Mind, Metaphysic and Meaning with Iain McGilchrist, Mark Solms and Hyman Schipper 

“We die to each other daily. What we know of other people is only our memory of the moments during which we knew them. And they have changed since then. To pretend that they and we are the same is a useful and convenient social convention which must sometimes be broken. We must also remember that at every meeting we are meeting a stranger.” ~ T.S. Eliot

OH my, thank you so much - you have no clue how these conversations open our minds further and further...Love you!!!! A FEELING!!! MARK - IAIN - HYMAN - IAIN is my favorite!!!!

Having spoken to Iain and Mark in conversation individually it is so exciting to see this! I can’t wait to hear this conversation between them and see how they reconcile their perspectives on consciousness

“Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.” ~ Albert Einstein

Utterly delighted to see and hear my two favorite contemporary authors in dialogue, Iain McGilchrist and Mark Solms. I’d been hoping for such a conversation for the past 5 years. Thank you!

I am a physicist and I will explain why scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated solely by the brain; this leads us to conclude that our mental experiences cannot be purely physical/biological. The brain operates in a fragmentary manner, with many separate processes happening simultaneously. I prove that such fragmentary structure implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness; therefore, something else must be involved-something indivisible and non-physical, which we often refer to as the soul. (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds. Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct. Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams) From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Clarifications The brain itself doesn't exist as a completely mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Conclusions My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness. An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties. Marco Biagini

I keep going back to the cns and its contributions to the tool kit that evolved above it, thank you Hyman, Iain, and Mark, as well as those people who, especially Ivy, have presented this to all of us, peace

Holy shit what a crossover! I’ve been waiting for mcgilchrist and solms to have a discussion forever

🙏❤️🌎🌍🌏🌿🕊🎵🎶🎵 Thank you all for this amazing discussion.

I took Dr Solms' free online course and recommend it. His philosophical views are grounded in real science and a modern understanding of how the brain works, that people like Carl Jung didn't know about. The first concept to understand is "subjectivity." This is one of the first things a newborn baby has to learn - what is me, and what is outside of me? The other key understanding is that the feeling of being yourself, of existing and having an unchanging point of view, comes from the brain stem, not the cortex. This is where AI goes wrong. They think that "consciousness" somehow arises from the processing of language in the cortex. But other animals have the same kind of subjective consciousness and it has nothing to do with language or thinking with words. Lately I've been interested in studies of brain cell organoids. At some point the inter-neuron communications have to give rise to this phenomenon.

Just what I need at the moment! Thanks ❤

Thanks all, great. Mark from around 40 mins on, the two different perspectives

Ivy great to see u doing so well with this work… was with u starting out on clubhouse. Very inspiring. !

"Dialogue is a way of observing, collectively, how hidden values and intentions can control our behavior, and how unnoticed cultural differences can clash without our realizing what is occurring. It can therefore be seen as an arena in which collective learning takes place and out of which a sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise." ~ David Bohm

So therefore heavy judgment is here!!

4:54 It seems one (the left) is selecting and the other (the right) is integrating, of what the memory of the world was. Embodying.

32:42 Job 19:26 “And After my skin has been destroyed, this I know that in my flesh I shall see God”

Understanding that how your mind and consciousness understand language in reality and what are other meaning of your language models in true present reality without distorsion of emotional memory, intellectually without any minds illution, and the other dimentions in reality and understanding both hemisphere of brain where one is your and other is the agent of outside conciousness, is true science where all science and Spiritualism is corelation, start practicing meditation to go deeper in your intelligence core self

"ITS THE MATTER OF THE MIND"

Ivy, your so beautiful! What an Event! Congratulations! Wow! Not a lot of views or whatever, but like Deleuze's "Toward a minor Literature", the Kafka book, or maybe like 'crystals' (re: video) that was first place for sure. I'm mostly into the post-structural French philosophers and Heidegger, and thankyou for the meeting arising the mention of someone I don't know (there was a few others too), of David Chalmers. I'm Australian too. So Great! You should listen to the band "Suede". Their Brilliant. Wow! Your so cool. Thankyou, from, James.

Great group. I would suggest having these 3 guests back with Donald Hoffman. New subscriber here.

Mind is also matter ..it works independently...embedded inside the matter.. like all other matter mind also has many branches connected to all feelings , knowledge and actions. .. action reaction interaction is very slow and down to earth in matter made of 5 elements... matter does not mean anything without mind they are two independent entities .. A matter can be very fully equipped with the absence of mind. Matter cannot travel as fast as mind though it is energy driven.. that itself proves mind is not solid like matter.. .mind is volatile in nature.. but very active in the matter as long as matter is strong and energetic..Mind on the other hand is not energy driven . It's independently active ... It's the best example for the C in the Quantum theory. It can even replace light in the theory...or can take a place as C1..

seems there is some fundamental difference between Iain and Mark. it's highlighted to me how science, contrary to its widely perceived role, can be quite limiting in an understanding of reality - however many wonderful avenues it goes down.

58:43 Yes. Well needing to drink is not consciousnesness, but a bodily need the motion system is reminded of. The hierarchy and percentages it is accommodated in therefore is irrelevant for explaining consciousness. Seeing the color red is not a light function, but recognizing a plane with that color. Which potentially reminds you of similar experiences like when seeing a rose or a bull fight. Blood or a red cloth. It thus creates a field of interconnected emotions. Which the color itself does not inhibbit. So, the qualia are the memmory of all those emotions. They are not a seperate physics out there. Of course without the senses they could not be experienced. So they are sensory interconnected. Transcendent for experiencing what it is like to be human.

Mark about an hour in - felt uncertainty - beutifull.

Surely it is oonly those that exsperince the pleroma that try to kindle a light in consousness, 🦍🍀👀

48:46 Experience is not consciousness perse. It creates consciousness. Experience is taking in information, while consciousness is the value evaluation of that or the pattern recognition following from that. Which is a souvereign process.

Light is dual -- syntax is dual to semantics -- languages or communication (messages). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

Oh my gosh, that one guy cannot shut up how rude

“Wholeness is a kind of attitude or approach to the whole of life. If we can have a coherent approach to reality then reality will respond coherently to us.” ~ David Bohm

Conciouness is the God particle..a body is considered dead without consciousness..

🦋☸️☯️🕉️🦋 Just increase Your knowledge About Buddhism & Taoism... You Will no need to be Scientist Or any other" tist". ☯️

~Well... isn't this interesting. Thanks!

I feel sorry for Solmes.

Oh God, hence the reason why academics struggle to get past day two of a silent meditation retreat. So pleased universities fund their insanity for all their pragmatism has been all but useless for my health conditions. What is behind the breath when you are aware that it has stopped?

The creator choses you as the mind to deliver the message the problem is that once the message is put on the public view only 1% understand it the 99% for some reason remains sceptic incapable to understand the message / if we take Mosses & Jesus, we find the same predicament twice what happened to Socrates is no different than what happened to Mosses which is the same that happened to Jesus. Jesus was ok however his duty of transmitted the message failed same with Jesus & Mosses. Even Brennus had the same problem with the Roman city in 390 BC/ how to open the minds of the 99% remains a question & no answer of how to.🤔🌎🤳

Mark Solmes is head and shoulders above everyone.

Philosophy should stay out of true Scientific endeavour. We are biological mechanisms just like any other living entity out there. Empirical neuroscience science says that. Philosophy is all about pure speculation.....