Galen Strawson - What's the Stuff of Mind and Brain?

[@1stPrinciples455]

Lawrence, I conclude that for every topic in your videos, the answer is "I really do not know. I can believe or assume but I really do not know"

[@G_Demolished]

Yep. Socrates nailed it.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Can one really know anything for certain beyond the fact of one's existence? No. So we choose what seems most likely. Ockham's razor helps with that.

[@1stPrinciples455]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL science is still a Belief

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@1stPrinciples455 No! Science is all about what's most likely.

[@williamburts5495]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Or what it believes is most likely.

[@ReynaSingh]

I often see materialism and immateriality pit against each other as if one is the domain of science and the latter the domain of God. But it be interesting to see scientists, philosophers and theologians discuss varying interpretations of energy- which is not necessarily physical in essence but has physical outputs

[@mikel4879]

Reyna sings a sleepy song /😒😔😴

[@The-Wide-Angle]

Physics is becoming increasingly immaterial, see massless photons, massless fields, evanescent neutrinos, dark matter, dark energy, etc.

[@mikel4879]

Paulus B / It doesn't matter what Physics becomes or further down "understands". You model your understanding at your entropic level and that's sufficient, because everything ( at any level and scale micro or macro you can go ) is a neverending and unbroken chain of material cause and effect ( material = any aggregated realm, each in its own structural existence ). / What is a "photon" in reality? What is a "field" in reality? Neutrinos, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, big bang, pulling effect of the so-called ( non-existent ) "gravity", etc, are all exactly my as, because they have never existed at all. They've been invented in order to hide different levels of brain impotence.

[@andreyusin3689]

What energy are you referring to here exactly? Also, has theology ever contributed anything to a scientific thought?

[@Raj0520]

Energy is part of materialist physical science. U need to maybe look up the defination of Energy and Physics again.

[@dr.satishsharma1362]

Excellent... thanks 🙏.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

How does physical brain use abstract mathematics?

[@mikel4879]

James R / In a very simple way: it is exactly the way the real brain structure works. Mathematics is "invented" by the brain material capacity to think materialy step-by-step only. It records its material interaction with the matter around itself step-by-step; the material action of "real material recording step-by-step" "seems" to be approximately analogous to logic=mathematics. So, the real "material" brain doesn't use it. It "invents" it continuously. It is called natural evolution. Clear for you now?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Is it possible to translate any written mathematics into written English so that the English conveys the same meaning as does the mathematics? Surely any professor teaching mathematics would say, Math to English translation and vice versa is the essence of the job. t1 = 2; d = 90; a = 1 etc. A train leaves Vancouver station at two o'clock heading due east on a straight track accelerating at one meter per second per second, etc. Thus it's reasonable to assert that mathematics is a language (very terse). So then the question becomes... How did human brains become able to think linguistically? A subsequent question might be... How is thinking linguistically responsible for the apparently uniquely human, being conscious process?

[@mikel4879]

Red pump / I know what you're trying. But you're not gonna get it for free. Real material consciousness on Earth has grown naturally step-by-step, evolving in a few billions years to what it is today. The natural evolved consciousness is not a result of only language. It is, as it is found these days, an emergent phenomenon, a 3.5 billion years emergent phenomenon ( approximated period ). I know that you, ather red pumps, people in laboratories and secret institutions, amateurs or the idiots so-called "specialists", people with useless PhDs, Robert, and many other suckers, are all hovering here and everywhere on the internet like the hungry crazy hawks in trying to steal the "recipe" for the creation of the full Artificial Consciousness ( not "Artificial Intelligence"; do not confuse a little infant with its father 😏 ) . However, I have written in many places on the internet about it exposing many little secrets of the artificial way of creating the full Artificial Consciousness. It is not very complicated. But you have to work hard to find all the pieces, and link them, because as I just told you, nothing is for free. And when you're finally close enough to it, at the moment of its appearance, forget all of your preconceptions.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does mathematics have an effect on the brain?

[@mikel4879]

James R / No.

[@suatustel746]

Religion cause backwardness.

[@mikel4879]

Suat U / Yes, it does.

[@nyworker]

They don't understand the difference between science and engineering. Science may tell me about the quantum mechanics level but it takes us engineering to get us to the real world level and tell us how things work. This applies not just to be tables and chairs but also electronics which explains how the images appear on the screen.

[@longcastle4863]

A light sensitive patch on the skin of some early animal presumably led by a system of neurons to a small clumping of other neurons making up the first rudimentary brain --- where eventually enough of a picture or image of the things stimulating that light sensitive patch was produced in the animal, allowing it to become more conscious and aware of the things in its environment _and behave accordingly._ Leading not only to an advantage in survival --- but with some kind of early evaluative proto decision making process contributing to the animals behavior and reaction to these images --- leading to the first Evolutionary steps of Nature selecting for increased intelligence in certain branches/lines of animals as it progressed up the phylogenetic tree. (Those with better/smarter behavior and reactions surviving longer to pass on their genes.) I personally think consciousness is best considered and understood first and foremost within an Evolutionary context.

[@longcastle4863]

@iarguephilosophy Good question imo. I tend to think _blur_ is the more likely answer with, for example, plants turning toward the light being more stimulus response than active decision making, but with animal life at some point starting to increasingly factor in the weighing of pros and cons, a reliance on lessons learned from past experiences and a consideration of personal drives, feeling and/or preferences, etc into the behaviors that follow... Perhaps one of the mistakes we make is starting with all the wonders and complexities of human consciousness --- when it would be easier and more fruitful to consider first how more "primitive" life forms are able to translate light waves, sound waves, molecules and vibrations into the kinds of sights, sounds, smells, tastes and physical sensations that give them a conscious awareness of the environments they find themselves in --- and therefore an edge in survival. And how that eventually leads to some animals having an increased awareness of themselves as something in the environment different from all the other things in the environment. And only from there moving on to how this led to the development of philosophy, mathematics and science and how a homosapiens named, Shakespeare, eventually came to write his plays and sonnets.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could mathematics be part of the brain?

[@mikel4879]

James R / It is the way the brain works in reality. Meaning "materialy" step-by-step=logic.

[@anxious_robot]

yeah you're super close and could even say that since math is the programming language of the sim/computer we live in.

[@mikel4879]

Terrw S / It looks like you don't understand that "mathematics" is only an artificial fabrication done by the human brain. Mathematics is not by itself a "material" thing. It is an artificial invention. Exactly like "time", "space", "energy", "force" and many other artificial notions and terms. Any real "material" dynamic can be artificially represented by an artificial symbolism, symbolism that's created ( invented ) by the brain's capacity to construct artificial "logical arguments". These logical arguments are, for example, the artificiality called "mathematics". The real "material" dynamic of the Universe, at any micro and macro scale, is not mathematical. The human brain is the one that tries to impose on it an artificial logical explanation. This logical explanation can be done in any of the artificial form invented like "mathematics", "philosophy", etc.

[@mikel4879]

Anxious R / WTF are you talking about? 🥴 Go to sleep, kid!

[@whatshisname3304]

math logical use of numbers is just another form of thought or function of the brain. one of man's specialities.

[@The-Wide-Angle]

Did Robert Lawrence Kuhn ever interview Bernardo Kastrup?

[@nietztsuki]

No, he has not. I've been waiting for that interview for a very long time. To be honest, I think Kuhn is avoiding Bernardo, perhaps due to Kuhn's obvious physicalist-reductionist bias. Bernardo would be all over him like white on rice.

[@outisnemo8443]

@@nietztsuki: Kuhn is one of the least biased people in that regard. Also, Kastrup himself is somewhat biased in favor of idealism, but he generally makes a better case.

[@nietztsuki]

@@outisnemo8443 Kuhn conducts a good interview, that's why I like him. But yes, he is quite biased and makes no secret about his his physicalist-reductionist worldview. That's fine with me because we all have a perspective. I just wish he would open up more of his interviews to people like Bernardo Kastrup who are on the cutting edge of his area of expertise.

[@The-Wide-Angle]

​@@nietztsuki But Kuhn interviews also a lot of people who are non-physicalists. So, this can't be the only reason. My impression is that Kuhn is still strongly conditioned by authority, academic titles, and is mostly stuck in a very conventional and popular Western religious-minded theology. He seems not to be able to think beyond these restricted boundaries, and doesn't interview people outside official academia. Kastrup is an independent scholar.

[@nietztsuki]

@@The-Wide-Angle I agree with you completely that Kuhn is strongly conditioned by his personal journey through western scientific academia and Hebraic theologies. That's my point. He will branch out occasionally and interview eastern thinkers, but the vast majority of his programs are populated with like-minded materialists. I just wish he was more balanced in his choice of guests and subject matter. As mentioned above, Bernardo Kastrup seems to be someone Kuhn would have featured long ago, but he has avoided that interview for some reason. As an aside, I might also mention that Kastrup was once asked why he doesn't debate more often, and his reply was that he would like to do so but most of the current slate of thinkers you see on public media refuse to debate him.

[@chaimmoskowitz]

This position, seems to potentially approach pansychism, which is an interesting place for a physicalist to occupy

[@VeridicusX]

He's describing a position known as Neutral Monism. From a physicalist's point of view, our dreams are made of the same kind of stuff as the World. It follows that the World is made of the same kind of stuff as our dreams.

[@outisnemo8443]

What's interesting about panpsychism? It's just materialism on steroids, explains nothing and sets a precedent of being content with not understanding.

[@outisnemo8443]

@@VeridicusX: Nonsense. He calls himself a monist, but he clearly isn't one; he's a materialist epiphenomenalist, which is a dualist by any other name. No matter how much Dennettian explaining away of consciousness as an illusion, it still exists, and is clearly not what this guy is referring to as "physical" at all.

[@outisnemo8443]

@Terre Schill: That is true regardless of whether you assume materialism, dualism, or idealism, because in the former interpretations "reality" is essentially a waking dream of the brain, you might have heard it referred to as a "controlled hallucination" by materialists/dualists. The word "real" itself is derived from Latin "res", meaning "thing", thus "real" meaning "of or pertaining to things", and a "thing" is an arbitrary delineation of conscious perception, what's "real" in the materialist and dualist sense is phenomenal experience, as opposed to the underlying "material" that is not directly perceptible, the thing-in-itself/noumenon of Kant.

[@VeridicusX]

@Terre Schill Of course they are. I suppose you think that books aren't real.

[@gracerodgers8952]

Humans are 60%water: water we here for...😆

[@suatustel746]

This must be a compliment

[@whatshisname3304]

ha, what a great joke, I, ve never laughED so hard. well this is sarcasm I hope you understand that.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Mind and body or dualism not defines conscieness. Conscieness are unpredicted when guys explains brains funcions conscieness unfit brains funcions. Guys are out of serious question it with conscieness he unable to show up how unpredicted occur in conscieness. honestly he far way from honest concept in a brains systen

[@outisnemo8443]

Correct. He's just pulling a good old Dennett and brushing consciousness aside, preferring not to deal with it.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Might mathematics contribute to subjective awareness, free will, conscious feeling and human mind?

[@mikel4879]

James R / No.

[@HENRYIII003]

It seems like that's what so many people want to argue, like Peter Tse describing a special role for "criteria" in mental algorithms, or John Searle talking about the socially perceived "status" of a thing like money, or Galen Strawson pointing to "structure." Skolem's paradox suggests that even if this world is made of finite things, we can produce a valid statement that infinite sets exist. I can't imagine a better example of mathematics "causing" dualism. But the proof is insufficient, because it fits in the category of "all proofs are flawed" or "all systems of logic are incomplete until unified" or "logic is an illusion." Even if it were true that we imagine infinities where none exist, we could question time and the multiverse. Meanwhile, we can be aware of Skolem's paradox and actually know about it, we can see it's a consequence of logical foundations, which is probably why it's not a popular example of anything.

[@NemoFilHimry]

Not really. If I have a true statement, logic says what other true statements arise from it. It only deals with connections between the premises and the conclusions. If all ravens are black, then you can conclude that necessarily all non-black things are not ravens. But the premise is not necessarily true (in fact, there are non-black ravens). Math is just logic, combined with a definition of "quantity". If I have a true statement involving quantities, math tells you what quantity-involving conclusions arise from it. If this cake is continuous and matter is conserved, then cutting the cake in 8 equal sizes will result in every piece being 1/8 the mass of the original cake. The premises again might not be true, and we actually know that they aren't (matter by itself is not conserved, and the cake is made up of discrete atoms), but the conclusion approximately holds in most cases. Of course math can help you get to certain conclusions about any field, as long as you can quantify certain things in it and the definitions you made are true. Just as it helps us reach conclusions about the physical world, it can help us in the mental world, assuming that the quantities and definitions you make are true (but they might not). Anyway, it won't "solve" the problem, because the conclusions will always be based on certain assumptions that might not be true.

[@abelincoln8885]

Get out of here with this silliness. Mathematics is an abstract construct from the mind of an intelligence. Mathematics only describes or makes predictions of "physical" processes and is a means to gain INFORMATION & knowledge for an intelligence. The Function, Intelligence, & Mind Categories with causal links ... prove ... God created Man with a body & soul ... and the Mind of Man is the body AND the soul. The brain is physical mind of Man ... is simply a function composed entirely of functions ... with free will, nature, & consciousness. The soul is the non-physical mind of Man ... of unnatural composition .. with free will, nature, & conscious. Man is a physical Intelligence ... so the Mind of Man ... operates through the living body with the soul "recording" everything we think & do. When Man's body dies ... the Soul then takes control of the Mind of Man ... including free will, nature, MEMORIES, emotions, and consciousness of the NON-PHYSICAL or Unnatural existence. Simple system. Well done, God.

[@anxious_robot]

it's stuff from supernovas, which is incredible, but when you realize supernovas are just illusions of analog matter in what are all ultimately digital or binary fields, then you realize you live in a computer simulation, and then it's less incredible in one way, but more incredible in another way to realize you're basically mario in super mario brothers.

[@FalseCogs]

Simulation or not, ideal or material, everything is empty-fullness. There are no real beings here, nor perhaps anywhere.

[@francesco5581]

Thats the problem with materialism : always end with a "it's what it's".

[@DestroManiak]

How does dualism change things? Dualism is also "it is what it is".

[@mikel4879]

Francesco / Materialism never ends with that. Only stupidity does it.

[@Raj0520]

Materialism is a problem because it's the most successful theory known to human kind. Dualism and idealism are non starters. They haven't even crossed the starting line while materialism is well past the half way mark.

[@francesco5581]

@@DestroManiak There are many "monist" who are not materialists. Anyway i need at least an explanation for the hard problems of consciousness. Is the most important thing we have and require a bit of ..effort ? " i dont know it so it's what it's" sounds like the dad bored by the son's questions ...

[@Raj0520]

@@francesco5581 Yes they are idealists. The milder form of sollipsists.

[@deanodebo]

@4:00 “I don’t want to postulate entities unnecessarily “ (Occam’s razor) Yet he assumes the physical which requires consciousness to be a priori. If you want simple, just eliminate the physical. After all, anything and everything physical he wants to assume and talk about requires consciousness to provide models and concepts and categories first. Why do these people think their theory is simpler?

[@chayanbosu3293]

Lord Krishna says our existence consist of 3 levels 1. gross body 2.Subtle body i.e mind, intellect and ego 3.soul .Now conciousness emarges from soul and mind is the interface between outer world and soul.

[@AlexLifeson1985]

Lord Krishna is a fable like everything else.

[@Raj0520]

So basically it's dualism?? Dualism has been rejected long back by consensus. How does the Mind soul interact with the body? To interact with matter u cant be immaterial. Prove that.

[@vk274]

@@AlexLifeson1985 Here an anonymous scientist is referred to as Lord Krishna.

[@outisnemo8443]

@@Raj0520: Except practically every single "materialist" today is essentially a dualist who tries to hand-wave away the existence of consciousness. Their rejection of dualism is wishful thinking on their part, in reality they've done nothing of the kind. I'm not saying dualism is true, but consciousness most definitely exists, and is completely different from what they consider "material", so either dualism or idealism must be true.

[@Raj0520]

@@outisnemo8443 Define Consciousness

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Comments are the worse place for a curious mind

[@pashovanastas]

Isn't there a simple answer to these deep dramatic questions - information. The mind is an algorithm. The brain is only a self-programming hardware. You can wonder forever if qualia are physical but if they are seen as (parts of) internal representation of the state of the information processing machine oranges go to oranges and apples - to apples.

[@outisnemo8443]

What you are describing here is epiphenomenalism, and isn't a "simple answer" at all, but rather a quite naive one. While generally considered materialistic, it's actually a dualist view, and still provides exactly zero explanation for how and why signal processing in a chemically reactive and electrified blob of fat leads to phenomenal consciousness and related concepts like information.

[@Marcin_S_Przybylek]

So Mr Strawson says he knows, and at the end ha says he doesn't know. Seems legit.

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 1 Corinthians 13:2 KJV but there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these; Daniel 2:28 KJV and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9 KJV Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, Romans 16:25 KJV

[@S3RAVA3LM]

7:29 This is why whenever those who say there's no evidence of God is a fallacy. Very important to acknowlwdge that everything is evidence of God -- One power

[@youaresomeone3413]

This guy just did a bunch of circles and didn't care for his opinion but I respect it.

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

"Physics gets more and more astonishing." Where does physics come from? God, and his word is astonishing. Since he is Almighty, wondrous, awe inspiring. Which is why physics is astonishing.

[@Jesusismykin]

✝️😊❤👍

[@PaulHoward108]

There is no substance. Read "There is Only Form" at Shabda Blog.

[@mikel4879]

Paul H / Read these two sentences of yours 20 times. I'm sure that you'll see them in the end as representing a big stupidity.

[@outisnemo8443]

You're not the first to assert idealism as true. I'm partial to it myself, but I'm also open to dualist interpretations.

[@mikel4879]

Outis N / Anybody is free to believe any phantasmagory. It is a free world! However, the reality is not ever dualistic. It is in only one single way, one real dynamic structure, part of the real universal dynamic, at each of its ( connected and uninterrupted ) iterated realm. You, kids, need to believe, to live in your personal world of beliefs, but ideally only up to a point. After that point, if they're still there, the phantasmagoric beliefs are just plain stupidities.

[@outisnemo8443]

@@mikel4879: There is a ton of evidence to suggest that dualism might be true. Again, I'm partial to idealism, but dualism is a definite possibility. You are making the mistake of talking about "reality" when that word refers to the phenomenal aspect regardless of whether you posit idealism or dualism. In this sense you must distinguish between what's true and what's real. In dualism, what's real is only a subset of what is true, whereas in idealism what's true and what's real correspond to each other directly. This is what materialists want, the problem is just that consciousness is fundamental, and thus you end up, in Chomsky's terms, exorcising the machine instead of the ghost. What you're asserting here is just physicalist idealism, which is fine if that's what you want to believe, but there is also evidence to suggest that physicalism itself might be false.

[@mikel4879]

Out is Nema / There's no evidence at all. What you call "evidence" here is simply wrong interpretation of the real universal phenomena. Who gives a damn about idealism, materialism, the idiot Chomsky, etc ? "Real" and "true" are just part of the language symbolism. Only what it is a real "material" process ( "material"=any structured iterated "realm" ) it really matters. "True" it is only what your brain can understand correctly at some point in its universal cognitive journey. When are you gonna think with your own brain, and give up the useless theoretical indoctrination? Nobody that thinks correctly with their own brain makes a confusion between the real dynamics and useless theoretical conventions.

[@haroonaverroes6537]

to concise: understanding what is going on needs real rational intelligent entities those achieved enough scientific knowledge, but for apes the only path could take them to is (the darkness), that is so dangerous. better to focus on deeper understanding of the fundamental of physics and forget completely about that.

[@christoferprestipino7433]

This clown is taking the position that he claim something is of the physical world, and yet no physical measure/proof of said phenomenon. These people are absurd.

[@mikel4879]

Zero intelectual value! This guy, Galen, doesn't know anything about the subject.

[@mikel4879]

Jon / No excuses for him, Jon! Sorry! He is not a begginer in his profession. His thoughts have to be strong, tight, and clear. He should be able to express himself in a very precise way. As anybody can see he's not. He doesn't know anything at all about the subject.