Sam Parnia - What is Consciousness? 

NDE'S are real

@@williamburts5495 yes

@@williamburts5495 Nobody says they are not real. In fact they are so real we can stimulate the temporoparietal junction of the brain in order to reproduce them.

ok, so what is it that you really understood from the doctor? Does the soul exist? Is consciousness a product of the soul? The anchor of this show seems not to accept that concept, if it can not be proved by science, law of physics or whatever he will not accept that concept. I guess he will have to wait until someone invent a scanning machine capable of recording the soul.

@@Lalakis That's actually not true. When people talk about "reproducing NDEs," what they really mean is that they can stimulate the brain in such a way as to reproduce certain aspects that people report in an NDE, but not the experience itself. The *really* deep and profound NDEs, the ones that people report taking them to an entirely different plane of reality (or however you wish to interpret it) are in a class all their own. So that we can reproduce certain aspects of the NDE isn't actually all that strange at all. If the brain's acting as a receiver for a consciousness that exists *outside* the physical brain, then toying around w/ it to reproduce certain extraordinary experiences is no more fantastical than using psychedelics.

I find it weak. A TV may be damaged but not the shows it presents, else they would appear damaged on other TV sets. A damaged brain however entails a damaged mind, which for each mind has only one outlet (if the analogy holds at all) and that is the brain it is otherwise associated with.

Indeed .. good analogy

For kids sure...For anyone knowing neuroanatomy and neurophysiology nope. And he is a cardiologist/icu doctor not a neuroscientist.

@@Lalakis yep; everyone can be part of the dialectic but not everyone who is, contributes.

We all would love that solution. Im inclined to think that essential parts of brain/counciousness work some minutes after heart stops beating. Dolphins are sentient yet I dont think they fear the end as much as we do.

"Brilliant minds"? Like old l. ron hubbard?

Consciousness is a materialistic dualism of the quantum cortex, therefore we postulate that it is an ambiguously inept emergence of self. The preceding sentence clearly defines consciousness...I GOTS NO IDEA MANNNNN🤷‍♀️😂😜🤷‍♂️. Brilliant!😎

@@wthomas7955 it's a joke, not a dick. Don't take it so hard

@@l.ronhubbard5445 You're the one who seems to be concerned with being misconstrued. Maybe you and xenu should come up with another handle if it makes you that uncomfortable.

@@wthomas7955 no u

Blackout drunk is like when you interfere with a radio so that the music can't be heard.

That might be a memory thing, but still worth discussion.

Is there any difference between ‘blackout drunk’ and dreamless sleeping except the nature of the before and after?

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL i think everyone dreams at all times, but forgets the experience upon awakening.

@@Dion_Mustard Possibly, but I doubt it because when researchers monitoring sleeping subjects awaken them and ask if they were dreaming, the subjects always say yes when certain patterns of neural behavior are present and always say no when those patterns are absent. I think we forget our dreams because evolution has designed us to avoid accumulating meaningless debris that comes into being as a side effect of the process in which all the thoughts in our memory are adjusted to accommodate the day's experience. I wouldn't be surprised if that process, which involves an immense amount of comparison and evaluation, discards most short term memory that is mundane, of little or no significance. And I suspect that if the process detects something that, for example, bears strongly on survival or seems of great significance, then the process might trigger creation of a memory that will persist until the sleeper again becomes conscious to then perceive that memory as a dream. Kekulé's discovery of the structure of benzene came from pondering his dream of a snake looking like a ring because it was eating its tail . (Google Kekulé to get the story).

I noticed that also. I thought Kuhn was trying to belittle Parnia by calling it hypothesis and beliefs rather than the solid documented instances of NDE's. Parnia was just relaying fact and Kuhn kept trying to portray it as beliefs. I thought Kuhn was borderline disrespectful to Parnia and find it disturbing!

@@jimbo33 yep but he has to play detective and put the other side ,hes a materialist also by his own words a good 96 percent of them probabley are

I love how humble and open minded the people that are exploring this area are. Most materialist reductionists are so full of pomp and arrogance it’s hard to listen to them.

@@nahbro5369 that's just your cognitive bias. Most people really want to believe that their "heart will go on" long after their body dies.

@Boris M. Emearia "larping"? Haha. Wishful thinking. That's all it is.

they arent rovolutionizing anything, they are just in youtube, the real people revolutionizing are in the labs, just check who wins Nobel Prizes and you will have an idea of the difference between scientists and celebrities giving interviews.

@@ivanleon6164 They are absolutely revolutionizing. They give answers to things like consciousness. Those lab rats only reduce the question without any answer and dismiss it. Doctors like Sam Parnia will be viewed as heroes like Galileo in the future

evan J / What?🤔😟😞🥴😏 What he said at the end represents the worst stupidities I've ever heard about consciousness./ If you really want a relatively good conversation about consciousness, see this : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CSkfHDdZZ3o.html

why so

Didn't catch that, could you elaborate further on the problem and your conclusion? Thanks

@@DaP84 he basically said that when you plug out parts of the tv you lose that function from what the tv is doing. for example if you removed the sound connection. So if someone loses the part of their brain that controls sound it’s not that their brain produced that conscious ability it’s just that mechanism Is gone.

@@dueldab2117 ah, okay an analogy! Could mean either-or

Even if, Dr. Parnia said the brain can still be a conveyor as opposed to the producer of consciousness.

I also read them and they were meh at best.

Whenever I read a 20 syllable hindu name of a "guru" I feel the urge to throw up. I wonder why is that.

@@Lalakis That's your problem. If you don't actually have an interest in metaphysics then why pretend that you do? Rhetorical question.

I agree but he isnt in belief that there is some afterlife on the other side either. The tests he did in the hospital with the images would have confirmed if people were seeing real time.

I think we will have enough time to meet every loved ones since time doesn't perform in the beyond in the same way it does in our dimension. So our parents have already met their parents before we get there and when we join them they will have already spent "time" with their parents and will then be able to spend time with us. Or the law of physics is different in beyond. Each of our souls can be surrounded by people/souls they love most. You with your parents and your children. Your parents with you and their patents and so on. I think meet our loved ones as you explained would not be an issue in beyond. Maybe when we see our loved ones we dont have the desire to spend a long time with them as we would in this world. Maybe we will just meet them enough to ease our pain and sorrow and then they move on to another stage of their soulful development

There is only one universal mind, and it is all of us. Consider your ego and everyone's else just a passing wind, a momentary reflection on the water, a dream. So, you and your parents and their parents are the same incomprensible eternal being. You'll meet them when you meet yourself

So brain is just complex biological machine.. Right?

Yes, it is the means to experience conciousness not the producer of it. A reciever that filters it through our own experiences.

their be alot in the scientific community opposing acceptance of that

@@chrisbennett6260 There are scientists for and against this idea and scientists can’t prove it or disprove it in anyway.

@@TheBookofBeasts Patricia smith churchland, a neuro scientist , is extremely negative and dismissive theoretical physicist ,brian green and even some philosophers the enduro scientist susan greenfeild however very respectful and open minded and a real breath of fresh air against the arrogance she has been doing some wonderful cutting edge research and has yielded some really interesting insights thanks for your reply

@@chrisbennett6260 I will look her up.

Absolutely correct

Yeah, might as well add a transmitter and some entity or other that is originating all the content to the equation. Makes a lot of sense. HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA! Ridiculous.

I suppose this is possible but it just seems to kick the consciousness can down the road. If the matter in our crania is just a receiver of consciousness from some outside source, what is generating the consciousness in this outside source? Or is that source just serving as an intermediate (analogous to ham radio repeater)? Is there some hypothesis for the origin of this signal or is it turtles all the way down?

@@mikel5582 Do you really suppose this guy's theory is possible? Somehow I'm not convinced of that, heh, heh.

@@wthomas7955 Well, a lot of things are possible. But that doesn't mean that I give all possibilities the same credence. Some are just more plausible, or have more compelling explanations, than others. Personally I find this proposal to be more woo woo than reason; but I suppose it _is_ possible. As a biochemist by training and trade, I don't find it overly astounding that consciousness is an emergent property of biochemical and biophysical processes. At a simple level, one might consider the motility of a bacterium towards a glucose gradient as consciousness. This can be understood from the cascade of signals initiated by glucose receptor in the cell surface.

how can you realize consciousness is the origin of everything in the first place

@@zumaxex perhaps because everything that exists is consciousness. Actually the only thing that really exists is consciousness.

@@Lucmercurius well, that is currently just a theory

I like that.

@@thedudegrowsfood284 thanks, it was my realisation after studying for a psychology degree, trying to learn more about consciousness. In addition, the problem is the scientific empirical method isn’t suitable for studying consciousness because we can’t observe it with our senses, similar to that invisible wind in the trees but even less visible. Scientists make elaborate models to measure the movement of the leaves but cannot measure the wind itself.

@@david.thomas.108 so much hubris in science

@@david.thomas.108 they can measure the wind with instruments thats easy ,in terms of empirical evidence they can observe and measure brain function but they carts see the objective experience

But does that make it reality?

@@andrebrown8969 50/50🤞

Isn't that really splitting unnecessary hairs. There is no personality without consciousness

This is by far, the best answer to the whole consciousness topic. Science is obsessed with the obligation to make everything scientifically explainable. When it comes to consciousness, NDE’s etc., they are stuck and lost since ages. Stories like yours tell so much more about life, death and all in between. Blessings

had an NDE ?

Glad you approve lol.

year late but was so disappointed about AWARE II😢

I have a great story with Asterix that went and met up with Caesar and in the way they came across Zeus and the Loch Ness master, wanna hear it ?

@@Lalakis sure give it to me. But just so you know the Bible States that Jesus seen Satan fall from heaven like lightning ,and what does Zeus have in his hand but a lightning rod. Bible also States about how Satan is the prince of the power of the air, which thunderstorms happen, and fronts collide in the air.

You 're totally right, that awareness is key to survival and higher awareness has evolutionary benefits. However it still doesn't answer the question of the video: did brains evolve to produce higher awarness or did brains evolve to better utilize the awarness, that is out there.

Yup. Humans developed this higher awareness to compensate for the fact that we have vulnerable bodies compared to other animals. It gave us an evolutionary edge to stop our species from going extinct. There's really nothing "mysterious" about it.

@@gergelyszekely9778 Thanks for the reply.. In my humble opinion, Brains evolved for DECODING information (I can expand there) from the environment in the effort to FIND food, and avoid becoming food.. Whether it's the simplest worm with only 300 neurons and very LITTLE awareness of it's environment, or higher primates like ourselves, the brain is all about situational awareness.. The current social meme of the so-called hard problem of consciousness, MAY predominantly apply to philosophers..

@@dancharles6009 A definite factor friend .

@@dancharles6009 I'll expand a LITTLE on the decoding thing anyway.. ALL information is solely carried on either particles or waves..No other way..Brains evolved to decode that existant information, nothing more .

That has zero scientific value. It is just an anecdotal non falsifiable story. Even if your story is true ( which i doubt it is ) there are millions of cases where a deceased relative did NOt appear in dreams to warn anyone about cancer.

That wouldn't work. If the brain is the receiver and not the emitter of consciousness and the memory is stored within consciousness, then if you measure the brain with an MRI what you could find is the brain receiving the memory from consciousness and thus lighting up. The whole point of the hard problem is that every consciousness and brain study ever is a correlation study, and correlation doesn't mean causation. If both the brain and consciousness are functioning you can never tell which one came first. It's the classic did the egg or the chicken come first? type of problem.

@@Pietrosavr Yes, exactly. Using objective means to find the subject will never work.

Hardly. He is challenging the premise. There's nothing wrong with that, and Parnia acknowledges that the experiences may have been formed when the brain is online. The point being, if you mix chocolate and milk but don't get chocolate milk, then maybe you didn't mix them at all, rather than say, here's one occurrence where the two were mixed but we didn't get chocolate milk.

heart stop is usually termed Clinical death, not Death death. and yes death is a process of decomposing, the further you live without a heartbeat, the less reversible the state is