Will we ever grasp the nature of the mind? | Rupert Sheldrake, David Chalmers, Philip Goff...

Подписаться 302 тыс.

Просмотров 13 тыс.

50% 1

Leading philosophers and scientists discuss in depth the nature of perception and thought, conscious and unconscious.
Featuring: Raymond Tallis, ‪@RupertSheldrakePhD‬, Anil Seth, Markus Gabriel, David Chalmers, Patricia Churchland & Philip Goff.
00:00 Introduction
00:30 Raymond Tallis
04:55 Rupert Sheldrake
10:04 Anil Seth
14:19 Markus Gabriel
18:56 David Chalmers
23:46 Patricia Churchland
29:00 Philip Goff
#MindBodyProblem #MindBrainAndConsciousness #NatureOfYourMind
Links to the debates and talks in order of appearance:
Raymond Tallis - The mind and the world (2018)
iai.tv/video/the-mind-and-the...
Rupert Sheldrake - The extended mind (2014)
iai.tv/video/the-extended-min...
Anil Seth - Understanding consciousness (2021)
iai.tv/video/understanding-co...
Markus Gabriel - I am not a brain (2018)
iai.tv/video/i-am-not-a-brain...
David Chalmers - The dance of life (2016)
iai.tv/video/the-dance-of-lif...
Patricia Churchland - Understanding ourselves (2021)
iai.tv/video/understanding-ou...
Philip Goff - The many voices of consciousness (2022)
iai.tv/video/the-many-voices-...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

Опубликовано:

14 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 61

@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas 2 года назад

What do you think? Will we ever understand the true nature of the human mind? To watch more debates, visit iai.tv/player?RU-vid&

@vids595 2 года назад

What does it mean to "understand the true nature of the human mind"? Seems like flowery poetic language to me. We already understand that the mind is a product of the body's (brain/cns) interaction with the universe. There is no reason to think that we will not one day have a complete understanding of the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of humans.

@computer_in_a_cave2730 2 года назад

God help us - and I'm an atheist... did Rupert Sheldrake sustain a brain injury / dropped on his head in a very particular way in the last 35 years (that we don't know about ) ? Cambridge should revoke his degree... (just saying).

@leandrosilvagoncalves1939 2 года назад

Bernardo Kastrup should be among these guys

@samhangster 2 года назад

Never will be because they are trying to push physicalism

@havenbastion 2 года назад

Knowing that things are so is not unique to humans, we're merely the only ones who give it that name.

@havenbastion 2 года назад

Self is the story you tell yourself about how you fit into the world and society.

@markhughes7927 2 года назад

For the western mind - imo - the first stop never ceases to be Plato - so far beyond all else for the combination of particularity, generality and scope as to seem a natural feature of mind like an ancient pyramid which has been covered with earth and become a verdant hill. Two features occlude general appreciation of Plato’s range: the foundation of his work in another’s mind (Socrates) of a more specifically rationally analytic character (although emphatically reverent of divinity); and his retention away from public/scholarly view a mass of complementary esoteric work founded in the ‘mystery’ tradition from Egypt and for ‘in-house’ review by initiates. (Aca Deme - a political ward of ancient Athens where Plato opened up shop.) The dichotomy that we experience in an unacknowledged reciprocal relation between myth and ‘science’ sharing each the determination of a ‘mode’ is not there in Plato. Pretty much a ‘one man Himalayas’.

@mehdibaghbadran3182 2 года назад

Different minds, different experience required, and different experience, different knowledge created!

@havenbastion 2 года назад

Consciousness in neuroscience is in the Platonic stage of development; working out the parts and the vocabulary to talk about their relationships. Consciousness in anthropology is a feedback loop in our theory of mind. Consciousness in phenomenology is an awareness fairy. Consciousness is a sub-set of mind, which is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. It has a neural/physical correlate. Consciousness is always an Of, whether external or internal. Any image of the brain is an image of consciousness Of some particular thing.

@njeyasreedharan 2 года назад

'E=mc^2 is a view from nowhere.' We need more such uncommon views.

@martinbennett2228 2 года назад

It is very strange how otherwise intelligent people struggle to understand that the subjective is subjective. Objective consciousness, an ability to demonstrate awareness of surroundings, is common place and an obviously advantageous capacity in evolution. Octopuses seem to be particularly good at this. Subjective consciousness is my own, but I can no more assume that others experience the same than that others share my dreams, or what I thought I might have dreamt. It would surprise me greatly if many or any people could be found who would want anyone else to be able to have access to their subjective consciousness and what it feels like to be themselves. If something is subjective, the clue is in the word, it is only accessible to the subject. Worse, it might only be accurately accessible at that particular moment. But this does not make it mysterious, or something to vex over, it just makes it subjective.

@JeremyHelm 2 года назад

33:32 Find this citation - paper by Matthias Michelle

@mehdibaghbadran3182 2 года назад

Each experience required to be repeated to let you to make a decision , sometimes we have 3 similar experiences, with same results, so we can do actions more surely with confidence, experience itself is very important, but is not enough to make a final decision and final actions, but it’s will need, to know about some other tools ⚒️ like fundamental physics, how energies act’s, philosophy of scientific explanation, and knowledge, to be able to proof and given more scenes to the decision you are making !

@Lumeone 2 года назад

?? What is the event? When did it take place? Repost of something happened recently?

@durere 2 года назад

Love the dunking on Dawkins :V

@jamesruscheinski8602 2 года назад

substantive choice for God's federal hegemony of free will kingdom

@nusrathnowfel8758 2 года назад

@mycount64 2 года назад

sheldrake ahhhh people think they are being stared at and stare at others in those numbers because of social norms. Men think of sex 50% of the time (age considered) I would bet that goes into the equation too. His statements have to do with evolution, and sexuality or social psychology not mind outside of the head unless that is what qualifies for that. sheldrake every time I hear the guy try to reason or give an anecdote he fails miserably or he quotes statistic inside the margin of error.

@TheSupahJaws 2 года назад

Maybe his point was about people being able to know when they are being stared at from behind. Have you ever had that feeling? If so, how do you explain it?

@mycount64 2 года назад

What about all the times they think someone is staring and they are not. What you find with Sheldrakes statistics and research is it typically hovers around the margin of error.

@havenbastion 2 года назад

The nature of the mind is that it is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain.

@neilcreamer8207 Год назад

You have no idea what mind is. No-one does. The idea that it is anything to do with putative patterns in the brain is a modern dogma based on a number of unjustified assumptions.

@lidstrom-yd5pb Год назад

Interesting, although I think the opposite is true. The brain is a metaphor of the mind. The brain is an organ of the mind that provides perceptual experience for the mind. The mind is also far greater than the brain, as indicated by Rupert Sheldrake's account of how the mind takes the information of light received by the brain through the eyes and projects images that correspond to the objects that are actually out there in space. We are truly marvelous, magical beings...

@fluentpiffle 2 года назад

There is no 'coincidence'. 'Opposites' are figments of a mind, which has been conditioned to believe in 'separate things', when the reality is not divided.. The Human mind, therefore, imagines or invents a situation and thereby 'creates' its supposed 'opposite', which it views as 'logical' having already, but erroneously, determined itself to be 'correct'/'sapient'.. There have been rudimentary attempts to 'transcend' the dichotomy ('duality'), but none can be as potentially successful as understanding the true nature of reality itself.. spaceandmotion

@MrAndrew535 2 года назад

The answer to the question posed in the title of this video is, yes. That is precisely what I have done, which is easily demonstrated by deconstructing the opposite to "Mind" (Which is what?). I did this over two decades ago, and clearly, science is yet to catch up.

@stepwisepenny58 2 года назад

Yes very soon. It's non-Cartesian. Interdimensional memory Matrix. But Using Retroductive Disobjectification one can access those templates, stations of the MIND. Where from and how undifferentiation comes into individualisation. ✌️

@havenbastion 2 года назад

Actuality is undifferentiated stuff, infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever. Reality is the mind-filtered version of Actuality, and in a mind is where the differentiation occurs. Every thing is a pattern in a mind; a set of attributes and boundary conditions by which it is differentiated from every other thing according to various purposes.

@stepwisepenny58 2 года назад

@@havenbastion you're not wrong. The next step is putting all that realised principle of pre-matteric higher order into technological utilisation. A Realignment... The very key to Fusion, gravity, inertia, nondestructive transmission of Power. The true holographic principle of selfOrganisation. Energy systems will become obsolete. We won't need energy 'coz we'll have access to pure Infinite potential. ✌️

@njeyasreedharan 2 года назад

Focusing on the outside-in signals instead of the inside-out noises is called mindfulness.

@havenbastion 2 года назад

Improperly so. What's called mindfulness is embodiment. Being full of mind is the opposite of being attentive to the external world. It's normally called thinking.

@njeyasreedharan 2 года назад

@@havenbastion I agree. I am saying the same thing. Please reread my quote very, very carefully and slowly. 🙏

@havenbastion 2 года назад

@@njeyasreedharan I wasn't arguing, just providing my version. :p

@njeyasreedharan 2 года назад

@@havenbastion 🤗

@samrowbotham8914 2 года назад

Kastrup, Hoffman, Stapp et al and others who lean towards Idealism point out that everything emanates from Mind at Large, everything other object/subject is in Mind at Large. We cannot see Mind because we are in it no more than a fish can see the whole of the ocean for the same reason.

@havenbastion 2 года назад

We can see nothing But mind, regardless of whether our mental construct accurately represents external reality. The reality-to-us in our head is a filtered version.

@psionic111 2 года назад

Bah, had to stop at about 20 minutes in. Too many outlandish abstractions, each which is ultimately limiting in its capacity to explain the mind. A bunch of poetically-leaning thought experimenters encased in their own houses of shaky foundation. Still mostly stuck at the conceptual stage of the 18th century.

@itayshani3614 2 года назад

blah, blah, blah

@psionic111 2 года назад

@@itayshani3614 Exactly

@christopherhamilton3621 2 года назад

Ph.D.’s in “begging the question”…

@psionic111 2 года назад

@@christopherhamilton3621 That, and inventing scenarios that are made up instead of dealing with established fact. Like the one who admits he knows little about science then goes on to posit that our mechanism of sight perception actually goes outward from our skulls, across light years to distant galaxies, and then impinges on the distant target to shape it into the reality we perceive. Outlandish, primitive, magic explanations that are only mind blowing to someone high on drugs. That was the most ridiculous example I could recall, but each of the other “philosophers “ likewise presented outlandish premises and then built their presentations on those shaky foundations. The best of applied, practical philosophy is found in hard science. Neuroscience has has revealed and is constantly revealing many pieces of the consciousness puzzle. I find much of this philosophical showmanship at about the same level of fiction as the Marvel Universe.

@hss12661 8 месяцев назад

@@psionic111 It's crazy to think that this Sheldrake guy is apparently a biologist.

@SocietyIsCollapsing Год назад

Lasted until he started on about looking a star, and our minds project back in time and out to billions of light years. -1

@oioi9372 Год назад

Markus Gabriel in my opinion gave the most appropriate account of the topic. Phillip Goff's fundamental metaphysical assumptions are very suspicious, like the notion of public inaccessibility of consciousness which is testably false since there are so many accounts of "para-mental" experiences of telepathy, shared experiences, synchronized verbal intuition of other people thoughts that are corroborated etc.

@nusrathnowfel8758 2 года назад

@njeyasreedharan 2 года назад

The brain is not the mind and the mind is not consciousness. QED.

@dhilgersom 2 года назад

We have neurons in the heart. Consciousness comes from the heart.

@nyworker 2 года назад

Of course we will. The brain and cns are actually a system of several neural organs. They've only scratched the surface. But most important they have no fundamental theory of neuronal interactions and only neural correlates.

@tahamohammedi5898 2 года назад

It's been decades with no real progress, so there's more than one reason to doubt your wishful hopes

@hecticnarcoleptic3160 2 года назад

Bold assumptions - evidence?

@mycount64 2 года назад

@@tahamohammedi5898 with that reasoning looking up in the night sky 200 years ago to conclude we could never know what stars were made of. For the simple reason we did not know what stars were made of for thousands of years.

@tahamohammedi5898 2 года назад

@@mycount64 Nobody is stopping anyone from discovering be my guest, but if there's no evidence to support your claims it seizes to be science and it will be just that "wishful thinking"

@christopherhamilton3621 2 года назад

@@tahamohammedi5898 You can’t call what HAS been progress a lack of progress. Unless and until ultra fine resolution is achieved, you can’t just write it off as unachievable.