Why Evolution Gave You Two Brains - Iain McGilchrist

[@CosmicSkeptic]

Get all sides of every story and be better informed at ground.news/AlexOC

[@bargledargle7941]

I wouldn't hurry to click on this link, first I'd consider whether it is moral by my subjective moral system.

[@dandare1001]

@@bargledargle7941 Why not click and then make your mind up?

[@bargledargle7941]

@@dandare1001 Haha, I don't want to regret it later realizing I've committed a moral crime that cannot be redeemed. How could I live with myself otherwise? In other words my actions are clearly not altruistic...

[@japexican007]

Hurr durr me so smart, I atheist a conscious vibrating collection of atoms figured from the complex faculties given to me by the magic eight ball I call atheism that I was not created by God a consicous eternal being but rather by natural forces, from whence did these natural forces arrive who knows but they magically created a clump of conscious moving atoms and by the faculties given to me I have now deduced no God is required for me to exist but rather I naturally came to be by pure happenstance hahaha… now I will devote my life telling those other conscious clump of moving atoms not to follow that which they call God but rather follow my truth that our magic eight ball just so happened to create us through no will or intention of its own, All Hail the Magic Eight Ball!!!! Soon I will convert those conscious clump of cells into accepting my magic eight ball because there is only a finite amount of time before these conscious clump of atoms cease to be conscious so I must spread my atheism to make this finite meaningless existence even more meaningless to All!!!!!!

[@DemainIronfalcon]

Good topic Alex, especially with AI technology, the two hemispheres should be looked at by development as it may be critical in putting guard rails in.. I will watch this, I'm getting more and more behind watching your videos Alex.

[@ktoslubcos2600]

I'm at a loss for words with all those amazing conversations you've been uploading recently. There are so many interesting things that I can't keep up with all of them. It's such a privilege to live in a world where conversations with such brilliant minds are accessible to everyone at any given moment.

[@russ4moose]

In my opinion, Alex makes the best philosophical content on the internet, and it's not particularly close.

[@kenkaplan3654]

I thinkAledx is shifting and thus drawing to himself or seking out broader vitas.

[@OfficialCrashnet]

I was just thinking the same thing. Been kind of around since he started uploading. It’s been a joy to watch and this last year has seen incredible growth in how Alex is approaching these conversations which has allowed quite a bit of space to get much deeper then he has ever allowed these types of conversations to go.

[@BlazyBob1]

My thoughts exactly! I’d love to see Alex do a video on some things he’s been getting out of these latest conversations

[@rustywantstowin]

I agree. I don't have many interesting or intelligent friends, but I do have the opportunity to listen to and be a part of so many interesting conversations all the time on KZbin and on Alex's channel specifically. I couldn't be any more appreciative or interested on a daily basis. Cheers!

[@Faus4us_Official]

Haha! "Do you kiss your mother with that world view?" - Alex O'Connor

[@uninspired3583]

No it was your mother

[@Faus4us_Official]

@uninspired3583 Good for her

[@Samos900]

I think he said that he heard that

[@klodius8588]

It is very interesting to observe the brain trying to reverse engineering itself.

[@HammerTrader95]

Lol so true

[@eeeqqq7582]

Yep, let's reverse engineer that!

[@serversurfer6169]

The perils of passing the mirror test. 😜

[@HassanRadwan133]

"I would like to say that what is dead is not God, but an idea of God. A particular conception of God has died in the sense of becoming implausible." - Alan Watts

[@davidjanbaz7728]

God is much more than Alan Watts' conception of God and either of your abilities to understand HIM .

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

Both the traditionally religious and atheistic have far too narrow a concept of God. There is a reason our existing religions were able to spring us up to this level of consciousness and morality; and giving up on the idea of "God" because of dogma or a lack of imagination is a major mistake. The moment that those of a 'scientific-materialist' frame-of-mind, and a 'religio-idealist' frame-of-mind dialectically synthesize with each other, we will begin to enter a new golden age. The trouble is opening minds and hearts enough to get there.

[@Latenight82]

@@davidjanbaz7728 Could you get a grip? I know its the youtube comment section and everything but, you're implying that you know something about how great God is and yet you've done nothing to demonstrate this knowledge.

[@ras3054]

​@@davidjanbaz7728Your conment sounds like you know everything about what exactly God is. Go ahead and tell us. Otherwise, practice humility.

[@marlowemouse]

@@Archeidos-Arcana Did religion spring us up to this level of consciousness or did our level of consciousness help spring up religion? Consciousness seemed to have come first, as evinced by the evolution of gods that cared little for morality yet cared greatly for themselves into a singular god that cared greatly for themself and greatly for the morality of those below. What use is a definition of god if our understanding of god amounts to a goose chasing the question what came first the goose or the egg?

[@kankurou1010]

I loooove how the video just starts and gets to the frickin point!

[@joegallegos9109]

Why is it 1 hr 40 mins then?!🤣 I just started it but don't know if I want to invest all that time.

[@kankurou1010]

@@joegallegos9109 i meant theres no annoying preamble and introductions

[@huntercurry8604]

Haha I was half expecting McGilchrist to respond to his question, "Guess I'm doing fine, how about you?"

[@kristjankallikivi6941]

​@@joegallegos9109, in my estimation this video, and maybe Iain McGilchrist in particular, is most likely much more worth your attention than watching a bunch of potentially meaningless videos, which would eventually add up to 1 hour and 40 minutes as well. Some ideas seem to have more value than others, and I would say that he is the source of the ideas, which have at least great value, (depending on what one values of course). You might want to revisit these ideas over an extended period of time, as your point of view necessarily changes if you really put energy into trying to grasp the ideas. But of course, that would make it more than 100-minute-investment. But I guess "Good things take time" is also an idea to meditate on more deeply if you want to answer your question. Have a good day! :)

[@hannespi2886]

Agree man

[@kylenmaple4668]

I do find it a bit annoying how McGhilchrist just condemns certain trains of logic as “fundamentally flawed” or “irrelevant”, but doesn’t elaborate. And at the same time, much of his logic is based in intuition and is not really applicable to others experiences

[@unduloid]

It's typical crackpot behavior.

[@tecategpt1959]

I find him very very interesting, I guess if we don’t know his reasons here, it is time to research!

[@nkoppa5332]

Because competing intuitions are all atheists have. They have nothing fundamental to stick to.

[@kylenmaple4668]

@@tecategpt1959 as do I, ive read both his books. The first one multiple times. I just find it annoying how he frames certain things as being self-evidently wrong or so flawed that they aren’t worth elaborating. For example, machines becoming indistinguishable from life given enough time. He scoffs at the idea, doesn’t elaborate and just insists that it’s impossible to know. But not 15 minutes later, he says that the story of Christ and God in scripture “may very well be true”. But this is after and during his elaboration of what he means by God, omniscience, and creation. My point is that he is clearly biased towards a particular way of thinking while unfairly criticizing other ways of thinking, and any time he’s cornered he just says “well, you can’t really know anything. That’s the point” as if that’s means anything. Its just annoying

[@hewasfuzzywuzzy3583]

​@@kylenmaple4668His wishy-washy dismissal of ideas or patterns of thought he doesn't want to clearly elaborate on, this is similar to Jordan Peterson. He doesn't follow a logical process of reasoning either because he is bias just like Ian McGilchrist.

[@Answeriz42]

Ian McGilchrist never fails to activate my right hemisphere.

[@vargonian]

I'm always reminded of the quote by Richard Feynman which appears to be in stark opposition of Iain's position, if I understand it correctly: "I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say 'look how beautiful it is,' and I’ll agree. Then he says 'I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,' and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts."

[@OmniversalInsect]

Perfectly describes my view on the matter.

[@divineinyang5384]

Nothing at all about this quote contradicts McGilchrist's view.

[@vargonian]

@@divineinyang5384 He repeatedly drove home the idea that a materialist reductionist view is antithetical to a romanticized sense of wonder, etc., which is simply untrue. Further, you can simultaneously believe that what we call "love" is just an emergent property of chemical interactions and still thoroughly revel in the experience of it.

[@tulpas93]

​@@divineinyang5384 Good to know! Too bad none of that came through in what he said in this interview - in fact, quite the opposite!

[@RollCorruption]

I agree with you that studying the multiple aspects of an object can create a great sense of awe. But you are talking about a material object which can be measured. Try the same with "love" instead of a flower. How much has science led to society having a deeper appreciation towards love?

[@sordidknifeparty]

I don't understand what he means when he says that love can't be found within the brain or manipulated. We know a lot about the biochemical changes in the brain when one is reporting experiencing love. We know of several chemicals which can be added to the body which will cause a person to feel that sort of intense love. Love only exists within brains as a matter of fact. I challenge anyone to point to a single other place where love exists

[@MohawkPigeon]

I believe it is about how love and conscientiousness can feel as if enveloping the world around us even if the feeling may stem from the brain, the feeling is implying consciousness which is something we still cannot precisely measure.

[@mikealgee1489]

Its not the chemical that is interesting. I can take MDMA and feel nothing but overwhelming love for my friends and life in general and be fully aware that its the drug making me feel this way. The interesting part is the form consciousness takes during that experience. That is real, and impossible to communicate or write a science paper about, maybe one day we will know what consciousness is but we don’t have a clue how it works right now and Iain’s main point from what i understand is we should stop filling that gap of understanding with analogies of machines which we do understand because we built them, where as we didn’t build ourselves.

[@GenzaiHonkaku]

I agree that the presence of some forms of love can be observed in the brain. Whether it be through higher concentrations of neurotransmitters present in certain brain regions or activation patterns observed through brain imaging. He should have qualified his point with the acknowledgement of this capability. However, I think he was alluding to fact that our or anyone's personal and individual experience of the many forms of 'love' cannot be measured, understood or described by science. Because it is a phenomena that is not compatible with objectively definable truths. That's not to say it's wholly undefinable. We have observed, defined and understood certain physical aspects associated with 'love', such as the points you've mentioned. You can take a picture of a sunset and be able to observe the weather conditions, location and time of day. But the picture cannot describe your experience of the sunset. It's lacking context, nuance and significance.

[@SeekingTheLogos]

Those biochemical changes are effects not causes. Map not territory. They are the image of the thing, not the thing itself

[@coreyander286]

More importantly, nothing about believing "love is chemicals" is any more or less cynical than believing love is something that transcends bodies. Love is equally cherish-able whether it's chemicals or something from a soul.

[@raizan1526]

I feel like im hearing a more sophisticated way of saying "we don't know therefore magic".

[@DisgruntledPeasant]

Unfortunately that's where it ended up. This guy has some fascinating thoughts and I do agree with him that we should be engaging with the world in ways beyond the analytical. But when you marvel at the unknowable majesty of reality you should remain in the marveling, you can't leap all the way to "it must be god, but in an arational way so you can't argue with me"

[@tripp8833]

@@DisgruntledPeasantthe problem is the God he believes in is different than the one you don’t believe in - it’s very complicated, read Gregory of Nysa

[@GrandmasterFerg]

You're not thinking deep enough.

[@tomgreene1843]

No, the outcomes of not knowing are quite different from your proposition of magic.

[@raizan1526]

​​@@tomgreene1843 but he is saying intuitions give truth of domains that are inaccessible to logic (not knowing). And his intuition is the "therefore magic" part.

[@danielcompton3492]

“I’m not interested in certainty anymore, I’m interested in the shape of things that speak to me as real.” That is an amazing idea.

[@twelfthhour]

​@@kindermaus not new but newly acceptable in the general population

[@Andrew-pv8oz]

This is such a common idea. you can also say people don’t care about truth. They care about validation of ideas that they care about

[@lzzrdgrrl7379]

@@Andrew-pv8oz Some people care way too much about 'truth', especially if they can use it to blunt the things that other people care about. What is truth anyway without mastery over ontology?...... Gnostic SOBs.....>.......

[@Andrew-pv8oz]

@@lzzrdgrrl7379 blunting down things other people care about is one of humanity’s favorite pastimes 😂

[@rohanking12able]

​@@lzzrdgrrl7379 if its true tho. Whats the problem

[@stephenframpton4616]

A skeptic amongst believers and a believer amongst skeptics was a nice quote. Read master and his emissary a while ago. Learned a lot. Really ebjoyed this interview, thank you for it. He really opened up, great interview.

[@FraserChapman]

@56:57 - the Turning Test is explicitly not about "how to tell if a computer has consciousness" - rather it is a measure of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour. The question isn't "Can machines think?" rather "Can machines do what thinking entities can?". It has nothing at all to do with consciousness.

[@tomgreene1843]

Can they ?

[@FraserChapman]

​@@tomgreene1843 Yes, in limited domains such as Natural Language Processing and Game Theory, machines have demonstrated the ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour. This is not to claim that they can "think" in the human sense, but rather to observe that they are capable of behaving as if they can. In this sense, the Turing Test is a functional argument that relies on empirical validation to suggest that "intelligence" can be seen as an emergent property of complex systems.

[@planet7085]

Only for a dualist.

[@definitelynotcole]

Precisely. In fact, its utility comes primarily due to the fact that it cannot tell if something is conscious. The idea that something is may or may not be conscious but exhibits everything that we consider conscious beings to exhibit was an extraordinary thought experiment that is becoming more and more relevant by the day. Turning was brilliant and this guy does not seem to fully understand what he's talking about. He just likes to insult other philosophers and scientists acting like they're illegitimate when he himself doesn't have much ground.

[@FraserChapman]

​@@definitelynotcole ​ Indeed, I would add anyone can read Turing's paper - "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" themselves - and note that the naive objection made by Iain McGilchrist is really a paraphrased variant of Lady Lovelace's objection in the paper, i.e. "a machine can never do anything really new". Turing effectively dismantles that objection - and the notion that machines are inherently mimics. He clearly foresaw the development of adaptive algorithms and learning mechanisms that form the basis of contemporary AI and ML.

[@TheFPSCameron]

I quite enjoyed Dr.McGilchrist's book, The Master and his Emissary, but I have to admit I find him to be quite pompous about the things that no one can know. He directly condradricts himself constantly, and any time he sees room for disagreement he simply states that the disagreeing party simply needs to open their mind or be smarter. It reminds me of that saying about walking around all day proclaiming every place smells of poo without ever stopping to check one's own shoe. This isnt to say that I think the good doctor is an idiot, just that he seems happy to cast the stone without considering his own footing.

[@raucousriley143]

Billie Eilish onstage, "smells like shit up here"?

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

How do you know that no one can know these things? Can you provide an example of a topic? These seems largely a matter of one's epistemology.

[@TurinTuramber]

Fair assessment.

[@BubbleGendut]

He is not pompous not sure where you get that from. Read “Matter with Things” his latest & best IMO.

[@russellhughes3168]

@@BubbleGendut he is so pompous, telling people to go an listen to Mozart on the weekends to broaden their minds. A bit tough for the people working two jobs and bringing up 3 kids

[@quantenmoi]

I feel like this guy lacks as much imagination as he accuses supposed left-brained people of lacking.

[@paulmckenzie4291]

You just proved his point. Just saying.

[@JetSettingBotanist]

According to him, I am definitely left brained, but I differ from his assertions of left brained people in that I still have wonder and amazement for this world without any deeper meaning behind it. I was never really religious, but I was spiritual and very philosophical, after letting go of most of that, I would say I have more amazement and appreciation for the world than I ever had during my dabbles in spirituality.

[@redien4785]

@@JetSettingBotanist I comepletely agree with that! I hate that people so often state the materialist has no wonder, deep emotions or meaning in this world. Just because you could describe concepts like "love" in a completely materialistic way (like with vasopressin receptors and other things in a pair bonding species) doesn't make the things that I feel any less real. I mean, I still FEEL them. That's an undeniable fact and nothing can take that away. It's just a brute fact that I feel the things that I feel like a deep nuanced love for my family and friends or the feeling of awe towards nature and art, which I can still explore as much as I want, and these things don't go away just because they have an explanation. Things do not get more real when they are "magic". The phenomenon is still the same phenomenon. I would even say, if you have more (scientific) knowledge about the phenomenon, it just gets richer with different perspectives, nuances and aspects but it can't take anything away. It's maybe a bit like Mcgilchrist said with his book-microscope analogy that not one of these things is more real than the other. They exist in their own realm but shouldn't make statements about each other which are not justified. It's also a bit like the debate about free will, when someone says a free-will denier has to be apathetic, nihilistic and without ethics or goals. That's a complete category error for me.

[@spencerantoniomarlen-starr3069]

There is no such thing as a left-brained person. Did you not listen to the video?

[@jozefwoo8079]

@@spencerantoniomarlen-starr3069there is. Did you not listen to the audio? He literally says that there are people who are born without a certain capacity. He seems to be referring to the likes of Dawkins at that point. Also, a generous interpretation of the OP could be "left brain focused people" which is certainly a possibility according to McGilchrist as even society can become left brain focused.

[@GoogleIsNotYourFriend]

It all just sounds like cope, conveniently selective "open-mindedness". Seems like he wants modesty and humility only when it is his personal unsubstantiated assumptions...he was very happy to criticise others equally "imaginative leaps". I'm clearly "too left-brained" because I can't help by cringe when I hear someone adamantly say humans are different than machines because you can't just turn off a human...then a few minutes later start talking about Christianity possibly being true and that he can't rule out Jesus' supposed resurrection. Like what??? You don't care what the camera records? And it shouldn't matter anyway? Weren't you just talking about your study of the brain and how important this is? Wishy-washy is fine...but the left-brain can still smell your nonsense.

[@serversurfer6169]

McGilchrist: You can’t switch a living thing off then switch it back on again! 😣 Also McGilchrist: I’ve no reason to think the dead can’t come back to life. What even is ded? 🤔

[@transformations1]

I thought Alex should have replied - what is anaesthesia then ??? Administering propofol (Anaesthetic) is about as close as you can get to switching people off & then on again once it's flushed out the system. In fact - writing this right now makes myself more skeptical of McGilchrist intuitions - since the anaesthesia example is so obvious and analogous to sophisticated machinery. I mean let's say we took a computer back in time a few centuries and asked people how to switch it off after hiding the off switch.....where is this "electricity thing" - hidden in batteries somewhere ? How mysterious that this computer is on ? It's miraculous, like energy from nowhere. Biological systems mitochondria are these battery equivalents harnessing electricity.through chemical potential energy. As mystical as it seems, its still mechanical, just more sophisticated than a Lithium battery. [After listening to hours of Nick Lane on Mitochondria & POWER, SEX, SUICIDE: MITOCHONDRIA AND THE MEANING OF LIFE]

[@michaelricketson1365]

@@transformations1 How do we get from something mechanical to a conscious, emotional being? Why not just the mechanical contraption and nothing else?

[@transformations1]

​@michaelricketson1365 The answer is complex and starts off by rejecting an ontological reductionism to some lower common denominator substance. Whatever that "substance" is - Quarks, atoms or something mechanical. The very "mechanical" metaphor is messed up intuition from cartesian dualism (presupposes cartesian dualism) There can be multi-scaled ontologies with emergent phenomenon that are nested within each other. Reducing "higher" levels to the lowest just becomes incomprehensible. Eg aerodynamics has its own emergent laws & dynamic systems which reducing it to quarks is ridiculous- you won't find aerodynamics in quarks or even atoms. There is no fluid dynamics in individual atoms of H²O - the fluid dynamics doesn't exist on individual atomic scaled ontology. The fluid dynamics isn't IN the atoms of H²O The aerodynamics isn't IN the air molecules. Likewise, research 4E or 6E cognition that is embodied, Enacted, Extended, Embedded, Encultured & Emotive. These are complex dynamic consciousnessing not a reified *thing* called consciousness *IN* a brain. Brains don't secrete consciousness juice, just like aeroplanes don't secrete aerodynamic juices. I'm glad you said "emotions" - think about it, emotions are felt in a body, not a reified abstraction. (Precisely DONT think about it - it's not thinking)

[@michaelricketson1365]

@@transformations1 So basically, things just ARE, without a how or a why. Simply incomprehensible. This unfathomable element is likely the mystical element that inspires people.

[@serversurfer6169]

@@michaelricketson1365 You mean "uncomprehended" and "unfathomed." That stuff inspires scientists too. 🤓

[@misterfelixguy11]

I enjoyed the first half of this conversation but then he started contradicting himself and presenting his intuition as fact. At 45:18 he says you can't "switch" a human off and on like a computer, and then at 1:26:14 he says he "couldn't rule out" that a dead person could come back to life. Which is it??? He talks about how living beings are completely different from machines but fails to support this conclusion with anything other than his intuition. At 42:13 he responds to Alex's question by saying it's stupid to believe love can be explained by "atoms bumping into each other" and that people who believe this have no imagination and are buying into dogma. Then he starts talking about quantum mechanics and E=mc^2 like it's somehow evidence for immaterial love. The level hypocrisy in this conversation is ridiculous. He is certainly welcome to value belief without evidence (or "imagination" as he calls it), but I prefer living in reality. You know.... where REAL things exist. He also says the difference between a living being and a machine is that a machine is merely "complicated" instead of "complex"... Has he been hiding under a rock for the last decade??? Deep neural networks seem pretty damn "complex" to me according to his definition of the word. Maybe I'm just being too left-brained about this, but its kinda hard to agree with his ideas when he doesn't even seem to agree with himself.

[@antonhelsgaun]

Not to mention that the whole switching-off thing does also kill a computer, as the ram rapidly loses all information when switched off. We then store all of that info in an external drive to prevent that, but the most basic computer would lose info

[@ChrisLee-yr7tz]

Agreed. Great start then he just started talking shit.

[@MiksMaTaunOlema]

1. What he means it is not in our design to switch off and on. 2. him saying that atoms are not balls and are fields of energy is just a statement of the uncertainty in material reductivism, to make obvious that this material "REAL" is so completely dependent on Faith to draw a conception of love.

[@OmniversalInsect]

Consciousness actually does switch on and off during sleep and general anaesthesia.

[@chazlewis8114]

Glad someone else noticed

[@gopodge]

Did I hear a "Love Of The Gaps" argument over and over?

[@andrewwood3597]

Yes, I started not paying attention after a while and was doing some other work on my computer and it just sounded like the rambling, incoherent nonsense of someone who'd had a few too many drinks who was trying to convince another person of something who'd had one too many or, perhaps, was just staring off into the distance

[@gopodge]

@@andrewwood3597 I do try to listen, as some of the arguments are subtle but clearly we have no evidence that love is anything other than atoms at the lowest level, which make up cells, chemicals and so on and so forth. What exactly is love if it is not those things? Really bizarre line of reasoning from the guest.

[@jonathanrwhitney]

Exactly. We can't understand it, therefore: magic.

[@scary4430]

​@@gopodgeFor the sake of rationality, we also don't know if love is atoms, there isn't really any proof of it, the common thought of it being so is just reductionist phillosophy disguised as scientific truth.

[@OmniversalInsect]

I think he is addressing the hard problem of consciousness and love as an example of qualia. This is in response to people who claim the very experience of love is quantifiable, even as a hard materialist I disagree with that notion.

[@sordidknifeparty]

Just because we're bits of matter bumping into each other does not mean that beauty doesn't exist. Clearly, these bits of matter bumping into each other have evolved into a creature which is capable of experiencing Beauty. There need not be any more to reality than reality for beauty and love to exist

[@samparkes2477]

what an unbelievably banal and uninformed and, frankly, unintelligent comment that is.

[@nutmeg0144]

So we should all just play along in this illusion

[@mildlyinteresting1000]

@@nutmeg0144 but what is illusion if not an experience in itself? By saying it's an illusion you don't explain anything

[@mildlyinteresting1000]

Bits of matter have evolved into smth capable of experience - sounds like magical thinking! If all there is physical stuff, where do qualities come from? where does redness of red come from? There is no way to get that from measuring the stuff and seeing it's angular momentum and mass and charge, because the question is - what are you measuring? What is it? Idealism, and Iain tried to articulate it, says it's a mental process you're measuring. Not your mental process, but the ground of being is mental in nature, and physicality arises upon interaction.

[@ToriZealot]

​@@mildlyinteresting1000exactly, materialists that are not sceptics, believe in magic

[@levi5073]

RIP Daniel Dennett: One of the original four horsemen, philosopher and great advocate of evolutionary science.

[@arthurmurfitt7698]

aw man, I didn't know.

[@clorofilaazul]

Oh! I didn't know about that. Oh...

[@tulpas93]

​@@arthurmurfitt7698Please share Daniel's works with others! Long live the memory and works of DD! ❤

[@Slunn123]

I feel certain that McGilchrist's work will be looked back on in years to come as a turning point for our generation. I'm slightly gobsmacked by the comments refering to him as pompous or full of hot-air. At the very least with his life he's brought a fascinating discovery, possibly one of the most foundational of the 21st century, to the table for us all to disseminate, interrogate and carry further. The man is a polymath and doesn't flaunt it. He carries himself with such dignity and humility. Even on a day when he, self professedly, is not on top form he gives a talk like this and really brings his ideas to life. A good man. Aiming at the truth and delivering it with eloquence. Bloody role model.

[@dandare1001]

What makes you think he's a polymath? He did seem a bit pompous to me, and he was slightly rude and dismissive of Dawkins.

[@Slunn123]

Hey Dan, McGilchrist is at the forefront of several fields, being widely studied in both literature and neuroscience. I suggest looking him up for more context. Pompous and rude, though? Hardly. He even says, "I hope I'm not doing him an injustice," acknowledging his respect in the face of his differing opinions. Respectfully, I'd suggest focusing on his ideas. If you're basing your opinion on presumptions from one video, there's not much my little voice can say to change your mind.

[@MarioTsota]

"Love cannot be measured in a lab" it's funny how affecting the brain areas that affect emotional expression alters love. Iain is acting like love comes outside of the brain, and thus is immeasurable. He is cherry picking the areas to which science can be applied to make his points. He is a reductionist only when it benefits his narrative.

[@billhicks8]

Altering something and undertanding it are very different things.

[@MarioTsota]

@@billhicks8 just because we currently don't have a comprehensive understanding of it doesn't mean we never will.

[@cloud1stclass372]

Your post is entirely dependent on a very subjective, personal notion of “love.”

[@rohanking12able]

​@@cloud1stclass372 seeing as how across human time of literature love is a term in many cultures. Can we really say the feeling isnt real

[@cloud1stclass372]

@@rohanking12able I absolutely believe it’s real. I just think it’s easy to caricature.

[@OmniversalInsect]

The machine analogy doesn't work if you have a very narrow definition of what a machine is. My definition in this context would be any mechanism that works by active physical processes and reduceable parts, biological life does fall under that.

[@kamiltrzebiatowski9331]

"To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail." --- Iain McGilChrist

[@OneManStartup]

Wow what a disappointment. First he should take MDMA. Second talking about cynics as stupid because research said so , and people who talks about billiard balls as atoms is such a weak arguments, I'm not even. Half a video and it's already shattered my view about Iain McGilchrist

[@mikealgee1489]

Ive done MDMA, what the drug is doing is not as interesting as the form consciousness takes, and good luck writing a science paper about that experience for people who haven’t taken it I’m sure they will understand…

[@siggyincr7447]

Towards the very end he sort of redeems himself a bit in that he sort of contradicts what he said earlier. First he said that reductionist thinking is stupid, then at the end he praises the idea of being able to view a subject at different resolutions and that none of them are inherently more true or false. Also says that you shouldn't think other stupid because they view things differently than you do, seemingly forgetting that he did just that an hour ago. I've not read his books and some people do much better at formulating their thoughts given time to do so. So I'll withhold too much judgement. But I wasn't particularly impressed with his philosophy which reeked of post-modernism in the sense that he seems to believe and focus on the notion that we can't truly know anything. Which is true in a sense, but also a completely useless thing to focus on because it can only serve to deconstruct truth.

[@russellhughes3168]

@@siggyincr7447 You nailed it buddy!

[@ezbody]

People, who think that brain changing substances reveal something profound scare me, because they can't tell the difference between a temporary insanity and reality, literally any illusion/delusion they may experience, they are all equally real to them.

[@siggyincr7447]

@@ezbody Not necessarily, though a lot of the people promoting mind altering substances seem to have the blind spot you point to. It's perfectly rational to expect that something that alters the way your consciousness operates could potentially make you aware of things that you were previously unaware of. But many people come away with a sense of profound understanding that seems just that, a "sense" or impression of new found wisdom that I'm not convinced actually correlates to anything outside of their perceptions.

[@blazearmoru]

"Why evolution gave you two brains"+ "you are not A machine" my first thought before watching this video is: YOU ARE TWO MACHINES (or more)

[@MMAneuver]

...great suffering - don't you realize that up to this point it is only this suffering which has created every enhancement in man up to now? That tension of a soul in misery which develops its strength, its trembling when confronted with great destruction, its inventiveness and courage in bearing, holding out against, interpreting, and using unhappiness, and whatever has been conferred upon it by way of profundity, secrecy, masks, spirit, cunning, and greatness - has that not been given to it through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering? In human beings, creature and creator are united. In man is material stuff, fragments, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos, but in man there is also creator, artist, hammer hardness, the divinity of the spectator and the seventh day - do you understand this contrast? And do you understand that your pity for the "creature in man" is for what must be formed, broken, forged, torn apart, burned, glow, purified - for what must necessarily suffer and should suffer?" ~ Nietzsche

[@GodlessCommie]

“Inside you are two machines”

[@samparkes2477]

@@GodlessCommie what....? Says much about you and literally nothing about them.

[@ytjoemoore94]

"love can't be measured in any way" is a bold statement. I think it is quite plausible that we will be able to "measure" love one day in a satisfactory kind of way

[@stevendavis8636]

For Woke mahines only. lol

[@CutleryWonder]

Yeah it's just a romantic ideal likely influenced by his desire for the "spiritual".

[@ChuckChuckWood]

Exactly! I have listened to all these claims and assertions he confidently throws out and then offers no justification for, then goes into a meandering, simplistic and misinformed description of what he thinks computers are capable of. Advances in generative AI alone in the last 2-3 years negated about half of his assertions about what machines "can't" do, AGI is on the way in the near future, there is absolutely a world where we have a digital consciousness, it wouldn't be surprising if it's an AI that develops it under our direction. In this scenario that "Love can't be measured" nonsense too is just ridiculous, is he trying to advocate for magic in this? There is a reality where every molecule relevant to a brain state in love could be mapped, measured and understood. Of course love feels incredible to us but that doesn't mean it can't ever be described, who knows it might even be replicable? There certainly isn't a good case for asserting it's impossible. The same is true of religious experiences when you assert it's impossible to measure then in any circumstance, the implication is that there is a phenonmenon at play in the world that is indistinguishable from magic - some invisible forces at play suspending physics? Forces that happen to be only relevant to the subjective life experience of a tiny sliver of the life on this planet? In a infintesimally corner of a non-descript galaxy? Go hang out with Jordan Peterson and Deepak Chopra the three of you willl make some lovely word salad.

[@DetectiveMar]

McGilchrist also mentions how people often mistake the proxies for things for the real thing, and proceed on that basis. I think that’s what you’re doing now. Yes, it is conceivable that we might one day be able to measure in the brain an enormous string of physical / mechanistic properties which correlate in a very stable and predictable way with the experience of love. However, even then you would not have measured or explained love in a satisfactory way. That is because of the following: what you are measuring is and will forever remain a correlate of love, not love. The mechanistic phenomena corresponding to love are not love, and no matter how complex your account of those phenomena is, you will never have explained the phenomenon, because at no point in that process is it ever perforce implied that the person being measured should experience this holistic, qualitative phenomenon we call love. And what you are measuring is therefore not love, in the same way that, when you count the ticks on a Geiger counter, you are not “literally” measuring the radioactivity. What you are experiencing via the Geiger counter is not radioactivity, but a correlate of radioactivity. A proxy, just as the product of brain scans and other techniques in neuroscience is not love, and will never be love. This is called the hard problem of consciousness.

[@ChuckChuckWood]

​@@DetectiveMar The point you're missing is that there is not a strong enough case for the claim that "love cannot be measured in any way" there is simply no basis for that statement. It's conceivable that we could collect every particle imaginable that is responsible for love and reform, rearrange and replay these neurological processes. Now you say that this isn't measuring love but it's "proxy" you said this by referring to the hard problem of consciousness, but there's also no reason to beleive we won't one day have the ability to "try on" the qualia emergent from the neurological data. Which would absolutely allow for a complete understanding, measurement and manipulation of any human experience not just love. I'm not saying this definitely will happen, but I'm sure you (or Gilchrist) don't have sufficient grounds to assert that it won't.

[@uninspired3583]

Wait a minute, he claims that the neural map that develops into the brain isn't determined genetically?? What backs that claim up? That's pretty wild

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

Much of the public's contemporary understanding of the role that genetics plays in nature is wrong. Dr. Michael Levin of Tuft's University is proving that genetics isn't actually responsible for "building the organism's structure". Rather, the genome is like the "hardware/toolkit" and something called 'morphic fields' are like the "software" -- they are mostly what does the building. He's shown that, for example -- you can cause frogs to grow eyes on their backs by manipulating these fields.

[@unduloid]

@@Archeidos-Arcana Yeah, you can interfere in an organism's development by using chemicals or electromagnetic fields. So? That still doesn't mean genetics is wrong. I mean, what you claim is akin to claiming that someone breaking a leg shows that genetics couldn't have played a role in growing that leg. That's just asinine.

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

@@unduloid I did not say that genetics is wrong. I said that "much of our understanding of genetics is wrong". There's a difference.

[@unduloid]

​@@Archeidos-Arcana Nothing Michael Levin does shows that "much of our understanding of genetics is wrong." Really, I have no idea where you even get that.

[@uninspired3583]

@Archeidos-Arcana if he has a better theory, is he providing us new information about biological systems that validate his claims? As far as I can tell he's just pointing at remaining gaps and paroting anti materialst arguments theists and idealists use.

[@perverse_ince]

"You are not a machine" - Machine, oblivious

[@delanomcgee2923]

Ultimately the difference between someone that believes in infinity and someone that does not. Is their perspective of what exactly a machine or object would be inside of an infinite simulation.

[@marcodallolio9746]

There is a perverse comfort in thinking yourself an object. It seems to remove all the ambiguity, complications and moral responsability of being a subject.

[@jacksonharrison6871]

“”you are not a machine” - Machine, oblivious” -Not a Machine, oblivious

[@tirado3211]

""""You are not a machine." - Machine, oblivious" - Not a machine, oblivious" - Machine, oblivious" - Not a machine, oblivious ...

[@raizan1526]

​@@tirado3211 that can't be topped

[@islandsedition]

Only 10mins into this and I am already reminded of previous documentaries I saw on "left-hand syndrome" and a potential insight from medical attempts to prevent falls by epileptics suffering seizures by severing the collosum and stop the "shock waves" travelling across the brain. These interventions resulted in some people displaying similar characteristics to those with the syndrome where the left hand would appear to enact a separate consciousness to the rest of the person.

[@Ryan-Mather]

I like how Alex’s questions steer the conversation in a place that is easier for a non-expert to follow

[@riclacy3796]

What a lovely way to justify wishy-washy thinking. "Some things are ambiguous and complicated, therefore this book is kinda true"

[@LondonReps]

The channel just goes from strength to strength. And to think that you're only in your mid 20s, what you will achieve along the rest of your life will be fascinating to observe.

[@FindingTheNarrative]

McGilchrist has to be the most wonderful mind we've ever been given. I find him limitlessly fascinating.

[@MJeeEm-fg8md]

I adore Iain McGilchrist's work. Of course he will irritate people with a certain perspective, but his insights and gathering of research are incredible to me. I don't think he is someone you can just disregard.

[@JeffandSophieWeddingLivestream]

The studies he is referring to regarding a correlation between cynicism and intelligence define cynicism as a mistrust of others. He misleadingly presented this as if general skepticism had been found to be correlated with lower intelligence, which it hasn't.

[@Kropotkin2000]

Yes, because people with lower intelligence aren't able to identify when or when not someone is trustworthy, so it is adopted as a general strategy.

[@psyenergy1935]

Are you a cretin? He clearly said cynicism not skepticism. While cynicism has a negative correlation with intelligence, skepticism has a neutral correlation with intelligence.

[@thepath964]

Two of the studies asked people if they described themselves as cynical. Then all were given basic intelligence and competency exams. The ones who described themselves as being more cynical than not generally scored lower. So you are wrong. Also, making a livestream of your wedding and calling your channel so-and-sos-wedding was also proven in the tests to be an indicator of very low intelligence, and very high cringe-ness.

[@guylfe]

...That's not what he said. Like, at all. Cynicism and Skepticism are not the same thing, and he didn't mention skepticism in that context at all.

[@thepath964]

@@guylfe It's clear in his book. It's also clear in the livestream footage of his wedding

[@easyaccessjeans]

Iain McGilchrist talking about "truth" is wrinkling my brain. Trying to reconcile these seemingly incommensurable notions of the same thing leads me to wondering about the merits of phenomenology, Wittgenstein's theory of language, and post-postmodernism. Man...I love getting to ponder these things. Absolutely wild.

[@he1ar1]

Truth is about logic. Facts can't be discovered by logic. Truth and facts are talking about different things. What Wittgenstein did was use pure logic to describe what logic can do. Many things are left out in the narrow realm of logic. Especially ethics.

[@rohanking12able]

​@@he1ar1 if logic cant discern facts. You are using logic to decide that as a fact

[@dustinalker972]

Maybe rather than saying we’re all “right” or that right is relative we should say we’re all equally and completely wrong about everything. 😂 what a strange mystery of a world we live in

[@coreyander286]

What you're calling post-postmodernism is the same thing as postmodernism.

[@philm7758]

The way this gentleman is speaking at first, came off as informative, but the longer I listened, the more it became clear that he is only waxing poetic. He points to common place, well-known, and frequently compared phenomena, such as love, and says that because all of the mechanistic biology of it is not yet fully known, it must have a mystical quality such that it will never be known. He uses very flowery language that is pleasant, heard as background music, but when actually listened to, it is clear that he relying far too much on philosophical musing rather than determination from the empirical evidence around us.

[@mildlyinteresting1000]

As a matter of fact, he doesn't say anything of mystical qualities that will never be known. Is there anything about the mechanics of the biology in terms of which the qualities, the subjective qualities of love or any other experience can be derived from? In other words, can you arrive at qualities from studying quantities? Of course not, that's such an obvious categorical confusion. If only we study the biology and physics long enough, we'll arrive at the explanation of consciousness - to me sounds like magical thinking!

[@mildlyinteresting1000]

I think Kastrup articulates it much better, Iain does fail here to give a more precise definition of what he means

[@karlmcallister218]

So, I think your observation is a reasonable one philm7758, but I really do recommend you read the matter of things before you conclude that McGillChrist is just waxing poetic. It's a huuge book and a heavy read, but I think what will become immediately clear quite quickly is that there is hardly anyone ouy there that has thought as deeply imperically about these questions as Iain. You may disagree with his conclusions or his philosophical stance. But you really can't in good faith accuse him of not being empirical enough. That's just not fair. In my humble oppinion. 🙏🏽

[@Conspexit]

I thought Alex was going conservative for a second

[@rekovainio919]

He's had conservative guests on before, so that meaning could have been plausible

[@archbishoprichardforceginn9338]

Holey Eternal Omnipresent Greetingz

[@archbishoprichardforceginn9338]

​@@rekovainio919What is he thought to be conserving. Are the others wasting?

[@prototype0398]

Well, alex is not dumb

[@Conspexit]

@@alden2205 nope

[@StatedClearly]

First: love is measured in every choice we make. Will I scroll on my phone a bit longer or put it down to be with my wife... Oh wait, she's scrolling too... Will I put it down to spend time with my dog? Second: It's clear from this video that I need to do more lessons on the basics of biology, development, and evolution. Even highly educated people don't get the fundamentals. Third: It's amazing how much Dawkins gets under people's skin. Fourth: I bet this dude is paid by the Templeton Foundation. He parrots their brand woo-woo.

[@mildlyinteresting1000]

1: ok, if you define love as amount of time spent - sure. But is that what people mean when they talk of love? Surely not. 2: I agree the statement that the biologists got it all wrong can be understood - "oh, he's denying evolution" lol. The most bizarre point of disagreement is the origin of cell and it's remarkable how James Tour, a remarkable chemist, breaks down just how wishy washy is the idea of primordial soup and storm lightnings to get a reproducing cell. The simple answer is - we don't know how life came to exist. This is a very uncomfortable point for many biologists to admit. We have no idea as of 2024. 3: I don't think it's understood just how simplistic Dawkins position is, in regards to the whole ontological debate, I mean, it's non existent. And you being affected by it says more about you than about him. I would be very cautious if you think that Dawkins has got the best position there is about the fundamentals of what there is, and you can't find a single flaw in his worldview. Is organized religion problematic? Sure. Does it mean that there is nothing else to it than oppression? You've got a lot of stuff to unpack on your journey... 4: Don't you think evoking conspiracy to understand why a scientist might disagree with your views is an overkill? Peace.

[@RDTRNT]

@@mildlyinteresting1000 James Tour is a liar misrepresenting the science he's trying to critique. There are videos debunking him, but I sense that you have watched them and commented there, because your handle looks familiar to me.

[@mildlyinteresting1000]

@@RDTRNT I appreciate the ad hominem at the end, but have you actually looked at what he's saying? The mechanics of the underlying chemistry. I'm not saying nor does he that abiogenesis is not possible just how unlikely it is, even though we know it did happen. And many biologists now come out with theories that refute the Dawkins over simplistic theory of selfish genes.

[@RDTRNT]

@@mildlyinteresting1000 I have, and he is indeed a liar for creationism. Watch debunks of him if interested.

[@mildlyinteresting1000]

@@RDTRNT could you point something specific where he’s lying? As far as I understand his position is not refusal of abiogenesis. It’s a dismissal of every theory of possible abiogenesis to date. And seems like a valid point. No theory so far has succeeded a priori in making the primordial soup. Much less the process of abiogenesis itself.

[@not_enough_space]

Interesting fellow. He said a number of things about brains that surprised me, and I might have to read his book for more. That said, what he has to say about us not being machines isn't some weighty evidenced conclusion. It's a triviality--he's making it part of the definition of machine that machines can't do what persons like us do or function like we function.

[@coreyander286]

Don't trust what he has to say about brains. He summarized Barbara McClintock's Nobel Prize without once mentioning "transposable elements". It'd be like describing Watson and Crick's discovery as "they discovered cells can transmit information and we have no idea how", without once mentioning the helical structure of DNA.

[@robadkerson]

Metaphysics absolutely can be described materialistically by their physical substrate. Love, consciousness, color, music, etc. are emergent proprieties. Its intellectually criminal to let this presupposition sneak in.

[@plotofland2928]

I don't think that consciousness is an emergent property. I don't see how it could emerge. It doesn't make sense. How could the presence of certain brain structures of neural circuits lead to subjective experience. It doesn't translate. It's like creating something from nothing. I think it is a fundamental property of existence. The whole thing is very mysterious and it's very hard for us as humans to wrap our heads around consciousness. Furthermore, can there ever be more than one consciousness? I mean, you can only imagine your own consciousness, any time you try to imagine someone else's conscious experience, you are imagining as if your consciousness was in their body and personality.

[@BrandonMitchell10205]

I don’t think he’s denying you can describe these concepts with empirical tools, but rather we can’t explain the origin or essence of these concepts purely through empirical observation. Description is not the same thing as explanation.

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

The problem is, you are still describing the 'physical substrate' through mental categories. Take "information" for example -- is information out there in the world, or is it in our minds? I think we find, at the end of the day -- we are trying to analyze the world through a series of patterned mental cogitations/logic we call "information". It is our minds which are responsible for putting pattern to the things we see. We don't understand the extent to which the pattern is 'out there' or 'in here' or if that division is even valid. What this means is, most physicalists are actually not monists; they are property dualists without even realizing it. Ergo why physicalism is losing the battle on defense these days.

[@robadkerson]

@@Archeidos-Arcanainformation in your mind is still occupying physical space. Information in the world is still occupying physical space neurons for humans, magnets for computers usually, but you could just as easily use an abacus.

[@AnnonymousPrime-ks4uf]

​@@robadkersonConsciousness is a property of the non terminal domain. We are in the terminal domain. Consciousness doesn't emerges from the terminal domain. Consciousness doesn't emerge from matter. Physicalism is wrong.

[@andrewbolesworth9288]

Couple of points... - it is untrue that people all experience the sacred (and magical bs) , while obviously some people do, it's mostly limited to people indoctrinatred as children to believe things for which the only argument is "nobody knows, therefore I do". - Emotional states are absolutely measurable , they are physical processes which we can demonstrate physically to exist! I AM DEEPLY SKEPTICAL OF THIS PERSONS ABILITY TO REASON. Especially now that he thinks Imagination is as valid as Evidence and Reason! This guy could clearly have achieved more had he not been intellectually stunted by the belief in Magic.

[@toonyandfriends1915]

you can't measure emotional states objectively. " they are physical processes which we can demonstrate physically to exist!" and yet this literally doesn't tell you a bit how much you actually feel.The set of chemical is correlated with the process you describe but in no way shape of form tells us how you experience pain. Heck if you didn't experience pain in the first place, there would be no way to know, despite the physical process, that one actually feels pain. " - it is untrue that people all experience the sacred (and magical bs) , while obviously some people do, it's mostly limited to people indoctrinatred as children to believe things for which the only argument is "nobody knows, therefore I do"." What are you even talking about, refer to a time stamp. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about, for someone who champions critical thinking. "i am deeply skeptical of the guy making of this person's rationality!", what a self pompous little human being you are, your premises doesn't even support your conclusions" "Emotional states are measurable!Because we proved that they exist! If they exist they are measurable 1 to 1". Fallacious reasoning unsound argument fr. Go back hitting books.

[@psyenergy1935]

Silence you one dimensional cretin. This man is a polymath, & your undeveloped brain is having a left- brain meltdown.You're in shock It's ok. Your inchoate mind will probably recover with time.

[@OmniversalInsect]

He openly admits that logical thinking is not that good, giving no justification for it because that would require logic.

[@psyenergy1935]

Atheism is worse than magic. When the magician pulls the rabbit out of the hat at least there is a magician. On atheism there is no magician to pull the universe out of the hat so to speak, it literally creates itself from nothing. because the majority of atheists are cretins. Like you. They believe in something worse than magic.

[@toonyandfriends1915]

@@OmniversalInsect he likes logical thinking and science, he just admits it's not everything and can make you arrogant, denying what humanity has a whole has created, which might be a justificatoin.

[@psyok]

the pod starts so unbelievably interestingly, talking about how weird our brains are, how contrarian our very biology appears to be... and then it quickly devolves into "god is real because I love my friends and family"

[@keneteck]

I liked it but it struck me that he himself may struggle with simultaneous activation of right and left. He may activate one and then the other, a kind of disjointedness almost.

[@olbluelips]

That wasn’t the point. He was appealing to the existence of qualia. I agree love is an emotionally charged example but it’s valid. He could have picked redness

[@dharmatycoon]

the idea that the universe is not deterministic, yet god is the prime cause, seems a bit incoherent to me (edit: i suppose he specified "ontological cause" idk wtf that means)

[@TrevorWright88]

“Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of today) free also to believe in them. He always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths and that seemed to contradict each other; he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that.” -G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

[@peterp-a-n4743]

What a witty man. Intelligence is equally useful for rational thought and to effectively cope to keep believing what one wants to believe. Chesterton, like many, gave up dignity for comfort.

[@calebr7199]

I personally think someone trying to hold two contradictory beliefs at once will probably actually become less sane, not more sane.

[@TrevorWright88]

@@calebr7199 I’m not so sure. I personally think someone closer to truth is the more sane person, and some truths seem so obvious that they should stand even in light of seeming contradictions. For example, if a person holds to strict naturalistic materialism while yet believing in inalienable human rights, I’d say the person is more sane (closer to the truth) than a completely consistent naturalistic materialist who would deny human rights because it seems to contradict their philosophy. I’d rather they give up naturalistic materialism all together, but the above suffices to illustrate my point.

[@calebr7199]

@@TrevorWright88 I think the fact that you said seeming contradictions is an important point to keep in mind. Maybe someone thinks something is true but they think that the things that seem to contradict that belief are not true. In this case this person is actually not holding two contradictory beliefs at once, they are just close minded. As for a counter example, say someone does not believe in human caused climate change, but also knows the scientific consensus. This person also does not consider themselves to be anti science and generally trusts scientists except on this one issue. This person holds the beliefs of trusting scientists but also not trusting scientists. If someone were to press this person on this issue they might descend into conspiracy theory madness and stop trusting science and will believe that all scientists are biased and become anti science, or they might be convinced and change their mind about climate change. The point I'm trying to make is holding contradictory beliefs results in cognitive dissonance that either leads to abandoning one of the beliefs, either leading them into madness or sanity.

[@TrevorWright88]

@@calebr7199 I said “seeming contradictions” because I take that to be what Chesterton is referring to in the above quote you responded to, since in the quote provided he says “if he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other.”

[@imagomonkei]

I greatly enjoyed this conversation. Even though I don't agree with the guest on his points about religion or love, I think he still explained himself extremely well, so I appreciate the amount of thought that he's put into this conversation. To a degree, he talks the same as Jordan Peterson. But the difference is Jordan Peterson tries to sound intelligent by speaking in vagaries and double speak and never committing to an idea, while this guest took great pains to elaborate on why he approaches the subject of God and religion the way he does, so that the listener can appreciate his position whether or not they actually agree with it. And as always, Alex, I find your approach to these conversations to be extremely gracious. Thank you for making these enlightening videos.

[@SLAM2977]

Alex has raised the bar, hard to go back and watch sleepy Lex F. after such high quality content.

[@oldmanlearningguitar446]

Even if you say “Exodus is still happening” in a metaphorical sense you still should be able to justify that claim and show that it is “true” in a wider sense.

[@emanuelephrem4307]

Someone once said, "What matters is more important than matter!!". Meaning, the experienced reality is qualitatively different and more important from the described reality. So when a cultural/mythological story is narrating the deepest psychological orientations of human beings, you don't treat it as a historical or a scientific theory. Lol...Because its purpose is not to tell you about "objective or descriptive" reality. The same way people don't go to church or the mosque for academic reasons. The purpose is different!🤷🤷

[@oldmanlearningguitar446]

@@emanuelephrem4307well your long response misses my point entirely. The deeper psychological and or mythological claim still needs to be shown to be relevant on that mythic scale. I wasn’t talking about objective reality at all.

[@TJ-kk5zf]

Peterson derangement syndrome is a terrible disease

[@emanuelephrem4307]

@@oldmanlearningguitar446 That's my point. It's a value judgement based on inherited cultural heritage or identity. For example it's "self evident" when a person salutes a flag, he/she is not saluting a piece of cloth. He/she is saluting the inherited values that are symbolized by that flag. That's why it's a ritual not a claim. And rituals are inherited cultural practices that make or break a society. In the case of these stories, their value is not present in their historical accuracy, it's present in the inspirational and motivational spirit they create inside people's head. They are specially important, if civilizations are built around them.

[@oldmanlearningguitar446]

@@emanuelephrem4307and still you persist in repeating yourself and missing my point entirely. Once again I am NOT making any claim or even a reference to historical accuracy. I am saying you still have you establish your claims of “the inspirational or motivational spirit they create in people’s heads”. Just claiming they do does not make it valid. And claiming that a different myth /action/ritual etc. is inspirational (like saluting the flag) does not establish that another specific myth is also inspirational.

[@da-be-ju]

What does he mean by "it's not discussed very much" that the brain is divided? There's been lots of research and speculation on that.

[@uninspired3583]

The way he thinks about it isn't discussed much, maybe?

[@unduloid]

@@uninspired3583 Because it makes no sense, maybe?

[@uninspired3583]

@@unduloid I haven't validated yet. I am curious about comments from peer review

[@johnrangi4830]

That was odd, he criticises cynics but uses it himself.

[@emanuelephrem4307]

Very cynical of you..

[@johnrangi4830]

@@emanuelephrem4307 yeah true but everybody is one anyway, It's just some people don't like admitting it because they think it's negative.

[@emanuelephrem4307]

@@johnrangi4830 It is negative, if your natural inclination is towards cynicism. Generally speaking cynicism is a deconstructionist tool not a constructionist one. So it's better if your cynicism is governed under the umbrella of a positive vision. And I think that's his point.

[@johnrangi4830]

@@emanuelephrem4307 you could be completely right and I am willing to accept that. But sometimes we end up with a negative result. Part of learning is accepting negative results as well.

[@saccharineboi]

Iain McGilchrist is a very underrated scholar

[@nathanaelsmith3553]

This is the first time I have become aware of him and I am going to rate him highly.

[@zapkvr]

W@nker

[@unduloid]

No, he's a crank.

[@uninspired3583]

​@@unduloidI get the impression he's well educated on the facts of neuroscience, but he seems fascinated by the incredulity fallacy people throw against materialism.

[@matthewlennon6289]

If you’ve read his work, he’s definitely no crank. Exceedingly well researched, and neuroscientific results since he first wrote The Master & his Emissary have been consistent with his theories, and few if any other theories. He’s at the frontier of this research, so he necessarily needs to reach out into the unknown. I don’t think it’s fallacious to push the boundary on the unknown. No one else has a coherent answer because our science doesn’t yet.

[@robadkerson]

Being spiritually quiet and receptive are scientific, quantifiable concepts. It's critical that we divorce these things from our historically recent religious infections--they're not fundamental to humanity.

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

Unfortunately, New Atheism has mostly channeled people into a scientific-materialist ontology -- which makes any genuine experience of 'spirituality' or 'God' seem like "woo-woo icky stuff that belongs to religion". We have to get over both dogmatic religion and militant atheism or we're pretty screwed, imo. They are two sides of the same nightmare.

[@nkoppa5332]

Yea they are.

[@Eilfylijokul]

Mate, just open up a Bible and read the first page. Your world view was debunked millennia ago 😂

[@pistolen87]

If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist, or does it?

[@nkoppa5332]

@@pistolen87 measure justice

[@DanteGunn]

I'm not interested in certainty anymore, I'm interested in the shape of things that speaks to me as real".. Perfect.. Awesome podcast

[@TheSSEssesse]

Imagine a mouse pointer becomes sentient in a computer. Over the course of several decades it searches around trying to understand it’s surroundings. It finds and begins to form an understanding of folders, various file types, assembly code, binary, and even the electrical impulses that move and shape it’s world. Now imagine this world has never experienced any noteworthy outside influence. For the first time in it’s history, you are given an opportunity to create a text document in it’s world. You simply type, “what color is the keyboard I’m using and how many inches is the CPU from the cooling fan?” The mouse pointer not only has no idea what created the text document, but due to it’s form of conscious reality, may NEVER begin to even understand what was asked of it or even the concept of 3 dimensions, color, sound, distance etc. It’s only conscious understanding is changes in code/electricity etc. I think this metaphorically is the point that many counter arguments to Dawkins’ world view are trying to make. We’ve come an incredibly long way from believing in pure magic, but that doesn’t mean we’ve even scratched the surface of not only what composes our world but what things we may NEVER be able to understand that are far beyond our reality that can still influence it. To think otherwise is scientifically and materially sound given our conscious circumstances, but may be truthfully flawed because our “unfit conscious tooling” isn’t designed to be able to make sense of higher consciousness or layers of reality. The only thing that is truly “true” is what we can observe and intuit, not necessarily what we can understand through direct measurement, which is only an understanding of that truth. I believe Ian is simply arguing that possibility. That there may be a limit to our ability to understand total reality while much of it still resides outside of what we will ever be able to understand while still influencing it. I’m sure I’m using some terms incorrectly here, but I believe the point is somewhat clear. Opinions welcome.

[@bradb8427]

Very laughable when he says psychedelics, do not touch him. If you are a Homosapien, they have impact on you. Him stating that his only experiences have been negative Is very telling to anybody who has done psychedelics. it demonstrates that he fought or denied the reality that was presented before him. It underlines his arrogance as a person

[@billhicks8]

Oh please. Thanks for needlessly reminding us how daft people can be.

[@thistooshallpass5425]

Some get there without the back door, maybe he got scared - I know many old trip heads that were frightened out of their wits to begin with

[@thistooshallpass5425]

Have you tried salvia divinorum? I’ve witnessed many trippers greatly fear this substance.

[@gizz612]

I know one person that is hardly touched by psychedelics. The guy downed 10g of mushrooms and all that he experienced was a feeling of energisation and the intense urge to exert himself physically. Very hard to believe for somebody like me who seems to be impacted stronger than most. But I have seen it with my own eyes. He said there were absolutely no visuals or insights for him.

[@MMAneuver]

​@gizz612 I've met a guy who mushrooms did nothing to and I know myself and most people get extremely high on the same amount.

[@real_pattern]

the end of his rant about how organisms and nothing we know are mechanisms is a kind of 'not even wrong' misunderstanding. what's a mechanism? a structured configuration of entities/existents and activities/processes/operations. we use mechanisms to conjecture explanations of phenomena and intersubjectively established patterns in data. of course organisms are mechanisms. his comments about contemporary physics were kinda correct, in that our best physical theories don't model the currently most fundamental/irreducible systems with spherical, mini solar system-like 'atoms,' and quantum fields are infinite fields of operator valued spacetime points -- a field of effects, not of 'things' -- and the universal wavefunction is a continuous mathematical object. quantum theory is not a theory of little separate things, but of one continuum. so if you're proposing that there's any 'existent' -- in the broadest possible sense of the term -- that is 'non-mechanistic', you're departing from intelligibility, ie. you're talking nonsense, gibberish. what would that even mean? i'd recommend you read rupert read's review of mcgilchrist's latest book.

[@Genomsnittet]

Yeah one BIIIIIIIIG red flag for me? The dude seems to be an expert in every given field. It is bullshit. I am going to read your suggestion mate. I have a feeling that this guy is just a slightly more eloquent Peterson. At least, that's the feeling he's giving me.

[@ReflectiveJourney]

You are making the concept of mechanism very vague by making simply calling it a description of structures and their functionality. Mechanism is a particular view about the structure and the type of causal dynamics that can potentially happen. A helpful way i use is thinking in terms of Aristotle's efficient cause where "things"/substances have their interactions as externally related. mechanism is conceptually polar to teleology (final causes) imo. If you willing to call teleological explanations mechanistic then we have lost all intelligibility not when using the concepts as they have been historically determined.

[@wheatley9601]

​@@GenomsnittetYou're the one basing your beliefs on feelings lol

[@efisherish]

‘If we draw only on the left side of the brain, our culture paints a narrow picture composed via the hyper-specialism which bedevils contemporary intellectual life. In this sorry state, we badly need that now-almost-vanishingly rare personage, the true polymath. In Iain McGilchrist, in the nick of time, we have one. In this book, he draws quite magnificently on his post-disciplinary erudition precisely to explain how very much we lose when we draw only on the left hemisphere. If you want to understand why curiosity is in vogue but wonder is not; or why we aim directly at happiness and in doing so ineluctably become less happy; or why we like to talk about ‘the environment’ while Nature, upon which we utterly depend, we quietly desecrate; if you yearn to comprehend and question the rise of a desperate clinging to ‘identity’ within both the Left and the Right of politics; or if the way our civilisation tends to model human beings as machines disturbs or hurts you, then please read this book; for it sheds a profound light on these and so many other literally vital questions. If it were widely heeded, then perhaps, even at this late hour, our civilisation’s merry march to a slow and brutal suicide might be halted. For this book is that most valuable of possible books: The Matter With Things is nothing less than a work of genius, diagnosing our dire predicament in full, and offering a way, instead' Professor Rupert Read

[@real_pattern]

@@ReflectiveJourney it's not my definition, it's an amalgam of the conceptual analyses of ~all relevant philosophers of science from the 20th-21st centuries.

[@tgrogan6049]

I thought this guy was an intellectual but he is a romantic mystic. I have been in "love" and see "beauty" but I am a physicalist. When I die the "love" and "beauty" in my brain will disappear. What is the problem. To me his views are anthropocentrism run amok.

[@Atopos333]

Because love is something that's outside of you. It acts upon you, try to love someone you don't know right now for no reason since you create love.

[@tgrogan6049]

@@Atopos333 In your 🧠 brain you create it?

[@Atopos333]

@@tgrogan6049 you definitely don't. You don't choose love and good luck trying too

[@tgrogan6049]

@@Atopos333 well it depends on how you define love doesn’t it?

[@Atopos333]

@tgrogan6049 how do you define it, To the point that it can be created in your brain, cause the majority of philosophy disagrees with your definition if you come to the conclusion the brain creates it

[@woodandwandco]

In my view, the brain is split in 2 because of charge (+), magnetism (-), and ground (0). It's simple electro-magnetic evolution. The brain needs to flip charges regularly to harmonize with different parts of the body and environment that need its attention, otherwise, there would be no possibility of biological cycles, which allows for dynamic pH balancing. The split is also required for there to be a neutral point, or central channel, upon which the positive and negative can coevolve and intermingle. Much easier to get this charge submerged in a fluid, but as we live in a gas medium, our body needed to submerge our neurons in an ocean simulator, hence the body is a kind of micro-ocean where charged particles can exchange ions. It's all electro-magnetic, and once you understand this, the biological forms explain themselves. The reason for the asymmetry is also simple. The charge is the result of coiling, except, instead of copper wire, the body uses internal charge configurations along the axis of the spine to regulate the bodily activity. As this charge coil reaches the brain, it populates it with charge unevenly, creating asymmetry.

[@karlmcallister218]

Wow! What a respectful and "meaningful" conversation. Good for both of you! I was worried that you two would reach the same kind of impass Alex reached in conversation with J. Vervaeke, but it just seemed that the two of you were open to eachother in a way that both of you learned something. I certainly did, and I know both of your work well. I especially appreciated the humility with which you both approached the last part about advice with. Thanks alot guys! A great conversation!

[@Andre-qo5ek]

"love is real" ... oh man.. that's jsut such a crazy statement. it is a concept, that we attribute a BUNCH of material things, and other concepts. to say love is supernatural is wonky to me... "love" is just a loaded word with no REAL definition. -- cynical people are less intelligent ?! geeze. ... now we need a definition of "cynical" and "intelligent" cause.... i find those claims dubious .... -- um.. just because we can not think of a machine that can be a human, doesn't mean we are not a machine..... what does this say to the idea of an "intelligent designer" ? 🤔 if not a machine... are we gods? if a robot can make a robot ... and we are not said robots ... and god "made us" ... then god made another god..... when parents make on offspring.. they certainly don't make a lesser different model.... so i would guess god made the other gods that are us. this would also explain why we have the previously discussed supernatural "love" and "meaning"

[@stoneneils]

He's referring to love as in the libidinal drive. You're being WAY too LEFT-BRAINED ...the irony here is wonderful though.

[@Andre-qo5ek]

@@stoneneils you'll have to expand what you mean here.

[@rohanking12able]

Real iant real its just a gueess by observation then Observation isnt real its just a fact of interactions. Matter isnt real its just entangled energy

[@JamesRichardWiley]

I am a cluster of vibrating atoms. I have no trouble accepting that.

[@pdjinne65]

we don't even know what atoms actually are though 🤣🤣 Yes I know, protons, neutrons, electrons, but what are these? Yes, quarks. But what are these? Nobody knows.

[@daikucoffee5316]

Well there is a lot more complexity in you than just vibrating atoms. We are monkeys, we are just trying to hide it.

[@emanuelephrem4307]

Try acting that way.. Much worse, try treating other people as if they don't have a self. You will immediately realize the difference between describing reality and experiencing reality!

[@JesseTate]

But phenomenology. how does that language enter into our worldview, communications, and actions?

[@shawndodd1046]

Why the need for the “I” in the statement then?

[@jenny9226]

I am a bunch of senseless matter; and that is beautiful.😅

[@tomgreene1843]

What is that ?

[@gravitascascade5798]

It's the most hideous idea that I can imagine.

[@k-3402]

​@@gravitascascade5798Same, but I agree with them. Some of us are deeply reluctant materialists

[@mp9810]

Fucking love Gilchrist. Helping to bring nuance, subtlety and complexity back into mainstream thought.

[@majmage]

Bizarre to me that anyone buys into the idea that one must pretend fiction is real in order to appreciate it. It's particularly laughable given I've made a career out of it (game designer) and engage in fiction (usually in games) all the freaking time. So the idea that non-believers don't enjoy art is staggeringly wrong (if that's what he's saying), it's just that I don't go around pretending my fiction is fact.

[@mikealgee1489]

He’s not saying that. Whats the difference between a great story and terrible one? The great one has a pattern of story that tells you something true about the real world. People can analyse great stories for hours as they are so deep, crap stories are 2 dimensional and usually filled with the ego from the writers they are just using it as an excuse to validate their world view so the characters are all 2 dimensional or the overall point of the story is shallow and can be parsed into one paragraph. Great fiction tells you something useful about our reality as there is something true about the pattern of it that is difficult to put your finger on.

[@majmage]

@@mikealgee1489 We don't live in a reality where fiction is only ever called fiction. People like Jordan "fiction isn't false" Peterson will actually literally say stuff like that (JBP podcast S4:E69). So it's problematic if others like McGilchrist provide cover for this sort of behavior instead of saying "Yeah he's just dead-wrong to say it isn't false".

[@JesseTate]

Brilliant!!! Harris, Peterson, McGilchrist all in basically a month? Four of the most promising thinkers alive

[@peterkiedron8949]

Harris and Peterson are charlatans.

[@mildlyinteresting1000]

Oh my god, how much misunderstanding of Iain's points there are in the comments! I don't think people here fully understand what he means by "Love can't be measured in the lab", "God is the ground of existence", and "Biologists have uninteresting, unethical, unintellectual way of thinking ." I'll try my best. "Love can't be measured in the lab" - qualities can't be derived from quantities, aka the hard problem of consciousness "God is the ground of existence" - mind is primal rather than matter, aka idealism "Biologists don't get it" - the narrowness of Dawkins-type view is astonishing. He critiques organized religion but has no problem to throw the baby with the bath water. The real game is what is fundamental ontologically speaking - the mind aka idealism, the matter aka materialism, or dualism, or smth else. Dawkins view is very simplistic - Jesus didn't rise from the dead therefore god doesn't exist. He doesn't even realize that god he's talking about is a christian one, and a very narrow definition, and he makes zero attempt to even try to answer the question of ontology. In short, you gotta really question those reductionist materialist assumptions if you find those statements woo woo. Please, if you are reading this and it resonates, go and watch Bernardo Kastrup, he does an excellent job at breaking those down to illustrate just preposterous the reductionist materialist position is.

[@piettroguedes8719]

Wow! Did not think this encounter would actually happen. Nice job, Alex :)

[@arthurtfm]

Religious people keep saying that their idea of god is not the same kind of thing as ordinary physical matter and energy in the universe. But they would jump with excitement if evidence for god was good, and use it in their arguments. Why do so many people fail to see that goes either exists or doesn't? It's just that simple.

[@CARambolagen]

The opening is already riveting! I have to look into my explicit and implicit brain halves more...

[@Albatrossamongus]

Ian McGilcrest is just Deepak Chopra with a PhD in psychiatry.

[@robertpirsig5011]

Explain?

[@dohpam1ne]

Something that never ceases to frustrate me is this dualist way of thinking about higher level structures vs. lower level constituents. McGilchrist repeatedly appeals to this idea that love isn't "real" or somehow isn't valuable if it's fundamentally composed of smaller things like particles in space and time. He poses questions like "does love exist or are there just particles in motion?" as though those are two separate, mutually exclusive statements about reality. No justification for this is ever given. What do we change about love by saying that it can be understood at a more precise, more intricate level? Does it ruin a beautiful painting to realize that the painting is composed of the interrelations of many different brushstrokes of paint?

[@DanBanan69]

We may understand that the painting is made by paint and brushstrokes, but we struggle to explain how the image instils emotion in humans and how it can provide profound commentary on the world around us. The end result is fundamentally different from the parts that it is made of, and so understanding these parts gives us no insight in the true nature of the thing. Love exists in two forms; particles and as an event in consciousness. I interpret him as talking about the latter, the love that we experience in consciousness is the "true" existence of love, and is much deeper and much more mysterious than the concrete existence of matter. McGilchrist obviously knows that all emotion is somehow linked to brain activity, but he warns against thinking that this brain activity (i.e. particles in motion) is all there is to it.

[@RDTRNT]

@@DanBanan69 Well, I'd say that the light reflected from the painting gets to my eyes, then gets processed by the visual cortex along with other brain structures, the neural representations of patterns recognized by the brain are activated, along with multiple associations to memories, concepts and emotions. In other words, the brain processes the painting and produces an output -- feelings. Now, I know that my feelings are subjectively real, and I'm also quite certain that they are caused by biochemical processes. How exactly -- is an open question.

[@DanBanan69]

@RDTRNT Yes, it's an open question. How interaction between matter turns into conscious experience and creates meaning in this reality is truly a fascinating mystery. Nothing in this world has so far been as we humans have thought it was, maybe the inner workings of matter and the universe itself is something completely different than what appears to us now.

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

Obligatory statement for those who are about to be triggered by this video: judging people without having genuinely analyzed the content of their ideas is, once again, a symptom of left-hemisphere overdominance. The absence of humility is bad for humanity. Appealing to the precision of neural correlates (so you can sound "serious" and "sciency"), while ignoring the broader pattern of cognition, is tantamount to meticulously measuring the trees while missing the forest entirely. McGilchrist is widely esteemed throughout the cognitive sciences (including neuro-science).

[@zak2659]

I think people just don't understand the hard problem of consciousness, which is understandable in today's culture. I think if people understood that correlations don't prove physicalism we'd have a much brighter comment section lol

[@zapkvr]

Bollocks

[@joellaw7950]

I think your metaphor is great for my issue with this thinking. I don't think there is a forest, only trees. That is to say a forest is a invented category that is treated as real, but is a category and not an truly there. To demonstrate this imagine a field then add trees one by one. At which point do the trees become a forest(I think his distinction between complex and complicated is not a distinction at all)? To take my thoughts to their conclusion I would say that trees don't exist nor cells, really, they are just categories assigned by humans. Only some sort of fundamental force acting out is what is. That being said, research from first forces, and living, is completely untenable. There is value in studying properties of imagined objects like forest. My issue is assigning actual existence to imagined concepts.

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

@@joellaw7950 That is indeed a prime encapsulation of the materialist/physicalist perspective; but I must challenge it. What makes you so sure that it is the tree which is real and not the forest? Why are they perhaps not *both* real? "At which point do the trees become a forest(I think his distinction between complex and complicated is not a distinction at all)?" > Personally, I would answer: the point in which it would be unquestionably obvious to me that I'm in a forest. The point in which I wouldn't even have to question it. "I'm not in a park. I'm in A FOREST." Reality, in some sense -- is simply what you take as "a given". Depending on who you ask, it may be: an unsettling notion, mere incoherent "woo-woo" babble, or a profound insight. "There is value in studying properties of imagined objects like forest. My issue is assigning actual existence to imagined concepts." > The issue here, is that "actual existence" is an imagined concept TOO. Granted, it is in accord with a comprehensive, logical worldview, yes -- but logical structures are purely mental too. Consciousness existentially precedes matter, as "matter" is a theoretical construct. In the final analysis, I think one must accept both perspectives as valid. This is why I advocate for some form of ontological agnosticism, neutral monism, or some mature kind of dualism.

[@tecategpt1959]

@@Archeidos-ArcanaThank you, couldn’t have said it better myself. The fact that they consider trees as real but not the forest itself is special pleading fallacy and sorta denying their intuition and instead are misled by supposed “reason”

[@CountChocula]

Seems like this guy is half BSing but there is some good stuff. His phrase “disappeared up its own fundament” is gold though

[@HIIIBEAR]

Just based on the title, I will say I think the general public doesnt do well with analogies.

[@emanuelephrem4307]

Specially the atheists.

[@HIIIBEAR]

@@emanuelephrem4307 that doesnt make sense. Religion is built on analogy unless you want to explain how god created the world as written in the bible

[@emanuelephrem4307]

@@HIIIBEAR You said, "the general public doesn't do well with analogies" And I said, "specially the atheists". Because cross culturally speaking, the religious/cultural world is a world of analogies, parables, poetry, metaphors and stories. But when it comes to the rationalist, scientific and reductionist atheism mentality/culture, it's cut and dry. Meaning the world view is seeking value free objectivity. Facts and data. So the world of values, cultural symbolisms, analogies, parables and metaphors are not as popular in the atheist communities, as they are in the religious communities.

[@anatolydyatlov963]

@@emanuelephrem4307 What does atheism have to do with confusing the "left brain" analogy with the left side of the political spectrum?

[@emanuelephrem4307]

@@anatolydyatlov963 The world of narratives, metaphors, stories and cultural symbolisms is not as prevalent in the general secular atheist mentality, as it is in the religious mindset. By definition a materialist, reductionist and scientifically oriented mentality, doesn't generally entertain those aspects of our reality. That's why generally speaking, you don't see strong affinity from atheists or secularists towards cultural symbolisms, rituals, heritages, communitarian narratives or cultural myths etc etc.. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that secular nations are far more atomized and individualistic, when compared to traditional nations. That's why I said that reality is prevalent in the broader secular/atheist mindset.

[@jericosha2842]

One of my favorite conversations I've seen in your channel. Great job.

[@yotamschmidt570]

59:00, masterclass of subtletly and repsect on your part Alex. 1:02:00, brilliant observation about the paradoxicality of God, Iain. I admired that the moment you articulated the paradox your expression was almost of embarrassment, from my perspective, which I think really drives the supreme value and efficacy of holding tension in the sense of withstanding the opposites. What reflex is more appropriate than embarrassment! 1:03:20, "All religious language is analogical". Consider "The Tao which is told is not the eternal Tao, The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Name" - Tao Te Ching, and "A God comprehended is no God" -(Tersteegen). Wonderful conversation, too rich! I am going to read your book Iain! Thank you for introducing me to Iain, Alex!

[@GarryCraigPowell-z3n]

His books are literally life-changing. I'm not sure I could say the same of any others I know.

[@OmniversalInsect]

I'm trying to be as open minded as I can, but what I'm getting from the second half of this video is that logical thinking is a bad way of understanding the world and we need to think less logically in order to reach belief in God. This sounds absurd to me, logical thinking and empiricism are our only tools to discover truths about reality, anything else is just mere speculation. And if God is beyond logic and reason, then surely he is beyond reasonable consideration.

[@mtarek2005]

I think if a god is beyond reason then it's only as useful as an idea, which can be really useful but it has its limits

[@jj4cpw]

To me, the early Alex was a bit too left brain in his (cosmic) scepticism and I am oh-so-happy that he has married that left brain brilliance with a wide-open openness to the right brain as I feel his insight, guided by that new openness, will be manna for all of us who follow him.

[@flocksbyknight]

I think Manny of your questions were great for the basic listener. However, a guest of this caliber was worth more than a cursory reading. You did a stellar job with JBP 🙏

[@theswag8029]

"Do you think love is real?" - I'd also like to respectfully push back on what was implied with this question. Love - Definitions from Oxford Languages: 1. an intense feeling of deep affection. 2. a great interest and pleasure in something. Surely we can find a rational explanation for why we feel affection and interest towards people and things in general. I would have to assume that affection is an evolutionary adaption, that at the very least, aided the continuation of our species by compelling us to protect our offspring. Also, feeling affectionate and protective, not just for our offspring, but for the many members within our group, would have undoubtedly helped us in working together, which also aided our survival. Overtime, it's possible we were able to point that adaptation towards other things in our environment, for example other animals that we were able to domesticate and work with, as well as other things we became curious about, which could explain why we feel affectionate towards things like literature, art, science, or what have you. With all that said, I really enjoyed Iain's comments regarding the brain. Very interesting stuff! Thanks for the great podcast as always! EDIT: I'd also add that, at least to me, there's nothing cynical or depressing about this way of viewing love. If it's just the case that natural processes produced this phenomena that gives us so much joy, I think that's quite beautiful.

[@mildlyinteresting1000]

The real question he's asking is - what is feeling, affection, interest, pleasure? what is it, ontologically? Is it physical or is it mental? Is there a physical thing that is called love, or is it a mental thing that has corresponding physical processes in the brain? If it's the mental thing, you gotta ask yourself what is more fundamental aka the hard problem of consciousness. The funny thing about any subjective phenomena, be it love or joy or hate or ay other subjective experience is you can't explain what it is ontologically through evolution. Sure, you can say what contributed to the development of this type of behaviors in those type of primates, but that's not what he refers to. What he's saying is - you can't get subjective experience from studying things in the lab. You can't deduce qualities of an experience from quantities of mass, momentum, charge and so on. This is a different category, and reducing consciousness to epiphenomenon is invoking magic, in my opinion.

[@ob4161]

@@mildlyinteresting1000 Well, that question assumes “love” is the name of some kind of entity. But it’s primarily a verb (“to love”), and its use as a noun is derivative from its use as a verb (just like “hope”, “fear”, “hate”, and many other terms). In other words, your question is a reification fallacy.

[@mildlyinteresting1000]

@@ob4161 reification is changing something abstract into something real. You're assuming that "hope" is something real as a chair real. That's not what I'm saying. Is money real? Is Harry Potter real? "To love" is primarily a verb. Duh. Is it? Or is it a word that REFERS to something in the real world? Like the word "chair" is not made of wood, it is a noun. But a noun that REFERS to something in the real world.

[@ob4161]

@@mildlyinteresting1000 What I mean by reification here is treating a term as if it denotes a kind of *thing* when it doesn’t. For example, treating the phrase “food shortage” as if it were the name of some kind of *thing* would be reification. The sentence “there is a food shortage” simply means “there is not enough food”, and is not positing the existence of anything. In the same way, “I have hope that I’ll recover” doesn’t mean that I have any physical thing or a mental *thing* called “hope” (or “hope that I’ll recover”). Rather, it simply means “I hope that I’ll recover”. This latter sentence doesn’t refer to any entity except myself, it just says something about myself (namely, that I want to recover, will be happy if I do). In contrast, the sentence “I have a watch” _is_ referring to an entity besides myself, and it can’t be rephrased in such a way that the entity doesn’t exist (in such a way that only I am referred to). The truth of that sentence depends on the existence of an extra entity, whereas the truth of “I have hope” doesn’t depend on the existence of any extra entity (it just depends on my sincerity). It is not disproved by showing that an entity doesn’t exist, but only by my behaviour. (I would recommend reading that last paragraph carefully.)

[@mildlyinteresting1000]

@@ob4161 Okay but I would argue “hope” is a mental thing. As in an experience of a feeling. “I hope that I’ll recover” refers to a certain experience that your mind is having. I think you’re thinking “thing, entity” as in a physical thing, a physical entity, a material fact. But that’s just one category of things that we call real. “I feel rested” doesn’t refer to any entities, it just makes a truth claim, a statement regarding a subjective phenomenological experience which is real. Real meaning referring to an actual state of the reality, meaning exists. Saying that feelings, emotions, sensations are not real is denying consciousness, in a way denying your own existence. Are you saying that mental things are ultimately material? Or that statements about subjective experience are not real because they don’t refer to an external entity?

[@petebrennanmusic6939]

So because we dont fully understand the mechanics of a phenomena like love, we must beleive in intelligent design. God of the gaps argument all over again.

[@MiksMaTaunOlema]

without appealing to transcendent belief - what is love?

[@petebrennanmusic6939]

@@MiksMaTaunOlema As I said, we don't fully understand it and I (unlike some) don't pretend to know stuff that I don't. But if I had to guess I say; Love is most likely an emergent phenomena of a complex chemical system; an evolutionary result of trillions upon trillions of minute variables that has been selected for by evolution over 4 billion years due to its utility in terms of increasing the likelihood of successfully passing on genetic code to offspring who will then do the same. But that's just a guess.

[@OmniversalInsect]

@@MiksMaTaunOlema An experience, nothing more nothing less.

[@petebrennanmusic6939]

I go into this deeper on my substack at The Common Centrist in case anyone is interested. If anyone else has a substack type your handle in here... I'd love to read your views on all matters regarding philosophy.

[@MiksMaTaunOlema]

@@OmniversalInsect the whole of reality is experience..

[@cloud1stclass372]

1:09:55 He declares that he is an idealist in the fashion of Bernardo Kastrup. I love it. I’m more persuaded by McGilchrist’s version, however. He does not subscribe to Kastrup’s idea of the underlying, universal consciousness being primitive and evolutionarily “dumber” than our own finite minds. McGilchrist instead believes that our consciousness is a fragmented reflection of an underlying, purpose-driven consciousness that possesses agency. I find that idea much more appealing. A classic, theistic notion of God.

[@skemsen]

Wonderful conversation - thank you very much for this! It would be wonderful to have Bernardo Kastrup in a conversation like this with Iain McGilchrist and you - or just in a dialog with you. Also relevant to your last question to Iain, Bernardo Kastrup is a great 'gateway' for left brain minded sceptics like myself to hear more on the ontological topic of consciousness based on analytical arguments. I find Bernardo Kastrup very fascinating.

[@adam11830]

Started off assuming this guy was an expert and I was learning something new, then didn't catch any info about his reputation or actual research he's completed, then heard a lot of stuff that makes me doubt his rigor, now I don't know if I need to unlearn what he said or if I can trust it.

[@Lev_Inc]

As soon as words like "materialist reductionist" come out of a person's mouth, you may as well stop listening, because it's going to get very disappointing from then on out. Up to that point, there was a lot of interesting things to listen to. After that point, pure apologetics.

[@sudabdjadjgasdajdk3120]

that is close minded

[@gravitascascade5798]

Deer materialists: you claim that you can describe everything, including the mind, in terms of matter, yet matter in the first place is something I observe within my mind. Curious.

[@Lev_Inc]

@@gravitascascade5798 - that matter is something observed with a mind full of words, symbols, animal sounds developed over generations, coordinated patterns in the speech centers of our brain, attempting to grasp intelligibility - quite a useful asset for survival. Curious indeed, that given enough time, matter can contemplate its own nature. Isn't the Cosmos grand and mysterious? 😊

[@gravitascascade5798]

@@Lev_Inc Idk man, I'm not matter and I don't know any matter that can do that. Also, this kind of argumentation -- "consciousness arises from matter, because...because I said so, okay? also evolution ..ughh...emergence and stuff..." explains precisely nothing, you just restate your premises and attempt to shoehorn the foundation of human experience into a framework that clearly can't accommodate it.

[@Lev_Inc]

@@gravitascascade5798 - okay, consider the following: We all make three assumptions at base. One, the universe exists. Two, we can learn things about it. Three, we form models that we rely on based on what we learn. The most reliable models, the scientific models, show that it's most likely that consciousness is an emergent property of biology, as biology is an emergent property of chemistry, and chemistry from physics. What consciousness emerges from, according to our best models, are completely unconscious processes. All I can do is appeal to the preponderance of evidence. That's not a mere assertion, though it may not appeal to our intuitions. As an aside, I began on the opposite end of this argument, and only arrived at this position because I eventually became convinced that the side I'm currently on is more likely, based on the collection of evidence that humanity has acquired through experimentation and observation. Especially once I grasped the many cognitive errors that show our intuitions to be very unreliable. Ian McGilchrist here, and apologetics in general, are built on a foundation of logical fallacies. Special pleading, incredulity, argument from ignorance, appeal to faith / emotion / intuition. It's a castle built on sand. And hey, maybe after my little thesis here (thank you for coming to my Ted Talk) you remain unconvinced, that's fine, but am I at least making sense to you? Can you see where I'm coming from a little better? Anyway, I have no personal grievance with the guy, or with you for that matter. I just think that science and reason are the best tools we have to navigate life and nature, and that all of us are better off the more we can appreciate and understand a little more clearly the wonders of consciousness and the cosmos.

[@InShadowsLinger]

Two sophists back to back. First Jordan and now this. My forehead has never been so sore.

[@MiksMaTaunOlema]

what here is sophistry to you and how are you completely certain that you yourself are innocent of it?

[@InShadowsLinger]

@@MiksMaTaunOlema the parts about god, “what is love”, science especially biology being bad, all the woo about brain and cells operating on something non physical/outside of our current understanding. Basically grasping at straws so he can insert his unfounded bs. I can understand the parts about beauty and how we are distancing ourselves away from nature without him needing to undermine everything Deepak Chopra style. “You can’t pinpoint where love is in the brain - therefore universe permeated with unfathomable power/energy/god (insert some bs here)”.

[@jonnyguitar747]

Yeah and wasn't the two brains idea debunked? Hasn't it been debunked several times throughout the decades? I don't get why this guy is taking such a hard line on this.

[@Eilfylijokul]

@@jonnyguitar747 read his book. Look at any of the extensive research done on split brain patients or people suffering from unilateral lesions or strokes in the brain. Look at the evolutionary evidence that all non-mammalian creatures have two brain hemisphere with no interconnection and that the interconnectivity that exists within mammalian brains decreases as human beings have evolved and that the neuronal connections that do exist are mostly functionally inhibitory.

[@critter5248]

​@@jonnyguitar747no you absolute fool, try listening and not saying "uh I don't like these words let me pretend I am going to make some nonsense gossipy remark "oh isn't this disproven?" when you contributed nothing to this conversation except your own insecure inability to recall information alongside a need to attack an idea by invoking more nonsense. I think you just don't like listening to people who are speaking about topics you deny already because you're not listening. x2 to the OP of this comment.

[@mp9810]

I really wish someone would ask Gilchrist what he thinks of certain non-dual experiences - often called 'spiritual experiences'. When people suddenly see that they're connected to everything, and part of a greater whole, what does he think is occurring? Does he think this is a 'right-brain' experience? Has the person tuned the left-brain right down, and is primarily experiencing the right-brain interpretation of reality?

[@2828cid]

This interview was amazing! My brain is on overload right now. I think it's going to change the whole way I think of the world and the divine. I believe that's all I'll say until I spend much more time digesting what I just listened to but thank you to Iain McGilchrist.

[@Hector-dd5hb]

Thank you for this interview.

[@tinychapter.]

I think the bottom line is you either take phenomenology seriously as an aspect of reality or you don’t. For me, subjective experience & ‘matter’ are not reducible to each other. It doesn’t surprise me that most people in this comment section have trouble with this.

[@Rowgun254]

Interviewer: What is a sandwich? Jordan Peterson: It depends on what you mean by 'what'. It might constitute an edible assemblage of heterogeneous alimentary substrates, typically involving an intermediate stratum of comestible materials, ensconced betwixt bipartite sections of a farinaceous medium, often derived from leavened wheat dough subjected to thermally induced gelatinization and Maillard reactions.

[@crazy75able]

Wrong video buddy

[@emanuelephrem4307]

To quote Ian, That's simplistic and cynical! Traits of an emotionally motivated individual. The "I don't care about God I just hate his rules" types. Try grappling with the steal man arguments, and not with the straw man.

[@rohanking12able]

​@@emanuelephrem4307 whats the problem with having a problem with a singular beings absolute rules. Are you saying the rule of free will is a tick to make you break other rules.

[@digitalbrandingintl]

first question is a tough one...the start of converstation is so fully loaded already....Alex amazingly despide his young age he is extremely articulated and did a very strong and challenging conversation with Dr Jordan on level of intelligence and knowledge....well done...

[@billhicks8]

The most important intellectual alive right now. Reading "The Matter With Things" changed my life. It is a very long read, but extremely compelling, and should be mandatory for anyone seeking to understand the way we live right now, the mess we are in, and how we might hope to get out of it. Read it. All of it. Do it!

[@UFOhunter4711]

Just feels like justification for anthropocentrism or sapiocentrism because it "feels right or good" but good convo nonetheless

[@kevinbeck8836]

This was such a good conversation 😮

[@Heseys.11]

Idk but world rn seems to be too right-brain. Most of the stuff we see on media or any other people we only see people saying "i feel like, i know in my heart, my gut feelings say so and so".

[@briobarb8525]

Good point...I hadn't thought much about...but you are right. You do hear that a lot more today. Being that I am right brained, it kind of makes me feel a bit ??? hmmm...like... one more of the sheep. 😊

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

The evidence points the other direction. Read McGilchrist's books where he has compiled about 30 years worth of research.

[@ezpzlemonsqueezy90]

​@@Archeidos-Arcanaevidence of what?

[@plotofland2928]

That isn't really what right brained is. The hemispheric distinctions are grossly oversimplified but as a whole, society is absolutely left brained. We think linearly, systematically, rationally, we cut things up, measure things, we are very linguistic. We are focused and goal oriented. We are future oriented. These are all left brained traits. Also, I would add that everything you do and say and write is based on some kind of emotion. I mean, why did you write this comment? Because you felt some kind of emotional drive to write it. Logic and emotion are inseperable.

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

@@ezpzlemonsqueezy90 We are increasingly becoming left-brain over dominant.

[@ourblessedtribe9284]

Alex imagine how frustrating and exciting it is for some of your followers like me who have gotten what Mcgilchrist/Vervaeke/Pageau are on to for the past few years waiting for you to take a look under the book covers - to see you do so!

[@bmerlin376]

Your soul has a name. You separated from you soul to have an experience as a human "on" Earth. You forgot everything, including your real name. You feel incomplete. This is why people look for love from other humans, but not realizing that another human will *never* make them whole. Ascension is the only thing that will make you whole again.