ma se non sapete assolutamente nulla di questa malattia (la schizofrenia) perché ne parlate?

Fantastica lezione!

I miei complimenti per il successo intervento 🎉

DOTTOR SARUBBO INIMITABILE!!!

E' possibile sapere come si chiama la tabella medievale? Grazie

io ho visto , felci , felci felci felci. 😁

Questa persona, che parla, sembra non aver sentito "dell, Amor che muove Il Sol e l, altre stelle .!..... Oppure e uno di quei scienziati che non vogliono" compromettersi" d, avanti al sistema ! .. I fatti ha subito messo in chiaro che " VIVA Darwin ed il suo evoluzionismo!"... In ogniuno di questi casi, per me E👎

Veramente molto interessante. Complimenti

Credo che Stefano Mancuso, oggi come allora sia, oltre che interessante, anche terapeutico perchè riesce, come pochi altri, a farci decentrare dalle umane cosuccie.

32:00 We are all perpetual perceptual prisoners that are contained and imprisoned by a Markov blanket and I don't know that there is any true enlightenment - Amazing!

2:28 Lecture begins

Ottima argomentazione. Peccato il ronzio davvero insopportabile. Trattasi forse di interferenza?

Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

Oy, and then the Platonism :(

Yes, the Anglos catching up w the Francos…

Personal marks: - Around @17:00 gross overview of brain parts + info flow in auditory cortex - superior temporal gyrus stimulation --> hear sound/music (18:00-19:15) - @21:00 algorithm that look for patterns between stimulation type and activation of brain parts

L'unico rimedio per queste persone è il suicidio

very good video editing/engineering too, well done CIMeC!

Complimenti

Sadly the sound is out of sync

e questa è medicina?

I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments proving that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain. 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 other words, they 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 based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes. Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, as well as subjectivity, implies the existence of a conscious mind, who can choose a specific point of view and arbitrary criteria. 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 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 moment by moment, and in every moment consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. Here comes my third argument: It must 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 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. 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 hyotehsize that such system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition 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 is 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. Based on these considerations, it would be completely unreasonable to assume that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain

Con i super calcolatori tutti previsori meteo

0000 minuti 0 per

Grazie, è stato molto utile e interessante

Awesome thanks !

Good talk, but I wished that Susan have addressed the criticism on functionalism as well and the still debated fodorism in cognitive sciences.

Excellent! I'm surprised this doesn't have millions of views but skip to 6:30 for talk to begin. :)

Interesting video. Does building bridges, planes, weapons, manufacturing and being paid money make Homo sapiens more intelligent, advanced even though we are finding that our creations are destroying the planet? At the core, Mathematics that passes this issue over helps to create the pollution, war, and sense of superiority that leads to us (extant humans) destroying Earth in our arrogance.

I applied for cimec four years ago and was rejected. Now, I own an exporting company and love what im doing. Thanks for the rejection cimec

La psicopatologia clinica estudia diversos tipos de patologia

please record in HD next time :)

Tipica disorganizzazione italica. Non funziona mai niente ;-)

Ciao😂

Per sapere cosa fa mio zio in questo momento a Roma basta che gli telefono e lui me lo dice, però potrebbe telefonargli anche mio cugino dall'America e lui gli risponderebbe uguale.

He is not formally trained in linguistics and all of his lectures omit critical linguistic data that is known to exist (such as the maturational constraints). It is difficult to comprehend that anyone would actually take this guy seriously and one thing is for sure: He has absolutely no idea how the first language was formed. Listening to his lectures is like listening to someone read the Wizard of Oz. All fiction with no supporting evidence. In case you were curious.... this is exactly what researcher bias looks like.

Chiarissimo! Grazie e complimenti!

Copione fai schifo

3:15

Amazing new stuff by Terry, once again

so for first question in q and A it seems that an answer is that the feral child lacked feedback in tranfering constraints between icons to constraints between symbols right...in a sense discovery of language is an experimental process, without sufficient feedback...no chance to evolve.....

è il punto di osservazione inerziale diversamente accelerato di un sistema spaziotemporale che fa la differenza a causa della costanza della velocità della luce insuperabile nel vuoto per cui il rapporto spazio/tempo cambia in modo inverso.

Did he end up doing the part two of the lecture anywhere? I'm really interested to hear part 2 as well.

have to admit that as a first pass into Deacon's thinking, this is a difficult lecture to trudge through

Deacon continues to produce big leaps forward in human understanding.

Per me i 2 lampi sono contemporanei ma gli osservatori vedono la Luce da essi emanata in tempi diversi; ciò non toglie che l'accaduto (cioè l'arrivo dei 2 lampi) non sia stato simultaneo. Bisognerebbe parlare si sensazione, percezione e realtà... quindi anche di psicologia.

Quindi quando l'uomo dice:<< la Terra ha 4 mld di anni >>, riferendosi ai suoi di anni cioè 365gg, non è esatto in quanto la Terra stessa gli risponderebbe:<< sarà come dici ma io sono vecchia solo 2,8 mld di anni e non 4 mila>> (2,8 mld è un esempio). Questo perché la Terra corre veloce nell'Universo intorno all'orbita (non come la Luce ma veloce) quindi invecchia di meno di chi la abita giusto?? Però anche chi la abita corre veloce essendo sulla Terra stessa... aiuto?!?! Quindi se Terra e uomo corrono alla stessa velocità rispetto all'Universo (lasciando stare che l'uomo corre a sua volta sulla Terra aggiungendo o sottraendo velocità a seconda della direzione) questo vuol dire che dire 4 mld di anni sono già conteggiati alla velocità della Luce oppure li consideriamo semplicemente di 365gg (anche per meglio comprenderli)....?

Bravo insegnante.

Amazing stuff.

Giorgio Fiorello: sei un buona compagnia ad avere dubbi di qualsiasi tipo sulla relatività :-) Comunque sia, non è vero quanto scrivi: la questione del vento di etere non è "opposto o contrario" ma parallelo e perpendicolare. I conti spiegano che, in questo caso, i tempi di percorrenza devono essere differenti secondo la relatività classica di Galilei, mentre risultano eguali sperimentalmente (e in accordo con la teoria di Einstein e di Lorentz delle trasformazioni dello spazio-tempo).