This is one of the most brilliant and informative lectures that I have had the pleasure to witness. The speaker is an exceptionally gifted communicator. Thank you!!!

At 13:05 the tone of voice on, "I wasn't studying this because I was interested in building a career" made me so happy. That is the spirit of science. Go to 12:40 for more context.

Salik Sayyar

Жыл бұрын

Geegee Poo It is now about controlling resources and treating scientists as disposable entities after obtaining their ip for commerce.

Peter Codner

Жыл бұрын

Really. Whose "science" of what?

Therese Christiansen

Жыл бұрын

@Peter Codner Yeah, there are worrying comments on this channel.

This is beautiful, I can't thank you enough for being the vessel through which this knowledge got to me.

Thanks a lot for this interesting lecture Mark Solms, and thanks also to the Royal Institution for making this possible.

his binding of feelings and emotions into the mix is something i would agree with. Ive been studying my own consciousness and ability to recall situations ive been in good and bad. I HAVE found that my memories are bound more to a feeling, or more of how i remember feeling when i last interacted with that person or situation. so i guess what im saying is ive found that im naturally storing emotions and feelings as a sort of way of stacking the little details of the situation into a compact feeling or emotion. and if i need to recall the details i can recall the feeling and emotions and it links me to the reasons i felt that way which are connected to the details of what happened in that interaction.

C.S.

2 жыл бұрын

Agree. Me too. Memory is somehow triggered by some kind of sensation. A subtle vague emotion or feeling.

Anita Linke

Жыл бұрын

@C.S. What we remember is what we have an emotional connection to.

Brilliant talk!. Loved the way you elucidated and teased out this problem. The problem of consciousness is something I have thought about for a very long time (I'm 65 now) without anyone in my life really wanting to engage with me about it. I will be getting your book (I'm in the UK). Thank you very much

Luigi Simoncini

2 жыл бұрын

have a look at Dan Dennet as well, guess you already aware of him, but just in case

Giddyoldgoat

2 жыл бұрын

@Luigi Simoncini Hi there. Thanks for your reply. Yes I have seen some talks of his online. Very interesting. As far as I understand him ( and others such as Sam Smith?) he makes the case for a materialist, neurological basis for the experience of being conscious. However to me it still seems unexplained how our subjective conscious experience generates out of billions of organic neurons firing in response to sensory input signals. Such an interesting topic. The more I look the deeper the rabbit hole seems to get.

Giddyoldgoat

2 жыл бұрын

Sam Harris..not Sam Smith :)

This was absolutely brilliant. It makes a lot of sense. Raw emotions in the brainstorm. I'll be thinking about this for a long time. I cannot help but now think of the "factor 5" model of personality. This would seem to tie in very nicely.

Such an excellent talk 👏🏻 This is the first time I’ve heard a well reasoned and explained justification for why consciousness is beneficial for survival, and therefore why it would have evolved at all.

When you were speaking about how a physiological event changed your brother, I was reminded on how frightening losing the ability to speak is. I know its nothing like what your brother, and family went through, but, during a migraine I was awakened to the realisation that you are very much separate from everything else. When you lose the ability to take words which you know full well, inside your head, and the migraine or bleed or whatever, changes your ability to communicate, it wakes you up to the fact that we are, very much, insular beings who can become trapped inside our own heads. Luckily its a transient phenomena for myself but nowadays I have a very real fear of anything like this happening again. I also disagree that behind the injury we are not ourselves, how do you know? I felt very much like myself but to the world I appeared very different...its nightmarish!

skeptic moderate

2 жыл бұрын

That sounds terrifying. I imagined it in my head and it sounds horrible. I hope I dream about it one day.

wellyn rose

2 жыл бұрын

That's horrifying. The closest experience I have of being trapped inside myself would have to be when under sleep paralysis.

Amit Kumar

2 жыл бұрын

Vedanta is the very science of consciousness at both human and cosmic levels. It recognises consciousness as the ultimate reality and affirms its presence in all existence. All this- whatever exists in this changing universe, is pervaded by consciousness" --Isa Upanishad .5000-BCE The ancient Vedic rishis in all their wisdom said as early as 8000 BC , that our universe is not woven from matter but consciousness . (They never patent there knowledge there own name ) There are connections between quantum mechanics & consciousness . Consciousness is the intelligence, the organising principle behind the arising of form. The quantum field or pure consciousness is influenced by intention and desire. All atoms in the entire universe are capable of mind reading and communicating with other atoms. There is a consciousness in every molecule of matter. As per quantum physics things do not exist in its physical form, unless they are observed by a conscious observer. In every experiment when an observer expected energy to behave as a particle, it did so. When he thought it would probably be wave-like, it was. And when observers believed it might start out as one form and end up as another, it did so. This means ,nothing actually exists in its physical form until observed by someone, was adopted by the group as one of the concepts. You created them by your expectations and your thoughts of what should be. In every situation in your life, including the wealth or lack of it you choose to attract to you. Biology is a quantum process. All the processes in the body including cell communications are triggered by quantum fluctuations, and all higher brain functions and consciousness also appear at the quantum level. On the subatomic level-mind is over matter. The brain and DNA is governed by the laws of quantum physics rather than the laws of biology or neuro physiology. THE COSMOS IS THE PLAYGROUND OF MAYA.. FROM MICROCOSM TO MACROCOSM.. Bhagavad Gita is all about BEING IN THE MOMENT. You cannot change your past, you cannot survive without water, you cannot change natures principle. The only solution is to accept things as they are. Life is a combination or physical, intellectual and spiritual aspects. Without spiritual development , man is without love or positive emotions ( affection, care, respect, sympathy ) . Karma is the result of your actions. If you do something good, you will get good tings in return and if you do bad things, you will get likewise in return. Karma or the actions that you do in the present life is passed on to the next life. But fate is not passed on to the next life. Dharma is when we are walking the path of our soul's purpose. When we are walking our path we are out of karma. We are no longer creating cause and effect. We are in flow with the universe, with our spirit. Our soul is line with the Divine. 'Manu-Smiriti'- 5000BC describes the code for leading a disciplined way of life. Patience, Pardon, Suppression of will, Stay away from Theft, Purity, Control of desires, Wisdom, Knowledge, Truth, Controlling Anger. These 10 qualities are considered as main characteristics of the Dharma. The whole of material creation is conscious. Our consciousness creates our reality. What our consciousness can conceive , it can also create. Human beings are conscious. They can see themselves in the mirror and see colours, while an animal cannot. To a Vedantic every part of this universe is dynamic, it is vibrating, it is listening and can respond according to ones KARMA, It can be by action and can be purely thought. The universe listens to our action as well as thought and gives in return what exactly we want either knowingly or unknowingly, weather it is bad or good. Science is trying to understand the universe ‘out there’ and Vedanta addressed the universe ‘inside you’” Schrödinger, in speaking of a universe in which particles are represented by wave functions, said, “The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. This is entirely consistent with the Vedanta concept of All in One.” The multiplicity is only apparent. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union with God regularly leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the West. There is no kind of framework within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply something we construct because of the temporal plurality of individuals, but it is a false construction… The only solution to this conflict insofar as any is available to us at all lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishad. - Erwin Schrödinger " You do not have a soul , you are a soul and you have a body "

pineapplepie

2 жыл бұрын

@Amit Kumar STOP SPAMMING NONSENSE! THIS IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION WHICH ALREADY OUTDATED HUNDRED YEARS AGO. GO BACK TO STONE AGE

frinfer neepers

2 жыл бұрын

@pineapplepie i feel like if you watch Dr. Solms and come away less convinced rather than more in the primacy and importance of subjective interpretation of the world/the things within it then you've very much missed the point

In your book, you describe feelings as the best way to think about cs. Because there are no unconscious feelings. I’d suggest that there are two kinds of feelings. Sensation is the feeling of data. Hot. Cold. Blue. Threat. Anything in motion. Affect is the feeling of emotion, and emotion is a response to meaning. What something means emotionally is how it feels to you, as something other than yourself that acts upon you. Beauty. Love. Ideals.

This is such an insightful lecture and explains so much of the importance of emotions in our lives as well as our individual and collective survival / prosperity. These emotional and awareness connections to the brain stem region would be mostly new to the majority of viewers, in my humble opinion (?) Thanks so much !

A great lecture indeed. I wish I had read your book before I published my book " Open Secret - A giant leap to success, prosperity and peace". The first chapter of my book is titled " Thought,Emotion and Feeling". Thank you. I will read your book as quickly as I get it online.

That's really interesting! Especially to me, as it turns out my brainstem was pushed slowly but steadily for at least 15 or 20 years (I'm 43 now) by a giant (by the official classification at 51x43x33mm) vestibular schwannoma. That's a benign (is most cases) slow growing tumor growing out of the Schwann cells, in my case of the vestibular-acoustic nerve. Schwann cells are like the insulation around the nerve very much like the insulation on cables. The thing is the tumor as it has grown so big, has gradually pushed my brainstem way to the left side (it has started on the right side nerve). The brainstem, which normally should be going straight down in the middle from the base of the brain to spinal cord in my case has been pushed way left, so that's making about a 90 degrees turn to go around the tumor, almost from the top end of the brainstem, to the bottom of the cerebellum, where the brainstem returns to its normal position. That's actually the main reason to believe it has been growing very slowly, as it has managed to make such deformation without noticeable effects. Actually one of the few effects I got from it (which I didn't know at the time) were only about 3 months before I went to get a scan and found about the tumor, and it was for about a week in the summer in which I got overwhelming urge to yawn or swallow without a reason. And about a week later it was gone, I was back to some kind of normal (which apparently hasn't been normal for me for many years already). In any case that brainstem reticular formation that Mark Solms mentions as the source of our Consciousness, in my case was extremely deformed. Most likely not directly damaged, but at least pressed and pushed to the side. Also I assume there has been some manipulation in the region during the surgery I got to remove the tumor. Apparently the surgery was good (even if quite long - 14 hours) as I don't experience any noticeable physical effects from all this. There are other things like a moderate hydrocephalus, which was initially caused by the tumor completely compressing flat the 4th ventricle, and thus disturbing the normal reabsorption cycle of the cerebrospinal fluid. And also the scan that found the tumor, showed that I has a cyst of water on the outer right-side surface of the right-hemisphere, which doctors are saying is probably condition which I had from a baby. As result it pushed against my right hemisphere, and it got slightly underdeveloped as size at least. It's difficult to measure deficits in the functions of the right-brain hemisphere I guess. Sorry for the long description, but to summarize I wonder if that extreme deformation of my brainstem has affected my consciousness somehow?

Alexandros A Lavdas

Жыл бұрын

I would not imagine so. The brainstem is so crucial for life itself, that if it was somehow damaged, the clinical manifestations would be obvious.

She-nanigans

11 ай бұрын

With so few side effects, however did they find the problem?

blueckaym

11 ай бұрын

@She-nanigans I guess that's why the tumor grew for many years before it started to manifest as side-effects (initially with balance and hearing degradation in affected ear)

She-nanigans

11 ай бұрын

@blueckaym oh, I see. I hope you have good health going forward.

Go-go 63

10 ай бұрын

For someone with such a strange condition , your text proves that consciousness, intellect and language have not been at all hindered. Best of Health to you going forward!

Incredible to see how this theory of consciousness could be outlined so well in the space of an hour!... including the ink to its evolutionary origins. It seems to me this has to be the right path for subsequent inquiry into this important question. I will read your book.

Being something rather than nothing is probably a deep motivational factor in all sentient beings and at least it's often considered to be the most important instinctual urge in the animal kingdom since animals vigoriously strive to survive or strive for self-preservation. I am sure that Mark Solms has a point in saying that feelings play a pivotal role in that survival. I think it's also interesting that he is able to sort of play with the Chalmers citation. He says that feelings are always conscious because, if you are not aware that you feel something, then you don't feel it. I am not sure if he is right but it's a funny argument. However, as I see it, he is not asking the right question and not making the right point. I am not sure if I understand him correctly but it sounds to me like he is saying that feelings play an important role in survival and that we must FEEL those feelings, otherwise they are not functional. So they have to be conscious. It's an interesting point but it does not AT ALL explain how we are ABLE to feel those feeling. The important question is not what feelings do in order for us to survive and why we have to be aware of them. The important question is how we are able to feel or to be aware of anything whatsoever. Therefore I don't think that he solved Chalmers hard problem at all.

Wow, this was incredible! I also had no idea that this was so new, I have never felt so compelled to buy such a book but I may have to now, thanks for this lecture, a valauble hour of my life spent! :)

Fantastic lecture. I enjoyed every second of it. Please do more of these😳🙏🏻

Absolutely great! Something that I wanted to find out for some years now. I can't thank you enough, sir!

Very interesting talk. The parts about reactions without cortex make me think more of "awareness" than "feeling". Maybe consciousness has levels of awareness. Awareness of the senses, then awareness of desires and then awareness of thoughts. Dreams for example, have no awareness of the senses, but have awareness of desires and we can experience feelings (fear, infatuation, arousal). Dreams usually lack will power. We don't usually decide what we do when we dream but we wouldn't say our dreamed persona lacks consciousness inside the dream as it acts and reacts within the dream very much like a conscious person. Same with the people we dream of. They are entirely made up, but for us, they look pretty humanly complete in the context of the dream.

Joseph O.

2 жыл бұрын

I have some willpower in my dreams though 🤔... Some times I just ride along, but some times I find myself making willful decisions... At other times, I find myself in a spectator position (it's like I can sense myself and position, but I'm independent of what that self does... it's like being in a VR game without me doing the movement)

Damian Reloaded

2 жыл бұрын

@Joseph O. Yeah dreams can be lucid sometimes. I sometimes listen my voice narrating what will happen next in the dream I'm having. I've the suspicion Marvin Minsky was onto something when he wrote (in Society of Mind) about brain functions being composed of many simpler subsystems that can be turned on and off. What is also very impressive is how much we can still do with most of our brain gone. It'd seem like staying alive, sensing and reacting to the world can be done just with our "reptilian" part of the brain (I think it's the basal ganglia)

Joseph O.

2 жыл бұрын

@Damian Reloaded Yeah! I do the narration thing too, and it's at that point that I usually realise it's a dream and wake up. It's all so intriguing. I'm not familiar with Marvin though, so I'll have to check his work out

Therese Christiansen

Жыл бұрын

@Damian Reloaded I really liked your comments. I hadn't thought of dreams in an affective manner as the lecture discussed. We need a Part 2!

‘The dogs are the chicken’ Brilliantly laughable! lol I have a seizure condition and have been very interested in brain activity since, as I often noticed deja vu and floating feelings in body, many occasions of which were precursors to having a seizure. I also an quite interested in dream activists well since I have felt a dreamlike stage during my absence of reality. It has been a pleasure to struggle to learn as much as I can understand about my condition and my curiosity to cross these uploads on KZread. Much respect to the Royal Institute for sharing, and even more so given to Mr. Mark Solms. Thank you infinitely! Peace and love 💕

I am totally thrilled because I find nearly everything touched on that is relevant to the study of consciousness! Thank you a thousand times for this video!!

I use 3D Markovian decision geometry for expressing other things in our species common social issues. These mathematical structures seem to be everywhere. My brain literally had the feeling of popping with ecstacy when this lecture turned on some lights. Thanks, I needed that.

nickacelvn

2 жыл бұрын

Good to have you on board.

TomekD

Жыл бұрын

Where can I read more about it?

BIG thank you Mark Solms - so very interesting. And so very important for future of humankind - e.g.; using the knowledge as at least one intrinsic aspect in developments of the best we can do in AI - including ethics, etc.

Incredible talk on consciousness! Thank you Dr. Solms!

Peter Codner

Жыл бұрын

without defining consciousness?-That is no more than mouthing empty words

Larmay TV

Жыл бұрын

@Peter Codner No such thing as a correct definition of consciousness if you're not willing to consider all important ideas. If you dislike this video because you haven't learned anything from it then that's your problem.

Peter Codner

Жыл бұрын

@Larmay TV Does that not depend entirely on your criteria for "correct"? - "correct" according to who? If you are the arbiter of "correct" correct" in what sense do you use the word*correct*- the mathematical sense? "There is no*correct*definition of consciousness" - you say: ecce the hazards of universals, which the uncharitable might characterise as simply sloppy thinking. Clearly your famous and - for you, indefinable "consciousness" is to be found in a very forest of universals and sloppy thinking- To say nothing of pouring from the empty into the void. There is absolutely no difficulty whatsoever with defining "consciousness" for anyone with any wits and learning. Whoever made that sweeping generalisation and other forms of universal, clearly lacks both. If whoever makes an assertion cannot define what he means by "consciousness" or at least set out clearly what he seeks means or intends to convey by a particular word had best not use it at all- On any view it is no more than drivel

I was just browsing through and I stumbled on this I just want to say you’re simply amazing just because even someone like me you explain it so easy and everyone can understand your a legendary hero man

Therese Christiansen

Жыл бұрын

I feel that same......

Thank you very very much Mark this is absolutely fascinating. I would like to repeat as Patrick says below -RI please please stop putting time limits. I seek these subjects and are prepared to listen and think. This is not the kind of facebook click sensation 2 millisecond attention span stuff which seems to be becoming the norm - I was able to get a fairly good grasp of this really complex subject after listening 3 times to the lecture and having invested well over 50 hours exploring other sources on this subject this is by far the best.

Peter Codner

Жыл бұрын

Do you see or recognise or understand, that when you use words such as "consciousness", you simply *assume* that you know what you mean by them or seek to convey when you use them? Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect, whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided, once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too. Is it not exactly correct that he has no idea and never even pauses to question or seek to discover exactly what passes in his associations or their relevant apparatus when he hears or uses that word? Why not? Because he *cannot*, because he is doing the psychological equivalent of trying to stand on his own shoulders or a mirror seeking to reflect itself. Is that not *exactly* true?

As a researcher in machine consciousness, this was extremely helpful. Your presentation was as unique as it was insightful, thank you for sharing.

What a great lecture!! Thanks to Mark Solms and the RI.

51:41 "If we understand the function of the feeling, then we understand the function of the consciousness" Fascinating talk, Thank you very much.

what a man for understanding & the truth always comes out & thank you for sharing your truth much appreciated 💜🤗

That was fascinating and informative! This suggests that any animal with the same basic abilities in their brains, particularly other mammals that have a similar brain stem are conscious of their existence in the same way that we are. That does seem to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint because even the first most primitive precursors to modern man would have needed the ability to feel or comprehend the need to react to certain situations in a particular way in order to survive and that feeling is actually consciousness itself!

mikosoftpl

Жыл бұрын

Maybe not all mamals, but it makes sense to say humans need consciousness in order to survive in a group of humans.

eddie1975utube

Жыл бұрын

@mikosoftpl yes. All mammals and reptiles and probably fish as well. The brain stem is one of the oldest parts of the brain. Don’t be thinking we’re so special when it comes to consciousness and feelings because we are not. We are special in our ability to read and write but not much else.

eddie1975utube

Жыл бұрын

All mammals and reptiles and probably fish as well. The brain stem is one of the oldest parts of the brain. Don’t be thinking we’re so special when it comes to consciousness and feelings because we are not. We are special in our ability to read and write but not much else.

Dan Razzell

Жыл бұрын

Beware of making an unwarranted inferential leap here. Cognitive function is one thing, consciousness quite another. 1) Based on a couple of centuries of scientific observation, we expect essentially all vertebrates, and many invertebrates, to fall somewhere along a fairly uniform spectrum of cognitive function and neurological complexity, all based on essentially the same basic neurology. 2) Consciousness is a term without agreed definition, which makes for difficulties in meaningful discussion. Some people use it to mean all of cognition, some use it it contrast to unconscious cognition, and some reserve it for an explicit model of self. These notions of consciousness do NOT fall more or less uniformly along a spectrum, so they DON'T map onto general cognitive ability, and they very evidently AREN'T shared by all vertebrates. There seems to be an abrupt transition between the explicit human model of self, along with the abstractions of language which make such explicit models possible, and the tacit cognition that gives rise to social attunement, learning, some sense of object permance and even theory of mind, that we can see in some other species. The products of tacit cognition are a matter of degree. The explicit, abstract model of a self is astonishingly, qualitatively, different. And as far as we know, it's unique to humans. It's all fascinating, but it's not all one thing.

Therese Christiansen

Жыл бұрын

@Dan Razzell But IF the fact exists that there is a brain stem in primates and other animals (such as dogs or felines) and that within this brain stem, based on the above studies (from Solms), lurks emotion, and the function of consciousness, or the function of feeling, then it cannot be unique to humans -as the initial commenter hypothesised. I'm not a scientist, but I think you are, so I'd be interested in your response. Thank you.

Brilliant - I especially liked the deep brain and pharmacological justifications for believing that the RAS is the font of feeling

Fascinating, so fascinating I have bought the book, and am currently reading it. Thanks for your work.

Very effectively and clearly explained. Thanks a lot!

"So that sentence: 'Neuropsychology is admirable, but it excludes the psyche' captured exactly my dismay and frustration with my field. Such was how things stood in the 1980's." Mark Solms

28:28 I've been watching science-related videos for over 10 years on this platform, but never had I been referred to as a scientist by a scientist on KZread's spacetime continuum. Thank you for such an experience.

Peter Codner

Жыл бұрын

Really *Whose* " science of *What*? Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect, whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word(perhaps " science, or " consciousness") with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided, once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too. Do you see that you simply*assume* that you know what you mean by either "science" , or " consciousness" and it never even crosses you mind to seek to discover exactly what passes in you associations or associative apparatus or mind, or thoughts(so- called). Is that not*Exactly* correct? Not only is it and must it be correct, for the very simply reason that you*cannot*. How exactly would you go about doing that and is it not the exact equivalent of a mirror seeking to reflect itself, or you stand on your own shoulders? Can you understand that?

I’m already reading it, and it’s making ‘sense’ to me and ‘affecting’ me greatly. Wonderful book. Thank you Mark!

Michael Seale

2 жыл бұрын

Sorry, but the quality of experiences are not brain-based (including the brain stem) for the simple reason that consciousness did not emerge from brain matter. Consciousness is the ontological primary.

B W

2 жыл бұрын

@Michael Seale and how do you know that?

John Smith

2 жыл бұрын

A. George He took psychedelics and the clockwork elves from base reality told him.

Falk Lumo

2 жыл бұрын

@Michael Seale After stimulation of your brain stem, you say otherwise ;)

Miketar2424

2 жыл бұрын

@Michael Seale Modern science needs to point to a mechanical cause of a sense of Being or consciousness. They discount research in psychedelics , even though many prominent researchers have used them, because their careers are based in 'hard' physical reductionist thought. Finding truth in the Universe is up to the individual, not academia.

I have only now stumbled over this talk, but i really absolutely agree with other comments here about the function of feeling in the context of homeostasis being an absolutely brilliant idea! It even makes a lot of sense, the more you think about it really in depth.

Javier Narvaez

11 ай бұрын

Nick Lane's RI talk on the Kreb cycle comes to a similar conclusion in a more concise and more mechanistically insightful way.

By the way, I love science, and enjoyed your lecture. Good work.

Brilliant, in the US sense! Theoretical physicist and mathematician by trade, but I've always had intense interest in philosophy and philosophy of everything. BUT, especially to the problem of "me" and physic processes. I'm buying the book as I type. Thanks for awakening me to this unique approach existing.

Goyon Man

Жыл бұрын

Do you believe as Hawlins said "philosophy is dead"

Thank you! Now we all know that knowledge is structured in consciousness.

The hypothesis that feelings are evolutionary adaptations in order to maintain homeostasis is brilliant! I have often thought to myself, what if I had no feelings; if I could only observe my surroundings, like a security camera, with no sensations of touch, taste, smell, hearing or emotion. Would I be conscious? What would differentiate "me" from a simple camera or a computer? If one feels nothing, and has no unique sensations or emotions, and no "individual qualities" to self-reference, would that STILL allow one to experience consciousness? A fascinating lecture...

Nuno Hipólito

Жыл бұрын

It’s called being in silence

Therese Christiansen

Жыл бұрын

Mmmm. Interesting. I think if one "feels nothing" then the hypothesis would be that you would not, in fact, be able to experience consciousness. This is because the positioning of this consciousness or "the feel" (as the article by Solm demonstrated) is part of the cortical area of the brain but also occurs because of a working brain stem. Without the brain stem there is no "experience." You mentioned "no unique sensations" -but that must include 'seeing'. To observe is also 'seeing' and thus unique to you. The other issue that the brain, not being like a computer, but organic, can develop into a 'thinking' or seeing creation, which means that there is a possibility of you experiencing feelings even if you could not linguistically describe these. If you were simply an engineering device, like a camera, you would not. But fascinating!! YT is a great place for learning. I'm a post grad in music (not science). I had to explain to students that data and empirical evidence was still essential. It was not always a prescriptive idea of feelings or 'interpretations.'

Wesley Vinal

Жыл бұрын

@Nuno Hipólito *trump voice* wrong

Chukwuma Achiobu

Жыл бұрын

A non conscious thing cannot become conscious as an evolutionary adaptation. How does something that has no feelings develop feelings? At a point you'll have to accept that we are designed by a creator!

Therese Christiansen

Жыл бұрын

Right yes, The first thing I stated in my response was that without feelings, without consciousness, you cannot experience further feelings. At no point did Solm state you can have a non-conscious being which then develops an affect. You need to have this within certain elements of your brain (I'm keeping this simple) already. Specific patients, when examined have been shown to have a clear affect with a description of their surroundings etc. So it's an essence of the emotion that we should be aware of it. The attribute of the possibility of unconsciousness would be completely excluded as far as emotions and affects are concerned. The other issue is that at no point does evolution in humanity mean that we can't have been created by a god figure. The Judeo- Christian Islamic tradition supports evolution in human growth. Believing in a god does not cancel the function of consciousness or the explanation of our existence thru aspects of adaptation. This is not contingent on there not being a creator. I find GREAT sustenance within science to help explain our ability to adapt. If we believe in this, we may identify as creatures of a creator who work within NATURAL law. Which is how god, when you interpret scriptures, works himself. We are never asked by god to ACCEPT the idea of a creator, or worse, be forced to. Which your comment hints at. But we are asked to have faith. To accept is wrong in its entirety. No-one should 'accept' anything unless it is an observable fact. Or as a small child, we are told, by parents: "accept that this is a rule: you will eat dinner at 6pm" But we are not children (don't then tell me that god expects us to be nothing but children.....I suspect that's the next item on your list! :) ). Still, this a great platform of discussion on brain development, where the statement appeared that an unconscious being CANNOT itself develop an affect. You can't put anything in an empty vessel that lacks brain 'elements' (simply stated), Chukwuma Keep watching. It's an excellent discussion.

I believe, like Dr. Solms states, that the source of emotions and thus foundational consciousness does reside in the (primitive) brainstem. The reticular activating systems (RAS) also, by the way, regulates some foundational aspects of attention. We need the RAS, for example, to filter the voices from the background noise at a cocktail party. So this brainstem does have a very fundamental role in our mental functions. It makes sense also from an evolutionary perspective. But the insight of homeostasis as the mechanism (the pendulum) of maintaining order and fighting entropy (the second law of thermodynamics) is absolutely brilliant. Life cannot exist with uncontrolled entropy. Life by definition is natures ability to create self-regulating systems that maintain homeostasis, the balance needed for all metabolic organisms to exist. And self-replication adds the ability of these systems to evolve under different environments. It is logical that evolution would bring about adaptive strategies to maintain a stable homeostatic state in a given environment. And as self-replicating populations adapt to new environments through mutations, evolution ensures the adaptability of lifeforms. And with the emergence of animal life, after the Cambrian explosion 540 million years ago, the animal kingdom would develop nervous systems capable regulating behavior (emotions are our evolutionary regulation of behavior) based on the homeostatic state of the individual and the predictive ability to secure this healthy, necessary state. This is all brilliant!! The neocortex (the pallium) also added a very large extension to our cognitive capabilities. This clearly also extended our capabilities of self-awareness. An awareness of self in a given environment and our ability to also change that environment in order to secure our homeostasis. This extended self-awareness is what makes us human. We are aware of our ability to modify our environment and also to feel empathy for other beings (other persons or agents). This the next level of awareness, our social awareness. We are aware of what others are aware of and even worried about what others are not aware of. This is evolutions next level. So I would also infer, that is also the next level of consciousness.

LLlap

2 жыл бұрын

Why are we so confused about our emotions? Always confuse the cause and then affect people around us.

Alistair Vogan

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. Great summary, and comment, Joe Perez. This is was the point in the talk where I pricked up my ears. Interesting.

Mickey Moon

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, I agree that his connection of consciousness to the body's evolutionary need to maintain homeostasis was to me the most profound insight.

rubiks6

2 жыл бұрын

"I believe ... consciousness does reside in the (primitive) brainstem." And how does it emerge? What is the mechanism?

Ryan Downey

2 жыл бұрын

@rubiks6 "Is this not the place we should be looking if we're trying to find out what the functional mechanism of consciousness is?" (40:50-ish) This is obviously a great and essential question, but we're not there yet. Neuroscientists don't even agree on where to look for this mechanism at present, but the evidence elucidated in this video at least strongly suggests a definite answer to the where: the brain stem.

I have learned, when I was in college in one of my classes that when the brain is “short changed” in a part, or parts of its anatomy either by surgery or by lack of the part in birth, another part, or parts, of the brain “steps up” to fulfill the job of the missing part as much as it can. Until such time as we understand more about how the brain works and where various functions occur and how and where the neurotransmitters go, we can learn where control initiates, but as far as inferring “backup parts” that can take over temporarily, or permanently in the event of failure or absence, we can never Fully Understand the workings of the neurons in the brain.

I have a similar model to the end of this predentation that I have been working on since 2004. I call it the Phenotype Efficiency Summation of Expectancy. In which subjective reality is built upon a summation of feedback from environmental factors that have valence and amplitude. A key factor is how Novel experiences initiate an anxiety response that the given phenotype must evaluate as being a potential threat or potential benefit to continued existence. The phenotype engages in a response and receives feedback that is processed to determine if the reaction to the stimuli has a positive or negative valance stored in a structure that can be recalled as a memory later when reacting to similar stimuli. Emotional or affective response is a subconscious calculation of life efficiency. Also key to this model and implied by the structure of memory is the drive to identify patterns to aid in predicting expected results of actions. Stimuli include external, internal, chemical and the structure of the phenotype.

With increasing calls for a science (for an objective science) of consciousness, Solm moves the needle a long way towards the ‘settled’ point … bravo.

This makes perfect sense. Even lesser life forms have a self preservation instinct and “who” are they preserving? SELF must exist in the baser forms of our brain (our monkey brain) and our further developed cortex is our icing on the base cake. It allows us to further “understand" what we are preserving and how better to do that.

this is very detailed explanation and i needed this. though some context must be understood in a advanced studies where i am lacking of. i will follow you Mark Solms and have to have your book.

Fascinating and illuminating, definitely going to buy the book! It leaves me wondering, does this imply that the origin of consciousness coincides with the origin of life? Because in order for life to exist there must be a preference for survival and in order to have preference there must be some feeling of positive or negative. Would this mean that even the simplest of organisms have some degree of consciousness?

dakrontu

2 жыл бұрын

Organisms with behaviour not conducive to their survival are wiped from the gene pool. The gene pool is everything that survived. I think we still need to figure out how a simple circuit within the brain stem can generate a conscious feeling. Why just there? What about the overall process of life within the biosphere, which also encompasses complex cycles, some of them self-perpetuating? Does it have feelings, as it stumbles along blindly responding to changes imposed by externalities such as sunlight? I doubt it. But if not, why not?

Luigi Simoncini

2 жыл бұрын

you probably want to read/listen to Terrence Deacon or Jeremy Sheldon

Smrt fašizmu

Жыл бұрын

Maybe, maybe not. I find it interesting that AI researches who are thinking about making reward functions for future AIs can't make a reward function which isn't terrible. They constantly stumble into paradoxes and dead ends, which either don't exist when it comes to humans or they are much less of an issue with humans. Who knows, maybe consciousness is the best way of having reward functions for complex organisms and so the evolution chose consciousness organisms. Maybe AI research will have to make AIs of the future conscious if they want their AIs to have reward functions which work well. A guy from computerphile made a series of videos talking about problems with AIs and problems of reward function with AIs.

MR COLLECTOR

Жыл бұрын

@dakrontu unless conciousness is fundamental

WisdomTheater 3000

Жыл бұрын

@MR COLLECTOR yes,,, all these people look at it backwards. Consciousness did not arise from matter,,, the "EXPERIENCE" of a 3D Physical Universe arises inside of Consciousness. Why can't any of the Religious Materialist distinguish between the OBSERVER and the OBSERVED ????? Everything he states about "consciousness" is about the CONTENT (like his brother) of CONSCIOUSNESS,,,, one has to understand that one can observer "consciousness" in any other every time it has an "interaction". There can not be an interaction with out the acknowledgement of the state of the inter-actor and the appropriate reaction to said state. This happens on all levels,,, between you an I here and now in this conversation,,,,, between protons and electrons holding their form as an atom,,, when a hammer hits a rock and the chemical bonds react to the strength of the impact, breaking or not being affected depending on the STATE of the IMPACT from the hammer. The ONLY thing one can prove 100% with no doubt is that they are an OBSERVER,,,, whatever they observe,,, colors,,, feelings,,, some 3D physical reality,,,, whatever,,,, is always subject to being a falsehood or Incomplete Truth which leads to false beliefs or understandings. CONSCIOUSNESS is the "CREATOR" of all and any experience of any "reality" Consciousness is OMNIPOTENT because of this power to create the EXPERIENCE of a Physical 3D Reality (ie. creation is constant and ongoing in the NOW) Consciousness is OMNIPRESENT - everywhere and anywhere there is the Experience of a any type of "reality" , it is inside consciousness. Consciousness is OMNISCIENT - any and everywhere there has ever been a thought,, it happened inside of Consciousness. Well ,,, if Consciousness is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient and it is the truest "TRUTH" we can prove,,,, and these are all the things people commonly attribute to "GOD",,, whether they believe in its existence or not, Don't be confused,,, CONSCIOUSNESS is a VERB,,, like RUNNING,,,, anything can be RUNNING,,, but it is the ONE ACT that is done by many,,,,, CONSCIOUSNESS is the ONE ACT done by ALL. There is no "physical 3D universe" that has ever or could ever be proven that is OUTSIDE of CONSCIOUSNESS..... So you see,,, the HARD QUESTION is "HARD" because they are asking it BACKWARDS because of their religious BELIEF in "MATERIALISM".

Very interesting and well done. Seems like that "awareness" is being explained but not the special sort of consciousness that humans experience. Somehow, by developing a brain capable of speech and being able to name objects (and eventually, concepts) we not only have a much better ability of recurring thought about things we seen and done in the past and what we might do in the future, we have the ability to create metaphors that try to explain new ideas/experiences. One of those metaphors is a 'me' as an entity somehow stationed in the brain. Total illusion I would say.

This is the only thing I've seen which actually advanced my understanding of consciousness - thanks! Most talks either propose a solution which misses the point of the hard problem, or discuss the hard problem without advancing a solution.

Anasazi

Жыл бұрын

And how is this a solution? He didn't really explain why feelings can't happen "in the dark", unless I missed something. Interesting nonetheless.

You are an amazing man Mark Solms.

I quite agree with you, since the cortex is a much complex structure and would have come much later in evolution, it should not be the source consciousness, so a rudimentary structure should be its home. Even our ancestors had consciousness. Consciousness is something that would have been evolved over time and it’s not that some one just woke up and said “I am up”! Great talk, would have appreciated it if RI had given you more time 😁

ISO3200

5 ай бұрын

The corex was developed approximately 500 million years ago. The lamprey had a Cortex.

Here's a question I often wonder about: Suppose we had total control of the mind. Would we be able to synthesize completely new emotions and feelings, or would they all fall into existing categories? If we dashed to an alien planet, would the aliens experience the same feelings as we do? Is the space of feeling unbounded, or does everything fall into happy/sad/excited/pain/anger/etc. Is there a "froopy" feeling that we just cannot begin to understand but Xorax the Squid-like Alien feels every day?

Jane Doe

2 жыл бұрын

Not sure. A dog can smell 400 times more than we can. We can do the maths and understand the engineering in the olfactory system but we don’t have a clue what that range of ability would be like as an experience. Same with the blind woman who understood the mechanics of sight but had absolutely no notion of the sight experience. Maybe, with the aliens, if we needed to take on those extra senses from a purely survival point of view, we could do it.

Bhavik630

5 ай бұрын

Is mind just a sum total of collection of thoughts, emotions, feelings, instincts or is there something more to it? Are we conscious of ourselves and the world, because of the knowledge that we have collected from childhood or regardless of it? Is there anything else there inside, besides this collective identity we call mind?

Thanks for sharing with us your studies and researches.

I read in the Seth books that a point of light somehow existed. Finally it decided to "open its eyes". As it wondered what else existed, up popped images within its field of vision/imagination. This was fun, so more images were imagined. These images became more animated. Then they realized that they were images that wanted to create their own images.

This is perhaps the best and most exciting and inspiring lecture I’ve seen on this mysterious topic.

This is brilliant! Just purchased the audiobook version! Let's gooooo

Thank you Mark Solms . To make an analogy of the connection between function and feeling I would say that the function of my car engine is to bring me in my car to visit the seaside and experience the sea birds and the surf on my face .So my point is that while studying the workings of the engine of my car that will get me there I will never get to understand or feel the experience of my seaside trip .

I am thinking the same! Although I'm not a neuroscientist, I know biology very well and enough of how computers work. Sometimes I ponder through that same question too, like how does a brain work. Once a time I wrote down what I think how I think and it kinda starts to become jumbled first. But when I continue to write (although for some reason I feel a pain in my head when I do that), it kinda always went to a central system that decides what to do, what's bad or good. Then if I connect that system to the theory of evolution, the conclusion that I get is the system that decides what to do must have been selected to maintain its body to be alive, that's homeostasis!

Martin Euser's philosophical corner

2 жыл бұрын

Nice lecture, but this doesn't explain the qualia of feelings. Something deeper is required.

Nedi Sawego Yogya

2 жыл бұрын

@Martin Euser's philosophical corner yeah, that's another beast

Mark is one of the few who is on the right track. Decades to go, however.

A wonderful lecture.

I think this approach is very interesting. It resonates with an example from my life. For a little while I have been loading trucks. Packages come with numbered stickers, down the conveyor belt. I take a quick look at these, and know where to place the package. The numbers correspond to a place in the truck. Well, when I look at the package's sticker, I don't just remember the number I see there, and extrapolate the numerical information from it in order to work on it in my head, where I am comfortable with numbers. I also say the number to myself, sometimes. Guess what? The two numbers going on, speaking to my consciousness don't always agree. It is proof that cognitive processes do take place separately, as you say. I don't always have to know the numbers to the deepest extent of their precision. The incongruity can be ok, but it will make me feel weird to know the two numbers are different, and that an "I" is aware of the situation. It is the I whose feelings I must subsume, as I reach for the next package. Which is to say, the whole experience of not being able to luxuriate in memory, to linger, is also troubling.

Fascinating. Thank you for this wonderful lecture.

Fascinating talk on consciousness thank you, this type of learning is what the internet was invented for.

jay fibonacci

Жыл бұрын

in 8 months this has 1 upvote and my comment.... wtf people

This was an amazing video, extremely interesting. Thank you so much.

This is the best value of time I have ever spent watching something.

Nietzsche predicted this, more than a century ago, using pure reflection. Nonetheless, what a brilliant scientist and what a brilliant talk, thank you

What a powerful thesis on Brain Stem Spring, Sensing, Micro-Sensing, Sensibility, The Involuntariness of Sensibility, Micro-Consciousness, The Core of Feeling, Why Emotions Are Critical, How Malcognition Has Us To Willingly Go Unevolutipn & More.

A remarkable scientific synthesis of the location (brain stem, not cerebral cortex), function and adoptational advantage of the subjective experience of "feeling" -- the basal conscious experience!

Thanks for your time sir and your good advice very helpful to me now.

thanks for the wonderful lecture. can one's feeling be communicated to another person of intimate relationship without audio or visual expression. it seems possible according to some experience. is there another dimension beyond audio and visual transmission. would quantum tunneling play a hidden role . thanks for the effort and keep up with the good work. from Hker worldwide

Brilliantly explained!

Awesome talk, on the basis of feeling one can argue that AI award systems makes it conscious

Very interesting lecture. Thanks professor

Consciousness arises from a mind that is split. Once split, the mind becomes a perceived rather than a knower. For this, the body was made (You must perceive something and WITH something). Purification of perception through right thinking is how we return to a whole mind and to knowing.

I'm curious of the quality and level of consciousness of other animals. We assume self-awareness to be a uniquely human phenomenon, but we are constrained by our ability to only articulate with other humans, not animals. When I observe and interact with my Labrador, it is clear he is having a subjective experience, he is experiencing a range of emotions and he is making 'free' decisions. I am confident my dog is conscious, but unfortunately I can't ask him. Though we can gaze into each others eyes and see the lights on. It appears that language plays are large role in our consciousness and really does separate us from the shared experience we can have with other animals. EDIT: Shortly after writing this message, Mark addressed the idea (41:45) that we can sense our dogs are conscious and respond emotionally, but due to our ability to communicate with language, we can't know for sure.

Mark ... this was truly a revelation, you are truly onto something here. Some thoughts. In ancient Egypt the serpent on the head of the great statues represents the cerebral cortex. In the bible in the garden of Eden, the serpent is also a representation of the cerebral cortex, the thinking mind. It is the egoic mind that leads us astray. Thinking is our greatest asset, and our greatest obstacle to overcome to find the true I in all of us. The true I, the subject, is the same in all conscious beings, a cat or a dog or no different to a human, once the cerebral cortex is out of the way. This is the goal of meditation and enlightenment, to stop thinking in order to discover who you really are. In egypt the crook was symbolic of the need to catch the snake and hold it, control it, in order to become a true human. There is a place for thought, but as your journey has shown, thought is not who we truly are. You are not your thoughts, you are the observer of your thoughts. The buddha is always portrayed sitting on a coiled serpent, with the head extending over and behind him. This again is the cerebral cortex being symbolised. To become enlightened one must control the serpent, stop thinking, and see things as they really are.

What baffled me from childhood is how the heck does memorecall even work? Where is it sited, how does it arrange over the years, how does it get stored, how does it function with a certain reliability? Never less than fascinating, I wonder on a regular basis about memories. We are strange indeed.

You present passionately and so newly informative. Thank you.

Feelings are a language, used for communication between our body and our consciousness. in a lot of ways you can think of your body as a completely separate being from You. Its own self enclosed processing system, pumping your heart, feeding your mitochondria, receiving inputs from the physical nervous system. The spine is itself a brain. and it has to communicate with your cognitive brain in order to get you to choose to do things that it needs or wants. it has to tell you "I need food" so it communicates to you in the language of feelings, by making you feel "hungry". or sleepy. etc but Emotions are like a third party communication. your body doesnt get angry, thats something your consciousness expiriences, and that expirience then causes your body to react TO YOUR BRAIN which then causes feelings like heat or itching or muscle twitches, physical anxiety traits, etc.

Good talk, thanks. Not being a physicalist, I would say that Mark Solms has perhaps found some important *receptors* in the brain stem.

This seems to make a lot of sense and aligns with the 3 evolutionary stages of the brain. As you've said, this very well be akin to the on off switch for the brain. Nevertheless, I dont feel the Hard Problem has been alleviated. Accepting this all as 100% fact still doesn't answer the question of how it is that unconscious matter gives rise to a rich inner subjective experience. Someone kindly let me know if I somehow missed that part.

Wow-this was fantastic! And the fact that he’s worked with Karl Friston just seals it for me!

At 55 minutes, Mark uses the word "pleasure", and that, for me, is the main point. All throughout his lecture I was thinking about Aristotle's NicomachEthics

We are not a machine and the mind goes ways beyond the brain. There is stacks of evidence on this. Thank you for sharing and I hope you will continue your research 'outside' of the body. I fill the issue with your brother, is a 'confusion' between the two brain hemispheres.

Thank you for this amazing lecture Dr. Solms! For anyone who has read the book, how much emphasis does it place on the free energy principle?

Interesting concept. There should be a clear signal path from stem to whichever reactive movement in the subject. Also different raw feelings will distribute to different areas.

I am six months into receiving from a brain hemorrhage after a head injury. Consciousness and personality are two different things.

First of all: thanks very much, it was a great lecture, very infomative an entertaining, also nice presenter :) I like the observation at the end of what the function of feeling (and thus "experience" is) But there is one thing I don't get: To me it doesn't seem necessary that it would have to be "feeling" that fullfills the function of telling the organism what's the right track to get back to homeostasis in a unpredicted situation. Could'nt this also be done by a "dark" algorithm? Suppose theres a system in the brain measuring all these "homeostasis-clocks", so it has the information of how far away the organism is from homeostasis. Additionally suppose that the indormation "far away from homeostasis" induces some kind of behavior of the organism that is motivated by a mixture of instinct, randomness and whatever (something that makes the organism active to change the situation). Then the pointers on the homeostasis-clocks change, and if the internal system measures the clock to move in the "right" direction (toward homeostasis), then it will message the rest of the organism to keep on going, while if it measures the clocks to move away from homeostasis it will message the organism to try new stuff. something like that (of cause in reality is has to be much more complex) The upshot here is that I think this type of thing can still be explained in a purly algorithmic based language, a language of cause and effect and functionality, which in the end still doesn't explain why there would be a "something that it is like to have a feeling". Also: if I knew everything about what happens in the brain stem, e.g. how it produces the feeling of happines, but I have never had the feeling of happines myself - would I know how happiness feels like? I don't think so

Safelyacrosstheroad

2 жыл бұрын

I agree with you. Our experientially felt 'feelings' need not be qualitative in the key 'something it is like' sense in order to be causal/motive. Rather, the quality of our various feelings seem to be conditioned precisely by the non-conscious 'dark' causal processes and their consequences -- e.g. 'fear' is conditioned by automatically initiated tonal and dispositional changes for our body, blood flow relative to the stomach etc. etc. --- and not the other way around as Solms supposes. In other words, we do not run away *because* we feel scared, but our feeling of fear is itself a consequence of the non-conscious processes that dispose us to run away in the first place. P.s. Perhaps an important point of confusion, and at the heart of Solms' error, is to (understandably) confuse the fact that we can *additionally* lend our conscious, propositional judgement to, for instance, the policy of running away under the feeling of fear -- and we can also initiate motive action this way without the motive force of felt feelings. But this does not mean that felt feelings, of course, are necessary components of motive action. No?

Pvte Pyle

2 жыл бұрын

@Safelyacrosstheroad I'm not sure If I understood you correctly, but my thoughts on this are as follows: I don't know if we run away because of the feeling or because of the unconscious processes that tell us to run, neither do I know whether it makes sense to strictly seperate them in the first place (is it that what you are saying?)(I suspect it can't be seperated strictly) But what I do think is, for all we know, and for all this man said in the lecture, it is not *necessary* to have this additional sense of "feeling" "on top" of the unconscious processes, in order to explain the behaviour of living organisms from the outside. All explanations would work just as well if the organism was just a complex automative (maybe even chaotic) system acting in accord to internal mechanisms, but without any sense of "what it is like" Just by testing ourselves can we find out that there is a correlation between the quality of feeling and the processes - but if we wouldn't already know by our own experience that there is a feeling accompanying these processes, then we would have no clue at all that there was such a thing just by studying an organisms processes

Bob in the West

Жыл бұрын

What you are describing (suggesting) sounds more like an analytical/algorithmic “process”... meaning that too much “thinking” is involved. Or, put another way... something similar to how a computer might be programmed to make decisions based on the situation that it may be faced with: “In situation A = Take action B”. The more complex the situation faced, the more potential solutions the computer would need to “run through”, before choosing which solution to implement. Conversely: “Feeling” fear... can instantaneously trigger your “fight or flight” response, spurring you into action much more quickly, with little to no time spent on “thinking” about it.

tugudum

Жыл бұрын

@Safelyacrosstheroad It would be tempting to think of consciousness and feelings as superfluous to decisions made "in the dark", but I'm not convinced. Somehow, evolution has yielded consciousness, which means there is most likely an evolutionary advantage, and if this talk is correct on the physiology aspect, this advantage would have presented itself at quite a primitive stage. Another possibility is that consciousness was a byproduct of another physiological advantage and that we're just accidentally "in for the ride", but i find his ideas on the potential benefits much more interesting to think about, if not compelling. I'm also not convinced something as intricate as consciousness would just accidentally pop up, but evolution can be weird.

Pvte Pyle

Жыл бұрын

@Bob in the West well a computer that is sufficiently build/networked can compute an approximate solution for quite complex taskes in a fraction of a second I dind't think about "thoughts" (in the usual way) when I was thinking of a "dark-algorithm" (or whatever)

She recalled an emotional reaction to some traumatic event in her existence from some time through her connections with the brain in her biological body (vessel).

Very interesting and good to know, it gives us better self-understanding. Very basic topics, who am I, where am I - in my brain, how do I feel and think. But I think we should be careful and be a bit more precise about what is the question and what is the answer. What is consciousness and what is the source of consciousness. When scientists get the question what is consciousness, they often say it is what they experience with their senses, what they touch and feel, see, hear and smell. But that is a source the consciousness in the sense of what we get conscious of. What somebody say and write is a source of consciousness when you hear it and read it. How is information coded and what is the information that is coded. If we compare with a computer, it has a computer language and is programmed to be ready to use. But the one who use it, writes in a different languages on a higher level. I think our consciousness is like this, so that in this high level language I - myself - am the main user and responsible programmer of my own computer. Then I think of and sort out what is originally my own thoughts, really my own opinion and choice. I get ideas from others and I need some time to think of it. When we read the Bible it becomes a source of consciousness to us. It tells us that God is spirit, he is the spring of living water and it gives us eternal life, that how his salvation is. He has revealed it for us in Christ, he gives us spirit and life from heaven, we receive it in faith, by mere grace. Then this becomes a fundamental source of consciousness for us and it makes us good.

When you ask yourself a question out loud. Then your personality splits in a way, into the one who is asking and the one who is answering. Therefore one can contemplate oneself. Replace the external pathway of speak and hearing by an internal pathway, and it becomes thinking. In this way, consciousness is not a hard concept.

Thank you for the lecture!

1. I’m fascinated by Daniel Coleman’s idea of “emotional intelligence” which you have addressed differently here. 2. It must be so that sentience must precede consciousness. Even single-cell paramecia are photo and chemotactic, forms of awareness. 3. I would very much like to here your view of Buddhism’s idea of the five “skandas” as explanation of the development of consciousness.

This was fascinating, going to read this ASAP.

Amazing how the mystery of the Reality&Unives are revealed by human MIND a continuous conscious process of information exchange through senses ( touch, sight, hearing, smell and taste) between inside body / outside medium and the central nervous system "THE BRAIN" ❤ 🧠

Very interesting lecture. Humans often don't acknowledge that animals have the consciousness and feeling of people. We can regulate our actions purposefully so we should treat animals with greater respect, especially those we consume

Brian Geiger

2 жыл бұрын

It depends on what consciousness is. If is just a computer algorithm, then is nothing more than a subroutine. There is no logical reason to respect a computer subroutine. If you have to respect consciousness, then you are saying there is more to consciousness than a computer function. Consciousness is not like a fancy iPhone like Elon Musk suggest. That brings an interesting point. He was told not to ask about consciousness or it would affect his career. Imagine you try to study physics, and told not to ask about dark matter and dark energy. What would you think? Imagine Galileo asking about planets revolving around the sun and was told not to ask about it or it would affect his career. What does that tell you about the institution? The institution is trying to protect its ideology, perhaps it knows is on shaky grounds. What ideology is higher education trying to protect? Why is consciousness so sensitive? You know the more emotion you put into something, the more there is to it. Is this another Galileo moment for science?

Thanks RI for having Professor Solms!

i found my source thank you for this real life taught me🙌✨❤️