Consciousness & the Brain: John Searle at TEDxCERN

John Searle one of the world's great philosophers of mind and language, has spent fifty years stimulating thinking around the world. What he says about consciousness as a biological phenomenon will challenge you! Cogitation, Consciousness & The Brain.
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

[@jonathansgarden9128]

For that short time he was given, this man gave an incredible amount of explanation

[@neil4817]

Are you saying that a philosopher is an expert on the human brain?

[@jonathansgarden9128]

@@neil4817 I neither said nor denied such a claim

[@stevenhoyt]

the reason why he can make such a good, compact speech is the fact he's been giving the very same one for nearly thirty years, and getting paid quite well to do so. his account of realization here is also very weak and his dismissiveness doesn't make him friends among peers.

[@valleybay9183]

@ Jonathan's Garden: What did you identify as "explanation?" He just rambled off a bunch of thoughts without actually backing any of it up.

[@valleybay9183]

@ Steven Hoyt: I didn't find his speech good at all. He just shamelessly let words fall out of his mouth without any real substance to give them cogency. I don't see why anyone would pay, much less pay well, for such a mashup of words. Searle was all over the place. You said his account of realization is very weak, so how do you figure he made a "good" speech?

[@frank4579]

In reality this talk is 30 minutes long but the guy is a professional and pressed everything in, at double speed. lol

[@ashokbabuasp]

Ted why won't you give enough time to people. The poor guy had to rush and finish his presentation which was interesting and requires more time to explain.

[@eggheadeinstein]

My guess is because then we'd be complaining about the people we didn't like being too long asking Ted why they don't limit the time enough.

[@firedunebuggy2581]

Good point. And John Searle isn't just some random philosopher. He is already a living legend who paved the way for what is now called New Realism. Which has helped define a new era after Postmodernism. New Realism is the synthesis of Realism _and_ Idealism.

[@greedyfirstalgorithmlast26]

He is generally always Hard Hitting and speaks suchly, he is rather old and we old folk are pushy.

[@dinorahdarby4499]

I think the goal is to inspire rather than teach. It is up to us to expound on what is made aware to us. That being said I'd like to watch an interview in which he could unbox hose treasures.

[@lauramartin614]

Searle is such a bad ass. It's nice to hear him and see him after reading him so much!

[@valleybay9183]

If this talk represents the cogency in his books, then I can't see why anyone wastes their time reading or listening to him. His talk was complete rubbish. How in the world have you managed to idolize him?

[@frasermcconachie9879]

Unsurprisingly, a fifteen minute talk on an incredibly complicated topic, written for a layperson audience, is not as clear as Searle’s published writing. He’s universally viewed as one of the leading philosophers of the last fifty years in many, many fields. You don’t have to agree with him on anything (I certainly don’t) but it’s essential to engage with him and treat his work seriously if you want to understand where these fields currently stand.

[@musicisbrilliant]

I HATE how they force people to talk so fast and finish what they have to say in a limited amount of time. I mean, HOW LAME IS THAT?!?! So theyre rushing through their points so fast that we dont get enough time to even think about what theyre saying. Ridiculous, TED!

[@avinashbhujan1376]

they don't force people, I think he is simply nervous.

[@musicisbrilliant]

avinash bhujan They just have time limits so the people have to rush.

[@phrankus2009]

avinash bhujan Typical TED presentation is 15 minutes but this is an approximate limit and I have seen TED Talks as long as 22 minutes and as short as 11 minutes. ... But ... Typically ... 15 minutes and you are done and out. ... It is supposed to be something you can watch during a lunch break and up to 8 presentations in a two hour session (plus breaks and transitions).

[@StephanieL180]

Someone needs to remind them that quality is more important than quantity when it comes to stuff like this. I've seen TED lecture after TED lecture with great people ruined by the fact that they have tiny timeslots in which to tackle huge ideas.

[@musicisbrilliant]

Stephanie L Exactly!!!! :)

[@thepinkerian7305]

This is an incredibly dense, information-packed talk! Here's a hierarchical index of what was discussed by Searle. • Introduction→0:30 • Hostility to the subject→2:10 1) etherealness→2:26 2) unscientificalness→2:38 • Definition of consciousness→5:02 • Scientific, materialistic, objective view of consciousness→3:31, 6:00, 9:45, 13:52 • Features of consciousness→6:44 1) the reality, irreducibility of consciousness→6:55 2) qualia→8:16 3) subjectivity→8:33 4) unity→8:56 5) functional causality→9:32 • Four (not so) hard problems about consciousness→3:41 1) consciousness is an illusion→4:01 1.1) consciousness is real and irreducible→6:55, 7:25 1.2) Descartes' argument→7:59 2) the computational theory of mind→4:14, 11:17 2.1) content→11:39, 12:00 2.2) observer-independent X observer-relative reality→12:27, 12:42, 12:55 2.3) objectivity X subjectivity→13:41 *a concious robot?→7:43, 9:03 3) behaviorism→4:21 3.1) feeling X behaving→14:45 3.2) the science of internal states→15:06 4) the mind-body problem→4:29 4.1) biochemical causation→5:47, 9:45 4.2) consciousness is a condition the system is in→6:13 4.3) levels of description→10:40 • Conclusion→15:28

[@bhadraparekh]

Respect my man for what he done here 🙌🏻

[@EncodeUnknown]

Hi! If you do mind can you help me with what Readings to go for writing a dissertation in Consciousness under Philosophy of Mind.

[@zylo1967]

There is a huge difference between defining what something is and explaining what it is. No neuroscientist, no philosopher has come close to an explanation of what the conscious experience is, not Searle, not anyone else. Consciousness is a biological process, like photosynthesis, he says. And so? That's about as deep as saying that dark matter is some kind of matter. Probably true (at least in the case of dark matter) but it's not even a start at an explanation. What is red? If you traced the chemical and electrical pathways in the nervous system that cause certain (colourless, note) wavelengths of light to create the experience of red, if you did so to absolute perfect completeness at the atomic level, you still wouldn't have explained at all what red is, or if birds see "red" the same way rather than as another colour, or even one that we can't form any idea of. (For that matter, there is no way of my knowing if you don't actually experience a red rose as blue - "red" being merely the label we attach to things which we each individually experience as having the same certain colour.) Some philosophers contend that we can never understand consciousness. There are persuasive reasons to think that they are correct.

[@NoMoreEasyRides]

​@@zylo1967 Thanks for your comment. Do you ever focus and study on how to live truly free without willingly supporting a corrupt tiny ruling class that rules you under duress?

[@dkoehler47]

I think Max Planck had it right: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness".

[@peterells1720]

Can you give the source of this Planck quote. Thanks, Peter

[@Eduardude]

Coleridge said that matter was coagulated spirit, hence derivative of spirit.

[@Agent707]

@@Eduardude Thank you for that. I wasn't aware of that quoye by Coleridge, but it is nearly identical to what a teacher said when I was training in Chinese Medicine -that the ancient Taoist sages would say, "The body is the condensation of the soul." It's simply obvious that people are extensions of the universe; so then all matter must be that "condensation" of the consciousness (spirit) that must exist to have chosen to express matter/the universe. And it seems perfectly obvious that some conscious force *chose* to manifest the universe since, as Allan Watts said, "It would have been so much simpler if nothing existed at all."

[@noursmatii]

Ted's videos or let's say topics inspired me to find myself, to renew my ideas , to think positively and to take a step towards my future desires 😇 I am so thankful for TED TALKS .❤❤❤

[@Bludiste32]

This guy is brilliant. Finally a a scientist trying to explain consciousness. Lawrence Krauss should see this.

[@eltouristoduo]

Funny thing is I don't think he's changed the essence of this view for decades, not sure, but I think that may be so. If it is, I troubles me that it's not more widely adopted.

[@rodrigodelaparra4737]

John Searle is no scientist, he is a philosopher (considering the context to what you portray as a scientist). He is a very questionable philosopher at best who thinks we can take 2500 years of traditional knowledge for granted. There is a reason matters like these are divorced and why objectivism is incompatible with with phenomena that is not measurable.

[@eltouristoduo]

It's like everything you just said is incorrect. A scientist is foremost a person that thinks scientifically. He is a epistemologist, the epistemic branch of philosophy. That is the discipline that all science utterly depends on. The scientific method is BUILT PURELY on sound epistemology. His point about consciousness being a neglected subject is especially important, since there still seems to be such widespread differences on how to frame and define it. (a job for epistemology). I have no idea what you mean by taking 2500 years of knowledge for granted, so I can't respond to it. There is NEVER a divorce between the practice of epistemology and any scientific pursuit (see above). Epistemology is the THE thing you can point to being done improperly ANY time someone makes a mistake in their reasoning process and does not correct it. Your apparent appraisal of him is an example of the underweighting of the absolute essential need for a great concern about getting one's epistemic process correct. There are MANY BRILLIANT scientists that make the same sort of mistakes. We all do. What epistemology focuses on is the nature of those mistakes. It may not seem to make sense to you right now, but to the scientific community, epistemologists play a vital role as 'thinking consultants'. It turns out that you can be very good doing most all the tasks of the scientific process, math, etc, and somehow not be as strong in epistemology. All of this is the odd nature of epistemology itself. A good epidemiologist will not appear arrogant, and maybe not even confident. He doesn't need to understand the fine details of a particular science to properly make judgements about the epistemology being carried out by the scientist. He does need a working grasp of the relevant concepts. So epistemology is the forever relevant foundation of all thought. That's not hyperbole. And it's very easy to marginalize, and end up not being regarded as the most important thing to get right in all thought processes. That because even though we are taught the basics of the scientific method etc, we take that for granted as 'enough'. Turns out it takes a LOT to not make thought mistakes. Very long list of possible biases, and all sort of trappings. A good epistemic philosopher like Searle is also obviously tasked, by self definition, with keeping track of the reliability of his own thought process and the management of his own knowledge and the way he states it. Since he happens to be good at it, that also means he is pretty much on track about what he's saying here.

[@rodrigodelaparra4737]

How exactly does thinking scientifically make a scientist out of anybody? Like any literate person I had to undergo subjects such as chemistry and physics during highschool, I had to learn to think scientifically to pass my tests, I still do not see myself as a scientist nor does the rest of the world, since doing so would be a highly naive and irresponsible decision. That is the whole point of authority in this matter, the underlying figure of the Author: He/She who is forced to "respond" for their actions. I am no scientist as I myself do not respond to any relevant scientific action that has any form of incision within the scientific community, nor does Searle. Your first confusion about the extension of Searle's work proceedes to your second confusion, which is that of the conventionality (or in more precise terms context) of what is regarded as scientific. From the latin Scientia, which in its simplest form could be considered as the latin equivalent for knowledge, there is a problem of context within the etimological rootings of this word. The paradigm to which grecoroman culture acomodated "arts and crafts" (as this is a contextually more precise way to describe careers and disciplines to a long dead latin) is abyssmally different from our post-illustrated, post-industrial paradigm. We may still carry some dislocations of meaning from the olde days when we speak of terms such as pure-science and human-science, those dislocations acomodate when convention kicks right through the door and denies the possibility of someone who studied literature to be referred as a scientist. And we are back to knowledge, and here is the thing, what is reguarded as knowledge today is something that has rigorously been put to the test, something deeply rooted in factuality. This right here is the convention of what is to be regarded as a "true knowledge" since it appears that the very scientific method you already mentioned seems to have real repercutions on the world around us, everything that "happens" to the world has also been regarded as fact. I speak of two worlds here, one that describes our paradigm and one that supposedly exists independent of our logos. John Searle's methods are not rooted within the scientific method, his are rooted from the studies of philosophy and language. What he mostly proposes is highly theoretical and metaphysical as his subjects of study tend to only exist for "us" who are capable of thinking concepts such as love, justice, truth; concepts that have no counterpart out there in the physical world. I am not in any way devaluating Searle's position as an academic just because his studies are not truly meant to be applicable outside of our artificiality, Heidegger and Derrida have very well explained that there is no escaping ourselves, to this Searle seems to understand our condition until he goes straight through a tangent just to avoid mixing with the kinds of post-structuralism. In his example, that a calculator displays a bunch of numbers is indeed meaningless to anything and anyone but ourselves, but so is the fact that a bunch of circuits and transistors produced an electrical current that would in itself display said numbers. In the strict sense of the word such an eventuality is no different from any other, and if we are talking about will here, it is no different from any other animal who manipulates the world around them in any way; the only difference would be the level of sophistication. In the grand scheme of things launching a nuclear device is no more remarkable than the death of a star which is in itself a much much bigger event by comparison. The thing is we have rendered the world around us, that is, we have calculated it, we have described it, we have reflected upon it, and we have "made a world" out of it, other than just a big spherical pile of matter and randomness. "Best" or "Worst" of all is that there is no escaping this condition, nothing "is" without "reason" as Heidegger would put it, and no, he did not refer to some form of divine deliverance, he meant about the being of things, to which conciousness is just one very unprecise and archaic word to the whole matter of grasping one's existence. Epistemology being the root of thought is indeed the biggest of your missconceptions. Epistemology does not precede Science nor does it precede Philosophy, which could arguably be the foundation of all thought, but isn't either. Secondly you are confusing epistemology with critical thinking, since epistemology itself has a rooting within the parameters of knowledge, to believe that all human thought provokes knowledge is obviously wrong. Historically there are two ways human thought has worked: Mythos and Logos. Mythos completed a very incomplete framework of how the world works through magical thinking and superstition (for example the belief that Poseidon moved the tides instead of the moon's gravitational pull). Logos on the other hand accepts and understands that we are very shorthanded on the task of completing or explaining the world around us and instead relies on questioning the world instead of taking it for granted. THAT is the root of conventional western thought in our present day. Searle desperately tries to make metaphysical subjects something that should be addressed as physical ones, in other words, he urges the scientific community to study conciousness as if it were the same as to study the Periodic Table of Elementes. The whole point about metaphysics and its 2500 year tradition (to which I was referring) is that the only possible answer to these matters are not to be found, like their initial questions, within the physical world. It is not in the place of a Chemist to address such matters such as Justice or Symbolism. Otherwise you end up with hokum such as "What the bleep do we know". Our conciousness cannot be reduced to a mere biological trait, that is like saying that my personality is as much part of my biological self as my lungs or my extremities.

[@eltouristoduo]

One thing I can respond to quickly is that I meant epistemology in the applied sense, in the critical thought sense. It would take me longer than I am currently able to invest to try to make sense of all your references. Even when you tried to explain. ......but to cut to the chase in a manner of speaking, and using 'critical thinking' I will say that whatever other words you might chose to describe Searle, he is clearly getting some things correct. Here are some things that are close to , if not actually, self-evident from an empirical, external-reality view, which is the only view that exists in reality. Consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain. If you disagree, and you are certain, you are not thinking critically. The brain is an organ. That's it. If you think it is anything else, anything more, or anything less, you are simply wrong. It doesn't matter what you think is a reliable source . This does not seem like some ancient or important bunch of philosophic crap. The term philosophy is misleading. I suppose if I tried to describe what I'm talking about in plain terms I would say something like 'critical thinking about critical thinking'. That is what he is mostly doing. It's separate for more 'slippery' approaches. This isn't meant to be a scholarly area. It's not extremely technical. It's grounded. It's undeniable, but only when you are doing it right. It seems almost a bit of a paradox to explain what it is, since you kinda have to do it a little to know it. It seems obvious and simple, but maybe it's not, idk. Consciousness is an biological process carried out in an organ (brain). How could it be anything else? Is the statement actually too simple and obvious to be acceptable as true? Is some arrogance of the notion of some other body of knowledge from the past overwhelming to you? Not all knowledge turns out to be true knowledge of course.

[@elisadealexandria]

Searle is always so clear, I've admired his expositions and writing for many years, since the 1990s when I first read one of his papers.

[@makeyou2412]

Siempre vuelvo a ver este video y me doy cuenta de algo nuevo, magnifico!

[@KirkbyBlues]

Words can indeed get in the way. All I am trying to say boils down to this... I am conscious - a fact, as you say. How and why I am conscious has not yet been explained. There we have it - a fact without a satisfactory explanation. That makes it a mystery, or a puzzle, or a problem to be solved, if you prefer. Nothing else.

[@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude]

nice point .... How ? and why ? I am conscious has not yet been explained.

[@stupid4President]

Interesting presentation and I liked his idea about unified conscience fields. However, first stating that we can't have a scientific definition of consciousness and also that we don't really know how it works but then being sure that it is just a simple biological function doesn't really convince me, at all.

[@ranaozakca7940]

He actually said we are not yet ready to provide a scientific explanation, he did not say it isn't possible. Not that I agree 100% but we should take him at his terms.

[@erink8434]

He meant consciousness is too hard to define and we are incapable of defining it precisely at this moment.

[@user-gw9kq7qm2k]

I agree with you

[@lancelawhorn1020]

Hilarious!! I love this dudes cynical attitude towards everything & everyone you find you don’t agree with!! I can’t wait to either get old enough or learn enough about everything to have this guys attitude about life!! Love him & his matter of fact ways of explaining & teaching!! He would have been an awesome professor to have had in college!!!

[@stevenhoyt]

among his peers, he loses respect because his abandonment of academic norms in philosophy is prolific. we don't dismiss, we evaluate premises. the most common complaint of searle on consciousness is like that to an undergraduate philosophy major: he makes up his mind because he can't imagine his view to be wrong and then seems to disengage the dialectic, which continuing it may have otherwise resolved that problem, changing his view in the process.

[@RMF49]

@@stevenhoyt I can’t stand him. My complaint is that “proves” and “disproves” by intuition and then denigrates and dismisses anyone who doesn’t see it.

[@canwelook]

He presented his conclusions, with supporting reasoning. 15 minutes of compact discussion. I'd like to be shown a TED talk that does otherwise. Can you give me the evidence that contradicts any of those reasons and conclusions?

[@AmadeusD]

Absolutely bang on. Just made a comment similarly pointing out his closed-mindedness here. Which si a shame - such a great legacy he has otherwise. @@stevenhoyt

[@AmadeusD]

Well, you're asking to prove a negative. Searle hasn't adequately 'proven' anything here. He's postulated certain things in light of certain empirical facts - largely, a result of his incredulousness at other's theories. Not hte greatest look for Philosophy tbh@@canwelook

[@danflorinspataru8020]

When I listen J. Searle i understand where we are heading, when I read these comments i understand from where we are coming coming from. And that's a good news for me :)

[@mingonmongo1]

Brilliant guy, and such clear commonsense... thx! Perhaps part of the problem is, no matter how hard we try, neurobiologists, philosophers, whatever, we still can't really separate the subjective from the objective in whatever we do. Kinda like trying to work on our car, while we're driving.

[@danielballard3364]

John's incredibly condensed talk can not be held high enough in regard.. the implications, clarifications and statements made by him are all very deep, true and simple in it's core. There is a lot of complexity added to something such as consciouscess that only distracts even the most clever minds from seeing what it ultimately is. Just because we have not worked out the deeper biological/quantum mechanics (such as microtubules idea or others..) beyond it yet, does not mean there is something ungraspable to consciousness that eludes us.. Ultimately consciousness is completely observer/environment interaction relative and emergent, nothing fundamental (what is fundamental in our known Universe anyway... any definition of "fundamental" given by us subjective observers is subjective itself).. anyway, John is one of the very few guys i have come upon who has been on the right track all along when it comes to Consciousness..

[@Aristotelezz]

A person that is born blind will never understand what colours are. How hard he tries to imaging, his brain just won’t get it. IMO when we try to find out what consciousness is we are like the blindman. We just lack an organ that can reveal it to us. So there must be something besides what we can see hear feel or smell.

[@TJ-kk5zf]

You're dead wrong about people born blind not knowing what color is. Look it up.

[@user-nq5rk7nl8m]

Many blind people see colours through near death experiences 🤯

[@Aristotelezz]

@@user-nq5rk7nl8m Maybe they can even see them in their dreams, but how they know it are colors?

[@Bix12]

I really enjoy dr searle - he's very down-to-earth. dr stuart hameroff has some very interesting things to say about conscousness, as does sir roger penrose

[@mattfaw]

I agree. It really is modular w/ extensive feedback and re-entrant loops throughout the system. Massively distributed and parallel processing. Kind of like the body: each organ has local control and communication, responds to other organs constantly, and is managed/balanced by the CNS, just like the brain is managed/balanced by the PFC.

[@oxirosmusic]

Just one book: "Beyond physicalism - Toward reconciliation of science and spiritualism".

[@B3SSPR0]

Excellent talk! It's very unfortunate he had to be rushed.

[@charleswild3045]

Thank you for this video about consciousness. Human consciousness, including attentional control issues, are discussed from time to time at the ADHD Bulletin Board - a Yahoo Group. Thank you. X-ref: Neurology, Nutrition, Brain-Mind Medicines, Thought, New Thought, etc.

[@giampaolomannucci8281]

The only good thing I got from this talk is his name. Searching on YT I get, as first result, a talk named "Consciousness as a Problem in Philosophy and Neurobiology" and it's 52 minutes long. I'm really craving for his complete talk and hope that is the one :)

[@SeanMauer]

I liked the presentation. It was clear. Although we are still left with the enormous task of the "hard problem"

[@nfcoard]

One of the reasons the hard problem of consciousness is so hard is because scientists assume that the brain is what produces our consciousness and that without a brain we have no consciousness.

[@teddybruscie]

nfcoard That's not an assumption. We know what happens when the brain is taken out of an organism's head. The die. There is no evidence of any other state after this occurrence. So it's not an assumption, it's a conclusion. You take out the brain, and the body shows no readings of any other form of being left. Put the brain back in... well it still be dead, because we do not have the knowledge or technology to do so. But you get the idea.

[@SeanMauer]

teddybruscie I think the nuance here is, not so much as you point out, there needs to be a brain, but that consciousness seems to be a combination of the brain working in a information field that permeates all of space in a like manner as zero point energy.

[@nfcoard]

teddybruscie Consider the possibility that the brain and consciousness are closely interconnected while the body is still alive. But when the brain dies our consciousness withdraws from the brain and body and continues to exist and function just fine without the biological machine it was previously interconnected with.

[@teddybruscie]

nfcoard But there is no evidence for that occurrence. Even if we examine something leaving the body, we can't conclude that that is the spirit or consciousness, it could just be energy or gases leaving the body. We can't say without testing it. But one thing that we do know is that brain in itself has the ability to be conscious. I don't see why there needs to be something extra.

[@varblade821]

So if we 3D print a biological substrate based computer that has a Turing test passing software driven avatar; and it claims to be conscious; isn't that a subjective expression of an objective state?

[@gonosol]

Depends on whether it spouts out prewritten lines like Siri or comes up with words on its own through a specific objective process

[@sharonflannagan6541]

@@gonosol so in other words - creativity.

[@excelerolreview2279]

Great information I have got in this talk about Consciousness & the Brain.

[@TheNeverposts]

I had doubts as to whether Searle was any good at philosophy, now I found out he did a TEDx... It's all clearing up

[@Marzano15]

Only 15 mins to tackle the topic of consciousness...

[@TheWyrdSmythe]

Nice! I've been a John Searle fan ever since I heard about the Chinese Room!

[@patrickmccarty6136]

The simplest things can become incomprehensible or complicated beyond understanding when they are not directly confronted.

[@nicholascincotta3001]

I simply love this man.

[@DonWilsondigginTimeUSA]

Man, take breath, calm down, and in the future pick a venue that will give you the time you need to say what you need to say, I would love to hear it!...At this point you have me holding my breath like I'm watching a cave diver on National Geographic.

[@chapeauelesmirriau]

I am following his course on philosophy of mind, search for "Searle Philosophy of mind". There's a playlist with 28 1h fascinating lectures.

[@VickiWillardchikpea]

chapeauelesmirriau x🙏🏼

[@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude]

he is so in a hurry ..... like lion is chasing him :D

[@vladi1Z]

I would like to see this lecture in 50 years when computers will be able to think and have consciousness...

[@psychonautshinobi4049]

Keep on dreaming

[@vladi1Z]

Well I found someone who has no idea about today's technology or never worked professionally with artificial intelligence...

[@vladi1Z]

***** if computer will have consciousness it is no longer a computer, it's a computer with consciousness...

[@vladi1Z]

***** First of all your equalization arent perfectly correct, since the user/programmer can fully control the limits of the knowledge or thinking abilities.. Knowing why its doing something and how doesnt mean it can control it, again, its all in the progammers hands, the machine cant do something it wasnt programmed to... if its not given the option of stoping or changing its actions, it wouldnt be able to... And even if it would have a free will, its still a machine, a machine with consciousness, you cant name it any other thing since its not living, if it doesnt live and mechanically built, its a machine...

[@vladi1Z]

***** You are very wrong in the way you think. first of all, the ability to reprogram yourself must be given by the programmer, it may know its programmed but if it has no access to its program it cant do anything about it... just like you understand some of your insticts and thinking ways but you have no access to your "program" in your brain... And your logic failed even one step before that, because having consciousness doesnt mean he knows he is programmed, thats just wrong... take my cat as an example, he has consciousness undoubtly while he has no idea that he has brain which making his consciousness... And for your definition of being alive is wrong (for now at least), because today the definition is purely biological and means that the organism is reproducing itself, has metabolism and at least built of one cell... none of those is accurate for a machine with consciousness...

[@eyeofgnosis558]

After some deep dives into my own mind, I propose that consciousness is a form of 'active memory' whereby the interaction between the hippocampus and other areas of the brain is recorded several milliseconds after the neurons have fired their electrical signals. Here's a couple of thought experiments in which you can observe this: 1. Ask yourself, if time is always moving forwards, at what point do my thoughts become memories? (whilst observing that thought in the process of asking) 2. Also, how much of my conscious experience is being influenced by memory (on all levels including implicit memory), and is there even a barrier between these memories and my own conscious experience?

[@TheMarrt]

This guy genuinely changed my mind on the subject "a computer that simulates a mind is conscious" But not with this TED Talk, i was listening to a 12h Lecture from him.

[@RMF49]

He didn’t change my mind on that subject though I’ve listened to him a lot. Also I wouldn’t word it the way you did because if a computer can be conscious it would not be simulating it it would be producing it.

[@TheMarrt]

@@RMF49 Agree, i just wanted to make it more clear since that is what i previously thought, that a simulation implements consciousness. I am not clear what he did not change your mind on: So you believe that if someone would abstract all the Signals between and within the neurons of a conscious brain into symbols, and let those symbols run on a computer so that its symbol representation would mimic the real Signals perfectly, the computer program would be conscious?

[@RMF49]

@@TheMarrt I don’t say it would be conscious because no one knows exactly what causes consciousness but it might be. Searle rules that out by nothing more than his intuition.

[@TheMarrt]

@@RMF49 No he doesn't just use intuition, but yeah, it is not proofable. It is an argument that just makes the distinguishment between what we think most likely implements a consciousness (physical interactions in the brain is our best guess) and how that differs from mere symbol-manipulation, regardless of if our best guess is true in the end. If Symbolmanipulation alone would implement consciousness, anything could be made conscious by just assigning the right semantics onto it. Imagine i print all symbols of my brain simulation as numbers and their transient states over a second or so. Then i search for a big patch of water and assign values to the height of a specific matrix point and each transient symbol to a matrix point. Now i wait for the water to exactly print all numbers from my brain simulation over the period of one second. I can freely reassign the value association in any matrix point since it is just an interpretation instruction anyway. I can also change matrix dimensions and symbol associations in the same manner. But i will find a way of interpreting the physical waterheights as a perfect simulation of my brain. Now, do you think the patch of water was conscious for a second. I don't believe it and i hope it is true, otherwise everything is conscious all the time, from greatest joy to deepest sufferung, forever.

[@RMF49]

@@TheMarrt Also calling them “symbols” seems loaded to me. Brain signals are atoms in motion. A computer that perfectly simulates Searle’s brain would also have atoms in motion at the hardware level. There would be an isomorphism between Searle’s brain’s atom formations over time and the computer’s atom formations over time. If the computer were connected to eyes, ear, tongue then the computer’s atom formations would have the same causal powers to produce the exact same sentences that Searle is uttering at any moment. Both sequences of atom formations are equally real, in the physical word, and not abstract. Neither is any more of a symbol than the other. So what produces a subjective experience? Is it the exact atom formations in the brain including their biological substrate? Or is it just the causal relationships between the atom formations and their ability to carry out reasoning that causes a subjective experience without regard to the substrate? That latter seems far more likely to me than the former. But that’s just my intuition. So I don’t claim that I’m right or that Searle is wrong. I just say Searle is wrong to be sure that he’s right.

[@TiagoPonteR]

There's a LOT of information in this talk. I need to find out more about this gentleman.

[@DeathSentryCoH]

Never heard of him before and yet, even though this is 3 years ago, its one of the best explanations I've heard.

[@ramramgill]

YESSS! My older brother and I have been discussing consciousness, Jon Searle is on point!

[@kfirlevy8800]

I still can't see why we need to experience this consiousness. I mean, won't i work and behave exactly the same with out actually 'feeling' or 'thinking' this arrangement of neurons I have right now? If my body is programed to wave when I see someone I know, and have the arrangement of neurons that relate to happiness, therefore it creates the arrangement of neurons that relate to wanting to wave, and waves. Then what's the point of 'feeling' this 'want' of waving?

[@alexismamadou2193]

Me and myself are such fluid concepts!? "I" ... still don't get them.

[@55chh]

I've seen lots of TED talks and I wonder why they limit the time so severely? The speakers almost always seem stressed and unable due to time constraints to elaborate or explain.

[@nimim.markomikkila1673]

It´s a normal procedure in scientific conferences in general. We only have so and so much time:) And so many people want their 15 minutes in the limelight:)

[@rodrigodelaparra4737]

"Nothing exists outside of text" -Searle's "best" friend-

[@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude]

what does that mean ? can you please explain it !

[@KevinColt]

Such a great speaker

[@PatriciaCarrier]

Amazing!

[@DarinLHammond]

Saw this. So awesome!

[@kimastor9753]

Why could not the neural activity in a brain be symbolic manipulation? The question that should be asked is; how semantics can emerge from syntax. I allways found this to be the weakness of Searles argument (called "the chinese room").

[@JohnSmith-ut5th]

+sam smith The only difference between syntax and semantics is that semantics is high-level information and syntax is low-level information. You can see any number of talks now on youtube that describe how the brain does this in terms of a hierarchy of pattern recognizers. Even in 2013 when this video was first posted it was well known that this is how the brain functions.

[@djacob7]

+John Smith Could you share some key words to find "hierarchy of pattern recognizers"?

[@eltouristoduo]

No combination of symbols or 'instructions' can produce cognition. Following instructions (and perhaps appearing intelligent) is completely different from knowing what those instructions mean.

[@eltouristoduo]

I will look into it, but I strongly the way you state it to be nonsense.

[@eltouristoduo]

Yes. And decision making is not the same thing as understanding. Complex instructions on how to behave under complex conditions (like an autonomous car) could itself never amount to an understanding of why anything of that is happening. Or an understanding of anything at all. You can use autonomy for lots of things. It could be any set of decisions. Even on being a courtroom judge or a tax-preparer. But an autonomous decision maker doesn't understand anything at all.

[@maggieo6672]

Thank you so very much, sir, for sharing your findings in your many years of studies on consciousness, and the human brain. The views you have, as to what is so, helping us to expand our thinking, to include the benefits of higher knowledge explained in a logical and cognitive way. This certainly was our privilege, ..may I ask you this? Would you say, that thru your discourses, we who enjoyed + feel benefitted +/or enlightened, and above all truly greatful that you have shared with us, Have you now 'quantum-jumped' us ahead? ;-) THANKS Your findings, shared with us all, freely, that was very loving of you, you are a leading expert in your field, indeed our privilege . Maggie

[@feelingfeni4798]

thank you sir!

[@nwood1311]

If consciousness is, as Pro. Searle believes, an emergent property caused by the physical brain, it leaves me no reason to believe that I am the same person I was when I woke this morning. On Searle's view of non-reductive physical-ism , there can be no self identity over time. Its analogous to a burning candle, just as the flame (consciousness) of a candle burns the flame's existence is fleeting and it is not the same from one moment to the next, only the physical candle (brain) endures.

[@dionisiosanastasopoulos4254]

+Nate W. The physical candle doesn't endure, it changes, too as the flame consumes it, it's mass changes and it's chemical make up changes. The brain also isn't stable it's neurons constantly rewire themselves in new ways and also degrade over time or due to illness, it even changes size and brain cells die and new take their part, it is a dynamic system. A permanent Self is an illusion. There is only a changing stream of consciousness.

[@nwood1311]

The purpose of my analogy was not to say the physical brain remains constantly unchanged, nor was it to say that candles do not melt. It is easy to push an analogy too far. The point was to show how self identify over time and non-reductive physical-ism are not compatible. And you agree with this. It seems to me this claim runs counter to my personal experience. In the absents of some very strong evidence I am perfectly justified in the belief that I am the same person I was when I woke this morning.

[@iridium1911]

+Nate W. Your answer, like so much in analytic philosophy, is based on semantics; how you define the state of "being the same person". Certainly you at age 20 are a product of your experiences as a child, but are you really the same person as that child? This really goes to the crux of the real question: what is a person(hood)? Certainly there is some component of our personality which is genetic, but wipe someone's memory clean and suddenly a good deal of their personhood has also been erased. It seems that memory is the primary driver which makes us feel like "I am the same person waking up this morning that fell asleep last night", and if personhood is simply based on memory, the plethora of evidence on how unreliable our memory is seems to put personhood on shaky ground. The "hard problem of consciousness" isn't called hard for no reason; there are rebuttals and problems that remain unresolved for all major arguments trying to answer the question.

[@alfonsoesteves5090]

+parkokosasd1 that's one of the important questions on this topic. From what I get from Searle's point of view the answer is: No, those are 2 different persons. Implying that you as a kid (present) should not expect to experience your life as an adult (future). It wold be like expecting to experience someone else's life. So our experience is locked in the present instant, since it is not fundamentally related to the future instants of our body's consciousness.

[@thestopper5165]

+Nate W. it's not necessarily 'analogous to a burning candle': a different analogy would be that you can replace all the parts on a 1977 Mini over time - while retaining not only 'Mini-ness', but retaining "this specific Mini"-ness. Imagine you started with a 1977 Mini (a Clubman). As time passes, you undertake routine maintenance - changing the oil and so forth. If only it were that simple... but parts wear out even if routine maintenance is performed. Over decades, you might replace every single part of the Mini with new or reconditioned parts - replacing tyres, brake pads, panels, rings, pistons, exhaust manifolds, carburettors. Maybe it happens right down to the last bolt, or maybe it only happens to 60-70% of the key parts. And yet, for the entire period, the car is 'the same car': it has the same registration number, the same top speed, and the same overall bodyshape (and approximately the same experience). It's "My Mini - the green one we bought when we were at Uni". In much the same way, our bodies 'turn over' cells (at different rates depending on the type of tissue): I recall reading that our entire skeleton is replaced - cell by cell - each 7 years. Consciousness is not 'the flame' - there's no need for metaphysical hand-waving nonsense. Speaking of hand-waving... the fact that Searle can actuate a physical process by deciding to (by turning his sensors inward and flicking a switch in his brain), is not operationally different from the ABS on a modern car being able to 'decide' to feather the brakes when it senses that the vehicle might otherwise lose traction. The fact that Searle thinks it's commensurate with consciousness is still consistent with the idea that consciousness is an illusion.

[@DonWilsondigginTimeUSA]

He gets into the mind / body dilemma and looses it right there without an explanation, just too short on time.

[@canwelook]

He challenged that there is a dilemma... and suggested that consciousness is a bodily function, like digestion or myosis(?). What is the dilemma for you?

[@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude]

why he was so in hurry always ?.... not slowing things down

[@poojatripathi222]

Going through his book "Mind" and it's great

[@preranarao4938]

Where can I find it

[@poojatripathi222]

@@preranarao4938 I think online, it's costly bdw or in ur university's library

[@Moonshineiii]

Thank you .

[@petrustella]

So little said: just the defense of the biological origin of consciousnes, through te agency of some molecules. And calls a spiritual act to raise the hands....

[@gerhitchman]

Seriously, what am I missing here? It seems to me that in 16 minutes, Searle amazingly managed to say nothing more than "consciousness has neural correlates." Does he think *defining* consciousness as one more of many biological phenomena is of real use?

[@Manuelomar2001]

Yes, it is. Consciousness does not "correlate" to neural activity. It *is* the neural activity. They are one and the same. Consciousness is just as real, physical, and observable as photosynthesis, or the Krebs cycle, or a Tokamak in operation. Denying this is just as flawed and ill-conceived as making religious claims about consciousness.

[@gerhitchman]

Isn't that just a naive identity theory of mind...? Hasn't that been rejected by almost everyone by now?

[@Manuelomar2001]

Nope, quite the opposite. Modern neurobiological science sees consciousness as a real, complex, *physical* process, because all evidence and observation says that's what it is. It's a process, not an illusion, not an epiphenomenon. We are not meat-robots, the brain is not a computer (it does not process information in anything resembling the way that the boolean-logic gate structure of a binary computer does, and never has) and the mind is not software. We can observe thoughts as they're being formed, we can see the nuts and bolts, so to speak, of the mind turning, and observe it. We still don't know quite how it works, or how the brain carries the process out, but it is real and observable and testable.

[@Richard-cv9vm]

***** I am interested to read about this. Could you recommend some literature on this?

[@vibrantloki3999]

Richard Kleinjans www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440575/ And most of these scholar.google.com/scholar?q=neurobiology+consciousness+research&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=NZprU6CGAcOBogTm-oDYCw&ved=0CCcQgQMwAA There is quite a bit of literature both for and against. I'm not pushing one way or the other as since this topic typically frustrates me.

[@KirkbyBlues]

It's possible we're talking about two different things - which would support your point that language is a major problem in dealing with consciousness. Being conscious is independent of the words we use to describe it - somebody born without the ability to hear and speak would still be conscious of their experiences, even though they have no language to describe or hear about it. 'Conscious' is used to describe quite different things, a point made earlier by someone else in this thread.

[@eltouristoduo]

I'm intrigued by an approach that contains some quantum science-related features, but related to a super-quantum process, so not necessarily looking for quantum physics/mechanics itself to play a vital role in modeling the 'production' of consciousness. I lost track of a wiki page that names essentially that, but it's not a strong name. So much terminology is hopelessly multi-purpose, it's one of those. 'Before' that I'm just interested in continuing to 'philosophically distill' the definition of consciousness most appropriate to modeling it, in the hope that it may become more useful towards that end. I haven't even read enough to better gauge what I think is the 'closest' so far. I'm especially curious about that body of thoughts, wishing is was more clumped and focused somewhere. So I perhaps ignorantly, perhaps not completely so, offer my basic beginnings and cite those by others I find to be philosophically justified. I don't have a clue as to how close to or lagging the sum of my thoughts are to what I might judge best,or the farthest along.

[@DrayzoHD]

Wow you seem really intelligent! Please share more!

[@hackeritalics]

Oooo... I like this. This is magnificent because it seems to "disprove" certain philosophical theories, but mainly it rocks because of how much this gets the mind thinking about consciousness and, by extension what it means to have a soul; really, if consciousness is an individual take on the information you are receiving, how you react to that state of consciousness would likely be what makes up the "soul." For that matter, consciousness on it's own can be the soul, should it be that we perceive the same stimuli differently and react to our consciousness in the same way someone else might, given they experienced the same consciousness. Just my take though. (Which is saying very little, since I am just a lone youtuber and in no way a philosopher or scientitst. lol) ANYWAYS, am I the only one who is happy this didn't end with a sales pitch like 90 percent of tedx stuff does these days. :(

[@defenderoftheadverb]

I don't like "soul". The word has baggage. It carries implications of of a mind separate from a brain and life after death. You need an uncorrupted mundane term. What about "psyche"?

[@firedunebuggy2581]

Ted could call themselves lucky to have a living legend like Searle talk for them. This is like Satré or Feynman giving us a Ted talk! Besides Thomas Nagel & Noam Chomsky thee most famous living philospher of our times.

[@P3dotme]

Computation, or at least machine computation, is not the manipulation of symbols it is the manipulation of physical items, e.g., water, electrons, quantum particles, gears, and so on, to represent symbols or perform processes at varying levels of abstraction. This sounds a lot like brain activity to me. As far as I'm concerned conscience is an extreme level of abstraction, our "understanding" and ability to use computation is complex computation; a manipulation of data.

[@StephanieL180]

Symbol processing requires changes in physical states only because that is required to see any change in the world. But the point of computers is to process symbols, not simply to manipulate matter. The changes in physical states is only a means to an end. Also, he doesn't deny that brains do computation. What he denies is the computationalist view that says that's all that brains do. Searle uses his famous Chinese Room thought experiment to illustrate the difference between syntax and semantics. The computers that we've created can translate Shakespearean sonnets and junk mail into Chinese. They can use dictionaries and grammar rulesets to ensure perfect rendering from one language to another. But they don't have any grasp of the meanings of these texts, despite all the symbol processing they perform.

[@P3dotme]

Stephanie L All our thought is changed into patterns and symbols as well, the only difference is we are our own user. Our grasp on language is simply relationships between experience and labels. This is still a computation...

[@StephanieL180]

P3dotme Again, he doesn't deny that brains do symbol processing - his point is that brains also comprehend meaning, something that computers do not. I know what it is like to hear Mozart. A computer can play Mozart, and it can even analyse it bit by bit in all sorts of sophisticated ways that rely on the processing of information - it still doesn't know what it is like to hear it. It's easy to stretch definitions beyond recognition to suit arguments, but doesn't really result in better understandings. The reality is that there are no forms of computation that have allowed even the most powerful computers to know what it is like to experience something. We're not even close to that, because computation is about symbol processing not experiences, let alone grasping the relationship between experience and lablels.

[@P3dotme]

Stephanie L You give too much credit to the human mind. It doesn't "know" what it's like to experience anything. Its only relationships surrounding datasets. Experience is just data collection. It is computation.

[@StephanieL180]

P3dotme I'm not sure if that's supposed to be comedy. I fear you're falling into some of the traps outlined in this video. You don't know what it's like to experience anything??

[@RhymesofUnison]

I am very Thrilled, listen to him saying, computer program/algorithm is a relative of Consciousness. Games could be a Grand Unified Field of Consciousness. I also feel it is demonstrated in games, that, Unified Consciousness, and observer's Spirit towards joining into that Grand, is very much telling the necessity for the existence of the experience of Grand Consciousness. Without it might be no pain, challenge, no life.

[@123johnbrowne]

ive done both. theyre not the same. lsd 'detaches' the senses so you can smell colors, see sounds, taste words, hear odors, and touch ideas, literally! in fact, you can even have multiple combinations simultaneously. it can be very beautiful or very ugly. but, youre basically an observer without much conscious control. however, when i meditate my awareness and senses 'leave' the body and connect with a greater reality and i have a lot of conscious control over the experience. no bad trips.

[@ambarnag]

I bet Dan Dennett and this guy don't get along so great...

[@DrunkeNsRetroGames]

In the beginning he just states consciousness is a biological phenomenon. From there he is just blathering about consciousness... Actually he is saying nothing. It seems to me he does not even understand the hard problem of consciousness. And this guys calls himself a philosopher?

[@defenderoftheadverb]

He mentioned it. He apparently doesn't believe there is a "hard problem" as many don't. Qualia are just biological sensations. Seems perfectly sensible to me. The people that say otherwise are just looking for something for god to do.

[@defenderoftheadverb]

***** See +raythink below for a model of consciousness that doesn't require a real subjective being.

[@firecloud77]

At 8:45 Mr. Searle says, "Maybe we'll be able to build a conscious machine. *Since we don't know how our brains do it* we're not in a position, so far, to build a conscious machine." Yet at 3:30 he makes the assertion that, *"consciousness is a biological phenomenon* like photosynthesis, digestion, mitosis...." It is intellectually inconsistent to acknowledge that we don't know how our brains create consciousness, and then to turn around and claim what we *know* that consciousness is the product of an exclusively biological phenomenon. Obviously Mr. Searle has summarily dismissed NDE evidence that contradicts his overconfident claim that consciousness is an exclusively biological phenomenon.

[@paulthomann5544]

If there is something more than biology involved in consciousness, we are only going to find out if we investigate the biology of consciousness (I assume you don't doubt that consciousness has at least an intersection with biology). Now, for at least a few decades, scientists were practically unable to pursue research into consciousness, because it meant risking their credibility. So I think suggesting to work on the biology of consciousness is a step in the right direction, no matter where you stand. Your first cite is interesting. It's something I've been saying forever, that we have to understand consciousness before we can ever create it in a machine, if that is even possible or desirable. But when I think about it, it's not that clear. IF consciousness is a product or function or side effect of something that is or can be computed, it could possibly be created by accident. Maybe by something really stupid like cross-breeding computer viruses, or syntactical errors in a hello world program in some crazy programming language, or a completely random flipping of bits in RAM due to solar wind. Like many things in biology, consciousness doesn't necessarily have to be overly complex, by itself, in order to produce the (assumingly) very complex form we are experiencing. I think consciousness is something like life itself, in that you either have it or not, and we have no clue how to synthesize it. We may be able to transform some cell into a being that hasn't existed before, but I'm not aware of anyone creating a cell out of dead proteins that then came to life. Similarly I don't think we'll see artificial consciousness anytime soon. I'd be thrilled to be wrong on both accounts.

[@RossetaStoned91]

firecloud77 The point he's making is that we have enough evidence to reasonably assume that consciousness is somehow a product of physical, biological means. That does not mean we have a firm grip on how this occurs and certainly not enough information to recreate it.

[@firedunebuggy2581]

I think the concept of *causality* is very subtle nuance of inconsistency where he first states that *"consciousness is irreducible"* and then says *"that consciousness is **_c a u s e d_** by the neuron activity."* His example of the states of water was more to the point: *"The state of liquid is not produced by the H2O cells, it is merely a given state of a given ensemble of H2O molecules."* Just like the transistors in our computers only respond to programmed requests , the firing of our brain cells can at best be synchronized with our consciousness. Neither "causes" the other. *_That_* would be the real solution to the hard problem. No supernatural spirit that moves matter, and no theory of matter that reduces an irreducible emperistic feature of reality to nothing.

[@akosikuyzak]

Why can't I change this video back to its normal speed? Any help is appreciated.

[@joshc7865]

Ahh materialism trying to explain consciousness, always makes me chuckle

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

So how much do you chuckle when the explanation rides on magic?

[@marcopony1897]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL so the only possibilities are materialism or magic? What is magic anyway?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@marcopony1897 "so the only possibilities are materialism or magic?" No. Why would you conclude that from my question? At least materialism offers the possibility of an explanation whereas theories that eschew the physical are talking about what exactly?

[@DancingSpiderman]

"...a sequence of moron firings..." lol

[@habibasaleh8226]

love this guy..he is right

[@juanifurlan8977]

15 (apurados) minutos a uno de los filósofos de la mente más importantes e interesantes del siglo pasado...

[@HiteshCeon]

He is right about a lot of things but wrong on his main point. Consciousness is not a biological process in itself. Our human version of consciousness may be DEPENDENT on biological processes in the brain, but the consciousness in itself is not biological, or physical at all. Just as our thoughts are RESULTS of electrical signals in our brain, but the thoughts in themselves are not physical at all when they are observed by our (non-physical) consciousness. As you may visualize an object, an elephant for example, that elephant only exists in your thoughts, in your mind, as your consciousness observes it. The elephant has no physical existence, yes electrons are firing off in the brain resulting in the formation or projection of the thought, but the thought of the elephant is not physical in itself. The brain is a projector which projects thoughts, sensory information, feelings, and other mental activity onto the movie screen of our non physical MIND, which is then observed by the audience which is our non-physical consciousness. From my subjective experience this is absolutely clear. And just to clarify, I am strongly non-religious, my view on this has nothing to do with religion or spirituality.

[@nfcoard]

Perhaps consciousness and the brain are interconnected and that is why the brain affects consciousness. But perhaps consciousness doesn't rely on a brain to exist and continues on after the body dies. It's a possibility that shouldn't be discounted or dismissed if we are to be true scientists.

[@saiyaniam]

What you said doesn't really say anything as far as I understood it. You are saying our brain is like a tv and our "mind" is the person watching it. Consciousness is biological/physical. There is nothing else for it to be. full stop. Consciousness is just the experience of physical reactions. We are a biological machine that analyzes and measures physical reactions. That is the experience of Consciousness. We analyze and measure the world around us, and we analyze and measure ourselfs. It's not an illusion, or magical. As you sit down reading this, hearing the words I've typed in your head, feeling your body, the environment around you. possibly your hand on the keys or the mouse. This is all an analyses, a measurement that your brain is doing. That is the experience of Consciousness. A robot can do the same thing, the only difference is the brain is far more complex than a robot and it's circuitry. You give a robot the ability to analyze at a high level and a body to sense the world, it will most likely feel the same way you do. And have a sense of experiencing the world. It may even ask the same question you're asking now.

[@nfcoard]

saiyaniam No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that consciousness uses the brain and the body as a tool with which to experience life in a certain way. The state of the brain affects our consciousness because consciousness and the brain are interconnected while the body is still alive. Once our brain dies our consciousness withdraws from the brain and body and continues to exist and function just fine. I know you believe what I said isn't the case because you believe consciousness arises out of the physical but what I said is completely possible.

[@saiyaniam]

nfcoard I was replying to hitesh. but what you said is not possible based on the laws of physics. This can be proven in people with brain damage, they become a different person, they lose functions, they forget who they are, their family are, it can be very specific such as forgetting tools but remembering animals. There is no magic in this universe besides the universe it'self. The magic IS the laws of physics. Please don't believe in stuff you've no evidence for.

[@HiteshCeon]

saiyaniam You did not seem to understand what I was saying. I did not say that the brain is a like tv and our mind is the person watching. You do not seem to understand what consciousness is. And I don't say that to offend you, but only because it seems you are talking about something else than consciousness. Consciousness is not our personality, it is not our thoughts, it is not our emotions or other mental activity. Our mind is not our brain. Our mind is not our consciousness. Our mind is projected by the brain and observed by our consciousness. Our consciousness really only does one thing: to observe, or witness or experience. It is the difference between a living being and a dead object. Our brain projects thoughts, images, emotions, sounds, etc into our mind. And our consciousness observes that which happens in our mind. Neither our mind nor our consciousness have any physical existence. But both obviously depend on our physical brain to function in our human existence. A robot or a computer can not have consciousness, no matter how complex and how advanced the virtual intellect may be programmed.

[@PrivateEyeYiYi]

"Conciousness is a biological process." Just what the hell does that mean? I just wasted 15 minutes. That's what I'm conscious of.

[@firecloud77]

PrivateEyeYiYi He's claiming that our consciousness is created exclusively by means of our physical brain (our biology), therefore implying that our consciousness has nothing to do with soul or spirit.

[@PrivateEyeYiYi]

Before you even get to that issue, his "explanation" does nothing at all to shed light on the matter of the experience (for lack of a better word). Another thing, he implies that we're chemical based thingummies. OK, so why do we have so many different reactions to the same thing? We're basically the same, so shouldn't we react alike to the same atimuli? This video is a good example. I havent'read any reactions, but I'll bet they cover a lot of different reactions.

[@superfag1]

PrivateEyeYiYi mathematically, you can look into chaos theory. Psychologically, you can look into conditioning, affirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. Plenty of things can explain why we have different reactions to the same things. Inherent in the idea of consciousness is a presumption of subjectivity, something searle himself admits. You seem to be seeing this rather reductively. Searle holds that concsciousness arises out of biological processes. But that it is incredibly complex. So two people percieving an event differently is not the same as something as simple as say, an acid-base reaction (a chemical process). In fact, to even postulate the existence of a conciousness is to assume subjective reactions to things. think of it like this. Consciousness is architecture. Your consciousness is a house (say a victorian style). I have a conciousness that is different (perhaps a neoclassical style). Right now we know that buildings (consciusness) of many sorts exist. This is not to say that we know how to build them. So he is saying that one day we will be able to understand how to build. But to understand is not to say that all houses are the same. If that makes sense. To understand how consciousness comes into being through biological processes is similar as to understand how to build various types of buildings. It is not to say that any two buildings are the same. In fact, it assumes they are different.

[@StephanieL180]

It means exactly what it says - consciousness is something that happens in particular biological organisms. This might seem like a facile observation, but it needs to be pointed out when you consider the number of people who say consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe like mass/energy or take it for granted that consciousness can be reproduced on other substrates (we'll just copy brain structure with computers and make consciousness!) We *are* 'chemical based thingummies'. We're basically the same and so we do basically think and behave in the same ways. But no one on earth is identical to me. We don't have the same genes, don't have the same educations, diets, exposure to hormones, life experiences, etc and it's from these differences that you see some diversity in cognition and behaviour.

[@PrivateEyeYiYi]

alex robinson This explantion, like the "architecture" one that precedes it, are good analogies for someone looking at a process from an objective perspective. It's fine to suggest that diffferent genes combined with different experience produce unique inner states that represent different experiences. But they do nothing to explain the subjective experience. Pointing to unique genes/experieces (or architecture, to use that metaphor) goes only so far. Consciousness is a process that people undergo; sure, I get that. But that doesn't shed any light on the thing we refer to as experience. For instance, a person can say, "I feel pain...." But what does it mean to be "I" or to "feel"? Is language part of the problem? Some have suggested that "I' is just a construct that doesn't really exist (an illusion in some mystic philosophies). It's not someting I believe, I'm just pointing it out. At least, I don't think people who are in pain are experiencing illusion. Nor do I think "experience" is any kind of chemical/biological thingummie. But thats just me. You may be made up of a different gene/experience construct.

[@Jester123ish]

Yep, couldn't agree more. It leads to the same confusion as in seeking an understanding of visual perception and instead finding a theory of optics.

[@justbede]

A question: is "consciousness" for you a "thing", a depository of perceptions or a place were perceptions occur? Or is it just. A fight of speech meaning I am conscious. Another: what is the difference between seeing and seeing consciously?

[@inquisitorwhitemane9722]

this guy is even more full of himself than reading his work suggests...the only thing he does is claim all criticism of his suggestions is nonsense and everyone is too stupid to understand his reasoning. i, too, think that consciousness is a biological phenomenon (in our case) but that is only the very first step in a long chain of arguments that needs to follow. on its own, the only good that assertion does is discredit the concept of soul, but it does not actually explain how consciousness works, why it exists, why we have it, if animals have it, if other biological agents could have it, if machines could have it and a plethora of other ones.

[@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude]

wow nice ....

[@neddorsly962]

He should start jogging every day and lose that spare tire. I love searle that's why I'm saying that. He can't even breathe for Christ's sake. and he looks his body is sitting down while standing. Like spends all his life sitting down in a chair writing and reading. I just want him to be healthy.

[@BareknuckleBill]

ned dorsly He's 82... If a guy who never did care much about sports starts running in this age, chances are pretty high that he'll get a heart attack.

[@666FLiP666]

ned dorsly He's doing the talk epic fast to cram everything in for everyone :)

[@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude]

he is not healthy but unhealthically toxic body

[@TheGadock]

Ok so I might be a few years late, but it's still a very interesting concept. I am not sure how much of this I truly understood but I certainly have a few doubts. He says he raises his arm because he damn wants to, but couldn't that be explained by the extreme long chain of cause and reaction, and isn't this very close to free will? Does he mean he freely choose to raise his arm because he's conscious of it or did he raise his arm to tell a point because previously he learned he has to give a reason et. et. (illusion of free will). I still don't really know what consciousness is though, besides that it should be part of biology, but why isn't it possible for a computer to be conscious? At what point does our brain physically differ to a computer, when the computers are enough advanced? Is there more to our brain than physically explainable and doesn't that go to the reasoning he tried to avoid? And if there isn't, any wouldn't it be computable?

[@phy29]

How do you explain the arrow in my heart if heart cannot think like the brain ....

[@buffgarfield5250]

what the hell is a higher level property? calling consciousness or liquidity a "higher level property" doesn't explain anything

[@hosseinkarimi2676]

Not correct . i prefer views like Roger penrose & stuart hameroff view .

[@BareknuckleBill]

Hossein Karimi Very interesting indeed, but surely a lot more speculative and questionable than Searles view.

[@ptricky15]

I don’t think so. Both make a leap. Emergence from computation is not well supported. Arguing that it makes perfect sense based on really weak analogies is not good evidence. As Hameroff would tell you, a paramecium exhibits more intentionality with zero neurons than the latest iPhone with what, in some ways, is greater computation ability than me.

[@OMgnosis]

Stellar objects* Consciousness from Mr. Searle's level of understanding, obviously recognizes it would not be a biological phenomenon if, stressors in nature were not generating it, and does it have implications in our species evolution?

[@akeemjames2409]

With the varying degrees of science targeting this question of Consciousness or "Hard Problem". I sense there is no one defining underlying theory of consciousness, it can be observed from numerous doctrines from philosophy to neuroscience, quantum physics and biology. Many scientists take pride in establishing a theory to combat the hard problem, but it seems it falls short due to the lack of understanding consciousness from an outside perspective. For instance in professional sports you can analyze the aspect of being a champion and how it is through the respective different sports, but the idea or even actuality of being a champion can be percieved from numerous angles. A basketball player can explain the feeling and perception of being a champion though it changes with each sport (even though we are only talking about being a champion). Such sports like Tennis will see it completely different even in the same sport or position. My argument is not meant to challenge the idea he sets forth is it to challenge the way he believes you can interpret it (consciousness). We also have to take into account the subjective experience of consciousness and how we all exist within it. My conscious experience will vastly differ from anyone else's though we can share the same fundamental components, it would still be wise to acknowledge the immense differences.

[@indianmilitary]

Opening comment "Consciousness" our (west) philosophical culture - LOL Since when??? Consciousness philosophy was discovered by ancient Hindu sage of India - Adi-shankara from Vedas. Consciousness philosophy was the philosophy of the world until 5000 BC and it was the philosophy of India (then hindu civilization) until 16th century AD or until colonialists sneaked into India. Before 5000 BC there was no "white race". Modern day Europeans (including other Anglo-Saxon countries) descended from Hindu/vedic people of India who migrated to other parts of the world before 5000 BC.

[@studentofspacetime]

Interesting. This guy is on the right track on many things, but still makes the fundamental materialistic mistake. He takes objective reality for granted. He doesn't at all realise that simply talking about neurons firing and neurotransmitters travelling through synaptic space isn't and will never be an explanation of consciousness. It's merely a statement about correlations between biological phenomena and self-reported first person experiences. Some psychologist once said, it's like saying that by rubbing Aladdin's lamp the genie comes out. You've explained the correlation, but you haven't explained the causation at all.

[@cyrilpeter4973]

Please tell them , its wrong to see an old man making false assumptions

[@lenn939]

Someone’s report about their “first-person state” can be explained entirely in physical terms, correct?

[@leoashmountain3060]

Well, but his point is fair, isn't it. Why don't we apply that same logic when we talk about water molecules. For that case we clearly say that the pattern of the molecules causes the water to be liquid or solid(ice) etc. We wouldn't say it is simply a correlation. I feel like the genie thing exactly points to the fact that we just don't know the details yet and people therefore feel it's a wondrous thing, and that there must be more to it then. If you think of consciousness and conscious states as a spectrum of all sorts of half-conscious, just a tiny bit conscious (animals in their different varieties and hoe it came to be) and not a switch that can be turned on and off (as we experience it daily) then I think this gap filled with unexplicable wonder vanishes a bit.

[@leoashmountain3060]

To add a thing: we probably wouldn't say the molecular arrangement of the water molecules causes the water to be solid or liquid etc. He wouldn't say that as well, I think. His point is that these are just different descriptions on different levels of one and the same thing. A molecular one and a higher level feature description. And somehow we have a huge problem with this one case in nature where one description is based on a subjective experience of the thing and one is not.

[@lenn939]

@Leonie Ascheberg If you accept the concept of qualia then you can never be a consistent materialist. The “hard problem” is systematically unsolvable by design and yet relatively easy to infest people’s heads with. That’s exactly what makes it such a successful meme in philosophy and, increasingly, in popular culture. However, once you realize that qualia can’t possibly have any measurable effect whatsoever (since physics is already causally closed), including on your propensity to discuss and profess belief in qualia, the initial semi-intuitive appeal of the hard problem should fade.

[@doroteadejanovic]

How is this not a TED talk.

[@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude]

it was a professor/teacher lecture .... not a discussion like he was only talking to himself but it was great

[@PatrickAndrewsMacphee]

I have massive respect for Searle's bulletproof intellect and his crystal clear expression. BUT consciousness IN the brain? The brain (and its neurons etc) is embedded IN our conscious experience. I'm not at all convinced that the *sensation* I have when I stare at eg a video of my brain (ie the part of my conscious experience I call 'my brain') is reacting with a real world and CAUSING all my other experiences.

[@PatrickAndrewsMacphee]

Ok. So when we look at these neurons firing, they are causing the mental image we have of neurons firing? I'm just not happy with the idea of things which cause themselves.

[@PatrickAndrewsMacphee]

When I look at my own visual neurons (say on the screen of some yet to be invented, but possible, realtime scanner)... if neurons cause visual experience(consciousness) then what I'm looking at is indeed causing what I'm looking at.

[@eltouristoduo]

hmm. All of this is, i think, not the best way to approach trying to define consciousness. I think it better to focus on cognition. What you do with that input, or rather, the state that does something with the input, not the input itself. While sensation has a relevance to consciousness. You don't need sensory input to be conscious. That's one of the main differences between dreaming and experiencing the external world while awake: dreaming has no input. You can be a brain in a jar that used to be in a body, and the last thing you remember is being told you were going to have your brain removed. Then your brain takes that last memory..all the sights and sound of that last room and person..at you have that awareness to 'replay' for a while. That's what I meant by you can still be conscious. And then all of your memories, and imagination go about living a life of dreams only...Or so I suppose in an over-simplified hypothesis. Perhaps you would still have awake time and go to sleep if properly sophisticated life-support was provided. When awake you might have daydreams that are more 'real'. When asleep, various states of sleep including dream states. Okay that was me dreaming lol. Dreaming is a state of consciousness, because it's sufficiently the same thing just without thing input/output. You can, I think, do something akin to dreaming awake by using an isolation tank.

[@Nils3OWN]

Patrick Andrews No, that still doesn't prove anything. Look up the idea of a Boltzman brain. In such a universe it is basically infinitely more likely we are just a brain existing alone and that every single piece of sensory input is just a random force of nature. Everything we see, hear, feel etc would also be a construct of this illusory life. Even you reading this comment would be some random physical reaction, causing you to see exactly this, even though in that case you would be a brain floating in empty space on its own.

[@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude]

@@PatrickAndrewsMacphee when we were a kid, we were not conscious, yes? then how much slowly we become conscious over time, yes? so if conscious was not brain making, we were making brain conscious not brain was causing us to become conscious, yes?

[@omegapointil5741]

So there are no mysteries for Searle. Only because he's not asking the right questions. Archie Bunker would agree with his perspectives. He should have worn suspenders so he could put his thumbs in them for the whole talk.

[@raman2072]

Consciousness is a certain pattern of mathematical arrangement of molecules (perhaps in the brain, but could be in the gut too!) which process information and the "processed information" then feels itself .

[@RossetaStoned91]

Fantastic speaker

[@heyokaspirit]

this is just babble. he makes multiple assertions of "facts" that have never been proven, but are merely assumptions that western science had blindly accepted, therefore those assumptions APPEAR to us as factual.

[@mouwersor]

And what is your scientific theory, not based on any assumptions?

[@whathappenedtomyyoutubehandle]

@@mouwersor impossible🙃

[@Garland41]

I have read two of his books, Speech Acts and The Social Construction of Reality, while I have enjoyed both, he does not do a great job of expressing arguments in this video, like all videos on Philosophy, and I do not like this video. It does not provide a good light for Philosophy.

[@MrNightLifeLover]

I wonder if there is some good literature about the point made at 11:20 that consciousness cannot be a computer program.

[@Sardonac]

He said that he wrote about it, so it may be worth looking through his CV for his articles on it.

[@thestopper5165]

Very unimpressed with "If you think you're conscious, you're conscious" at 7:40 -ish If I write a script that makes my computer answer any question about consciousness with the statement "I am conscious", that does not make the computer conscious - even if I make it run around doing a bunch of checksums (all of which result in validating that "I am conscious" is correct). If a much more complex hardware/software mix - say Siri - reaches the conclusion that it is conscious, then it's entirely likely that conclusion is wrong. The silly showmanship hand-waving wasn't the only hand-waving in this talk: if the ECU on my car can make a decision based on sensor information, and, despite being just a bunch of code, can set in train actions that 'affect the physical world', does that make it conscious? No, it doesn't. I was hoping to find at least some pointers toward a decent argument in favour of the non-illusion of consciousness (it's something I"m grappling with at present), but thus far the arguments for non-illusory consciousness are all quite obviously driven by the deep desire of the speakers not to accept that they are stimulus-responding learning automata.

[@DianaTheWarrior]

+Geoffrey Transom I'm pretty sure what he meant is that "if you think you're conscious it proves TO YOURSELF that you're conscious." It's impossible to prove it to anyone else, as to my knowledge there is no way to beyond any doubt disprove the concept of solipsism.

[@thestopper5165]

+Diana the Warrior I think you're absolutely right about the impossibility of proving that our internal 'sense' of consciousness (and of self) is real - although I think there are hints that point towards it being false... mostly because our stored representation of the world is a mutable sketch, and our memories can change due to influences that happen after the event. If the 'data' upon which a personality is based are both inaccurate and volatile, it seems very likely to me that any self-referential processing of that data will also be biased or wrong. 'Garbage in, garbage out', in other words. That still doesn't mean that there's no such thing as consciousness, but it does mean that it might just be 'important trivia' in the same that dreams are: dreams seem to be a bunch of random activity that the brain tries to shoehorn into an interpretable narrative. Dreams seem to happen because the brain's bioelectrical mechanism - which is already 'noisy' in the signal-processing sense of the word - is relatively noisier when one is asleep. My personal guess is that perhaps the nightly 'washing' of the brain by cerebrospinal fluid - something we only discovered a few years ago - contributes to the additional noise. Dreams - and inaccurate self-reference - might be thought to provide 'insight' or 'inspiration', but how that differs from a random exogenous stimulus is anybody's guess. Leaving aside my amateur speculations, and going back to Searle's argument... Searle was making a far more adamant declarative statement than the one you have ascribed to him (you're being too gentle). If his statement was the one you wrote, then it reduces to a purely circular argument ... i.e., "If you believe you're conscious, then you believe you're conscious" - which is hardly the 'Gotcha!' he was presenting it to be. The difference is important: "If a mother believes her child is above average, then her child *is* above average" is quite different to "If a mother believes her child is above average, then *she believes* her child is above average". The first is a declarative statement of a putative fact. The second is a circular statement about a subjective belief. When applied to a _specific_ mother and child, the first statement has an expected truth value of 1/2 (if ability is distributed symmetrically around the average, half of the time the statement is false), and universally applied it has a truth value of 0. The second statement has a truth value of 1, both in the specific case and generally. Not that any of it matters, in the long run... perhaps Nick Bostrom is right and this is all a simulation (logic says that's the most likely state of nature), and perhaps Ray Kurzweil is right and we will all become hyper-intelligent AI, doing our processing in non-biological substrates with a much higher signal-to-noise ratio. I want Bostrom to be wrong and Kurzweil to be right, but I don't get a determinative opinion... In the same way, I might want the state of nature to be one in which I am conscious, have a self, and have free will - but everything I know points to all three of those things being untrue (the last two - self and free will - are false with near-certainty).

[@MadDeuceJuice]

+Geoffrey Transom the problem is our brains don't operate the same way as a computer program. I feel that I'm conscious I don't come to that conclusion through any sort of logical sequence of deductive reasoning.

[@thestopper5165]

MadDeuceJuice that seems to me to be a variant of the 'Deus Ex Machina' argument, or the argument I hear all the time from religious people... "I just *feel* like there must be a God". Perhaps I 'feel' like I am conscious because some part of my brain over which I have no direct control decides to push that 'feeling' into the thought processes of which I am aware (i.e., the processes that provide 'output' to the part of my brain involved in deliberate mental effort). Perhaps I feel like I am conscious simply because we are all told, endlessly, that we are conscious. Also, there seems to be some real definitional issues regarding what we define as 'conscious'... it seems, when it's all boiled down, to mean "awake and receiving/processing inputs from senses" (because you can be asleep and receiving inputs from your senses, but you're not conscious; if you're awake and NOT receiving/processing inputs from your senses that qualifies as a vegetative state). But then the hand-waving starts, and there is some sense in which 'conscious' is conflated with 'self-aware' or 'reflective' or something of that nature... and the 'self-aware' bit is the problematic bit, since we are only aware of a fraction of our thought process (and an even smaller fraction of our physical processes - how many people know what's going on in their gall bladder at the moment, let alone their cingulate gyrus?). In the end, "I feel like I am conscious, therefore there is such a thing as consciousness" has the same evidentiary value as "I feel scared when it's dark, therefore there is something in the ark of which I should be scared". I don't want to pretend that it's easy to accept that consciousness, free will, and 'personality' are all illusory - or more accurately, that they are useful fictions that our [non-conscious] brains make us believe in order for us to pursue actions in the world that further the goals of our [non-conscious] goal-seeking processes. In other words, we are propagandised by our own brains, to believe that we are doing things for our conscious-level objectives... when in fact the underlying objective originates in part of the brain over which we have no control. There are a number of 'syndromes' where people will make up bizarre excuses for why they do things, when the actual cause is known to literally everyone in the world except themselves - for example somatoparaphrenia/hemispatial neglect, and the Capgras, Cotard and Fregoli delusions. Our brains can fool us - and folks like me are persuaded that our brains fool us all the time.

[@thestopper5165]

MadDeuceJuice  that seems to me to be a variant of the 'Deus Ex Machina' argument, or the argument I hear all the time from religious people... "I just *feel* like there must be a God". Perhaps I 'feel' like I am conscious because some part of my brain over which I have no direct control decides to push that 'feeling' into the thought processes of which I am aware (i.e., the processes that provide 'output' to the part of my brain involved in deliberate mental effort). Perhaps I feel like I am conscious simply because we are all told, endlessly, that we are conscious. Also, there seems to be some real definitional issues regarding what we define as 'conscious'... it seems, when it's all boiled down, to mean "awake and receiving/processing inputs from senses" (because you can be asleep and receiving inputs from your senses, but you're not conscious; if you're awake and NOT receiving/processing inputs from your senses that qualifies as a vegetative state). But then the hand-waving starts, and there is some sense in which 'conscious' is conflated with 'self-aware' or 'reflective' or something of that nature... and the 'self-aware' bit is the problematic bit, since we are only aware of a fraction of our thought process (and an even smaller fraction of our physical processes - how many people know what's going on in their gall bladder at the moment, let alone their cingulate gyrus?). In the end, "I feel like I am conscious, therefore there is such a thing as consciousness" has the same evidentiary value as "I feel scared when it's dark, therefore there is something in the ark of which I should be scared". I don't want to pretend that it's easy to accept that consciousness, free will, and 'personality' are all illusory - or more accurately, that they are useful fictions that our [non-conscious] brains make us believe in order for us to pursue actions in the world that further the goals of our [non-conscious] goal-seeking processes. In other words, we are propagandised by our own brains, to believe that we are doing things for our conscious-level objectives... when in fact the underlying objective originates in part of the brain over which we have no control. There are a number of 'syndromes' where people will make up bizarre excuses for why they do things, when the actual cause is known to literally everyone in the world except themselves - for example somatoparaphrenia/hemispatial neglect, and the Capgras, Cotard and Fregoli delusions. Our brains can fool us - and folks like me are persuaded that our brains fool us all the time.

[@djacob7]

He's trying to sell consciousness like preachers try to sell god.

[@michaelreasonata3105]

I don't think he's trying to sell anything, rather just describe some abstract truths.

[@djacob7]

michael Reasonata He's too sure about the existence of consciousness.

[@koffeeblack5717]

Dan Jacob What could we be more sure of?

[@djacob7]

Koffee Black That we have souls.

[@heysatan8]

Dan Jacob He said consciousness belongs to the soul, it's a spiritual thing. Did you not listen?

[@KirkbyBlues]

I would say that consciousness cannot make a mistake, since it is simply the awareness of whatever is in your field of attention. Your thinking mind can make mistakes. As to what is in your consciousness, only you can answer that. Are you consciously aware of the letters? Or just the general shape of the word they make? Or the sound in your head? Any or all, possibly. And it's likely to change from one instant to the next.

[@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude]

you may be right : I would say that consciousness cannot make a mistake since it is simply the awareness of whatever is in your field of attention.

[@zagyex]

I really thought the chinese room was an amazing experiment,, but this guy is actually lot smarter than I knew. wow!

[@TheVariableConstant]

People clapping are either ignorant or just socially polite. This man has said nothing relevant. I am surprised so many think he is a revolutionary and modern day philosopher...Plato would be ashamed.

[@mailoisback]

Read his book The Mystery of Consciousness and maybe then you will understand what is this all about.

[@firedunebuggy2581]

Then why don't you say something relevant?

[@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude]

@@mailoisback what it says ?

[@Eduardude]

Pseudo explanations of consciousness.

[@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude]

you are right there was no science at all in this video .... science is measurement not just joke/claim

[@pillettadoinswartsh4974]

Consciousness studies, at institutes of higher learning, used to be deemed "career-killers," outside of philosophy departments. Then a few smart scientists found ways to get funding, and keep their positions, by coming up with experiments which would break that ice. "Brain-stabbers," as Dr. Earle calls them. And, we've come an admirable distance, in a very short time. Consciousness studies can also be a natural bridge between many different disciplines. "Space............the final frontier." Nope. Consciousness is..................

[@mattfaw]

Yes, I think that what part of the brain that is being used has a lot to do with how we think, because the sensory brain "thinks" differently than the executive dlPFC, or the left hemisphere language part. But I don't think that's what consciousness is. I think consciousness is just a representation of what happened prior to it, in the various modules. It only appears unitary, because it is the memory of what came before.