The science of the “self” | Michael Levin

How do “you” emerge from a collection of cells? A biologist explains.
❍ Subscribe to The Well on KZbin: bit.ly/welcometothewell
❍ Up next: How your brain creates reality | • How your brain creates...
The concept of the “self” has long been considered philosophically significant: a foundation for exploring who we are and why we’re here. But where does the self begin? Developmental biologist Michael Levin explores this question, explaining how the “self” is constantly being constructed and created, starting in the early moments of embryogenesis.
Levin argues against binary categorizations of selfhood, emphasizing that it is a continuous process with no sharp lines between different stages of development or evolution. Using the example of self-organizing cells in the formation of the embryo, Levin also asserts that the self is not a singular entity - rather, it is a collection of structures working together towards a specific goal.
For Levin, the idea of the self extends to understanding the world around us, as everything we encounter is an answer to the question of what we can expect to happen next. Rather than being limited by reductionist views, Levin encourages a focus on what we can do next, highlighting the importance of actions and decisions over rigid definitions of selfhood.
Read the full video transcript: bigthink.com/the-well/the-sci...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
❍ About The Well ❍
Do we inhabit a multiverse? Do we have free will? What is love? Is evolution directional? There are no simple answers to life’s biggest questions, and that’s why they’re the questions occupying the world’s brightest minds.
So what do they think?
How is the power of science advancing understanding? How are philosophers and theologians tackling these fascinating questions?
Let’s dive into The Well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Well on your favorite platforms:
❍ Facebook: bit.ly/thewellFB
❍ Instagram: bit.ly/thewellIG

[@The-Well]

What is your definition of "the self"? Did anything Michael Levin said here particularly resonate (or conflict) with your own perspective?

[@The-Well]

Also, if you want more from Michael Levin, check out his other videos with us in this playlist: kzbin.info/aero/PL_B7bI1QVmJBROGj9C07DOvJ2r6Qk3v3P. Stay tuned for more!

[@beginmoves]

“You” emerge through biodynamics. MOVEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENT. “Research by renowned embryologist Erich Blechschmidt, MD, showed that differentiations are not only the result of a gene effect, but are also brought about through growth initiated by extragenetic (occurring outside the gene) information. Without this extragenetic information the differentiation would not begin.” The self an extension of a life force that permeates all things. IT is how we experience movement during this early development that lays the foundation of our own unique function and structure.

[@Omkar3324]

what i have best understood, thanks to Michael Levin's work is that "Awareness" as we call it, doesn't have to neccesarilly have a brain. Consciousness is not Centralized.

[@shiracohenyoga3492]

I love you bringing this back to the essence, ethical, awe-filled living, that spurs us to be inspired, connected and co-operative in all our endeavours!

[@davidzagu]

The result of the communication between our cells over time or as we change

[@moderncontemplative]

Awesome! Not "we are nothing but", we are essentially energy and informational matrixes! We are the universe in a conscious and intelligible form.

[@pedropenalver4845]

Hey, copyright your last sentence.

[@goldwhitedragon]

@@pedropenalver4845 That's Chris Langan's work. The CTMU.

[@beboplady1542]

Wow! :)

[@pedropenalver4845]

​@goldwhitedragon I would take Michael Levin's approach as the real deal. Langan supports conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 Truther movement (Langan has claimed that the George W. Bush administration staged the 9/11 attacks in order to distract the public from learning about the CTMU and the white genocide conspiracy theory).

[@shiracohenyoga3492]

Beautiful! I cry from these videos because science and awe and wonder need to come back on the same page, as they always were before cartesian ideology.

[@chemistchemist6438]

This is why I also love Shannon’s information theory. Everything in this universe is based on information and it is not wasted, everything has a purpose.

[@BlackSmurfPunk]

The right answer is: 42

[@rumrunner1990]

Always love listening to Levin.

[@moderncontemplative]

likewise

[@The-Well]

Us too! Stay tuned, as we've got more Michael Levin videos coming down the pipeline

[@AhirZamanSairi]

@@The-Well Would also appreciate more of Robert Sapolsky and Bryan Cranston

[@danjones8458]

From the one comes the many and from the many comes the one. Our bodies started out as one and then become the many that then is again one and in a sense we are super cells. Michael Levine is someone to listen to.

[@adriaanb7371]

Interesting point from An Immense World - Ed Young about the need of a self; all sensors looking towards the outside world need to be able to 'subtract' what it, the self, is doing from the total sensory change, to be able to distinguish what part of it can be attributed to changes in the outside world. News is what's happening minus what is expected. Try stepping on an escalator that isn't working, you feel a surprising jolt backwards. You were expecting to be thrown forward and it didn't happen.

[@Stefan69whatever]

3:12 - 3:50 this is a gold mine. Actually helpful for non-duality teaching: he says: "the self is the answer to the question "what is the system that can be counted on to do various things?" As you look into the outside world all of the objects that you see and that you deal with are answers to the question "what can I expect to happen next?" It is critical to understanding what the world is to have a model of yourself. (...) Telling that story about what you are is really critical for functioning in the world." So the self just a model necessary for functioning. So it isn't real.

[@hollawar1391]

I wouldnt say its not real, because how would you account for the fact that you yourself and only you thought of sharing that thought? Maybe what we could say is that the self is not in it of itself independent. The self is a particular agent thanks to a preexisting world where it then can act inside of it, because of it. The possibility of act defines the self, I think.

[@Stefan69whatever]

@@hollawar1391 you are quite right. I would rather say now: it is not personal. It is part of the functioning of the world.

[@theovermindlives]

Good video! Michael Levin's insights on the concept of self as a dynamic, evolving process from the earliest stages of development are truly enlightening. His exploration into how we construct our identities and understand the boundaries between ourselves and the external world challenges conventional notions of individuality. By drawing parallels between embryonic development and the broader evolutionary scale, Levin invites us to reconsider the binary categories that often limit our understanding of cognition and existence. This perspective not only deepens our grasp of developmental biology but also offers profound implications for our sense of self and our place in the natural world. Fascinating work!

[@rjung_ch]

Thanks.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

'SELF': LANGUAGE: Consider the following: Language, the very thing we utilize to think thoughts and convey ideas. Un-named Concepts -> Given a Name (could be a sound, symbol, etc) -> With an attached meaning -> And maybe even other meanings depending upon context -> And maybe even other names with the same meaning. (Basically a Dictionary and a Thesaurus for a language). BUT: a. How exactly do we know for 100% certainty that we have all the un-named concepts that could ever be named? b. How exactly do we know for 100% certainty that the meanings we give named concepts are 100% correct? We truly do not know what we do not know. This is a part of the 'Great Unknown'. Never stop learning. (Always have an 'unknown' in every analysis and an 'oops' in every experiment.) Of which, an entity or a society of entities: 1. Can name their own un-named concepts. 2. Can give their own meanings to named concepts. 3. Can have alternative meanings to named concepts depending upon context. 4. Can have alternative names with the same meaning. (Basically, create their own language that only they and they alone know). Learn to function in the 'Great Unknown'. (OSICA)

[@ethanfrizzell7654]

I read your posts and was reminded of myself in years past before discovering a specific video presentation that opened my mind up further to many of these concepts regarding the Self concept and so on. Just thought I would share, and maybe you too can find value in it. Here's the Link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q5SUYmWherlgn5I Pro Tip: As you know, concepts like this take much time and consideration to arrive at an understanding of. So, if you can get over the German accent as I did since I am an American which wasn't exactly ideal, and look at the substance over style, it might prove more useful in the long term as it has for me and my armchair. Best of luck!

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@ethanfrizzell7654 Thank you for sharing. Just now got back on YT, been busy with family and friends most of the day. Put the video on my watch later list since it's 1.5 hours long and will plan on watching it hopefully tomorrow.

[@whatyouseekisseekingyou]

‘’Self is the answer to the question what is the system that can be counted on to do various things’’. In my opinion, this is a succinct definition that straddles philosophy and biology in a beautiful way.

[@peterwbryce]

Wow, just wow!

[@ericjohnson6665]

Interesting perspective. While I take a little bit of issue with the use of the word "self" to refer to non-humans, "entity" works better for me, or "life-form," as "self" is also closely related to personhood, aka personality. That aspect of "self" wasn't addressed here. The example of twins ignored the fact that they each have their own personalities, even if their genetics is identical. But I am a fan of our bio-mechanical life form and the biology that makes it up. I particularly like Michael's point about all life being engaged in problem solving addressed in one of his other videos.

[@DALibby127]

That's the point, where do you draw the lines here? Where is the human (cognitive) and nonhuman (noncognitive) divide if you follow a line back to the emergence of life

[@Softlol]

that’s because those are words. Words is a concept and it makes stuff like this hard to explain and grasp. It’s something you have to see/feel for yourself. You only need to look deep within yourself and you will find all the answers you are looking for.

[@ericjohnson6665]

@@DALibby127 - the line is drawn at personality. Other life forms do not have personalities. They have character, they have intelligence, but not the ability to project into the future. They do not have self-awareness, IMHO. They neither worship, nor have wisdom, although much of what they do can and does seem wise. I learned a lot from a mother cat... e.g., only use as much force as necessary. As for cognition, I don't consider that to be exclusively a human ability, except where self-cognition is involved. When animals look in a mirror, it confuses them. That's just my world view.

[@akbarshahzad5780]

The whole point about the twins _is_ that they are multiple selves despite having identical genomes. Selves "self-organise" based on context and shared communication within cell communities. As for animals not having personalities, I don't know what to tell you. Not understanding mirrors ... Animals don't have to be exactly like us in order to be intelligent or even self-aware. Do you think plants can do cognition?

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

@@ericjohnson6665 Pretty much. Cells contain instructions, and that's how we get here and maintain ourselves. The consciousness lies outside of cells.

[@arunachalamsivaprakasam5467]

In Hindu thought, self is awareness. Awakening Consciousness, dream consciousness, deep consciousness. At all these levels awareness is there.Even in deep sleep, condition, next day,we say,I had good sleep. The awareness is there.

[@realfirewaltz]

Going with being “nothing but” relaxes me because I feel no need to maintain an ego or rigid identity and I can continue to learn without making personal excuses.

[@DALibby127]

The trouble is it suppresses our ability to see the amazing lengths the universe seemingly went to create us.

[@Softlol]

try to let go of your ego. The ego has a “will” of its own that is most of the time doing the opposite of what you really want. Try to control it and know when it’s the ego that wants something, it will only bring pain.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

Our physical bodies are "nothing but", but our consciousness is "much more".

[@johncommon4294]

Well said; Bruce Lipton also preach that we are masters of ourselves and we decide.... I like your question: what's next?

[@thomasschon]

But how is it possible for the brain and/or the software running on a human to handle multiple tasks simultaneously? Ideally, one should be able to listen while speaking, and vice versa. A human can't achieve multitasking by having a single self that manages interruptions because a person who has undergone split-brain surgery wouldn't be able to function in such a way. The two brain hemispheres continue to function independently of each other, even to the extent of holding different opinions. Yet, you can communicate with each hemisphere separately and discover this divergence.

[@the_eternal_student]

If we could diminsh living huuman cells down to the size of photons, there is no telling what we could do. Would being able to perfectly coordinate our photons mean having perfectly efficient conciousness and bodies with perfect energy effeciency or zero resistance to acceleration, just like the individual photons themsevles?

[@peacefulflame]

To kim jestem zależy od tego co robię next. I to się stackuje. Nie od wyteoretyzowanej tożsamości.

[@walkabout16]

In the dance of creation, where life takes its start, Michael Levin explores, the "self" as an art. Development's ballet, in embryonic grace, The "self" unfolds, a mysterious embrace. No binary bounds, in the realm of selfhood, Continuous evolution, where essence withstood. Cells self-organizing, in the embryo's dance, A symphony of structures, in life's grand expanse. The "self" not singular, but a collective design, A harmonious blend, where boundaries entwine. No sharp lines in development's chart, The "self" evolving, a work of cellular art. From early moments of embryogenesis, Levin's wisdom weaves, in the intricate genesis. No rigid definitions, in the dance of becoming, The "self" a creation, continually humming. A collection of structures, in purposeful unity, The "self" extends beyond, into the world's esprit. Understanding the world, through the lens of creation, Each encounter, an answer, a revelation. No reductionist views, in Levin's call, To focus on actions, where decisions enthrall. What we can do next, the heart of the theme, The "self" as a journey, a flowing stream. In the philosophy of being, where questions arise, Levin's science dances, where wisdom lies. The "self" in constant construction, a cosmic ballet, A profound exploration, in the embryonic array.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@Grant918Tulsa]

This kind explains my schizophrenia.

[@carolinegoncalves5107]

This is só interesting ... Só basically what i can relate tô this vídeo is self is a story ... I relate to that bc i always felt that my self is kind of design thinking

[@LordBrittish]

“I yam what I yam, and that’s what I yam!” -Popeye

[@beboplady1542]

Lol :)

[@Nyghl0]

If the self is aware of itself, how can it be "doing the observing" yet also be being observed? Subjects observe objects, meaning our idea of the self is as an object, distinct from the subject observing it, and not equivalent to it. Self awareness is a paradox, making the self an invalid concept.

[@dysfunc121]

What is the difference between a subject and an object?

[@Nyghl0]

@@dysfunc121 in case that's just a rhetorical question, it's actually a surprisingly good one. It seems as though some sense of agency drives the distinction between subject and object, as though the subject "actively does the observation" where the object "is passively observed", but that might be more of a grammatical insertion of surplus meaning that's more circular than true. Starting from the given assumption that "I" observe, "I" experience this observation as something "I'm" doing to something else, but really there is just experience that is happening that appears to be private to some given "I", and that starting assumption is what gives rise to the agency that distinguishes the subject "I" from the object in the first place. So if there is a subject and object, split by "agency", not only does it disallow the self to observe itself as *both* the subject and object, it's also based on circular definitions. But given *no* difference between subject and object, there's no subject "role" to allow the self to do anything to some object self - and the utility of any concept "self" is lost. So the concept of the self is either a paradox or meaningless.

[@vrenjenn7231]

awareness is not only being aware of objects, awareness is being aware about information, conscious awareness by itself has a structure that makes it possible for us to perceive things, everything with structure has information, hence consciousness can be self aware since it's information by its own

[@Nyghl0]

@@vrenjenn7231 I ought to clarify that I'm distinguishing subject from object in the grammatical sense, where the subject is that which acts and the object is that which has that action done *to* it (e.g. anything that is observed by a subject, including information as well as "physical objects" or anything else). The point is that "the self" tries to be both subject and object when it's supposedly aware of itself - doing both the observing and being observed.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

We observe ourselves all the time--whether real time or in retrospect. It's more than just creating an alert to never touch a hot stove again, as many mammals can also learn. We have that little voice inside (or angel on one shoulder and devil on the other).

[@MrRickySoh]

Real science just sound real

[@marka2188]

Words of a genius. What else I can say?

[@goldwhitedragon]

Plagiarism?

[@spleendideed]

@@goldwhitedragon what? why?

[@EL_394]

memory which cant be defined

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Okay: What can we do next? Consider the following: EXISTENTIAL PHYSICS: Current Analysis: (subject to revision as new information might dictate): WARNING: NOT FOR ALL AUDIENCES: Only read this if you think you can handle it. Future: a. 6th mass extinction event (possibly occurring now), and the 6th won't be the last. (And 'yes', at least some humans will survive these earlier mass extinction events). b. Sun becomes a red giant one day as it switches from burning hydrogen to burning helium and will wipe out all life left on this Earth if not even the entire Earth itself. (And 'yes', a long time from now, but the destination is set like a way point on a journey). c. Our spiral shaped galaxy is most probably collapsing in upon itself, (note: adding to the red shift observations by the way), and it's possible ALL galaxies eventually collapse in upon themselves (not confirmed yet). d. 'If' one believes in the big bang theory, and space itself expanding, then the entire universe and all in it will most probably end in a big freeze. (And 'yes', a long time from now, but the destination would be set like a way point on a journey). Note also: the singular big bang is probably not really true, there are other 'normal' explanations for the red shift observations, and the universe is most probably not going to end in a big freeze. Also, 'if' the current forces of nature came into existence in the early moments of the expansion of the singularity, and the singularity is still basically expanding, then the forces of nature will probably evolve one day, possibly even in the very next moment of expansion of this universe, and possibly wipe out everything in existence in basically a blink of an eye. Of which note also, the forces of nature as well as the universe always existed and never had a beginning. But 'if' modern science is correct, well ....................................blink........................................... e. Outer space travel: Currently impossible to do for long periods of time due to: 1. Harmful cosmic radiation, including any potential neutrino impacts. (While most neutrinos go right through us, not all of them do all of the time). AI and biological life would most probably not survive unless proper protections were had. 2. Biological species, especially humans, need proper gravity conditions and large rotating space ships probably will not work for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, biological life, especially humans, will not survive long term. 3. Biological species, especially humans, need many more items to properly survive, otherwise they won't. * Note: If anybody has any actual factual evidence to counter the above, I welcome it. ** HAVE A NICE DAY IF THAT IS WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO HAVE, WHILE WE HAVE DAYS LEFT THAT WE CAN ENJOY. FOR EVERY MOMENT THAT PASSES, ONE LESS MOMENT BEING ALIVE AND ONE MOMENT CLOSER TO BEING NOT ALIVE.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

'SELF': Who and/or What Am I? Do 'I' even exist? Consider the following: a. I am a human as defined by humans. b. I am an energy based quarkelectronian as modern science claims that all matter is made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy and I am made up of matter and interacting energy. c. I am a being of 'light', 'if' my current theory of everything is correct whereby the 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in this universe, including space, time and numbers. (Currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test). d. "I" do not even actually exist but eternally existent space time exists as me, currently in the forms as above. * I exist and yet "I" simultaneously do not exist, dependent upon perspective. But yet, do "I" not truly exist in absolute truth reality as only eternally existent space time exists as all things in absolute truth reality? * "I" can mentally change between perspectives thereby experiencing existence from those various perspectives. "My" mind continues to expand, but is it truly 'my' mind that is expanding or is it eternally existent space time's mind that is expanding? In absolute truth reality, it would seem to be the later. * 'To Be or Not To Be'. I am both, 'I Am and I Am Not.' But I Am Not it appears more than I Am. * Consider also: If asked the general question, 'What do you know?'. My current answer would be, 'Not much compared to all that can be known.' (I Am Not, More than I Am). It's humbling. * Is it truly any wonder that the flow of energy in the universe affects species? We are the universe experiencing itself. * Question: If 'I' never actually existed in the first place, how could 'I' ever die?

[@muthucumarasamyparamsothy4747]

What you are !!! ,is the primary important for what you are going to do next .Any thing can happen according to one's Content. Before a thing happens ,one has to be Conscious or else a lot of damage can be done un -consciously. Thanks.

[@badrbellaj1212]

We are nothing but humans! What do we do next, look for why we are here?

[@MADVESSEL]

Anyone experienced ego death?

[@DALibby127]

I've gotten close a few times

[@pjaworek6793]

Like with lsd, mushrooms? It's good for you to go egoless once in a while.

[@mcgee227]

Ultimately there is no self

[@arbez101]

Ultimately there is not ultimately.

[@robertharte4]

Wholy unstatisfying answers. His hand waiving of how consciousness came to be or what we are is misguided. Knowing the answer to these questions informs "what we do next". No doubt a good scientist. Philosopher, not so much.

[@pjaworek6793]

It's not philosophy, shhh!

[@robertharte4]

@@pjaworek6793 did you just shush me?! 🤣 Both of those questions can and have been approached scientifically. Many scientist just don't like to bring up their lack of agreement on the results. They think it makes the science look bad. I disagree, it simply means they do not know yet or may never be able to know the answers.

[@sb_dunk]

These videos attract some truly silly comments

[@cremasca]

❤❤❤❤❤

[@pjaworek6793]

Awesome. This is business grammar. What to do next, move forward. Turn everything into a movement forward.

[@c.f.3503]

First

[@superconscious.]

Dude needs a few more Phd's 🙏

[@Droidzi]

ping

[@lonewolf7704]

I disgaree that we should care more about what we must do next than focusing on figuring out what we are. Because if I was calling the shots, I would rather sleep and get high the whole week, as long as I am happy. I do not want to do anything else. But there is this unrest in my essence that seems to be saying that humanity is somehow important to the universe. Yes, it seems like we are just a tiny dot within our own galaxy. We do not really affect anything much to the bigger picture of our galaxy, and never mind other neigbouring galaxies that we cannot even see well. We cannot even pray for our moon to show us the otherside once in a while, I know am not the only one who wishes the moon could spin a lil bit and make the sky to be more intresting, LOL. So whether we do something next or we do not, the sun is still going to rise and the moon is still going to be the number 1 witness to see it all. We do not mean anything to anything other than our own selves. This is even more clear by the fact that 6 months after we die, we become a distant memory nomatter how much we have contributed to this tiny blue dot. So unless we can understand why we here first. What is our purpose to the bigger picture of such a big and scary universe which we still not sure how it came to be exactly. How are we supposed to know where are we destined to go next if we do not know who we are. If we are just here to love hard and die, then I do not want to do anything I do not need to do. So whom am I doing a favour by worrying about whats next when I do not even know why I was created. Reply

[@pjaworek6793]

Sad first couple of sentences. Maybe you need some help.

[@tadcotadco6344]

well, if you are a trivial Darwinist, what you have to tell new to your audience? Just bla-bla-bla?

[@Omkar3324]

the video has got nothing to do with what he is saying. conjoined twins are not ducks or real twins.