The quest to understand consciousness | Antonio Damasio 

Reading his book at the moment! True legendary neuroscientist. Inspiration for a young one over here.

I am a psychology student at University and we had a whole unit based on Antonio’s theory’s. His theory’s are quite remarkable.

Wow! every second of this is packed with information.

I found this very useful and interesting - thanks for sharing. My own brain has changed a lot in the past year. I'm trying to understand why and what it means. I feel like a different person - for the better, I'm happy to say, after a lot of years with anxiety that wouldn't go away.

One of the best talks on the subject. Especially the evolution of the sense of self

The movie he is referring to: "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" (original French title: "Le Scaphandre et le Papillon") is a memoir by journalist Jean-Dominique Bauby. It describes his life before and after a massive stroke left him with locked-in syndrome. It's really a touching film.

The film he mentioned is "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly".

I go to António Damásio High School. This man is a LEGEND

Thank you very much for speaking out. Keep fighting the good fight!

This is perhaps the best materialist explanation for the subjective sense of self that I have ever encountered.

Billiant lecture, thank you Professor Damasio.

This video is slightly ahead of its time, just by a handful of years. Brilliant job, everyone involved in this research

This is a nice insight to add to our understanding of consciousness. Thank you Antonio Damasio and Ted.

Absolutely Brilliant

That was one of the best TED talks ever.

wow, that lecture was thick with information :D I don't feel like i can summarise it. that is the mark of a great communicator. clear and concise with buckets full of information. no wolfe! love it!

The 3 reasons why we are interested in the inner workings of the great unknown ( and by that I mean our minds) are 1. curiosity 2. Social and cultural understanding, and 3. providing medicine and treatment. I know I'm repeating what he said but these concepts should be said more often. Really interesting video.

A great scientist, and "Self comes to mind" is a great book!

This was fascinating - thank you TED

Very englightening about consciousness. And very inspiring

Congratulations Damasio. Great lecture 👌

Wonderful talk. Very interesting and well ariculated. Thanks Antonio Damasio!

Marvelous Dr. Dommasio! Thank you so much ❤

What a good speaker. Curiosity brought me here and appreciate all that went into this presentation.

A joy to listen to such a clear speaker! It seems he has cornered what is necessary for consciousness to arise, but not necessarily what is sufficient. What is sufficient is the minimal elements that, if present, irrevocably lead to the arising of consciousness and especially of a conscious self. The final piece is the jump from the external description in terms of the contents of the brain, and the actual subjective/internal experience of a self, not likely accessible to 'objective' science.

Very clean, strong presentation.

Great talk. He used the word "non-serendipitous". Word of the day.

Him pointing towards the brain stem as the source of consciousness really put things in perspective about how I treat animals, whether or not he's correct.

Finally, an honest look at consciousness, no deceit or agenda.

Fascinating!

That was fantastic!

Wow, this was amazing..

Excellent, thank you!

Loved it

Coolest TED video in quite some time. Understanding consciousness (particularly the most intriguing of questions: what does it fully mean to say "I am"?) seems so close right now... can't wait to see what's next ^.^

Love it! More like this please:)

talks about brains are my favorite :)

I just listened to a YT talk given by Susan Greenfield at the Australian National University where she discussed 3 elements to our brain and consciousness. 1. The physical brain - "the stuff that can get under your fingernails." 2. The mind - that which contains our sense of identity that we don't lose overnight with loss of consciousness. 3. Consciousness -that which appears separate from our sense of identity and allows us to navigate our environment when awake and gives us a sense of agency and autonomy (whether that is actual or illusion may be another matter). I think these three components make a lot of sense and is a more sophisticated analysis than what I've seen here. When we observe someone who has amnesia, we can see someone who is conscious but, through some trauma such as a concussion, has lost the identity or sense of self. They don't know who they are. This is likely very unsettling but it demonstrates that identity and consciousness are quite different components generated by the brain. So it seems.

I agree to a certain extent; he gave us a very categorical explanation of a concept that is much more fundamental in nature and requires a much more fundamentally based elucidation if we are to understand the true neurologically causal mechanisms through which our conscious selves are manifested. However his talk is "great" because it affords, for a lot of people, not only intellectual stimulation, but incentive for curious exploration as well.

Why is this "depressing"??? It's AMAZING!!!

Excellent. Very happy to see research as deep as this being done about our brains. It's certainly makes consciousness a more physical and approachable concept rather than an abstract and dismissive one.

I though it was an awesome talk, worth pondering for sure- 4:40 1) a mind, which is a flow of mental images 2) a self a conscious mind is a mind with a self in it a self introduces a subjective perspective in the mind we are only fully conscious when self comes to mind 4:55 We need to know: 1) how minds are put together, and 2) how selves are constructed 9:35 What about the self? "We generate brain maps of the body's interior and use them as the reference for all the other maps." the self needs the body as its reference point our internal milieu - management of bodily systems need to keep it within narrow range of 'sameness' 13:45 schematic of connections between brain's components 14:00 "you generate the map of the body that provides the grounding for the self and that comes in the form of feelings, primordial feelings by the way" 16:05 three levels of self: proto self core self autobiographical self The autobiographical self is the lived past and the anticipated future 16:45 The autobiographical self has prompted: extended memory reasoning imagination creativity language 16:55 Out of that we get - The instruments of culture: religions justice trade the arts science technology 17:15 "And here is the novelty - something that is not entirely set by our biology it is developed in the cultures, it is developed in collectives of human beings. This is of course the culture where we have developed something that I like to call socio-cultural regulation" Finally, Why care? curiosity understanding of society and culture medicine

Another man to bow to.

good talk i watched the whole in 1min

I am a physicist and I will explain the reason why our scientific knowledge disproves the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (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). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or classifications of underlying processes and arbitrary abstractions of the actual microscopic physical processes, which are described DIRECTLY by the laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). 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. This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The claim that emergent properties exist independently of a conscious mind is therefore simply nonsensical because it is equivalent to the claim that an approximation exists as an actual entity. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that every set of elements is inherently an arbitrary abstract idea which implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is not a physical entity but just an abstract idea and so are all its properties. Any property attributed to the set as a whole is inherently an abstract idea that refers to a property of another abstract idea (the set) and not to a physical entity. So any emergent property is by its very nature an arbitrary abstraction that refers to another arbitrary abstraction (the set). Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any property of a set as a whole, and therefore consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. 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 is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. 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. Marco Biagini

This is awesome! =)

@MrPlatonist i assumed this was the case yesterday, and went all out to see if i was right. and i was. thank you. you've proven to me why this stuff happens and how it happens. i

Very interesting.

What can I say, I think the notes are worth sharing. Happy learning.

Omg he is one of the most interesting

와우~! 안토니오 다마지오, 저는 순간 2배속으로 보고 있나 착각했습니다. 놀랍습니다. 뇌신경연구를 하셔서 그럴까요? 자신의 뇌를 너무나 싱싱하게 잘 가꾸시는 것 같습니다. 이 사실만으로도 당신을 신뢰합니다. 존경스럽습니다~!!

Very interesting topic

"Don't want to frighten you"... when for ever reason, that is precisely what he is doing

@Studi037 6:15 It was highly related to what he was trying to explain. When covering a nerdy subject it's important to give concrete examples to every now and then to keep the audience alert.

Fantástico.

There are cases when patients who came out from coma said that they were conscious about what is happening, they were hearing the voices, but they are not able to communicate or express themselves through their sensory organs.

He is awesome)))))))))))

Great books :)

Top !

Damasio is brilliant. I would like to see a really good communicator attempt to clarify and express his ideas. Carl Zimmer comes to mind.

@coreyladas THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!

I thought this was going to be philosophical hand-waving but it turned out to be a pretty good talk :)

Antonio Damasio is one of the greatest neuroscientists in History, he showed us that emotions are not separated from reason!

What's more interesting is not consciousness of self, that "something" experiencing body and world information, but that "something" which has the potential for experiencing that information as images, sounds, other thoughts. And it seems to me that in deep dreamless sleep and anesthesia alike it is the flow of information that ceases from the brain, not the existence of that "something." I used to define that as the mind, but he does not emphasize it and defines mind as something else.

true genius.

The real question is does the brain stem really produce consciousness or is it just a door that either allows consciousness to enter the brain or keep it out. I believe it is just a door and consciousness exists everywhere. We can be receptive to as much of it, as much we train our minds and body to be.

you must experience it for yourself !

@AnduinX Simple awareness during resuscitation test: On a high shelf in the intensive care ward put an unusual, attention grabbing object such as a pair of red slippers. Ask people if they saw anything unusual while floating on the ceiling.

Exactly

Consciousness is responsiveness, and in its most fundamental nature responsiveness is an intrinsic property of matter. We're stunned by our own consciousness not because it is miraculous or supernatural, but because there are billions of years of conditioning that we try to understand in a few lifetimes of study and observation. Our unique human experience is an emergent phenomenon from the development of highly complex inner and interpersonal communication made possible by the likely accidental discovery of cooked foods.

Antonio Damasio: The quest to understand consciousness.......... I love TED.com..... just sayin.... Thank you Karelaine for telling me about it...... long ago..... :) I have enjoyed this many times over the past 4 years...... thanks again Karelaine and Hanna too. LN

@ClintSevilla : well said.

He is a genius

@ionz75: We do similar things in other fields of science when we hit a roadblock. In quantum physics new hypothetical particles that we have no way of detecting or directly interacting with are postulated because their existence would bridge gaps in our understanding. The Higgs boson is a perfect example of this.

The film he is talking about at 13:20 is the Diving Bell and the Butterfly :)

Consciousness proves itself.

@Druwg Actually it's become evident that the neurology of the brain is far far more else tic than we ever thought. Nuro plasticity is showing us remarkable outcomes in this and the brains enormous capacity to "rewire "itself. Interesting stuff indeed

@packe777 Oh very nice! Out of curiosity what did you make of my on Penrose and Bohm? Quantum mind is interesting in itself, but it get's really curious when you bring in other seemingly non-related elements in physics.

I have, and also the work of Titchener, Coover as well as Lohr, Adams, Schwarz & Brady who all found contradictory results as to those of Sheldrake.

@ionz75: The model is commonly referred to as the 'reducing valve'. If you have trouble finding information about it I could try to dig up some old links for you. I would agree that it complicates the situation, but I would disagree that it's unneeded, because it would actually explain more of what we know surrounding mind and brain.

I have some arguments to think that conciusness doesn’t come from mind, but I’ll make them know in a future book.

Mystic experience is "Pure Consciousness" without the self/ego; ego-death (or dissolution); it is by this experiential state of Consciousness that humans have evolved that capability of that Consciousness is known & known as the primacy/grounds of reality, it's nature of Love is known, & it can be known as God.

My goodness this is incredible that people so well educated and unbelievably intelligent are not able to understand simple physics of how the microphone works 😮 so they study very complex concepts and are able to understand and even to translate it for others. There are things like speakers in the room and when the microphone is placed not enough close to the source of the sound we will get that annoying feedback… of course there are sound engineers and technicians in the room but it should be a common knowledge. If we can understand that being to close to fire can damage our skin we should be able to understand other simple laws of physics 😬😀

@ionz75: There are some examples of this that I can point to now. For example, savant-like skills can sometimes be artificially induced in normal healthy individuals by inhibiting the left anterior temporal lobe (LATL). Additionally recent psychedelic drug testing (Psilocybin) in Europe have shown that while people report mind-opening experiences of vastly increased conscious awareness, the only measurable change in the brain is a slight decrease in activity and blood flow in key areas

What you are referring to here is the fact that brain processing takes time and in order for us to, for example, catch a ball, our brains have to calculate the balls trajectory in order to catch it. This is an estimation and not seeing the future, if it were we should be able to catch the ball 100 % of the times, but any slight changes in the environment, such as a sudden wind, will change the balls trajectory and you will miss it. I can't really see how that would contradict local consciousness

Semantics reveals thought process. Antonio Damasio is using the terms: "mind" and "self". All he would have to add is "soul" to demonstrate a particular trap in thinking. These appear to be terms created by the consciousness to explain itself, concepts, not phenomena. The mirror test for self recognition of animals appears to indicate that there is consciousness and there is a more advanced, or complicated form of consciousness yielding self awareness - order of complexity.

The film he is referring to is "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" (2007), dealing with life of a person suffering from locked-in syndrome.

You are so right......he needs to look at the work of Thomas Campbell and Bob Monroe

@ionz75: 2. Things such as veridical perception during NDEs would not be in conflict with the filter model of consciousness. I would put that forward as something testable, as that is exactly what the awareness during resuscitation study is attempting to do now.

@Sylocat haha thanks!

I dont agree with the comments here. This was a wonderful talk, specially if you are interested in an objective explanation for the self, soul, and how the mind works.

I had trouble summarizing what I learned after watching this...

@ionz75: There are areas of the brain that we can reasonably predict what happens when we damage them, such as the visual cortex, or the speech area. Still, I would be hesitant to say that everybody would react in the same way to something like controlled brain damage. People don’t even react the same way to drugs like SSRIs, of which there has been extensive testing. Maybe in the future it would be possible.

@notsuretho i'm glad you find comfort in his logic. There are far more flawed stances on the self-reflecting "I" and it's endless loop of analogy.

@kusotarre: For example the filter model of consciousness has no problems accomodating severe hydrocephalus, terminal lucidity, brainless organisms demonstrating learning ability, or veridical perception during NDEs.

@stewinsalot Don't worry, I did as well. He did quite the lecture on neurology. All we needed is a bulleted power-point and I'd be back in school.

@xamphor As an"undergraduate neuroscientist,"I don't think personality is related to this talk.And,he is saying the PAG & other mesencephalon brain areas CONTRIBUTES to the construction of a primordial self.Clearly, he describes an autobiographical self which is,of course, not a function of the brain stem.He is saying the mesencephalon is able to map the body and interpret bodily changes(relative to homeostasis)playing a role in the construction of qualitative states, or feeling states.

@azmanabdula Well hey philosophy is fun. Especially when you play around in the intersection between philosophy and physics. Things get really interesting then.

@Mrmoc7 you just made me give up on the talk at second 0:37.

@qigong1001 Search for "Ramachadran" on TED (first name: VS or Vilayanur, so just search for the family name), you should find two talks, both are really awesome and add to the information in this talk. Ramachadran found a way to make phantom limbs permanently disappear, together with the phantom pains they sometimes cause. He also describes these induced-numbness experiments.