Neuroscientific Evidence: Irreducible Mind (Part 1)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- Does neuroscience show consciousness emerges from a brain? We show a wealth of data suggests the opposite. The mind does not appear to be reducible to matter.
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
Due to there being too many sources, I had to make a google doc to include them all:
docs.google.co...
This is a new version, because I decided to cut out a section after a supporter raised some good objections. If you want to see want convinced me and Kyle Alander to stop using this one specific argument, see here: ruclips.net/video/BNhUj1op5do/видео.html
What part got cut out?
@Tim Goodwin the part about how psychedelic drugs reduce brain activity but increase richness of experience.
This question is off-topic. There are so many people with different views in general (God, soul, science, etc) but a lot of people are convinced they know that what they claim to be true, is objectively true, even though this is also evident in people with opposing views on a certain topic, they are truly convinced their "investigation" is unbiased and objective just as the other person with the opposing view. DO you think this is an epistemological problem or more of a cultural, sociological, or maybe a psychological problem?
I've never actually heard you say it so I'd like to ask you directly. Are you a Christian? If not what are you? I ask because I've seen similar channels that say there's good evidence for God but then deny Christianity.
Many thanks.
Bruh, you re-uploaded something because you admitted you were wrong and corrected your statement.
God bless you, IP. You are a model for all apologists.
What was he wrong about?
@@karozans Here's what he said - This is a new version, because I decided to cut out a section after a supporter raised some good objections. If you want to see want convinced me and Kyle Alander to stop using this one specific argument, see here: @
@@anahata3478 they might lend one to dismiss materialism, but it seems to me that psychedelics are the strongest experiential argument that the mind is emergent. I've always believed strongly in the primacy of the mind over the brain, but psychedelics are the only thing that's ever make me seriously question that belief. No matter how much you might want to quit tripping, no amount of focus and mental control will change that. Just like no amount of mental effort will make you trip without consuming any necessary substance
@ nathan nicholson before i experienced a psychedelic experience due to an intuitive ritual, id be right there with your completely sound rational theory. However, it is wrong. You can have a psychedelic experience with no substance. Youre being a little too black and white in all of this.
@@AcidAdventurer That was until mushrooms showed massive de-activation in the brain, which was contrary to all scientific expectations. The question being: How do you get such rich and intensive subjective experience in a brain that has been chemically down-regulated when everyone thought/knew that that could only happen with increased brain activity?
This blew my mind, although my brain was unaffected.
Carol Buckles HAHAHAHAHA
😂
This, this is great
spot on. However, this video can not blow your mind repeatedly very often, which fact shows that your brain was affected indeed.
@@AndrasDNagy-bs5dc That's because you're presupposing that it is the brain that causes your mind to not be blown anymore.
This is basically an academic essay in a video format. Look at the amount of research he has done. Truly amazing.
Unfortunately it isn't, and he hasn't done any research. Research identifies gaps in the current state of knowledge and produces empirical data or theories to fill those gaps. To do this, though, one needs to correctly understand and represent what prior research says. He is taking papers which effectively say that there is a feedback loop in the brain between decision-making, behaviour and neural correlates, and he is claiming that proves that the mind is independent of the brain. It doesn't. It proves exactly what the papers say they show, which is that there is a feedback loop between decision-making, behaviour and neural correlates. Nothing more, nothing less.
Waving your hand at scientific research and interpreting it however you like is not science, and is not research, not is it academic rigour.
@@austin3789 That's not what I said at all. I'll restate my point more clearly. He is misrepresenting what the papers he's read is valid and drawing conclusions from things they don't say. It is valid to draw conclusions from the work of other researchers. It isn't valid to misinterpret what other papers have said and then draw conclusions from your misrepresentation.
James Naish For research essays, you’re allowed to draw inferences from research findings and data to form your conclusions. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what most researchers do for lit review (at least in Psychology). He is simply phrasing the researching findings in a way that supports the premises of his video. It’s not misrepresenting at all.
@@subterraneanhomesickalien1344 I think this says it all: "phrasing the researching findings in a way that supports the premises of his video". If you can't see what's wrong with that statement, then therein lies the issue.
James Naish Oh, dear, you've misunderstood me. I didn’t say that he manipulates the research findings to support his findings. While writing a research essay, you have to organize your research findings and report and phrase them in a way that establishes a connection between those findings and your research question and hypotheses. Then, point out the agreements or disagreements between the findings and your hypotheses, and present your own interpretation of the results, considering the strengths and weaknesses of the the original interpretation from the literature. That is exactly what Michael did. I don't see anything wrong with that. Almost all psychology research papers I read are done like this, especially research in cognitive psychology.
This dude is literally amazing. He makes these great videos, and he admits when he’s wrong and corrects his mistakes.
@Kenton Bowers woop woop
It's a shame there aren't more like him the world would be a better place.
@French Frys evidence?
edit: I had the wrong impression of this creator, and French Frys here was kind enough to correct that impression. I highly encourage everyone here to follow the link they have provided directly beneath this comment.
@French Frys oh wow, hey thanks mate. I knew you knew what you were talking about the second Rationality Rules popped up. had no idea this guy was even religious, let alone all that other nonsense.
thanks again for the warning!
@French Frys also sorry if I've disappointed you, you seemed very prepared to argue your position if I were you I'd be a tad bummed out rn lol
One thing i really admire and respect about michael is that he makes no lame excuse or story when he make mistake. He accept it,and even ready to walk extra mile to correct it. I salute You. God bless you and your family
Awle
Very intelligent explanation. I was suffering from depression and tanataphobia (fear of death) but your videos helped me change my life and look at th world with a different non materialistic view. You should make a case video on blind ppl from birth having lucid verified NDE's.
In his video 5 about afterlife and NDE, he mentions the case of Vicky who was blind from birth and saw in the NDE
@@steveplay0940 Nde's are stupid LOL but i agree that our consciousness is immaterial and we have a mind
@@_malinx_Maybe, maybe not
Some are certainly bs, and are completely incoherent
But some seem to be coherent
I concluded that the brain (much like the computer that is so so similar) is an interface system. Just as we use computers to interface with programs and enter commands, our spirit uses our brain to experience through our body, and give it commands.
Exactly
What about people who receive brain damage and go mad?
@@pureone8350 you ever tried playing with a really bad connection?
This is almost 100% correct. The only thing you missed is that the mind is it’s own consciousness that we can influence. The mind is in control of the brain. The mind will do everything in its power to keep you from knowing this. Life does not happen to you. Your just an observer, enjoy the ride.
@@pureone8350Late reply, but real physical things are subject to laws of entropy, metaphysical things like the soul are beyond the limits of physics, so to speak.
So, in a sense, if a Person has a genetic defect, or a damaged brain, or some physical or mental disability, the soul is still pure and fine, but the soul's experience in the Universe will be through a body that is disabled either physically or mentally.
Now, why would a soul choose to go through such experience? I don't know. Maybe it's Karma like the Hindus say, or maybe it's the free will of the soul, or maybe it's some divine plan of the lord. Who knows.
We don't have an answer. But, as Human Beings in this World, we can definitely try to help those who suffer with any form of physical or mental disability, it's not like every living person is disabled.
What is a mind? Don't matter. What is matter? Never mind.
bro IP should see this!
being open minded? Nah! Seeing different perspectives? Of course not! Typing a up a little phrase to make you seem smart? *YAS QUEEN!*
Early simpsons reference? Or life in hell? Either way, good one.
@@miguelEguzman It was early Simpsons reference pre-1989.
@@KTChamberlain ah. Thanks. It was both, but I was wondering which you were referencing. Same guy wrote both. Only the characters changed.
IP is the terminator of apologetics.
The batman sounds better
@@multienergy3684 true 👍
SO HAPPY I DISCOVERED YOUR CHANNEL!!!! we have a Soul! It is beyond brain!
@@saammahakala You seem to think that 'conscious' is a something, that 'Soul' is a something and that 'form' is a something.
It seems to me quite obvious that all three of these are pure abstractions or conceptions. I say pure because there is no actual materially existing objects to which the words refer or can refer.
To assert that suffering is an illusion means you don't know what illusion means or what suffering means or what it means for a being to be conscious or some combination of all three.
It seems to me your whole comment is meaningless gibberish.
@@saammahakala It seems to me that if too many can't distinguish between the contents of the world around them and the contents of their own imaginations or the imaginary constructs implanted in them by others, then there's a good chance no good will come from it.
And it's the good that I want, not just for me, but for everyone.
Sure these imaginary notions may have served humanity well in a time when nobody knew anything about the whys and wherefores of the world around them.
That time is past.
Time to wake up now!
Time to become educated by the facts so assiduously discovered.
Time to stop murdering people by flying planes into buildings
just because some believe that is what their imaginary god commands.
Seventy two virgins in paradise is an unlikely reward for murder.
You might even call it crazy to expect it.
Are the contents or your imagination so very different?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL
You’re trying to debunk the immaterial with material, this will only lead you to a hamster wheel. Time to wake up and connect with your spirit and escape the fake illusion of materialism
@@justaguywithaturban6773 How on earth did you get the notion that I am of the materialist persuasion?
Yes :)
Unlike some atheists who create videos filled with logical fallacies and never correct them IP will remove his videos correct them and upload it again. 👍
Thank you
With more logical fallacies😅
@@ramilurazmanov I guess you dismiss the entire video as being a god of the gaps argument, but may I ask what other fallacies did you detect?
@@ramilurazmanov exactly :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D He is good at making videos, but bad at logic.
@Corvus Morve There are lots of atheist youtubers who constantly throw straw man arguments and ad hominems.
This is one of the best videos I´ve ever seen, full of studies, books and solid arguments. Awesome channel!!
I've never grown tired of these essays. You've nailed the professional format.
I just found your channel this evening, 5 hours later....I'm really enjoying your content! Well done.
I was already a believer in soul...I love this topic.
I truly appreciate the time and energy you spent on researching this. I find that I periodically return to these videos to re engage with elements I may have forgotten - maybe annually or so. This video series should be compiled into a book or perhaps made into a singular documentary that can be shared with an even wider audience!
Oh yes!
A man who owns up to his mistakes!
Especially for a Christian.
Good job man! I salute ya!
what he made mistake in?
@@UltraInstinct509 IP wrote in a pinned comment that he retracted this video because he realized that one of the points he brought up in it was wrong, so he edited that part out and reposted it.
@French Frys considering none of those are true probably not
@French Frys the bible isn't immoral, God isn't a "thug"
French Frys your bloody Evilbible.com info
A bad lsd experience left me messed up and you have helped my friend God bless you 💙💪
God bless you, luv!
I actually have OCD, I can confirm that CBT and ERP have in fact altered the way I respond to stresses around me. Things that were previously automatic (subconscious) reactions, I have changed.
God bless IP. Your work is an inspiration. I am eagerly awaiting and update from the Dr. you contacted.
Hearing about alters lacking sight in a sighted body is interesting; it sounds like the idea of Aristotle and Aquinas saying that the soul itself has the power of sight, hearing, etc...
Also I just want to say that you kept your word when you told Matt that you would adjust your view if new evidence comes up. To me that is true honesty and I have upmost respect for that.
If a computer needs electricity to run but you unplug the computer, the computer (the body) will stop working but the source of electricity (consciousness) will always exist in nature.
But the electricity isn't the algorithms the computer can run because it is supplied the electricity. IOW, yes, something exists that allows consciousness and, like electricity, it may well be something based on or emerging from the physical world.
This is amazing timing lol I've been wrestling with these topic for a few weeks now. Cheers
You are the greatest apologist I have ever listened to. Never change.
I think the argument against atheistic theories of life and consciousness while necessary to defend our position that humanity is something more, but there's also an increasing need to defend our faith in the face of the growing new age movement, where spirit is believed, but it's origins are rejected fiercely.
This is one of your best videos yet. Great job!!
Thnk you, I was currently losing faith in spirituality and God, but your scientific explanation offers relief for me
This reminds me of the writings of the church fathers. The orthodox christian view is that the human being consists of both soul and body (immaterial and material), and that is why death is unnatural as per God's intention for us, and also why the resurrection of all is not just an arbitrary act by God, but a necessity. The neurological explanation of internal focus also proves the importance of daily prayer. It literally helps us orient our minds towards what is good and true by rewiring our brains.
Are you going to discuss the relationship between evolution and the birth of consciousness in humans? Looking forward to the next parts!
He won't. Humanity already had failed. Their mind and brain is a waste of time. "Birth of consciousness in Humans" BS! We're lump of cells and just deal with it!
@@davidgumazon ,
Interesting how little your "lump of cells" think of you.
@@davidgumazon This sounds more like depression than a logical deduction at work.
@@TryHardCryHarder it is nihilism.
Your evolutionary presuppositions are showing
Woah... the title of that paper is “Sight and Blindness in the Same Person”.
Imagine approaching an academic journal trying to get that published.
This video series is pretty good. Especially to show relatives and stuff.
@InspiringPhilosophy I came here from your interview with Matt Fradd on Pints of Aquinas, and then your debate with AP. You rock, and I'm excited to go through this 5-video series. I have a question about the evidence that points towards consciousness not stemming from the brain. Wouldn't some of these things hold true for animals as well? For example, I've seen videos of animals doing intelligent things, like a dog who helped save a child, or noticed it was raining and ran with an umbrella to its owner. I suppose that electric stimulation would not be able to activate the mind of these animals to act involuntarily either, correct? If that's the case, I don't think this evidence really supports the fact that human beings have non-material souls and animals do not.
I have no doubt that an honorary doctorate is in your future. God bless you.
Here is a computer science argument against the possibility of reducing the mind to the brain:
1. The brain is a machine.
2. If it were possible to reduce mental phenomena to the operations of a machine, then there should be an algorithm which tells whether any given machine is thinking or not.
3. If some machines think, then thinking is a nontrivial semantic property of machines.
4. If thinking is a nontrivial semantic property of machines, it is impossible to tell (undecidable) whether any given machine is thinking or not, as there is no algorithm which does that. (Rice's theorem)
Therefore it is impossible to reduce the mind to the brain.
You should check out Rice's theorem
the word "reduce" is annoying here. We do want to understand the unknown. We try to reduce it to simple known models which may explain more of it if compared to not modeling it at all. This however means not that the current model would really help to describe the wholeness of truth about how consciousness works in the brain. Our existing models are just not very good models, unfortunately. Which means we just don`t know how the consciousness of the mind works in the brain, but we can know that it works in the brain without understanding how it works in there.
So because we cant discern between thinking and non thinking machines the mind cant be reduced to the brain? The theorem is full of holes imo, but even if it wasnt it dosnt make sense.
@@metalbotanist6730 it's a deeper problem , matter can't be conscious , consciousness is not just complex structure of matter , the ideia "make it complex and it will think " make no sense at all .
Wait, so how do you justify your second premise?
I agree that it's a nontrivial and (probably) semantic property, and _because_ I know what Rice's theorem is, I find premise 2 utterly implausible.
It is definitely possible to reduce adding numbers to the operations of a machine, yet there is no algorithm to correctly determine whether a given machine is adding numbers or not. Even a question as simple as "If I ask this machine what's 1+1, will it answer 2?" is undecidable.
@@marcosgalvao3182 Really? Look at how children grow up, the more their brains become complex, the more their personality becomes. Or hell, look at dogs and humans and differences between our brains, and consciousness, and theirs.
I am an immortal spirit housed within my body. My body will die, but my spirit will continue forever.
A great and informative video about consciousness, mind and brain.
Thank you for making a video like this as science is too slow to admit its own paradigmatic ignorances and blindspots.
Had a tough time arguing for this view during my neuroscience master (take my advice, don't try it).
You have a masters in neuroscience and still maintain belief in a soul?
@@anthonygreico9735 call it what you will: consciousness, soul, mind, universe, life, god etc. Your pick.
Until there is a quantum-physicalist, a biochemical and an evolutionary explanation for the emergence of conscious self awareness, the strong default should be that there exists extra-materialistic reality. If materialist resign to the tautology that "only physical things can be things" then they have an utterly opaque insuperable bias.
Perhaps it should be the other way around. Until there can be shown there actually exists 'extra-materialistic' reality that can interact with the material/physical brain, we should assume consciousness and self awareness....that seems to influence our physical movements, must be part of or emerge within the physical world. If the super-materialist resigns to the tautology that only the nonphysical can be conscious, then they have an utterly opaque insuperable bias. See, that works both ways. I'd happily entertain that there exists nonmaterial reality that influences the physical world when I see it described and demonstrated. IOW, I see no particular advantage to invoking the nonmaterial as an explanation for anything unless it is better explained by that assertion. Try to explain to yourself how this nonmaterial realm/world/state can be/produce consciousness...ie how it works, what it does, how it interacts, how it begins, does it end, define its properties at least as well as you want the physicalist to explain to you how the physical/material produces consciousness.
I’m rewatching this series again in order to gather my thoughts on all the information. Just to ask, would you be willing to engage with panpsychism as a theory?
How could a series of physical events blossom into our life-filled planet? We know how. But just because we don't know how something could happen doesn't mean we won't know in the future or that we should ascribe it to something we currently know nothing about.
You’ve overlooked the scientifically confirmed re-wiring of the brain, when learning to read the written word. The language area creates enhanced connections to the image form area of the brain. Neuroscientists ascribe this re-wiring to the “Domain General” operations of the brain, something I believe we could safely attribute to the MInd.
Means brain creates consciousness
External stimuli does affect the brain, no one is saying it doesn't
Your example is how the mind is learning through the brain, but that doesnt imply that the brain generates the mind
As shown before, even without any external stimuli (merely through will) one can employ neuroplasticity to reshape the brain. Which shouldn't happen if the brain was solely dependant on external stimuli
This, together with the rest of the case implies that consciousness can't be created by the brain
Trying to find consciousness in the brain is like trying to find the driver in the car’s engine
" I am not the body, I am not the mind, I am not even the emotion. "
You are energy
*Correcting:
You are not just the body,you are not the brain,u r spirit in a body with mind over the brain.
Spirit
Then what is "I"?
Ultimately "I" refers to oneself
And oneself is not the thoughts, but the one having the thoughts
In other words one is the mind, the conscious experiencer
The conscious unit is what one is
And that conscious unit has thoughts
The thoughts are not the mind, the thoughts originate from the mind
Then what are you?
Do you even exist?
I love you IP your videos have improved my quality of life and you're content is pure benissimo
*Premise 1:* If consciousness is reducible to physical phenomena, then identifying physical phenomena identifies what it is like to be the subject, _for_ the subject.
*Premise 2:* Identifying physical phenomena does not identify what it is like to be the subject, _for_ the subject.
*Conclusion:* Consciousness is not reducible to physical phenomena.
This argument is valid since it takes the form of _Modus Tollens_ so the only question is if the premises are true. If the qualitative and subjective aspects of conscious experience-how consciousness “feels” and the fact that it is directly “for me”-were exactly the same and similar in _every_ detail to the brain, or its processes, or whatever physical phenomenon you're trying to identify the mental with, then _by definition_ once you've identified the physical phenomenon that's all you need to identify what it is like to be the subject, _for_ the subject since they're literally the same thing. But this is clearly not the case: "third-person studies" of the brain, or any physical phenomenon, does not give us the first-person subjective aspects of conscious experience, and that's not possible if reductive materialism is true. This is a contradiction in reductive materialism which means it's impossible for reductive materialism to be true, so this is no gap that can be plugged in by someone in the future. This is a fundamental inconsistency in reductive materialism.
The problem is that premise 1 is not known to be true. It can not be established. So there is n contradiction to reductive materialism, and thus no fundamental inconsistency. Prove premise and you would have an argument.
What? Are u saying he is wrong or something?
@@parsivalshorse Here is the proof for Premise 1:
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “The type of reductionism that is currently of most interest in metaphysics and philosophy of mind involves the claim that all sciences are reducible to physics. This is usually taken to entail that all phenomena (including mental phenomena like consciousness) are identical to physical phenomena.”
Source: www.iep.utm.edu/red-ism/
Definition of Identical: “Similar in every detail; exactly alike.” Synonymous with: “exactly the same, indistinguishable, undifferentiated.”
Source: en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/identical
So if mental phenomena is identical to physical phenomena then it must necessarily follow that identifying the physical (which the mental is being reduced to) _must_ identify the mental since they're just the exact same thing, that's what it means to be identical.
@@MonisticIdealism No, you got that backwards. Science is not making the claim that consciousness is reducible to physical phenomena, it just seems to be likely. Science makes no claim of knowledge on that point. Idealism claims that consciousness is NOT reducible to the physical - which is an unproveable claim, science makes no such claim.
Your premise follows with; 'then identifying physical phenomena identifies what it is like to be the subject, for the subject' which is just a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow from the claim that science isn't making anyway.
You continue; 'So if mental phenomena is identical to physical phenomena then it must necessarily follow that identifying the physical (which the mental is being reduced to) must identify the mental since they're just the exact same thing, that's what it means to be identical.'
Which is rather different then what you stated in your premise 1. But if so - then what is your point? It seems just a tautology?
@@MonisticIdealism If you could make an argument for idealism I would really love to hear it, so please present one if you can.
I love this series so much. That I am nothing down this video on my note book so that I can learn and provide a better defence
Here's a thought: Nothing in the laws of physics suggests that something like a code is possible: Ordered structures can be decoded according to syntax rules and this yields information that refers to things that exist or could exist or should exist but are to be built according to the coded instructions. Codes and coded information are of immaterial categories and not reducible to the laws of physics. They obviously exist in the mental sphere, but we even find them when no mind is processing them: I'm talking about DNA and the genetic code. So if things can exist that er not reducible to matter but still carried by matter in a way we can hope to understand, perhaps consciousness is similar? Perhaps even much of what we call supernatural or spiritual is carried by physical processes as a supervenient dynamic in ways that are just way beyond our ability to understand, and not some completely other "substance". At least for the consciousness case, I can think of an experiment that is easier to test than string theory (which isn't much).
Where you get these images? How you do the videos? I know about the subject, you are inspiring me to make videos too, in portuguese.
Beyond of videos of mine, I would like to put lyrics into yours and reuploud , letting your reference
Thanks IP, learned a lot. I was wondering to what extent these phenomenon occur in animals. If there is various levels of consciousness in animals, does evolution play a role? In that case, what makes humans have Imago dei if animals also have a will?
They are the ones who wrote the book.
Hi! I realize this comment is a year (or so) old, but I think the easiest distinguishing feature we have above that of the animals is that we are ruling over them. We have been given dominion over all of God's non-human creatures. In that very strong sense, we were created in the image and likeness of God. It isn't merely the will or the personality.
Angels have will and personality. Doesn't make them imago Dei. In fact, they don't even rule over us humans. Interesting that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:3, "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!"
Side note: I don't believe in evolution. I hold that God created all the life we know simply days apart. Haha! I don't see why a materialist myth (pardon my usage of the term if you believe in evolution) should have any bearing on the immaterial reality of consciousness in animals.
@17:45 "If personalities are a creation of the physical neurons in the brain, they should be an effect of the physical makeup"
They are. When you have different "personalities", it's because different circuitry is active at different times. The differentially activated circuitry is what causes the different function and different experience.
You can experience something similar by taking psychedelics. When we chemically alter the function of the brain, your experience of your perception changes. It's not the "mind" driving the change in perception; it's the chemicals.
This whole video is basically one long argument from incredulity. "We don't understand this complex thing completely yet, so it must be god"
We do understand the plasticity of the brain. When you focus your effort on a thing, it increases the electrical activity in the regions of the brain affected. And when you repeat the electrical activity a lot, it generates this chemical cascade of transcription factors and then your neurons start making the proteins to make the synaptic connections. These processes are understood in great detail.
There's a great deal known already that this video does not seem to be aware of.
And no, neuroscience does not provide evidence for a "soul". That's wishful thinking on the part of religious scientists, but I guess the snipe hunt will continue.
How brain creates consciousness is not detected. But has consciousness outside brain been detected?
You can use your mind for you in better ways or against you in worse ways
Awesome video. People need to know this.
About the OCD therapy, the claim is "Consciousness and thoughts changed and modified the brain." But when the therapist talks to the patient, he can't communicate directly with the patient's consciousness. The brain is involved too. Talking to the patient activates the patient's brain so any improvement he experiences can be credited to that brain activity just as much as to the patient's consciousness and thoughts.
One thing is external stimuli and another is internal stimuli
It isn't the talk of the therapist that is reshaping the brain, that was tested before. And it didn't produce the same results
You can't just throw all of this data by saying that since the brain is involved then it implies that the brain is what is changing itself
This was pretty good. I wish you had made an argument for why physicalism entails epiphenomenalism. You appear to have just assumed it or taken it for granted in this video. The common response to these studies about the mind having causal influence over the brain involve appeals to "feedback loops," which you didn't say anything about. If the brain gives rise to mind, and that mind then affects some other part of the brain, then this is essentially the brain rewiring itself. So I would like it if you had argued this detail of your case a little more instead of just assuming that if the mind causes the brain, then it must be a non-physical substance.
I haven't watched that part yet.
I guess the next sentences I write will mean I have to.
I'll get back to this comment after watching.
Try thinking of the brain and the mind as one and the same thing,
no epiphenomenon involved and no 'emergence'.
The brain is the material thing, obviously.
The mind is its behavior, less obvious but completely understandable.
When the brain misbehaves one can see some strange things, think LSD.
When the brain stops behaving the mind ceases being.
When the brain behaves a certain way we call the 'owner' conscious.
When the brain behaves a different way we say the 'owner's' sleeping.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I'd say this is a good argument. But it leaves out alot of things. The first to come to mind immedeatly is when someone who has experienced brain death, or close to it has long, and/or vivid experiences.
Irregardless of any chemical flooding into the brain, a mind dependent on brain function would have to be in lockstep , and dilate up, or down with it. And while that's true it does this in most instances, it does not do so in every instance. And the issue is fir a materialist mind to be reality there can be no exceptions to that rule.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 "But it leaves out alot of things."
If you truly understood what I wrote you could not have written that statement for what I wrote constitutes a sufficient foundation for understanding everything concerning the relationship between matter and the mental.
If one's brain, operating in conscious mode, departs in certain ways from normal behaviour then this will show up as oddities in one's subjective experience, hallucinations being the most vividly illustrative, for instance.
But note well, when I refer to the brain's behaviour, you must understand that I am referring to a vast collection of independent and interacting behaviors among perhaps a hundred billion separate brain components. If you take 'brain behavior' to be a single unified phenomenon then it's likely you will err in thinking something like 'self' or 'ghost' or 'soul'. I gather from what you wrote that that is how you're thinking.
I think the key to understanding is to not think of 'behavior' as a 'something' just because a noun refers to it. Behavior does not exist. Behavior does not exist like matter. Think of behavior as 'being'. Thus a human 'being' has a body that 'exists'. The body is the substrate that must exist so that all the trillions of microscopic behaviors have something to be the behaviors of.
It will take more writing to nail down the details of how brain behavior gives rise to subjectivity but I have to go to work now. I'll await your feedback on this comment's core idea and see if you want to explore the details.
(It is absolutely necessary for you to be familiar with the basics of how neurons and synapses work before the details can make sense to you).
(Oh, it might also be helpful if you think for a while about how my written sentences, my thoughts frozen on your screen, can, by your merely reading them, transfer my thoughts into your mind so that they become your thoughts also (and of course vice-versa)).
Cheers, eh!
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL
I'd be willing to learn more always. But even the reply you wrote seems counter intuitive.
You said that the subjective experience is the result of many complex parts inter working with one another. And behaviour arises from that. And thus subjective experience as well.
I'd say that further complicates the issue of using that as an explanation of the human mind in the face of what we were discussing.
If the subjective experiences only arise from a myriad of different parts working properly together, then any disassociation and/or dulling of those individual functions should also dull the subjective experience. Not produce something of a hyper experience.
The lower yout brain states get the closer you should get to a state like that of a vegetative one. Not the reverse.
you can be a really good person or a really bad person and a stroke can change that. It often does. Brain injury can change what people think and feel and what they are perceived as. If our characteristics werent tied to a brain they would not be so easily changed.
That's not strictly true as you've overlooked the more likely explanation that a brain injury will undoubtedly cause deep emotional and psychological distress within sufferers.
Emotional distress often cause people to both consciously and subconsciously re evaluate their previously held priorities thus explaining any potential personality changes.
Furthermore, where a brain injury that causes loss or limit to physical function, its most likely to illicit varying degrees of frustration that can manifest In many different ways emotionally, ultimately leading to what we perceive as a personality change.
This can also to be observed in the psychological effects of most unpleasant trauma.
Many victims of traumatic crime such as burglary or assault are often understood to suffer bouts of depression and anxiety often become either withdrawn, aggressive or both.
This strongly suggests that any likely personally changes within a brain injury victim is caused by emotional damage also
I was a neuroscience major and am now in med school pursuing psychiatry, so I've been wrestling with this for a while. This video was excellent and built a really profound case for the origin of the mind being separate from the physical brain. In fact, I would say the case Michael makes is proof for such claim, but before I wholly accept it, I want to make sure I didn't miss a logical fallacy. In fact, I think the video makes the same fallacy of "correlation is not causation" that it first criticized scientists for making. According to the video, because the mind can affect the brain, the mind cannot be caused by the brain. However, I think this statement is not correct. A correct statement is: changes in the state of mind of a person is correlated with changes in the brain. The OCD patients who focused and altered their consciousness also had changes in their neural pathways, but that doesn't necessarily mean the former caused the latter, right? The paper itself even said "correlation." A physicalist (which I am not) explanation would be that the brain processes the command to focus, and then the downstream effects of focusing leads to a cascade of events that inhibit certain areas of the brain and leads to the changes seen on imaging. On the other hand, a substance dualist (which I am) explanation is exactly what the video makes. I feel like all that video did is say A correlating with B does not mean causation, but then just reverses the order and says B causes A (even though in reality B correlates with A). I would really love to discuss with yall because I really don't know if I have my logic right. I am a Christian and am on a hunt to prove that the mind is separate from the brain (and I believe this to be true), but I want some hardcore evidence for it; this video might be it, but I want to be sure! The video is very well done, but as always, gotta get your logic and philosophy correct lol
@@anahata3478 It isn't ad hoc at all, and in fact, merely by making that claim at all, IP is implicitly begging the question. To assert that "the mind can affect the brain" and then use that as a piece of evidence that the mind can't be caused by the brain is to implicitly be assuming the conclusion that the mind and the brain are separate. It's the equivalent of saying that because the software of a computer can be utilized to make changes to the hardware (eg. changing the processing speed, etc.), therefore software isn't caused by hardware. That simply does not follow.
Checkout Diehold Foundation here on youtube. You will love it.
Watches until 4:30 - oh doubting human knowledge, correlation is not causation, nothing suspicious here - watches rest of arguments for opposite side, that not even once had mentioned that correlation isn't causation, but are added with "Scientific evidence supports this conclusions" at 18:40. It reminds me of an old joke about sport competition with competitors only from two hostile nations. After competition each country had separate radio broadcasts, First country had message along the lines " We won, while they literally had last place", while second country said "We got silver during competition, while they got second to last place". As in, by totally omitting unwanted information, and saying only convincing and useful parts of truth.... A pity though, cause i found many things quite new. Personally though, I find two standpoint theories as incomplete and untrustworthy as the other, be it matter or mystical mind. I mean, localized and one unified mind according to our experiences , but no "physical area" left for signals to converge? A nice argument, but split brain experiment counterargument is either not found by video maker or not said aloud [don't know if at time of making this video he knew about it], in which the "fact" that one brain is one mind itself is disputed, and your brain could be very well multiple smaller consciousness melded into one. Thinking and concetrating affected real life activity of brain? I mean computers are capable of physicals changes of flipping bits while calculating, it wouldn't be mind boggling human brains could force part of itself to be less active. That being said, relating to Christian part, honestly speaking, in the bible itself (cause human interpretation can be shaky and unreliable), is there any direct mention that contradicts that brain can't be related to soul, i mean there is one mention that soul wouldn't die with body. But soul could act like a passive book recording your life that doesn't affect you on purpose while in material life,leaves most of thinking to brain, fused with you until death when it is set free. Well if it is the case mental clarity in brain is not guaranteed, what was free will during your life and what shallower electric response, judging what is sin or not would get hard, but given omniscient nature of god in christian belief it is not a problem.It would give "believe, not see" quite a deeper level of trust needed. But given that , It would mean that in this case since beginning of universe itself, the laws of physics were created in such a way, that it could host brains whose actions would be so identical to behavior of souls itself, that people sooner or later would discover them and would be unable to discern whenever souls exists, cause brains could scientifically solve thinking issue without mentioning soul, leaving you no choice than to test your faith... But hey, welcome to human life, full of delicious existential crises left and right whatever you are atheist or not. And to be honest science is a really, really, really good mathematical model for reality based on sensory inputs of our bodies, but still a model. There are lots of very big gaping holes that are hand waved and said to be explained later by some smarter scientist. Quantum theory and Einstain theory of relativity are at odds with each other, calculations prove our models are so stupidly wrong, dark matter is added to make sense and all that is known is that it is something that "exists". We can make reasonable guesses, but any scientifist will know that what we are doiing is nothing more than swinging math formula at observation , saying it's good enough for prove, while at the same time each and every scientific community will say to its member to try to find proofs that will negate basic knowledge and prove known theories wrong. Even newton gravity believed to be true for centuries gets replaced... Why talking about it? Cause blindly following science while believing it is 100% certain absolute truth is as stupid looking to me, science itself is about modeling reality in a way that should constantly doubt its own axioms and theories in order to try building even better models, but general population treats science as new religion without asking any questions. Especially when electric signals involve quantum level particles, and any physics fan will know that... things down there at that scale don't really want to make any sense to humans, even if dark matter is consisting of mini fairies that are capable of playing with particles like they are balls, as ridiculous as it sounds, if they don't interact with electromagnetic fields or know fundamental forces of universe detecting prove of their existence or absence would be impossible with our technology. In fact, even this brain discussion itself is such a thing, people discussing whatever it is matter or mind, while both sides of said debate are just clueless overgrown children trying to sound smart despite in no way being able to ever know the truth, just to feel good, myself included. As sad as it sounds, i am also such a clown...
I used to think we all knew, deep down, that we were more than just our brain activity... yet I've spoken to so many people who are convinced we're just that.
Madness.
Why refer to our brain activity as just brain activity? The brain is a phenomenal achievement whether it evolved or was designed by a creator. Why couldn't a creator design a physical brain that would produce consciousness? It seems almost denigrating to speak of the brain of humans any many other animals as 'just' brains.
@@rizdekd3912 I'm not quite saying brains are lacking, I'm saying consciousness is so far 'beyond' that I am here seated in my body, driving it while wondering about eternity. I mean THAT'S what we're talking about here, with consciousness. Me saying my brain hasn't produced a whole being unto itself, entirely separate from the body it sits within, is no condemnation of my fleshy design because consciousness is not just my body being aware of itself... it's ME being aware of MYself.
I don't even have the words, it's an infinite conundrum. Just as he's not at fault for creating bodies as fragile as ours, I wouldn't fault God for creating brains that don't produce consciousness - I don't expect that to be boiled down to a feature of the brain.
@@kwameoluwasomi The part that confused me was your ending with the term Madness. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were implying.
There is a disagreement about the origin and nature of consciousness. And those who contend the brain itself produces or is the origin of consciousness may be wrong. But they're not 'mad' to deduce that the brain does that. Consider the following circumstantial evidence.
1) as brains develop, so too does consciousness. Best I can tell, it's not a 'not conscious one minute and suddenly a fully developed consciousness the next minute' but rather a slow process that develops sometime between conception and some point early in the life of a conscious creature.
2) if and when the brain is affected by drugs or damage, so too. often, is consciousness. That would be valid evidence that the brain actually produces consciousness just like we deduce wood produces fire due to chemical reactions when ignited. IOW, yes, some outside influence causes wood to ignite, but once ignited, it may burn by itself for some time. And for consciousness it seems to be produced by living brain cells which themselves were produced by the machinations of the physical genetic code from parents.
3) Intuitively it seems most think the brain is essential, because I rarely encounter anyone who ever assumes anything physical/material without brains is or could be conscious. If I were to pose that 'trees' or 'streams' may be conscious because brains don't produce consciousness, I'm sure some would view that as madnesss. But why? If brains don't produce consciousness then something else does...whatever it is...why could not streams and trees be conscious?
4) I have every reason to suspect many other animals down to and including insects are also self aware and conscious of the world around them. I contend it was necessary for survival to be able to do that that so a body with numerous parts (muscles, joints, limbs, organs) could act/move in unison toward a chosen goal...ie find food/eat, avoid predation, mate, etc. That is why I think it is happening in and due to brain matter. So it's not something that is 'out there' for someone to measure by attaching some sort of meter/scope/imaging device, but rather if it is to be studied it will have to be at the cellular level. And annoyingly it will have to be among and within living cells, so destructive techniques to study the chemical reactions are likely to end consciousness.
5) If consciousness is not of physical origin, one must come up with an explanation for how it receives info from our cells with which to form its perception of the world around us and how it in turn manages to influence the physical part of us, deciding to do things based on what we're conscious of. IOW, how does the nonphysical that cannot be detected by instrument/meter communicate with our physical cells which communicate our decisions to our muscles that allow us to enact our decisions? If consciousness is chemical reactions within and between brain cells then it is easy to see how it would, in turn, influence our, and other animals, behavior.
Me during the DiD part: Whoa... so Doppio/Diavolo is not so unrealistic after all...
Hey
I can't believe I have yet to find a comment that emphasizes your recurring use of "however" in these videos haha
Love your channel IP!
I hope and I believe that this channel will grow
Inner men , inner being , spirit men, consiousness , born again ,
Well done. I've been teaching this for a few years in my counseling practice. How could the brain create the capacity to generate mindful strategies which would then reform the structure and chemistry of the brain? Indeed. Thank you for sharing this.
Loved the video. Some questions: How many souls can one have? Does each personality = 1 soul? Could this mean we can have more than 20 souls with just one brain? In the studies shown by v.s. ramachandran, would the person have multiple souls that are both interacting with a specific side of the brain?
@@mathewsteven demonic possession?
@@delgande Whoa! That's a stretch buddy.
I think the soul may convert into multiple things, we do not know it, we can't study it.... yet at least... but if it's something that's not conditionated to the laws of physics or anything physical. What stops it from converting and modifying itself?
Saying we are just bags of chemicals is basically denying who we are.
Need to know, people,
What you really are, first. That's logical
Laymans Gnosis-discover a second intelligence
www.truebluehealer.com 20 mins BEGINNERS TOUR
Vivid messaging night dreams within 7 days
Immediate physical evidence that something has changed
Messaging day dreams (visions?) physically verified
Signalling music to slowly morph into an internal mentoring voice just like Socrates and Plato described
Expect keywords names and even websites to be typed into your mindseye with info vital to YOUR personal life.
Holy book readers will find their misunderstandings corrected by the internal mentoring voice
Go to www.truebluehealer.com
Do the 20 mins BEGINNERS TOUR
All questions answered And its FREEEE
See you back at the website www.truebluehealer.com
Feedback It’s amazing how a 20 minute tour can cause the individual to experience a waterfall of knowledge.
Wow, I was so blown away, that now I’m just a brain cell.
It is a well-founded video with much research. Well done!
Video Starts: "What are you?"
Me: "Well that escalated to a rather uncomfortable level of intimacy rather quickly"
You can't see how the software functions by measuring the circuit board pathways with a multi-meter. The soul is the software, our brains are the hardware.
Can you prove the soul exists?
I like this analogy but without the computer the software is dose nothing..its just a CD
I'd love to see you tackle this topic in a debate sometime, would really want to see how the skeptics responda
All these comments about Michael admitting he was wrong and correcting his mistake... what was the initial mistake??
Okay, the conscious mind can affect the brain. But the brain can also affect the mind. Look at various kinds of brain damage that cause mental disabilities. So I'm not convinced by that argument. The only thing that can be said is that we don't understand it. It is far from settled.
True. But one is purely accidental. Not of the brains own doing. Having traumatic brain damage isn't something the brain did intentionally. However the instances of the mind rewriting the brain are 100% caused by the mind.
This video makes arguments from two categories: a lack of current neurological explanations for psychological phenomena(aspects of the mind), and the mind’s causal relationship to the brain entailing separation from the brain.
Firstly, a lack of a complete understanding of the mind from neurology does not mean neurology can’t explain the mind in the future. This is an argument from ignorance.
Secondly, the mind’s ability to influence the brain does not entail the mind is immaterial. If the brain and the mind are one, in other words, two sides of the same coin, this is exactly what you’d expect. The brain and mind influencing each other does not contend with a physicalist explanation for consciousness in any way.
Great video, lots of info, well articulated, effective organization, I definitely learned quite a bit, but unfortunately it hasn’t made me question a materialist perspective any more.
In my opinion your second point doesnt hold water. If the mind is an emergent construct of brain activity in reaction to the stimuli of our lives, then it can have no ability to rewrite it's own function. In a materialist view. The mind is the effect, not the cause.
As far as your first point goes. While some of it is an argument from ignorance. Some of it,such as the inability to divide attention in split brain patients is solid evidence that the brain is not causal to the mind. That isnt an argument from ignorance. That is a solid instance in which materialism cannot be true. At least as far in saying that the only thing that exists are materials. You can have ot coexist with a second reality of some kind. But the entire point of materialism is to reject the idea that anything outside of the material world exists at all.
Do these observations make reports of Near Death Experiences more plausible, where people allegedly had a still (or even better than usually) working mind while being clinically dead?
The problem as I see it with Near Death experiences is they only become a challenge once we can prove that the timing of the experience coincided with the state of being clinically dead. How do we even begin to test whether that is the case or not rather than, say, people having the experience at the moment they emerge from the state of being clinically dead? Until we've established that, we don't actually have a problem on our hands.
In reference to the point at 2:47, stimulating the parts of the brain associated with volition has been done before. Here's an excerpt from a 2017 study called "Volition and Action in the Human Brain: Processes, Pathologies, and Reasons";
"Stimulation of distinct cortical areas in neurosurgical patients sometimes produces sensations described as “urge to move” a specific body part...This sensation occurs without any movement of the corresponding effector, but when higher current levels are applied at an “urge site,” the corresponding effector will often move"
When high current levels were being applied to the "distinct cortical areas" mentioned in the quote above (which specifically are the supplementary and presupplementary motor areas of the brain) the patients would not only feel an urge to move but would actually end up moving physically. For anyone interested I'll provide the link in case I've taken something out of context.
www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/37/45/10842.full.pdf
This type of research was addressed in part 3 ruclips.net/video/OIJiAhRd4jI/видео.html
It's easy to conclude all that if you don't define either of your terms...
Stop being lazy and look them up yourself.
I apologize IP, I don't mean this to sound as rude as it does, but I don't even know where to start with this. Not 5 minutes in, and I already have this much to say, so... here it is.
2:14 - 2:20 - *“There is a large amount of data that suggests consciousness is not a creation of brain processes.”* - Two papers are flashed on screen, both of which explain how cognitive behavioral therapy changes the physical structure of the brain. I think you are citing these papers as proof that the mind affects the brain, and that the mind is therefore causally prior to the brain.
However, we know that this can also happen the other way around, as was first famously demonstrated by the case of Phineas Gage: the brain can affect the mind. So, fundamentally, does the mind cause the brain, or does the brain cause the mind?
Well, that’s the problem with these papers: the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy makes perfect sense in a materialist framework. CBT is just an example of one part of the brain affecting another part of the brain, and we know that connections between neurons get rewired all the time in response to neural activity in other areas: this is how we learn, this is how we adopt conditioned responses, and it’s how we come to make associations, consciously or not. If, for example, we witness something traumatic, and we develop PTSD as a result, that’s one part of the brain (starting in the visual and auditory cortices) rewiring another part of the brain. Or, to make it a purely mind-based thing, if you have a really bad nightmare, it can create a negative association with things in the real world, even though it was all generated in your mind.
So, if we are just brains, then… why wouldn’t different parts of your brain be able to affect each other? The fact that we consciously identify with some of our brain activity may make it seem like “we” are making the change, but under a deterministic, materialist framework, that doesn’t matter. If we are just brains, then why wouldn’t CBT be able to change brain wiring? I don’t see how this is a problem for materialism. Saying that the efficacy of CBT is evidence of mind-brain independence is like saying that a piece of code which generates a sequence of numbers, and then uses that sequence to rewrite *another* section of its code, somehow proves code-computer independence: it clearly doesn’t: an object being able to affect itself doesn't prove that it's not a physical object.
2:20 - Wilder Penfield applied electrodes to subjects and could make them move their arms involuntarily, vocalize involuntarily, as well as recall memories.
*“He could not force patients to act involuntarily.”* - Um, you literally just said that that’s exactly what he did. Did you mean to say that he couldn’t force subjects to *desire* to act involuntarily? I apologize for nit-picking, but I’m genuinely confused as to how you could have written this and not noticed the contradiction.
*“… as well as recall memories.”* - Hang on, isn’t recalling memories kind of a big deal? In the opening section of your video, you emphasized the feeling of self and the experience of consciousness, and how such things cannot be explained by or reduced to material sources. But now, you cite the research of Wilder Penfield, who was able to make people recall memories involuntarily. That’s a big deal: memory recall is not some cute little neurological quirk, like a reflex or an optical illusion: memory recall is one of the core components of consciousness: if you had absolutely no short or long-term memory at all, I don’t see how you could be considered “conscious”. And here we are, affecting memory recall with simple electrodes. It seems that you can indeed affect this aspect of a person’s consciousness materially.
*“He could not affect their will!”* - Maybe *he* couldn’t, but peoples’ wills can be affected by other physical means: removing brain tumors can change peoples’ desires dramatically, as can injecting them with various hormones, which is to say, chemicals: chemistry can affect a person’s will. We can also affect peoples’ emotional states with ECT and TMS, both of which are physical stimulations of the brain that are used to treat depression, which, among other things, can reduce the patients’ will to kill themselves or to self-harm. Depression can also be treated by implanted electrodes, which, patients report, fundamentally changes their outlook on the world.
3:13 - 3:140 - Penfield believed that the mind could not be accounted for by the brain.
4:00 - 4:04 - *“No proof for a physical basis for consciousness has been shown to exist.”* - Even if we accept this statement whole cloth, we could say the exact same thing about whatever kind of supernatural thing you would propose as the basis for consciousness: no proof for a soul or a body-independent mind as the basis of consciousness has been shown to exist. Just because we can’t explain something does not mean that the explanation must be non-physical, whatever that would even mean. That is arguing from ignorance, which, ultimately, is all this video does.
4:05 - 4:15 - *“The main problem is correlations between the brain and the conscious mind are expected to exist, even if consciousness doesn’t reduce to brain activity or functions. On substance dualism, or idealism, we would expect correlations in the brain, with consciousness.”* - Why? If the mind is causally prior to everything else, then why would our minds generate a structure that correlates with thoughts that we don’t act on? That seems entirely superfluous and thrown in ad-hoc to account for the fact that we observe brains. Surely, if our consciousness is distinct from, yet somehow driving our bodies, then we’d expect to have no brain or nerves at all, just blobby appendages that carry out our will, with no need for specific parts like muscles or nerves. If idealism is true, then why would our minds generate anything beyond a simple, homogeneous blob for our bodies, if even that? Why is there all this extra crap inside our bodies? And why would our minds all seem to agree on the existence of this weird “brain” thing inside of us that doesn’t actually act to carry out our will the way an arm or a leg does?
I can agree that idealism would predict a correlation between desiring to raise your arm, and your arm raising, but why would this be the case for your brain, which just sits there? Why would an idealist expect there to be any correlation between our internal monologue and a structure that doesn’t actually carry out any willed actions in the way that raising your arm does?
For thousands of years, people had no idea what the brain did. For a long time, many people actually believed that the seat of consciousness was the heart: after all, it’s fairly centrally located, it has large vessels that it could send signals through, and you could feel its activity, whereas the brain… just, kind of sits there, not really “doing” anything. If idealism is true, then why would these humans have even had brains at all?
In fact, with regard to arms, I take it back: why would our minds generate arms at all? If we desire to lift something, then why wouldn’t we just lift it Veggie-tales style, where it just kind of floats in front of us?
4:38 - 4:46 - *“In fact, researchers have pointed out, even if the brain creates consciousness, our current methods and technology are incapable of detecting it.”* - So, because we can’t detect consciousness, the most reasonable conclusion is that consciousness is non-physical? What about dark matter? Is that also some kind of spiritual woo because we can’t detect it? Or is it simply a gap in our knowledge?
1. I don't have time to flash every paper I use in the video on the screen, those were just examples.
2. In turns out the case of Phineas Gage is mythologywww.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-think-neandertal/201310/the-biggest-myth-about-phineas-gage
But I will address reports of brain damage in part 3. You only damage the soul, not the mind.
3. "CBT is just an example of one part of the brain affecting another part of the brain,"
- I addressed that more in the latter part of the video and cited more papers to back up my point. You are jumping the gun here and not getting to that section of the video. There is no evidence mindful attention is just the result of another region of the brain, as neuroscientist John Eccles shows, which I get to later in the video.
4. "but under a deterministic, materialist framework, that doesn’t matter. If we are just brains, then why wouldn’t CBT be able to change brain wiring?" - Again, I get to that later in the video on the section of mindful attention. There is no evidence they cause is another region of the brain. Eccles explains with direct observation of top-down causation.
5. "Um, you literally just said that that’s exactly what he did. Did you mean to say that he couldn’t force subjects to desire to act involuntarily?"
- No, and I elaborate on what this means. You cannot control the will of a person.
6. " And here we are, affecting memory recall with simple electrodes. It seems that you can indeed affect this aspect of a person’s consciousness materially."
- You keel equating consciousness with information contingent upon consciousness. I point out tis distinction in part 2: ruclips.net/video/-PX1RuXU4_o/видео.html
7. "but peoples’ wills can be affected by other physical means: removing brain tumors can change peoples’ desires dramatically, as can injecting them with various hormones" - That is not controlling the will that is adding or remving desires, which are epistemically different. Again, I explain the distinction in part 2.
8. "we could say the exact same thing about whatever kind of supernatural thing you would propose as the basis for consciousness: no proof for a soul or a body-independent mind as the basis of consciousness has been shown to exist. "
- I don't know what supernatural means. That is a meaningless word since we cannot define what is the boundary of natural. I don't think anything is a basis for consciousnesses. I am an idealist-Consciousness is fundamental, and if you watch the whole video and part 2 I lay out evidence consciousnesses (or the mind) is not emergent and is distinct. You are just commenting too early in the series and not letting me lay out my case. I mean, don't you think you should at least finish the whole video first?
9. "Just because we can’t explain something does not mean that the explanation must be non-physical"
- I address this more in part 2 when explaining the hard problem. There is no reason or shred of evidence to suggest the brain can create consciousness.
10."Surely, if our consciousness is distinct from, yet somehow driving our bodies, then we’d expect to have no brain or nerves at all." - Of course not, the brain is the brain that is a function of a conscious mind. It is the extrinsic appearance or avatar of the what a conscious agent looks like in reality, by encapsulating consciousness into on spacial temporal existence. You must look like something in physical reality, and have a physical manifestation. The brain is not the complete agent but a representation of what you and your soul appear as within a physical reality. As Donald Hoffman has argued, it is sort of like a user-interface symbol of a conscious agent, like the icons on your computer are symbols or representations of applications. What appears on your screen is just an extrinsic appearance of underlying code, but I won’t drag the icon to the trash can as that can damage what I need to do on the computer. Likewise, If you change or damage the brain which is the extrinsic appearance of consciousness and the soul within space-time of course you are going to affect how an agent operates in space-time. Damaging the brain modifies how the mind operates when it has been limited and focused to temporarily only operate within space-time.
11. "If idealism is true, then why would our minds generate anything beyond a simple, homogeneous blob for our bodies, if even that? Why is there all this extra crap inside our bodies? " - That seems like a straw man. Why not just make all characters in video games as homogeneous blob? Why make them complex and unique in appearance?
12 ."Why would an idealist expect there to be any correlation between our internal monologue and a structure that doesn’t actually carry out any willed actions in the way that raising your arm does?"- It is the intrinsic appearance of what a desire being carried out looks like.
13. "So, because we can’t detect consciousness, the most reasonable conclusion is that consciousness is non-physical?" - Again, you need to watch the whole video and part 2. In no way am arguing from that paper alone. It is just one aspect of a cumulative case.
@@InspiringPhilosophy - I'm sorry, but this whole thing still seems like a collection of distinctions without differences. I started to write a longer response, but I think it can be boiled down to something like this:
If your “soul” is your personality, thoughts, dreams, emotions, memories, desires, goals, etc, then what is your "mind"? What is your "consciousness"? And, most importantly, what is your "will" if it is *not* your desires, goals, etc? What is the ontological difference between your "will" and your "desires"?
If we *were* able to control a person's "will", what would you expect that to look like?
And if a brain is the intrinsic appearance of what a desire being carried out looks like, then why do we have have limbs which allow us to carry out our desires, not to mention the nerves and muscles inside them? Why don't we just make things float to us, VeggieTales-style?
To be blunt, and to not go down every possible rabbit hole here, this seems like a huge exercise in ad-hoc reasoning to account for the fact that we observe muscles, nerves, and brain damage that can fundamentally change who a person is. I see no reason to accept the idea that "the mind" (whatever that even is at this point) would generate any of these things.
This kind of reminds me of "The Non-Existant Earth Theory: violates the observation that when you look around at stuff, you see stuff." www.smbc-comics.com/comic/flat
Brain is a filter. Consciousness is different. It is immaterial, immeasurable & eternal.
I would argue the best example of the mind being irreducible is eusocial insects. Their brains are incredibly simple and primitive, yet ants have been shown as passing the mirror test.
Today or tomorrow we all will realise with religion as well as with support of Science that we are "PURE CONSCIOUSNESS", all other things are material only.
Just a thought: We don’t have to prove an immaterial soul/mind/consciousness to have a Gospel whereby we can be saved. Jesus was raised from the dead and offers salvation, immortality, to every human.
If consciousness is only the brain and ceases to exists when we die, then the idea of heaven and hell is gone
Yeah I agree. I’m a Christian and if God does exist who says he can’t make our consciousness exist in the physical while here on Earth and exist in an immaterial fashion when we die. However, if we were to prove consciousness exists in an immaterial fashion that would completely eradicate the atheistic position. God bless
dragan176 ^
@@dragan176 you are exactly right. I don't think Christianity is about heaven or hell but about bodily immortality or death. That is why Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead to give the Christians hope
@Corvus Morve I don't think it should concern me because the bodily Resurrection, which has enough evidence, is evidence for the existence of God. I don't think that we have to prove God in any form other than the resurrection of Jesus, but we can if we like to.
I'm glad you're tackling this concept! Something I've been considering for a long time which I think is fairly important to Christianity, but not as well developed philosophically as some other arguments.
a quote-mining bonanza, this perspective and all others like it are all mistaken in assuming consciousness is an entity rather than a state that can somehow be extracted and studied in isolation; it may not even exist as anything more than a word. the "wealth of data", the sources, demonstrate complexity, not consciousness. a misguided if not nakedly sensationalist conflation.
They're not saying it's it's own entity, they're just trying to argue that our sense of self is not located in the brain
Secret Weapon So... you deny that you are conscious?
Secret Weapon Smirky little incoherent retort. Stfu. You had to have consciousness to even watch and come up with your wack little comment. You’re like Sam Harris denying that selves exist yet wanting everyone to buy his book for themselves to read. 😂
@Aks nice thought desert
We can't conclude anything from this video because we cannot even understand or anlayse what consciousness really is.
“The consciousness should not causally affect the brain.”
You’re acting like they’re separate objects. The mind is everything the brain does.
Just like the body self-modifies and grows in different focused ways depending on what it does and has to use, so does the brain. This is actually evidence of the mind being the function of the brain, not otherwise.
The mind changing the brain is literally the brain changing itself.
@@metalbotanist6730 lol what?
Your comment is literally the definition of circular reasoning. You assumed your position to prove it.
@@ea-tr1jh All the evidence points to the mind coming from a brain.
Metal Botanist this is part 1 of a 6 part series... he’ll get there. Then draw your conclusions.
Love to learn...this is well done. Thank you for your hard work
The factually sweeping assertions of materialism by Carl Sagan were arrogant + wrong
Thanks, I’ve been having doubts in my faith in God due to this issue. You helped silence those voices telling me that God isn’t real. I don’t think it is a coincidence that I saw this video today, rather God showing me something. God bless ✝️❤️
Der Materialismus ist falsch. (Materialism is false) - Kurt Gödel
The only evidence for Dualism would be the claim around 12:00 . The others are not evidence at all. I don't mean to be confrontational but the claim about Eccles is literally wrong and also inexcusably misleading. I suggest the video maker update the video.
If you read the 1994 Eccles book Eccles (who died in 1997) *doesn't make the claim IP says he does* at 12:00 . Eccles is explicit in more than one location but the statement on page 138 is most clear. Eccles clearly explains the basis for his statements. He unambiguously states the entire basis for the relevant statement here stems from the famed Libet (1990) experiments and the research they triggered thereafter.
If you know about those experiments, *those are the very famous experiments which suggested that people have no free will because neural changes in the brain are directly observed to precede the conscious act of will* . It's the exact *opposite* of what Eccles is trying to establish, as Eccles himself unambiguously explains on the same page. Those experiments show that there are *specific neural changes that precede the agent's awareness of the choice to make a motor movement* .
Eccles clearly explains that the Libet (1990) experiments demonstrate that the neural activity and mind events are as follows:
1. Increase in "Readiness Potential" in the neurons (at time t=0 seconds).
2. Self-reported conscious awareness of agent to make decision to move (at time t=0.5 seconds).
3. Movement (at time t=0.7 seconds).
In other words, Libet showed that the order of events is (1)->(2)->(3), or in other words, (Physical)->(Mental)->(Physical).
Go look it up for yourself - this is very well documented.
Eccles says (all on the same page 138) that (1) is "probably artefactual", and literally cites Libet and "[himself] in General Discussion" to back up the claim that it's "probably artefactual" (and should therefore be ignored), and then concludes that "The mental event of willing can be regarded as preceding the neural events in the brain..."
Huh? What?
This is a complete and total reversal by Eccles of the implications of the experiment with no basis - Eccles is literally *speculating* . Eccles wrote this book only 4 years after the Libet (1990) publication and died only 3 years after he wrote this book (published 1994, died 1997). There has been much controversy about the Libet experiments since then and many reproductions of the experiment and expansion. What has the evidence shown? Eccles might have been wrong then, and he's wrong now. Go to Wikipedia and read for yourself. The evidence has shown that:
A. Eccles' assertion that (1) is "an artefact" that can be dismissed remains *unconfirmed speculation* (it is super controversial with no clear evidence; it is not known if the "Readiness Potential" in (1) is, in fact, somehow controlling the future activity - there is conflicting experimental evidence)
B. That not only have the Libet results *been replicated numerous times* , but in fact relevant neuronal firings themselves (not mere "Readiness Potentials") prior to movements *and* conscious choice (!!) have been seen to occur up to *two whole seconds* before the awareness of an act of will. And...
C. Experimental subjects are actually *not* aware of when they "make a decision" to move - the objective empirical evidence shows they are *retro-imposing a perception of a willed choice* (prior to their movement) AFTER they move. In other words, the subjects only *notice* their own movements and rationalize that "I made the choice at this time before I acted", but that is not the reality. They move, then they construct the idea that they chose to move before the movement. (Even though it's not the case).
In summary:
I. Eccles does *not* say (in his 1994 book at least) what IP says he says at 12:00 ; this is wrong.
II. Eccles does not now and never did actually have evidence that acts of will, which are not controlled by brain activity, influence brain structures. Quite the opposite - Eccles based this idea on Libet experiments which demonstrated the exact opposite and Eccles had to create an unconfirmed speculation in order to circumvent it.
III. None of it matters anyway because the evidence since Eccles' publication and death have come down significantly in favor of physical causation.
Please correct and update the video because this is very misleading. It doesn't seem (I wonder if?) IP understood or investigated deeply enough the Eccles book, because if he had, he should realize the problem with the way he phrased this and how misleading it is.
Neuroscience of the mind is controversial and progressing but to say that there is evidence in favor of Dualism remains false. In the context of this discussion between these two views evidence must *indicate* one view over the other - you need unambiguous evidence that *will* precedes *brain activity* and you don't have that, either at 12:00 or anywhere else in the video. Hence, from an empirical scientific point of view, physical control of consciousness remains the scientifically supportable position.
@@barrystephan2378 That's pretty funny isn't it? I actually think some of his other videos are good though. Glad to hear you followed up on it.
First, and I love this series.
Love your videos! Really interesting.
One piece of advice to anyone who tries to debunk anything just back up your claims with evidence because without evidence we have no reason to believe you I've been reading through this comment section and all the comments that I've seen disagreeing with this video haven't backed up any of their claims.
Everything is consciousness. Our body and brain are only a starting point, an underlying structure that is necessary to achieve self-consciousness, i.e. to have "physical" experiences. In reality, there is no matter at all, only experience. Since both body and bodily experience consist of the same ‘no-thing’, it is not surprising that they can influence each other. In fact, they are intertwined and cannot be viewed separately. The materialists' claim that (self-)consciousness arises in the brain because it can be turned off during a general anesthesia is merely a misinterpretation. The whole body must be active for self-consciousness to be present. This means that self-consciousness is holistic and therefore goes beyond the "physical" structure. That is the reason why it cannot be located.
Your explication of the "Binding Problem" is largely based on a 2013 study. The field has developed since then. You might want to read the Wikipedia entry. There are numerous theories on how this might work, and a 2018 paper that sheds more light on the subject...
God bless your work IP. keep moving forward with the cross
"the mind is capable of manipulating the brain" - there is nothing special about this statement, unless you presume that the brain is itself some dead substance which needs to be altered by a living entity from outside of the brain. Exercise of the living muscle is capable of manipulating muscle composition, so does attention, focus, thinking and any cognitive endeavor have an effect on the physical composition/wiring/signaling/etc.. of the living brain neurons. This entire video is very confusing, I am afraid.
So, brain and mind are the one exact thing?
@@The_true_Joe_mama No. "The brain is the same for the mind as the muscles are for movements. There is no movement without muscles. "
@@AndrasDNagy-bs5dc
So you're saying that the counsciouness is a product of the brain?
@@AndrasDNagy-bs5dc
Because ill agree that we only can detect it's presence within a brain, but we don't know yet how it's made and it's composition, not that im saying anything metaphysical here, even If it still being a possibility.
Andras D. Nagy What would you view be on what humans are. What is spirit, soul and body according to your view? Thanks.
I had an idea about a month ago that our consciousness actually comes from our gut and that’s why we get the gut feeling but because our eyes are in our head we believe our consciousness comes from my brain.
Sorry buddy...
Ancient Egyptians beat you to it like 35-ish Centuries ago 🤣
@@aviatordanz really never heard that. I’m gonna look that up. Thanks.
Highly recommend yall read Am I just my brain by Sharon Dirckx; it's quick and short book that basically goes through everything Michael did. She has a PhD in neuroimaging