The quest to understand consciousness | Antonio Damasio

[@TL-nx7bq]

I am a psychology student at University and we had a whole unit based on Antonio’s theory’s. His theory’s are quite remarkable.

[@rebecaanastacia3020]

What is your University?

[@mingenluo4042]

I wish my university has a dedicated module for theories like his.

[@college54114]

we'll never know :( @@rebecaanastacia3020

[@itsmeee8431]

Kinda same

[@jonascampos1895]

Reading his book at the moment! True legendary neuroscientist. Inspiration for a young one over here.

[@virginialean5802]

How was the book ? :) u r probably done by now

[@skwerl81]

I'm also curious about the book! And which one was it?

[@libertadruiz6135]

lit bro he dont stop speak

[@mindfulskills]

This is perhaps the best materialist explanation for the subjective sense of self that I have ever encountered.

[@MsGnor]

I found this very useful and interesting - thanks for sharing. My own brain has changed a lot in the past year. I'm trying to understand why and what it means. I feel like a different person - for the better, I'm happy to say, after a lot of years with anxiety that wouldn't go away.

[@tobiasschneider2007]

One of the best talks on the subject. Especially the evolution of the sense of self

[@joeschmo5699]

I just listened to a YT talk given by Susan Greenfield at the Australian National University where she discussed 3 elements to our brain and consciousness. 1. The physical brain - "the stuff that can get under your fingernails." 2. The mind - that which contains our sense of identity that we don't lose overnight with loss of consciousness. 3. Consciousness -that which appears separate from our sense of identity and allows us to navigate our environment when awake and gives us a sense of agency and autonomy (whether that is actual or illusion may be another matter). I think these three components make a lot of sense and is a more sophisticated analysis than what I've seen here. When we observe someone who has amnesia, we can see someone who is conscious but, through some trauma such as a concussion, has lost the identity or sense of self. They don't know who they are. This is likely very unsettling but it demonstrates that identity and consciousness are quite different components generated by the brain. So it seems.

[@eleonorhypnos]

The movie he is referring to: "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" (original French title: "Le Scaphandre et le Papillon") is a memoir by journalist Jean-Dominique Bauby. It describes his life before and after a massive stroke left him with locked-in syndrome. It's really a touching film.

[@RitaTheCuteFox]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!! 😁

[@Gabbargaamada]

Are you INFJ, Eleonor? Lol

[@aminamri4941]

Oui c’est avec Mathieu Amalric dans le personnage principal qui joue le rôle de Jean-Dominique Bauby comme vous l’avez si bien dit. Antonio Damasio est vraiment passionnant dans la façon qu’il a de nous conter les mécanismes subtils cachés de notre cerveau qui entre en résonance entre elles et avec le corps.

[@guimsabreu]

I go to António Damásio High School. This man is a LEGEND

[@saswatagupta5288]

Literally or figuratively 😅?

[@citizenschallengeYT]

I though it was an awesome talk, worth pondering for sure- 4:40 1) a mind, which is a flow of mental images 2) a self a conscious mind is a mind with a self in it a self introduces a subjective perspective in the mind we are only fully conscious when self comes to mind 4:55 We need to know: 1) how minds are put together, and 2) how selves are constructed 9:35 What about the self? "We generate brain maps of the body's interior and use them as the reference for all the other maps." the self needs the body as its reference point our internal milieu - management of bodily systems need to keep it within narrow range of 'sameness' 13:45 schematic of connections between brain's components 14:00 "you generate the map of the body that provides the grounding for the self and that comes in the form of feelings, primordial feelings by the way" 16:05 three levels of self: proto self core self autobiographical self The autobiographical self is the lived past and the anticipated future 16:45 The autobiographical self has prompted: extended memory reasoning imagination creativity language 16:55 Out of that we get - The instruments of culture: religions justice trade the arts science technology 17:15 "And here is the novelty - something that is not entirely set by our biology it is developed in the cultures, it is developed in collectives of human beings. This is of course the culture where we have developed something that I like to call socio-cultural regulation" Finally, Why care? curiosity understanding of society and culture medicine

[@theshells6873]

"We do not know what consciousness is" - NO that is not the case - We do not know the mechanics, chemistry and biology of the formula which creates consciousness or when specifically sentient beings formed a nervous system which allowed them to feel pain and therefore became conscious. Humans and other sentient mammals. We as humans do not have any more emotional character than other sentient mammals - they are just as fully invested in their lives as we are in ours. The only difference is that they are just a little dumber than we are. There is no reason to accept or assume all these nuances - all this confusion i.e. "We can't know what consciousness is or consciousness is mysterious" type woo woo. Consciousness is not mysterious. Evolution has made the movie, we have all seen it. We are cockroaches who can sing and dance :) We live on a bug planet and the elitist bugs like to pretend they are better than the other bugs. Consciousness is just the mechanism which guides our behavior along the evolutionary path. I realize the last statement sounded pessimistic - that was not my intent --- we understand why sentient beings have consciousness and why we need it - we just lack the specific formula to understand its intricacies.

[@itsallinyourmind314]

***** Hi! I pretty much go acor with the claim that concsiousness is some kind of illusion. how could it be any different, since we know for certain that we haven't any form of contact to the outer world?Everything we perceive, everything we "are", is the brain interpreting the brain, brainchemistry. But conscious brainchemistry. And, i assume, that not only the complexity of the brain per se is responsible for our conscious experience, because than you would have to claim some kind of panpsychism, as every system has some degree of complexity, one more and the other less. So there must be a specific, abstract, logical, mechanism for it. Do we have some ideas what this mechanism could look like? ...Because if not, we have to assume that "conscious" is just our way of being. Through our consciousness (which is an illusion), we would have to say then, we live in the assumption that we (=our consciousness') are separated from the rest of the universe (which then has to be also an illusion, as "the unverse" in our experience is also just part of our consciousness), whereby this assumption equals our illusion of having "real", some kind of magical, direct contact to the outer world - which we have not, only our brain has contact to our brain, that's obviously all there is. So the conscious experience of the world on one side, and myself on the other side, is just a virtual reality. In such a case i postulate that maybe consciousness (=feeling of separateness=self-awareness) is special to sentient animals, but not awareness, as every system has some degree of complexity. Every highly interconnected thing has awareness (=is aware of itself changing), which is some kind of timeless state of being without the seperation between self and world, it's both in one. Further, as our feeling of separation from the world, which defines our concsiousness, is an illusion - which means that we are nothing but a part of the univere's system - in this part of the universe that we call ourselfs our consciousness overlaps the awareness of the universe as a whole, and so it is the case with every other system - but the whole thing is a system too. That means, when our consciousness dissolves, we don't BECOME the universe - the universe is the universe - but we become aware that we have been the universe all the time. Note that I don't talk about an afterlive, let alone a personal afterlive. Imagin a single human consciousness as the top of a vertically growing brench of a tree. The brench has the illusion that his consciousness is only because his existence as a brench, as it can look only horizontally and therefore sees only separate single brenches. When a brench falls of it is over with its personal/separated live, maybe it sees some very weird things during falling down, but after a second it will be over. But the tree lives on, and as our cosnciousness was to due the aware nature of the universe itself (the capacity of things being aware and also conscious in our universe) , its core lives on, which is the core of everything, but our personal selfs will never be again, as they were only an illusion. In my theory i define awareness as a kind of weak and passive consciousness. To outrule my theory we would have to 1. find the mechanism which makes systems conscious - if we don't find it, it is only complexity that makes things conscious, and complexity is gradual = my theory is correct because obviously all matter is in some kind interconnected, so it is on largest possible scale (maybe gravity forces or darkmatter contribution/flow between galaxy superclusters) - 2. make sure the universe as a whole does not have this mechanism - if it has, the thing is clear. So it is even testable! A special type would be that there is a mechanism but it is a gradual one, and the universe maybe has it. For obvious reasons I like this theory, but I'm not sure if it is true. :-) ...also this is a lot of text written in pretty bad english, so sfmbe!

[@theshells6873]

ftfttztztzrzt Hello: Are we part of the universe? Yes, we are part of the universe - everything within the universe makes up the universe. Is there some kind of special agency which allows us to expand past ourselves and reunite with the cosmos? Certainly I can not prove this is not the case but there is no evidence which supports such a claim either. From a natural physical perspective consciousness is simply a scheming tool which evolved via evolution because it was useful. Useful with respect to keeping us alive long enough to pass on our genes. I do not mind the text - I always appreciate when people take the time and put forward their thoughts and arguments.

[@iwilldi]

ftfttztztzrzt quote: "Hi! I pretty much go acor with the claim that concsiousness is some kind of illusion. how could it be any different, since we know for certain that we haven't any form of contact to the outer world?Everything we perceive, everything we "are", is the brain interpreting the brain, brainchemistry. " How can i show you that conscousness is not simply an illusion and that there is a objective reality out there? The question is: Do you believe in soccer matches? 22 guys 3 refs and 1000s of fans, even sports reporters and tv watchers all converge to believe in the same illusion. Following occams razor it is best to assume the soccer field and the game exists, no matter how distorted we perceive it. In case ther are distortions, what we perceive is still objective enough to play soccer or enjoy it. Thats the best i can do.

[@roys8474]

citizenschallengeYT The speaker is describing perceptions. Perceptions are found in consciousness, but they are not consciousness itself. We know what perception is. That's the easy problem. The hard problem is what consciousness is. That is not being discussed here.

[@SuperHomelanderman]

Antonio Damasio is one of the greatest neuroscientists in History, he showed us that emotions are not separated from reason!

[@davidroberts1689]

Wow! every second of this is packed with information.

[@danielsayre3385]

This video is slightly ahead of its time, just by a handful of years. Brilliant job, everyone involved in this research

[@terminusadquem6981]

His idea that feelings gave rise to consciousness & images is very insightful. This is even more fundamental than the structuralist approach of Wilhem Wundt. 🙂

[@Dr0iRedX]

The film he mentioned is "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly".

[@bc_iamme]

Mohammed Hanano Thank you

[@hugdetta]

@@bc_iamme n

[@thecaveoawesomeness]

The 3 reasons why we are interested in the inner workings of the great unknown ( and by that I mean our minds) are 1. curiosity 2. Social and cultural understanding, and 3. providing medicine and treatment. I know I'm repeating what he said but these concepts should be said more often. Really interesting video.

[@salasvalor01]

Finally, an honest look at consciousness, no deceit or agenda.

[@commodoor646]

+Sage Mantis I heard a lot of discussion about perception and brain structure and function, but not much of a discussion about the connection between brain structure and what we perceive as consciousness. While I think he's correct, such that I have "faith" that is true. In the same way I think humans will eventually produce machines that have the same sort of consciousness that we do, he has not adequately expressed what it is about human brain function that gives us a sense of consciousness. In the end, his discussion sans the nuance of details that scientific knowledge can richly confer, his argument wholly remains philosophical masquerading as science. I'd be a bit more critical. Let the myth believers in our society worship heroes and deities. Science concerns itself with evidence, not belief.

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain the reason why our scientific knowledge disproves the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or classifications of underlying processes and arbitrary abstractions of the actual microscopic physical processes, which are described DIRECTLY by the laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The claim that emergent properties exist independently of a conscious mind is therefore simply nonsensical because it is equivalent to the claim that an approximation exists as an actual entity. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that every set of elements is inherently an arbitrary abstract idea which implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is not a physical entity but just an abstract idea and so are all its properties. Any property attributed to the set as a whole is inherently an abstract idea that refers to a property of another abstract idea (the set) and not to a physical entity. So any emergent property is by its very nature an arbitrary abstraction that refers to another arbitrary abstraction (the set). Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any property of a set as a whole, and therefore consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini

[@rodriguezelfeliz4623]

Tldr, but if that is true, exolain why consciousness is so closely linked (some might say identical) to the activity states of the brain. Explain why general anesthetics, specific brain injuries and slow wave sleep take away consciousness

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@rodriguezelfeliz4623 My arguments are not meant to prove that brain processes are not necessary for the existence of our consciousness. My arguments prove that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness and that the existence of an indivisible non-physical element, which is usually called spirit or soul, is also necessary for the existence of our consciousness.

[@syzygyman7367]

@@marcobiagini1878 You are right. But what do you mean by "not-physical"? If the conscious entity can affect physical things, govern the WF collapse for example, do you think that it's not right to extend physics to include it, like Penrose does? Have you checked Penrose's proof of the not-computational nature of consciousness?

[@marcobiagini1878]

​@@syzygyman7367 With the term "not-physical" I mean "something that is not reducible to the laws of physics, not even in principle, without additional assumptions, independent of the laws of physics themselves". The idea that physics can be extended to include consciousness is just a fanciful hypothesis without any rational or scientific basis, since we don't even know what a theory of consciousness should look like.

[@marcobiagini1878]

You wrote:"but if that is true, explain why consciousness is so closely linked (some might say identical) to the activity states of the brain." My arguments are not meant to prove that brain processes are not necessary for the existence of our consciousness. My arguments prove that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness and that the existence of an indivisible non-physical element, which is usually called spirit or soul, is also necessary for the existence of our consciousness.

[@mentonerodominicano]

Excellent. Very happy to see research as deep as this being done about our brains. It's certainly makes consciousness a more physical and approachable concept rather than an abstract and dismissive one.

[@artandculture5262]

Eric Toribio Left Brain much?

[@hellomate639]

Him pointing towards the brain stem as the source of consciousness really put things in perspective about how I treat animals, whether or not he's correct.

[@carlosdacosta903]

"Don't want to frighten you"... when for ever reason, that is precisely what he is doing

[@shbleher]

A joy to listen to such a clear speaker! It seems he has cornered what is necessary for consciousness to arise, but not necessarily what is sufficient. What is sufficient is the minimal elements that, if present, irrevocably lead to the arising of consciousness and especially of a conscious self. The final piece is the jump from the external description in terms of the contents of the brain, and the actual subjective/internal experience of a self, not likely accessible to 'objective' science.

[@MrDoomsdayBomb]

I agree to a certain extent; he gave us a very categorical explanation of a concept that is much more fundamental in nature and requires a much more fundamentally based elucidation if we are to understand the true neurologically causal mechanisms through which our conscious selves are manifested. However his talk is "great" because it affords, for a lot of people, not only intellectual stimulation, but incentive for curious exploration as well.

[@CookieMonsterMC11]

A great scientist, and "Self comes to mind" is a great book!

[@ThinkTank255]

Why is this "depressing"??? It's AMAZING!!!

[@asecretturning]

Consciousness is responsiveness, and in its most fundamental nature responsiveness is an intrinsic property of matter. We're stunned by our own consciousness not because it is miraculous or supernatural, but because there are billions of years of conditioning that we try to understand in a few lifetimes of study and observation. Our unique human experience is an emergent phenomenon from the development of highly complex inner and interpersonal communication made possible by the likely accidental discovery of cooked foods.

[@nayabsiddiqui3002]

The real question is does the brain stem really produce consciousness or is it just a door that either allows consciousness to enter the brain or keep it out. I believe it is just a door and consciousness exists everywhere. We can be receptive to as much of it, as much we train our minds and body to be.

[@LBNANY]

What's more interesting is not consciousness of self, that "something" experiencing body and world information, but that "something" which has the potential for experiencing that information as images, sounds, other thoughts. And it seems to me that in deep dreamless sleep and anesthesia alike it is the flow of information that ceases from the brain, not the existence of that "something." I used to define that as the mind, but he does not emphasize it and defines mind as something else.

[@gratefultobehere]

What a good speaker. Curiosity brought me here and appreciate all that went into this presentation.

[@reprogrammingmind]

Very clean, strong presentation.

[@Alistair]

apart from the audio engineer's poor work. The feedback is giving me a headache. Maybe I can rip it and do a low pass filter

[@les.soundguy]

My goodness this is incredible that people so well educated and unbelievably intelligent are not able to understand simple physics of how the microphone works 😮 so they study very complex concepts and are able to understand and even to translate it for others. There are things like speakers in the room and when the microphone is placed not enough close to the source of the sound we will get that annoying feedback… of course there are sound engineers and technicians in the room but it should be a common knowledge. If we can understand that being to close to fire can damage our skin we should be able to understand other simple laws of physics 😬😀

[@markportnoy6290]

He's not describing mind. He's describing the physical mechanics that accompany experience. Think of a radio.

[@saikrishna8211]

There are cases when patients who came out from coma said that they were conscious about what is happening, they were hearing the voices, but they are not able to communicate or express themselves through their sensory organs.

[@devourerofbabies]

Great talk. He used the word "non-serendipitous". Word of the day.

[@JaimeSantana-hm3fq]

I have some arguments to think that conciusness doesn’t come from mind, but I’ll make them know in a future book.

[@zvolencan1]

Another man to bow to.

[@shadowdragonvx]

Mystic experience is "Pure Consciousness" without the self/ego; ego-death (or dissolution); it is by this experiential state of Consciousness that humans have evolved that capability of that Consciousness is known & known as the primacy/grounds of reality, it's nature of Love is known, & it can be known as God.

[@davidroberts1689]

Darik Thorson pure blathering word salad.

[@shadowdragonvx]

David Roberts Right? Do some research on the phenomenology of mystic experience; ineffability is a quality of them. Try looking up 'Love', 'Awareness' and 'Consciousness' in the dictionary and thesaurus. You will see they are defined as ineffable to some extent and are deeply connected.

[@simonbour56p]

David Roberts It sounds like word salad, but is it? What is the diference between a word salad and a description we don't understand?...seriously. People have crazy experiences. If they come back from a mystical experience doing assertions about the physical world, then it does sound woo woo. The fact that people can do that, I think, doesn't imply that there was not a heavy experience behind it, but rather that people make a lot of interpretation and they might go on to communicate the interpretation instead of the actual experience. People will even go on to say there's a god/god's. But, if all they do is to describe the experience, the sensations, then, too bad, it seems that those strange sounding sentences, are beyond your grasp. I guess, something like that happens to me when I read descriptions of a wine...it sounds like bullshit, but I'm positive that a connoisseur will probably relate to what they read on that description. People can also have crazy experiences by doing hallucinogens...They''ll probably have to resort to weird words to describe the experience, or indeed describe crazy things.

[@bobrolander4344]

Why not start with _Normal Consciousness._ By starting off as a New Age hippy, we will never have a fruitful discussion about qualia and the first person experience. Just because Consciousness is non-material, does not mean it is supernatural. It is just a part of nature that we don't understand yet. And we will not understand it by staring at brains.

[@Bleilock1]

Bob Rolander problem with you fundamental reductionists is that everything that is not material is supernatural to you xd And you dont want to hear non of it Pitty You guys are crippling yourself

[@TheEighthHouseSol]

Thank you very much for speaking out. Keep fighting the good fight!

[@nana-nv9rl]

와우~! 안토니오 다마지오, 저는 순간 2배속으로 보고 있나 착각했습니다. 놀랍습니다. 뇌신경연구를 하셔서 그럴까요? 자신의 뇌를 너무나 싱싱하게 잘 가꾸시는 것 같습니다. 이 사실만으로도 당신을 신뢰합니다. 존경스럽습니다~!!

[@TheLivirus]

@Studi037 6:15 It was highly related to what he was trying to explain. When covering a nerdy subject it's important to give concrete examples to every now and then to keep the audience alert.

[@cristinaegas]

Marvelous Dr. Dommasio! Thank you so much ❤

[@stephen1475]

wow, that lecture was thick with information :D I don't feel like i can summarise it. that is the mark of a great communicator. clear and concise with buckets full of information. no wolfe! love it!

[@Arunava_Gupta]

It is the brain stem, not the cerebral cortex, that "provides the grounding for the self;" this seems to be the crux of this lecture.

[@wailinburnin]

Semantics reveals thought process. Antonio Damasio is using the terms: "mind" and "self". All he would have to add is "soul" to demonstrate a particular trap in thinking. These appear to be terms created by the consciousness to explain itself, concepts, not phenomena. The mirror test for self recognition of animals appears to indicate that there is consciousness and there is a more advanced, or complicated form of consciousness yielding self awareness - order of complexity.

[@Drvelasco45]

I dont agree with the comments here. This was a wonderful talk, specially if you are interested in an objective explanation for the self, soul, and how the mind works.

[@TomDobbie]

This is a nice insight to add to our understanding of consciousness. Thank you Antonio Damasio and Ted.

[@QuantPhilosopher89]

That was one of the best TED talks ever.

[@ActionAnton]

What you are referring to here is the fact that brain processing takes time and in order for us to, for example, catch a ball, our brains have to calculate the balls trajectory in order to catch it. This is an estimation and not seeing the future, if it were we should be able to catch the ball 100 % of the times, but any slight changes in the environment, such as a sudden wind, will change the balls trajectory and you will miss it. I can't really see how that would contradict local consciousness

[@danielwoodwardcomposer2040]

Consciousness is the source of understanding.

[@chakacaca1372]

+Daniel Woodward deep, bro, deeeeep

[@bradenrodriguez5183]

And moisture is the essence of wetness, and wetness is the essence of beauty.

[@college54114]

Very interesting.

[@damonnugent1993]

My personal opinion is that Consciousness is a blank slate but is built up by memories, experiences and lessons in physical existence, in death, it goes back to a blank slate. You could question if Consciousness without a sense of self is same as non-existence entirely. I think we are more than the memories we have currently. But death could be akin to being born again.

[@dulcerodrigues41]

Wonderful talk. Very interesting and well ariculated. Thanks Antonio Damasio!

[@dudepal187]

I thought this was going to be philosophical hand-waving but it turned out to be a pretty good talk :)

[@musFuzZ]

human: _AI, how can you prove that you are conscious?_ AI: That's a difficult question. How can you? How can you?

[@LarsRichterMedia]

MusFuzZ How can you even know what consciousness is? How can you know or prove anything?

[@stannisbaratheon7985]

+MusFuzZ It's easy. We're the only species with existential thoughts. We question everything. No other species can do that. Or so we think.

[@gruff5]

just build a computer that tells the truth - we already do that, unless the machine is hampered by a bug. Then the Turing Test & similar are unnecessary: human: AI, are you intelligent? AI: probably not, but please define intelligence for a more definite answer. human: are you conscious? AI: no. there are no qualia going on inside this box.

[@brentbb0]

No proof needed. You know you are conscious. The rest comes when consciousness turns its attention on itself and begins an exploration into the nature of itself, as it arises in the present moment in the continuous "big banging" of itself to itself. No proof is possible to anyone who doesn't already know they are conscious. Consciousness recognizes itself within itself, and in others, as its One Self, in an "entanglement" of all apparently separate, mind-body organisms.

[@AbuSaud.Christos]

But consciousness is not the same as the sense of self, some people lose that sense of self or ego in spiritual experiences like eckhart tolle. It's actually the goal of spirituality and religion in general.

[@TheVenusApocalypse]

Absolutely Brilliant

[@JustMeZero814]

Antonio Damasio: The quest to understand consciousness.......... I love TED.com..... just sayin.... Thank you Karelaine for telling me about it...... long ago..... :) I have enjoyed this many times over the past 4 years...... thanks again Karelaine and Hanna too. LN

[@Truthiness231]

Coolest TED video in quite some time. Understanding consciousness (particularly the most intriguing of questions: what does it fully mean to say "I am"?) seems so close right now... can't wait to see what's next ^.^

[@StewartStewart]

I had trouble summarizing what I learned after watching this...

[@Tapecutter59]

@AnduinX Simple awareness during resuscitation test: On a high shelf in the intensive care ward put an unusual, attention grabbing object such as a pair of red slippers. Ask people if they saw anything unusual while floating on the ceiling.

[@citizenschallengeYT]

What can I say, I think the notes are worth sharing. Happy learning.

[@GregCollver]

Damasio is brilliant. I would like to see a really good communicator attempt to clarify and express his ideas. Carl Zimmer comes to mind.

[@frkkn026]

Very englightening about consciousness. And very inspiring

[@APOCRYPHAL]

Why the hell does everyone hate the intro this much? You're going to spend 20 minutes of your "precious" lives watching the discusion anyways, so what's 15 seconds to you?

[@SHONeee92]

Congratulations Damasio. Great lecture 👌

[@psydoc2054]

We are the sum of all the collective information of the beings that existed before us.

[@IcedPhoenix666]

Consciousness proves itself.

[@inderonline1988]

The film he is referring to is "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" (2007), dealing with life of a person suffering from locked-in syndrome.

[@MasKistershi]

@Druwg Actually it's become evident that the neurology of the brain is far far more else tic than we ever thought. Nuro plasticity is showing us remarkable outcomes in this and the brains enormous capacity to "rewire "itself. Interesting stuff indeed

[@Tekkenman101]

Can anyone help summarize what he was talking about? I sort of got lost, thank you so much!

[@weewilly2007]

I think he said that the brain produces stream of consciousness, the mind and self, which sort of works like maps that coordinate and organize events occurring inside our bodies (biological function), with what's occurring outside in the external world (perceived as auditory, visual sensory or olfactory stimuli), while also cross referencing those processes with past experiences that we've stored in the form of memory, allowing us to opine, hypothesize, conjecture, imagine, anticipate, or form action plans. I think he also mentioned that there can be great inaccuracies that occur in any number of these steps and stages, including physical anomalies like tiny cysts in the soft membrane of the eye that lead to warping or distortion of data and information. Which may be why you should never point to the speck in anothers eye, when you have a log in your own IS IT?

[@strongyang]

I'll be honest, no matter how much we research on the correlation between neuro-biological functions and consciousness, we would not be able to literally quantify and measure consciousness. We can only provide a cause-and-effect analysis of the description of how consciousness is being altered or compromised, but we cannot provide a solid explanation of how consciousness came into existence. Neuroscience is not in the right field for that. It belongs to the theologian and Philosophy

[@strongyang]

I never said that Neuroscience isn't important to this topic. It is very crucial to understand the implication of consciousness. I believe that Philosophy of the mind does make a dialectical, synthetical progress recently with the advert of modern neuroscience research.

[@weewilly2007]

one hand illuminates while another hand obscures, this is called cornering both ends of the market, and running a racket in between

[@jesuspeteable]

FINALLY intelligent youtube comments to support the video!!

[@animnation9849]

We dont loose consciousness when we sleep or get anesthetic. Westetn philosophers can never understand the consciousness with the mapping of neurons . In the yogic science and in Indian civilisations which dates back to thousends of years it has been described about starting feom Hindusim to budhisim.

[@zrizzle19]

LMAO

[@emanjabadi307]

"Do they never think over in their own minds that Allâh has created the heavens and the earth and all that lies between the two only to suit the requirements of truth and wisdom (and with a definite end in view), but for a stated term (after which the doom must come)? Yet many among the people do not believe in the meeting with their Lord ever." (30, ArRoom, Holy Quran)

[@robotaholic]

Omg he is one of the most interesting

[@sonytey7953]

Esse estudo do cérebro derruba de vez, e definitivamente, a lenda urbana sobre alma, espírito e outra vida após a morte. Aqui ele prova que o cemitério é a última morada.

[@grmmhp]

+Sony Tey ou talvez as coisas devem ser muito mais complexas..

[@sonytey7953]

Seu *****, se bem entendi a sua mensagem, entendo que a neurociência deu um grande passo na direção de tornar a relação do cérebro com a mente, menos misteriosa. Atualmente é possível localizar o conjunto de neurônios responsável por determinada conduta mental como lembranças, pensamentos, consciência, movimentos físicos, desejos, agressividade. Toda atividade mental de uma pessoa tem correspondente físico-químico-elétrico no cérebro e isso é localizado e pode ser desativado com uma simples intervenção.

[@grmmhp]

+Sony Tey exatamente, O cérebro é responsável pela inteligência. mas eu acho q a consciência, essa experiência de sentir as coisas e etc não é gerado pelo cérebro, talvez seja algo quântico sla.. eu qria saber se quando uma simulação ultra realística e detalhada do cérebro humano observasse um elétron, ele pegasse uma posição e orientação definida no espaço. se isso não acontecer, talvez nos mostre que a consciência não nasce no cérebro

[@sonytey7953]

Bróder *****, não sei se entendi bem a sua questão, mas arrisco dizer que o átomo é apenas um componente da matéria (no caso o neurônio). As pedras têm elétrons, átomos, mas não têm neurônios. O que produz a mente é a função do neurônio. Consciência, à que você se referiu, é uma atividade mental localizável em específica região do cérebro. Uma pequena intervenção química ou elétrica nessa região faz o indivíduo perder a consciência. Não há base lógica para se afirmar que a consciência está 'fora' do cérebro. Se você tiver tempo e disposição, consulte alguns trabalhos da neurocientista Suzana Herculano-Houzel, em vídeos ou livros. Abraço.

[@grmmhp]

bem, vou resumir oq eu disse: eu acho q a consciência é extrafísica e se manifesta no cérebro claro que eu posso estar errado, e se eu estiver eu ficaria muito impressionado e maravilhado como funções geram consciência

[@roland124rt4]

Consciousness is not an illusion. It is very real, we experience it all the time. However, the mystery has not been solved. Science can observe thoughts that correlate with different nerve cell connection. However, it has not (at least yet) been able to observe the thoughts themselves. For example, if I told you to imagine a tree in your head, science can't find the actual image of the tree you created.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

"Consciousness is not an illusion." Yes. "It is very real, we experience it all the time." No. It is not real and we don't experience it ever. Let me try to explain... I AM a self and I AM conscious. Conscious is not something like a ghost that I own. Conscious is what I am. When I am conscious I am being, I be. But when I am not conscious I am not being, I have ceased to be. That is why my existant body can be cut open during an operation and I won't mind (so long as the anesthesiologists know what they are doing). (To clarify, I distinguish between existence and being. I use the word 'existence ' to refer to matter only and the word 'being' to refer to all else. For instance, the 'stone' exists but its rolling does not. Rolling, if that's what the stone is doing, is its current mode of being. Words like 'rolling', 'process' , 'pattern' , 'dynamics ', behavior', etc., a whole host of others, do not refer to matter but to complex thoughts synthesized by the mind out of simple thoughts generated by the sense organs when they are affected by the dynamics of existant matter (and by 'matter' I mean all the bits that concern physicists, protons, photons, fields etc). It is my self that IS conscious. It is my self that is conscious of a tree but there is no tree within me, there is only a metaphor encoded, context dependent representation, the very meaning of the discharge frequencies of neurons, the means by which thoughts are actually instantiated. Thoughts are not the things they are about. Words are like that too (in fact one could legitimately insist that written words are thought crystals). From my mind to your mind through the magic of word crystals. One would not look for a tree in the word 'tree' and one won't find a tree in the brain for exactly the same reason. Perhaps I've been too literal in my interpretation of your crystals? (While writing this it occurred to me physicists have trouble defining energy because energy is non existent. There are only things and they are moving. It is the movement that IS the energy. In other words, energy IS 'inertia'. The energy in chemistry is in the movement of electrons. There is no energy in the nucleus. The energy manifests only when the constituents are freed to move. lol Topic for a different discussion, eh).

[@MrPlatonist]

@MrPlatonist i assumed this was the case yesterday, and went all out to see if i was right. and i was. thank you. you've proven to me why this stuff happens and how it happens. i

[@JMLudwig]

@xamphor As an"undergraduate neuroscientist,"I don't think personality is related to this talk.And,he is saying the PAG & other mesencephalon brain areas CONTRIBUTES to the construction of a primordial self.Clearly, he describes an autobiographical self which is,of course, not a function of the brain stem.He is saying the mesencephalon is able to map the body and interpret bodily changes(relative to homeostasis)playing a role in the construction of qualitative states, or feeling states.

[@MeyerMack]

We each have only one example of consciousness to go by. All others are inferred by their similarity to ourselves. It's not surprising that we don't detect consciousness in things that don't have brains like ours. But the features of the brain that seem most closely related to consciousness (interconnected units, electrical and chemical signals, feedback) are present throughout nature at scales big and small. I think it's premature to rule them all out because they don't act like animals.

[@TheEighthHouseSol]

I completely agree, if science wants to talk about consciousness as thought then it is very far from any real understanding. This video should be called, "The Quest To Understand Thought" there are too many assumptions that scientists make regarding this issue.

[@ActionAnton]

You make it sound like fortune telling when it is really about optimising reactions in the world in a very short time span, like calculating the trajectory of a ball in order to catch it. As far as I am aware the latest research on dreams tells us that it has more to do with memory consolidation of things during the day, which, for example, enhances motor skills. You make it sound like something magic and mysterious when it is not.

[@TheTRUwins]

I have, but as I stated. IT IS NOT MY JOB TO BABYSIT ANYONE. if you are considering yourself as scientist or any "serious" researcher, you do your own research and see what you find. BUT, one advice, look for real science and cases that are ignored by mainstream science (there is a reason why many cases are ignored = as they can not be explained with current local-min model) - and be mind open and sceptic! THIS IS REAL SCIENCE! GOOD LUCK MY FIRNED :)

[@niriop]

Excellent talk, a bulwark against the spiritualists and immaterialists who want to keep ourselves a mystery.

[@TemSteen]

guys really need to write 2 paragraph about that discussion. HELP MEEEE! SOS

[@gabrielalozada175]

Same

[@MrOnairos]

"Life is but a dream." - Person who wrote "Row, Row, Row Your Boat"

[@phdtobe]

Fascinating!

[@ActionAnton]

I can agree that we to a certain extent should refrain from using the word 'design'. In this case I assume that he is referring to the more colloquial sense of design, that evolutionary theory makes possible.

[@AnduinX]

@ionz75: We do similar things in other fields of science when we hit a roadblock. In quantum physics new hypothetical particles that we have no way of detecting or directly interacting with are postulated because their existence would bridge gaps in our understanding. The Higgs boson is a perfect example of this.

[@wildist]

@SoftwareEngineer3 a) I'm picking on it because it's what allows the perception of reality in the first place. b) No you have no way of quantifying it, see 'philosophical zombie'. c) I think sometimes an assertion of certainty is needed where people think that certainty about these things exists. The only thing I really know for certain is that there is consciousness. d) I would say the same for people who try to explain consciousness as arising from matter.

[@stevemuller8320]

nor mind - nor matter 😌

[@metaphor1k]

The whole thing can be explained by the metaphor of containment. Having the idea of being contained in a body will automatically generate an experiencer, a "self," which naturally goes away when unconscious. The only neurology necessary is the same we'd use to consider a firefly in a Bell jar.

[@ActionAnton]

For example, colours and sound do not exist if there are no brains present to process colour waves or sound waves, so in that sense they are not "real". However, we have come a long way in describing how the brain manages to produce these phenomena. Obviously nobody can explain what seeing a specific colour is like but that does not mean we cannot explain how it is produced. When Goodale & Milner explaind the "where" and "what" streams of the visual system, they did not do it through meditation.

[@thepianoaddict]

talks about brains are my favorite :)

[@magmade]

Some say Consciousness is all there is......everything happens in Consciousness, everything including us are objects in consciousness, Consciousness manifest itself into us.....so the way we perceive the world is from the perspective of the limited mind. as soon this mind dies "when we die" what's left is just pure Consciousness. "so mind is limitation or a glimpse of what Consciousness is".

[@ThanosSofroniou]

One of the best Ted talks and the comment section is filled with stupid people that believe in all sort of supernatural bs

[@seancsnm]

+Thanos Sofroniou Wait, how is that any different than any other KZbin video ever?

[@vielbosheit]

+Thanos Sofroniou The issues with consciousness talks are at the very least twofold. The first is that, because we are all conscious, laypeople assume they have legitimate opions on the subject. The second is that 'consciousness' is the current hiding place of mainstream, New Age woo-woo. Plus, youtube is morons to begin with :D

[@sergiosanchezpadilla1418]

Well, that was to be expected. Like, how many people approve exams decently? And how many fail miserably? ... You can't expect them to understand these things... (not saying they are stupid, they just ain't made to understand this stuff; these specific issues are beyond their mental reach)

[@ulysse21]

Why did your consiousness emerged in your brain, your body, the day you were born, not in another one ?

[@jali6512]

Thanos Sofroniou '.”

[@JohnnyKidder]

Complaining about the intro is the new "FIRST"

[@TheTRUwins]

I can give you only one mainstream case I like to share as is emotional and great to see mainstream scientist going public. NOT A STUDY, not experiment, just talk. Fun to watch and to enjoy people being confronted with NEW KNOWLEDGE => Jill Bolte Taylor (born 1959 in Louisville, Kentucky) neuroanatomist and brain scientist ==> ted . com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

[@TomDobbie]

If we consider the conscious to be a subset of the subconscious, which is itself a subset of the collective subconscious then it starts to fit better. Self awareness is seen when we genuinely observe ourselves speaking and see the novelty of the words produced. The words come from the subconscious; the conscious observes them and does not originate them. As most people spend most of their lives being run as highly structured automatons then there is deficiency in comments on consciousness.

[@VictoryAtSea]

Does anyone else feel uneasy while listening to this?

[@Telophase505]

+Amer Alihodžić You're not the only one ahaha, I have a VERY hard time keeping on track with him. Whether it be his vocabulary or his monotone presentation I can't follow lol

[@Arunava_Gupta]

This lecture is supposed to offer a "glimpse into how our brains create our sense of self." But apart from voicing an opinion that it is the brain stem, not the cerebral cortex, that provides the *grounding* for the self, it explains nothing!

[@ActionAnton]

You are not answering the question. Do you have a reference instead so that I can look into this myself.

[@TheEighthHouseSol]

The many discoveries that we have made does not show that the brain alone produces color for example. A basic law of at least this universe is contrast and duality. You can't have light without dark, you need contrast. The brain does not produce color alone, the brain's interaction with the environment is what produces our perceptions of color. The ability to see color is not a mechanistic process as you would so hope for,color like most things in existence MUTUALLY arises from nature in general

[@moesypittounikos]

In India they say you never even slept and so you didn't wake you in the morning. You go to bed and you dream. In the dream you are more conscious than this apparent waking state.