The tricky part is that even "the brain" is a concept in the mind. To say consciousness is just the result of nerve firings is like saying green lights make cars move - it's just a loose correlation that when the light is green the cars go, and although both are part of the same larger system (traffic), what makes a car actually go has nothing to do with traffic lights, or any aspect of traffic. To identify traffic networks, study their mechanisms and statistics etc. will never reveal what makes the cars move within it, or tell you what a car even is. Without proper framing you might even zoom in on the wheels and discern that the wheels have something to do with the cause of traffic, so I believe it takes a quasi-spiritual outlook (not in a religious sense) to even be able to ask the right questions - the answers to which would be too foreign to recognize or otherwise irrelevant without such an outlook.

@patrickirwin3662

21 күн бұрын

They can't see this. The question is why?

@simonhibbs887

21 күн бұрын

>The tricky part is that even "the brain" is a concept in the mind. Aren't self-referential information systems cool? To understand the reasons why a car moves in the ways that it does you have to examine the control system. If it's a self-driving car that means reverse engineering the computer. Do that, and you can explain the behaviour of the car. You need to examine the engine, wheels, sensor inputs and such to understand why it can move, but only inspecting the control system will tell you why it does move.

@Luis.Macedo.Monteiro

21 күн бұрын

I agree, mind and consciousness can be just an illusion, or a hallucinatory state, a manifestation, like a mirage. What makes them seem non-hallucinatory? Consensus. The question is what is the credible basis for consensus beyond being a mere word.

@uthman2281

20 күн бұрын

​@@Luis.Macedo.Monteiro Mind an Illusion?

@haros2868

13 күн бұрын

​​@@Luis.Macedo.Monteironegative Graham's number iq moment.... So experiencing (a part of consciousness) is an illusion. Ok i experience the illusion of experiencing..... The illusion of the illusion. These genz or Alzheimer boomers in the KZread or Reddit comments just put the word illusion wherever they damn see. The illusion of emergence, the illusion of comsciousness, the illusion of agemcy, the illusion of reality (simulation hypothesis), tge illusion of truth, the illusion of air, the illusion of color, tge illusion of the wizard of illusions.They dont question the things that actually need dopt and they swallow the propaganda, and they question the facts of reality itself. Its like the past era, dumb villagers who are welcome with those who burned their hoses but they crucify those who claim the earth is not flat... You'll be a shame of humanities history, but even in an indeterminenistic universe stupidity is inevitable

This is a good one. He’s careful what he says can hold up to scrutiny and not going with latest fads or trends just to tell people want they want to hear. Brain scientists should be focusing in the brain to explain mind, nothing else.

This was a solid talk both had there brains switched on and were conscious of it also.

Guy puts money into a Coke machine. Presses the button. Nothing comes out. Guy: "Hey, give me my Coke!" Machine: "No!" Guy: "Fine. Then give me my money back!" Machine: "No!" Guy pulls out a gun and aims it at the machine. Machine: "I'm sorry sir. That was my mistake. Here's your Coke!" - CLANK! -

Sensible stuff!

Yes

I Think that themistoklis is made of information, stored on our brain! I Think that the relationship between the mind and the brain is the same as the relationship between software and hardware in/on computers!

@BugRib

20 күн бұрын

But there's nothing "it's like" to be software (presumably). That's the mystery of consciousness: Why is there "something it's like" to be us?

3:20 brain is the seat of the mind activity enabled by its complexity.... other complexities might provide less or even additional features 🤔

In the dream dimension all the senses are active and there is consciousness in that dimension, you feel and there are emotions in the dream. In the dream you can even have a conversation about "Are Brain and Mind the Same Thing?" One question would be who is the self, the body that is in the bed or the conscious body that is in the dream talking about brain and mind? Perhaps the most important thing is that neither is fully or even minimally aware of the supposed simultaneous existence of the other. Which could mean that both are purely hallucinatory states. Like a mirage.

The activity of the neurons cannot generate a conscious self because the neurons are specialised only for signal propagation and triggering the release of neurotransmitters. This is a purely objective electro-chemical activity meant to "push" the signal forward, well-studied and well-understood, and that's all there is to it. Subjective experience of the conscious self is something completely different. It consists in _feeling_ and _srnsing_ these (neuronal) signals. So these two entities are completely different. The conscious self has therefore to be extra-neuronal (hence extra-encephalic) in nature.

Brain is now the mind is memories

@BugRib

20 күн бұрын

Even the experience of "now" is really an experience of the very recent past (a fraction of a second in the past). But the _experience itself_ really is happening NOW, because when else could our present experience be taking place? Right NOW, right this very moment, you are experiencing events that happened a fraction of a second ago...but you're experiencing it right NOW! Am I making any sense? 🤔

No its an attribute to survive or survival in mind. What actually occurs is that the abstract disposition of survival realizes its potential through material substance the more complex the substance the more the abstract is realised or the disposition. It also needs evolutionary survival or a goal or installed disposition to achieve so that it may have purpose you can call this function first protocol of constituent .The abstract disposition through material substrates builds complexity so that it may create more relevance in the pursuit of survival so it may continue and then evolve but survival must be paramount before evolution may occur. You could call Consciousness the abstract notion of survival realising its potential or its evolution through material. As one cannot survive without consciousness and consciousness cannot survive without survival they are reciprocal or vice versa one in the same. If you takeaway one from the other you don't exist or if you remove the brain the chances of survival are rear. Consciousness is abstract so it needs to be coupled with a force to which it matches or similar historical relevance so we can gain clarification or definition if possible .Since survival itself is abstract or more of a process we follow and it uses material substance to make it reality Id suggest that since consciousness is a requirement to survival it is similar if not identical in its operation capacity or disposition

NO

Deja vu when reading the video description. In fact, I did post something like this before at a CTT video with highly similar video description (CTT with David Eagleman, on the same topic). I'll just post an edited version, with stuff I still like. But what if "functionalism" is true? 1) If mind, then [some physical brain, of which our wetware is one example]. Physicalists assume this; theists arguably not. 2) If [some physical brain -- other than our wetware], then mind is possible. Seems, at least, possible under physicalism. 3) Possible mind in 1) CAN EQUAL mind in 2). Seems, at least, possible under physicalism (e.g., Sci-Fi scenarios). But if 3) is true, mind CAN'T equal brain, because brain in 1) NOT EQUAL to brain in 2). Note that a "possible mind" can be an "output" of many "possible brains" that can generate/do them. The argument basically says the same software, e.g. a mind, can run on different machines and on different kinds of machines. I think the science fiction of Greg Egan explores this some. (and functionalists still do have more fun).

@simonhibbs887

21 күн бұрын

You're quite right, and Stickgold talks about this in his opening comments, that we have mental activity, it's a process, something the brain does. Logically that means some other system could do the same thing.

Are software and hardware the same thing ?

@mugsofmirth8101

17 күн бұрын

It's amusing when secular materialists who like to think they're smarter than everyone else deny the fact that software is not physical. Imagine thinking you're intellectual while not knowing a basic fact of computer technology. 😂

@tedgrant2

16 күн бұрын

@@mugsofmirth8101 So is that a yes or a no ?

The dinosaurs had consciousness and we know lions have it also all mammals most creatures with a brain of some sought or use energy to survive. Survival is relevant. If you think why a dinosaur had consciousness it puts things in perspective and it holds on to historical reality. You can see it as survival conscious entities or creatures its an excellent way to assume it. The more important factor is why do the constituents have this installed disposition or the requirement as first protocol to want to survive? Where did it come from? Why does the need to survive exist and what would that look like? How would it evolve if follows evolution and what would be the result of the abstract possibility of survival evolving? Do we follow the universe in continuation and expansion survival and growth?

It's possible to lose one's mind without losing one's brain, but not the other way around.

@koadaboss5665

17 күн бұрын

Says who

@mugsofmirth8101

17 күн бұрын

Jellyfish don't have brains yet their behaviour demonstrates the presence of consciousnesses and mindful activity

It may be that qualia are generated by the brain, but, for myself, I do not take "mind" to mean that which generates qualia. I take it to mean that which differentiates between qualia in absolute, logical terms. These logical terms are those such as denote degrees of similarity and non-similarity, identity and non-identity, equality and inequality. For instance, the color of a red rose is more similar to the color of a stop light than it is to the color of a blue sky. In this case, the identity of the color of a red rose is by definition established by means of the quality of similarity, which is purely abstract. Rational categories are not inherent in qualia. Similarity, as a concept, is not inherent in qualia. Equality and inequality are not inherent in qualia. Nor are identity and non-identity inherent in qualia. The question at hand is one of whether degrees of similarity, perceptions of identity and non-identity, and perceptions of equality and inequality are generated by the brain or whether they exist independently of the brain. It is also one of whether that which judges things as dissimilar, similar or identical is the transient brain, or whether it is something that transcends time and space. For myself, I believe that the universe is not playing mind games with us. Rational categories exist independently of the brain, and the mind which recognizes them likewise exists independently of the brain.

“We don’t know how the brain gives rise to consciousness.” If you don’t know HOW it happens, then you don’t know THAT it happens.

@ProLaytonxPhoenix

20 күн бұрын

Interesting view point

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

I don’t know how my phone receives emails. But I know It does receive emails.

@amateurprojects3341

19 күн бұрын

Fair enough. Bit like.. We don't know how the 'big bang' gave rise to the universe.'

@richardatkinson4710

15 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker Your phone just invents texts which are misleadingly labelled “emails”.

Yes when talking about other animals, but we humans are different, we can think deeper, so it has to be something more, than just a boring natural phenomena. As there is more to the structure of the universe, than is understood today(both subatomic and beyond observable universe), one can easily conclude, that for ex. some phenomenas from the underlying structure of space(quantum etc) can be also a part of how we form thoughts. All there is is space and materia, nothing supernatural by definition.

The brain is a physical process of motion bound into mass, (biological neurons, connections), the mind is a physical process of motion (physical exchange within the brains connection spaces). The differentials are in Temporal Spatial organization.

@richardatkinson4710

20 күн бұрын

You must have missed the bit about qualia

@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb

20 күн бұрын

@@richardatkinson4710 It's still the same, but from the perspective of the mass of integrated information processing, and it's sum and arrangement of motion flow vectors in space/time.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

@@richardatkinson4710 qualia is the plasticity of the brain; reinforced over multiple exposures to a stimulus. If I acquire a fondness for chocolate, it’s because my brain is wired that way. If I detest cabbage, it’s because my brain is wired that way. Qualia is not as mysterious as it’s made out to be.

My initial thought when watching this, is that there are three elements Brain, Consciousness and Mind. You can have a brain but be unconscious. and plants / microbes can be aware/conscious of their surroundings with no brain. The mind/Ego/soul is the mystery.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

Plants are not aware.

During the state of coma , there is visible state of decreased brain function and also a lower consciousness state. As soon as the brain is treated and the pathogenic factors are removed , there is a visible improvement in brain activity and a visible improving consciousness state. This is my personal experience with my patients.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

21 күн бұрын

*"During the state of coma , there is visible state of decreased brain function and also a lower consciousness state. As soon as the brain is treated and the pathogenic factors are removed , there is a visible improvement in brain activity and a visible improving consciousness state. This is my personal experience with my patients."* ... A car with engine problems demonstrates a visible state of decreased combustion, momentum and torque. As soon as the mechanic fixes the engine, there is a visible improvement in engine activity and a visible improvement in momentum and torque. However, at all times, the engine always remains an engine, combustion remains as combustion, and torque remains as torque. ... Nothing changes; it's just varying degrees of the same.

@sujok-acupuncture9246

20 күн бұрын

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC yes,. Ageing process is also common to both.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

Don’t confuse the dualists with facts. It bothers them. lol.

@sujok-acupuncture9246

20 күн бұрын

​@@dr_shrinker their confusion is because of 'dualism'.

The only way I can think of explaining qualia, is if we're in a VR experience, and the brain is just made to look like its responsible for the mind, even though it's not, and can't be. Whatever creates the mind is something else that we can't remember or haven't seen. Maybe the "real" world is mind, and everything we see is just part of a larger, more capable mind. And I'm not talking about God, I'm just talking about someone who's good at their job. Its funny as well because people go, "oh, well, I wouldn't want my life if I could have chosen it", but there are lots of children in schools who probably hate it and wish they could be outside playing. So its probably like that. Anyway, its not a scientific idea, there may be some reason the brain is responsible for the mind, but its just so hard to see it, that it makes me think of things like that.

I have another question after listening to this piece: are mind and consciousness (or awareness) the same things?

@simonhibbs887

21 күн бұрын

There are a variety of views on that. For example we have subconscious mental activities we are not aware of, but even calling those activities mental implies they are part of the mind. One view is that the mind is anything we have conscious access to, whether we are actually accessing it at any given time. However for example we're not conscious of how we construct a stream of speech, we do it basically automatically. We can pause and consciously think which word to use at a point, but usually they just stream out of us. For example the you're talking, do you actively consider multiple different words before you utter each word in a sentence, and think through which would be best? I certainly don't, only occasionally for specific difficult or important cases. So that's mental process we don't really have full direct access to.

@sujok-acupuncture9246

21 күн бұрын

No.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

Mind is considered consciousness. They are interchangeable terms.

@simonhibbs887

20 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker There are subconscious activities we're not aware of though, that are still considered mental activities.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or not…but Webster defines mind as “-the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism.”

All the qualia sensations are all survival related all extensions of survival. Every extension is an expression of survival in the human body including consciousness. You could say without consciousness you wouldn't exist or be able to function or partake in the process of survival and without survival consciousness wouldn't exist similar to the notion of survival before evolution or first protocol before evolution can happen. If the disposition doesn't exist neither does reason for existence so its the abstract disposition that is required through material substance that is needed for survival to realise itself or its potentiality. In this regard the abstract becomes reality through mind substance over evolutionary time spans. If all extensions of the human body are survival related then you can postulate that consciousness has this same quality but its the abstract version of it or its the evolution of abstraction but connected to material

Dual processor

The brain and mind work together, but are not one in the same. The inner monologue is a separate layer, if this layer is disconnected, you are left with a learning disability, but your brain still serves its primary functions to keep you alive.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

If they aren’t one and the same, then what causes the learning disability? How could you have a learning disability if the brain is not altered?

@user-ei1ym1lq6h

20 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker I can momentarily reverse my learning disability. I have issues with memory and processing, these two limitations prevent me from learning the things I'm passionate about. My brain obviously still functions, I can drive a car and ride a bike, but I'm unable to learn simple things and struggle with communicating with people. When I reverse the limitations, the memory and processing issues are gone in a matter of seconds, there is a transparent layer that inflates, everything synchronizes and I experience everything at the same time with more neural bandwidth. I can only exist in the reversal state for about 45 minutes to a few hours before I slip back into my limited state and go back to struggling. This is how I accessed my inner monologue for the first time, this layer is responsible for self-talk, learning and understanding. If I could live in the reversed state, I would be a completely different person.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

@@user-ei1ym1lq6h you still haven’t addressed the question. Just because you can go from one state to the other, does not mean your brain is unaltered. I do better on my exams after drinking coffee and smoking a cigarette because it altered my physical brain. Conversely, I do worse when I smile pot and drink beer.

@user-ei1ym1lq6h

20 күн бұрын

The body produces the fuel, mine (I assume that mine does not), so when I supplement this fuel in precise microdoses, the layers/centers just starts working together. There are many, many, many things that go right when this happens that tells me this isn't a fluke. I'm finally experiencing things that most others experience their whole life. I've spent over a decade seeking help from professionals, they either don't respond or treat me like I'm full of it. It's an incredible thing to get to experience, though! Everything I've ever wanted to learn is finally within reach, but for short durations.

@user-ei1ym1lq6h

20 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker My comments keep getting censored.

The mind is the software and the brain is the hardware If you turn off the power the software stops operating.

"There is nothing other than the Brain that explains anything that the brain doesn't ".

Doesn't it take at least two brains (a community of brains if you will) to make a mind? Can you understand the brain apart from the body and social environments?

💯 Clear, simple and honest. The mystery of the mind remains whole (bar the fact that it needs a brain to manifest itself.)

@richardatkinson4710

20 күн бұрын

How did you establish that “fact”.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

@@richardatkinson4710 simple. Remove your brain and see how conscious you are. 😜

@richardatkinson4710

19 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker Very amusing. How many brainless consciousnesses have you examined to “establish that ‘fact’”?

A visible brain proves that the mind is processing information. When the mind stops processing information, the AI goes to sleep.

I think the title is a mischaracterisation of the position of most physicalists, and certainly myself, because it implies that we think the mind is an object. Stickgold says the same thing. I don't think mind is an object or a substance in that sense. We might talk about mental states being equivalent to brain states, in the sense that a car engine running is a state, or a program running on a computer is a state. I think the mind is an activity or process of the brain though. Consciousness is a transformation we experience. If you want to talk to someone who does think the mind is a substance, and therefore an object, you need to talk to a substance dualist, not a physicalist.They do literally claim that the mind, and consciousness, is a substance and therefore an object. They will sometimes even say it is unitary, indivisible and unchanging.

@quantumkath

21 күн бұрын

There is always something to learn from you, Simon

@JagadguruSvamiVegananda

21 күн бұрын

in your own words, define “OBJECT”. ☝️🤔☝️

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

21 күн бұрын

*"I think the title is a mischaracterisation of the position of most physicalists, and certainly myself, because it implies that we think the mind is an object."* ... and ... *"I think the mind is an activity or process of the brain though. Consciousness is a transformation we experience."* ... You're just playing "kick the can" with physicalism. You're not answering the question of what consciousness actually "is;" you're only stating what it "isn't." And within your physicalist ideology, it's just "something" that the brain does (like a "process" or a "transformation" - as stated). Water turning into steam is also a "process / transformation," but within the substance-only realm of physicalism, ... it's still just plain ol' H2O, right? ... A combination of particles which equates to "objects," right? Outside of the physicalist view, the rest of us see water and steam as something *uniquely different* than the fundamental particles that form it. ... H20 is not inherently "wet" as we experience it. Water is a new, liquidy, thirst-quenching *substance* that transcends its miniscule building blocks in the same way that a million-dollar mansion transcends the hardware store bricks that form it. Take this same emergent template all the way up to human lifeforms. We are something *uniquely different* than the biological organs that form us, and likewise, the biological organs that form us are something *uniquely different* than the fundamental particles that form them. Carry this one step further with consciousness being something *uniquely different* than the brain that forms it, and likewise, the brain is something *uniquely different* than ... (you know the rest). *"If you want to talk to someone who does think the mind is an a substance, and therefore an object, you need to talk to a substance dualist, not a physicalist."* ... No, I'm talking to you, ... the Physicalist! Today, you are Physicalism's official spokesperson. Calling consciousness a _process, transition, or a transformation_ explains nothing. And unless you can *specifically state* what consciousness is in *physical terms,* then physicalism cannot explain our reality all on its own. And if you can't, then Physicalism comes up short just like all the other existential ideologies that cater to exclusivity.

@simonhibbs887

21 күн бұрын

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda As a physicalist, I'd say it's physical phenomenon or system. How we choose to delineate specific objects is somewhat arbitrary, but possible at various levels of detail o specificity. A substance duelist would have to advise in terms of whatever they think exists.

@simonhibbs887

21 күн бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >A combination of particles which equates to "objects," right? Pretty much. >Outside of the physicalist view, the rest of us see water and steam as something uniquely different than the fundamental particles that form it. That’s correct, they are particular organisations or states of those particles. It's kind of weird that you even think that's vaguely a problem under physicalism. Physics has a rich history of detailed explanations of those phenomena. Over here it's not possible to finish high school without studying solid, liquid and gas phases, the gas laws, etc. This is basic teenager level physics. >Take this same emergent template all the way up to human lifeforms. And consciousness. >Carry this one step further with consciousness being something uniquely different than the brain that forms it, and likewise, the brain is something uniquely different than ... (you know the rest).

 Different organisation al structures, behaviours, activities, sure. >Calling consciousness a process, transition, or a transformation explains nothing. It places it in an ontological category, which is basically the topic of this video.

Any living thing , be it a human , a bee , a plant , is just like a car sitting with the engine running . It is in essence a living thing . But it can't go anywhere or do anything untill , consciousness gets inside and directs the vehicle ( or living being ) to do what it wants . We are only vehicles that consciousness drives around in . We don't create consciousness , it created us !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

Substitute “consciousness” with “brain” and your post would mean the exact same thing.

Without the brain, isn’t mind, but the brain doesn’t explain the qualia of the consciousness?

@JagadguruSvamiVegananda

21 күн бұрын

N.B. Before reading the following Glossary entry, it is absolutely imperative to understand that the term “mind” is being used according to the definition provided by the ancient Indian philosophical paradigm (in which it is called “manaḥ”, in Sanskrit), and NOT according to the manner in which the term is used in most all other systems (that is, as a broad synonym for “consciousness” - e.g. “The mind-body problem”). mind: Although the meaning of “mind” has already been provided in Chapter 05 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, it shall prove beneficial to further clarify that definition here in the Glossary. It is NOT implied that mind is the sum of the actual thoughts, the sensations, the memories, and the abstract images that inhabit the mental element (or the “space”) that those phenomena occupy, but the faculty itself. This mental space has two phases: the potential state (traditionally referred to as the “unconscious mind”), where there are no mental objects present (such as in deep sleep or during profound meditation), and the actualized state (usually referred to as the “conscious mind”), where the aforementioned abstract objects occupy one’s cognition (such as feelings of pain). Likewise, the intellect and the pseudo-ego are the containers (or the “receptacles”) that hold conceptual thoughts and the sense of self, respectively. It is important to understand that the aforementioned three subsets of consciousness (mind, intellect, and false- ego) are NOT gross, tangible objects. Rather, they are subtle, intangible objects, that is, objects that can be perceived solely by an observant subject. The three subsets of consciousness transpire from certain areas of the brain (a phenomenon known as “strong emergence”), yet, as stated above, are not themselves composed of gross matter. Only a handful of mammal species possess intelligence (that is, abstract, conceptual thought processes), whilst human beings alone have acquired the pseudo-ego (the I- thought, which develops in infancy, following the id stage). Cf. “matter, gross”, “matter, subtle”, “subject”, and “object”. In the ancient Indian systems of metaphysics known as “Vedānta” and “Sāṃkhya”, mind is considered the sixth sense, although the five so-called “EXTERNAL” senses are, nonetheless, nominally distinguished from the mind, which is called an “INTERNAL” sense. This seems to be quite logical, because, just as the five “outer” senses involve a triad of experience (the perceived, the perception, and the perceiver), so too does the mind comprise a triad of cognition (the known, the knowing, and the knower). See also Chapter 06. Nota Bene: There is much confusion (to put it EXTREMELY mildly) in both Western philosophy and in the so-called “Eastern” philosophical traditions, between the faculty of mind (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) and the intellect (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit). Therefore, the following example of this distinction ought to help one to understand the difference between the two subtle material elements: When one observes a movie or television show on the screen of a device that one is holding in one’s hands, one is experiencing auditory, textural, and visual percepts, originating from external objects, which “penetrate” the senses of the body, just as is the case with any other mammal. This is the component of consciousness known as “mind” (at least according to the philosophical terminology of this treatise, which is founded on Vedānta, according to widely-accepted English translations of the Sanskrit terms). However, due to our intelligence, it is possible for we humans (and possibly a couple of other species of mammals, although to a far less-sophisticated degree) to construct conceptual thoughts on top of the purely sensory percepts. E.g. “Hey - look at that silly guy playing in the swimming pool!”, “I wonder what will happen next?”, or “I hate that the murderer has escaped from his prison cell!”. So, although a cat or a dog may be viewing the same movie on the screen of our electronic device, due to its relatively low level of intelligence, it is unable to conceptualize the audio-visual experience in the same manner as a primate, such as we humans. To provide an even more organic illustration of how the faculty of mind “blends” into the faculty of the intellect, consider the following example: When the feeling of hunger (or to be more precise, appetite) appears in one’s consciousness, that feeling is in the mind. When we have the thought, “I’m hungry”, that is a conceptual idea that is a manifestation of the intellect. So, as a general rule, as animals evolve, they develop an intellectual faculty, in which there is an increasingly greater perception of, or KNOWLEDGE of, the external world (and in the case of at least one species, knowledge of the inner world). In addition to these two faculties of mind and intellect, we humans possess the false-ego (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit). See Chapter 10 of "F.I.S.H" regarding the notion of egoity.

@tomjackson7755

21 күн бұрын

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda Are you ready to admit how much money you scam off of people yet?

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

Sure it does. It’s called neuroplasticity and electro- chemical reactions. Endorphins and Dopamine make people feel things. If people don’t understand what an experience is, it just means they don’t understand neuro science

Is a garbage bin and Closer to Truth, the same thing? how Low can You go.

@jareknowak8712

20 күн бұрын

Do You understand the question?

_"Is this the right __-room-__ column for an argument?"_ Look, I know you told me once, but five aspects of the human mind do nonetheless defy dispute ― It exists, It consumes calories, It resides in a biological brain, It has only recently been attained, and It is essentially the product of gene variations shaped by Natural Selection into advantageous integrated or coadapted gene complexes. If the human mind, and consequently human consciousness, are not both dependent on greater energy consumption and neural complexity then why aren't there (more) baboons, for example, arguing in this column?

여기서 M IND를 정신이라고 봐야 하나 아니면 마음이라고 봐야 하나?

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

Mind should be seen as a function of the brain.

If consciousness has an adaptive function, the the adaptiveness can only be relative to the environment that is adapted to. But then consciousness cannot be explained reductively with respect to brains.

Mind has relations with the universals, intellect and reason, truth, justice, beauty, role(nothing in nature is vain). With the brain, there arises consciousness and connects jiva with the universal mind; vous. We didn't come into the universe, we come out of it. Consubstantiality. Universal mind precedes brain. Isn't it obvious?

No brain, no consciousness.

@bschmidt1

21 күн бұрын

No consciousness, no brain.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

@@bschmidt1 that’s not true. You can have a brain without consciousness ….morgues are full of them.

The mind is the brain five antennas generating energy from all the different groups of chemistry classes designed and put into perspective inside the body through the mind during childbirth because only the mother could get access to connect with open space like the world and the universe these are the mind rim for shaping feelings with visual images and applying them with different classes of mix chemicals inside the body and around the world mainly for the internal body itself the mind uses the body chemistry classes to shape feelings and emotions, this is why the brain five senses can explain itself with the world as well as the universe and the cosmos.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

I’m starting a go fund me page and when I get enough money, I’m going to buy you a period.

These two don't know anything about anything . A dog can out smell us a million to one , so what does the universe really smell like . A moth can out hear us by far , so what does eternity sound like . We are limited to what we are designed to perceive . This is so simple isn't it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just my opinion, but the answer is no. The brain is just a physical structure. The mind is a creation of the brain and the entire body. Is a computer the same thing as the software that runs on it? Obviously not.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

Brain is “just” a physical structure?! lol. 😆

@Leif-yv5ql

20 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker How else would you describe it? Everything physical is a physical structure. Software is something else. Software consists of ideas. Show me a physical structure that embodies the fear of death. A brain is just a collection of squishy cells. A silicon chip is just a collection of very tiny and crunchy transistors and logic gates. They do nothing until they are fed software. Infants who aren't spoken to never develop the ability to speak. That is programming. They develop according to what they absorb from the world around them. Without software, they fail to thrive.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

@@Leif-yv5qlsoftware is a physical structure also. What’s your point?

@Leif-yv5ql

20 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker Is it? Prove it. Prove to me that when I listen to Beethoven that my response can be reduced to an equation. Prove to me that the entire universe can be explained by the laws of physics. I am not arguing for a "god". I am saying that it will never be possible to fully understand or explain the universe. The universe cannot be reduced to a classical model of the laws of physics. What is YOUR point?

@Leif-yv5ql

20 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker One more thing: No, by Godel's incompleteness theorem. Since no formal axiomatic system can describe all truths of arithmetic, and arithmetic is necessary to physics, physics can't fully describe the universe.

Short answer: No, they are not the same. You can describe the brain, but at the end of the day, you haven't said anything about the mind. And there is nothing spooky here. The mind is part of the natural world and it plays a causal role. Ask an ordinary person who never studied science or philosophy, and you will see that's how he conceives the mind-brain relationship. This is plain common sense. But conceiving the mind brain relationship this way is often polluted by religions which I suspect is what often motivates people to ignore/deny the obvious.

@S3RAVA3LM

21 күн бұрын

You denigrate others and then believe you have an opinion that matters. You are a true pos.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

People describe the mind all the time. It’s just that everyone likes to argue.

@anteodedi8937

20 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker The point is you don't do that by describing the brain, so they are not the same.

@dr_shrinker

20 күн бұрын

@@anteodedi8937 see? lol.

@anteodedi8937

20 күн бұрын

@@dr_shrinker Do you have a relevant point to make or what? Lol

(1:20) *RS: **_"Is the mind totally explained by the brain and if that was the question I would say my guess is yes."_* ... And I would disagree! You can't claim that consciousness can be "totally explained" by the brain merely because certain areas of the brain correlate directly with conscious activity. That's like arguing that a driver is "totally explained" by an automobile because certain functions of an automobile correlate directly with the driver. The driver and the vehicle are two separated entities! It is "Closer to Truth" that the brain and consciousness (like "car and driver") share an interdependent / interconnected relationship. A brain is physical substance that is subservient to *nonphysical information* (intelligent instructions). Nonphysical Intelligence always seeks out new information, and physical substance is the _mindless sock puppet_ used to generate that new information.

@JagadguruSvamiVegananda

21 күн бұрын

consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Chapter 05 of my Holy Scripture). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri). sentience: the capacity to experience feelings or sensations, as distinguished from perceptions and cognition. The word was first coined by philosophers in the 1630s for the concept of an ability to feel, derived from Latin “sentientem” (a feeling), in order to distinguish it from the ability to think/reason. Therefore, sentience ought not be confused with consciousness, though the two are closely related. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. In animal life, there are up to five sensory organs which can detect external stimulants or percepts. ADDITIONALLY, many forms of metazoans have acquired a degree of consciousness, in which a subject-object polarity is established. Therefore, when carnists claim that “plants have feelings too” upon being confronted with vegan ideology, they may be correct (at least in a rather diffuse sense of the term “feelings”), so the most logical reason for being vegan is not because plants are completely without sentience, but simply due to the fact that humans are an herbivorous species. If Homo sapiens were naturally omnivores or carnivores, then no sane person would promote veganism. In summary, all forms of organic life are, by definition, sentient, yet TRUE consciousness is found in those animal species that have a certain level of intelligence (that is, as a general rule, vertebrates, though there are a couple of notable exceptions to this general rule). Cf. “conscious".

@obiwanduglobi6359

21 күн бұрын

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda The definitions and arguments presented regarding consciousness and sentience in this text require a critical examination, particularly from a scientific perspective. The distinctions made between consciousness and sentience are crucial, but the explanations provided contain several points that merit further scrutiny. Firstly, the text defines consciousness as "that which knows" or "the state of being aware," and sentience as "the capacity to experience feelings or sensations." While these definitions are broadly acceptable, the text conflates these concepts with simplistic evolutionary claims about organisms. For instance, the claim that single-celled microbes possess "an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience" because they respond to environmental stimuli conflates basic biological responsiveness with sentience. From a biological standpoint, such responses are more accurately described as adaptive behaviors driven by biochemical and biophysical processes rather than evidence of sentience. The assertion that plants possess a greater degree of sentience because they react to light, insects, or emit chemicals when damaged also requires a nuanced approach. Plants' responses to environmental stimuli are indeed complex and adaptive, but equating these responses with sentience anthropomorphizes plant behavior. Sentience, as traditionally defined in biological and philosophical contexts, involves the capacity for subjective experience, which remains highly contentious in plant biology. While plants exhibit sophisticated mechanisms to interact with their environment, current scientific consensus does not support the claim that these mechanisms equate to sentience as experienced by animals. Furthermore, the text's description of the evolution of consciousness through increasingly complex organisms leading to human self-awareness simplifies a highly intricate and debated field of study. Consciousness, especially human consciousness, is not merely a product of brain complexity. While there is a correlation between brain complexity and levels of cognitive functions, the emergence of consciousness involves a myriad of factors including neural architecture, connectivity, and perhaps other yet-undiscovered elements. The leap from simple sensory awareness in lower animals to self-awareness in humans involves multiple stages of cognitive development that the text oversimplifies. The text's emphasis on human unique self-awareness as "an awareness of awareness" does align with many philosophical and psychological theories. However, it is important to note that some non-human animals exhibit behaviors suggestive of a degree of self-awareness, such as mirror self-recognition in certain primates, dolphins, and elephants. This indicates that self-awareness may not be an exclusively human trait, challenging the binary distinction made in the text between human and non-human consciousness. Moreover, the text's discussion on the moral implications of sentience in plants versus animals in the context of veganism introduces a contentious ethical argument. The notion that all forms of organic life are sentient in a "diffuse sense" stretches the definition of sentience and undermines the ethical considerations unique to animal sentience. The moral arguments for veganism often hinge on the capacity for suffering and the complexity of experiences in animals, which are qualitatively different from plant responses. In conclusion, while the text provides a starting point for discussing consciousness and sentience, it oversimplifies and conflates complex biological and philosophical concepts. A more rigorous scientific approach would involve distinguishing between adaptive biological responses and sentience, acknowledging the gradual and multifaceted nature of consciousness evolution, and carefully considering the ethical implications of sentience in different forms of life. GPT4o

@JagadguruSvamiVegananda

21 күн бұрын

@@obiwanduglobi6359, now, in your OWN words. 🙄

@obiwanduglobi6359

21 күн бұрын

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda I don't think you have the authority to give me any orders.

Does Dolly Parton sleep on her back?

I dont understand this guys as neurosience when he keep out his views about brains is It with inconsistency neurosience proceendings. Neurosience doesnt know how figure out conscieusness só far but he shows conscieusness is close case. Absurd.