist monism has no explanation for a subjective experience. That's the key point. You can not ignore this problem away by saying you have to accept that consciousness is a biological phenomena.
DrunkeNsRetroGames Not sure what you mean by "has no explanation". The explanation is that it, consciousness, is an emergent phenomenon i.e. that consciousness is a state of the neurological activity, much like water is a state of a collection of H2O molecules.
If you are not satisfied with that explanation and think consciousness is something different, that is fine. But it is still an explanation and fits available data and possible to study based on that explanation.
You can not just say consciousness emerges from neurological activity. That is not an explanation. Mr. Searle can repeat that over and over again, what he does, and still won't solve the problem. How can in an unconscious universe made of matter suddenly emerge a subjective experience? That's the philosophical problem. And there is not a single theory out there that solves this problem.
DrunkeNsRetroGames "You can not just say consciousness emerges from neurological activity." Yes, you CAN say that. That is the concept of emergent phenomena; they emerge from the interactions of things which themselves don't exhibit that phenomenon. If you are not familiar with emergent phenomena, time to educate yourself about them. I am done.
i read the definition of Consciousness over and over again..and i'm still not sure i get what excatly people mean by it...and why people are constantly talking about it. is this some property only humans supposed to possess? how can i test if i have this property? what would a robot have to do in order to be considered conscious?
Well. I'm leaning toward Dennett and Hofstadter when it comes to this debate. Damn. Need to go through GEB and Consciousness Explained again.
I think we forget that having an interest in Science is a higher level of consciousness. It is a new perspective of the world. This can be induce with psychedelic drugs. This area of research should be interested in how this happens.