Nicholas Humphrey - Are Brain and Mind the Same Thing?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(0:30) *NH: **_"I'm a materialist; I believe that matter is all that makes up this extraordinary world we live in._* ... Existence = information, and matter is just one of many types of information. To claim that "matter" is at the core of existence is like claiming a "canvas" is at the core of van Gogh's _"Start Night"_ painting. Neither matter nor canvases speak to their purpose for existing. Sure, a human brain is composed of matter, but its ability to process abstract information transcends its matter-based structure. A brain is an organic example of "information analyzing information" and rendering value judgments that are absolutely NOT made of any type of matter. The ability for a human brain to introspectively contemplate what a brain represents speaks to the transcendence of the mind embedded within it.

[@whisperedhorizon8025]

spot on!

[@messenjah71]

I second that "spot on!"

[@stanh24]

“A brain is an organic example of "information analyzing information" and rendering value judgments that are absolutely NOT made of any type of matter.” It works better if you think of value judgments as actions or processes, rather than as things. I hope that helps.

[@simesaid]

You can, of course, denounce materialism on the basis that it fails to account for everything we know in the world. Good. Fine. Yet the onus is then placed on you to explain just what _would_ account for everything. Or, should you not have the slightest, then to be mature enough to state exactly that. However, you offer no alternative hypothesis to examine, and no admission of ignorance either. Moreover, your "Van Gogh" analogy is not even wrong. The claim _isn't_ that 'Starry Night' cannot be reduced simply to a blank canvass - how could it be? It's _not_ blank, it's a painting! But that the ineffable emotion one feels when viewing the painting is something that the six trillion plus neuronal connections of the physical brain, with all of its informational processing, memory capacity, sensory response feedbacks, associative groupings, and self-identification mechanisms - placed within the agents interaction with the meta-cognition of cultural norms - is all still not enough to fully account for the profound subjective experience that is ceated by the painting. You could either be championing idealism - the belief that at base there is _only_ mind, and that all of physical reality is a construction both of, and located within, mind; or you could hold to some form of Cartesian dualism - the notion that in addition to the material brain there is an immaterial force, a soul, that can nonetheless interact, and thus impact upon, the material. Both Idealism and dualism are perfectly respectable philosophical positions to hold. But you need to _state which your position is!_ Anyone, anywhere, can denounce anything... At anytime, and for any reason. I could say that "I don't believe in the second law of thermodynamics!" for example. ou really should be mature enough to clearly state what you _do_ believe, or that you do not posses an alternative theory. If you are saying that materialism is a manifestly inadequate theory to explain the world, then you must either believe in idealism - that all is mind; be a substance dualist, or be a solipsist. So which is it, and why is your favoured view superior to the one you are criticising? Because, sans a clearly stated counter-position, it sounds an awful lot just like a baby throwing a tantrum.

[@robertsaget9697]

@@simesaid you think the only options are (1) materialism (2) substance dualism (3) idealism? You never heard of anti-reductionism, or strong emergence, or holism, or non reductive physicalism, or top down causation, or property dualism, or ....?

[@thedudegrowsfood284]

It comforts me that the amount of things we do not know is so colossal that certain things will be beyond our ken forever.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Wrong . How do you knows certain thing are Forever? If You Not knows thing exist. Please show YOU sentence in acurate model math . Thanks YOU.

[@ac27934]

@@maxwellsimoes238 I would think a shared competency in the English language would be a prerequisite for going any further in this debate.

[@justa_dude]

Baffling right? We are always playing catch up...

[@abelincoln8885]

We know only the origin or abstract & physical Functions ... and everything in the Universe is a Function with set purpose, properties, form, design & processes inputs into outputs. We know the origin, purpose & need to enforce ... any Law. We know all thermodynamic Systems originate from the SURROUNDING System(s) with must provide the matter, energy, time, space, & laws of physics. We know that the Universe is a "finite" Isolated Thermodynamic System with increasing entropy. Man has always known ... the Universe has an unnatural origin by a very powerful intelligence ... and that we all have a soul/spirit. Religions are actually natural phenomena, obey the Laws of nature, will always be observe of most people .. and has a scientific explanation. Only an intelligence makes Laws of Nature & things of the Universe with clear purpose, form, design & FUNCTION. Man was created with a Body & soul. The Mind of Man is both body(brain) & Soul. The Mind of animals is only the brain. The mind of Angels & demons is spirit. And God is Spirit. Materialism is simply a religion where "the gods" have been replaced with the theories, ideologies & secular rhetoric of Man. Either all the religions are wrong ... or there is one that has correctly identified the intelligence that made the Universe ( full of functions).

[@maxwellsimoes238]

@@ac27934 I would think YOU competency in english GOOD MANNERS would a prerrquisite for going any further debate. Mr. OD sorry my linguagem english Not aware YOU brains Works. Please send honest ideia concern brains instead stupid comments. Again you Gold manners arent strong suit.

[@debyton]

"Matter is all that makes up this extraordinary world ...". Is electromagnetism matter? Are the strong and weak forces matter? Is gravitation matter? Is entanglement matter? We admit to knowing little about 5% of the universe we can measure and next to nothing about the 95% of nature we can't see or measure, how can anyone still claim that materialism is well-grounded?

[@pete5177]

E=M

[@saturdaysequalsyouth]

I would say a couple of things. 1. The lack of phenomenon we *know* cannot be explained in terms of physical properties (mass, fields, energy, time, etc). For example, if ghosts were real we'd be forced to admit that there are things in this world that are beyond what can be explained by physical properies. And as far as I know, ghosts are not real. I'm not aware of anything that would suggest that the human mind, which is an organ in a mammal, cannot be explained entirely by physical properies. 2. Human history is littered with examples of mysterious phenomenon being reduced to physical properties. We used to think lights in the night sky were gods. Now we know they're just stars like our sun.

[@alaanasser3243]

If you are a true materialist and believe in the evolution, then you believe that our brain imposes the "illusion" of experience on us, the question is to what end does the brain do that? If you believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, there was certainly no need for the brain to create a scenery of experience for us.. It could have just through the physical body with whatever is needed for the sake of evolution and that's it. Second since you believe that consciousness has been progressively transforming itself into matter, where did it originate before deciding to take the shape of matter? What makes you certain that there is nothing still in its pocket for further evolution and what is the nature of that pocket?

[@justa_dude]

True.. Who knows.

[@davidwatermeyer5421]

Well stated. The interviewee, having already swallowed whole undigested chunks of Scientism (not to be confused with science) mentions at the end that "nature" has all the answers and he is committed to finding them! What on earth is this "nature" he is so certain about? What is the nature of nature!

[@johnsmith-gx2ys]

I am personally not a materialist myself, but I think a materialist would explain consciousness as a given. They would explain it away by saying it actually has no purpose. Consciousness is just like one of the laws of physics. It is just something that arises when chemicals interact in certain ways or when complex computation takes place. they would then go on to say that it is an illusion to think that consciousness is actually useful. And if you don't believe in free will (which is something most true materialists don't really believe in) it would make sense that consciousness actually serves no purpose.

[@MeRetroGamer]

This man represents perfectly the huge categorical mistake of the old minded scientists (I apologize if I sound rude). The question on consciousness (the "hard problem") is not about how the different qualities and the mind arise, it's about how are there qualities at all, the fact that there's experience. How a inert world, devoid of any kind of mind or experiential/qualitative reality, can give rise to consciousness? They mistake the map (the abstract "material" world) for the true nature (the qualitative world).

[@ManiBalajiC]

Ever heard about emergence ???

[@MeRetroGamer]

​@@ManiBalajiC I've tried very hard but I'm unable to understand what people mean by emergence in this topic. I understand "emergence" as a mechamism that we use to make abstractions and quantify the world, it's totally abstract and arbitraty, and it requires consciousness in the first place, so consciousness can not be emergent (at least not that kind of emergence). If you're talking about what some people call "strong emergence" then I prefer to believe in magical unicorns. I have no good reasons to believe in "strong emergence" and magical unicorns are cooler.

[@Gregorydrobny]

@@MeRetroGamer posted a serious comment that poses an issue relating to the fundamental nature of this topic (and of existence) and why it is often misunderstood. The first comment in response is a non sequitur and an incomplete sentence with three question marks. Once again the internet shows the best and worst in immediate succession.

[@DragonPerformancePsychology]

Let's acknowledge first of all that all of us make absurd mistakes, particularly when it comes to this topic; in 500 years (or at some point) we have good reason to believe that people then will look back on how we thought in 2022, and shake their heads in pity. So, we should have no expectations that we arrive at precise answers as to the mechanism that connects inert matter to qualia. With that in mind, I might consider the Penrose ideas of quantum effects in cytoskeletons as an intriguing avenue to explore. Ultimately, it is my belief that we will never arrive at a truly precise and convincing solution until we are able to run experiments and test the effects of particular arrangements of cellular & sub-cellular structures. That may require the ability to produce artificial consciousness, which we cannot yet do (probably), and in any case, would carry with it a vast array of ethical entanglements as well.

[@MeRetroGamer]

@@DragonPerformancePsychology With that you're assuming that every conscious organism should have the ability to report its conscious state in an understandable human way. It seems that our only possible approach to consciousness itself is logic and introspection.

[@ahsanmohammed1]

His speech is so choppy it’s hard to comprehend. Turn off the volume, put it on captions, slow it to 0.75x, read exchange.

[@EggtherSong]

Is Hardware and Software the same thing?

[@shelwincornelia2498]

It's an awful thing to deny one's own spiritual nature while trying to convince the world of one's materialistic point of view.

[@williamburts5495]

Jeffrey M Schwartz in his book " the mind and the brain " proved by treating people with obsessive-compulsion disorder ( OCD ) that by having them use their will power ( mental force as he describes it ) to focus their attention away from negative behaviors and toward positive ones his patients were able to make permanent changes to their own neural pathways. a simple case of " mind over matter "

[@JohnHowshall]

It is astounding to me that people, like Nicholas Humphrey, in their quest for understanding will reject any possibility of an answer if it takes them beyond the border of the natural world. He, sadly places a limit on his search by saying that he would not pursue his studies if he had to think outside of a naturalistic mindset. I know that many people believe that naturalism can explain all things, but are we not setting ourselves up as fools to deny any other possibilities? Indeed, a neutrality in beliefs is better than forsaking one idea in favor of another, rejecting supernatural hypotheses in favor of natural tangibility. Recognizing all possibilities, both natural and supernatural is better still. -John

[@oskarngo9138]

That’s because you are wrong!

[@brianstevens3858]

If you accept the supernatural without evidence it opens the door to literally anything at all and falsification is impossible.

[@TurinTuramber]

There is no case outside of Naturalism to answer, just people making up woowoo.

[@physicstheoryofmetinaridasir]

So good discussion. The expression "Experiencing the blue color by the brain or whatever", doesn't seem like an expression of "walking by the legs". You can see the walking function of the legs, but you can never see the experiencing blue color function of a brain, in spite of splitting it into all constituent parts. But any kind of faith that convinced itself to make one in peace, whether materialistic or whatever, I hope doesn't meet a stormy day.

[@ingenuity168]

I agree with Nicholas.

[@charlesdurrett2878]

Are Wing and Flight the Same Thing?

[@cortical1]

There's a lot of terminological imprecision here. Asking this is like asking "Are the lungs and respiration the same thing?" Respiration is the function performed by the lungs, and likewise the mind is the function performed by the brain. The mind is what the brain does. The brain is the biological substrate--the organ--that makes the mind possible. The mind is not an organ, the brain is. The mind is a term used to refer to the construct of mental life. So they are not the same thing, but they are causally related. Also, in the description it is stated "For the brain and mind to be the same thing, mind must be entirely the output of brain." This is inaccurate. There's no reason that the mind is only related to brain outputs per se. Being a complex, self-organizing system with emergent properties, the mind is reliant on the way the brain functions at all levels of information processing, from inputs to mediating processes to outputs. And it is well known that sensory systems (which are inputs) and their functional organization drive psychological aspects of perception, so mind and brain relate not just by outputs but at all levels of the hierarchical functional organization of the brain and central nervous system. But to answer the question you meant to pose: Yes, the brain is the biological substrate of the mind. There is no mind without brain, unless you're willing to believe in some form of dualism, which is hogwash. Cheers. 🧠👍🏻

[@bipinbhurtel6895]

Thank you.

[@teepot4539]

There's an issue with construct validity

[@Sh1vam18]

Thanks

[@terryboland3816]

So your argument is 'dualism is hogwash'. Would I be correct in thinking you've studied biology but not philosophy?

[@cortical1]

@Justin Quales Your last sentence is demonstrably and objectively false. There is mountains of evidence that the brain has special status that most certainly does produce experience. Intracortical stimulation mapping has been done for decades and even small amounts of current run through the temporal cortex unfailingly give people experiences and perceptions tied directly to their memories and personal experience. There are hundreds of published books and papers about this. Read the book Conversations with Neil's Brain or any paper in the Journal of Neurosurgery by neurosurgeon George Ojemann. Four milliamps of current run across your brain and you'll see your grandmother, you'll smell burnt popcorn, or you'll hear people talking. The liver doesn't do this. Nothing else in the natural world does this. The brain most certainly and repeatedly has been shown to be the special mechanism which gives rise to psychological experience. This is irrefutable. Read up. 📚🎓

[@Jinxed007]

It's always interesting to note that no matter who discusses these things, they will always refer to an overriding "us", "we", "I", and so on, that acts as the receiver of all the other things. It's inescapable. There must be a complete "us" at the end of the chain in order for any of it to make sense.

[@JungleJargon]

Information is *NOT* a material thing. It’s a preexisting written word that makes *ALL* life on earth.

[@Julieanne0917]

Love THIS channel

[@psmoyer63]

Removing the ghost from the machine IS good philosophy and good science. Exceptionally well done.

[@psmoyer63]

@@ROForeverMan that's (almost) just as good.

[@psmoyer63]

@@ROForeverMan If everything is ghosts there are no machines to interact with. I'm fine with that. Standard Model particles are hardly different than ghosts.

[@MeRetroGamer]

@@psmoyer63 I'd say there is no ghost neither the machine. There's just "a being process", a "becoming". The particles (and all "things") are just intersections and interferences within that *being* (which is of a qualitative existence).

[@psmoyer63]

@@MeRetroGamer Good ol' process philosophy. You should thank Alfred North Whazizname for that.

[@MeRetroGamer]

​@@psmoyer63 I've heard his name a couple of times from another people when I talk about existential topics, but I've never read about him or his phylosophy. Have you ever heard about the "Indra's Net"? That's another similar representation that I've discovered just today. Still, this concept is something that has been wandering my thoughts for almost a decade now (although not as clearly as it is today). I remember that it started after several months spent in long and deep meditation. It seems that all possible conclusions that we're able to come to, have been reached by many other people in many different epochs, even without our current understanding of physics or mathematics...

[@simonhibbs887]

If you look up consciousness in a dictionary you will find multiple definitions because we use it in many ways. It’s a catch all that includes perception, awareness, memory as well as higher functions such as self awareness and mental reflection. It’s the latter that really capture our experience of awareness and the quality of sensation. I don’t think simple sensing systems have this because they do not contain a representation of themselves. Human brains do, they include not just a representation of external stimuli, but also a representation of other minds, so that we can reason about the beliefs and behaviour of others. But we extend that capability by having a mental representation of our own mind and our own memory and reasoning ability. We can think about our own thought processes. It’s this internal reflection on our own experiences that gives rise to qualia.

[@robertdorr6607]

Still grasping on an idea, enclosed in an impossibility.

[@FernandoW910]

Awesome

[@podimala]

I love your channel. Such great minds !

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could quantum field probabilities provide perceptions to human brain, such as sight of red, smell of cheese, musical sounds; to which neural correlates add a subjective conscious feeling?

[@wthomas7955]

I have no idea how this would even be relevant to the functioning of the brain.

[@BulentBasaran]

Nick says he wants to explain everything in terms of nature and that search gives him joy and purpose. Can nature explain nature? How can the eye see itself? It can look at a mirror and see itself. Mind is looking at nature to see itself. For a while, it thinks that it sees itself, not just an authentic image. Soon, it shall realize that looking is not in nature, we are looking at nature. Yet, this is not the simplistic Cartesian dualism. All that we look at, all that we explain, how we explain may come and go. Yet, looking itself, understanding, explaining, describing, all absolute abstractions, are immortal and eternal. Compare that to the impermanence of nature, including personal histories, memories, objects of our attention. Attention itself, not part of nature, but the cause and reason for the existence of nature -- that's is the mystery of existence and consciousness and the mind.

[@Sjolden98]

Such an underrated comment. Comments such as this are always overlooked.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

Nicholas Humphrey is implying that the mind is a *"weakly emergent"* property of the brain, when, in fact, it is a *"strongly emergent"* property of the brain. Which means that the mind, along with its accompanying self-aware *"agent"* is something *wholly other* than anything that the constituent (material) properties of the brain can account for.

[@bltwegmann8431]

And what exactly is our brain trying to fool with this illusion? Itself?

[@Sjolden98]

Exactly. To be fooled by an illusion is to have the capacity to experience an illusion, which is not explained by Humphrey. How does one go from electrical signals to a living image of experience? This will never be answered.

[@justa_dude]

Your channel is 🔥🔥🔥 to thinkers. Always gets my small brain thinking. I like how you get right to it in your videos. Thank you

[@wthomas7955]

@@ROForeverMan The existence of your brain is certainly questionable.

[@wthomas7955]

@@ROForeverMan Don't be stupid. Consciousness exists because you have a brain. Not the other way around. When your brain stops functioning, you are no longer conscious. When you're dead, you're done.

[@TheStobb50]

A religious friend told me. Our brains are very similar to televisions built to receive but even when the television is damaged and not working the signal is still there It just cannot get it out, the same with our brains, if it’s damaged it can’t transmit. Good way of putting it but you’ll never prove one way or the other

[@roxinouchet]

Or on what is projected the perception of the neuronal activity ?

[@Sjolden98]

Exactly. Very concise thank you.

[@esorse]

The complement of 1, 2, from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is 3, 4, 5, and similarly for 1, 2, 3 it is 4, 5 and this does not violate the law of non-contradiction : nothing is both x and not-x, leaving monism, dualism and pluralism, or one, two and more than two entities respectively categorization redundant, while whether syntax and semantics are necessary, sufficient, or both, conditions for conceptualization depends upon your categorical claim.

[@vonrecht1236]

I see where Humphrey comes from, but I regret to say he explains very little, however 'rational' he may sound. There is no real illumination, no transcendence, nothing to inspire. "There are more things...etc etc" Apparently not in the Humphreyan universe...

[@ericmusgrove958]

right? he skillfully danced around almost every question asked rather than actually giving coherent physicalist answers. It’s almost as if this is necessitated by the incoherence of his position…

[@BlackHatAndy]

He said he is a Materialist and a Darwinist. Whether you think he's right or not, he definitely argued his points from both of those perspectives. None of which would include "transcendence."

[@francesco5581]

consciousness yes... at least in a physical world it largely derive from the brain (but i would not discard that consciousness produce the material world) ... but is required an underline of intelligence for an universe to be complex so much that produce consciousness. IS that progression of intelligence (compounds-plants-animals-humans) that have to be explained. Even the presence of "natural evolution" is probably due to an intelligent set up. Cant be "because it is !!" . Now, is that underline intelligence the same background pool for consciousness too ?

[@francesco5581]

@@ROForeverMan the brain, the neurons, the grey matter ...

[@francesco5581]

@@ROForeverMan yes i know the theories of Hoffmann or Kastrup ... As i wrote "can be" but there are things "too material" to be just an interface ... So i appreciate those theories but still a long road for me to be convinced. (i listen kastrup all the time ... )

[@francesco5581]

@@ROForeverMan Ive made some experiments with dreams after i was aware to be in a dream once. Are very powerful and yet so tied (or totally untied) to our "real" life. But still i dont know what to make of them ... (i agree that we embrace that reality without questions... but is that reality refined as ours... more experiments needed ...)

[@francesco5581]

@@ROForeverMan can be, can be not... Dont hurry so much to have "my own theory of everything". No one will have it even after 100 years.

[@francesco5581]

@@ROForeverMan My take is that intelligence (i prefer this to consciousness that is too related to brain or considered something "outside", methaphysical) is the fundamental seed of reality... but how this intelligence (present in particles, compounds, plants etc ) is related to an exterior consciousness, or if its the soil for the growth of it, i dont know ..yet....

[@nobodynobody4389]

Grat Interwiev as always however its interesting that in first half the claim is that the reason wy our brain has evolved as it has was because concious thinking was giving real advantage therefore it has been slected for and in the second half suddenly it is treated as an illusion because the conclusion would defy materialist belief

[@robertsaget9697]

yea the contradiction is funny. 1. The mind is causative and provides an evolutionary advantage 2. the mind is an illusion and isn't real.

[@robertsaget9697]

to be fair, this is what happens when psychologists (or any non-philosophers) try to dabble in philosophy when they are unfamiliar with the domain.

[@robertsaget9697]

​@@randomsequenceofletters5920 ///I'd say that the "mind" does nothing and has no causative effect./// SO is the mind an illusion? Eliminativism (the mind does not actually exist)? Or epiphenomenalism (the mind is just an inconsequential by product)? In either case you have this issue of why a mind even manifests at all. If everything about the mind is inconsequential, why does it even exist? its superfluous to any physical happenings ///The only logical conclusion to what seems to be your position is that thinking beings can will imaginary objects into reality,/// In a sense, yes, thats correct. But we dont will such objects into physical reality. We do this all the time. When we imagine something it "exists" "within" our mind. We literally willed it into existence. I see no issue with that. theres only an issue if we claim that imagined things somehow take on physical properties. ///The brain produces imaginary representations of objects that do or do not exist in objective reality. /// How is this accomplished on the reductive physicalist account? somehow with moving atoms or neurons *POOF* minds manifest and gain completely new properties like conscious experience that atoms nor any physical substance possesses? reductive physicalism completely fails to account for this, instead just dodging the issue with hand-wave explanations like "its manifests" or "it reduces" without explaining anything at all. Its tantamount to claiming that square-circles exist because we can formulate a syntactically correct sentence that says "circles can be squared". Even though such a thing explains nothing and provides no indication how such a thing is possible or occurs at all.

[@robertsaget9697]

@@randomsequenceofletters5920 ///What I am saying is that mind does not manifest in any form. It does not exist. It is a figment of imagination, a useful fiction. /// thats incoherent. To be a figment of imagination requires there be an imagination which has a figment to be imagined. But you are saying minds do not exist which would mean its not a figment of imagination because there are no no mind which is a prerequisite for having such a figment to be imagined. Its like claiming to have a mathematical proof that proves math is all wrong. Its self defeating. so it seems like you are a eliminativist. you think minds don't actually exist. That conscious experience is not real. Which is a radical position because it denies our very real 1st hand experiences. its tantamount to saying that hands do not exist. That if you put your hand in front of your face its not actually there but instead some grand illusion. (except its worse than that because you are denying the thing itself we are using to assess the thing). To reach such a radical conclusion we should need some very powerful evidence or reason to think such. I don't see any. ///Imagination is simply neural activity producing a representations of objects./// that is a non explanation. You are hand waving. its like saying square-circles can be made by adding sides to a circle. How does neural activity produce a representation of objects? no one knows!!!! Thats the "hard problem". You think somehow if we just get enough "neural activity" then **POOF** representations start occurring? Does it occur all at once? is it continuous or discrete (does representations occur all at once or is it gradual)? All we have is "correlations". No mechanism. No actual explanation. ///Something cannot exist if it not physical./// This is your faith based assumption. Consider that this may be wrong and reconsider the evidence and reason aware of such an assumption. I agree that things must be physical to have PHYSICAL PROPERTIES. But non-physical properties need not require physical existence. For example, oddness (in numbers) is a property of numbers. A number does not need to physically exist for it to have properties like oddness or evenness.

[@abelincoln8885]

Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintain, improves, fine tunes Abstract & Physical FUNCTIONS. Everything in the Universe is a FUNCTION with set purpose, properties, form, design and PROCESS inputs into ouputs. Man has known this fact for thousands of years which is why Religions are natural phenomena, because the Universe & Life can only be made, maintained, improved & fine tuned by an very powerful intelligence. Materialism is a religion, which replaced "the gods" with the theories, ideologies & secular rhetoric of Man( an intelligence). We know for a fact that nature & natural processes over any period of time can never ever make & operate a simple mechanical machine. A machine is a physical Function. The three types of physical machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ). WTF? Man is an intelligence with a mind, free will and a Nature ... made by an intelligence with a mind, free will and a Nature.. The mind of an intelligence is UNNATURAL & nonphysical ( ie spirit/soul). Man is a physical entity .. and ... an intelligence. The Mind of Man is physical ( brain) ... and ... non-physical( soul). The mind of an animal is only physical(brain). Everything makes sense ... when everything is a FUNCTION ... and you fully understand the origin, purpose & need to enforce ... Law. God created Man ... in His likeness ... with free will, nature & ability to procreate ... with a body & soul .... to live forever so long as Man obeys one simple Law. There is a reason the world has a 7 day week, the Jewish Year since the fall of Man is 5783 ... and Jesus (Son of God) will return for a 1000 year reign ... before Judgement Day. Law made by an intelligence for an intelligence ... must be enforced ... because of free will & Nature of an intelligence.

[@susmitasen7804]

So his answers hinge on "illusion", "hints", "seems" etc 😊

[@rajendratayya8400]

Brain is for memory storage. Heart is for timing, the way of thinking. Thinking is of central sense. Only the heart and the spinal cord are at centre of the body. Spinal cord is the connection between the brain and all the other organs of the body.

[@Julieanne0917]

🕊️ That's where chakra system comes in

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Gibberish

[@schelsullivan]

The heart is a pump. People get heart transplants and mechanical hearts without it changing their experience of love.

[@alaanasser3243]

@@schelsullivan She is talking about a different meaning for the heart.. Please do not "pump" your interpretations on people. Your mind certainly functions like one and so you see everything else.

[@abelincoln8885]

God created Man with a body & soul .... less than 6 000 years ago. There's a reason why the world has a 7 day week, Jesus( God) will return for a 1000 year reign before Judgement Day, and the Jews believe the Messiah will soon appear with the current Jewish Year since the Fall of Man being 5 783. Only an intelligence( like Man) makes, maintains, improves & fine tunes abstract & physical Functions. Everything in the Universe is an abstract (time, space, Laws) or physical ( matter, energy) FUNCTION ... with set purpose, properties, form, design and processes inputs into outputs. An intelligence( like man) has a specific form( eg body), Mind, free will, a nature or propensity for good or evil and can make abstract & physical Functions. God, Angels & Man have the MIND of an intelligence but are different types of entities. Man is body & soul, so the Mind of Man is physical (brain) & non-physical(soul). Everything makes complete sense ... when everything is a FUNCTION ... and you fully understand the origin, purpose & need to enforce ... Law.

[@gistfilm]

Is there a true "you" or is the sense of self (the sense of spatial, temporal, and autobiographical continuity) a construction, an illusion, of consciousness? Thought experiment #1 (surgery): In a high-tech future, you nearly die from a bad accident. In the 1st surgery, the doctors replace your heart and lungs. In the 2nd surgery, they amputate and replace your legs and arms. In the 3rd surgery, they replace your left brain. In the 4th surgery, they replace your right brain. Questions: 3. Are "you" still "you"? 4. Is there a moment where "you" ceased to be "you"? Thought experiment #2 (time travel): You take a one-way-ticket to illegally time travel to your past or future self (20 years in the past or future, or 1 minute in the past or future, it doesn't matter), and authorities catch you and insist on executing one of you. Questions: 1. Which one is "you"? 2. Which "you" would you hope they spare from the death penalty? Thought experiment #3 (cloning): A special lab makes a 100% exact clone of you in your current state of being (body, brain, memories), and when you and your clone regain consciouness after the cloning procedure, you are both certain that the other one is the clone, but the lab won't disclose which one is the clone. 5. Which one is "you"? 6. Are there now two "yous"? 7. Are "you" simply the one experiencing the self, and it doesn't matter if you are the clone or not?

[@marksulkanon2363]

Consciousness is very much of this, our world. There’s nothing about it that seems fundamentally mysterious - we all experience it, vividly firsthand and, thankfully, frequently equally vividly collectively. We all perform acts that clearly stem from our intentions. And sure, at times we can be mistaken; misapprehensions and misinterpretations do occur. But, there does seem to be a consistent category mistake being made by these incredibly brilliant people who are making undoubtedly valuable contributions to human knowledge. A recipe is not the dish itself; a blueprint, no matter how detailed, will never be the building itself; and even a computer program is not identical to its application and use. Theories and their models may describe the world, but are not and never will be the world itself.

[@abelincoln8885]

Consciousness is simply a state of awareness, perceptions, responsiveness & cognition( of the environment) by an ENTITY ( of the environment) with a MIND. Animals & Man are physical or NATURAL entities .... with a MIND ... and a consciousness of the physical environment. The Mind of any Physical entity .... is the brain. But Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe .. and therefore has the MIND of an intelligence & is a physical entity with a mind. Do some quick maths here. What do there two simple facts about Man tell us? Only an intelligence( like Man) makes, maintain, improves & fine tunes abstract & physical Functions. Everything in the Universe, ..including Man ... is a Function with set purpose, properties, form, design, and processes inputs into outputs. The Mind of an intelligence is Unnatural & non-physical. The Mind of Man is physical ( brain) & non-physical( soul). The mind of animals is physical(brain). The mind of Angels & Demons is non-physical ( spirits) The mind of God is Spirit.

[@peznino1]

very well explained by humphreys...the illusion theory is hard to contend with.

[@Sjolden98]

It does not answer the question. The “illusion” is experienced just the same. It doesn’t explain experience of anything, even if it were true, the result is the exact same starting point of how one would even experience this illusion.

[@justinbennettdrums]

@@Sjolden98 On the contrary, illusion in this context means it doesn’t exist at all… so actually, there is nothing at all to explain. 🎉

[@simonjusticier333]

Is the heart and love the same thing? The answer is No! Same difference with the brain and mind.

[@brainstormingsharing1309]

Nice one 👍

[@jamesconner8275]

They are not the same difference.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

Both are byproducts of electrochemical reactions that produce such feelings/phenomena.

[@jamesconner8275]

This brain/mind/conciousness issue has been pretty well overworked on this channel. When asked my location I answer, "Behind my eyes and between my ears." That is because that is where my brain and consciousness reside. I don't have a feeling they are in my foot or hands. I don't have the feeling my mind is in my head and my consciousness is somewhere else. Don't let our ignorance of the brain have us looking for consciousness somewhere else. It's all material.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

@@jamesconner8275 well said brother.

[@bgs03548]

Everyone has a brain. Not all have a Mind. It’s the Mind that has the opportunity to achieve Consciousnesses & accomplish why we’re here. All the World is indeed a stage with Actors, props & scripts. Consciousness is becoming aware of this and doing what you came in here to do. Win your Game by raising your frequency out of the 3rd & 4th Dimension’s to the 5th Dimension and higher because those lower Dimension’s are being shut down… as we speak. This will never happen while eating a ‘meat’ based diet. First step. No animals consumed by intention to raise your frequency. Your choice.

[@TurinTuramber]

You are here for no reason except you are a copying machine's copy of a copying machine.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does the human brain perceive quantum fields and phenomena, perhaps subconsciously? Would perception of quantum fields by human brain be considered material, or other? Might the human brain attach conscious subjective feeling to perceptions of quantum field probabilities as neural correlates?

[@Sjolden98]

Lol

[@Dion_Mustard]

Brain and mind are separate entities but at the same time connected. Study Near Death Experiences and you will clearly see we don't need a brain to experience consciousness or personality. It seems personality and mind survives death.

[@MrGabrucho]

Who is this "us", and how does it "represents" without being conscious in the first place? This a very poorly philosophically developed understanding of the subject. The problem with materialism is that it reduces reality to the world, which then has to explain consciousness, this is a ontological mistake though, solved by phenomenology, reality is the totality "consciousness - phenomena". This is simply a fact. The questions that arise are: what is consciousness? What is the world? How can they relate to each other? What is meaning?

[@AMorgan57]

This is the clearest-eyed interview I've seen on CTT. It's ironic that we live in an existence in which illusion has real evolutionary benefits. A basic strategy of success to both predator and prey, for one example. And mate selection, for another. It's not such a great leap to recognize the evolutionary benefits of imagination and hope. Merely tempered by reason.

[@davidwatermeyer5421]

Yes Andrew. But also masses of evolutionary deficits would you not agree? And for that matter could Humphrey and yourself not yourselves also be suffering from the very "illusions" you suggest? Why not? Why on earth should thought (representation), which for the both of your are merely material brain activity, suddenly arrive at something (his theory which seems to hold you in awe!) that is not illusion - i.e. the truth of things? Bernardo Kastrup is way, way more difficult to understand than Humphrey but leaps and bounds ahead in thinking. He examines each and everyone of Humphrey's assumptions and demonstrates clearly how these are complete fantasies - in fact "baloney" as he explains in his book "Materialism is Baloney". I would far prefer New Age nonsense become the new dogma than the beliefs (with emphasis on the word) of you and Humphrey and many other blind believers in Scientism (which disqualifies them from being genuine scientists. Why? Because if taken up as state religion those who don't conform to the Belief will have their brains operated on to set them right. Why on earth not?

[@deosmanocardosonogueiranog1328]

BOSOM THOUGH

[@wthomas7955]

Reality has to have some feasible representation in the human brain. Otherwise we die.

[@wthomas7955]

@@ROForeverMan Your brain is filled with idiotic ideas. That much is certain.

[@Great_WOK_Must_Be_Done]

@@ROForeverMan Indeed. Matter doesn't exist. Matter is just an idea in consciousness.

[@jjharvathh]

Interesting theory/assumptions (that is, this idea of materialism), but it is almost certainly not correct. There is something very important here that we do not understand, and, it seems that we have no hint about it.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

In the development of human brain / mind, evolution / selection goes beyond natural reality?

[@louisbrassard9565]

Primitive for of life digest their foods without stomach and the other specialized digestive organs. Digestion exist prior to the evolution of these organs, these organs evolved because they improve digestion. In the same way, consciousness exist in primitive form of life without central nervous systems and do not produce consciousness but facilitate it.

[@lupusdivinorum4673]

The weakest worldview one can have at our modern time, is to have a materialistic worldview of the world, imo. This dude reminds me of Hitchens or Dawkins, ridiculous arguments, which are merely just another belief.

[@harrywoods9784]

Just a thought, To me the brain is an consciousness processing receiver With our senses as input. Our great filter of consciousness of the conscious universe🤔

[@robertdorr6607]

Someone should have already liked this.

[@oskarngo9138]

Wrong! The universe isNot Conscious..!

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Great video. How did the brain set this up for us to experience it -- where did it get the blueprint, which is literally the Soul and what it means. Where did the essence, meaning, form, order, harmony, existence, experience come from in the brain; how did the brain fashion goodness, love, charity, virtue, divinity. We cannot see, touch or weigh virtue, but our Soul knows intuitively when we 'see' somebody do a good act for another. You might argue -- well we know a good act from a bad act, and I ask who is the one preceicing and seeing? Who knows goodness from lack of goodness. Where does the measurement start. Virtue has something to do with it. And what is virtue. How did the brain produce the mind -- it's more plausible to think the mind is the image of God likeness, from a higher intelligible reality, which the brain receives, like a signla to a tv for channels, or like hardware getting software; in this analogy the human would be God, creating the software for the hardware. I can't Reason that the brain produced its own software. Just like a TV didn't produce the content each channel distributes. Our brain is a like a two ended projector, both receptive and projective. We can access higher channels. And what we access and receive we project. What we Know, is what we see. You cannot see truly what you do not Know. A grade 1 student cannot understand a Havard student. There must be an account, and an account is a Knowing, an experience. Getting carried away here, I'll end it here.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

@@ROForeverMan you post 1 - 2 sentence comments , without any Reason or enquiry other than your belief. And No, the brain does exist.

[@maync1]

No need to listen beyond "I'm a materialist." It says it all.

[@fakelector]

Are you a dualist?

[@fakelector]

@@ROForeverMan Do you believe ducks exist? Yes or no?

[@fakelector]

@@ROForeverMan So all ducks won't exist when you die. Makes sense. 👍🏻

[@Marcin_S_Przybylek]

I wonder, how can you say you are a "materialist", when matter sort of does not exist in a way we intuitively think it should. It is a... manifestation of mathematics. So...

[@haroonaverroes6537]

the logic on which this existence built is very strong logic, if humans did not change their simple way of thinking then the have no chance. it needs real rational intelligent entities have high quality of logic to master science "it is a matter of existence for rational intelligent entities".

[@rubensilva_]

So why have a brain if it is not needed for the most exquisite experiences that we have? The human mind cannot have any existence without the brain though many millions certainly believe (fervently wish) it utterly possible. Does your dog have a mind as well since brains are seen as not sufficient for mindfulness. Where does all this speculation end? In philosophy it never ends until one dies. And everyone will die.

[@No2AI]

Consciousness temporarily merges with the brain - the brain is programmed to manage the body, consciousness is something else .

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

I think this is the right track

[@deanodebo]

The brain is a concept created by consciousness. Hence consciousness is prior

[@agolftwitler]

No, the brain is an organ inside the cranium, it's not just a concept. The mind is a construct created by brains.

[@deanodebo]

@@agolftwitler Organ, cranium, brain - these are all concepts created by consciousness to delineate and categorize other thoughts about what may be perceived by way of senses about what may be the external world. However, if you are to justify your claim, you will need to establish the warrant for your belief in all of these things. So tell me how you justify your belief in the external world. And what makes you think that you have direct access to it so much so that you can know with certainty what is real and how it works?

[@agolftwitler]

@@ROForeverMan Right, organs don't really exist. The sun doesn't exist. You don't really exist. Nothing exists. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@agolftwitler]

@@deanodebo The warrant for my belief? Is it under arrest? 🤣

[@RolandHuettmann]

We are stuck in a world of belief systems. It does not matter what we believe when it comes to reality, truth. If we stop thinking then truth starts to shine. It is the experience of pure existence. Then there are no questions. It is another tradition that might bring us closer to truth. It is neither religion, nor science as we understand it.

[@RolandHuettmann]

@@ROForeverMan "Idealism" -- another belief system...)

[@RolandHuettmann]

@@ROForeverMan To see red is not a belief system. But to see red is something that you learned to see and name it. Whether you see red the way I see red is at least doubtful. All experiences are by nature subjective. A belief system is something different. We all understand the world only based on our personal level of understanding -- which is based on consciousness.

[@RolandHuettmann]

@@ROForeverMan You misunderstand what I am talking about referring to belief systems.

[@RolandHuettmann]

@@ROForeverMan I consider nothing to be absolut truth. I would limit myself. The term "absolute" refers to something non-relative. In the world we perceive, all has an edge and is therefore relative. All the "..isms" and religions become poisenous when they are viewed as absolute truth. People are killed for ideas. This is ridiculous and a crime. Let us all accept that in reality we all know nothing.

[@RolandHuettmann]

@@ROForeverMan Sure I am. I am questioning your question. Arr you sure that you exist? If yes, are you sure that something or someone created you, by chance, or not? Your body is made of what? Your food? So, who are you? Food? Who created this self-knowledge? Again food? Your sense perceives a small spectrum of lght, and when this spectrum is absorbed in a certain way then you call it red. Your inner experience is not the wave itself, or better, the missing waves, but a creation of your mind you call red. What you call red is already not the absolute truth, but the self-created symbol of something going on in nature your senses react to. And each individual may see this differently, but created a symbol. Otherwise, language and communication are not possible. Who then perceives, creates an inner world? Food is doing it? Or something different from food? The absolute truth is what? The color red? Or your inner experience of it? So, if you agree for inner experience then the absolute truth can only be yourself. There is nothing else in the end. Or not? Questions over questions...

[@ili626]

Maybe his “consistent framework” is an illusion

[@roxinouchet]

The question I have is : what is observing consciousness ?

[@sonnycorbi4316]

Thought analyzes thought -

[@roxinouchet]

@@ROForeverMan which is very hard to explain or comprehend in term of a reductionist approach.

[@sonnycorbi4316]

@@ROForeverMan Thought Analyzes Thought -

[@Sjolden98]

We are.

[@bretdaley6869]

When you start with all my beliefs must fall within these parameters you lose me

[@peskyfervid6515]

Humphrey has written a good book called "A History Of The Mind", which examines the evolutionary roots of self-consciousness.

[@9snaga]

Thank you

[@MrZabao]

If homo sapiens is the same in Amazon jungle (or 150 k yrs ago) and in NASA, and in concert hall playing Bach, then what the abilities needed in NASA and to understand BACH are for in jungle or 150 k yrs ago? How did they evolve as a brain structure ready for Bach and for flight to the moon at once? There must something more than we can see. To say there’s only what we see is just lack of imagination.

[@MrZabao]

@LeoB so, you’re saying the baby taken from Indian tribe over the Amazon is not ready to became a Nobel prize winner, after he grows up in modern society, proper schools etc.? But we are one species, aren’t we ?

[@caricue]

@@MrZabao It's possible that the smartest humans are actually quite stupid in the great scheme of things. How would we even know since there is no one to compare ourselves to?

[@MrZabao]

@@caricue 100% wright - there’s no particular reason to say that the smartest people are all in terms of the possible power of mind :) nothing smarter to compare, but we have mastered the concept of infinity which is the important feature of our imagination.

[@caricue]

@@MrZabao I agree that we have done amazing things for hairless apes. I have become concerned in the last couple decades that maybe we picked all the low hanging fruit in the 19th and 20th centuries. It seems like all we can do now is make incremental improvements to already existing technologies, and even this takes exponentially more effort. I won't be around to see what happens in the far future, so I wish them the best. Peace.

[@abelincoln8885]

Only an intelligence (like Man) makes, maintains, improves & fine tunes abstract & physical functions. A function ... processes inputs into outputs .. has purpose, properties, form & design .. and require specific matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature to exist & to function. Everything in the Universe is an abstract (time,space, Laws) or physical(matter, energy) function. Nature & natural processes can never make an operate a simple mechanical machine. A machine is a physical Function composed of Functions. The three types of physical machines are electrical, mechanical & molecular (LIFE). Man has always known he has a soul/spirit and the Universe has a supernatural origin by a very powerful intelligence ( like God). Religions are a natural phenomena and will always be observed by most people ... because ... we know. But Man is an intelligence ... with a mind ... free will & nature ... to think & do as he wants. The mind of an intelligence is unnatural & nonphysical .... because Man was made by an intelligence. But Man is a physical entity like Animals .... with a mind, brain & consciousness of the physical environment. The Mind of Man is both physical(brain) and non physical(soul). God made Man with a body & soul .... because of pro-Creation and knowing Man would sin and will have to be punished .... or saved with a sin sacrifice. Jesus had to be born of a virgin, and not actually descended from Adam, because the Man's body is corrupted and affects the thoughts of the soul. The soul of Man completely relies on the body & brain for consciousness & thoughts of the physical environment. And Jesus explained this body & soul relationship ... with the commandment "Love God with all your mind, heart & soul" ... because the soul always has the mind of a Man but so too does the brain or head of Man. Man has free will & a nature ... to think & do as he wants .. with facts, science & religions.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

I have to say: regarding the Supernatural and natural. In truth, the higher intelligible realities(supernatural) is properly the 'Natural', and this reality here whom some think is the 'natural', being an image of the higher, the parent, the cause, and circumscribed to time and space, is not natural. The Laws aka gods did not arise from mattter and Flux from beyond. What we think is natural is but a dim image of the true or higher realities.

[@brianstevens3858]

I think that the question is not only poorly worded but one which is self evident, the brain is a physical system that processes and stores information, while the mind is the result of that processing. It is like asking if an operating system, and a running program is a computer. Yes of course they are functionally interrelated but not in any way the same thing. A mind requires operations that may indeed be purely physical but are cascades of eventing, not a mix of just the right materials, without the matrices of activity, the brain becomes "dead" and there can be no mind. This is what the evidence implies and anything else is conjectural at best.

[@brianstevens3858]

To reduce it to it's simplest, the brain is what is doing it and the mind is what is being done.

[@brianstevens3858]

@@ROForeverMan Yea that's why if it is removed you are all out of idea's....

[@brianstevens3858]

@@ROForeverMan NDE is demonstrably caused by oxygen deprivation of the brain, and What is the definition of doing just fine with 90% of the brain removed, are they out holding down a job, able to speak two or more languages, or exist in some vegetable like state, or massively cognizantly impaired due to only the autonomous systems being functional. "Citation for that needed." Unless you have at least one case history "from a reliable source" that backs it up, I'm going to assume you have let some publication favor your bias. IOW, I call bullsh*t.

[@terryboland3816]

It's POSSIBLE that mind doesn't exist without brain. That's very much a conjecture though - we have any evidence it's true.

[@brianstevens3858]

​@@terryboland3816 What evidence do we have, a.mind is something, b, brain is evident, Things without a brain do not exhibit the something, the things that do have a brain even a fairly rudimentary one, have some form of the something. There is no recorded evidence that violates this, so the basic conclusion can be derived from parsimony. If other evidence is introduced it can be considered. With the caveat that what constitutes evidence is real and demonstrative evidence. Not testimony which can be, and often is, just biased belief.

[@toxendon]

Brain is an object, mind is a process

[@Dion_Mustard]

a process of what? the brain? explain...

[@toxendon]

@@Dion_Mustard I believe that the mind is a process the brain does

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@toxendon there is no evidence of this.

[@toxendon]

@@Dion_Mustard We have evidences of what goes on in the brain when certain things happen to us - I believe that is all the mind is. The sum total of everything happening in our brain. Talking about the mind as if it's a ghost in the machine, an ethereal object of its own is totally useless

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@toxendon that only explains correlation not causation.

[@ikaeksen]

Some bacteria develop according to truths and are saved somewhere in the body. If your thoughts arent right they end up giving you schizophrenia, because some of those move to the brain and changes something there that manifest as bad ideas and stuff.

[@rickwyant]

Because without a brain there is no consciousness. Duh.

[@terryboland3816]

How do you know?

[@Aeronaughtica]

I think Nicholas Humphrey is making a leap by assuming that we, as humans, will ever get to a place of understanding whereby we have a perfect model of the relationship between brain states, and states of conscious experience. Certainly all experiences have a related chemical, electrical and neuronal aspect to them. These relationships are called the neural-correlates of consciousness. However, there are things which are true about a subjective experience which are not true of its neural-correlate. Example: One can have a thought in their head which is objectively correct or incorrect, but to say that the neural-correlate of that thought is either correct or incorrect doesn't make sense. It's not the right way to parse such a thing. Another example: When one has the experience of seeing the color red, the neural-correlate to that experience occurs predominantly in the left hemisphere of the brain. But to say that the experience itself occurs either closer to the left or right, again, makes no sense. Because it's not possible to map perfectly one onto the other, there must be two different categories at play: that of the subjective experience which occurs in the mind, and that of objective physical experience which occurs in the brain.

[@abelincoln8885]

Everything makes sense & is fully explained with simple fact: "Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintains, improves, & "fine tunes" Abstract & Physical FUNCTIONS." A FUNCTION "processes" inputs into outputs, has set purpose, properties, form, design and requires specific Matter, energy,space,time, & Laws of Nature to exist & to function. Everything in the Universe is an abstract ( time, space, Laws) or physical ( matter, energy) FUNCTION ... made my an intelligence( like Man). An intelligence ( like Man) is an entity of a type or form .... with a MIND ... free will to think & do as he/she wants .. a Nature or propensity to think & do good or evil ... and the ability to make, maintain, improve, & "fine tune" Abstract & Physical Functions. Consciousness is simply a state of awareness, perceptions, responsiveness & cognition( of the environment) by an ENTITY ( of the environment) with a MIND. Animals & Man are physical or NATURAL entities .... with a MIND ... and a consciousness of the physical environment. The Mind of any Physical entity .... is the brain. But Man is the only known INTELLIGENCE in the Universe with physical body & MIND .. who was made by an "unnatural" & non-physical INTELLIGENCE, with a MIND, free will, a Nature or propensity for good or evil, and can make, maintain, improve & "fine tune" Abstract & Physical Functions. The MIND of an intelligence is "unnatural" & non-physical. The mind of an Animal is only physical ( brain). The mind of Man is both physical (brain) and non-physical( soul/spirit).. Again. Everything in the Universe is clearly a Function(Process) with set purpose, properties, form, & design. Consciousness is indeed a FUNCTION of the mind of a entity. But Man is a physical entity ... with the MIND of an Intelligence ... so Man is only conscious of the physical environment with a healthy & living body(brain), and only becomes conscious of the non-physical existence when the body dies. Animals are an entity with only a body. Man is an entity with a Body & soul. Angels are entities with only a spirit. God is Spirit ... infinite & always existed. A 13.7 billion year old Universe, Abiogenesis, Evolution are complete nonsense and fake science. We know for a fact Nature & natural processes over any period of time ... will never every make & operate a simple machine. A Machine is a physical Function composed entirely of Functions. The three types of physical machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ). There is zero evidence proving Nature & natural processes can make, maintain, improve, operate & "fine tune" a physical or abstract FUNCTION. Materialism is simply a religion where "the gods" have been replaced by the theories, ideologies & secular rhetoric of the only known intelligence in the Universe ... with free will & a nature to think & do good or evil. Man has a body & Soul. And Man's mind is body & soul. God had a reason for making Man this way ... and it all has to do with the free will & nature ... of Man & God.

[@agolftwitler]

And you called this post "a simple fact." LOL.

[@abelincoln8885]

@@agolftwitler I called the origin of abstract & physical Functions " a simple fact." LOL.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

There was literally zero explanation as to HOW the physical processes of chemical, and electrical signals equal/emerge into our consciousness experience. He just said that materialism must be true, therefor the mind must be these physical processes in action. Nevermind the fact we have zero proof, or knowledge in that idea.

[@abelincoln8885]

Materialism is a religion that has replaced "the gods" with the theories, ideologies & secular rhetoric of Man. Man will always believe in a soul/spirit and a supernatural origin of the Universe & Life ... because only an intelligence like Man ...makes Laws ( of Nature) or anything ( of the Universe) with set purpose, form, properties, design & FUNCTION. The Universe was unnaturally made by a very powerful intelligence. This is a fact because everything in the Universe is clearly without any doubt an abstract or physical FUNCTION with purpose properties, form, design and PROCESSES inputs into outputs. There's a reason why the world has a 7 day week, and the greatest Man in all of history is a Jew ... who said he is the promised Messiah & the Son of God. God did create Man with a body & soul ... for a reason ... less than 6 000 years ago. There's a reason why God created everything in 6 days, with the 7th for God, and Jesus(Son of God) returning for a 1000 year reign before Judgement Day. The current Jewish year since the Fall of Man ... is 5783. Man is a physical entity with a mind and is an intelligence, with free will & a nature or propensity to think & do good or evil. God is a supernatural entity with a mind and is an intelligence, with free will & a nature or propensity ... to only think & do good. The mind of an intelligence is the soul or spirit. The mind of Man is the body & soul. The mind of an animal is only body The mind of God & Angels/demons ... spirit. Everything makes complete sense ... when everything is a Function with set purpose, form, properties & design ... and .. you fully understand the origin, purpose, and need to enforce Law.

[@caricue]

Poor Dr Kuhn will never get closer to truth as long as he is immersed in the great paradigms of his age. These are radical reductionism and the belief that life is just chemistry. Heck, you might as well throw determinism in there also. With these premises, everything is a mystery.

[@agolftwitler]

So provide an example where you can show objective evidence of a human mind existing with no brain.

[@caricue]

@@agolftwitler I didn't actually make that claim. I think your question would be warranted if I had included radical materialism in my list. I am a tentative materialist myself. Like you, I am open to evidence, but I am not convinced by OOB or near-death accounts, so all we are left with is the material world.

[@robertsaget9697]

typical false dichtomy by a physicalist: either Cartesian dualism is true or reductive physicalism is true. completely ignores dozens of alternatives like holism, strong emergence, non reductivity, property dualism, etc, etc.

[@fakelector]

Do you believe that human minds exist outside brains?

[@robertsaget9697]

@@fakelector i believe minds are to some extent dependent on brains. i do not believe minds fully reduce to brains. that brains are literally identical to the mind.

[@agolftwitler]

@@robertsaget9697 But his question is about the degree of dependence. Do you believe that it's possible to have a mind without a brain then?

[@fakelector]

@@robertsaget9697 "To some extent" means not entirely. So to what extent then does the mind require a brain? What kind of human mind can exist without a brain, and what objective evidence is there for any sort of human mind existing with no brain?

[@robertsaget9697]

@@agolftwitler his question was ill formed or question begging. he asked whether a mind could "live" outside a brain. 1st off minds don't "live" anywhere. 2nd minds aren't spatial so "outside" a brain is bizarre as it implies somewhere spatial. 3rd he didn't ask about degree of dependence. he seemed to ask if minds could be totally independent of brains or not. No degree. just binary, on or off. To which i answered as "no, i think there is some dependence".

[@schelsullivan]

The mind is the internal combustion of the brain (engine).

[@justa_dude]

What fuel does it use?

[@JimTheCurator]

​@@justa_dude And what is happening as the fuel is burnt?

[@justa_dude]

@@JimTheCurator thoughts are formed :)

[@B.S...]

Physical neural networks plus dopamine, epinephrine, serotonin, testosterone/estrogen , etc. = mind. It will be proven on a quantum/neural processor by emulation (not simulation). I plan to be there when it happens as a transhuman.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Mr. Nicholas hard to say YOU arent RIGHT. Penrose impossble triângle are show though conscieness. However how Peronse triangle can be possible though conscieness YOU give up show true possible ways. Why? Because YOU concept are only phisc true biut baseless rethoric.

[@zaw2654]

Lost the desire to watch this when the guest said "I'm a materialist". Even the declassified CIA document "Project Gateway" says physical matter simply doesn't exist and that consciousness produces the brain, not visa versa.

[@TurinTuramber]

I bet you can't explain that.

[@zaw2654]

@@TurinTuramber I said several things. What are you referring to when you say "that"? If you're referring to Project Gateway, download it and read it. It isn't my responsibility to read it for you.

[@TurinTuramber]

@@zaw2654 Either you don't know what a summary is or else you are just talking utter non sense.

[@stevecoley8365]

X-Files "The perception of beauty is a moral test." Henry David Thoreau. This is the real IQ test. This test also determines if one is human. Light and truth (love) cause vampires (greed) great pain and suffering. That's why the words compassion, understanding, society (socialism), community (communism), "care for all" and "green new deal" cause the capitalist counting corpses that rule US such misery. But the words sanction, starve, torture, murder and bomb are encouraged. Because these ugly words suck the joy out of humans with their ignorance (hate). The hostile evangelical vampires (greed) are inhumane because they are not human. The capitalist counting corpses commit crimes against humanity because they are not human. The evangelical monsters are extremely "desperate" to control a darkship called the Whitehouse. Because working in the dark to suck the joy out of life and destroy the planet is the only way that the loveless, lifeless parasites can survive and thrive. Its also how the hostile alien invaders keep their human capital (cattle) corralled. Unlike earthling human beings and creators of joy...the capitalist counting corpses that rule US can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are ignorant (dead). Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children. Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.

[@darrenelkins5923]

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Magic is also referred to as supernatural. To dismiss it, is to hinder any discovery about it. It is literally, not scientific

[@thomassoliton1482]

A child once had a wooden box. Whenever he found a penny on the street, he put it into the box. One day he could not put any ore pennies into the box - it was full. “What to do?” he asked himself. After some thought, every day thereafter he simply took a penny out of the box and left it somewhere. One day he found the box was empty. “Eureka!” he cried, “I have realized emptiness.” Consciousness is like the contents of the box - the abstract concept of “pennies” - while the box of course is the mind. Like children, philosophers bang their heads against reality endlessly trying to prove that there is a “material” world out there. There is, but It’s all in your mind.

[@doexperiment6698]

Ultimately what people think about soul is nothing but the consciousness, people also believe in ghost that's why your consciousness is so powerful n never die n even can threaten you by being ghost😂😂

[@Jalcolm1]

As usual we see the usual panicky objections of the dualists, who think the Penrose triangle is real. “I saw it with my own eyes.” Yawn. They always leave out the critical point. “Matter “ is not “stuff “ E = m c 2. Matter is energy. Stones aren’t conscious, but they are alive. They are made of energy. We should forgive the dualists… they don’t have very good brains.

[@philcarter2362]

To answer you question, of course the answer is no.

[@WideCuriosity]

I just wonder who or what is the me that my brain is apparently fooling with an illusion of mind.

[@MeRetroGamer]

Can an illusion have illusions? Saying that consciousness is an illusion is really awkward...

[@jimbo33]

Out of all the CTT episodes I disagree with this the most. Materialism is old time and does not fit in with the latest science, imo.

[@ngurappa0411]

Brain and Mind are Cosisters.

[@jeremyburningham7649]

Donald Hoffman!

[@cvsree]

Absolutely wrong. Consciousness gives rise to mind. Mind controls the brain. Brain is like a temp worker. Mind is the CEO

[@giorgirazmadze5102]

This doesn't make sense. If everything is only a matter then this guy doesn't exist 😂

[@Nevenkavukmalivuk967]

da vam nekaj malega povem o nadnaravnih silah,,teh posastnih..jaz sem sla na jupiter da bi hceko in vnukinjo vzela s seboj..ne ne gre..obstaja posastno zivljenje,amapk nimata vec spomina na zemljo..ker nicesar ne vesta,,ce bi hcerka vedela bise to drugace dogajalo..

[@OnlyThe1Son]

Hardcore Atheists will always struggle here! they have no answer but can never bring themselves to admit alternative views even a curious possibility especially on tv LOL I don't think evolutionists will ever explain the big questions. and there lies the magic! but nobody wants to admit the magic might have come from something else..

[@dipankarmallick5543]

Brain & mind...house & domestic violence...

[@peweegangloku6428]

hmmm! Darwinists (evolutionists) changing the rule for their convenience: explain everything in material terms but explain any hurdle as an illusion. Interesting.

[@TurinTuramber]

"Evolutionists" aka anybody with modicum of intellectualism.

[@peweegangloku6428]

@@TurinTuramber yes, in the true sense of the word, "modicum. " Despite their claims on higher intelligence, they have never experimentally replicated any evolutionary processes they claim mindless accidents created. Yes, real MODICUM of intellectualism.

[@TurinTuramber]

@@peweegangloku6428 Going around pretending evolutionary theory is a wild claim without evidence whilst simultaneously claiming there are invisible wizards living in the sky. 🤡

[@peweegangloku6428]

@@TurinTuramber The term "wizard" is quite interesting though I did not use it. Wizard is relative. What was Thomas Edison called when he invented the phonograph? Was he not called a wizard? Why? Because the technology was foreign to human intuition. It was their first time hearing a human voice being produced by an inanimate object. What do you think you will be called if someone from the 14th or so century comes back to life and sees you using smartphone communicating with your friend half way around the globe? "WOOO! A VERY BIG WIZARD!" If only you could come back to life and see the technology in a thousand years, what would you call the users? Wizards, because for you, the technology may be incomprehensible. So yes, for now the highest intelligent and energy source of the universe can understandably be viewed as a "wizard." Now talking about evolution: Evolution is a theory without foundation. It is evidently clear that the universe or multiverse had a beginning. Start your evolutionary process (or theory) from the zero point, when there was nothing material in existence and explain to us how something material did come out of absolutely nothing. Use your modicum intellectualism, logically and sensibly explain to us how something came out of nothing. Please do not start from how 2 hydrogen atoms pulled towards one oxygen atom and form water. The quantum field is something material, start from before ANYTHINGNESS.

[@TurinTuramber]

@@peweegangloku6428 Have your crazy medieval worldview if you must but don't go around deliberately misrepresenting science just because it messes with your fickle delusions. The evidence for evolutionary theory is extremely prolific and readily available for you to do your own reading. It hasn't been debated for about 100 years.

[@Robert-tl2vg]

These videos make me laugh. The host always tries to come across so intellectual and will smuggle his god in to a discussion wherever he can but the look on his face when the interviewee just talks passed that is hilarious. See his interview with Sean Carroll for a brilliant example.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

I know what u mean. But Carroll inspires a laugh in any case. (Robert doesn't have a "god".)

[@davidwatermeyer5421]

Haven't seen any videos of him "smuggling his god into a discussion." I got the sense he was agnostic. Evidence for your assertion?

[@shannonmcstormy5021]

We know today that the reality humans experience is a hallucination, this despite that our experience leads us to believe that our senses are delivering the information directly to our mind, rather than first going to a subconscious sub processing aspect that applies meaning to the information from our senses before we consciously perceive it. This is why we see, "the forest" rather than the snipers hiding in it; why eyewitness accounts of the same event can vary, sometimes wildly, etc. We also know that humans are prone to delusional thinking en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases with one of the most commonly known of these being "Confirmation Bias" (we notice, emphasize and remember experiences that support our beliefs, doing the opposite for experiences contrary to our beliefs). Physical damage to parts of the brain will nearly always result in impairment in areas associated with those parts (though sometimes brains can create workarounds through time, healing and various training). Finally, we know that one of human's greatest sources of challenge is our fear of death kzbin.info/www/bejne/rprSdICBlL6Cb5I Thus, we have a huge motivation to want to believe that some part of ourselves, our mind's carry on after the physical death of our body. Thus, whether I'm dealing with one of the very specific and well known cognitive biases, as well as the children of these thinking errors (sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.), or a theory about how the mind may carry on after death, I realize that I must account for/compensate for delusions, biases, and various foundational motivations. Given that all of this is subconscious, I have to err in a direction that will make - Sure - I'm ethical and that I'm not "giving in" to irrationalities just because the alternative is existentially anxiety-producing. Sorry, I forgot to make my point.....If the human brain hallucinates our reality for our mind's, then it is certainly possible that consciousness is also an hallucination. Note that phenomena of the mind are real, just as real as a rock that lands on your foot. Meaning, they exist and we experience them, so that is real. But it is the assumption that this experience "means" more than being just an experience. It is the reason I argued in a Freshman philosophy class (some 35+ years ago) that Descartes' quote, "I think, therefore I am" is better, more accurately stated, "I think, therefore I think." Descartes' "I am" implies too much. I could be a brain in a vat being fed chemical-electrical information that simulates reality for me, or a more recent example, I could be in, "The Matrix." Descartes' error in implying too much is one he makes himself as he goes on to extrapolate progressively more wildly to eventually arrive at "a proof" for the existence of God. My point is that it is possible that my mind's phenomenon of consciousness is just a mental experience, nothing more. It implies nothing, no more than if I drop LSD and think I am "one with a cat" (an experience one of my friends had in our youth). This experience didn't mean that he was one with the cat, or rather it doesn't prove he is, or even was, one with the cat. It was just a hallucinated experience.....the same as everything else; at least we can't KNOW, can't be sure that it is nothing more. Now, my friend can start to believe that he is not only one with the cat, he can decide to believe that he is one with everything, that everything is everything ie Non-duality. If this belief makes him a better person, helps him treat himself and those around him better, I'm all for it. For me, beliefs are judged on whether they help someone and those around them, whether they have a positive effect. I don't judge them based on whether they are real or not. To me, that is largely irrelevant. Outside of, "I think, therefor I think" and "existence exists" we can't know anything. Everything else is effectively a leap of faith.

[@shannonmcstormy5021]

P.s. I have a severe progressive neurological disease. One of the symptoms is cognitive impairment. So, if I misspell something, please forgive me.

[@Sjolden98]

But, onto what is this hallucination projected onto? The capacity to have a hallucination is preceded by experience. In this sense, having a hallucination of any sort is of the same category as anything we see, for the very fact that we see it. None of Mr. Humphrey’s explanations or yours frankly can ever or will ever answer the massive gap between having a brain producing and doing something with these signals and experiencing these as, well, an experience. What are these electrical signals being projected onto?

[@shannonmcstormy5021]

@@Sjolden98 It is not "what they are projected onto," its our experience of consciousness is "created out of"....all these experiences. In other words, the sum is greater than its parts. The mind is created through these experiences, or more accurately, the illusion of the mind, of consciousness, is created by these experiences. As for proving it, again as I noted above, we can't "prove" anything beyond "I think, therefor I think" and "existence exists." Beyond this, its largely a leap of faith, though many aspects of these theories have been "proven" ie "given weight to" through repeatable, highly credible experimental studies, also noted above. .

[@pallerj]

I have discussed with Humphrey and we agree that the consciousness IS the result of a feedback process in the brain. I have described it in a report: www.ruf.dk slash trans2.pdf and it has been published at the conference: "Towards a Science of Consciousness" in Copenhagen. When you are conscious, your brain works as a generator creating neural activity in a loop of neurons covering all aspects (qualia) of the conscious experience.

[@Sjolden98]

What is the mechanism which converts the impulses and pushes that into the “mind”? Where is the ability for impulses to be converted into a living image of experience? This will never be answered, as much as we try.

[@pallejensen1576]

@@Sjolden98 When a neuron fires, the pulse propagates to many other neurons. Some of them will be in a level of excitement so that it will fire and spread to other neurons. Sometimes the pulse goes back to the original neuron and if it is ready to fire, a generator of neural activity is created. It will continue until one of the neurons get tired and the generator loop will stop. As long as this process is active, we are conscious of all the aspects covered by the generator loop. The brain is NOT a computer. Computers are prevented from making generator loops. It would spoil their ability to make predictable calculations. An interesting aspect is, that neurons are unable to fire up to 2 milliseconds after a pulse has been sent. This means that it is unlikely that small organisms can have consciousness. It requires a large brain.

[@benji-5796]

Explain remote viewing