Ned Block - What is the Mind-Body Problem?

How is it possible that mushy masses of brain cells, passing chemicals and shooting sparks, can cause mental sensations and subjective feelings? How can brain chemistry and electricity be 'about' things? Can physical activities literally be mental activities? Physical and mental activities seem so radically different.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on the mind-body problem: bit.ly/3EAam2h
Ned Block is an American philosopher working in the field of the philosophy of mind who has made important contributions to matters of consciousness and cognitive science.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn, 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.

[@williamburts5495]

The reason materialism will always remain just a perception is because there will always be an explanatory gap problem due to our subjective or inner reality not being able to be observed by us as if it were some material object that has physical properties, so it is inconceivable how such a reality can be observed by examining the brain and that is why there is the " hard problem of consciousness." It is the subjective " self " that is aware of the function of the senses being outlets that allow us to perceive the objective world. Our senses being material can only give us experience of material phenomena that has attributes of form,taste, smell, sound, and physical texture but since consciousness being awareness is devoid of physical attributes our awareness which is the subjective self will always be inaccessible for our senses to perceive. And since consciousness cannot observe consciousness there will always be an explanatory gap problem as well as the hard problem of consciousness that will always make consciousness and it's origins not observable by any material means. Since truth can be defined as " that which is realized to be true " materialism can never be a realized truth but rather a belief or perception.

[@adriancioroianu1704]

This is an excellent synthesis by Ned in a 5min discussion.

[@stevecoley8365]

I think Star Trek tried to address this question by using Captain Kirk and Dr Spock as metaphors. Dr Spock is more of a computational brain than an emotional body. But Captain Kirk is more of a passionate, emotional body than a computational brain. When the computational brain harmonizes with the emotional body...it creates an explosion of wisdom called "mind" whereby the wisdom created is greater than the sum of the parts.

[@omegabiker]

I think if you want to advance in this field you have to go back to animals and study how they react or how you think they perceive things, then go back to lesser evolved animals then insects and add it all up to get a basic understanding of the nature of consciousness in relation to brain development and only then you should start asking this question, jumping straight to us is approaching it with a lot of ignorance which only makes it that more difficult.

[@ezbody]

That's what the actual scientists are doing, it's just that many people have a problem with not having an explanation right at this moment, or not having an explanation that fits their desired conclusion.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Time might be something that brings together both neuroscience and mental aspects of consciousness; and which both could work on while keeping eye on the other

[@BBBlueMango]

What a scary talk....my goodness... to think that our consciousness is no different from a strike of lightning (what is just is).... but then a nice wrap up at the end, that there is still more digging to do..

[@thomassoliton1482]

The mind-body dichotomy is not a problem - it is a concept. As Ned points out via Nagel’s comment, we don’’t know how to think about the concept properly - we think dualistically… The functioning of the mind in terms of material entities (molecules, atoms) is something our brains can grasp. Consciousness, however, as you are aware of it, is thought - “I think,, therefore I am (conscious)””. Consciousness is a first-hand experience - it cannot be dissected down to more fundamental objects / entities like water : H2O. Thoughts, or sensations you are conscious of (sights, sounds, smells) can be understod at a more fundamental level.

[@williamburts5495]

The mind/ body problem is scientist trying to understand how inert chemicals can give rise to awareness but since awareness is not an objective object that all can see saying it comes from neurons is just their perception not something they can prove.

[@omegabiker]

It's an action/reaction mechanism, the evidence is in a baby growing and adapting, we get confused because we ignore this part the most I think. What creates consciousness is learning/memorising and recollection, there would be no self awareness without recollection because without it you wouldn't realise that you were you in two different points in time. A simple example would be person A after a car accident damages a part of the brain and forgets who they are and can't recollect, they for sure won't be pondering about what consciousness is when they can't even recognise themselves. We need highly intelligent people to think about A LOT.

[@williamburts5495]

@@omegabiker You said, " What creates consciousness is learning/memorizing and recollection " to me those things ride along the stream of consciousness but don't create it. Learning, memory, recollection, all come from your being conscious of your life drama. You said, " a simple example would be a person after a car accident damages a part of the brain and forgets who they are and can't recollect " In truth, you don't even need a car accident for that to happen dementia and alzheimer's can cause that condition but forgetting the drama that is or was your life doesn't prevent you from knowing that you exist.

[@ezbody]

It is not much different from a problem of you trying to understand how the rapid switching of electrical currents inside a computer creates an image on the screen.

[@williamburts5495]

@@ezbody But is the computer observing what is on the screen?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could mind / thought be mathematical process in brain; while consciousness is subjective awareness of the mind?

[@verycoldhardybles790]

Do-happening is what's going on. The two extreemes are - everything happens to me (no free will) or I'm doing it (envoking the universe)

[@SandipChitale]

What the word water means is not only H2O, but it also is what large collection of H2O molecules do, and also between temperature range 0 to 100 degree Celsius. They flow. The slowly evaporate. They feel wet. They cool things. They dissolve things. They store potential energy in a dam. They can push things - flood. Similary mind is not only brain. But it is the structure, time history (memory), incoming sensory perception input and dynamical ectrochemical processes that operate on those in context of stored and changing connections of neurons. The key is the dynamic electrochemical processing. If that stops there is no mind. Ned is saying mind IS brain in that sense.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does oxygen have any properties that would contribute to mind or consciousness in the biology of physical brain? Might oxygen, maybe in blood, have anything to do with neuron energy spikes or signals becoming mathematical mind or subjective conscious awareness?

[@chmd22]

I watch quite a few of these mind/body/consciousness videos, and it's quite obvious given the plethora of opinions and total lack of evidence that no one has a freaking clue. My personal hunch is that we will never scientifically explain what consciousness is. It will forever be the domain of philosophy, with neuroscience helping to keep it grounded. But that is just my opinion, and I am biased because I like it that way.

[@toreoft]

Consciousness is not just processes in the brain, because then those processes would generate consciousness, and that is contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Thoughts are patterns, system and order, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that if the brain is a closed system (in other words; generating its own consciousness) then the brain will only increase in disorder and electrical chaos with time, and never be able to converge to systematic and orderly thoughts and ideas; so therefore consciousness with ordered structures in the form of thoughts and ideas must come from outside, and the processes in the brain must then be described as just reflecting consciousness.

[@DingleberryPie]

Can someone break down what he is saying at 5:45?

[@omegabiker]

He's basically saying what makes you you.

[@projectmalus]

See Up and Atom video from yesterday of Gabriel's Horn, where volume is finite and surface area infinite, no comparison possible.

[@JungleJargon]

Thoughts such as optimism for a desired outcome are not physical, advice has to do with a course of action to determine a desired outcome based on non physical objectives, determination to have a desired outcome is not a physical thing, knowing about these non physical things is not based on physical relationships between physical things. A computer/robot can calculate but can't give you a reason why. A sense of accomplishment is not a physical thing, love, joy, peace etc. are not physical things.

[@SabiazothPsyche]

Simply put: The brain is material, and the mind is immaterial. Neither is one in the same.

[@bshul10]

"even if we were told... we wouldn't understand it. tThe same could be said for the mystery of what was before the big bang. Our brains are formed from matter which occurred after the big bang. We are incapable of understanding that state.

[@circa_76er]

I love Alan Watts quote... "Does the sun shine or do I make it shine"

[@citizenschallengeYT]

Why do you love that? It sound to me like it implies you are control of reality. I agree that we are somewhat in control of how you perceive the world around us. But, we don't control the reality of the world around you. = "The sun shines and I perceive it best I can"

[@circa_76er]

@@citizenschallengeYT Beacause this is what quantum reality seems to point towards but then he also joked that he would love to listen to a debate between solipsists trying to prove their point of view. Alson in terms of the sun, do you ever step outside close your eyes, feel into the experience of the sun and realize for what it trully is.

[@citizenschallengeYT]

@@circa_76er Heck back in the day I even liked listening to Alan Watts occasionally, not that I necessarily agreed with him. I did a lot of hitchhiking in those days, got to meet a lot of people with great stories, but on the take, somewhat predatorily. I got the feeling though Watts was talking about truths, he was selling a bill of goods. You know what they say; buyer beware. But, more power to him, more than I ever did with all my fancy thinking and writing.

[@anteodedi8937]

Alan Watts is a pseudo-philosopher.

[@hertzishwartz7360]

The mind is infinite, it exists all around us, as energy does, the brain translates it for us, this is what it does, and according to our perception and life circumstances adjust it to fit our way of life, thinking and feeling. The mind controls the brain that control the body, all in relationship with each other, all being affected from each other. The science is stuck on our physical existence, it doesn't explore much of our other existence which is the energy fields we are part of, consciousness is such, energy that contains knowledge.

[@eardwulf785]

I think I get what you're saying and have had a similar (possible?) interpretation. Especially concerning 'energy' but I imagined it like a kind of perpetual fuel, constantly fed until the physical body eventually deteriorates and the supply is exhausted.

[@seangrieves4359]

Absolutely

[@SandipChitale]

@@eardwulf785 I think you are talking about life force or Élan vital - read up on that on Wikipedia. But that has been ruled out. There is no life force but the physical parts of the body - anatomy, physiology and metabolism. Full disclosure - I am physicalist until proven otherwise.

[@omegabiker]

Sorry to say but this is a really shallow view which doesn't reflect reality.

[@hertzishwartz7360]

@@omegabiker I don't agree with your opinion. I'm talking from my experience. Till further notice the mind is a powerful force and it controls our brain that controls the body. I can detect energy fields, within and without us, I practice what I preach and you saying it's shallow not explaining why you said that, not understanding that we're more than this physical existence, is not something that I can take seriously.

[@verycoldhardybles790]

What a shame Alan Watts can't be interviewed. He would end these series really fast :)

[@squirrelhead6084]

Get out the old Ouiji borad 😉

[@ezbody]

"Thou shall not worship any self-appointed gurus" -- That could have been a good commandment, God just didn't think of it.

[@spiritualawareness7736]

Mind is a Higher Vibrational Frequency Energy which is connected to the physical human Brain Using hyperdimensional technology Links.

[@francesco5581]

HE start with a terrible mistake that destroy what he says after. Water is not an aggregation of molecules in his deeper state, thats what quantum physics says. So as consciousness is not a mere activity of neurons. It's the exact same and he picks both wrong.

[@xspotbox4400]

Not sure if i remembered that correctly, but water molecules are constantly changing their aggregate state. Water molecules are constantly creating crystalline structures, existing only for a brief period of time, regardless of temperature.

[@rafael.frigori]

If there are bodiless minds, why they just communicate through our brains?

[@PaulHoward108]

Why do you think that's what happens? Do you know from where your ideas originate?

[@rafael.frigori]

@@PaulHoward108 Yes, they come from my brain, an EEG has shown me that. However, I had Psi-Gamma experiences that also showed me that Mind can unfold in space-time in a non-sensorial way.

[@illitaret8780]

@@rafael.frigori EEGs only show correlations, when a thought appears, an area on the brain lights up. But why did that area light up? What is the cause of the lighting up is it the thought? Well then your next question may be, what was the cause of thought? And then we would say the lighting of the brain. It is very circular logic. It is simpler to admit ignorance.

[@rafael.frigori]

@@illitaret8780 false. Science at most predict "mere" phenomenological correlations, but when it happens according to quantitative mathematical patterns this is called Physics. In this particular case, the patterns are the neuronal spike bursts described by the Hodgkin-Huxley equations (HHE). The model does not need any "external" sources. Conscience can be halted by anesthesia, which change such electrical patterns. Again, all that are just correlations, but quite strong ones! Notwithstanding you could propose another, more fundamental external cause, but then is at your burden to provide a mathematical model able to at least quantitatively recover all aforesaid scientific features and HHE as a proper limit.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

The mind/body *"problem"* can be visualized by realizing that in the same way that it is illogical to assume that a unique arrangement of the substances that forms a dream is somehow responsible for the creation of the *"dreamer"* of the dream, likewise, it is difficult to imagine how a unique arrangement of inanimate particles of matter (in the form of a brain) is somehow responsible for the creation of a mind in which that same *"dreamer of dreams"* is located. In other words, whatever the unmeasurable substance is that forms the self-aware *"agent"* that sits at the throne of consciousness within the inner context of a mind, it seems to be irreconcilable (as in bears no resemblance) with the substance from which the mind and its agent emerged (which is why it is called "strong" emergence, as opposed to "weak" emergence). _______

[@robotstobor3388]

..I think you need to simplify your explanation.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Perhaps you will have some luck with your imaginings once you achieve a clear understanding of how it is that 'inanimate particles of matter (in the form of a printed essay)' can be the conveyors of meaning. Once you've got that clear understanding in mind, it should be fairly trivial to make the leap to understanding how words might be maintained in dynamically encoded form as the discharge frequencies of neurons (p.s. every one of which has a base firing rate). And, if you know even a modest amount about synapses, how thinking might proceed becomes easy to imagine. (The way that the meaning of a word depends a great deal on its context in a sentence, is analogous to how the meaning of a particular neuron's discharge frequency depends entirely on its synaptic context, on the twenty thousand, on average, synapses that control a particular neuron's discharge rate). (Now if you substitute the word 'analogy' everywhere you find 'discharge frequency' or 'firing rate', you might begin to see what I'm driving at with this comment). (Here are more or less relevant afterthoughts that occurred to me just before I hit REPLY... There is no point in developing a TV screen with more resolution than human vision can appreciate. And another... Isn't it interesting that when one looks at large smooth flat surfaces, they do not appear pixelated despite the fact that our retinas consist of two dimensional arrays of discrete light sensors! (I think it's analogy that smooths them out for the benefit of the self). Self! It is my self that is conscious. Is my self nought but a complex analogy? That's what I'm thinkin). Cheers, eh!

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Don't think of the brain as a complex mechanism in which there are a hundred billion neurons and trillions of synapses interconnecting in a complex network with chemicals, electrical discharges, frequencies etc. Rather, imagine a hundred billion analogies maintaining and affecting the meanings of each other via the logic of the synapses. (Easy then to understand how a drug, like LSD for instance, by changing the behavior of all those synapses, changes the frequency encoded analogies, their meanings and thereby astounding the mind's eye with new visions, everything radically changed).

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

​@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I'm not so much concerned with how "thinking might proceed," but more of the ontological status of the *"thinker."* Furthermore, visualizing the workings of neurons and synapses does not help us with the process of trying to imagine the form and structure of the subjectively-based *"lucid dreamer,"* for example, who can willfully grasp the infinitely malleable fabric of her mind and shape it into anything she wishes. I like the general gist of your comment. However, if it was offered-up as some kind of resolution to the mind/body problem, then I'm not seeing it. And lastly, you suggested that the self is a "complex analogy." To which I ask: an analogy of what? _______

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@TheUltimateSeeds The ontological status of the "thinker" has got to be the same as thought. Thoughts are analogies. Analogies are implemented in brains as the discharge frequencies of neurons. Frequencies are abstract entities. Abstract entities are immaterial. Why minds, consisting entirely of thought, are immaterial. We see how neurons serve as the physical substrate of the mind. Mind body problem solved. lol

[@eksffa]

NTS: great/90/some logic, explanation gap; identity

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Maybe consciousness studied by mathematics / quantum probabilities measurement by observer?

[@bluelotus542]

Does the brain have the capacity to observe itself? This is a crucial question, for usually any object is observed by an observer out of it.

[@projectmalus]

I'd say yes, because of an ability to extend time space out of context, this vantage point is all that's needed, in the same way a person can be in a culture and still observe it, unlike an animal probably.

[@wthomas7955]

Of course.

[@bluelotus542]

@Pisstake Given that the brain is the observer and the observed, can the eye see the brain without being connected to it?

[@bluelotus542]

@@projectmalus The culture is something external to the person.

[@bluelotus542]

@Pisstake Observation is a scientific process that entails a conscious observer. So far no one has been able to experimentally prove that the conscious observer emerges from the brain. All that has been found is a correlation between the conscious mind and the brain.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Possibility that blood circulation in brain plays a role in consciousness?

[@anthonycraig274]

Highly unlikely, unless you mean to keep the brain alive.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

@@anthonycraig274 part of consciousness

[@anthonycraig274]

@@jamesruscheinski8602 If this is your hypothesis, its not a bad stab. I would say someone else has a theory that its the nervous system. The input from the nerves is used by the brain to make or simulate the self.

[@projectmalus]

@@anthonycraig274 The sensory data might be digitized on the way to the calculator brain, which acts like a digital to analog converter (DAC) to achieve the analog representation in real time almost that is seen by the person. Music has two elements expressed that results in an analog expression again, same with language and structures of living. It goes between ADC of sensory input to DAC of brain processing, back to ADC with language expressing ideas and the result is DAC again, but now on a cultural level. This might be just the flow of experience and not the ego, self or awareness.

[@BrianPseivaD]

Your mind is an organic synergistic energy entanglement training machine, once the connections are actually made that work to make us conscious that network is also built through quantum entanglement so this would imply that consciousness is indefinite and everlasting, leaving the body is like a bird learning to fly, it’s our consciousness’s becoming free.

[@anthonycraig274]

Errrm, no. Otherwise, why bother living. The mind is merely a function of the brain. Once the brain dies, we die. It’s kind of simple.

[@xspotbox4400]

Why do you think molecules of our body are entangled, it doesn't work like that, we don't have crystals or lasers inside.

[@BrianPseivaD]

@@xspotbox4400 molecules are completely irrelevant, it goes beyond that learn about anti-desitter space conformal field theory correspondence and quantum entanglement. It’s not something I am willing to teach, it is an answer you have to discover yourself. Fundamentally conscious is quantum not molecular.

[@k-3402]

Mind is an epiphenomenon

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

I believe I am more than my brain even if I cannot proove it call it faith if you like

[@omegabiker]

That can be disproven simply by a single accident that damages a part of the brain that deals with recollection/memories, you wouldn't even realise that you are you then how would you come up with a concept of belief and faith, you wouldn't be able to.

[@GS-wz9np]

@@omegabiker how does this disprove that we are more than our brains?

[@SvenDeBinj]

@@GS-wz9np Because it means that all it requires is damaging parts of the brain to affect enough of the brain that you can no longer use your brain fully... Or at least means that if some of the mind comes from outside that it still gets blocked from working because of physical damage

[@SvenDeBinj]

@@GS-wz9np which technically doesn’t disprove that some of your mind comes from outside of the brain but just that you won’t ever be able to use any of it if you’re brain dead. Which is basically the same as their not being any outside influence at all if you can’t get past the physical damage there’s no point in it being outside of your brain at all

[@GS-wz9np]

@@SvenDeBinj well, conciousness could endure death and leave the body, once you die. At least that's what near death experiences seem to point to.

[@MrSanford65]

What we do know is that the Mind is knowledge/awareness and the body is experience, and the two are not even a correlation for the mind can overcome the experience of the body. And in some circumstances Such as the placebo effect, the “idea “ Can induce experience into the body- but that inducement has to come from another mind…..

[@omegabiker]

Do you think a person born blind, deaf and without all sensation, lets just say for arguments sake if only a brain could be developed by itself, do you think it would ever become self aware without external stimuli? I highly doubt it because it would have to have the concept of thinking, how can it begin to think without having learned anything.

[@MrSanford65]

@@omegabiker that’s an interesting question and it goes along the lines of; how could there be a beginning of language if you would need language to make a language in the first place ? But my answer to the question goes back to the placebo effect. A doctor or someone can instill an abstract belief into someone that they’ve been healed and the body reacts to the “stimuli “ of an abstract idea. The only thing external is an external “ idea”. So is all stimuli idea ?

[@MrSanford65]

@@omegabiker I just want to further elaborate on that interesting thought experiment. The brain has no pain receptors, which implies that by design it cannot feel pain or physical sensation because it is in fact , the author of it. And anything that generates anything is immune to what it generates

[@omegabiker]

​@@MrSanford65 Well for language I would say not quite similar because the language requires someone to already be conscious with a certain level of awareness (by things learned) in order to grasp the concept where as what I'm saying goes way before that, before the brain can even have the chance to learn anything from outside stimuli can it be self aware. As for placebo I have no idea, from what I remember vaguely it's inconsistent and it would be otherwise we'd have a cure for everything and it's also based on a self aware learned individual so my only logical presumption is that it's a simple process, perhaps the person relaxes knowing they've been treated and that relaxation helps the body fight off whatever disease it's dealing with. I think what we have to do is think more rationally without jumping all over the place and we're all guilty of that.

[@omegabiker]

@@MrSanford65 Yes and lets not stop there, why does everything in the body work to protect us without our permission, we are a slave to our brain who created the self then questions itself. I think bed time for me, brain hurts. 😂

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

In the Eternal Life, there is, the Life-side and the Stuff-side. The Life-side is Consciousness. (+ Thoughts=Motion) (Wisdom-Ocean) The Stuff-side is Motion, a Motion-Ocean, pure Motion. (Physics)

[@achyuthcn2555]

If brain is knowing external info, who is knowing info collected in the brain?? See your brain as a camera and you will understand the clear distinction between Consciousness and Experience.

[@anthonycraig274]

Actually, the human brain simulates the outside would, and runs prediction models to anticipate the best or most likely outcome. Now I don’t know if the self is simulated and placed in the middle or the simulation is modelled around the self, but that’s where the research is at at the moment.

[@anthonycraig274]

@@HoneybunMegapack Agreed.

[@mobiustrip1400]

But who, or what is asking the question, or answering it? It's insoluble

[@omegabiker]

A specific firing order of neurons which recollects all gathered and stored past events is asking the question.

[@GS-wz9np]

@@omegabiker So the brain is asking itself a question, to further investigate it. Why is concious awareness needed for in this process? Conciousness is one of the hardest to explain things in the universe, why would my brain even bother to create such a complicated thing, if it isn't even needed? Hard problem of conciousness...

[@ezbody]

@@GS-wz9np The less you know, the harder is the "problem" of consciousness.

[@kallianpublico7517]

Identity: water is h2o, brain is mind. This IS that or this MEANS that? The IS in (water IS h2o) comes from the boiling of water and the capturing of its gases. Obviously a gas is not a liquid so there is a necessary caveat that should be thought of before the identity is made. The caveat being that water underwent a process before we "discovered" it was ONLY(actually) made of 2 gases. Technically speaking the identity (is) holds no actual water. But if you say this MEANS that then what would be meant? A definition or a "sense" of a thing? When we say the morning star is really not a star at all but the planet Venus, what are we saying? Are we identifying one as the other, one is the other, one is equal to the other? What do we actually mean? We mean "by the senses" this is that, don't we? We certainly do not mean that by mathematical deduction this is "equal" to that. Equal in what way, because a liquid is not equal to a gas. There must be a bonding, a "binding" of two different molecules before the two gases become water. This obviously is a required intermediary step. So what we should be stating is that the 2 gases of oxygen and hydrogen NEED to be bonded before water is formed. And that this is what we MEAN when we say water is h2o. Meaning and identity are not the same thing. 1 + 1 = 2 is not the same thing as the chemical equation for h2o. There is an additional requirement. H + O +O + bond = H2o. The + sign is insufficient without the bond. In meaning the senses can be involved or, as in the case of the morning star, hearsay or faith may be involved. In identity the senses are not involved. It is pure faith.

[@abeautifuldayful]

I think consciousness exists in the body, not just the brain, wherever you have wetware. This explains a lot to me about why I can consciously feel pain or pleasure, laughter or sadness, fatigue or energy throughout my brain and body, which I call my mind. Can anyone prove me wrong?

[@seangrieves4359]

Prove yourself wrong. Consciousness knows know distance or duration. How far away is the experience of the moon? From the experience of a thought? They arise in the same placeless place.

[@abeautifuldayful]

@@seangrieves4359 That makes no sense to me.

[@seangrieves4359]

@@abeautifuldayful you look through the abstraction and see abstraction.

[@seangrieves4359]

@@abeautifuldayful forget everything and see how close thought is? How close is that which is observed? Everything is one and knows no distance. Consciousness sees no time and space as there is none.

[@seangrieves4359]

@@abeautifuldayful what the most amusement is the knowledge that we have been taught how to experience ourselves and adopted the teaching. Then cried about the experience. Should we investigate the first knowledge "i am" there is no separation in experience. My "i amness" and the universal isness are the same. Dictionary words can not box up really into discreet parcels of bits of knowledge. Consciousness is all Knowing, real knowledge.

[@dingaling8676]

2 mins. In I call BS.

[@LenBerman]

Consciousness is evolution's response to Murphy's law

[@EverettMcLemore]

Shallow as hell.

[@felinefriend6101]

mind is not brain. brain is a processor…..it has input…..and output subsequent to processing. it is no more capable of “choice” than is a computer. Mind is that part of “you” which makes a choice. A choice is when your MIND directs your BRAIN to trigger an action which it is not otherwise programmed to do. Run up 6 flights of stairs. upon reaching the top ….stop breathing for 60 seconds. This is a “choice”. The action runs contrary to survival….Your brain will cry out for those actions which are necessary to oxygenate….Yet the “choice” made by your mind….prevails. The problem begins when you try to prescribe physical attributes to that part of you which transcends physical traits. Loosen up on arrogance (ie our IQ) and open up to the possibility that we Are not likely to understand the workings of a higher state of being (our mind) given the use of our lower state of being (the brain). instead if one wants to understand mind….this will occur when 1: you die and are free of the constraints of the body/brain (see life after death John Cleese) and/or 2; You 🧘‍♀️ meditate

[@jimmybrice6360]

what the hell are you talking about ? you dont know that consciousness has a biological essence any more than the man in the moon !!

[@EmbodiedNonDuality]

Why is the exploration of consciousness based on the presumption it arises in the brain? No evidence for this.

[@somethingyousaid5059]

My pain. That's my first consideration. My mind and body are required for it. As far as I'm concerned that's the mind-body problem.

[@Bill..N]

Some would argue that every single thought is physically represented by neuronal patterns within the brain..If that's true, then we largely understand awareness right now..

[@amirguri1335]

Neuronal patterns and awareness aren't the same thing, though. The body side of the debate keeps saying that it will one day invalidate the mind side of the debate. This will never happen.

[@Bill..N]

@@amirguri1335 I disagree friend.. From the perspective of philosophical naturalism, PATTERNS of electrical and chemical activity in the brain is what all thoughts including awareness ARE.. I'm guessing you don't believe our thoughts exist OUTSIDE the brain, correct.? Additionally the so-called mind body problem, is not a problem for naturalists, only philosophers..

[@amirguri1335]

@@Bill..N I agree with you from a naturalist perspective Bill. I suggest, however, that the naturalist perspective is incomplete for not including mind in its scheme of reality. It is incomplete for not accounting for qualia. This is the hard problem of consciousness. It's tempting to sweep it under the rug and say that it's only a problem for philosophers, but it's a problem for anyone else who wishes for a full accounting of truth. Just my thoughts - which I happen to think are more than the firing of electrical circuits in my brain 🤔

[@Bill..N]

@@amirguri1335 Your position is not without merit and is also widely held.. Without disrespect tho, it could easily be argued that the meaning of the word Qualia is WAY too fuzzy.. It's a "Loaded" word (Like consciousness) carrying the weight of MANY potentially inaccurate assumptions..If we use the more precise term of AWARENESS, and agree that animals with larger and more complex brains possess a more complex Awareness then smaller ones, THEN Qualia would simply be an HD awareness of the environment.. Highly advanced aliens with huge brains containing 10X the number of processing connections then the human brain, could be logically assumed to possess a far GREATER awareness than ourselves..A UHD awareness of the inviornment.? With this proposition in mind friend, I would extend the friendly challenge for you to think of a type of qualia that would best falsify or in some way could not be encompassed within such a simple and natural theory..Peace

[@amirguri1335]

@@Bill..N I don't see awareness and qualia as being the same. Qualia happens in awareness. There are states of consciousness, for instance, where there is awareness but no qualia, i.e dreamless sleep. So we can conceptually separate the two. We also don't know that brains produce awareness. It begs the question. The fact that we are capable of out of body awareness suggests an alternative paradigm might be true, namely that our brains transmit and assemble consciousness but do not generate it. Peace to you as well sir

[@unenlightenedman3859]

Everyone who has become conscious of consciousness being fundamental have all said that is a fact. Everyone who says Consciousness comes from the brain never know for sure.

[@GS-wz9np]

Concious experience can (until now) not be explained without conciousness being a fundamental reality.

[@ezbody]

This isn't anything new or the unusual -- it's a well known fact of life that the more ignorant a person is the more certain they are of their understanding of world around them.

[@alanbrady420]

What came first the mind or the egg?

[@silvercloud1641]

I have a question. *If* babies came first, could they survive on their own?

[@xspotbox4400]

The egg, mind can't exist without material substance, of course. This is not a good example of a paradox, by the way, the answer is much too obvious.

[@evaadam3635]

The MIND is a combination of supernatural free aware soul and human brain which is a processor.. This free soul that is responsible to be aware and to make choices is separate from the body. Let me explain :..... If choices are driven by physical laws of nature, then why do we still have FREE TIME to decide what choices to make which should be impossible if all our time is taken or bound by physical laws ? ...... Let me repeat, if choices are just product of natural physical cause and effect, then why does physical law allow us to still have time to decide what choices to make which would not be necessary because nature already has it ready for you - making us all no different than a clueless programmed robots ? The fact that we can have FREE TIME to decide what choices to make screams loudly that physical laws are NOT controlling us, which means we are an existence outside this physical world. We are non-physical souls temporarily dwelling inside our human physical shells for a chance to believe for our souls' salvation, I believe.

[@omegabiker]

Nonsense sorry, simply disproven by reality. You would not be able to understand the concept of self if the part of your brain that deals with memory was not there. We're too quick to jump to conclusions without questioning and doubting ourselves and most are guilty of that.

[@evaadam3635]

@@omegabiker The reason why we are able to perceive memories is because we have non-physical awareness separate from the brain that can freely observe what the brain conveys, be it thoughts, ideas, memories, etc. Once again, if you are just part of the physical brain driven by physical laws ALL THE TIME, how can you possibly have free time to focus and be aware of your memories while all your time is taken by physical laws like a clueless programmed robot ? I am still waiting for your answer to this question. By the way, i was not jumping into conclusion because my own personal experience about the existence of my awareness with free will is clear evidence. You experience this fact too.

[@Thinkingboutit7777]

@@evaadam3635 hi Eva. I agree with you

[@evaadam3635]

@@Thinkingboutit7777 God bless you... 🙂😋

[@PaulHoward108]

The supposed mind-body problem is a false belief that the body exists before the mind instead of existing as a detailed concept created by the mind.

[@projectmalus]

What about the embryo, do they have a mind? Or do you mean the detailed ongoing running of the body requires a cohesive account of homeostasis, balance of function, and that is supplied by mom up until birth? In this case, the mind would exist first and be passed like a baton when the body is ready.

[@PaulHoward108]

@@projectmalusBodies are properties of minds. Minds have bodies, not the reverse. The more abstract concept is logically prior than the more contingent concept.

[@PaulHoward108]

@@HoneybunMegapack The universe is made of consciousness. There isn't anything else.

[@PaulHoward108]

@@HoneybunMegapack, When consciousness lacks desirable objects, that desire becomes the seed of experience.

[@PaulHoward108]

@@HoneybunMegapack Desire originates in Kṛṣṇa's interest to share His ecstatic fullness in loving relationships. Material creation is His exploration of the question of whether He has any flaws. In general, creations are ways of addressing questions about the creator. Objects are created as symbols of meanings, which then can be manipulated in various ways.

[@jjay6764]

The reason there's a mind/body problem at all is because materialist are like zealots. They start with the priori that the material HAS TO explain everything. It can't explain how matter became aware of itself. You have to separate the mind(non physical awareness) from the body(material). How is are psychology material? My thoughts and the qualia of those thoughts are just as real as my body, maybe more so. How does the material brain initiate the recall of a specific memory? How does the material brain tell the material brain which memory it wants the material brain to recall and why? There's a non physical self that navigates and operates the information in the material brain. Sadly, the scientific establishment is controlled by atheist and materialist who are stuck in Plato's Cave. Tesla was right when he said, "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

[@neilcreamer8207]

The mind-body problem is what happens when you take an experience literally and believe that the appearance of a body means that there IS a body. It’s the same sort of mistake we make with rainbows.

[@neilcreamer8207]

@@suryatchandra None of that proves that it isn’t an appearance. A dream where bodies are put to sleep by anaesthesia would look the same as ‘real’ anaesthesia. Under anaesthesia, supposedly all experience of the body stops and there is no dreaming. The same is true of deep sleep. It’s no different in experience than a cut from one scene to the next in a movie. Reality is just what comes from believing that something is real. Ideas of unconsciousness are also just a statement of unknown causes.

[@neilcreamer8207]

@@suryatchandra You might be looking at this from an assumed but fictitious viewpoint. Consider that there might be no such thing as ‘your mind’ because the ‘you’ you are identifying as appears in a mind which includes all of the world: your thoughts, your perceptions and your sensations, particularly those relating to a body. In a game analogy (which is limited because it’s more like a dream), the entirety of the game occurs within the capacity for experience which is what you really are, and the ‘you’ you think you are is your character in an RPG. You don’t have a mind. You are a dream character within a mind. The real you is the dreamer.

[@neilcreamer8207]

@@suryatchandra I don’t claim to have any idea how thing happens but I agree with you 100% that a viewpoint seems to be necessary for experience to occur. Regarding the idea that all of reality needs to be consistent several things occur to me: time might be illusory, space might be illusory, and memory might be illusory. In my experience, although dreams are clearly dreams after you wake from them they always seem to have a seamless backstory which makes everything make sense. When I reflect on dreams they are very thin on detail yet the experience of them seems very full at the time. This might relate to an insight I had while doing mushrooms one time: it became very clear to me that the content of the experience was being created simultaneously with the experience occurring. To this day, I am acutely aware that the actual scope of my experience is not as big as I believe it is. Belief in ideas adds a lot of size and substance to the world and the idea that it is consistent and continuous might be beliefs too. How would I know?

[@neilcreamer8207]

@@suryatchandra Well, it seems to follow rules but rules imply cause and effect which implies time if you see where I’m going with this 😉

[@neilcreamer8207]

@@suryatchandra The idea of “internal and the external experience” depends on the idea of a body. The ‘body’ is just an experience. There is nothing inside it and nothing outside. Who is to say that we do need eyes to see? We can see dreams with our eyes closed. The experience is the same. In the dream you have dream eyes to see the dream world but you know now that the dream is all in mind. How do you know there is real intent before you lift your arm? There is a thought and then the experience of moving the arm. Is it really your intent? How did you choose to move your arm? Do you choose your thoughts and, if so, why do you not always have enjoyable ones? I agree that we don’t know the structure of reality at all but it is dream-LIKE, at least.

[@anthonycraig274]

When the problem has been solved, I know the religious zealot will not like it.

[@philipose66]

YES! of course---"work on the neuro science of it"---what freaken else could give an answer to consciousness and what mind is......i have watched and commented on a few of these Kuhn MIND//CONSCIOUNESS//FREE WILL discussions. This Ned Block, although philosophy is usually inept at deriving actual answers like in a lab, this guy has come closest to what i have been stating on all these Kuhn interviews---he even uses the color red that i have mentioned (do we dream in color?Q---well, if i ask you while awake to think of a red covered book, are you seeing red, anyway?---yes and no. Anyway, what these guys all leave out is that mind is part of the brain (Block states that, thank goodness) and that brain, just like it conjures up the color red, it also conjurs up discussions with its flesh and blood part we call mind---that is what C is---this discussin---this self awareness because our brain and mind decide that we are aware of ourself----we are the best at doing this, because discussion is LANGUAGE and we have the most sophisticated language and we talk it, write it, and read it,. The more sophisticated out language is, the more aware we are----we ponder the 'should i, shoudn't i.

[@Bill..N]

I certainly agree with you Phil.. I would even expand your premise to suggest that from a naturalistic argument, there is NOTHING mysterious about such philosophical ideas as qualia, the mind body problem, or the hard problem of consciousness.. These trick words actually obfuscate thel simplicity of natural explanations..Peace.

[@chmd22]

You say "The more sophisticated our language is, the more aware we are", but in traditional Eastern philosophy, language is actually one of the main barriers to awareness (enlightenment), because language is dual, which is problematic when it comes to communicating or understanding a reality that isn't. Furthermore, definitions are subjective, to an extent (especially for abstract concepts), meaning that what we communicate is not necessarily what others understand, even if we all appear to agree on the surface. As evidence, see all the circular definitions in a dictionary, or think of explaining what snow is to someone who's never experienced it. More words help but don't ultimately solve the problem. IMO, this places a hard limit on any kind of teaching, and makes it everyone's responsibility to discover the deepest truths for themselves, by clearing the mind and avoiding thoughts as much as possible (which is actually very hard to do).

[@philipose66]

@@chmd22 i love and admire the Eastern stuff you are talking about---doing shift work wayyyyyy back, i used to listen to Alan Watts on the radio--his voice and laughter intoxicating (yes, intox has many meaning but i know you know what i mean :) ). i learned so much from him which is why i am writing all over these YTs when it comes to consciousness and free will (i own and have read 4 of his books---i adored the value of his efforts to enlighten). My scinece background helps---understanding basic physical laws and particle//space interactions, which is why i know//feel the MIND is physical when others see it as outside the physical. To your point of my point about "the more sophisticated the language"---well, if i am correct that the brain discusses issues//senses with itself so that we react far beyond instinct reflexive, then my statement holds. All//most humans are self aware and therefore have C and i 'know' they talk to themselves within their brain almost as autonomic as breathing. i truly feel that we all have different levels of language ability and some of us even talk pretty sophisticated, just as in a bar or a physics lecture, people have levels of communication. I certainly agree with you that being quiet and doing that real well by meditating, there are even levels of that. So tho i agree with the specific point you make, it does not change my main point for most of us most of the time. (SNOW somewhere in these YTs i did mention that 'Eskimos' have different words for snow----also, one may never experience snow, but media solves that---and i must invoke Hellen Keller and all that that implies---all her remarkable awareness came from brain//mind interaction with words she felt but did not hear or see).--Thank you for your point about zen stuff--us Westerners need to learn.

[@philipose66]

@@chmd22 kzbin.info/www/bejne/bH27ead6ir2eiZI Brian greene on language---he doesn't just sit at the pc and spit---he discusses the words, sentences, paragraphs, ideas with his own brain---he may also get help from another person's brain, but they too discuss with themselves how to respond

[@Bill..N]

@@chmd22 Your comment is interesting to me Dan. Can a person learn things about themselves in a mental state where thoughts are maximally suppressed, that they could NOT have learned through honest self reflection/examination..? And you're right, it's VERY hard to do, several attempts on my part made it seem impossible..Peace

[@unenlightenedman3859]

That's why he's lost. Biology is something consciousness is doing. Not the other way around.

[@xNazgrel]

@Pisstake How do you know when something is "proven"?

[@unenlightenedman3859]

Godel's incompleteness theorems is all I can say...lol Meditate

[@xNazgrel]

@Pisstake Tell me that you can at least give a definition of "proof".

[@xNazgrel]

@Pisstake Exactly that. That only in mathematics you can have proof. 1+1=2 because 2 is defined (among other things) as 1+1.

[@xNazgrel]

@Pisstake idk about that

[@backwardthoughts1022]

pure scientism

[@rishikris1740]

YOUR BODY BRAIN IS HARDWARE YOUR MIND IS SOFTWARE

[@thehonorablejiveturkey6068]

Response: The mind cannot heal the body

[@francesco5581]

well there are decades of studies regarding the placebo effect about that ...

[@anthonycraig274]

Well that’s false. The mind can heal the body as well as make the body sick.

[@francesco5581]

@@anthonycraig274 stress for example lower the immune system protection.

[@riadberkati673]

Incoherente statements

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Ned hasn adqued concept Body Mind . He narrow mind Not show up consciecness are failed picture phisch reality. Otherwise reality pluralists concept in world are linked conscieness. Obvious rethoric.

[@projectmalus]

It's all sticks and stones! With stones/objects added by sticks/time segments to achieve pearl of great price/symmetry, same in culture ontology as in universe and imagination ontology. But thanks for your marvellous comments.

[@deeestuary]

This is an interesting channel but there's too much trying to make out humans, and their consciousness, are somehow special. In other words trying to put humans into the centre of the universe. Yes, the human brain is wonderful and amazing, but so is that of an earthworm in its own way. Either way, the universe is completely indifferent to both humans and earthworms.

[@bluelotus542]

This man looks so dull, I have to say. Just as dull as what he says.