Always been a fan of Ramachandran. He's why I did a neuroscience major.

Huge, just huge I totally agree with both guys. Double thumbs up.

The fact that mind can influence body tells us that mind/consciousness is NOT a derivative of biological/chemical processes, that's one thing. Because the materialist view is quite clear: brain/chemistry/matter causes consciousness, therefore consciousness does not possess causal agency. But the fact that it DOES possess causal agency gives science the undeniable proof that competely innihilates the materialist belief that "mind is what brain does". A major evolutionary step for our species :))

"why does damage to specific regions of the brain in a fully formed adult brain totally eliminate a specific ability to experience consciousness?" The answer is the same reason that damage to a transducer might distort the signal quality. Damage to a tv set will distort image quality and/or audio quality. Damage to a vehicle will affect vehicle performance. etc

(cont.) And to deny that is to miss the opportunity to self-evolve beyond the dogmas of materialism that try to artificially confine human expansion and evolution to a set of paradigms that had no evidence to begin with.

very very interesting to hear about brain, mind etc. from aswamukham(gurumukha)

At minute 11:09 Wallace makes an interesting conjecture that went unchallenged; that if there are states of consciousness that don't involve the brain you will never unveil those by studying the brain activity or behavior. I disagree to the point that we first must identify the brain components involve in states of consciousness that can be observed before assuming there are states beyond those which might be unobservable.

@squamish4244

9 жыл бұрын

I've thought of this as well. If there is truly a mind unconditioned by brain function, then the discovery of such will unfold naturally, regardless of our philosophical or methodological approach. It's nonsensical to start out by arguing there are unobservable states of mind, because how are you ever going to test such an assertion directly?

@buddhistphilosopher800

2 жыл бұрын

@@squamish4244 By way of meditation, achiving samadhi. Plus there are other sources of experiences beyond the brain: the reports of people that were come back after being clinical dead.

@squamish4244

2 жыл бұрын

@@buddhistphilosopher800 This is true. But Alan doesn't mention that here. We also need to be able to see what is happening in the brain during states of samadhi. I know there are reports of monks who were so overzealous in their pursuit of samadhi that they essentially became 'living dead'. That is, they sank so deep into it that they couldn't get out. The Tibetan belief is that they fell into the animal realm. Only a greater practitioner could pull them out before it was too late. When the Chinese blasted railways through the mountains of Tibet, they came across monks in caves who were essentially lifeless but still alive somehow. I don't even know if they were breathing or had heartbeats, but their fingernails were wrapped around their bodies several times, meaning they had been stone-cold unconscious for many years. I assume the Chinese also took them for living dead and couldn't pull them out of it anyway, so they must have just disposed of the bodies. Many of them had probably heard of such things in folk stories or their own Buddhist traditions too.

Regarding the 32m mark on Parkinsons and the placebo/nocebo.. anyone know where I can find more information on that? Regarding collaboration with cutting-edge neuro/science (which has its roots in the scientific-method (established by Sir Francis Bacon in the 1600s).. since nearly all scientific papers thus far have been on on the hedonic benefits of meditation (stress/pain relief/dukkha).. and not the Buddhadharma/liberation which requires a different type of effort/insight.... what is the deeper understanding that modern science should be double-clicking on? For example, these traditions that are thousands of years old, what patterns/regularities or conclusions about consciousness have been found from those with 10s of thousands of hours probing into the nature of reality via direct first-person observations? What observations on consciousness are NOT rooted or contingent on the brain?

No one needs to know the specific structure of the neural tissue of the neocortex is in order to realize that the brain doesnt generate consciousness. It should be self-evident to anyone who has ever been a human for a day that if the brain were generating consciousness, then the brain, being the generator, could not be delibrately changed by modulating consciousness at the level of subjectivity. But the fact is, we can and we do do this, and this is a scientific fact.

Besides, lets see some evidence that show how neurons become the subjective phenomenon that we experience in consciousness.

Placebo effect has been shown to take effect only in very specific cases. Placebo is not the answer to "the bodies ills" it is an occasional by product, it simply DOES NOT WORK in most cases, and if we are indeed concerned with the 'global population' it is not prudent to evaluate placebo effect over other failed methodologies.

If processing is done at another domain of physics, then that domain must inevitably be detectable at some point through science. Technology sensitivity is the question. The frequency resonances could be quintillions of hertz above what we're able to detect with present day equipment. However, what we're observing right now are indications showing that altering subjecitivity does affect neuroplasticity + evidence of OBEs, NDEs, 100th monkey, telepathy, intuition, etc. Too much to ignore.

No. That doesnt apply in this case, because now we have the technology to record the bio-electrical activity of the human body at high resolution, we've been able to correlate adjustments in subjectivity/consciousness with changes in brain activity, neuronal firing patterns, changes in skin conductance, in heart rate variability, in temperature, blood pressure, etc etc and we can see a causal pattern emerge, which shows a clear indication that consciousness is not a product of brain activity.

The moderator tries-fails to perpetuate the idea that "mind is what brain does" and inevitably finds herself double teamed by Wallace & Rama who seem more interested in collaborating together to explore consciousness more directly (the actual thoughts-emotions-sensations themselves), in a much deeper way by employing multiple disciplines-perspectives and the latest science-based technologies to learn more about what's going on when we meditate or how specific mental processes affect us.

Sheila has a naughty fringe.

I would love a debate between Ramachandran and Sadhguru

@tibetanlipz8907

Жыл бұрын

B.Allan walace is 10x times better then sadhguru

Neuroscience is going to catch up to and surpass Buddhism before long as the primary source of knowledge regarding the inner workings of the mind, and how to use that knowledge to benefit the average person. It is inevitable.

@rgaud8

10 жыл бұрын

Of course! When that happens, medicine we know it will be revolutionized because the placebo effect will then be controllable, allow the body to heal itself. I think also we will have tools to help people get into a still, meditative state in their daily lives, becoming more alert and mindful. This involves promoting certain brainwaves, one such way is binaural beats in music. I don't know it terms of science what can be done for some of these things however because it comes down to one's own mental capacity. Seems like science is going to back all this up, and awareness will increase to the power of the mind, and then hopefully a cultural change.

@squamish4244

10 жыл бұрын

rgaud8 Yes. I agree with all of that - methods for allowing the body to heal itself and to achieve samadhi more rapidly are already available and being continually improved. I wrote what I did partly because of some odd things I see with Alan Wallace, in a number of his videos and essays, for all of his brilliance and attainment as a meditator. He argues the mind/brain division for one reason that I agree with, which is that consciousness is not dependent on the brain. But another reason is, I suspect, because he has a strong attachment to the Buddhist path itself (vs. the end result of enlightenment). He knows that if advances in neuroscience and technologies being derived from it have more relevance to the mind than he is willing to give them, it won't be long until a lot of traditional techniques will be rendered obsolete. I should note that Dr. Wallace is in the minority here, however. Most advanced meditators and traditional teachers do in fact enthusiastically support research that will enable technological advances in spirituality and the more rapid achievement of enlightenment.

@rgaud8

10 жыл бұрын

valinor100 I agree that I think it's purely positive. It doesn't negate any teachings, but rather, opens it to people who would otherwise not be open to it. As the Buddha said, paraphrasing of course, there are many rivers to the same lake. All this research is opening up an entire new realm of possibilities, and even if the masses don't achieve samadhi, they will progress along the path which expands their perception of others and themselves. It seems like with the unneeded material possessions that drive our current economy, yet make people no more happy, research of this will help bring about balance which is much needed in this era. We, humans, have progressed so fast in these last couple centuries that we haven't learned how to live with it yet. Well I'm not sure samadhi is something that can be given to someone, better understanding of it will help people get somewhere along the gradient. I hope this happens because I believe it will undoubtably give a new rise of ethics across industry, countries, and the whole world. Those are my grand hopes and dreams for the future at least, we will see how it plays out.

@squamish4244

10 жыл бұрын

You captured my thoughts exactly. We've come so far so fast materially that we have to play catch-up with our inner life even faster, because not doing so has put us in serious trouble. But I have grand hopes for the future too, partly because I want to live to see them come true! Lol

@DTTaTa

9 жыл бұрын

valinor100 This is called faith. Not much place for it in science

Thus, to debunk Wallace, you would need to debunk all of the recent findings from Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, etc that show how deliberate subjective practices, such as meditation, are able to influence biological processes. And I'm afraid that'll never happen. Not now. Not ever. So you're just going to have to suck it up and adapt to the reality that science is investigating consciousness in depth, producing findings that contradict materialist dogmas. see /watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

@backwardthoughts1022

7 ай бұрын

the modern head bishop of physicalism is no longer a physicalist after trying and failing for 25yrs to locate the NCC. physicalism is the religious idolatry of trying to pray nonexistent emergent properties into existence.

Sheldrake on the 10 dogmas of science /watch?v=8TbirTswmNU

To answer your question about mechanisms, mechanism are not entirely important right now, because tehyre a redundant explaination. The point is, once we've made certain observations that defy classical mechanistic explananations, then we dont fall for the stupid idea that we should discard those observations on the basis that they dont have a classical mechanism that can make sense out of it. lol. What we ought to do is discard the dumb ass beliefs that dont fit the observations!

All you have in support of your beliefs is 1. general consensus, just like your middle-ager forefathers, and 2. a proposed mechanistic explanation for how consciousness might arise from brain. Youve also got 3. no actual observations to back up your theory, and 4. you're also willing to discount all evidence that shows consciousness is not a derivative of brain. This is all evidence of dogmatism. lol

It's more like an assumption that's based on one or more of the 10 dogmas of stupidity that has infiltrated science in the form of scientism. And so until you can demonstrate your claim that consciousness arises from brain with empirical/observable data, it's just a belief, like a religious belief that you've become emotionally vested in.

There's no evidence to show that thoughts are biological processes, as you've failed to assert. If that were the case, there would be no "hard problem of consciousness," now, would there? doh. If thoughts are biological processes, then how do you explain the obvious distinction between mental phenomenon and the biological processes correlated to that phenomenon? only a fool would conclude that theyre one and the same.

I did answer your other questions. Cant you read? Youre buying too much into the dogma ideology of "mind is what brain does" when you havent even provided any evidence to show the mechnism behind this claim.

+Ngati Leprechaun "if the brain were generating consciousness, then the brain, being the generator, could not be delibrately changed by modulating consciousness at the level of subjectivity." this is a non-sequitur. Your argument is suggesting that if the brain generates consciousness it would therefore be impossible for it to alter itself by way of that consciousness. This is demonstrably false; eg - If I consciously choose to smash my head into a brick wall and give myself brain-damage I have clearly done this. The same remains true for re-entrant pathways in the brain that fall in and out of the 'conscious core' your central belief that consciousness is 'received' rather than 'generated', is so far a piece of information that adds nothing to the theory. even if you find a way to prove that consciousness is received, you still have to explain what the nature of that received consciousness is.

Voodoo? lol that's a laugh. What I'm talking about is cutting edge science. The science of epigenetics, self-initiated placebo, contemplative neuroscience, neuroplasticity,.. Basically, modifying subjectivity and observing changes at the level of biology and neurology. There's plenty of research showing how this area of interest is well within the domain of science. It's just that your software needs updating. You never kept up with the science, so youre still dawdling in the neanderthal level.

17:30 pure ignorance from the professor

On one side, neuroscience. On the other side, pseudo-science.

@TheElMendigo

10 жыл бұрын

While I'm not ready to accept everything Wallace says, it seems naive to dismiss it entirely as pseudoscience. He is raising valid questions and asking that they be studied in more detail. Dismissing a request for the scientific study of something seems, in itself, unscientific.

@jeffersonianideal

10 жыл бұрын

TheElMendigo Fine. I am with you on this one. Provide me with a synonym for unsubstantiated conjecture based on the flimsiest of evidence and I will gladly use this word in place of the term "pseudo-science".

@mamunurrashid5652

9 жыл бұрын

"pseudo-science" or not,meditation is the perfect 'science'(!!!)....

@jeffersonianideal

9 жыл бұрын

Mamunur Rashid Although I consider most forms of meditation to be free from the metaphysical gobbledegook typically associated with religion, I would not consider meditation to be a so-called "perfect science" unless the claims of its touters could be proven through empirical scientific evidence. At that point, it would cease to be a pseudo-science and take its rightful place as a legitimate science.

@mamunurrashid5652

9 жыл бұрын

Do you have any experience of meditation? I don't care about what science,religions say about meditation......In my own experience,meditation is the best thing I ever came in touch with! Physical exercise is the second best thing that I have ever experienced(after meditation)! I have been doing these two things(meditation and bodybuilding) for over twenty years of my life! And they are more perfect to me than the so called science or whatever! Especially,the calming,soothing effect that I get from meditation are mind blowing! Btw,as far as I know,no serious meditator actually cares about whether meditation has its 'rightful place as a legitimate science'!!! To me,mediation is the perfect science! And yes,this is just my subjective point of view!....I know! ;-)

Does Rama. have parkinson's? His hands are shaking, his speech is slow and his face looks frozen.