Wow this guest George P. Lakoff is possibly the best speaker I've seen on CTT! Brilliant observations and clarity ❤ Going to be searching for more of his ideas

Of course he can't understand where "qualia and awareness" come from. He and Kuhn are convinced that Life is "just chemistry" and since they know for sure that there's no way for "just chemistry" to generate qualia and awareness, then it must be a mystery.

This is like a “take my word for it” interview. There are so many things beyond what he was talking about. Faith in the truth is believing what is outside of the mind. The mind could never arrive at truth without external direction.

@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd

4 ай бұрын

What do you mean when you say "The mind could never arrive at truth without external direction"?

@JungleJargon

4 ай бұрын

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd The mind has no direction of its own. All of the wisdom understanding and knowledge is illuminated by an external source otherwise known as spirits and ultimately the Spirit of the Creator since no physical thing can ever make or direct itself. Energy can’t make or direct itself.

@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd

4 ай бұрын

@@JungleJargon If "The mind has no direction of its own" and "All of the wisdom understanding and knowledge is illuminated by an external source", then a mind does not have free will. Thus it would not be true that the mind chooses its path and that humans are responsible for their actions. One could not even choose not to see such wisdom since it would imply having "direction of its own."

@JungleJargon

4 ай бұрын

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd The mind is illuminated in artistry metallurgy craftsmanship science all of which is determined by the choice of the individual.

@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd

4 ай бұрын

@@JungleJargon So "The mind has no direction of its own" is false.

He says that qualia and awareness may never be explained and yet he declares the mind-body problem solved by mind = body. Amazing! I suppose his peer-reviewed publications in cognitive science do not contain such gaps, or let's be clear: blunders. But when it comes to philosophy, obviously he thinks there are no standards and he can just claim what he likes. Philosophers of mind are usually well-informed about cognitive science and brain science ...

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

Since dualism, panpsychism, etc are not proven either, would you say that believing in any of them would also be blunders? Surely he's entitled to his opinion. He did after all say that this view may never be proven, so he was completely transparent about that.

@dr_shrinker

4 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 dualists are the ones who wear helmets when rollerblading, then proclaim the brain isn’t responsible for consciousness.

@halleuz1550

4 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Ok, I missed that he said his view may not be proved. In this case, either he shouldn't claim that the mind-body problem is solved or he should be explicit that it is merely his opinion that it is solved. I don't think that it's a blunder to have some opinion or other. It's a blunder to give a blatantly gappy argument for it.

@nietztsuki

4 ай бұрын

I agree with you completely. This talk was a waste of time.

One of your best programs. Your guest spoke with clarity and provided much important information. I now have shifted my perspective and understanding that the mind is the body and not some mystical universal force that enables thinking. Profound insights. Also, I am extremely hard of hearing and your closed captions are synchronized with the speaker which is a great help in understanding what is being said. I really appreciate your posts and always find them stimulating and informative. This was one of your most informative and interesting.

Lakoff's lecture (s) on why people vote against their own best interests was brilliant. Seldom happens that a lecture answers one or more of my nagging questions. That lecture was a guide through the maze. I figures out what qualia and awareness are and I solved the problem of consciousness. I am writing it up and getting feed back from others. For now: Everything is matter/energy moving through space-time. Start there, learn how neural activity works, never forget what neural activity is for, and you can get to the answers.

There's a broader way to think about the mind-body problem. (Spoiler: the solution is randomness, and every time there's randomness, you can find the problem.) In psychology/neuroscience it's perception and sensation that are being studied. In physics, it's physical measurements that are being studied. In economics, it's money transactions that are being studied. It's not that the neuroscience is incorrect, it's that it doesn't really capture what Plato and Descartes were talking about. If you consider a communal consciousness, where a science, or school of philosophy, may engage in its own sensation and perception, and by using language, create a body of knowledge independent of the minds of any one of the individual participants; then the theory of measurement pertaining to that field is an attempt to solve a specific mind body problem essential to considering that field a science. When we see a branch waving in the wind, we can tell that it's windy outside, because of our theories of how branches and wind interact. By this process of theorizing about the world, the branch waving in the wind becomes a sensory object in its own right. In this more abstract consideration, it's the intersection of theory and reality that are being described. The solution to this more abstract problem is chaos, or randomness. Chaos is at the intersection of theory and reality, because that's exactly what's perceived when the real and the imaginary can not be differentiated. In physics this is described by the Uncertainty relationships. In psychology, this effect is what allows the mind to differentiate between real and imaginary intuitively. We know we're interfacing with the real because it seems random and chaotic. The imaginary seems predictable in a different way. A sensory neuron receives signals from the world, as opposed to an internal neuron that receives signals from other neurons. It's the presence of randomness that lets us know the data is real!

He said lots of interesting stuff, but none of it even touched the Hard Problem. Nothing of what we've discovered about the brain is even the beginning of an explanation for conscious experience, qualia, intentionality, the non-quantitative (i.e. purely qualitative) nature of experience, the experiencing self, etc. Conscious experience is completely inexplicable in physicalist terms. I personally think it must be a fundamental aspect of reality--probably the _most_ fundamental.

@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd

4 ай бұрын

In my opinion, a difficult obstacle to overcome is that people make an interpretation of subjective experience and call it consciousness, without being clear about what they are referring to. People have many versions of what they mean by Consciousness. The same person talks about many different things when referring to Consciousness. Most people are convinced that their experience of consciousness shows them that it is an entity that looks through their eyes, that feels their pain, that distinguishes their memories, that decides the taste of their ice cream. And they want someone to explain to them where that entity is and what its nature is. The problem starts badly because people are convinced of the existence of the entity despite never having distinguished it. People do not experience the self (this is hard to believe). They experience information that comes from reality. And reality does not show Self. It only shows what the Self "sees." But in human logic, "seeing" what a self sees implies the existence of the Self. This interpretation is unavoidable. The serious question is knowing why this conclusion is inescapable.

"You can't be rational without being emotional", like in William James' "What is an emotion?" “Our whole cubic capacity is sensibly alive; and each morsel of it contributes its pulsations of feeling, dim or sharp, pleasant, painful, or dubious, to that sense of personality that every one of us unfailingly carries with him.”

7:29 at the body level of complexity there's certainly uncertainty but when seemingly inert objects or elements are considered then do they cause their own properties 🤔

He admitted "qualia and awareness" have not been explained in terms of brains. Hard problem of consciousness: Not solved.

@MaryKDayPetrano

4 ай бұрын

You can't "solve it" w/o acknowledging that Autistic brains process raw sensory data and are sensory-based, so you would not be using the word "perception" to describe an Autistic brain. Whereas, you have to acknowledge that the Neurotypical brain never experiences raw sensory data; instead, the Neurotypical brain's Bayesian algorythmic "integration" mechanism "filters" the raw sensory detailed data, usually by the moods, motivations of the Neurotypical person, and by what the Neurotypical person EXPECTS, so that by the time the Neurotypical brain experiences such data it has been "filtered" into a "perception." The phrase "qualia and awareness" is vague and over- and under-inclusive. As a result, it's a faulty measure. the Autistic brain experiences RAW SENSORY REALITY; the Neurotypical brain experieces a probablistic "perception" that is a proxy-substitue for reality but is not itself REALITY. Bayesian probablistic systems can be predictively "right" in a certain percentage of instances - that's the nature of probabililties. But they can't be "right" in 100 % of instances. But the Autistic brain can. If you want to try to describe "consciousness," you have to be able to describe it for both different types of brains. The problem lies in whether or not the term "consciousness" can encompass both "sensory" and "perception" based information processing neurotypes. It can only if you admit that the Autistic brain is "conscious" of raw sensory detailed data, while the Neurotypical brain is not "conscious" of such - instead, the Neurotypical brain functions on the basis of "filtered" "perceptions." Does that make a Neurotypical brain not fully "conscious ?" It might. But, even if it does, that does not stop Neurotypical neurotype humans from navigating the World - as long as they remain within the range of probabilities, and there is no probability error by falling outside the range of probabillities. A good example of this is when a Neurotypical person flies his airplane into the side of a mountain. An Autistic person would never do that. Different brains are advantageous for different problems.

@jmalfatto7004

4 ай бұрын

Bingo. Who doubts that mind and body are correlated with each other? or that modern science has increased our knowledge of those correlations?

@MBarberfan4life

4 ай бұрын

What "hard" "problem" of consciousness? Did Aristotle not solve that "problem"? Is the problem not, instead, the hard problem of intentionality and rationality?

@Bill..N

4 ай бұрын

Just because he was so enlightened about most of his talk (which I think was brilliant) doesn't mean he's aware of ALL the research out there.. Many papers have advanced very good hypotheses to help explain such things as qualia.. They were actually hinted at many times, including at the very end.. Peace.

@ianwaltham1854

4 ай бұрын

@@MBarberfan4life The hard problem of consciousness is this: How do you get conscious experience from brain activity? How do you get the experience of a taste or a smell from the brain activity that correlates with it? Explain with no magic, no handwaving the problem away, no vague clitches such as "Consciousness emerges from brain activity", no reliance on concepts that depend on consciousness, and no descriptions of brain activity dressed up as explanations for consciousness that really arn't.

So no big mystery to the mind-body problem. No problem in fact, just a bit of a puzzle around the personal subjective experience. My Subjective expeience... Is me though. Thats who i am.

I like what Woody Allen said about immortality."I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve immortality through not dying." 😂

I tend to think for the moment that we are octopussies of sorts. With the brain being control center and the tentacles being extentions of the brain being senses, mind, emotions etc.. So looks to me that the brain uses eyes to see and mind to think etc.. This would not devaluate the mind afaik since the brain itself becomes a person of sorts that way.

Bingo!

Problem is when we don't accept body instincts. When morality , religion , society all comes in between mind and body.

@mahdikhorram2449

4 ай бұрын

The contextual factors you mentioned try to implement those instincts within larger frames of instincts that intersect with one another; to mediate as a regulation mechanism. One doesn't exist in vacuum but within all these contextual circles that each needs to integrate our ego within its own system

@sujok-acupuncture9246

4 ай бұрын

​@@mahdikhorram2449 why and how man made factors can regulate natural factors. This is the Tao of physics. This is where humans can draw a line between nature and his interference. It applies to human body and human natural surroundings as well. One interesting observation i will give. If man made laws wants to kill animals to either please his taste buds or gods , can man chop down millions of trees just to decorate them and keep them in their homes , can human beings burm millions of fire works at a same day in the name of festival. I feel strongly that there is a a huge mental problem to almost three fourth of humanity.

All depends that is brain?

The magic of Bias, makes the reality distorted for him!

1:08 Well the first thing you find out is that our conceptual system depends completely on properties of the brain many different properties of the brain there are the brain is a least energy system like any physical system it has what are called best fit properties many of our concepts and the way concepts fit together depend upon this property of the brain so that the mind is not just separate from a physical system it's it's not separate from the way physics work and works and chemistry works it depends upon the way physics and chemistry works to fit concepts together in the best way so that when you hear a sentence you fit together the best ideas that you can the best understanding you can we best is understood in terms of exactly what a neual system how a neural system works 1:58 ... 3:18 are the categories of mind something real and uh independent of the brain even though they are uh create caused by the brain 3:30 GL: No. and that's the interesting thing. 【What's body or matter? Human body or any 3d object appears because of quantum decoherence, therefore, there's difference between sleeping and waking body.】 ... 4:46 which kinds of properties of the brain will those categories follow 4:50 GL: let me give you an example let's take narrative right you understand your life in terms of the narratives that you live out well narrative tur out to have small narratives that build up into bigger ones we have a rags to riches narrative we have uh you know pull youself up by you bootstraps narrative we have many different we have a battle narrative where we defend ourselves there are heroes and villains and so on many narratives those narratives by or fit together by into narratives by what is called neural binding they fit together seamlessly but narratives also have emotional content if you have a hero villain story where there's a villain a victim and a hero and some villainous act you have emotions that go with it you have emotions like anger 5:35 ... 6:42 ... what would seem to follow is that therefore mental categories are things that are uh directly caused by brain structure and that what we used to think has some sort of an independent existence uh that has to be explained by the brain rather the brain itself is what created those categories. 7:02 GL: exactly they mental categories are a result of both brain and body structure and the world the interaction with the real world together and when you put all that together that's where you get an explanation of what the mental categories are (so how do we then bring it back to the old mind body problem) the old mind body problem is solved in the following way ❤👍the mind is the body ✌💙 7:31

were these all shot in 2005

I have the impression that Kuhn hopes to find justifications that allow him to preserve his interpretation of reality. Where he has an immortal soul.

George Lakoff caught my attention years ago in his work on concept-formation, back when I first got hooked on memetic theory (Richard Brodie). Since then, I've moved on to the more integrative semiotic theory of CS Peirce. Lakoff continues to raise important points, here, with his reference to metaphor, narratives, emotion (Damasio), qualia, experience, etc. But no mention of Peirce? I checked w ChatGPT, & Lakoff is aware of Peirce's work & does reference him occasionally. So, for anyone interested in semiotics... the Peircean categories are relevant to Lakoff's work (eg, embodied cognition & conceptual metaphor). Association as a fundamental principle relates to concept/metaphor/narrative formation and the mind-body problem.

@dukeallen432

4 ай бұрын

You referenced where? Really? Is this post “generated@?

@TheTroofSayer

4 ай бұрын

@@dukeallen432 I often wonder whether apparent trolls are just ESL persons who don't understand simple english/grammar.

Largely unsatisfying for several reasons. Like all who would have the human mind and experience to solely be the product of an exceptionally complex "Machine", Lakoff speaks with the authority of the true believer. He is correct and everybody else, including many eminent scientists, researchers, theologians and philosophers, are wrong. That certainty is cause for concern in and of itself. Pride goething before the fall and all that. He also espouses the concept of the brain and the body being separate, distinct entities unconnected with anything around them. When in reality, the body and brain are part of and derivative of an ultimately complex system and set of circumstances - our planet, life itself and the uni/multiverse. Arguments like this would be much more satisfying to consider if a little humility entered the picture. You could write a book about all the distinguished scientific personages down through the ages who were certain their theories were correct and held up to high acclaim until they were subsequently proven wrong and first discredited and then held up to general scorn. "How stupid, naive, etc.!" I suspect Lakoff and his ilk will sooner than later fall into that unfortunate group.

That may be a Neurotypical neurotype explanation. But I would like to hear your explaination for Autistic neurotypes. TY.

@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd

4 ай бұрын

The mind is the brain functioning. It is not true that one transmits concepts. One transmits pointers to concepts already constructed in the recipient. Qualia is the physiological way in which our nervous system highlights aspects of reality that need to be distinguished. For example, reality does not provide, in the information contained in light radiation, the importance that what reflects a certain electromagnetic wave has for us. Our nervous system labels it physiologically.

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

Not a neuroscientist, so I'm just going on what Ive read as best I understand it. There are papers online about this, some of which Ive read in parts and are googleable if you want more depth. In terms of neurophysiology Autism is caused by an anomaly that creates a perpetual state of hyperfocus. This keeps the person's awareness focused on the intellectual/analytical left front lobe, and unable to access activity in the right front lobe responsible for emotional response and feelings of social connectivity. It's a dysfunction of the cingulate gyrus, a structure which in neurotypical brains automatically switches attention back and forth between the frontal lobes, and integrates their activity into our conscious awareness. What's interesting is that the emotional and social functional activity is still there in the right front lobe, it's just that it doesn't get accessed by the brain's attention focusing mechanisms, and so it doesn't become integrated into the person's conscious experience.

@MaryKDayPetrano

4 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Now, you must be aware that many animals as compared to Neurotypical humans, have different ways of taking in stimuli from the environment and making predictions about what it means, right ? And, so, many animals use bottom-up processing whereby they take in raw sensory detailed data and use it much like a look-up table to make predictions. Whereas, Neurotypical humans made some kind of evolutionary leap whereby their algorythm for processing information has become more, let's say, Bayesian - making predictions on the basis of probabilities. To do that, such humans must use top-down processing. When talking about "integration," one would have to be talking about the algorythmic machinery itself - that is, the Neurotypical human brain has this, while the Autistic brain does not. To say that "it's still there in the right front lobe it just doesn't get accessed by the brain's attention focusing mechanisms," is not an adequate explanation. In terms of evolution, many things can be "in the brain," but be more of a non-essential relic for a certain neurotype. Autism is a different brain than a Neurotypical brain. Everyone acknowledges that. The reason it's different is chalked up to "developmental" differences between Autistic and Neurotypical people that Neurotypical people label as a "developmental DISABILITY" in Autistic people. But in evolutionary terms, chimps, australopithicines, Homo Erectus, and even Neanderthals had a different "developmental" trajectory than Neurotypical humans. And, that's also pretty much indisputable these days. And, so, if it wouldn't be a "developmental DISABILITY" in them, and Autistic people have autism genes deriving from Neanderythals and even as far back as the Chromosome 2 fusion (meaning Homo Erectus would have had them), why are these "developmental" trajectory and brain wiring differences in Autistic peope constantly labeled as some kind of "deficit" or "broken brain system" by Neurotypical neurotype people ? Usually, this "integration mechanism" you refer to that is a Bayesian probabilistic algorythm, is called (if you asked what the Bayesian probabalistic algorythm is called) would be "executive functioning." And, so I understand your video is very informative for how the Neurotypical brain works, but in evolutionary terms, you can't imply the Autistic brain is lacking something because "it's still there in the right frontal lobe, and isn't accessing;" The Autistic brain is evolutionarily INTENDED to be wired differently than the Neurotypical brain. And, that is because the Autistic brain has certain advantages over what the Neurotypcail brain can do. The Autistic brain isn't broken. It is different. And, remember - the Autistic neurotype HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR or it wouldn't exist today. Your video was so good on the Neurotypical brain, I was hoping you could do one on the Autistic brain, as well. TY.

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

@@MaryKDayPetrano Hi, to be clear it's not my video, I'm just commenting like everyone else here. I take your point on evolution, in those terms each person is slightly different from each other and some of those differences result in atypical neurological function. In fact you're also correct that some of these variations can be beneficial in some circumstances. I accept all of that. When I described the atypical behaviour of the cingulate gyrus as a dysfunction, I mean it doesn't function in autistic people in the same way that it does in neurotypical people, in such a way that a part of the brain becomes inaccessible to conscious experience. It wasn't in any way meant to be pejorative. It's just how some people are. However since the inaccessible part of the brain is still there and functioning, it seems clear this is an anomalous situation. It's not that the social/emotional area is missing or has been selected out, they just can't use it.

How does this explain mental imagery of physical or alternate reality 'when the brain is clinically dead' ?

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

All the cases of this I've looked into seem pretty clearly to be cases where the brain was not dead. The brain lives on and is still functional for quite some time beyond the point where a person might be declared clinically dead due to e.g. their heart being stopped and resuscitation having failed. EEG and similar scans of brain activity through death show large spikes in brain activity shortly before blood pressure collapse for example look up the article "Electrocerebral Signature of Cardiac Death" on the National Library of Medicine site. They have evidence of significant brain activity as much as 18 minutes after loss of blood pressure and cessation of recovery efforts. Also even EEG flatlining does not indicate the complete cessation of brain function, EEGs can only sense activity over broad regions of the brain involving millions of neurons, activity below that level is not detectable on these machines.

@Bill..N

4 ай бұрын

The opiate cascade?

@RuneRelic

4 ай бұрын

@@Bill..N Nice. lmao.

It can be summed up in one word...ignorance. Why would the interplay of matter and energy produce a "consciousness" that is not complete? What is the point of reason reaching for completeness? Is there some "law" of Nature that makes this "flaw" necessary? Is there a reason for reason's inadequacy? Is subjectivity the point of ignorance? In other words does the "evolutionary" process stop working when objectivity is reached? Does time stop flowing? Photons stop moving? Light cease being important - lose its power to "reveal"? As long as there is one being in the universe whose existence is subjective is completeness forever out of reach? The "thing in itself" forever outside of reason's means? Without ignorance reason cannot "be" - exist. To solve certain problems, like the mind/body problem, may require a fuller accounting of ignorance than statistics can muster. A model of being requiring a locus of intention or curiousity. A "gene" of motivation. Not just "purpose" but "choice", "meaning" and "freedom". I don't think statistics is an inroad to understanding freedom. I suspect freedom requires infinitely more calculation power. One not grounded in game theory or utilitarianism. Something yet to be "discovered" - found meaning in outside of definitions, facts, rules and biology. A new relation.

The physical conditions are the modem for the spiritual which is why they should be up to the brightest to tune.. Why do we allow human rights and private property get in the way of this?

So human is superposition of many wave of energy from different planet and stars and hidden force while thar create a soul which is thinking energy so if the body die so dies the mind too like a light bulb cut off from circuit

How the hell did my mind decode the existance of the Singularity,. How did others like Einstein discover it with his mind?

"What is Mind-Body Problem?". Trying to answer the above question may require understanding the difference between humans and animals...the following light may help : Humans possess free immortal souls with the power of free will to choose what to believe that makes them accountable. This is why humans are unique... .. Animals have no free souls but are only driven by natural instincts beyond its control, not free and so not accountable. The word "SELF" that humans commonly used to define their being is your free immortal soul... ...Self is a recognition of independence from the physical world including independence from our physical bodies... A robot, or computer, driven by its programmed switches can not have a sense of independence, no different than animals that are driven by natural instincts as its program.. ...but human beings can freely feel or sense this independence which shows clearly that we are NOT ALL PHYSICAL ! From understanding the light that I received, our selves are our free immortal souls sent here for a chance of salvation through faith... ... but you only have ONE SELF which is your free conscious immortal soul who never sleeps, always awake, who is the free entity who can independently observes dreams. There is no such thing as SUB-SELF or SUB-CONSCIOUS that Godless Materialists are trying to confuse you with, to weaken your faith... In other words, "Mind-Body Problem" is NOT a problem of people who believe in the existence of God and their immortal souls.... ... but, for Godless Materialists, Mind-Body Problem is a huge problem for them because they can never understand why the MIND can by-pass bodily evil desires for love of God defying their flawed science that defines our whole being as just pure physical - slaves of natural laws and bodily desires beyond control ...

@dr_shrinker

4 ай бұрын

You lost me at freewill. Freewill does not exist.

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

>our selves are our free immortal souls sent here for a chance of salvation through faith... Is it ok if I ask you how you think about that. So you believe that we are sent here and tested. We are presented with a myriad of alternative possible ways to think about the world, alternative possible faiths. Some of us are born in situations where we are not raised with any religious faith, others are born basically at random in cultures with all sorts of different religious beliefs. The test is that we are supposed to pick, with no definitive evidence available, one of these myriad different beliefs and if we fail we will be punished forever, even if we never even hear of the actual real faith we're expected to believe in, or see any compelling evidence of it's truth. I hope that was an accurate summary, I'm genuinely not trying to construct a straw man argument and would welcome any corrections. That doesn't seem like a very reasonable or fair test though. Even just within Christianity there are thousands of different sects, many of which claim to the the one true faith and if we pick any of the other's we're doomed to eternal punishment. How are we expected to know which one to choose? It's all very well saying we need to have faith. Which one?

@evaadam3635

4 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Understanding an ULTIMATE JUDGEMENT would be impossible to do if you do not even have any idea why you exists here in the first place. The following light may help you see the whole picture, pls read w/ patience : Consciousness was once the sole power of the Holy Spirit when He was all alone.... but, after God split Himself into free souls to have a free family to love and to be loved, this sole power of consciousness was also split and shared... ...and for you to understand, we all are responsible for the existence of our Physical Universe because we were once ONE WHOLE GOD who created this Great Cosmos before He split Himself into free souls (us). In other words, as One Whole God, we all have the hand in the decision to split and the decision to create this Universe. So, God alone is not all accountable for all the consequences of the decision to split just to have a free loving family. WE ALL ARE RESPONSIBLE ! You soon will discover this truth when your temporary "life's chance of salvation through faith" ends where only your immortal souls survive... In the beginning is the "WORD" which does not mean man's vocal chords but means the vibrations of spirits from a tiny portion of God's infinite Spiritual World that had FUSED to create our Physical World. This is how the Universe begun, not by explosion nor inflation but by FUSION... ...and, as ONE WHOLE GOD before we split, our purpose for the creation of this Cosmos is to provide a temporary home for free splits, or us free souls, who may go astray for a chance of salvation through faith. ...by the way, natural calamities, diseases, or all sufferings you undergo in this Universe can NOT destroy your immortal soul. Only losing faith or without faith in a loving God can hurt your soul. This Universe was magnifecently fine-tuned with imperfections for us to understand what is bad, good, better, or best, ugly or beautiful, so for us to have a hint that there is better or worse place out there (heaven & hell) to hopefully find faith in God. So, focus more on your soul's fate because it is your immortal soul that survives when your temporary physical body dies and rots. Once again, the purpose of the creation of Physical Universe is for lost souls, who fell from Heaven, to have a temporary home for a chance of salvation through regaining faith in a loving God. Our lost souls were sent here (on our request) so to have a chance of salvation by regaining the faith that we lost that ended us all in hell - a state of cold dark nothingness...We lost Heaven because we lost faith, so only by regaining this faith that we can return Home. ... In other words, we were not sent here to know but to believe because knowledge can compromise your free will to believe, so, evidence or proof is not required to have faith so for us all to be welcomed back to Heaven which is our Original Home. THIS IS THE MAIN PURPOSE. I do not know this. This is my understanding of the light that I believe was shared to me because of my strong faith. Believe it or not, you are free to choose.

@evaadam3635

4 ай бұрын

@@dr_shrinker so, you were able to choose to comment here without free will to choose.... you sound like those funny clowns who think the Statue of Liberty stands for freedom without free will to choose freedom... sigh.. I agree, you are really lost.... that is what happens when you reject faith in God, you vanish your IQ too.... pity..

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

@@evaadam3635 That’s a nice story, all religious narratives are nice stories. It doesn’t answer my question though. You say we have a chance of salvation through regaining faith, but how do we know which faith we are supposed to retain? Your narrative seem original to me, it’s not identical to that of any of the Christian doctrines I’m familiar with, and directly contradicts the Nicene Creed and so in that sense isn’t strictly Christian anyway. Not that I think that should necessarily define Christianity, but many Christians think it does. You say we don’t need evidence, but I would need a reason to choose your stuff to have faith in over and of the thousands of others. Without having evidence, that would just be a blind guess. So are you saying the test is that god expects me to guess a religious belief to hold, with no evidence to base it on. What’s the punishment if I guess wrong?

What if mind were real and a fundamental part of the Universe, but NOT physical?

@bradmodd7856

4 ай бұрын

What if it is all fundamental, mind and body?

@tunahelpa5433

4 ай бұрын

@halcyon2864 very appropriate, considering there were 3 opinions, one of them (not my one) expressed as Gospel Truth. Ha ha. Good joke !

@tunahelpa5433

4 ай бұрын

@bradmodd7856 that's interesting, and actually is a hypothesis I've considered. If physical is fundamental, most would agree with that. But how do you explain the ontology of mind that is fundamental in a physical Universe? I mean without resorting to pseudoreligious mumbo jumbo?

Does George think he has made a contribution here? : “behaviorism, behaviorism, behaviorism,….”, “how does that relate to the mind body problem?”, “I don’t know, but behaviorism, behaviorism, behaviorism…”

I don't think there's a problem.

@PeterS123101

4 ай бұрын

So what is consciousness?

@CesarClouds

4 ай бұрын

@@PeterS123101 Awareness.

@davegold

4 ай бұрын

@@PeterS123101The definition of consciousness is an open question but that isn't a problem since it is a still a reasonable hypothesis that the body provides consciousness.

@stellarwind1946

4 ай бұрын

@@CesarCloudswhat is awareness?

@CesarClouds

4 ай бұрын

@@stellarwind1946 Cognizant. You didn't know that?

The Bodymind complex exists to be able to Love and be Loved in return.

This is a whole lot of nothing.

This talk was disappointing. George P. Lakoff completely conflates the "hard problem" of consciousness, with the "soft or easy problem" of consciousness, i.e. the latter being the identification of the neural correlates of the brain during certain cognitive processing. I'm surprised Robert did not push back at least a little.

@b.g.5869

4 ай бұрын

Not everyone agrees there is a hard problem of consciousness; in fact most neuroscientists don't think there is a hard problem of consciousness. This doesn't mean that they think we understand all there is to know about consciousness or that it's not a hard problem in the normal sense; it just means they don't think there's anything other than brain activity involved. If mental states can be consistently triggered, altered, or suspended by triggering, altering, or suspending particular brain activity, there is no compelling reason to think there's anything more involved. We typically find that sort of tight correlation sufficient to equate it with the cause of the correlated phenomenon. The reason why some think something more is required is because the correlated phenomenon in this case is subjective experience. When we observe a finger push the first in a line of adjacent standing dominoes cause the rest to fall, we can see the whole picture quite clearly without any nagging sense that there's got to be something _more_ than just the finger pushing the first domino that results in the cascade. However, if the cascade of dominoes gave rise to a subjective experience which occurred only when the dominoes were falling, and could be altered by changing the way the dominoes were arranged prior to cascading, we would be inclined to ask "How can falling dominoes give rise to a subjective experience?" Those that don't think there is a hard problem of consciousness would argue that this is essentially an argument from ignorance or appeal to personal incredulity. It's clear that the subjective experience in question _requires_ dominoes to be cascading, and few would dispute that (as indeed most people that believe there is a hard problem of consciousness don't argue that brain activity isn't required), and although in principle it's _possible_ that there's _something_ _else_ required that we can't see, there's no compelling evidence that there actually is anything else involved, and even if there were, it's not clear why this would make the causal mechanism of consciousness any easier to accept. In other words, suppose we found out that there is a whole other system our brains interact with made of some spooky immaterial 'stuff' that is _also_ required for consciousness; we become unconscious under anesthesia _not_ because the brain activity has been altered or suspended but because the anesthetic prevents our brain activity from interacting with this other previously unknown spooky stuff. We'd _still_ have a hard problem of consciousness; it would just move from the question of how our brain activity gives rise to consciousness to how the spooky stuff activity gives rise to consciousness. Could _any_ additional factor or process satisfy those that think there is a hard problem of consciousness that the hard problem was solved? Probably not. And then of course there are those that would argue something along the lines of "Ah, but what if consciousness is fundamental?' Even if this were true, it would not resolve the hard problem of consciousness. If consciousness was fundamental, and everything, including our brains, was actually composed of some spooky immaterial mental 'stuff', it wouldn't change the fact that our personal conscious experience is clearly dependent upon brain activity, and we would have no firmer grasp as to how brain activity, or any other sort of activity, could give rise to our personal conscious experience Moreover, even if we imagine that the fundamental essence of the cosmos is some sort of spooky immaterial mental 'stuff', such that even pencils and electrons possess some feint spark of 'awareness', this doesn't add anything to our understanding of how something like our personal conscious experience could come about when the spooky immaterial mental 'stuff' combines in such a way as we see with our brains, and it wouldn't change the fact that our personal conscious experience is predictably altered or suspended when our brain activity is altered or suspended. So it doesn't really seem that the hard problem of consciousness is a hard problem in the sense that it could in principle be solved; it seems to be more the case that it's just something that does violence to our intuition. I think a lot of people find the notion of a hard problem of consciousness attractive because they think it suggests our personal conscious experience isn't necessarily dependent upon brain activity, and they see this independence as a necessary prerequisite for any hope of survival of our personal conscious experience after death But as I've already pointed out, whether we think there's a hard problem of consciousness or not, or think consciousness is fundamental etc, the evidence for the dependence of our personal conscious experience on brain activity is just as overwhelming.

@ChandraVoyage

4 ай бұрын

Wow, this is the most eloquently written KZread comment I've ever seen. @@b.g.5869

@Sylar-451

4 ай бұрын

​@@b.g.5869 This was incredibly well written, are you an author? 😅 The mind being separate to the brain has never made sense to me, the non-physicalist arguments have nowhere to land. So many people seem to have a need to grasp onto the existence of something like a soul or a dualistic concious perception, that by definition we could never disprove. This isn't fleshed out but I hope you get the inferences

@b.g.5869

4 ай бұрын

@@Sylar-451 I get the inferences and appreciate the kind words.

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

@@b.g.5869 I agree with Sylar, nicely put. I'll just add that the way I see it if physicalism has an explanatory gap of how the physical gives rise to conscious experiences, idealism and dualism have just as much of an explanatory gap of how non-material mind gives rise to physical effects. The problem is symmetrical in that regard.

Could I please trade a body part for a brain ?

The Mind-Body problem is in the *"I"* part of the phrase, *_"I have a mind."_* I could just as easily exist without my self-awareness and the knowledge of my inevitable demise and be perfectly content with an unknown outcome that I wouldn't be able to comprehend anyway. Why would nature saddle lifeforms with a priori knowledge of a "zero-sum outcome" at the end of their life while instilling the "necessity for survival" in the very same lifeforms? In a universe orchestrated by logic, ... _that doesn't seem very logical!"_ "Existence" is either just as cruel as an almighty God who sentences nonbelievers to eternity in hell, or there's _far more_ to "life" than what we currently understand. ... My thinking is in line with the latter.

@brendawilliams8062

4 ай бұрын

I suppose AI can speed read the dictionary of the infinite. Then disappear the apple into a multiverse before you have time to eat it. We where blessed with a time to eat it and digest it. Also , Discuss what it’s like to be human with an initial slow go.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

4 ай бұрын

@@brendawilliams8062 *"We where blessed with a time to eat it and digest it. Also , Discuss what it’s like to be human with an initial slow go."* ... Where is the logic in being able to eat / digest food and discuss what it's like to be human when everything I say and everyone listening will eventually be "nonexistent" ... as if they never existed in the first place?

@brendawilliams8062

4 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC it isn’t about existing or not existing. Take the dice roll for the frame reference/the moment. It’s all you got

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

4 ай бұрын

@@brendawilliams8062 *"it isn’t about existing or not existing"* ... Oh, really? ... Is there a third option?

@brendawilliams8062

4 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC well, if AI is conscious then tell me

What is the software-hardware problem ?

I'm a firm believer that a mind is a terrible thing to waste and a waist is a terrible thing to mind. 😂

No body, no mind. That's all folks.

Jack Reacher is a perfect example of holy being.

Awareness is the symphony of thought. Memory, sensory experiences, and binding comprise thought. When neurologists can quantify those 3 things with math, then the hard problem is over.

@BugRib

4 ай бұрын

Qualia can't be quantified, even in principle. You can't get the _experienced_ redness of red from an equation or mathematical structure. Attempting to do so would be a straightforward category error.

@BugRib

4 ай бұрын

...Which is why many physicalists who see and acknowledge the impossibility of explaining qualia in physical terms manage somehow to deny the very existence of qualia, which has got to be the most outrageously ridiculous thought in human history--denying the only thing we can be 100% certain to exist, our very experience! IMHO.

@dr_shrinker

4 ай бұрын

@@BugRib 👍🏻. Great reply! ……you claimed , “quailia cannot be quantified, even in principle.” - that is just wishful thinking. Qualiia can be quantified in principle and reality!. Here’s a video of neurologists doing just that … kzread.info/dash/bejne/p5ufstiEXZycYcY.htmlsi=F_IihX9TvI85aNcV If a person’s brain (patient A)was connected to an EEG at a resolution of 1:1, (every neuron,)and if neurologists could catalogue all the trillion neuronal firings of “A”, as they experience red , they could recreate those electrical signatures- It is only logical they could crate a detailed reproduction of red and play it back to patient A. More so, if another persons brain (patient B) were wired in the same manner, neurologists could replay the experience of A to another patient B, in theory. However….the patient B would have to have the exact brain shape (to the molecule of patient A) to have the exact same experience. Otherwise, B’s experience of red, will differ according to their brain’s unique shape/structure. Here ya go. Video evidence of neurologists quantifying music qualia. - doing exactly what I said they could. They recorded a person’s brainwaves listening to Pink Floyd, and then replayed their brainwaves to listen to the song.. Subjective thought is derived from objective memory. In a universe where all things come from atoms, all things are quantifiable. - stock markets, water currents, and brain waves.

As we all know, the rules of football are not made of balls. So how can there be such an amazing difference ? And does it prove God exists ?

A brilliant voice of reason in a world biased by ancient supernatural beliefs..

@Bill..N

4 ай бұрын

@halcyon2864 Given your odd comment, one who was motivated to do so could say AND with equal validity that YOU sound like a leftoid with a brainwashed mind.. Not that either of those comments is relevant or necessarily true, but it's the way you think, not myself..

There is no mind-body problem but a mind-soul problem... you are not the body, not the mind but the soul... mind says bla bla bla... soul says this doesn,t feel right... It’s feelings against rationality (the mind)... and the mind often wins over ...to do what is right... LISTENING TO THE SOUL...

So awareness has not been explained. The awareness of whom? The I. So what is the I? Not explained.

Well, he's solved the easy problem of conscious, but punted the hard problem on down the field with that whole don't know, don't know if we'll ever know business. Ah well, nice try anyway

Why doesn’t he read his own holy book? it tells you exactly what the mind body situation is what the vessel is how it came to be so does the Quran, so does the Bible

Interesting to hear this linguist with a sidebar hobby confidently support test results and other 'empirical data' that support his theory of Mind/Body while stating elsewhere about the relationship/connection between math and the Universe. "Mathematics may or may not be out there in the world, but there's no way that we scientifically could possibly tell." Mind/Body/Consciousness are well beyond the understanding of our very best scientific minds and George Lakoff ain't one of those.

The brain explains to whom?

And who explains the brain?

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

Evolution.

@a.nunnikrishnan5492

4 ай бұрын

Escapism. ​@@simonhibbs887

No brain no mind, no mind still a brain.

Imo, Robert’s attempt to narrow this down to a free will vs determinism issue, with his last question is misguided; a red herring.

"Mind body problem" is mythology. It's not a legitimate question. The measurement problem in physics, now THAT is a problem. At least the host spared us from using silly stuff like "soul".

Thank you for not calling it the hard problem. That name is so stupid. Chalmers shouldn't be immortalized by such a basic name that describes nothing.

@halleuz1550

4 ай бұрын

He didn't simply invent a name. He wrote a book explaining what the hard problem is.

@robotaholic

4 ай бұрын

@@halleuz1550 you act as if I'm unfamiliar with his work. I don't believe in panpsychism. Remember it's such a hard problem you can't know the answer either

@halleuz1550

4 ай бұрын

@@robotaholic Well, your post created the appearance. Since you are familiar with the stuff, why make a fuss over a name? In all disciplines people are trying to come up with catchy names, but that isn't too important, is it? And one has to admit that "hard problem" actually did catch on.

The problem is that the brain/mind is godlike and without limits, 😂 while the body is an aging, oozing, dying sack of protoplasm. 😢