Marvin Minsky - How do Human Brains Think and Feel?

Nothing means anything without our brains. Not science, not theology, not politics, not love.
Click here to watch more interviews on human brains bit.ly/1QzAehJ
Click here to watch more interviews with Marvin Minsky bit.ly/1PAAiP4
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com

[@anadimishra438]

RIP Professor you were a great man

[@slapmeisterrecords8226]

Good riddance

[@reza6718]

He is great thinker

[@shiddy.]

Marvin is an amazing communicator, I really enjoy listening to his ideas

[@YSANROCHEOfficialYoutube]

Intelligence is so 😮mesmerizingly attractive

[@lkd982]

"Anger [emotions generally] is a form of thinking". That is highly idealistic, the usual idealism that accompanies science, raising the ideal of thought on to some sort of pedestal. On the other hand, the same things is said by Descartes "I think therefore I am" because thought for him was all mental activity, including feelings etc etc. What seems to have eluded them, let alone those unimaginative slobs who restrict thought to mean rational deliberation, is the relevance of the border between the conscious and the unconscious. And how one becomes the other. This is mainly because they have an idealistic view of the conscious, because of its locus as the seat of the rational. Plato herd-mentality. Surely the most interesting both subjectively and objectively is this transition space between the conscious and the unconscious (and subconscious etc)? Very unexplored, but relevant not just to science, but the rest of life (ethics, identity, causality, relationships, etc etc). To his credit, Minsky recommends Freud as one of his influences, and just as well, because despite his mistakes (e.g. concluding that the experience of the Viennese middle class child was somehow universal), he is about the only one who has anything at all (in fact, a huge amount) to say about the subject.

[@alanbooth9217]

how on earth does all this feedback looping and connectionist argument account for subjectivity and qualia

[@JTKroll12]

this guy is a badass

[@chrisc1257]

have you seen his Ted talk?

[@mrnobody1321]

calm down and listen kid ;-)

[@mrnobody1321]

nice ideas

[@chtomlin]

crazy hand gestures he used....

[@aeroboi2862]

I have a doubt. How are different from everything. I mean, universe is only composed of mass and energy. Even humans are a kind of matter. So, how do we understand and think and feel. what is there in us.

[@kevinfairweather3661]

Complex, integrated information processing. Also complex memory models of the world..

[@AL-SH]

@@kevinfairweather3661 No, consciousness is not just a series of "complex processing" and "complex memory". New study shows the human consciousness remains active hours after that person has been biologically dead. Sir Roger Penrose argues that quantum vibrations are present inside microtubules where consciousness may be found.

[@AL-SH]

@Ulitarism Yes I agree, we should keep an open mind about such subjects where research is not so black and white. And yes, Minsky was extremely biased and closed minded in regards to the human consciousness.

[@maspoetry1]

Well, it's such a good question that no one know very well. But a good perspective is in what MM is saying. This is, levels of different entities communicating to each other. Understand, Think, Feel, are complex superpositions of many of those preocesses. We are not entities out of that flow, but part of it.

[@slapmeisterrecords8226]

To cite Roger Penrose "Conciousness is NOT a computation "

[@KingJorman]

I like his creative approach to areas that he is no expert on...it is refreshing. But on the other hand, there are people that have done a much better job at engaging with some of these issues. MInsky is right about the lack of consensus of the meanings of basic terms of mental phenomena such as thinking and feeling. C.G. Jung developed very durable, versatile and flexible technical ideas about these commonly used words. For example, the feeling function as a relationship function that registers whether and to what degree something "fits" with another thing or process, whether there is rapport, appropriateness, synchrony, or lack thereof. This is detailed in Jung's first book Psychological Types, published almost 100 years ago. Lots of bright people avoid reading Jung for unsubstantiated and prejudicial reasons, which is really unfortunate.

[@james6401]

I think you're spot on about terms that are not defined right or agreed upon in a useful way. Even "consciousness" itself I'm not sure is used in the same way among philosophers. You get very sick people who can be calked conscious but it is of a very different degree than others

[@KingJorman]

thanks. I agree with you that "consciousness" is used in different ways by various philosophers. Jung defines it in that same book as the function or activity that allows for relationship with the conscious part of the self, which he calls "ego," which to him is not the total self, as he maintains that there are unconscious aspects of psyche. @@james6401

[@charlesbrightman4237]

With billions of brain cells and trillions of brain cell connections, how exactly does the energy signal know where and when to start, what path to take, and where and when to stop to form a coherent thought? Obviously it does, but how exactly does it do it?

[@maltejohnsson8578]

+Charles Brightman It doesn't! If you think about it, how can the energy signal "know" something? Does it need to?

[@charlesbrightman4237]

+Malte Malm I agree with you. How could an unconscious energy signal "know" anything? An analogy I utilize is: Spread a brain out like a map. Brain cells are represented by towns and cities. Brain cell connections are represented by roads and highways. A conscious thought is represented by a vehicle traveling between one or more towns and/or cities. How does the vehicle "know" where and when to start, what path to take, and where and when to stop to form a coherent trip? A higher intelligence has to tell it those things. But, in a way, that is a coherent trip in and of itself, albeit if only in the mind. So, how exactly does our brain think a thought before it thinks that thought? What exactly is the "higher intelligence" behind our very thoughts? If from within the brain and/or body, how exactly does it do it? If from outside the brain and body, how exactly does it do it and why? So, in that context, how exactly does the energy signal "know" where and when to start in the billions of possible brain cells, what path to take in the trillions of possible brain cell connections, and where and when to stop in those billions of possible brain cells to form a coherent thought? Obviously it does, but how exactly does it do it? My current theory has to do with energy and energy frequencies interacting with other energy and energy frequencies, which produces "sub-consciousness" and "consciousness" which are the "higher intelligence" behind our very thoughts. The thing is also though that more and more it appears our consciousness is attached to our physical brain. When our physical brain dies, "we die", for eternity it currently appears. We will forget everything we ever knew and experienced. Life itself is just an illusion from the human perspective as far as eternity is concerned. It appears that our true destiny is to cease to consciously exist and then be forgotten into eternity, eternity being a really, really long time. But, as I truly do not know what I do not know, I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong. It's just that the current evidence and analysis would indicate otherwise. Maybe we truly do have an actual eternal conscious existence somehow, someway, somewhere, in some state of existence. But then still, we would either be eternally consciously alone, or more probably still just an individual in a society of individuals, much as we are now.

[@twirlipofthemists3201]

How does a gnat's gut "know" how to digest food? It's a system. Systems can start out very simple and evolve extreme complexity, all without knowing or intending to do any of it. Government, for example.

[@hamzasaeedsippal]

anybody listening in 2018?

[@kevinfairweather3661]

2019

[@HerrVonSoUndSo]

2020

[@paulcerna8148]

2020

[@slapmeisterrecords8226]

No

[@Leksa135]

yes

[@exbuxx]

Simply life and biology doesn't recognize the scale or the maximum comprehensive domain of the human brain 🧠. Life is beyond scientific and I pray we get some answers from our wonderful maker

[@xspgod6559]

sowere computers

[@alanbooth9217]

what is green in this explanation - neuron 99999999 firing- is green now explained

[@canyegane2406]

awesome deconstruction of bloated vocabulary to really get us closer to the truth

[@williamhird4770]

If you listen carefully, this guy did not answer a single question Kuhn asked him. If he had any intellectual honesty at all , he would have answered " I have no effin idea how the brain works, what thinking really means or what love and emotions are." The emperor has no clothes.

[@AmeerFazal]

He does answer. Also he wrote two wonderful books on the subject.

[@piotrkupka2575]

@@AmeerFazal He misunderstood the meaning of the word :"how". He gave a description instead of an explanation. Of course on purpose - if he would try to give an explanation, he would have to say: honestly we don't understand the mechanism of how the thought emerges.

[@AmeerFazal]

@@piotrkupka2575 who is he? Minsky or the commenter?

[@david77james]

Simplistic conjectures by someone of a supposed high level of knowledge on the subject seems strange. He doesn't sound like he knows the first thing about the brain, and he excludes the "mind" almost altogether. At least he does not attempt to claim he KNOWS absolutes, but rather puts forth his conjectures as if they are simply plausible, and therefore "are".

[@domboy8080]

Dude he simply is a materialist . The “mind” to him is just an emergent quality of physical reality. He puts forth strong premises based on his work in computer science

[@david77james]

@@domboy8080- Correct, but my statement stands. Catch-alls like: "It evolved" indicate lack of critical analytical skills, which is essential for ANY true thinker. If the mind was bio, we'd be able to see its products, like thoughts, memories, plans, invention, etc., at will, which abilities cause the human mind to be the greatest known power.

[@SeanMauer]

Humans aren't abnimals

[@AlvinYakitori060]

+SeanMauer Ah ok

[@JonnyCook]

Nothing is an abnimal.

[@AlvinYakitori060]

¬¬ haha oh...

[@jjt1881]

+Jonny Cook Maybe he is.

[@xspgod6559]

yeah we are computers

[@alvinmwangi]

the host has the cringiest laugh ive ever heard. somebody shouldve muted him when he wasnt speaking.

[@BradHolkesvig]

This guy doesn't understand how we were created either. If he was allowed to listen to the voice of our Creator and obey all His commandments, then he would learn exactly how he was created. Not one scientist has listened to our Creator's voice and learned about His creation and how He spoke it into existence.

[@JonnyCook]

So you're like an actual crazy person, huh?

[@BradHolkesvig]

Jonny Cook If I'm crazy, than you and Marvin Minsky are crazy also.

[@JonnyCook]

+Brad Holkesvig No. That does not logically follow. I claim you are crazy by virtue of your beliefs and behavior. Neither myself nor Marvin Minsky share these traits with you. So we do not fall under the same diagnostic category as you do.

[@BradHolkesvig]

Jonny Cook We all came from the same exact source so if I'm crazy, so are you and Marvin Minsky.

[@markos635567]

+Brad Holkesvig they don't NEED to listen to anyone.