A Guide To The Fundamental Mystery Of The Mind - Erik Hoel

Подписаться 2,3 млн

Просмотров 31 тыс.

50% 1

Erik Hoel is a research professor at Tufts University, theoretical neuroscientist, and an author known for his work on understanding consciousness and the complexity of the brain.
Consciousness and free will are two of the most puzzling aspects of human existence. The question now is whether emerging scientific discoveries and technological advancements can unravel what's going on under the hood of our experience.
Expect to learn what the newest cutting-edge research on consciousness can teach us, the impact AI will have on our understanding of the Self, why it is so difficult to explain our inner thoughts out loud, whether science can prove that we have free will, how to overcome your deterministic fatalism and much more...
Sponsors:
Get an exclusive discount from Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/MODERNWISDOM (use code MODERNWISDOM)
Get 15% discount on Mud/Wtr at mudwtr.com/mw (use code MODERNWISDOM)
Get 20% discount on House Of Macadamias’ nuts at houseofmacadamias.com/modernw... (use code MW20)
Extra Stuff:
Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → chriswillx.com/books/
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / modernwisdom
#freewill #mind #consciousness
-
00:00 The Current State of Consciousness Research
05:17 Bureaucracy in Academia
08:38 Is Studying Consciousness Too Difficult?
12:54 The Limitations of Neuroscience
19:32 Intrinsic & Extrinsic Perspectives
26:36 Why Descartes is Important in Studies of Consciousness
32:05 Explaining the Bicameral Mind
39:00 What Would Happen if a Good Theory of Consciousness was Found?
43:22 Do We Really Have Free Will?
57:31 Where to Find Erik
-
Get access to every episode 10 hours before RU-vid by subscribing for free on Spotify - spoti.fi/2LSimPn or Apple Podcasts - apple.co/2MNqIgw
Get my free Reading List of 100 life-changing books here - chriswillx.com/books/
-
Get in touch in the comments below or head to...
Instagram: / chriswillx
Twitter: / chriswillx
Email: chriswillx.com/contact/

Опубликовано:

13 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 113

@ChrisWillx 11 месяцев назад

Hello you beauties. Access all episodes 10 hours earlier than RU-vid by Subscribing on Spotify - spoti.fi/2LSimPn or Apple Podcasts - apple.co/2MNqIgw. Here’s the timestamps: 00:00 The Current State of Consciousness Research 05:17 Bureaucracy in Academia 08:38 Is Studying Consciousness Too Difficult? 12:54 The Limitations of Neuroscience 19:32 Intrinsic & Extrinsic Perspectives 26:36 Why Descartes is Important in Studies of Consciousness 32:05 Explaining the Bicameral Mind 39:00 What Would Happen if a Good Theory of Consciousness was Found? 43:22 Do We Really Have Free Will? 57:31 Where to Find Erik

@scotchbarrel4429 11 месяцев назад

Howdy Chris, he's got a few veiled digs towards Sam in the first few minutes 😂, First 8 mins seemed like a whole bunch of rambling, after he's made his general disdain for Sam. Edit 1: (to be added)

@dustinluthro3023 11 месяцев назад

It's amazing how us millenials went from watching cartoons and hating homework to watching podcasts about neuralscience wishing we learned more.

@haleygray6443 11 месяцев назад

Cartoons always had more to teach us than homework.

@softcolly8753 11 месяцев назад

It's amazing to think that millennials think they are unique with this.

@CR-pr4sd 11 месяцев назад

@@softcolly8753calm down bro, it was his observation of him and his peers. Not you.

@ericdraven3654 11 месяцев назад

I wish I had had this content 20 years ago.

@sswetko 11 месяцев назад

Maybe 20 years ago the science wasn’t there as the guest talked about !!

@ezreality 11 месяцев назад

Now, that's Modern Wisdom... Thank you, Erik and Chris

@bmdecker93 10 месяцев назад

Tufts is just the epicenter of modern neurological and biological science with Dennett, Levin, and Hoel. Thanks for the upload. Great work as always.

@Rekaw97 11 месяцев назад

I think that "free will" is not something that we have to prove that it doesn't exist, it's something we would have to prove that it does exists and there is yet to be any evidence that something like that exists.

@livingbeings 11 месяцев назад

Really enjoyed this guest. Putting his book on my reading list

@zrienkersh1475 11 месяцев назад

Yes!!! Love Erik Hoel’s novel The Revelations. It’s sooooo good!!!

@JBonaparte 11 месяцев назад

Have you done a interview with Karl Friston on the Projective Consciousness Model yet, Chris? If not, he’s the best neuroscientist alive, so he would be the best person to talk to about it.

@MA-gu2up 11 месяцев назад

There is a big assumption that consciousness originates in the brain, because of the assumption of materialism in contemporary science(that everything could be explained by physical detectable stuff). While it could be that the brain is a major component in the pathway toward (feeling and making sense of things), like a relay center, and not the final destination. But alot of people researching the brain don't want to consider this possibility, because it entails that there is something more than the physical detectable things, something metaphysical.

@j.c.denton5193 11 месяцев назад

We know from anesthesia and sleep studies that you can turn off consciousness by changing the behavior of certain areas of the brain. If you can think of a test that would distinguish between brain- as- generator or brain-as- radio- receiver, do tell. In the mean time, Occam's Razor would suggest that assuming no extra mechanism for consciousness is a safer bet.

@MA-gu2up 11 месяцев назад

@@j.c.denton5193 You can also blind someone by taking their eyes out, that doesn't mean the eyes are the generators of consciousness of sight. Still, it is an assumption that the brain is the final destination and not a relay in the pathway, you need to prove this assumption.

@ThomasJDavis 11 месяцев назад

@@MA-gu2up No. This is shifting the burden of proof. Science operates on methodological naturalism, which means that until such time that "supernatural" even means anything other than a bald assertion that there is a second half to reality, science is going to continue to operate within the realm it has reason to care about -- the natural world (or just "reality"). By the way, this is one reason why proponents of the supernatural have no way to define what it means for something to "exist". The naturalist has a perfectly understandable definition -- to occupy space and time. And until the dualist has some definition or description of the actual nature of the supernatural, they will have an incoherent and incomplete system of metaphysics. It is the obligation of the substance dualist to demonstrate that there is in fact a "second half" to reality and what its nature is exactly. Until then, dualism is nothing more than hot air coming from people's mouths. Monism is the rationally warranted assumption to have for what constitutes reality until dualism demonstrates its claim.

@MA-gu2up 11 месяцев назад

@@ThomasJDavis You defined something that exists as something that occupies space and time, well, do space and time exist? You will have to say yes, well, does that mean space and time occupy space and time? Anyway, when you assume materialism, you are claiming that the world is only formed of materialistic things, this is a claim, and you will say every claim requires evidence, right? But you don't have proof of that Using empirical science, you can't prove that something doesn't exist unless it contradicts itself or something that is proved, and then you would be using logic. For example there is no married bachelor. You can't prove that a soul doesn't exist using empirical science, so when you assume materialism, you are excluding something that you don't have any real justification to exclude.

@milesgrooms7343 11 месяцев назад

His ideas and research related to free will has me scratching my head….if there is no “causal irreducibility” at the macro or micro level (I am sorry I will have to watch again to remember exactly what was stated) this seems to only strengthen the argument against free will. He can extrapolate all the causal research he wants, but there is no “atomized”, “singular” it , within or outside of the body, that is responsible or accounts for that causal irreducibility!! It’s fascinating because Robert Sapolsky can go through an extremely long list of possible factors that has contributed to your actions and behaviors over your lifetime, there is no singular factor that is the ultimate determination, but they are collectively what make you, “you”!! This makes sense in light of what this gentlemen just stated!

@dharmatycoon 9 месяцев назад

This guy is my idol

@donkeydrop 11 месяцев назад

Nice one Chris! Love the podcasts, your energy, wisdom and guests!! Hope you visit Sydney, Australia soon!

@juliuscaesarsimp3430 11 месяцев назад

Hello my fellow aussie night owl!

@ge9367 11 месяцев назад

@@juliuscaesarsimp3430I wouldn't go to Sydney, it's a dump. A far more sophisticated cultural centre like Brisbane would be more appropriate.

@donkeydrop 11 месяцев назад

@@ge9367 hahaha...Sydney can definitely improve in a lot of areas but I dont need much to make me happy. I'm sure Chriso will visit dump like Sydney and sophisticated cultural centre like Brisvegas!

@jackdaripper137 11 месяцев назад

That was a good episode

@ericdraven3654 11 месяцев назад

I love you, Chris. ❤

@aaroncamss1623 11 месяцев назад

yesssss fyeeee podcast

@TheMightyMidget 11 месяцев назад

As an MMA fan, that strange ass analogy made me chuckle. Great stuff as usual Chris.

@MichaelJohnson-hv1ek 11 месяцев назад

What precisely establishes that consciousness originates in the brain? Is this fundamental assumption correct? How do we know?

@j.c.denton5193 11 месяцев назад

Anesthesia turns off certain areas of the brain, and consciousness goes with them. Pretty clean cause- and- effect.

@softcolly8753 11 месяцев назад

This is a major problem with scientists studying consciousness, they make that initial mistake (maybe it isn't a mistake, but it's a mistake to treat it as a given). Listen to Buddhists instead. Even better meditate and study it for yourself. Just started this, but I am assuming all this guys conclusions are based on electrical signals in the brain and he hasn't bothered looking at it from the inside.

@softcolly8753 11 месяцев назад

@@j.c.denton5193 not at all. There is a theory around the brain being a receiver of consciousness, like a TV or radio. Or consciousness is more fundamental than matter.

@j.c.denton5193 11 месяцев назад

@@softcolly8753 That counts more as a Hypothesis than a Theory. I am not aware of any evidence, currently, to suspect that the "radio receiver" hypothesis fits the observed facts more. If you want to posit that consciousness exists outside of matter, you wouldn't be the first, but every time we've answered that question about any other field, the answer is "matter and energy is all there is". For this to be an exception, you're gonna have to work harder to prove it.

@wallamashala9558 11 месяцев назад

The self is consciousness. You are not your body, your thoughts, feelings or your experiences. Take any of those away and there will still be a you. A different you, but still you.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL День назад

"The self is consciousness", more accurately, The self is conscious.

@jonteeter7808 11 месяцев назад

Anyone else giggle when he said we still have big, gaping, personal holes to fill in science? Chris's facial expression didn't change at all. This is why Chris is a professional podcast guy.

@albertlevins9191 11 месяцев назад

Absolute legend. Listen to every word. There is a joke hiding amongst all this smart stuff.

@matthewhulmes3704 10 месяцев назад

What did you learn from this podcast?

@moonstrukk126 11 месяцев назад

Lol Love this

@moonstrukk126 11 месяцев назад

I think that the magic of the human experience defies what we call science. I prefer it that way lol

@entropica 10 месяцев назад

The philosopher was Elisabeth of the Palatinate (26 December 1618 - 11 February 1680), also known as Elisabeth of Bohemia. Palatinate (Pfalz in German) is part of Germany.

@user-oi9iz9jr8y 11 месяцев назад

Great podcast Chris. Very informative

@Nah1100 11 месяцев назад

I don’t mean to oversimplify here but is part of what he is suggesting that free will is a result of a computational irreducibility which is mechanically efficient and not noisy?

@REDPUMPERNICKEL День назад

Seems to me, anyone who suggests there's something "crazy" in Jaynes' bicameral theory has failed to understand it.

@ThomasAndersonPhD 11 месяцев назад

I'm a PhD Candidate in cog neuro. We're allowed to talk about consciousness. It isn't taboo at all. No academic I know would say consciousness is "woo". We talk about it comfortably. We don't know how it works, but we're totally okay to talk about that and how we don't know. Also, the primary function of the brain is not consciousness. There is no way to support that claim! The primary function of the brain is to plan and execute future action. That's what brains do, in humans and in non-human animals.

@samuelmuya3924 11 месяцев назад

I don't if I'm right in saying this but don't brains do that after consciousness is established. I don't know

@Travelbythought 11 месяцев назад

Leo Gura would be a good choice to interview on this or similar topics.

@thegritsch 11 месяцев назад

Leo Gura is veeeery hard to get on a podcast, but I think it would be interesting!

@sawtoothbygeorge 11 месяцев назад

Does the consciousness have mass?

@j.c.denton5193 11 месяцев назад

The neurological activity whose cessation terminates consciousness is made up of electrical signals and brownian motion. Electricity is made of electrons. Electrons have mass. The energy of the motions is equivalent to mass (E=MC^2). So, yes.

@sawtoothbygeorge 11 месяцев назад

@@j.c.denton5193 Bless you, I have a soul Afterall. Praise the Lord.

@softcolly8753 11 месяцев назад

@@j.c.denton5193 When you choose to move your arm, the consciousness comes first. The electrical activity comes after. Mind over matter.

@rememberingme983 11 месяцев назад

The scientist self-identifies through a set of ideas. A scientist who involves in radical self-observation directly sees that this set of ideas does not constitute an authentic self, and that which remains, a presence, then realises a truer self as consciousness, without doubt. As our essential nature is consciousness, it is thus impossible to explain. How is it possible for consciousness to understand consciousness, let alone explain it? Every time anyone attempts to explain, they invariably give rise to an ephemeral point of attention mistaken for a self, complete with its point of view, its biases, its distortions.

@billbadson7598 11 месяцев назад

45:00 How can you prove that your "models," which aren't tested and can't be tested in real life, are descriptive of real life? How does a macro-level entity act on the universe without being acted upon? What part of your macro-level entity "decides" how the atoms in your body are going to move?

@spellweavergeneziso 11 месяцев назад

It's hard to do scientific research on something we don't even have a proper definition for. Is there one universal definition in the first place? Maybe there are some beings of higher intelligence than us and they might not even consider us being conscious because it doesn't align with their definition of consciousness. At that point, what consciousness IS is relative to the parameters it was measured by.

@guusvandermeulen7210 11 месяцев назад

In this conversation I miss the theories / models of Joshua Bach on how the brain works. And how the notion of self is generated.

@entropica 10 месяцев назад

Joscha, actually

@guusvandermeulen7210 10 месяцев назад

@@entropica, thanks for the correction.

@beaverkingO 11 месяцев назад

To solve this mystery we first need to be able to distinct with confidence if something is conscious or not. Is your dog conscious? How about a human newborn? A 3-year old one? An adult chimp? It gets evident that perhaps consciousness is not just a simple process that we can call out but rather a grade of complexity of the interconnected neuron networks. Or their particular arrangement. As soon as we can clearly establish what arrangement is that I think this mystery will be solved.

@mikemo4252 11 месяцев назад

This was one of the more fascinating and probing conversations, but it seems like Chris was not 100% on board or was out of gas with it.....OR, my interpretation is 180deg off, and he was SO into it that he let Erik just run with it......damned if you do (engage more) damned if you don't 🤷‍♂️😂

@dinosemr8141 11 месяцев назад

❤️💖❤️🙏💖❤️💖

@atorres11720 11 месяцев назад

We may be too woked up

@daveulmer 11 месяцев назад

Consciouosness is our software operating system. Software is both invisable and immaterial and therefore mysterious. Our software is organized into knowledge, and understanding and each of these have different types. Knowledge can exist without burning any excess calories whereas understanding always burn calories to operate.

@activatekruger446 11 месяцев назад

Thinking humanity can create anything even remotely close to consciousness via AI is the epitome of arrogance. How can we create that which we don't fully understand??

@daveulmer 11 месяцев назад

@@activatekruger446 Forget about AI, its a dead end street. Now if you were to understand Intelligent Systems you would see yourself creating and using them every day.

@domwren 11 месяцев назад

Consciousness is not a bunch of assembler instructions being pushed in and out of general registers. This software OS analogy is naive nonsense.

@softcolly8753 11 месяцев назад

Matter is a result of consciousness not the other way about.

@daveulmer 11 месяцев назад

@@domwren Have you ever actually seen the software inside your computer?

@Andrea-zm1nl 10 месяцев назад

Fundamentally, conciousiness seems to come about as a result of being able to percieve the passage of time and the ability to remember the past and imagine the future. These things all happen in different parts of the brain, so the logical conclusion is that conciousiness doesn't reside in one place in the brain, but instead is a side effect of different parts working correctly to provide the person with an interpretation of the world around them that will allow for the maximum chance of survival. Not mystical I admit, but it a good working theory. We know that sleep and anesthesia interrupt conciousiness. These things also interrupt a person's ability to feel and log the passage of time as it is passing. I think the bigger question is what will happen to the ultra religious communities when neuroscience actually does pin it down. If neuroscience ever does disprove the existence of a soul that will change the world.

@tshenolomosepele3121 9 месяцев назад

What an insightful comment, but I have a question if we haven't been able to prove a soul exists then how would consciousness disprove it because anyone believing they have a soul have not really had information proving thats its there, so dont you think that consciousness cannot disprove spirituality because spirituality isn't a physical structure?

@Andrea-zm1nl 9 месяцев назад

@@tshenolomosepele3121 none of the scientific knowledge gained since Aristotle and Plato convinces an ultra religious person of anything. We have proved that there is absolutely no physical evidence that Jesus or his Parents ever lived, and we've proven that man and the heavens did not come about the way that Genesis says it did, we've proven that the entire earth was never ever under water all at the same time...and yet religious people continue to believe these things. I see no reason that the soul should be any different. People will choose to be obtuse thereby ignoring science and proving their stupidity. And that's ok as long as they are only hurting themselves with said stupidity. Where I draw the line is the indoctrination of children...that is so incredibly wrong I lack words for it.

@Andrea-zm1nl 9 месяцев назад

@@tshenolomosepele3121 and it's not really that it would disprove a soul. It's just that it seems that the phenomenon we know as consciousness seems to reside in multiple parts of the brain and what is a soul if it's not conciousiness? Also in 1907 a doctor tried to weigh the human soul based upon the premise that a soul must be pure energy of some kind and all energy has mass. He thought he had success with a 21gram discrepancy. We have since realized that dehydration is what caused the weight loss. After death a person's cells lose the ability to retain moisture.

@milesgrooms7343 11 месяцев назад

His research seems to only illuminate the Buddhist idea of “non-self” or “emptiness”. If there is causal irreducibility, then there certainly isn’t a self to take responsibility or account for any decision or action made. As soon as you claim a self within this process of irreducibility, and not only that, but a self that has free will to choose, you have just created a reducible, deterministic factor!! That by the way, he in no way can show exists!! I would imagine this could be applied to the universe itself? There is not any single factor unto its self, that can be “the ultimate cause” or exist without the dependence of other aspects/constituents that make up the universe/reality itself!?!

@MA-gu2up 11 месяцев назад

Your comment about universe Well, wouldn't that lead to infinite regress fallacy?

@milesgrooms7343 11 месяцев назад

@@MA-gu2up I would like preface this comment with full disclosure that I am an atheist, I do not believe for one second that free will exist, hell his research and explanation at this end of this video points towards there being no free will! I was thinking out loud and curious what others think, though. I felt like what he was describing scientifically was quite applicable to eastern philosophical ideas (Buddhism in particular). As far the “infinite regress fallacy”, the fact we may be apart of an infinite universe/reality or an infinite array of parallel/many worlds type universes and reality is a pretty difficult pill to swallow at this point. And we shouldn’t swallow it until the science and research is there, but I didn’t think it was disputed within physics that all aspects (from the micro to macro) are deeply interconnected and dependent.

@MA-gu2up 11 месяцев назад

@@milesgrooms7343 I didn't comment on free will, but since you mentioned it to me, I will say, it is bad when you enter the research with the assumption of materialism and the assumption that the brain is the generator of consciousness and not a relay center in the pathway . For infinite regress fallacy, in this context, it is about the sequence of things that are dependent with no independent existence. This is a big problem, for example, say, a policeman was to shoot a criminal, but he needs an order from another officer superior to him, and this superior officer also needs an order from a superior officer and so on to no end, will this criminal ever get shot by the policeman? No But if the criminal got shot, that means the policeman received the order, which necessitate an end to the sequence of officers, which means there is a first officer in the sequence. In this same way, you can't have only dependent things in existence, you need an independent existence that all other existence depends on.

@milesgrooms7343 11 месяцев назад

@@MA-gu2up I didn’t say anything about being a materialist? You assumed this based on what? Because I stated I am an atheist? I did not state consciousness emanates from the brain. I have “researched” this topic for years, and I am working with the research this person has offered. Your assumptions have me incredibly confused. You evidently didn’t watch the video because I’m working from what the gentlemen stated and his research. I am completely open to the idea that the universe is composed of nothing but consciousness or mind (idealism). But it still doesn’t account for free will, quite the contrary. Your analogy using the police officers I don’t think is applicable but i get it, I think. Your analogy would insinuate determinism, by the way, which would certainly not offer us free will. We don’t know how our universe/reality came into existence or emanates. Your argument reminds me of arguments Christian apologists use in debates to claim the “ultimate cause” is God, or some type of intelligent designer, which we do not have an actual scientific consensus for how our universe came into existence.

@MA-gu2up 11 месяцев назад

@@milesgrooms7343 If you don't assume materialism, that means you acknowledge the possibility of a soul or something like that, which means you can't deny free will based on the empirical research on the brain, because souls cannot be detected under microscope. You don't need to know how the universe came into existence to know that there is independent existence Do you need to know how the policeman shot the criminal to conclude that there is a first officer? No, you just need to know that the policeman shot the criminal, how he shot the criminal is another matter.

@ThomasJDavis 11 месяцев назад

I think he's thinking about consciousness backwards. Just because we have ways of describing things doesn't mean those ways of describing things are necessarily an accurate reflection of reality. Perception of the world comes first, then comes the language that allows us to communicate that perception of the world to other subjective rational beings. We don't have an inherent knowledge of how the world works, we have perception. Even if it was western civilization that first created a way to talk about "internal states of mind", there's nothing requiring the talk of "mind" or "consciousness" to be an accurate understanding of what's going on. I'm a proponent of "emergentism" which I know Daniel Dennett has spoken a lot about as well as Sean Carroll. For the time being, it seems to be the most reasonable reducible explanation for the phenomenon we call "consciousness".

@garydaly 11 месяцев назад

I love being a biological meatBot.

@wilee.coyote5298 11 месяцев назад

Consciousness is the instantaneous quantum feedback output, of a complex neural network observer, residing in the electromagnetic spectrum.

@chrisjeanneret5091 11 месяцев назад

Why no more peace at the end of your videos? Texas getting to you lol?

@scproinc 11 месяцев назад

AI is not about statistics. It is about inferred correlations, which is what the brain also does.

@allbionics 11 месяцев назад

If you want an answer, chat with me :)

@thegritsch 11 месяцев назад

The fact that I can move my consciousness around in various layers of sensory processing in the brain (even prior to object recognition), seems to suggest that the brain and consciousness are only marginally related

@softcolly8753 11 месяцев назад

Drugs do suggest that they are related, but the materialist model is not the way to understand something that you can't observe or measure only experience. Buddhists are centuries ahead of western science when it comes to studying consciousness.

@RodneysPublishing 9 месяцев назад

I don't think Psychiatrist can Do just with out the study of continuousnes coming from a mentally ill patient

@ge9367 11 месяцев назад

Algorithm

@EL_394 11 месяцев назад

the environment is as a modem.. upon intelligently tuning the environment we can shape the collective dream better known as culture.. western individualism is the enemy of this

@EL_394 11 месяцев назад

individualism is rooted in homosexuality

@GulagMoosefeller 6 месяцев назад

The most ridiculous paradigm in history: Big Bang Theory.

@nemurerumaboroshi 11 месяцев назад

I have good idea what consciousness is, and roughly how it works. But who cares what people write in comments. And surely neuroscientists will never figure this out. It's like asking electrical engineer to figure out how RU-vid works, given that what he knows ends at understanding a single transistor.

@mhuntprofessional 11 месяцев назад

"The average Twitter user seems better able to describe emotions than the poets of old" Lol, okay bye. 👍 you lost me

@christopherhall7216 11 месяцев назад

For some reason he puts the burden of proof on the absence of freewill side, instead of where it should be on the positive. From my perspective the only way you could believe in a truly free will, is to believe that there is a sort of miniature first cause in every human being, detached from the rest of reality and able to move it around as it wants. That is fundamentally a religious assertion, not a scientific conclusion.

@christopherhall7216 11 месяцев назад

@@treesurgeon2441one divorced from causality, and the rest of reality

@TonyStark-rw7en 11 месяцев назад

With the exception of computaional irreducibility, seems like this guy talked about a whole lot of nothing.

@wilee.coyote5298 11 месяцев назад

Yes, word salad academic.

@SkyGodKing 11 месяцев назад

Almost everything he said was wrong, none of it lines up with what real experts in the field think or say.

@werner_s 10 месяцев назад

The task of the brain is to minimize the cost of reproduction. the ridiculous high number of pollen to hit an egg by dumb luck. You can understand the complete brain without understanding consciousness. But understanding the brain helps to understand consciousness. If someone will find the neural cause (not correlation) of conscciousness, they will tell him, he cant do it. His academic grade and merits are absolutely insufficient. Sorry I am too lazy to go into details, as I see no financial advantage. So good luck. You will need it.

@deanmccrorie3461 11 месяцев назад

Try solving this paradox: Take your right hand. Now grab something Good Grab something else Good Now imagine it can be any infinite size or withstand any insane temperature. Good Keeping that in mind. Is there anything this omnipotent hand cannot grab? Despite its infinite power? Yes. Itself No matter how big it got. How strong it became. A hand can never grab itself Now. About this so called brain. You claim to know things. You claim to potentially know anything at all. What makes you think, you can know yourself? Why, like the hand that cannot grab itself, feel that the knower can know himself?