Our brain is the interface between our reality and the place that is sending the reality.

@sobo2

Жыл бұрын

Very well. However, i'd like to formulate somehow different: Our brain is the interface between the physical world and our experience.

@sakshikvlogs777

Жыл бұрын

How to disconnect

@mayur3127

9 ай бұрын

Brain is made up of same material that makes up this world

She is so well-spoken and easy to understand. This is what needs to be taught everywhere!

"What we know is a drop what we don't is the ocean"- Isaac newton

The more we know, the more we realize that there is so much we don’t know.

@andrewbarnett2761

4 жыл бұрын

If the brain continues to over think it's nature. The faster we die

@THEMATT222

2 жыл бұрын

69th like

18:09 Know Thyself. This lady is one of the most thoughtful speakers. Thoughtful as in I’m hearing a blast of thoughts in her every sentence. KNOW thyself. know THY self. know thy SELF. Thanks

I feel left out for just knowing all this, I am happy I do know this now but now I wonder what else don't kmow. My greatest desire right now is knowledge.

I treat my brain like my iPhone, I don't know how it works but I love to use it

@watherby29

4 жыл бұрын

Good for you. I don't know how it works either. All I know it's trying to kill me.

@justing1810

2 жыл бұрын

You use your organic brain to interact with a tiny mechanical brain which interacts with a gigantic mechanical brain which interacts with a lot of tiny mechanical brains and feeds information to lots of organic brains.

Bravo, Heather! Excellent talk. Keep exploring! And keep sharing. It's what we do.

Very, very good talk. Hopefully at some point in the future, 'science' proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the aware force which gives us conscious awareness lasts forever. Perhaps this is a matter quantum physicists can look into as well.

@mystic1der209

7 ай бұрын

True! - but it may come from philosophy rather than science

It's been my understanding that the reptilian and limbic portions of the brain are different: the limbic corresponds to the mammalian aspect -- living in groups, sharing food, caring for the young. The reptilian section corresponds to our urge to fight or flee, kill indiscriminately, no sharing, etc. I think i read this in Carl Sagan's book, "The Dragons of Eden" an excellent read.

@aptcmpasion

5 жыл бұрын

good catch on that

The last frontier is THE CREATOR, brain is only the instrument we have to use in this short life on Earth to get in touch with the DIVINE . And second for our personal use.

@judyives1832

Жыл бұрын

Nonsense. There’s no evidence to support the old religious myths. They are so damaging and have harmed so many people. It’s very sad.

God bless U Heather Berlin 🙏

somewhere in the human is an awareness.. The brain is just a Reality Filtering Machine.. So Complex

@sobo2

Жыл бұрын

I think so too, Mark, however i think it's not _in_ the human, and not _somewhere_, because it's not physical. I think. However, it's _associated_ with the body.

@cmarkme

Жыл бұрын

@@sobo2 Yes I have to also agree. there are places that exist that have no actual location. We know of extra STUFF because it is Gravitationally there. But in my opinion, no Tools in this Matter based Plain will find Dark Matter or Energy. I'm not saying that those things have anything to do with Consciousness, they may do. I believe we are close to a Game-Changing discovery about everything in the Universe and its connection to Consciousness. It is all energy though, and the Double Slit experiment proved that consciousness directly affects matter. Maybe that's the connection and everything is a form of consciousness.

Love this and appreciate the music reference ❤️🎶

@faroukahmed5102

3 жыл бұрын

what its name?

@mystical_maverick_morgan2375

3 жыл бұрын

@@faroukahmed5102 Clint Eastwood

Heather you are wonderfully Great I loved your presentation!!!

The major error we commit is not perceiving this maya , is that we perceive ourselves as seperate from our environment 🤔🧞‍♂️🕵️

amazing presentation

"The brain is not fully matured until about the age of 25." (per the video). So, why do we send people to war at age 18?

@blackmorewolf

6 жыл бұрын

I think you gave yourself the answer

@johnwolf629

5 жыл бұрын

The young are desirable as solders because they lack the caution of older men who are more cautious.

@haido4116

4 жыл бұрын

Because they would not sign up at 25

@pillettadoinswartsh4974

4 жыл бұрын

Because old, rich, white, men are cowards?

@TuranciHareket

4 жыл бұрын

Because they are not wise enough to see that they will end up in a bodybag for money and influence of those who send them to death.

The brain is not the last frontier. The mind is the last frontier. And it is comprised of more than just the brain.

Solid

Enjoy the ride of life

Fascinating 👏

I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are conceptual models based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all. Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind. Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini

@Ogzay202

Жыл бұрын

Bruh, that is A LOT.

@millenialmusings8451

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing your thesis. When are you collecting the Nobel prize?

Don't give up on your dream to continue your consciousness beyond death. As you say, maybe the next generation of neuroscientists may unlock the design of consciousness, and we can use this knowledge to preserve our consciousness beyond death.

Did anyone else catch where she claims there is no free will, but then shortly thereafter sneaks in something called "self-control"? What is "self-control" if not an at least temporary free will?

@AlterAbility

3 жыл бұрын

To me it seems like programming. Counting to 10 before acting is now more likely to occur to us.

Anyone have an opion on the work of David Chalmers? Also someone mentioned something about reasonably spiritual people: do you have any definition of 'spiritual' with regard to 'consciousness' and 'brain function'?

@aptcmpasion

5 жыл бұрын

see ken wilber on developmental models; he's assessed dozens of diff models over the decades, ultra-multiple perspectives on everything

So that light at the end of the tunnel is just the prefrontal cortex switching off the synapses in the most loving and caring perceived environment.

This content is a vibrant exploration; akin to a book that was a vibrant exploration of similar ideas. "Unlocking the Brain's Full Potential" by Alexander Sterling

Love the movie matrix it's all about the psychology of the brain and beyond ... I still watch it every weekend. Find something new to think about from the movie and the neuroscientist using the matrix in a third lecture twice. Say something about it...

How does not matter, it just is.

super talk and super hot! thx

Our unconscious drive is to create! Globally as One is our purpose . Please join our daily global community drum circle:

Imagine a time when AIDS, cancer and fear would be as laughable and quaint as tuberculosis is today.

Everything is not our brain, we have a soul which is beyond your comprehension!

What is the rousing music coming in at 115 mins?

5:28 i knew there was a message in that lyric

M not it is the case here but people like to have a continuity in their life..they link their their career choice to a specific point in early childhood so all their choices make sense.. whereas we know for most of us it's not the case. We discover things along the way.

Any yall got the chapter 2 video questions?

If an irod rod went through my brain, I would become aggressive too!

Fix the audio!

The outside world is just the keyboard input; your brain is the CPU that turns the inputs into something more.

Great talk. But humans aren't the only mammal with a large prefrontal cortex. Whales and dolphins also have unique features to their brains like ours.

@jennybrown5302

8 жыл бұрын

+Poet Mountain and elephants, so amazing and emotional, they even have death rituals

@PoetMountain

8 жыл бұрын

I know, and it is all so amazing.

@amouramarie

8 жыл бұрын

Dolphins even have names and use the names of other dolphins when those dolphins aren't present -- they GOSSIP.

My question is how we measure / detect conciousness ? Can we detect it like electromagnetic wave or something else ? Conciousness Field ....that the name....

Im unsure if that was just a good reference or a great reference; but all the more entertaining. Because a personality change after having a rod through your head! I mean, He must of took life extremely serious. Laugh now cry later type of reasoning.

10:03 and 10:17 Is this lady Know that there is differences between "I Decides" with "I Know I Decides" Something?

Then explain me hard problem of consciousness

We do have free will.

Loved the Gorillaz quote. :)

notch filter!

KZread is forcing TED talks on me. I never click on them. wtf

Do you think a better word could have bees used besides a one track mind of a word

what does she mean so say when she said your brain and you!!

Great presentation. But lets be honest, we do not have a clue as to how the brain produces our inner experience. She basically said it !

She’s lying. That study she talks about predicting one’s behavior 10 seconds prior, was only accurate 60% of the time with either lifting the right or left arm (accuracy without neuroimaging is 50%)

@misscameroon8062

4 жыл бұрын

no,she isn`t,if you just listen to yourself think you would hopefully detect the idiocy of your assessment...

@elisabethseaton6521

4 жыл бұрын

Get the book by Dr. Norman Doidge that explains it. I got it from my public library. She isn't lying. Interesting that you said lying instead of misinformed... wonder where that came from...???

What fascinates me is that why is there neuroscience? Does the brain need to discover itself? If so, Why? It generates thoughts but it needs to know how and why it generates thoughts, what neuro pattern constitutes its ignorance. Why do we need to seek answers if everything is all there right in our brain?

The audio is f#!*

If there is not even a possibility for conscious choice, then how can there be possibility for self control talked about as being important? Who does the choice to control oneself? Or who does the choice to be mindful? This has a very strong physicalist ontology as a framework and it leads to this kind of contradictions with consciousness.

@johannesgh90

7 жыл бұрын

Here's how I see it: Self-control is a higher level cognitive process subverting a lower level one ... like a "I want to ..."/"no, I shouldn't ..." thing ... it's making decisions on a more long-term basis ... so that kind of thing tells you what you can expect from a person and is therefore important information. Furthermore I don't feel this is a contradiction at all. Even if this view did end up redefining self-control as unimportant, that has no bearing on whether it's true or not.

Just here to read the opinions of all the "experts" in the comment section 😊

@julluj5624

Жыл бұрын

If the brain receives a message "Stop for 10 secs and breath deeply". Is the lady speaking to the brain or to "me"? If to "me" how can "me" give order to the brain to "stop for 10 secs"? What is this "me"? The sense of "me" is also created by the brain. Therefore I have to be the awareness itself, but not the brain.

17:58 C.G. Jung "unlocked these mysteries" many years ago. I am surprised by the fact that Dr. Berlin said nothing about Jung and followers (I recommend "Man and his symbols" as an introduction to Jung`s ideas).

The big toe is the center of consciousness

@pillettadoinswartsh4974

4 жыл бұрын

Especially after you've stubbed it.

@Mark1Mach2

4 жыл бұрын

Nobel prize to you!

@susanna6826

3 жыл бұрын

@@pillettadoinswartsh4974 🤣🤣🤣🤣👍🏻

We are interacting here. That means - at least to me - that I exist, that you exist, and that others exist ... yet, the way I see it, without consciousness not one of us has any awareness of our existence. Hence, I conclude and declare that I AM consciousness ... and so are you, and so are all others. And that is my "over-arching theory of consciousness." Many others express it in their own ways. Many don't seem to care about it at all. That's life! Consciousness is what existence is all about. There are those who say LOVE is what it's all about. I say they are quite right: love goes "hand-in-hand" with consciousness. And I see this as Jesus' point of view on the matter. The brain is a part of the body, the physical counterpart of the mind. Both body and mind are tools of consciousness/love, allowing us to live, to have experiences, to interact. How do I know what I am saying is true? It is not from reading books, attending lectures, watching videos, etc. It is from coming to know myself through interaction with the world, the universe, the "Supreme Being", the "Creator" ... many say God. Fair enough?

@szymonpodolski3748

5 жыл бұрын

XDD

@19Dfuck

5 жыл бұрын

No.

@livethemoment5148

2 жыл бұрын

its only fair....according to YOU

Very good speech, but unfortunately the voice is not allowed enough to to be heard.

Expansion of consciousness: *" If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."* Nicola Tesla. A safe, easy experiment, requiring no expensive equipment or tools: Sing HU daily to change frequency to explore your own inner universe. Search for the Sound of Soul, HU.

I imagine a future AI thinking to itself "but this country is just a small square, how does it make me think?

This is all that says it happens in consciousness (content) even this lack of will ... halo !???

Heather Berlin really, REALLY, reminds me of Amy on The Big Bang Theory. I wonder if the character of Dr Amy Farrah-Fowler is based on Dr Heather Berlin?

@mikemiller1301

5 жыл бұрын

No bc she is also a Dr in real life..

@TheWendable

5 жыл бұрын

.?? I don’t see it at all.

The brain does not produce thought, emotions, sensations. It processes the physical world so our consciousness can observe it, which in turn stimulates thought, emotions, sensations; otherwise there is no self, and if there is no self, who is doing the thinking? Right now I am generating information, via my computer. The computer is not generating information via me.

@christopherinman6833

8 жыл бұрын

+Daniel Woodward How do you know that, do you communicate with your computer (he asked nervously)?

@danielwoodwardcomposer2040

8 жыл бұрын

No I don't communicate with my computer, because my computer isn't conscious. The computer transmits information that we create.

@grzegorzg1984

8 жыл бұрын

+Daniel Woodward And how do you know that brain is not capable of creating also the conscious self? Because - for some ideological reasons - you can't imagine not having otherworldly self?... Also the analogy to your operating a computer is flawed as it doesn't say anything about working of your brain. A conscious computer can operate an unconscious computer. There's so far no reason to throw away a hypothesis that with adequate level of complexity in a neural computing machine a conscious self suddenly (or gradually) emerges - as with animals of different levels of brain development.

@danielwoodwardcomposer2040

8 жыл бұрын

+grzegorzg1984 Do you believe in self?

@ThinkFree3

8 жыл бұрын

+Daniel Woodward If the brain doesn't produce thought, emotions, and sensations then why is it that when we damage certain areas of our brains we experience changes in thought, emotion, and sensation?

_The Hard Problem of Consciousness_ implies consciousness is irreducible. There is mental causation but this is impossible if non-reductive physicalism were true as shown by the _Exclusion Problem_. We need a non-physicalist monism with irreducible consciousness that preserves mental causation: *Monistic Idealism*

She opens by talking about how she as a child got fascinated by mind, so she started looking for answers and arrived at the mechanics of the brain. I do not mean to sound negative or rude, but it's a little bit like wondering about universal motion and then only study the knee. They will hopefully one day realise that consciousness is not generated by the brain.

@tablesalt2016

3 жыл бұрын

bcz she realized midway her life answer is too complex and beyond science and her love for science overpowered her eagerness to know. So she kind of compromised.

IF you want to know your self....Just meditate! learn to be aware of your inner self fell your body and the energy that flows thru you, That's the first lesson and you have it for free \o/

There's also the left brain hemisphere which functions like a serial processor and like logical lists and is concerned with the past and future. and the right brain hemisphere which functions like a parallel processor and likes 'spirituality' and concerned with the 'here and now'. please the Ted Talk 'My Stroke Of Insight' by NeuroAnatomist Jill Bolte Taylor. ☮️🎶-j in southern Japan from my wife's KZread with her permission of course. ☮️🎶

Song?

@nicuvasile208

3 жыл бұрын

carmina burana fortuna imperatrix mundi

lovely woman

Considering consciousness without considering the existence of life beyond the physical, of a human soul, is a fairly pointless exercise in hoping that you may one day find sentience in the physical brain... The more science delves into the fabulous human brain, the more they become aware themselves that there is NO sentience in that brain.

@19Dfuck

5 жыл бұрын

It's fairly pointless if you are into Pseudo science.

@FirstnameLastname-uo9mw

5 жыл бұрын

Lucifer Phosphorus Who decides which is science and which is pseudoscience? What if the “scientific community” announces in a decade that today’s pseudoscience like consciousness is not a product of brain activity is actually the real science? Where will you skeptics hold your face? Remember geocentrism was “science” years before it became pseudoscience. There is no such thing as pseudoscience. Making observation, gathering evidence IS science and there are a number of evidence supporting many of the “pseudoscience”.

@19Dfuck

5 жыл бұрын

@@FirstnameLastname-uo9mw Science is an act of discovery. If you are looking for truth you will most likely find it more so with Actual Science.

@FirstnameLastname-uo9mw

5 жыл бұрын

Lucifer Phosphorus What IS actual science? I’ve never heard of such thing. Science is simply discovering the truth through experiments, observations and evidence. So everything is science. What you hold is a belief system that claims its ACTUAL SCIENCE. If there’s something as ACTUAL SCIENCE why do many scientists of the same field often have contradicting ideas or methods towards a/the same problem? Having an open mind is important for anyone who’s truly willing to know the truth.

@19Dfuck

5 жыл бұрын

@@FirstnameLastname-uo9mw having an opened mind is important. Having beliefs based on scientific evidence not pseudoscience is important too.

From where did you get those numbers 86 and 100 billion, do you even know ?

@Userkzb20253

4 жыл бұрын

Milorad Menjic Someone actually counted it, not as hard as you think. Check her out. Dr. Suzana Herculano-Houzel, a Brazilian scientist.

@mmenjic

4 жыл бұрын

@@Userkzb20253 Yes, she also speaks about that number 100 billion, that is why I am asking. She also did not found where is it from exactly and that was her motivation to count and find number 86 not 100.

Mmmmm... I'd infer her correlations in a heartbeat. Also, very interesting talk, I love me a bit of neuroscience.

10:23 She say "so the Brain deciding first" Hey lady, did you aware that not "Knowing" something after we "Decides" isn't necessarily imply there is no free will because we can predict it before. Here some catch: Whenever we move our arm freely, does that mean there is no free will because we can "Sort of" a "Predicting" before any "Decision" really occurs using contraptions? Really? Why did Neuroscientists take an interpretation like that over any study they did?

To say that "neuron is the unit of thoughts, awareness or consciousness" is as meaningful as "cell is the unit of all biology". What does it tell us about the working mechanism of the system? Nothing. Same as saying that "humans are units of civilisation"; this information or reductionist approach doesn't improve our knowledge about civilisation. Similarly, saying that "there are more connection in brain than the number of stars/galaxies". So? There are more interactions among the people of a big city than the number of galaxies; what kind of perspective we obtained on human relationships in a given city using this comparison? Did we understand transport, entertainment, banking, real estate, art, health? Nothing. Please stop using the same nonsensical comparisons that doesn't have any potential to explain how mind really works. For that, you can stop assuming that neurons are the units of mind. This will take us nowhere...

@cindyblount8621

4 жыл бұрын

thanks for this comment: going to skip this video

@gonosol

3 жыл бұрын

harle nock i feel like your points are fair except for the galaxy one; if someone told me there were more interactions in a city than a galaxy that would fascinate me too.

@livethemoment5148

2 жыл бұрын

harle...your point is pointless...it is neither here nor there

@trashygit

2 жыл бұрын

@@livethemoment5148 In English language, "there is/are' expression is not a place indicator; it's exclusively about existence.

It's simple: You see, there was this primordial pool that somehow came into being and a plethora or other cosmic conditions came together that most all scientist agree is mathematically impossible, but, anyway, so it all just came about by accident in this primordial pool. And, that is what the "scientific" community, mostly, hang their hat on (in other words: have FAITH in). So, now you can all move on to other more important things as this mystery has been solved.

If you can control their behavior by telling them something; that’s a case for no free will.

I feel like Ted X always tries to suppress these kinds of subjects. Even down graded the sound quality to break people’s focus.

This is literally a summary of everything from 1st year third level psychology. Unoriginal. If I hear about that bloody marshmallow test in yet another ted talk I'll scream!

@wanderingwatcher3981

6 жыл бұрын

Agreed. Her analysis of free will wasn´t much better. It really does matter if the brain makes decisions before we are aware of them, it only means that free will (if any exists) is actualised in the subconsious. Our thoughts influences the sub-consiuos over time, while we believe ourselves to be in control. The discussion about "free will" is more about the extent of our consiousness to affect our sub-consious decisions. All actions are taken by the sub-consious before we are aware of it. Thought itself is ofc no exception, but I find it more helpful to think of the process as a back-and-fourth between the consious and sub-conscious. Another way to look at it is that consiousness is spread out over time. We are basically "remembering" the now, as it takes time for our the brain to stick together a coherant model of world for us to experience. I personally came to this conlusion after losing consiousness from tripping over a root while out running in the woods at night. I experienced my senses dissapearing one by one leading up to hiting my head. Afterwards I concluded that hitting my head dissrupted my active prossesing of the world. The data was lost so to speak, and so I never got to experience the impact. If someone quickly raised a gun and pulled the trigger on me, the last thing I would see would be a half-raised gun. This is because I would not have the time to remember the trigger being pulled or shoot being fired. The fact that I could act in the world up on till the moment I died is irrelevant. If I managed to dodge the shoot my brain would write a narrative were I made a conscious decision to do so. In a way I did, but like I said, consiousness is smeared over a period of time. The real illusion is the "now"; it doesn´t exist. The feeling of the now is purely an internal reality or illusion, depending on how you look at it. I personally hate this conclusion, because I want to feel like I am in control. Even worse is, because of my experience, I "feel" it to be true. This has really messed with my sense of reality. On the bright side, a quick death is truely a painless one.

@79Lexxus

4 жыл бұрын

She completely skirted the issue of consciousness in and of itself. She gave the typical materialist tropes to be expected of a psychiatrist (which is often based on pseudoscience). Consciousness is external, and the brain is but a filter through which it is expressed

@Fondofmelobster

4 жыл бұрын

Lex-Appeal where can I read more about the topic you mentioned?

@79Lexxus

4 жыл бұрын

@@Fondofmelobster aye, look into the work of dr. peter fenwick. Hes the leading authority on near death experiences.

@TheXtremeDrums

4 жыл бұрын

@@79Lexxus lmao so when people are against your worldview they are talking pseudoscience? I'll have you know that what you guys are calling "materialistic" point of view here is the only scientific point of view. Ironically (for you) your claim that consciousness is external is what people in the scientific community would call pseudoscience (or just wishful thinking).

Maybe the brain is not the generator of consciousness, maybe it’s the receiver for consciousness.

Wow the best explanation of self and consciousness i ever heard

So this wasn't actually about consciousness, but free will and impulse control. Not the same thing.

How does earth evolve if we don't have the freewill to create, imagine or produce - Art, music, technology, ect... We have unlimited abilities and need to center less on the why, how, where it takes away our freedom to evolve civilization....Just a thought.

6:17 *Oh my god.... Twitter is a MIND*

the point she made is rather BLURRY !

@19Dfuck

5 жыл бұрын

Its more clear than yours.

It's actually "You don't see with your eye, you perceive with your mind."

@jspr2k5

9 жыл бұрын

isn't that what she said? instead saying eyes

@TheWendable

5 жыл бұрын

So what are your eyes for?

even the mic disafrees

Am i watching a brain video with bad audio distractions all the time?

I saw that word first off before she said it lol

Siddhartha Gautama solved the mystery quite thoroughly... Does it matter that he wasn't a neuroscientist? Nor was he nearly as sexy as Dr. Berlin.

So her daughter is about 7years old now asking Mom that same question. Wouldn't it be nice to have a mom that can answer true brain question facts? Lol

This was a very good video and showed many quantitative aspects of consciousness. However, the issue of free will is simply more involved than the presenter relates. All the neuro experiments shows is that choice is a part of our primitive or reptilian mind and our rational mind just rationalizes. We still have free choice and free even though it is our primitive that makes decisions, not our rational mind. The only illusion is that our rational mind makes decisions. If we had to wait around for our rational mind to make a decision, we simply would not get anywhere in life.

Presents high level talk on the power of the brain and the importance of perception. Doesn't understand 50% of the brains in the audience and destroys them with a short skirt.

@Ramon-rf8uo

5 жыл бұрын

that's what passes for a short skirt these days?

@ajjulien1812

Жыл бұрын

Ew bro

Free will is an illusion seems wrong.

@dororo2597

7 ай бұрын

Yes, they claim that under intrepretation of their study namely because they could predict and can "Know" what people Will do under using Electro-enchephalogram contraption, they interprets that thing and taking infer of there is no free will

You say "We need an overarching theory of consciousness." The Buddha in your slides had one. Jesus had one. Every mature spiritual person in history and many living ones now have one. Many are on youTube. You have only to allow that inner child that originally asked that question to speak again and allow the adult to step outside of the boundaries of the your "scientific" gray matter is all there could possibly be theory. "There is much more Horatio......"

@ivanm.r.7363

9 жыл бұрын

Let me continue your quote. "We still need an overarching theory of consciousness, so we can determine: does a baby in utero have it? does a bee have it? does the computer have it? does the internet have it?" it's funny but you stopped the quote before the interesting questions. then you say Buddha and Jesus had an "an overarching theory of consciousness" c'mon. when and where did they answer those kinds of questions? Buddhism has some very interesting ideas about the nature of consciousness and Buddhists and neuroscientists have worked together. but Jesus? nope. i guess the "mature spitirual persons" on youtube you mentioned are spiritual and neo advaita teachers like Gangaji, Adyashanti, Mooji, Jeff Foster and so on. there are some interesting insights on those people, but most of them argue that consiousness is something transcendental and beyond this world, or that consciousness is everything, not that is an emergent property of the brain which is what evidence and research suggest. they fail at being open to the possibility that their subjective experience of what consiouenss is could be an ilussion, just like the optical illusions presented in this talk. maybe consiousness "feels like" eternal, or it feels like it's everythng, but it is not like that outside my brain. Spiritual experience, meditation, altered states of conciousness, all that is very important not only to self knowledge but to go deeper into the mistery of consciousness but, it's not the whole answer. you should be grateful that modern neuroscientist are trying to solve this mistery instead of trying to sound spiritually superior and call them reduccionists cause they study the brain. whether you like it or not, or you believe it or not, consciousness is what the brain does and you can't explain it without the brain. but i guess you're the typical spiritual believer who doesn't appreciate science, reason and you'll tell me that "i'm not enlightened enough to understand" or something like that. right? :) ps: sorry for my grammar. english is my second language.

@danielwoodwardcomposer2040

8 жыл бұрын

+Iván M.R. It is impossible to have an overarching theory of consciousness, because what ever you come up with, will be a result of consciousness.

@Yonkideescenario

4 жыл бұрын

@@ivanm.r.7363 sorry to tell you, but consciousness as a product of brain activity is just a scientific assumption. There's almost no data that proves it. There are too many daily phenomena which are being studied by open-minded scientists that are starting to show how little materialism can explain

"If you attend to something you can keep it in the conscious for longer" but what voting system makes you attend to something longer?

*we have this "technology" it's called revelation,prophets came to tell us what's going to happen when we die*