What Is the Mind? - Being John Malkovich | Renegade Cut 

yeh the philosophy is harder but what the film basically say is that idealism is real and that ideas and perspectives are transmissible and interchangeable from person to person - free flowing ideas

I'd suggest you look into philosophy and metaphysics. Once you go down the rabbit hole there's so much interesting stuff to dig through

depends if you believe in solipsism or not

Jarrah FitzGerald He is most likely, pushed aside, and becomes "the Passenger", within the vessel that is Malkovich the body, and then perhaps the child, when it is born. He could one day gain control again, unless he has become a quark(or some other form) that no longer experiences reality as we think of it, or as the movie presents it.

Yeah this is great.

But is it really consciousness if we can’t experience it though? Is a damaged brain, leading to a faulty signal anything more than just a new form of consciousness. It’s different, but it’s still consciousness. And there’s neuroplasticity to consider too. Our brain can rewire pathways. So a consciousness that was changed due to damage, can then slowly become closer to what it was before. And I also think of how language can affect our modes of thinking- because language is merely wiring the brain. And, there the use it or lose it idea- because while we make the most new pathways up to the age of 14 or so, after that, we start losing what we don’t use. It’s why learning language is easier as a child- and some theorise that beyond a certain point, it is impossible to actually learn language. So, how would my consciousness differ had I learned an extra language as a child? These are all very interesting questions- the edges of neuroscience and philosophy are fascinating.

If that were true, wouldn't any degree of brain damage which interfered with the "signal" result in the victim becoming aware of the disconnect between their physical brain and their non-physical mind? If their mind itself was unharmed, wouldn't it be obvious that something was getting lost in transmission? That doesn't seem to be the case in people who suffer from amnesia, confusion, emotional disturbances, or any of a number of common symptoms of brain damage; they often don't know that anything specific is wrong. A shaky connection on a cell phone is immediately apparent to both ends of the conversation, so wouldn't the same hold true is that is how consciousness worked? Also, that theory doesn't explain how some people's personalities are wildly altered following a traumatic brain injury, or why damage to specific parts of the brain seem to cause specific changes to personality. And what about people with developmental disabilities? Genetic disorders like Down's syndrome are inherently physical, so does that people with Down's syndrome have neurotypical minds independent of their physical brains? Or does genetics effect the metaphysical mind as well as the physical body? If not, what determines the properties of the mind?

You would still have to prove there is a signal though for this to be taken seriously. All neurological evidence shows the brain does create thoughts and imagery itself.

The issue I see with this point of view is that an interruption in the signal from a cell tower to a cell phone only chops up the broadcasts information. However, with physical brain damage - the signal itsself changes as a result of the damage. For example, as the brain disintegrates from alzheimers a person's behavior changes with it as if there is signal eminating from the brain itsself.

This kind blew my mind

Yo, peep the sub count 2 years later.

Check the Sub count now

Lol i feel this

@@shanebagel Charlie Kaufman for you!!

"Unmoved mover" (whether explained by Aristotle or Aquinas) is garbage. I made a whole video about it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QPuUerPZ_xc.html If you don't want to sit through it, here are the basics. The cosmological argument states that every action has a cause but every cause is itself caused by something else. In order to avoid infinite regression, apologists say that we must form a "first cause" that is "uncaused" and that first cause (somehow) must be God. This is called special pleading. It asserts without any particular reason that everything except God needs a cause. It does not solve infinite regression. If God can exist without cause, we could just as easily say that the universe itself is uncaused. This proposal has just as much clarity as the hypothesis that God created the universe except that it requires fewer additional assumptions. All things being equal, a material universe is preferred. Aristotle and later Aquinas did not seem to understand infinite regress as well as they claimed. If we accept the idea of infinite regression of causes could not exist because there would be no first cause, we could ask how many thoughts or actions did God have before creating the universe. Every thought or action must have been caused by another thought or action preceding it since Aquinas claimed nothing could be its own cause. Even if Aristotle and Aquinas were right about a first cause, it does not prove anything supernatural. All it would prove is there being a first cause. It does not prove this first cause is sentient or had any interest in creating humans, etc. It has no more validity than someone asking why the sun shines so bright, and failing an answer, someone says "God." The first cause argument does the same. It assigns a phenomenon to God without anything more credible than the initial statement of belief. Something unexplained does not somehow default to God. The cosmological arguments are widely dismissed in philosophy, even among theists. Theistic philosophers who desire evidence know that "first cause" doesn't work. Atheistic philosophers come to the same conclusion, albeit for potentially different reasons. Any bare bones 101 lesson on the topic would have that conclusion. Here is a decent video on the subject: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TgisehuGOyY.html Since this isn't too relevant to the video, I'll call it a day here. If you want to comment under the episode I made on infinite regression, best do that there. Thanks.

susan price He gave you an excellent answer, but I highly recommend, watching the video, as it's very good.

The transcendental argument proves the necessity of God's existence

if everything smells like shit maybe it’s you who shat your pants - russian proverb