Galen Strawson - How Brain Makes Mind?

What must the brain do to generate the mind? The mind consists of sensations, thoughts, cogitations, intentions, feelings-the felt inner experiences that constitute what we are. How are these capacities or mental qualities produced by the three pounds of warm wet tissues in our skulls? This is science's toughest problem.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on the hard problem of consciousness: bit.ly/374RMTl
Galen Strawson holds the President's Chair in Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin's College of Liberal Arts. He studied at the University of Cambridge before receiving his BPhil and DPhil in philosophy from the University of Oxford.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@dabonemarrow5337]

Tough question!! Very smart man!! Thanks

[@themathsprofessor6962]

One of the very best!

[@JamyRyals]

Excellent back and forth on this interview!

[@thehistoryprof6750]

The more I learn or think I learn the more I'm convinced of my abundant ignorance. Based on human history and scientific growth I don't believe in the supernatural either, but I remain agnostic, not an atheist...this is the most intellectually honest position for me and leaves me endless opportunity to consider other positions as science replaces better science supplemented with growth in every other discipline. Love this whole series. Thank you.

[@andrewphillips6783]

No one is forcing you to make up your mind

[@havenbastion]

There are infinite potentially real things and if you want to be intellectually honest you cannot be agnostic about them. Until there is replicable evidence for anything claimed to have real world effects it is indistinguishable from fiction and the opportunity cost of giving it credence is always too high. Also, anecdote only counts as evidence for things inside people's minds.

[@sondre5174]

@@havenbastion "Also, anecdote only counts as evidence for things inside people's minds." Literally all "evidence" is in people's minds. It's a human concept.

[@havenbastion]

@@sondre5174 Evidence exists in your own mind. Anecdote exists in someone else's. You can take it as evidence or not but in the absence of material correlation it's indistinguishable from fiction.

[@terryboland3816]

@@havenbastion ALWAYS too high? What's the opportunity cost of believing in God but not spending any time eg going to church or reading the Bible?

[@buckaroo3589]

Great video. Time for my nap, so my brain can stay current with the latest software updates. I'm always hoping for a big update, similar to the "seeing blue" update that came out after "wine dark sea" was the thing.

[@dr.satishsharma1362]

Excellent... thanks 🙏.

[@BenStowell]

Love Strawson 🥰 (both of them!)

[@TheTroofSayer]

Much the same question was asked of Christof Koch, a couple of days ago: What do brains do? I know what they don't do... they don't compute, they're not computers. Every neural-plastic brain does exactly what every human-plastic city does. Just as a modern city self-organizes into its functional specialisations, so too, does a brain. In a modern city, the mechanism that connects all the experiences of every human is the telecommunications network (internet, tv, media, etc). This network, in effect, provides every human with IMMEDIATE access to collective knowledge, and based on that knowledge, we structure our lives, we form into our divisions of labor, and self-organize into the city's functional specializations. And this provides the city with city-level "thoughts" (fashion, values, traditions, language, technology, armies, etc) that enable the city to function as if it were an agent making its own choices. Just as every city-dwelling human's life is characterized by the motivations, associations and habits that define their being (CS Peirce), so too, is every brain-dwelling neuron's life (see Erik Kandel's research on Aplysia and associative learning). Neurons (and glia) have activity specializations just as humans have career/life/gender specializations. Some neurons in the visual cortex specialize in movement detection, others in vertical/horizontal distinctions, others in color recognition, etc. And it is the collective neurons (brain) that integrates all these specialized experiences into the collective context, or meaning. For this, my conjecture is that DNA entanglement is essential (correlations between separated neural networks have been experimentally demonstrated, e.g., Pizzi et al, 2004, "Nonlocal correlations between separated neural networks"). The brain is NOT a computer, nothing like one. The computer metaphor provides no solution that might shed light on the nature of consciousness. Our brain-city metaphor, however, provides solutions to: the mind-body problem, the binding problem, the entropy problem. Bodies (the experiences intercepted by bodies) wire neuroplastic brains (Norman Doidge was a pioneer of this insight). In principle, none of this should be new to many of us - systems theory, autopoiesis, complex adaptive systems, etc, we've heard it all before. What is different this time, however, is the suggestion that meaning (semiotics) is the driver, not emergence in the material-mathematical sense. Motivation, association and habituation relate to the semiotics of Charles Sanders Peirce and the biosemiotics of Jakob von Uexküll.

[@simonlopes4301]

I love how we can assign some sort of proto consciousness to our cities, but in the same way that my cells haven't the slightest understanding of my feelings or motivations, so do we have no understanding of what motivates these cities, or ultimately humanity's consciousness. What does humanity want? And does that benefit humans?

[@mrbwatson8081]

With all due respect a city does not have qualitative experience, you can not say there is an experience like to be a city. That is the elephant in the room you can never explain. Why do we experience? What is experience? Your brain may have similarities to a city but can you say a city experiences…? We have senses eyes ears nose mouth etc so does an airplane ✈️ . Our senses present themselves to us as an experience of perception. Why don’t the multitude of sense apparatus on an airplane ✈️ come with experience? Can you say the plane is experiencing its sensory measurements like we do? Why our measurements (ears eyes nose 👄) entail experience? Does a camera experience taking a picture? Does a calculator experience the calculations? Why would a “physical process” generate, entail, be accompanied by, experience..? What is experience?

[@puhbrox]

More like the doofsayer

[@simonlopes4301]

@@mrbwatson8081 it is a stretch to equate the human experience to that of a city, but in the same ways our cells haven't the faintest concept of our experience, so do we not understand what it feels like to be a city. The emergent properies of a city are very different from the engineering of an airplane, or the clean stream of bits in a calculator.

[@mrbwatson8081]

@@simonlopes4301 with all due respect, are you really saying there is something like to be a city…? Is there an experience of being London ? Is there an experience being Paris ?

[@MrSanford65]

I think if consciousness is purely material that would mean that all abstractions are material also. So time would have to be a physical thing in order to make an imprint on a physical brain for the purposes of memory . And also the fact that we are aware of our brains, aware of the malfunctioning of our brains -tells us that awareness is outside of the brain looking in

[@asecretturning]

No, no, and not at all 🤭

[@danielmcgregor8803]

Donza, you hit the nail square on with that last sentence.

[@simonlopes4301]

We are not aware of the malfunctioning of our brain. This is why illusions work, and also why crazy ppl exist. The brain is extremely proud and would rather convince something is real that admit it can't categorise it.

[@firstal3799]

Not necessarily

[@kehindesalako2168]

I am a dualist but Glen's position is interesting!

[@ReynaSingh]

I think the only reasonable assertion when it comes to consciousness is to accept that we don’t know

[@evanjameson5437]

yes--and it would take a indisputable verification by an appearance of God or verification by Aliens that they have similar feellings about spirituality and God as we do, to come up with a final theory...

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Guys Not shows Science evidence concern conscieness it emerges hedoesnt knows brains system

[@albert6157]

I think just like the border between quantum physics and classical physics, where we have no idea how it works (quantum particles) but they led to the creation of our classical world. Then again we can explain and find the link eventually. The same with the brain and mind, it is correlated, and can be explained but itll take a very very long time. Itll be a very big breakthrough. But it will happen eventually.

[@jms4406]

When I just changed out an axle yesterday nature seemed to reveal itself as I contemplated a surgeon changing out someone's hip socket. I know the car was engineered. You would never settle on the idea that it just is.

[@andreasplosky8516]

@@jms4406 "When I just took my car apart and changed out an axle yesterday. It seemed really revealing as I contemplated a surgeon changing out someone's hip socket while I worked on my car that I know the car was engineered. You would never settle on the idea that it just is." Wow, that must be the most repeated and debunked example of creationistic fallacious fantasy on the planet. It is as if creationists never learn.

[@mr.spinoza]

The amount of reused clips this channel posts is disappointing. I've seen this exact interview many times, years ago.

[@carolforbes1559]

The spark of life?

[@wthomas7955]

Right on. I think he nailed it.

[@sebastianverney7851]

It’s natural to watch the person speaking (Galen Strawson) as he's speaking, rather than having to watch someone else (Robert Lawrence Kuhn) listening to the person speaking. Director Peter Getzels could learn a lot from John Freeman's interviews in Face to Face. We never see Freeman, which is part of what makes the interviews so good.

[@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523]

Good questions of Robert, he always exposes people like this that have no idea of neuroscience and arrogantly talk about something they know nothing

[@cdb5001]

Robert himself is an agnostic and admits that the neuroscience has never explained the mind. He's truly in the middle. He admits materialism isn't enough of an explanation while also being skeptical but willing to listen to metaphysical arguments.

[@pattipotvine1073]

The human mind is capable of perceiving what it cannot see. Suppose the "mind" actually occurs in an alternate dimension, (which does not mean universe). That the human brain is a three dimensional object that actually exists in four dimensions. Which would explain things like "collective" learning. Suppose we all consciously exist in that dimension as individuals just as we do in our 3D universe, that we can all interact in that dimension but are not yet consciously aware of each other there. Suppose that people who hear voices in their heads are better at perceiving the consciousness of others in that alternative dimension. Suppose what we think are ghosts are actually interactions with another's consciousness. Suppose we haven't considered that we can "see" other dimensions through consciousness. Suppose. Think about it.

[@kos-mos1127]

The mind is capable of imagining what other realities would be like. We are not seeing new dimensions through consciousness.

[@pattipotvine1073]

@@kos-mos1127 How open-minded of you. Glad you could give it some serious thought. However, your rebuttal seems to be lacking.

[@havenbastion]

Any scale upon which something can be measured is equivalent to a dimension. Spacial dimensions require a spacial mechanism by which they can change. To posit a connection between the three we understand a mechanism for and any other requires a way they connect and communicate in order to be a serious idea. This is why all versions of woo are indistinguishable from fiction - they all require imaginary forces that cannot be found or verified, and for which our currently complete understanding of the forces we deal with in our ordinary lives is sufficient.

[@pattipotvine1073]

@@havenbastion thanks for the semantics lesson. I think you know what I meant by "dimension". As for those unverified connections I can point out that we live in what is accepted as a "three dimensional environment" without yet knowing what connects them. In fact, if we figured out the connection we could learn to separate them too. Any ideas on the connection?

[@havenbastion]

@@pattipotvine1073 Looking at Star Trek's coordinate system, which only uses two dimensions to represent any place in space as we know it, and our typical square grid system, and a polar grid system of some kind, and fractals, and holograms,... after all that, i think the answer is simply our embodiment. Left-right is obviously relative to our eyes and ears. Forward and backward is relative to the direction we're facing, and up and down is toward or away from our head, where our primary senses reside and is accepted by most as the seat of consciousness. In other words, three dimensions is the simplest way to accommodate the most relevant spacial relations to our experience itself.

[@MrSimonduan]

Agree totally that the most parsimonious, elegant and simple theory has to take consciousness as fundamental.

[@jackarmstrong5645]

Except that it can't be done with an evolving organism. All an organism can evolve are mechanisms that REACT to external stimulation. They have no sensory mechanisms that understand anything about the stimulation. Making an experience from the stimulation is an evolved reaction. All color is derived from information about the transition of retinal from trans to cis in the cells of the eye. Transforming retinal from trans to cis is not color or information about color. Color is something brains create whole. Nothing in the world is colored. Color is only a subjective experience. The phenomena of subjective experience is an evolved phenomena.

[@MrSimonduan]

@@jackarmstrong5645 you don't need eyes to experience colour, for instance in your dream.

[@jackarmstrong5645]

@@MrSimonduan Yes. Color is all internal.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@MrSimonduan good point. I have lucid dreams and I see everything in ultra lucid detail, colours, sounds, I have even met people who had died and they had conversations with me. All of this during a period of "unconsciousness".

[@jackarmstrong5645]

@@Dion_Mustard Since the mechanisms that create color are all internal it is theoretically possible to experience color even if you are born blind and have never "seen" color. But for a sighted person once color has been experienced it can be imagined. Can you experience a color you've never "seen"?

[@ErandaGinige]

Thank you for these stimulating conversations. Please allow me to add some thoughts. You can approach this question by asking "Why" does the "mind" exist? A human being is a collection of cells. Whatever we do we do it for the existence of cells. We eat because the cells need food. We build homes because the cells need protection. You get the point. But in order for the cells to exist they need to assemble as the human body. And the body needs to function in such a way that the cells can exist. That function itself is the mind or the consciousness or the soul or whatever you want to call it. I used the cellular level so that it's easy to understand. But you can go deeper and look at this as how the sub cellular chemicals need to exist. And then the atoms need to exist, And then the subatomic particles need to exist. And you can go even lower and come to existence duality and then nothingness. At which level existence and non-existence becomes the same. I hope this make some sense. This is one of the fundamental teachings of Theravada Buddhism. There is no "I", just a process of existence.

[@michaelanderson4849]

May I ask what empirical support you have for the claim that "...you can go lower and come to existence duality and then nothingness. At which level existence and non-existence become the same."? I'm asking because I have never seen any support for this.

[@xtaticsr2041]

Did you even watch the video?

[@bananabreadman55]

i don't understand that last point. how can existence and non existence be the same thing? It seems like you're trying to sound deep, this is why panpsychism gets a bad rep because it's associated with woo crap like this

[@Nature_Consciousness]

​@@michaelanderson4849Empirical support implies causal relations, he is talking beyond causality, so your argument doesnt make sense.

[@Nature_Consciousness]

​@@bananabreadman55isnt "woo woo crap" the whole appeal of methaphysics and search for truth? Why things cant be Crazy? The fact that you exist is already Crazy and "woo woo crap" should be completely taken seriously since otherwise we fall into an ignorant dogmatism.

[@firstal3799]

Hard problem works both ways

[@tunahelpa5433]

Everything is conscious, but only humans have the ability to tell us so

[@pinaky_AnVikSiki]

Its just biological mechanism or its really have another dimension or multi dimensional co operation ? Still not clear.. quantum way we r all same with different transformation in same field..

[@havenbastion]

Brain does not make mind. They cannot be separated. Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain.

[@MrMolinari]

How hardware makes software?

[@jshdhdyjfjdjfhfyyene731]

The more goes into the ras of Bhakti the more one is able to relate with the Bhagavad Gita in reverse (from chapter 18 to 1) with the conclusion that the question to be answered is the hard problem of matter

[@N1NJ4B345T]

This is a great topic. Personally I feel identity theory is correct but missing some key info, namely how quantum mechanical interactions may be involved in the process. If phenomenal experiences are linked to brain activity and the firing of neurons, the theory would be incomplete without any account of electromagnetic processes involved in the firing of neurons, since these are electrical impulses. Bascially the theory is incomplete until we look deeper than biology and look instead to that scale at which biology meets with the rest of the physical world.

[@moesypittounikos]

How about dreams? A dream makes the objects. I can be a brain surgeon in a dream scenario operating on a brain. The dream can be called mind, the brain a meaty object in the dream. In our world mind makes the brain, right? The writings of Bernardo explain this idealistic point of view very well.

[@tschorsch]

No, as brains evolved, minds too. Mind cannot create brain, they're two ways of looking at the same thing.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Feelings and emotions are the qualia of conscious experience, as physical matter has the quantities of science?

[@pattipotvine1073]

What of intelligence?

[@aclearlight]

A truly wonderful discourse! I do continue to wonder how anyone who has made a serious study the data pertaining to remote viewing or modern, prolonged near-death experiences can come out the other side still convinced of a pure physicalist view on the subject of consciousness or subjective experience; "space", "time", and "explain" are indeed all fraught words.

[@havenbastion]

If remote viewing, for instance, or any other variety of woo, were real, a government would possess that power and use it, and we'd live in a completely different world where the woo-force was undeniable. Any "real" woo would have major effects on every part of daily human life, especially economics and war.

[@aclearlight]

@@havenbastion It is clear that you have not conducted anything like an open-minded investigation. If you are to any degree brave and curious, I can give you some quality entry points into serious literature proving your assertion wrong, or at the very least forcing you to recognize the extent of your bias. The gov't HAS used RV, strategically, over many years and budget cycles. Smugly calling something "woo" does not make it so. If you are facile with statistics, QM and serious literature, I can send you links to that. If you need to stick with quality lay-person's lit, I can send you quality links to that. If you'd rather just be right than learn anything outside your safe zone, then I can't help you.

[@dnavas7719]

the fact that the human mind can imagine things that don't exist tells me that there's an external factor interacting with our brains

[@Baba-fy1jc]

The Quantum World from the Outside Take his Piktures in the Inside from us bud what made the Universe. The Universe make a look by his Self with all Lifeforms, it visit his self with the life. The Human is how a or how the watcher and the Human is how a Mirror from the Universe, in the same Time. The Dream is Impossible to Understand the World ,then in to Night works the Brain with the Information from the day or the day,s. Not the Human allone has Dreams or the Dears, the Universe has with us his Dreams . The Life has his Dreams ,and it Need this ,tehn with this can it better work with the Future. This is What I belive why we have the Dreams. I belive we can Take this on the self Protektion function from the Life forms on the Earth.

[@simonlopes4301]

Or the multiverse exists, and our outlandish imagination is just proof of that.

[@DeanHorak]

The issue many people get stuck on is the idea that the “feeling” of something is inherent in the neural activity itself. That is, the signals in the form of action potentials or other mechanism somehow carry these feelings inherit within them. That is incorrect. We “feel” things because those signals are sent to regions which interpret them, and what we “feel” is the interpretation - we have no other frame of reference other than these interpreter circuits. We know what red feels like because the interpreter tells us we’re feeling red - we have no other source of information.

[@ArcadianGenesis]

Sounds like you're describing a Cartesian theater, with a little homunculus sitting inside your head interpreting signals.

[@DeanHorak]

@@ArcadianGenesis , Not at all. Neural activity patterns are processed through a huge array of neural circuits which parse out information which the organism integrates with other processes to help it interpret the environment and react appropriately. It’s all just information processing.

[@vitalwarley]

How does this interpretation happens if not by neural acitivities? If feeling is not inherent in neural activity itself, what about this process of interpretation? Is it inherent instead? If so, how would that be different from the "feeling"?

[@Sam-hh3ry]

Your explanation is just a redefinition of words. A "feeling" is an "interpretation." It doesn’t actually address the epistemic gap between experience and brain activity.

[@DeanHorak]

@@Sam-hh3ry , Disagree. A “feeling” is the subjective experience itself - it’s the name given to what we perceive. Interpretation is how those incoming neural signals produce the neural activity which results in said experience. For instance, one cannot “feel” the neural activity that results from my smashing my finger with a hammer. What one feels is the neural activity that is produced by thousands (or millions, depending on how you count them) of neural circuits which process the sensory data, interpreting it as a specific type of pain signal from a specific part of the body. This interpreted information is combined with past experiences (memory), current visceral state and a host of other neural activity, to generate a narrative of what just happened, which recurrent networks - looping back into themselves result in the subjective experience of pain. In attempting to produce this narrative, the brain has only its own neural activity to reference. So, in a sense we feel what we feel because these interpreter pathways (called the “left brain interpreter” by Michael Gazzaniga) tell us that’s what we’re feeling. The fact that phenomenon like “phantom limb syndrome” exists is proof that feelings are produced in the perceptual areas of the brain, not in the pathways which transduce the interactions with the environment and carry the signals to the brain.

[@bio7771]

i feel either stupid or inhuman. what is so special about the feeling of red and the taste of wine etc? they are the simplest reactions/reminders to me. does someone care to explain?

[@downhillphilm.6682]

You are neither stupid or inhuman. What is so "special" is our collective human species agreement on the feeling of red and the taste of wine. Thus there is something "special" we all have in common.....what is that "something"?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Can quantum mechanics link physical matter to experience?

[@havenbastion]

Experience is a sub-set of physical matter, not a separate thing connected by a casual mechanism.

[@firstal3799]

Quantum mechanics doesn't show anything here

[@calin.86]

I think there's a big difference between seeing "red" which is an experience of the brain itself, and the awareness of seeing "red" which is an experience of the "you". You are not your brain, your brain is a part of you, but it's not you. If you ask the atoms in your body any question, they will not answer. The simple experience of seeing and feeling is not enough for us to be as we are. It's the awareness of those feelings and knowing that we have those feelings makes us complete. I really do not agree with that man. A feeling will always be just a feeling, and nothing more.

[@mintakan003]

I wish we can go beyond the discussion of."correlation" vs. the "hard problem" (phenomenology, "feeling", "qualia"), to the neuroscience of "modulation". (It's not exactly "causation", because it doesn't directly explain the phenomenon.) But it's more than just "passive correlation". E.g., can one make something "less red", by dulling consciousness with alcohol, or even anesthesia? Can you make it "more red", by heightening the senses (actually intra-regional brain communication), with psychedelics? Once one starts reliably inducing the response, a lot of the mystification of phenomenology starts going away. It's not some mysterious stand-alone "essence". You can say, "see, we can turn it off. Now we turn it back on. Or dim or enhance things, do different degrees." Even if we can't explain the exact phenomenon, it becomes clear, it has a mechanical basis. Science will never explain the phenomenology. That's because it's not in its skill set. It's not in its vocabulary. It can only describe "how things work", the "mechanical surface". Not the "poetry" of the "qualia". We went through the same thing with biology. The "elan vital" (life force), has not been disproven. Just rendered unnecessary. We certainly do not understand everything about biology. But we can store the DNA code on a computer. Through synthetic biology, "print it out", plug it into a cell, and create the life forms (currently bacterial), for the intended purposes. A lot of mystery behind the "elan vital", has been taken out. Neither do I think the panpsychist attempt to imbue matter with "a little bit of consciousness", is necessary.

[@havenbastion]

Don't forget that aether can appropriately be used to discuss the roiling change that is beyond the static things we experience as finite embodied beings.

[@Sam-hh3ry]

Your argument doesn’t make any sense. You acknowledge that qualia exist and that they can’t be accounted for in objective, scientific terms. In other words you acknowledge the hard problem and that it is unsolvable. Then you attempt to deflate qualia with a comparison to elan vital. Except of course, we have no reason to think elan vital exists and we have no reason to think qualia don’t exist. One is a theoretical postulate meant to account for observations, the other is an existent that requires explaining in its own right. So the analogy doesn’t work.

[@mintakan003]

@@Sam-hh3ry It's not really an "argument", in any strong sense. It's noticing how the field is progressing. (This along with computational neuroscience, and AI.) The "elan vital" (historical) analogy, came from Anil Seth. You might want to want to check out some of this KZbin videos.

[@Sam-hh3ry]

@@mintakan003 The analogy came from Daniel Dennett before it came from Seth, and I think it’s a bad one for the reason I just gave. David Chalmers has also taken some time to explain this.

[@mintakan003]

@@Sam-hh3ry Thanks. I didn't know it came from Dennett. I kind of respect him. I've also heard Chalmers. Though according to Sam Harris, which side one takes may really boil down to one's fundamental intuition. Another person to look at is Mark Solms (neuropsychologist) talk to the Royal Institution "The source of consciousness". He revisits the "hard problem", esp. in light of the possibility (or lack thereof) for AI. How do biological systems differ? Why does consciousness appear the way it does, for human beings? Why is "feeling" so important? He argues that the sense of "feeling" is closely related to the mammalian brain and nervous system. You might want to check this out.

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

😊🙏💛

[@muzika8144]

Take away the cortical activity and lets say you feel the touch but you cannot tell that you have been touched because there is no cortex to say it or to mean it . Lets say you feel the touch without cortex , lets say you feel a good feeling only in the lymbic system , so then there would be a feeling without words to explain it . The feeling of the touch is then an effect in nature just like some fire outthere which is just an effect . Since we can store that feeling of touch in the brain , and the story can be recalled, and all that is a electrochemical process which repeats itself and it makes us maybe say or think something , but then what is speaking beside some muscular activity of the tongue which then produces some voice and somebody hears that voice from you and he or she interprets it , so it is just a way of comunnication between some oily thing that we call brain . The key question here is not what is perception , but then is there anything such as perception or it is all a reception which plays in loops and it just is and happens , and all interpretetions are also happening which have no meaning in the real sense .

[@waltdill927]

Which is the gist, and block, of the Zombie problem. So that the memory/emotive binary is "whatever" the vacuous nature of the Zombie indeterminate otherwise is meaningfully understood, and revealed, to be.

[@waltdill927]

What philosophy has always known is that language is: meaningful and nonsensical, transparent and opaque, satisfying and frustrating, revelatory and deceptive, rational and incoherent, literal and metaphorical ... prosaic and poetic. We have no problem with these logocentric oppositions, or complements, in most matters. In fact, we tend to prefer bi-polar structure in all sorts of contexts, scientific, literary, and spiritual. Specifically, if "reason" is held to be an external, verbal form of "reality", then logocentric thinking is already a meditation, and starting point, for whatever results lead us away from the idolatry or misuse of common enough ideas. It should be something on the order of a kind of comfort to realize that, somewhere about the complexity of three terms, we tend to get confused: some of us deciding to go the route of trinities, others the way of plane geometry, perhaps Neapolitan constructions of ice cream or constitutional forms of representative democracy. if the mind/body conundrum is something more in the manner of a monolith that we erect as the edifice of our world-building passions, it has deterred no one, most certainly the scientists, artisans, and philosophers. In fact, it is just a ready and convenient symbol of our language use, or the labyrinth at which door we are well advised to begin unspooling the first length of brightly colored string.

[@robertmiller2367]

I'm surprised Robert didn't push him defining this "intrinsic nature" concept he keeps referring to and how it came to exist or where the evidence is for it

[@muzika8144]

Intrinsic nature , words words words . What if there is no meaning to anything , but everything is a happening and even these questions that we pose are just nonsense and what if there is no nonsense or sense at all .

[@evanjameson5437]

he looks like the actor Bruce Greenwood!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Are the correlations of neuron activity something like probabilities in quantum wave function? If so, might the correlations of neuron activity be evaluated using quantum mechanics?

[@jackarmstrong5645]

When you actually look at the working of the senses you know there is no way for the external world to impart itself onto the nervous system. The nervous system uses external stimulation to create an internal experience. There is no "Just Is". There is what the brain creates out of external stimulation.

[@havenbastion]

That doesn't imply that the pattern in the mind (a metaphor for the patterns in the brain as a whole) aren't sufficient to do the work they are intended for. Our filtered version of reality is a sub-set of reality, not an illusion.

[@jackarmstrong5645]

@@havenbastion It means the patterns are something the brain creates, not something the external world creates. The external world is just the trigger for the nervous system to reflexively create it's internal evolved patterns. We do not experience the world. We experience our experiences.

[@jackarmstrong5645]

@Ninja Fish & Bubble Bear 2018 It has connections to the nervous system. But a retinal molecule is not part of the nervous system. A retinal molecule is not an evolved mechanism. It is a trigger for the nervous system to reflexively act. The nervous system reacts based on the activity of retinal molecules. The nervous system knows nothing about EM energy. The nervous system has no idea why retinal molecules are transitioning from trans to cis. The nervous system knows nothing about energy or retinal molecules. The production of color has nothing to do with the external world. Color production and recognition are based entirely on evolved internal mechanisms.

[@Nature_Consciousness]

​@@jackarmstrong5645Where is the brain?

[@jackarmstrong5645]

@@Nature_Consciousness Experience tells us brains are in heads.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(8:15) *GS: **_"All that science gives you is structure; it doesn't tell you the intrinsic nature of the thing that has the structure."_* ... Well-stated! Arguing that neurons, synapses, brain issue, and chemicals are responsible for consciousness is like claiming that a canvas, pigments, linseed oil, and brushes are responsible for van Gogh's _"Starry Night."_

[@albert6157]

Well said, but i think thats a false analogy, because the mind and body is not designed. While Starry night is designed. I have no doubt our consciousness comes from the neurons, synapses etc. But its just very complicated system thats all. Like chaos theory, turbulence cannot be described even by maths but we understand it. We can manipulate the mind, memories and experiences by manipulating the brain. So it has no doubt to be the brain. A matter of emergence and integration. Hard to predict and understand, but explainable nonetheless. There is a lot we dont know, but nothing supernatural.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

​@@albert6157 *"Well said, but i think thats a false analogy, because the mind and body is not designed."* ... You're still dealing with a mechanism that is grounded in intelligence. So is van Gogh's painting. *"We can manipulate the mind, memories and experiences by manipulating the brain. So it has no doubt to be the brain."* ... I can throw a bucket of paint all over van Gogh's painting, but that doesn't alter the mechanics of what brought his painting into existence. Like hadrons and antihadrons, It's just one force acting upon another. *"So it has no doubt to be the brain."* ... Too soon to reach that judgment. *"Hard to predict and understand, but explainable nonetheless"* ... Yes, and more than one explanation is on the table, my friend. If consciousness equals "all information," then consciousness exists both exterior and interior to the brain. All of the matter, energy, fields, time, sentience, brains, and everything else we can observe and contemplate equals "information" (consciousness), and brains generate even more information (consciousness) when we process information. This new information gets added to the collective. After 13.8 billion years of evolution, we are the newly emerged arbitrators of "value" in Existence.

[@shannontaylor1849]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC If one can't distinguish between paint accidentally or intentionally splashed on a wall then where could this qualia reside other than the abductive mind of the observer? The all-seeing eye which cannot see itself.

[@mr.spinoza]

Funny how you quoted Galen, agreed, and then used it to justify a conclusion that is completely contradictory to his point. He's saying the mind _is_ the brain. You're trying to sneak in a mystical dualism.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@mr.spinoza *"Funny how you quoted Galen, agreed, and then used it to justify a conclusion that is completely contradictory to his point."* ... Why yes. A particle-based brain that's sole purpose in existence is to orchestrate information through intelligence is "contradictory" to a particle-based painting that's sole purpose in existence is to orchestrate information in an intelligent way. ... What was I thinking? *"He's saying the mind is the brain. You're trying to sneak in a mystical dualism."* ... My argument is that when you break down consciousness into information like quantum mechanics does with matter, then everything makes sense (which it should). A physical brain constitutes "information" (consciousness) and everything a brain processes / produces equally constitutes "information" (consciousness), so maybe you can explain where I've _sneaked in_ that "mystical dualism" with consciousness (information) being a derivative of both?"

[@nietztsuki]

Strawson's ideas sound a lot like the Analytic Idealism of Bernardo Kastrup, only Strawson labels his views as physicalism rather than idealism. They seem to be just two sides of the same coin. Bernardo would agree that certain neural firings of the brain and the experience of red are the same thing in the sense that the brain simply is what our conscious experience looks like from a third person point of view.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics. Start from start.

[@hershchat]

Why do you keep overlooking the vast insights of Vedanta? I haven’t seen even a single trained teacher included in this channel. I recommend Swami Sarvoriyananda, but there are many available.

[@missh1774]

Out of nowhere I could smell a freshly picked apple today.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could the energy spikes of neuron firings have some relation to time?

[@popeck27]

How TV makes film? How radio makes music? They don’t. They are interfaces

[@mongoharry]

As we feel something, we feel ourselves feeling it. And we often see, hear, smell, and taste it...And then what we KNOW makes up for 95% of what we sense. All this corroboration is like an infinitude of mirror images.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Non-locality of feelings / emotions and conscious experiences indicate relation to time and quantum mechanics?

[@gwenelbro3719]

There isn't an external mind. All is a product of Divine Consciousness that is living all things and all beings. Does dreaming rely on an external mind? Dreams can seem very real, but then we wake up. So what makes you think that you're awake now? We are such stuff as dreams are made on and our little lives are rounded in a sleep. Shakespeare. The Tempest.

[@tunahelpa5433]

At root, Prof Strawson is close to being right. We know for a fact that matter isn't what it seems. It's mostly empty space (with a cloud of electrons). We know for a fact that a proton or neutron can be broken up into constituent quarks. We don't know what quarks are, though. Are they energy, a force field, or what. So consciousness could in fact be made up of the same materials that make up substance. In fact, my hypothesis is that consciousness is blips in a field that permeates all spacetime, just matter is.

[@waltdill927]

Yes. The short answer is that a conscious experience is phenomenal and accidental -- "out of time" and serving no "meaningful" purpose anyway (even if you don't consider the fact that temporality is a proven relative construct).

[@Souljahna]

This interview was made many years ago. Why does the date on it read 2022? Very annoying if you want to find out if Galen has anything new to say.

[@RMScott]

…”the feeling of red, the sense of wine.”

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does time, moving from past to present to future, have something to do with experience of conscious feelings and emotions?

[@maxwellsimoes238]

He concepts concern conscieness arek speculating about abstract ideia Not show Science evidence expermient. It is he opinion without responsible honest scientif troll.

[@eachday9538]

Sounds similar to Hoffman

[@metrologe]

Interview Bernardo Kastrup! Did you? + nonduality seems still under-represented.

[@billvokey4221]

It's layered people.

[@georgegrubbs2966]

Yes, feeling (affect) is the substrate of consciousness and subjective experience. Why the continued confusion about experiences the "redness of red" (qualia)? We seem to fully accept how the brain electrochemically processes the senses and how the brain, along with body, produces action. We even accept that the brain fully contains and manages memory. We accept that the brain is responsible for emotions and thinking. It is only when one posits that the brain is fully responsible for subjective experience, the inner experience of the "redness of red," "what it is like to be me," and qualia in general that some people back off and begin resorting to supernatural explanations. Why is this? What is "feeling"? What is the feeling of pain and pleasure, fear and safety? Why is it difficult to understand that the brain/body system together is responsible for felt emotions, subjective experiences? Ultimately it is the brain that does it all. The "redness of red" is an electrochemical process in the brain that provides the inner experience of it. I agree with Strawson, that the electrochemical process IS the "redness of red."

[@breno2024]

what "major" difference does it make how the experience of red comes about? humans should be considerably more concerned with the why of the matter.

[@abelincoln8885]

The machine Analogy is a natural phenomena, obeys the laws of nature, will always be observed and has a scientific explanation. All machines are UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence.. Man( an intelligence) can make machines that make machines, but the Human Body is a machine composed of trillions upon trillions of Machines. A Machine is simply a physical function, the PROCESSES inputs into outputs, and requires specific matter, energy, time, space, Laws of Nature, and information in order to exist & to FUNCTION. A PROCESS or FUNCTION ... can be abstract or physical ... has set purpose, rules, properties, design, information ... and is only made by an intelligence. An INTELLIGENCE has free will to think, believe, say & do as he/she/it wants ... and is able to make/CREATE abstract & physical constructs with purpose, rules, properties, design, function, information. Science completely relies on the Laws of Nature for Man( an intelligence) to explain natural phenomena, and acquire information/knowledge of the Universe(Physical existence). Only an intelligence makes Laws & information. Everything in the Universe obeys the LAWS of nature and contain INFORMATION that man( an intelligence) can extract. Wake up. There is only the Physical existence & the Non-physical domain of an intelligence. Man has a physical mind (brain) & a non-physical form (soul/spirit). The Universe was created by God ( an intelligence) for Man( an intelligence), and HE did indeed make Man in his image( ie free will & able to create).

[@georgegrubbs2966]

@@abelincoln8885 Abe, you are so wrong. Humans are smart apes. The evidence overwhelming explains that fact. Over many hundreds of millions of years, actually two to three billion years, evolution led to Homo sapiens sapiens, the great apes who learned to use tools and fire. Over the last 500,000 years, we became bipedal and evolution further evolved the brain and supporting nervous systems. Within the last 70,000 to 50,000 years, the voice box and vocal folds evolved. Language was basic and animal-like and gradually became more complex. Hunter-gatherer groups form small settlements. Over time, they grew into towns and then together made up civilization with culture. This small window of time that we are living is just a tiny interval in the evolution of all biological organisms. You may not like these facts, but nature doesn't care who likes it or not. We can look at Nature as a kind of god in whose image we are made, and that makes some sense. There is nothing special about human beings to nature -- we evolved like every other organism. There is NO evidence of a soul or spirit or separate mind. Our self, the "me", is complex neural circuits. Study the step-by-step gestation of a human from a zygote to a newborn. Then study the mental and physical maturation throughout life. It's all nature! Nature alone is the inference to the best explanation based on evidence.

[@abelincoln8885]

@@georgegrubbs2966 The evidence proves only an Intelligence makes Laws that abstract & physical constructs with purpose, rules, properties, design, function. Science is completely dependent on the fixed LAWS of Nature to explain natural phenomena and acquire new INFORMATION about the Universe. Again. Only an intelligence makes LAW & INFORMATION. The human brain has clearly been "fine tuned" by an intelligence to separate Man from Animals who also have a brain, mind & consciousness. You Evolution freaks love to state Chimps sharing 99% of Human DNA. But a Chimp can NEVER do 1% of what Man thinks & does. But this is all moot because we know for a fact that only an intelligence makes Laws ( of Nature). lol. Genesis was written 3400 years ago .. and clearly stated God made the Universe for Man, and made Man like himself( intelligence with free will & able to create). This ancient book taught bronze age people that man is free .... to think, believe, say & do as he/she wants, but has an evil Nature that will corrupt & pervert what is good UNLESS he/she has a strong MORAL & ETHICAL compass( ie God) to do good not evil. Look at world history and the COMPASSES man chose to guide him to do good or evil. Remove Christianity from World History, and the Human Race would now be extinct. Genesis was absolutely correct about the Nature of Man, and the NEED for a COMPASS ( God) to do good not evil. Even 3400 years ago, everybody knew only an intelligence makes Laws and things with a purpose -- be the inteligence Man or the many gods that they all worshiped. lol. And yet today, in a world full of Science & technology ... most ignore the origin of Laws & information ... to believe the BS that the Universe & Laws of Nature have a natural origin 14 billion years ago. Bhahahahah. Thus is the nature of man. Thank you Moses. A very worthwhile read.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@abelincoln8885 The Universe was not created by God for man. God is not real it is a man made concept that people used to make sense of reality. The machine analogy falls apart real quick once applied to the universe. The Universe is a self organizing system. Everything is self organizing system. People organize themselves into towns, cities and nations. Matter organizes itself into planets, stars, galaxies and super clusters. Science relies on observation to develop generalized principles that explain natural phenomena. Wake up There is no God or Intelligence that created the Universe.

[@jayb5596]

I think we have 3 types of memory in this universe. Physical memory, Energetic Memory, Spatial memory. The physical particles charged interactions produce energetic and spatial memory; the spatial memory is pulled internally and externally becomes space itself, hence gravity. The energetic memory is broadcast through space as electromagnetic radiation and the physical memory is the material itself in whatever arrangement it's organized into. A force was required to energize this universe. That force required an energy to be exerted and brought to bear. That energy comes from an external source. Much in the way we use internal energy to bring to bear a force that we exert externally. Which will be felt internally by the object we exert the force on. A great example of this internal to external relationship is (a knockout punch). Quarks the supposedly fundamental particles are interchangeable both in flavor and color. These are not fundamental particles they are physical memory, a conscious representation of measured energy states of a system.

[@pattipotvine1073]

I'm not quite sure what you are explaining, punctuation is helpful. I would ask what is "space". Not outer space, but the area taken up by a particle. Does the particle create space by its existence, or does the space exist for the particle to occupy?

[@jayb5596]

The space occupied by a particle is an energized field, outer space is permeated by fields.

[@pattipotvine1073]

Energized by what? I don't think magnetic or gravitational fields exist outside of the particles they influence. What energy are you referring to? Can gravity occur without a particle to bend the space around it?

[@jayb5596]

@@pattipotvine1073 Energized by the force applied to the field they emerge in. Force is a carrier it carries energy from one state to another. Quarks aren't fundamental. An up quark can become a down quark and a down quark can become an up quark. Quark color is interchangeable. These particles are not fundamental. Physical memory is just a conscious physical representation of an energy state that is measured.

[@TheWayofFairness]

It's not a big deal. Enjoy the ride. We may have fun today?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Maybe time contributes to feelings and qualia correlated with neuron activity in brain?

[@08nickd08]

The mind is what the brain does

[@pattipotvine1073]

Your assumption is that all things with a brain also has a mind. Is this the case? Do all things with a brain have conscious thought?

[@kamabanjo1118]

Everything exist only in your understanding but nothing exist outside your understanding. You can talk and declare all you want but yet you have nothing to prove your owne existence outside your understanding which is always wrong.

[@robertsaget9697]

Seems a rather large assumption that science doesn't actually tell us anything about a real physical world but only tells us about "structure". That seems extremely counter intuitive and counter to our experience, which means it needs a massive amount of support to overcome such barriers. Its as extreme as claiming that your hands are not real. But just illusions. Sure that's possibly true but its got a lot of work to do to overcome the intuitive reasons and evidence which suggest otherwise.

[@puhbrox]

I wonder if this means we can change the future with our thoughts and feelings

[@downhillphilm.6682]

we can, our own future .... but you may have meant my future too....that is a big leap in "power" of the mind.

[@bananabreadman55]

how would it mean that?

[@seyedbanitaba5306]

Hi ..... interconnectedness and Vibrations of NADA >> I'm coming to feel ,,, it has to be more > so VIVID SO CLEAR. /// 1976 = the light walk just showed the walk sign. /// 2021 = the switch said wait //// Can't be the work of Brain

[@mannyneyra6940]

Am engine Can’t start by itself needs a spark just like the brain

[@maxwellsimoes238]

For instance if YOU close eyes he theory not show up any evidence are trully in conected with reality.

[@physicstheoryofmetinaridasir]

GALEN STRAWSON IS RIGHT: WE CAN NEVER SAY FOR INSTANCE "SPIRIT IS A PLASM". ACCORDING TO MY THEORY, AT LEAST, THERE ARE TWO REALITIES: ONE OF META SENSATION PERCEPTION MATTER (UNIVERSAL REALITY), ANOTHER ONE IS SUBJECTIVE REALITY FOR ALL LIVING SPECIES, PERHAPS FOR ALL THINGS WHATEVER THEIR ACTION-REACTION LEVELS -. ALL OF OUR EQUATIONS AND CONSTANTS ARE FROM META SENSATION PERCEPTION MATTER'S INTRINSIC FACTS. BUT WE CAN NEVER SHOW OR POINT TO OUR SENSES WHICH ARE OUR UNIQUE EXPERIENCES IN OUR SUBJECTIVE REALITY, AND WE CAN NEVER SAY FOR INSTANCE "SPIRIT IS A PLASM"

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Ok if you believes in Teo realities YOU are so special minds. YOU and him Not shows honest evidence how figuret out two realities. Instead he shows only speculations without proof proceedings .

[@g.sakhijaan1051]

Anything (f.e. Neorons ) contained in baloon shall only produce limited matter-info., nothing else.

[@gregalexander8189]

We are as long as the brain operates. Then we dissipate into the ecology

[@AdrienLegendre]

Wrong: science only tells you structure not the internal nature of structure. Wrong: physics tells use we do not know about space time. This is the reason why scientists not philosophers are needed.

[@bobjazz2000]

The question is who or what is experiencing “red”

[@kos-mos1127]

According to Scopenhauer no one is experiencing red. Red itself is represented as an object in consciousness from The Will.

[@bobjazz2000]

@@kos-mos1127 Well, I know Schopenhauer isn't experiencing anything. But I'm sure I still experience red.

[@WahrheitMachtFrei.]

Come on, guys, the title is a statement, not a question, no need for a '?'

[@sudarshanbadoni6643]

While listening video after lunch by chance dislike button got pressed as mistaken pressing as was listening and not seeing the screen so sorry for that.

[@abelincoln8885]

Again. There are only two existences/realities: 1. PHYSICAL - where everything of it must obey the Laws of Nature 2. NON-PHYSICAL - where everything of it do not have to obey the Laws of Nature. The Non-physical or Abstract existence is the domain of an INTELLIGENCE that has free will to think, believe, say & do was he/she/it wants, and is able to make ABSTRACT & PHYSICAL constructs with a purpose, rules, properties, design, function, & information. Man has an PHYSICAL & NON-PHYSICAL form. Man has a physical mind( brain ) and a non-physical mind. Law and Information are ABSTRACT constructs only from the mind of an INTELLIGENCE and is real. And intelligence can transfer Law & information into a PHYSICAL construct. And an Intelligence can extract Law & information from PHYSICAL constructs. Science relies completely on the LAWS of Nature for man ( an intelligence) to explain natural phenomena using the Scientific Method with REPEATABLE experiments, and acquire new information & knowledge about the Universe(Physical existence). Only an intelligence makes Laws & information. Only an intelligence makes abstract & physical constructs ... with purpose, properties, rules, design, function. information. Everything in the PHYSICAL existences ... has purpose, properties, rules, design, function, information, and obey the Laws of Nature. Everything in the NON-PHYSICAL existence obeys only the rules & laws of an INTELLIGENCE. The brain is simply the physical form of the non-physical, unnatural & eternal mind. Everything in the PHYSICAL existence were ABSTRACT constructs from an intelligence of an UNNATURAL eternal existence. Again. There is only the Universe ... & ... an intelligence. Only an intelligence makes Law, and abstract & physical constructs with purpose, rules, properties, design, function & information ... that an intelligence can extract & use. The Laws of Physics is what Man( an intelligence) has determined so far from the Universe ... of the Laws of Nature( made by an intelligence).

[@kos-mos1127]

Physical Reality does not obey the laws of nature. The laws of nature describe physical reality. Abstractions must obey laws or they fall apart.

[@abelincoln8885]

@@kos-mos1127 Abstract constructs obey the laws/rules set by the intelligence that made them, which may or may not include the Law of the Physical existence. A dream or fairy tale is an abstract constructs which clearly do not have to obey the laws of Nature, but only the rules/laws set by the mind of an intelligence. The Laws of Physics is what Man( an intelligence) has determined so far about the Laws of Nature. All Law is an abstract construct and from an intelligence. Any physical construct that must obey the Law of Nature, had to have been made by an intelligence. DESIGN is an abstract construct with set laws/rules by an intelligence. If the intelligence wants to make a physical construct from the DESIGN then every Law of the Physical existence must be obeyed and will be part of the PROPERTIES( abstract construct) of the physical construct. Experimental design tests theoretical or refines existing Laws (of physics). Man makes abstract & physical constructs ... in an existence composed entirely of abstract & physical constructs from a very powerful intelligence. Abstract & Physical constructs from the mind of an intelligence is a natural phenomena as Man would not be able to do what he can do without Natural Abstract & Physical constructs -- without the Laws & information from an intelligence.

[@sentientflower7891]

Since bacteria and worms also have sensation does that require magic or souls? If not humans don't require it either.

[@billvokey4221]

Just like a fish in the ocean can't explain the air above it.

[@kipponi]

We can.

[@Patrick-gr2wr]

I think it's possible that materialism will never be able to explain subjective experience, because it's axiomatic presuppositions are likely wrong. The fundamental constituents of brain anatomy are already known. Perhaps there is still a tremendous amount to be learned regarding the sophisticated interactions of various chemical and physical process included therein, but assuming all this will eventually come to light, as is stated in the video, even in this case, one will still be left with "structure," and the manifold array of movements involving therein. That such structure is equivalent to the phenomenological experience of a unified subject leads to absurdity. If one assumes this to be the case, then it cannot be the individual atoms and molecules which compose this structure, because they are replaced by others through the various homeostatic processes. What then remains? This same structure. The same form. The same idea. I think the more interesting question in all of this is what is the principle which unifies the said structure, and binds the gross matter into its particular neurological forms and movements. How this could be anything other besides an immaterial principle, I fail to see. Perhaps the ancients and scholastics were not wrong in saying man is the consubstantiality of matter and spirit. I can't think of a better explanation.

[@notascoobyreally7520]

The truth of reality all falls down to you; what you believe is reality. Think about it, do you believe in Jesus? And why, on who’s go ahead did you begin to so believe? Do you believe that e=mc2? Why, because you decided to. Can you cure a person of paranoid delusions? No, because they still believe what they believe. Life is music and you were supposed to dance whilst the music was playing.

[@rickwyant]

No brain, no consciousness.

[@BradHolkesvig]

No. The mind processes invisible vibrations that form all the visible images including the brain. We all exist in those invisible vibrations including the ONE that makes us all living beings. Once you learn what that ONE is, then you will understand how you can experience life.

[@joegibbskins]

It’s pretty incredible you were able to figure this out. Congratulations!

[@BradHolkesvig]

@@joegibbskins That was our Creator's plan to use my mind in that way. I had nothing to do with it other than being totally obedient which is the only way to learn what I AM. If you believe this wisdom to be true, then you were also chosen by our Creator to believe.

[@Nunya_Bidness_53]

"All that science actually gives us is knowledge of structure. It does not give us any knowledge of the intrinsic nature of the thing that has the structure." In other words, as I consistently assert: science has no explanatory value, it can only describe and define. When you mistake description and definition for explanation, you have turned science into a bizzare, materialist reductionist religion.

[@Malcolm701]

It doesn't.

[@mainman2256]

Pretty much agree. I don’t feel a need for there to be anything “more inner” or “separate but parallel” within a person than the matter that makes them up. I have always thought it seemed more of a stretch that there is some consciousness/matter dualism or something. To me it sounds the same as invoking a God to explain something, like adding a second “more real” but immaterial mystery layer of reality that doesn’t seem to be needed.. I hope in my lifetime we can find out

[@quakers200]

Our understanding of the material world is a hundred times better than two thousand years ago and they were maybe ten times better than the first hominids. So ten thousand more years our knowledge of even the brain with it's trillions of parts may be largely explained. The problem with metaphysics is not just that it is loosing ground to science but that what is left predicts nothing and so is untestable. So certainly consciousness, the beginnings of the universe well that first fraction of a second at least are unknowns and current concepts may be wrong to some extent but a metaphysical answer is not better than just to say we don't know. That is my opinion.

[@spacecadet5047]

well said

[@johnskujins8870]

The brain convinces itself that consciousness is non-physical.

[@PaulHoward108]

How do you explain matter having any form of belief?

[@PhantomGardener]

If that were true. What would be the point of that?

[@johnskujins8870]

@@PaulHoward108 Graziano's attention schema theory makes a lot of sense to me. Read his book, "Rethinking Consciousness."

[@PaulHoward108]

@@johnskujins8870 I just think it's sad that anyone believes consciousness is physical. Neurons, the brain, the body, and every other thing is just symbols of meanings. The default state of matter is a possibility, not that there are intrinsically any physical objects that could combine to make consciousness with consciousness already existing to instantiate a sequence of possibilities by adding information in the form of choices of how to interact.

[@johnskujins8870]

@@PaulHoward108 We know that the brain has an inaccurate model of its own awareness because of the way it thinks that awareness comes out of a person's eyes and you can feel when someone is looking at you, etc. Another part of the brain's model of its own awareness that is inaccurate is that the control of awareness is not involved with the physical body.

[@user-ei1ym1lq6h]

Don't forget about the gut.

[@stanh24]

Strawson is well known, but his view of science is grossly deficient. All science gives you is structure? Nonsense. Science also describes processes. Consciousness is a process.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Strawson are boring nerd. He Not show trully Science evidence. Meanwhile he opinion are incompatible with reality when it are fundamental process how conscieness Works. Reality conected without brains it Not Works . He are boring challatan.

[@idontwantahandle10]

"Consciousness is a process." No it's not just that. It's processed, organized and structured data, ie information. It includes meaning/semantic value. And the difference with consciousness and things in the physical world that science deals with is that consciousness is SUBJECTIVE. You can open up a brain and examine every square inch of it and you will never find consciousness in there. And you certainly won't feel someone else's pain by examining the brain. And some consciousness resists physical objectification and objective examination. That is the difference and this is a FUNDAMENTAL difference.

[@abelincoln8885]

So you understand why Machine Analogies are Natural Phenomena, obeys the Laws of Nature, will always be observed and have a scientific explanation? The Theory of Universal Functions is retroactively Sir Issac Newton's greatest discovery because his Watchmaker Analogy involved four natural phenomena: *Machine Analogies * Fine Tuning * Isolated Thermodynamic Systems * Abstract & Physical constructs from the MIND of an intelligence. Science relies completely on the Laws of Nature for Man( an intelligence) to explain natural phenomena .. and acquire new information or knowledge about the Universe. Only an intelligence makes Laws & information ... or things with purpose, rules, properties, design, information that can be extracted & used by an intelligence. The Laws of Physics are what Man( an intelligence) has determined so far using the scientific method ... of the Laws of Nature ( clearly made by a very very powerful intelligence). Everything in the Universe is an Abstract ( time, space, Laws) or Physical (matter, energy) Function or PROCESS ... made by an intelligence .. for an intelligence. Indeed. Science ( created by an intelligence) is all about "describing" or explaining ever PROCESS in the Universe( created by an intelligence).

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

Very common for people to have great commitment to naturalism and pretend to be scientific.

[@BradHolkesvig]

No scientist or religious minded person can explain how we're created because they were not chosen by our Creator to have their minds become obedient to all the commands coming from the Voice speaking in their minds. Not only does the mind become obedient, but I, the Servant of Creation, becomes obedient. Once I become obedient, then my mind was converted to start processing the eternal data that has taught me exactly what I AM as the servant of Creation, the ONE that comes alive as each created mind begins processing information in the form of vibrations. YOU and I are ONE and are like an AI system but we are built much better than any human built AI. We can speak, hear, smell, taste, feel emotions and experience senses of touch, move our visible bodies around in this fake visible world.

[@bigboyshit1]

We don’t know if we have a creator - there is as much evidence for no god as there is for god

[@Light-pl9ti]

We are conscious programmed meat robots inside a Matrix Designed and programmed to colonize Earth and other planets! If you look at the function of all the organs of the body including the brain, you will find out all the organs of the body have an automatic function, including heart rate, gastrointestinal tract and blood flow, and brain neurons activity ! Now, if we assume free will Exist in humans and we are the product of this that, then we must be able to explain how 100 billion brain neurons are interacting with each other to produce a thought!? In fact no human really knows what is going on inside their brain, When a thought is produced! The only thing we understand from the thought and what is produced inside our brain is the image and sound that the brain is producing, and the brain automatically adds our thoughts to our vision! Thinking is like a transparent curtain that adds an extra layer of information to our vision, we see our thoughts but they do not exist in front of us! It is the human ability to see things that do not exist outside of the human body in the Matrix ! The body-mind problem (Illusion of freewill) occurs in the humans when the nervous system get contracted! when this happens the thought process automatically begins to think! And since most people have more or less nervous system contractions, they have this extra thought in their mind always ! And in the long run, these thoughts almost become an additional operating system, and it decides for itself and gets the person in trouble! This extra operating system is the same 'I' that everyone has but does not have an external existence. If the nervous system calms down, this extra thought process automatically stops! when this 'I' or visual curtain being removed from the vision , then it’s clear to understand that there is nobody inside the human body! Means human face is a hyper realistic mask! Then consciousness could realize it’s nature and Understanding is not of the body! consciousness in the human form sees itself as somebody and it is separate from the function of the body! The human body is essentially part of nature or Matrix , and we experience the world as consciousness through a mediator which is our body! In this Matrix , everything is pre-programmed , because all human beings are part of the Matrix , and in fact, there is really no one in this Matrix , except A consciousness and a running simulation including all humans! All thoughts are extra thoughts, because life is a predetermined simulation! People get lost is their own story and this makes different level of consciousness in the societies, and somehow people at some level get stuck or programmed and they live with it! that’s why a small group of people are controlling the most of humans! It’s because of the different consciousness level exist between humans! The Cause of this problem is both physically and mentally ! The physical part is related to the normal circulation of a liquid called CSF in the human spine ,and it’s mental affect on the human brain and how brain is functioning ! CSF is one Molecule away from sea water! one of its function is to wash the brain and regulate the brain activity! We are living in a time that most people are dealing with some type of muscle or body spasms, and this makes the spine unbalance ! If this unbalance become so high, the normal circulation of the CSF will decrease, until it could get completely blocked! If the normal circulation of the CSF get Disturbed,somehow human consciousness will get disconnected from its source, the person start living as a mind story, or locally! This could make lots of mental and physical issues for some people+Repetitive thoughts, or self talking all the time! Bringing back the normal balance of the spine will circulate the CSF normally and thing get changed! For some people this release could be a nerve on their hand, some in other part of human body! Human nervous system is like a tree, and this Stuckness could be at any body part!

[@stanh24]

Zzzzzz…

[@BradHolkesvig]

@@bigboyshit1 I know for a fact we have a Creator but since the Creator is no longer a part of Creation, I AM in charge but on autopilot. I AM the ONE that makes living beings from each created mind that processes those vibrations filled with the Creator's programmed ( very well planned ) thoughts.

[@albert6157]

There is no evidence for a God but we do have evidence for the mind being correlated with the brain and evolution. So no complete free will, and no God yet, unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you see it.)

[@PaulHoward108]

Is Mr. Kuhn incapable of comprehending that the question can be reversed, or is it that he doesn't know anyone smart enough to ask it?

[@davidfabe8185]

Could you spell out what you mean? What exactly is the question that should be asked but isn't being asked?

[@PaulHoward108]

@@davidfabe8185 The Vedas provide a comprehensive theory in which life (the potential for relation, cognition, and emotion) is fundamental and produces coverings of subtle bodies from abstract to detailed, including conscience, ego, intellect, mind, senses, qualia, and then the physical body. So the question would be how mind makes body, and there is an answer for that. Matter is originally undifferentiated, and it manifests in specific forms due to the addition of information coming from conscious choices. Outlining the various aspects of why this is a better understanding is composition titled "Shabda Manifesto".

[@PhantomGardener]

I find it funny that things scientists can't explain, random people in comment section have the answer to.

[@asecretturning]

Ya'll make it wayy more complicated than it is.

[@julianmann6172]

The brain despite it's complexity cannot explain internal sensation. Thus we are forced to recognise the non physical and non local nature of our consciousness, which does interact with brain, but I have to conclude that we would have no sensation if we were to rely on the brain alone. The speaker is not correct about space-time. It does follow General Relativity but time has a dual arrow. This may not be apparent from looking at the classical material world, but does become so when looking at antimatter and the quantum world.

[@cvsree]

Brain does not create mind Mind is a kind of energy that uses brain. Analogy: Like a human driving a car. The car does not make the human.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

It is so rambling gibberish. Please shows YOU words though Science evidence proof.

[@Raj0520]

Where's the evidence Mr Einstein.

[@abelincoln8885]

Man has a physical mind(brain) and non-physical( spirit/soul). Physical consciousness requires a developed brain, which animals & Man have. Yes. Animals also have a mind. Non-Physical consciousness requires a fine tuned brain (INTELLECT) that separates Man from the Animals & a soul/spirit which animals do not have. Consciousness is simply a state of awareness, responsiveness, & perception of existence ( Physical or Non-Physical). Man only has a Physical consciousness while alive. Man reverts to his soul/spirit form when he dies and is no longer part of the Physical existence.

[@Andreorsel]

Wel will never be able to explain how the brain creates all this with the brain itself, it’s just impossible. The brain is the limiting factor in understanding.

[@junevandermark952]

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when it’s components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” Stephen Hawking