Neuroscientific Evidence: Irreducible Mind (Part 1) 

What part got cut out?

@Tim Goodwin the part about how psychedelic drugs reduce brain activity but increase richness of experience.

This question is off-topic. There are so many people with different views in general (God, soul, science, etc) but a lot of people are convinced they know that what they claim to be true, is objectively true, even though this is also evident in people with opposing views on a certain topic, they are truly convinced their "investigation" is unbiased and objective just as the other person with the opposing view. DO you think this is an epistemological problem or more of a cultural, sociological, or maybe a psychological problem?

I've never actually heard you say it so I'd like to ask you directly. Are you a Christian? If not what are you? I ask because I've seen similar channels that say there's good evidence for God but then deny Christianity.

Many thanks.

What was he wrong about?

@@karozans Here's what he said - This is a new version, because I decided to cut out a section after a supporter raised some good objections. If you want to see want convinced me and Kyle Alander to stop using this one specific argument, see here: @

@@anahata3478 they might lend one to dismiss materialism, but it seems to me that psychedelics are the strongest experiential argument that the mind is emergent. I've always believed strongly in the primacy of the mind over the brain, but psychedelics are the only thing that's ever make me seriously question that belief. No matter how much you might want to quit tripping, no amount of focus and mental control will change that. Just like no amount of mental effort will make you trip without consuming any necessary substance

@ nathan nicholson before i experienced a psychedelic experience due to an intuitive ritual, id be right there with your completely sound rational theory. However, it is wrong. You can have a psychedelic experience with no substance. Youre being a little too black and white in all of this.

@@AcidAdventurer That was until mushrooms showed massive de-activation in the brain, which was contrary to all scientific expectations. The question being: How do you get such rich and intensive subjective experience in a brain that has been chemically down-regulated when everyone thought/knew that that could only happen with increased brain activity?

Carol Buckles HAHAHAHAHA

😂

This, this is great

spot on. However, this video can not blow your mind repeatedly very often, which fact shows that your brain was affected indeed.

@@AndrasDNagy-bs5dc That's because you're presupposing that it is the brain that causes your mind to not be blown anymore.

Unfortunately it isn't, and he hasn't done any research. Research identifies gaps in the current state of knowledge and produces empirical data or theories to fill those gaps. To do this, though, one needs to correctly understand and represent what prior research says. He is taking papers which effectively say that there is a feedback loop in the brain between decision-making, behaviour and neural correlates, and he is claiming that proves that the mind is independent of the brain. It doesn't. It proves exactly what the papers say they show, which is that there is a feedback loop between decision-making, behaviour and neural correlates. Nothing more, nothing less. Waving your hand at scientific research and interpreting it however you like is not science, and is not research, not is it academic rigour.

@@naishjam based on what you are saying, he is drawing conclusions from papers beyond what the data producing researchers explicitly state. This is completely valid. Watson and Crick deduced the double helix shape of DNA from data other researchers produced. They didn't wait for the data producers to catch up before coming to the right conclusions.

@@austin3789 That's not what I said at all. I'll restate my point more clearly. He is misrepresenting what the papers he's read is valid and drawing conclusions from things they don't say. It is valid to draw conclusions from the work of other researchers. It isn't valid to misinterpret what other papers have said and then draw conclusions from your misrepresentation.

James Naish For research essays, you’re allowed to draw inferences from research findings and data to form your conclusions. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what most researchers do for lit review (at least in Psychology). He is simply phrasing the researching findings in a way that supports the premises of his video. It’s not misrepresenting at all.

@@subterraneanhomesickalien1344 I think this says it all: "phrasing the researching findings in a way that supports the premises of his video". If you can't see what's wrong with that statement, then therein lies the issue.

@Kenton Bowers woop woop

It's a shame there aren't more like him the world would be a better place.

@French Frys evidence? edit: I had the wrong impression of this creator, and French Frys here was kind enough to correct that impression. I highly encourage everyone here to follow the link they have provided directly beneath this comment.

@French Frys oh wow, hey thanks mate. I knew you knew what you were talking about the second Rationality Rules popped up. had no idea this guy was even religious, let alone all that other nonsense. thanks again for the warning!

@French Frys also sorry if I've disappointed you, you seemed very prepared to argue your position if I were you I'd be a tad bummed out rn lol

Awle

Exactly

What about people who receive brain damage and go mad?

@@pureone8350 you ever tried playing with a really bad connection?

This is almost 100% correct. The only thing you missed is that the mind is it’s own consciousness that we can influence. The mind is in control of the brain. The mind will do everything in its power to keep you from knowing this. Life does not happen to you. Your just an observer, enjoy the ride.

@@pureone8350Late reply, but real physical things are subject to laws of entropy, metaphysical things like the soul are beyond the limits of physics, so to speak. So, in a sense, if a Person has a genetic defect, or a damaged brain, or some physical or mental disability, the soul is still pure and fine, but the soul's experience in the Universe will be through a body that is disabled either physically or mentally. Now, why would a soul choose to go through such experience? I don't know. Maybe it's Karma like the Hindus say, or maybe it's the free will of the soul, or maybe it's some divine plan of the lord. Who knows. We don't have an answer. But, as Human Beings in this World, we can definitely try to help those who suffer with any form of physical or mental disability, it's not like every living person is disabled.

bro IP should see this!

being open minded? Nah! Seeing different perspectives? Of course not! Typing a up a little phrase to make you seem smart? *YAS QUEEN!*

Early simpsons reference? Or life in hell? Either way, good one.

@@miguelEguzman It was early Simpsons reference pre-1989.

@@KTChamberlain ah. Thanks. It was both, but I was wondering which you were referencing. Same guy wrote both. Only the characters changed.

In his video 5 about afterlife and NDE, he mentions the case of Vicky who was blind from birth and saw in the NDE

@@steveplay0940 Nde's are stupid LOL but i agree that our consciousness is immaterial and we have a mind

​@@_malinx_Maybe, maybe not Some are certainly bs, and are completely incoherent But some seem to be coherent

The batman sounds better

​@@multienergy3684 true 👍

@@saammahakala You seem to think that 'conscious' is a something, that 'Soul' is a something and that 'form' is a something. It seems to me quite obvious that all three of these are pure abstractions or conceptions. I say pure because there is no actual materially existing objects to which the words refer or can refer. To assert that suffering is an illusion means you don't know what illusion means or what suffering means or what it means for a being to be conscious or some combination of all three. It seems to me your whole comment is meaningless gibberish.

@@saammahakala It seems to me that if too many can't distinguish between the contents of the world around them and the contents of their own imaginations or the imaginary constructs implanted in them by others, then there's a good chance no good will come from it. And it's the good that I want, not just for me, but for everyone. Sure these imaginary notions may have served humanity well in a time when nobody knew anything about the whys and wherefores of the world around them. That time is past. Time to wake up now! Time to become educated by the facts so assiduously discovered. Time to stop murdering people by flying planes into buildings just because some believe that is what their imaginary god commands. Seventy two virgins in paradise is an unlikely reward for murder. You might even call it crazy to expect it. Are the contents or your imagination so very different?

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL You’re trying to debunk the immaterial with material, this will only lead you to a hamster wheel. Time to wake up and connect with your spirit and escape the fake illusion of materialism

@@justaguywithaturban6773 How on earth did you get the notion that I am of the materialist persuasion?

Yes :)

what he made mistake in?

@@UltraInstinct509 IP wrote in a pinned comment that he retracted this video because he realized that one of the points he brought up in it was wrong, so he edited that part out and reposted it.

@French Frys considering none of those are true probably not

@French Frys the bible isn't immoral, God isn't a "thug"

French Frys your bloody Evilbible.com info

Thank you

With more logical fallacies😅

@@ramilurazmanov I guess you dismiss the entire video as being a god of the gaps argument, but may I ask what other fallacies did you detect?

@@ramilurazmanov exactly :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D He is good at making videos, but bad at logic.

@Corvus Morve There are lots of atheist youtubers who constantly throw straw man arguments and ad hominems.

But the electricity isn't the algorithms the computer can run because it is supplied the electricity. IOW, yes, something exists that allows consciousness and, like electricity, it may well be something based on or emerging from the physical world.

God bless you, luv!

They are the ones who wrote the book.

Hi! I realize this comment is a year (or so) old, but I think the easiest distinguishing feature we have above that of the animals is that we are ruling over them. We have been given dominion over all of God's non-human creatures. In that very strong sense, we were created in the image and likeness of God. It isn't merely the will or the personality. Angels have will and personality. Doesn't make them imago Dei. In fact, they don't even rule over us humans. Interesting that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:3, "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!" Side note: I don't believe in evolution. I hold that God created all the life we know simply days apart. Haha! I don't see why a materialist myth (pardon my usage of the term if you believe in evolution) should have any bearing on the immaterial reality of consciousness in animals.

the word "reduce" is annoying here. We do want to understand the unknown. We try to reduce it to simple known models which may explain more of it if compared to not modeling it at all. This however means not that the current model would really help to describe the wholeness of truth about how consciousness works in the brain. Our existing models are just not very good models, unfortunately. Which means we just don`t know how the consciousness of the mind works in the brain, but we can know that it works in the brain without understanding how it works in there.

So because we cant discern between thinking and non thinking machines the mind cant be reduced to the brain? The theorem is full of holes imo, but even if it wasnt it dosnt make sense.

@@metalbotanist6730 it's a deeper problem , matter can't be conscious , consciousness is not just complex structure of matter , the ideia "make it complex and it will think " make no sense at all .

Wait, so how do you justify your second premise? I agree that it's a nontrivial and (probably) semantic property, and _because_ I know what Rice's theorem is, I find premise 2 utterly implausible. It is definitely possible to reduce adding numbers to the operations of a machine, yet there is no algorithm to correctly determine whether a given machine is adding numbers or not. Even a question as simple as "If I ask this machine what's 1+1, will it answer 2?" is undecidable.

@@marcosgalvao3182 Really? Look at how children grow up, the more their brains become complex, the more their personality becomes. Or hell, look at dogs and humans and differences between our brains, and consciousness, and theirs.

You have a masters in neuroscience and still maintain belief in a soul?

@@anthonygreico9735 call it what you will: consciousness, soul, mind, universe, life, god etc. Your pick.

@@mathewsteven demonic possession?

@@delgande Whoa! That's a stretch buddy.

I think the soul may convert into multiple things, we do not know it, we can't study it.... yet at least... but if it's something that's not conditionated to the laws of physics or anything physical. What stops it from converting and modifying itself?

The problem is that premise 1 is not known to be true. It can not be established. So there is n contradiction to reductive materialism, and thus no fundamental inconsistency. Prove premise and you would have an argument.

What? Are u saying he is wrong or something?

@@parsivalshorse Here is the proof for Premise 1: From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “The type of reductionism that is currently of most interest in metaphysics and philosophy of mind involves the claim that all sciences are reducible to physics. This is usually taken to entail that all phenomena (including mental phenomena like consciousness) are identical to physical phenomena.” Source: www.iep.utm.edu/red-ism/ Definition of Identical: “Similar in every detail; exactly alike.” Synonymous with: “exactly the same, indistinguishable, undifferentiated.” Source: en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/identical So if mental phenomena is identical to physical phenomena then it must necessarily follow that identifying the physical (which the mental is being reduced to) _must_ identify the mental since they're just the exact same thing, that's what it means to be identical.

@@MonisticIdealism No, you got that backwards. Science is not making the claim that consciousness is reducible to physical phenomena, it just seems to be likely. Science makes no claim of knowledge on that point. Idealism claims that consciousness is NOT reducible to the physical - which is an unproveable claim, science makes no such claim. Your premise follows with; 'then identifying physical phenomena identifies what it is like to be the subject, for the subject' which is just a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow from the claim that science isn't making anyway. You continue; 'So if mental phenomena is identical to physical phenomena then it must necessarily follow that identifying the physical (which the mental is being reduced to) must identify the mental since they're just the exact same thing, that's what it means to be identical.' Which is rather different then what you stated in your premise 1. But if so - then what is your point? It seems just a tautology?

@@MonisticIdealism If you could make an argument for idealism I would really love to hear it, so please present one if you can.

This type of research was addressed in part 3 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OIJiAhRd4jI.html

He won't. Humanity already had failed. Their mind and brain is a waste of time. "Birth of consciousness in Humans" BS! We're lump of cells and just deal with it!

@@davidgumazon , Interesting how little your "lump of cells" think of you.

@@davidgumazon This sounds more like depression than a logical deduction at work.

@@TryHardCryHarder it is nihilism.

Your evolutionary presuppositions are showing

Perhaps it should be the other way around. Until there can be shown there actually exists 'extra-materialistic' reality that can interact with the material/physical brain, we should assume consciousness and self awareness....that seems to influence our physical movements, must be part of or emerge within the physical world. If the super-materialist resigns to the tautology that only the nonphysical can be conscious, then they have an utterly opaque insuperable bias. See, that works both ways. I'd happily entertain that there exists nonmaterial reality that influences the physical world when I see it described and demonstrated. IOW, I see no particular advantage to invoking the nonmaterial as an explanation for anything unless it is better explained by that assertion. Try to explain to yourself how this nonmaterial realm/world/state can be/produce consciousness...ie how it works, what it does, how it interacts, how it begins, does it end, define its properties at least as well as you want the physicalist to explain to you how the physical/material produces consciousness.

I haven't watched that part yet. I guess the next sentences I write will mean I have to. I'll get back to this comment after watching. Try thinking of the brain and the mind as one and the same thing, no epiphenomenon involved and no 'emergence'. The brain is the material thing, obviously. The mind is its behavior, less obvious but completely understandable. When the brain misbehaves one can see some strange things, think LSD. When the brain stops behaving the mind ceases being. When the brain behaves a certain way we call the 'owner' conscious. When the brain behaves a different way we say the 'owner's' sleeping.

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I'd say this is a good argument. But it leaves out alot of things. The first to come to mind immedeatly is when someone who has experienced brain death, or close to it has long, and/or vivid experiences. Irregardless of any chemical flooding into the brain, a mind dependent on brain function would have to be in lockstep , and dilate up, or down with it. And while that's true it does this in most instances, it does not do so in every instance. And the issue is fir a materialist mind to be reality there can be no exceptions to that rule.

@@anthonypolonkay2681 "But it leaves out alot of things." If you truly understood what I wrote you could not have written that statement for what I wrote constitutes a sufficient foundation for understanding everything concerning the relationship between matter and the mental. If one's brain, operating in conscious mode, departs in certain ways from normal behaviour then this will show up as oddities in one's subjective experience, hallucinations being the most vividly illustrative, for instance. But note well, when I refer to the brain's behaviour, you must understand that I am referring to a vast collection of independent and interacting behaviors among perhaps a hundred billion separate brain components. If you take 'brain behavior' to be a single unified phenomenon then it's likely you will err in thinking something like 'self' or 'ghost' or 'soul'. I gather from what you wrote that that is how you're thinking. I think the key to understanding is to not think of 'behavior' as a 'something' just because a noun refers to it. Behavior does not exist. Behavior does not exist like matter. Think of behavior as 'being'. Thus a human 'being' has a body that 'exists'. The body is the substrate that must exist so that all the trillions of microscopic behaviors have something to be the behaviors of. It will take more writing to nail down the details of how brain behavior gives rise to subjectivity but I have to go to work now. I'll await your feedback on this comment's core idea and see if you want to explore the details. (It is absolutely necessary for you to be familiar with the basics of how neurons and synapses work before the details can make sense to you). (Oh, it might also be helpful if you think for a while about how my written sentences, my thoughts frozen on your screen, can, by your merely reading them, transfer my thoughts into your mind so that they become your thoughts also (and of course vice-versa)). Cheers, eh!

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I'd be willing to learn more always. But even the reply you wrote seems counter intuitive. You said that the subjective experience is the result of many complex parts inter working with one another. And behaviour arises from that. And thus subjective experience as well. I'd say that further complicates the issue of using that as an explanation of the human mind in the face of what we were discussing. If the subjective experiences only arise from a myriad of different parts working properly together, then any disassociation and/or dulling of those individual functions should also dull the subjective experience. Not produce something of a hyper experience. The lower yout brain states get the closer you should get to a state like that of a vegetative one. Not the reverse.

The problem as I see it with Near Death experiences is they only become a challenge once we can prove that the timing of the experience coincided with the state of being clinically dead. How do we even begin to test whether that is the case or not rather than, say, people having the experience at the moment they emerge from the state of being clinically dead? Until we've established that, we don't actually have a problem on our hands.

I think it is filled with errors and misrepresentations. They need to stop assuming decoherence can solve the measurement problem.

Means brain creates consciousness

External stimuli does affect the brain, no one is saying it doesn't Your example is how the mind is learning through the brain, but that doesnt imply that the brain generates the mind As shown before, even without any external stimuli (merely through will) one can employ neuroplasticity to reshape the brain. Which shouldn't happen if the brain was solely dependant on external stimuli This, together with the rest of the case implies that consciousness can't be created by the brain

And no, neuroscience does not provide evidence for a "soul". That's wishful thinking on the part of religious scientists, but I guess the snipe hunt will continue.

If consciousness is only the brain and ceases to exists when we die, then the idea of heaven and hell is gone

Yeah I agree. I’m a Christian and if God does exist who says he can’t make our consciousness exist in the physical while here on Earth and exist in an immaterial fashion when we die. However, if we were to prove consciousness exists in an immaterial fashion that would completely eradicate the atheistic position. God bless

dragan176 ^

@@dragan176 you are exactly right. I don't think Christianity is about heaven or hell but about bodily immortality or death. That is why Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead to give the Christians hope

@Corvus Morve I don't think it should concern me because the bodily Resurrection, which has enough evidence, is evidence for the existence of God. I don't think that we have to prove God in any form other than the resurrection of Jesus, but we can if we like to.

In my opinion your second point doesnt hold water. If the mind is an emergent construct of brain activity in reaction to the stimuli of our lives, then it can have no ability to rewrite it's own function. In a materialist view. The mind is the effect, not the cause. As far as your first point goes. While some of it is an argument from ignorance. Some of it,such as the inability to divide attention in split brain patients is solid evidence that the brain is not causal to the mind. That isnt an argument from ignorance. That is a solid instance in which materialism cannot be true. At least as far in saying that the only thing that exists are materials. You can have ot coexist with a second reality of some kind. But the entire point of materialism is to reject the idea that anything outside of the material world exists at all.

@@anahata3478 It isn't ad hoc at all, and in fact, merely by making that claim at all, IP is implicitly begging the question. To assert that "the mind can affect the brain" and then use that as a piece of evidence that the mind can't be caused by the brain is to implicitly be assuming the conclusion that the mind and the brain are separate. It's the equivalent of saying that because the software of a computer can be utilized to make changes to the hardware (eg. changing the processing speed, etc.), therefore software isn't caused by hardware. That simply does not follow.

Checkout Diehold Foundation here on youtube. You will love it.

Watches until 4:30 - oh doubting human knowledge, correlation is not causation, nothing suspicious here - watches rest of arguments for opposite side, that not even once had mentioned that correlation isn't causation, but are added with "Scientific evidence supports this conclusions" at 18:40. It reminds me of an old joke about sport competition with competitors only from two hostile nations. After competition each country had separate radio broadcasts, First country had message along the lines " We won, while they literally had last place", while second country said "We got silver during competition, while they got second to last place". As in, by totally omitting unwanted information, and saying only convincing and useful parts of truth.... A pity though, cause i found many things quite new. Personally though, I find two standpoint theories as incomplete and untrustworthy as the other, be it matter or mystical mind. I mean, localized and one unified mind according to our experiences , but no "physical area" left for signals to converge? A nice argument, but split brain experiment counterargument is either not found by video maker or not said aloud [don't know if at time of making this video he knew about it], in which the "fact" that one brain is one mind itself is disputed, and your brain could be very well multiple smaller consciousness melded into one. Thinking and concetrating affected real life activity of brain? I mean computers are capable of physicals changes of flipping bits while calculating, it wouldn't be mind boggling human brains could force part of itself to be less active. That being said, relating to Christian part, honestly speaking, in the bible itself (cause human interpretation can be shaky and unreliable), is there any direct mention that contradicts that brain can't be related to soul, i mean there is one mention that soul wouldn't die with body. But soul could act like a passive book recording your life that doesn't affect you on purpose while in material life,leaves most of thinking to brain, fused with you until death when it is set free. Well if it is the case mental clarity in brain is not guaranteed, what was free will during your life and what shallower electric response, judging what is sin or not would get hard, but given omniscient nature of god in christian belief it is not a problem.It would give "believe, not see" quite a deeper level of trust needed. But given that , It would mean that in this case since beginning of universe itself, the laws of physics were created in such a way, that it could host brains whose actions would be so identical to behavior of souls itself, that people sooner or later would discover them and would be unable to discern whenever souls exists, cause brains could scientifically solve thinking issue without mentioning soul, leaving you no choice than to test your faith... But hey, welcome to human life, full of delicious existential crises left and right whatever you are atheist or not. And to be honest science is a really, really, really good mathematical model for reality based on sensory inputs of our bodies, but still a model. There are lots of very big gaping holes that are hand waved and said to be explained later by some smarter scientist. Quantum theory and Einstain theory of relativity are at odds with each other, calculations prove our models are so stupidly wrong, dark matter is added to make sense and all that is known is that it is something that "exists". We can make reasonable guesses, but any scientifist will know that what we are doiing is nothing more than swinging math formula at observation , saying it's good enough for prove, while at the same time each and every scientific community will say to its member to try to find proofs that will negate basic knowledge and prove known theories wrong. Even newton gravity believed to be true for centuries gets replaced... Why talking about it? Cause blindly following science while believing it is 100% certain absolute truth is as stupid looking to me, science itself is about modeling reality in a way that should constantly doubt its own axioms and theories in order to try building even better models, but general population treats science as new religion without asking any questions. Especially when electric signals involve quantum level particles, and any physics fan will know that... things down there at that scale don't really want to make any sense to humans, even if dark matter is consisting of mini fairies that are capable of playing with particles like they are balls, as ridiculous as it sounds, if they don't interact with electromagnetic fields or know fundamental forces of universe detecting prove of their existence or absence would be impossible with our technology. In fact, even this brain discussion itself is such a thing, people discussing whatever it is matter or mind, while both sides of said debate are just clueless overgrown children trying to sound smart despite in no way being able to ever know the truth, just to feel good, myself included. As sad as it sounds, i am also such a clown...

@Fael Lonie I can't really follow what you mean here, but I don't see how you can claim "there is no data" for any position. Feel free to clarify

scholar.google.se/scholar?q=neural+activity+preceding+action&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart Here i present a collection of articles discussing the matter. As for the notion of neural activity following physical action, I don't find that at all strange either, after all we do have a sense of proprioception

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00227095 This one in particular shows evidence of neural activity preceeding voluntary movement and an explanation as to proir failures to do so.

You are energy

*Correcting: You are not just the body,you are not the brain,u r spirit in a body with mind over the brain.

Spirit

Then what is "I"? Ultimately "I" refers to oneself And oneself is not the thoughts, but the one having the thoughts In other words one is the mind, the conscious experiencer The conscious unit is what one is And that conscious unit has thoughts The thoughts are not the mind, the thoughts originate from the mind

Hey

Need to know, people, What you really are, first. That's logical Laymans Gnosis-discover a second intelligence www.truebluehealer.com 20 mins BEGINNERS TOUR Vivid messaging night dreams within 7 days Immediate physical evidence that something has changed Messaging day dreams (visions?) physically verified Signalling music to slowly morph into an internal mentoring voice just like Socrates and Plato described Expect keywords names and even websites to be typed into your mindseye with info vital to YOUR personal life. Holy book readers will find their misunderstandings corrected by the internal mentoring voice Go to www.truebluehealer.com Do the 20 mins BEGINNERS TOUR All questions answered And its FREEEE See you back at the website www.truebluehealer.com Feedback It’s amazing how a 20 minute tour can cause the individual to experience a waterfall of knowledge.

We are energy

Men, we are animals. Bags of chemicals are our cells. Dont be so dramatic

@@rodrigorafael.9645 If we are nothing but chemicals our lives have no inherrent value.

@@novusrex9809 Money has no inehrent value and people literally die for it. Man, no one like to be killed.

One thing is external stimuli and another is internal stimuli It isn't the talk of the therapist that is reshaping the brain, that was tested before. And it didn't produce the same results You can't just throw all of this data by saying that since the brain is involved then it implies that the brain is what is changing itself

Stop being lazy and look them up yourself.

I have difficulty following the conclusions of this current video that the mind precedes matter, and would argue that from a surface level reading, we could also reasonably explain the conclusions with the statement that we can maintain a mind-body monistic approach and simply say the results suggest the brain is capable of modulating and modifying itself through plasticity changes and rewiring.

True. But one is purely accidental. Not of the brains own doing. Having traumatic brain damage isn't something the brain did intentionally. However the instances of the mind rewriting the brain are 100% caused by the mind.

The only problem with that is that it posits that there is some external stimuli there, that the brain is reshaping itself. Ultimately the change in the brain was internal and influenced by the intention of the individual Which shouldn't happen if the brain was generating the mind In your example it is the thermostater that reacts to cold But not cold that reacts to the thermostater Also the problem with that is that it still doesn't explain how the constant self still exists even when there are brain changes, we change completely from the brain cells that we were born with, yet "we" are still here The feedback loop can't answer from that And because of the previous reasons, it is incompatible with what is presented Because that would imply that the summe of mere material parts somehow creates this subject, which is exactly what the video is arguing Against. These parts even if able to influence, shouldn't be able to be influenced by the individual being created by them, if the individual is the product The sole reason the brain changes is because of the individual, even if the parts may activate more or less it ultimately is the very conscious being that shapes it, as shown in the data And as the video says This shouldn't happen if the individual were created by this brain,or in your case, by this sum of parts That is the whole issue after all, broader emergentism says that it is created by these millions of neurons But this "part" emergentism posits the parts that ultimately create the individual as bigger things, composed of more neurons The problem is the same even if you say there are 4 or 4 billion parts

They're not saying it's it's own entity, they're just trying to argue that our sense of self is not located in the brain

Secret Weapon So... you deny that you are conscious?

Secret Weapon Smirky little incoherent retort. Stfu. You had to have consciousness to even watch and come up with your wack little comment. You’re like Sam Harris denying that selves exist yet wanting everyone to buy his book for themselves to read. 😂

@Aks nice thought desert

2021