Are Brain and Mind the Same Thing? | Episode 1005 | Closer To Truth

Video Statistics and Information

Video

Captions Word Cloud

Reddit Comments

Captions

>WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT? I MEAN, ALL AS IN EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS. FROM VAST GALAXIES OF MULTIPLE UNIVERSES, TO SENTIENT LIVES OF HUMAN BEINGS. IS EVERYTHING RANDOM AND CHANCE? OR IS MEANING AND PURPOSE ABOUT? BIG QUESTIONS, BUT BIG ANSWERS. FROM RELIGIOUS STORIES TO SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. SO I'VE GOT A LITTLE TEST. ARE MIND AND BRAIN THE SAME THING? BECAUSE IF MIND AND BRAIN ARE THE SAME THING, THEN THE PHYSICAL WORLD IS LIKELY ALL THERE IS. BUT IF MIND AND BRAIN ARE NOT THE SAME THING, THEN THERE MAY BE MORE TO REALITY THAN JUST THE PHYSICAL WORLD. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? ARE MIND AND BRAIN THE SAME THING? I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN, AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY LONG JOURNEY TO FIND OUT. HOW TO ASSESS WHETHER MINDS AND BRAINS ARE THE SAME THING, MY PHD IS IN BRAIN RESEARCH, SO I BEGIN WITH A BRAIN SCIENTIST AND VISIONARY AUTHOR, WHO EXPLORES THE NEUROSCIENCE OF CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS BEHAVIORS, DAVID EAGLEMAN. DAVID, WHEN I WAS TEACHING NEUROANATOMY DURING MY DOCTORAL PROGRAM, I KNEW WHAT THE BRAIN WAS. I KNEW HOW TO CUT IT UP, AND IN MY HEART OF HEARTS, I REALLY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS WAS. HOW DO YOU VIEW THIS PROBLEM? >>HERE'S WHAT WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN, IS THAT SOMEHOW MIND IS IRREVERSIBLY TIED INTO THE BRAIN, AND OF COURSE, THE REASON WE KNOW THAT IS, IF YOU WERE TO DAMAGE, UH, YOUR FINGER IN A CAR ACCIDENT, YOU WOULDN'T REALLY BE ANY DIFFERENT. YOU'D BE SAD ABOUT IT. BUT IF YOU WERE TO DAMAGE AN EQUIVALENTLY SIZED CHUNK OF NEURAL TISSUE, THAT CAN CHANGE YOUR MIND ENTIRELY, CAN CHANGE YOUR PERSONALITY OR YOUR DECISION MAKING, YOUR RISK AVERSION. THE QUESTION IS, HOW? DOES IT ALL COME DOWN TO MATERIALISM, DOES IT ALL COME DOWN TO JUST THE PHYSICAL PIECES AND PARTS OF THE BRAIN, OR IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE? SO MOST PEOPLE IN NEUROSCIENCE SUBSCRIBE TO THE MATERIALIST POSITION, IF YOU GET ENOUGH OF THE STUFF TOGETHER IN THE RIGHT WAYS, RUNNING THE RIGHT ALGORITHMS, MIND EMERGES OUT OF THAT. THE PROBLEM IS, NONE AMONG US HAS AN ACTUAL THEORY OF HOW THAT HAPPENS. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE SOMETHING CLOSE WHERE WE SAY WELL, WE SORT OF HAVE THIS PICTURE WHERE YOU CAN GET QUALIA, YOU CAN GET PRIVATE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE - >QUALIA, THE, THE FEELING, THE RED OF AN APPLE OR THE - >>FEELING OF PAIN, THE TASTE OF FETA CHEESE, WHAT IT'S LIKE ON THE INSIDE. SO WE DON'T KNOW, THE QUESTION THAT WE ALL ASKED OURSELVES IN HIGH SCHOOL, WHICH IS, HOW DO I KNOW WHAT I'M SEEING AS RED IS WHAT YOU SEE AS RED, AND THERE'S NO REASON, ACTUALLY, TO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE SEEING THEM THE SAME WAY. SO, WHEN IT COMES TO SOMETHING LIKE, WHAT WOULD AN ALTERNATIVE BE, TO THE MATERIALIST POSITION, LET ME PROPOSE JUST A COMPLETELY WHACKY ALTERNATIVE. IMAGINE YOU WERE A BUSHMAN IN THE KALAHARI DESERT, AND YOU STUMBLE ON A RADIO, AND YOU'VE NEVER SEEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS, AND YOU PICK IT UP, AND YOU REALIZE WHEN YOU TURN THE KNOB THAT VOICES EMERGE FROM IT. AND YOU REALIZE, AFTER SOME EXPERIMENTATION THAT WHEN YOU PULL OUT SOME WIRES, THE VOICES GET GARBLED. YOU WOULDN'T EVEN DREAM OF SOMETHING CALLED ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION, SO YOU WOULD BECOME A RADIO MATERIALIST. YOU WOULD SAY WELL, I'VE DERIVED A THEORY ABOUT RADIO CIRCUITRY, WHEN I DO THIS, I CAN DO THIS TO THE VOICES. YOU'D EVENTUALLY GET STUCK AT A POINT WHERE YOU'D SAY, WELL, I CAN MAKE ALL THESE CORRELATIONS, BUT THEN WHEN ASKED, BUT WHY DOES THIS CONFIGURATION OF WIRES MAKE VOICES, YOU WOULD SAY, WELL, THAT'S THE PART I DON'T YET UNDERSTAND, AND YOU'D DEFEND YOUR POSITION PASSIONATELY, BECAUSE NEITHER YOU NOR ANYONE ELSE IN YOUR COMMUNITY HAS EVER IMAGINED THE EXISTENCE OF DISTANT RADIO TOWERS THAT ARE BEAMING INVISIBLE SIGNALS EVERYWHERE, RIGHT? SO, COULD IT BE THAT THE BRAIN IS LIKE A RECEPTOR FOR SOMETHING ELSE? AND I HOPE I DON'T GET QUOTED ON THIS - >NO, THIS IS NOT YOUR IDEA, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WHAT YOU ARE DOING, IS YOU ARE OPENING THE DOOR SO THAT PEOPLE BRING IN RELIGION. >>RIGHT. THE WAY THAT GOOD SCIENCE ALWAYS OPERATES, IS BY ALLOWING ALL HYPOTHESES ON THE TABLE, AND THEN WE GATHER DATA THAT WEIGHS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THESE DIFFERENT IDEAS, AND WE COME UP WITH SORT OF THE BEST PICTURE WE HAVE, WE GET CLOSER TO TRUTH THIS WAY. >IN LOOKING AT THE BRAIN-MIND CORRELATION, WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO SAY TODAY? >>THAT SOMEHOW OUR MIND IS INTEGRALLY DEPENDENT ON THE BRAIN TISSUE. THAT NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE TO HAVE MIND, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL. WHETHER THIS IS ALL THAT'S REQUIRED, OR WHETHER THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT OUR SCIENCE IS TOO YOUNG TO UNDERSTAND, THAT'S THE OPEN QUESTION. >I AGREE WITH DAVID, TO EXPLAIN MIND WE KNOW THE BRAIN IS NECESSARY. BUT IS THE BRAIN SUFFICIENT? OR IS SOMETHING ELSE INVOLVED? IT'S AN OPEN QUESTION WHETHER THE BRAIN, AS SCIENCE NOW KNOWS IT, CAN ENTIRELY EXPLAIN THE MIND. BUT I SHOULD SPEAK WITH THOSE WITH WHOM I DISAGREE, THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO LEARN. THAT'S WHY I VISIT A NEUROPSYCHOLOGIST WHO HAS A WHOLLY PHYSICAL APPROACH TO BRAIN AND MIND, WITH AN EVOLUTIONARY SCENARIO THAT DESCRIBES HOW, OVER TIME, BRAIN MADE MIND. I GO TO CAMBRIDGE ENGLAND TO MEET NICHOLAS HUMPHREY. NICHOLAS, YOU SAY THAT IN THE STRONG SENSE, WHEN WE KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE BRAIN, WE WILL KNOW THE ENTIRETY OF CONSCIOUSNESS. HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE? >>IT'S AN ARTICLE OF FAITH, BUT IT'S PRETTY WELL GROUNDED FAITH. I'M A MATERIALIST, I BELIEVE THAT IN THE END, MATTER IS ALL THAT MAKES UP THIS EXTRAORDINARY WORLD WE LIVE IN, AND I'M ALSO A DARWINIST, I'M, I BELIEVE IN THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION AND THAT THE EXTRAORDINARY THING WHICH CONSTITUTES THE HUMAN MIND AND THE BRAIN, HAS COME ABOUT THROUGH SLOW PROCESS OF IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE OF THE CONSEQUENCES, THE WAY THE BRAIN WORKED, WAS HAVING BETTER AND BETTER RESULTS FOR THE ANIMALS WHICH HAD THOSE BRAINS. IT FOLLOWS IN THAT CASE, THAT IF THE MIND IS EVOLVED, IT'S EVOLVED BECAUSE OF THE EFFECTS IT HAS IN THE WORLD. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE WORLD, NATURAL SELECTION CAN'T HAVE SEEN IT, AND THEREFORE THERE'S NO WAY IN WHICH IT COULD HAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR. SO, IF CONSCIOUSNESS HAD NO MATERIAL CONSEQUENCES, IT WOULDN'T BE THERE, OR IT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HAVE EVOLVED. IF IT DOES HAVE MATERIAL CONSEQUENCES, IT MUST HAVE THEM BECAUSE IT'S INFLUENCING OUR BEHAVIOR. NOW, IF CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE MIND IS PRODUCING CHANGES IN BEHAVIOR, THEN ANYTHING IT CAN DO IS BY INFLUENCING THE MATERIAL ORGAN WHICH IS THE BRAIN, THE MATERIAL CAUSES PRODUCE MATERIAL EFFECTS AND NOTHING ELSE DOES, UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN SOME KIND OF CARTESIAN DUALISM, SO WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT IN THE END, EVERYTHING WHICH WE MANIFESTED IN OUR OWN EXPERIENCE, AS CONSCIOUSNESS AND MINDFULNESS, MUST BE A FUNCTION OF OUR MATERIAL BRAIN. >HOW CAN A SEQUENCE OF NEURONS, IN THEIR ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY, LITERALLY BE THE SEEING OF RED, ALL THE DIFFERENT SENSATIONS OF MUSIC, HOW CAN LITERALLY ONE BE THE OTHER? IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S A VAST AND OBVIOUS CATEGORY MISTAKE. >>WE KNOW THE EXPERIENCES WE HAVE MAY SEEM MAGICAL AND STRANGE, BUT WE CAN DESCRIBE THEM IN THE END, IN A LANGUAGE WHICH RELATES TO REAL THINGS IN THE WORLD. EVERYTHING WHICH WE CALL EXPERIENCE IS NOT GOING TO BE IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY FROM THE THINGS WHICH WE, IN THE GOING ON IN THE BRAIN, WHICH WE EQUALLY CAN DESCRIBE IN TERMS OF OTHER THINGS IN THE WORLD. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN EQUATION IN WHICH ONE SET OF DESCRIPTIONS IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAP ONE TO ANOTHER, SORT OF DESCRIPTIONS ON THE OTHER SIDE. >WE'LL GIVE YOU THE DESCRIPTIONS AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WILL BE PERFECT, THAT YOU'LL HAVE A DIRECT CORRELATION IN THE BRAIN BETWEEN THAT SMELL OF CHEESE OR THE VISUAL EXPERIENCE OF RED, WITH A SEQUENCE OF NEURONAL ACTIVITIES IN ALL, ALL OF ITS GLORIOUS DETAIL. BUT TO SAY THE EXPERIENCES THAT WE HAVE LITERALLY ARE THOSE NEURAL IMPULSES, SEEMS BIZARRE. >>WELL, YOU KNOW, THE EXPERIENCES WE HAVE ARE REPRESENTATIONS OF SOMETHING WHICH IS GOING ON IN THE BRAIN AND IN FACT, I THINK THAT WE LITERALLY CREATE AN EXTRAORDINARY KIND OF ART OBJECT, A MYSTERIOUS OBJECT OR AN ACTIVITY, A MATHEMATICAL ACTIVITY IN OUR BRAIN, WHICH WE THEN REPRESENT TO OURSELVES IN OUR MIND AS HAVING THESE MYSTERIOUS PROPERTIES WHICH SEEM SO INEXPLICABLE. BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE, INDEED, THE SUBJECTS OF AN ILLUSION, A WONDERFUL ILLUSION, IN WHICH WE'VE BEEN SET UP BY OUR OWN BRAINS TO THINK WE'RE IN THE PRESENCE OF SOMETHING WHICH DOESN'T TRANSLATE INTO THE ORDINARY, MUNDANE WORLD WE LIVE IN, AND THAT'S THE POINT. WE EVOLVE TO HAVE EXPERIENCES WHICH SEEM TO US TO BE OUT OF THIS WORLD AND INEXPLICABLE BY THE ORDINARY SCIENTIFIC MEANS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE, AND ONCE YOU REALIZE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY THAT CONSCIOUSNESS ACTUALLY IS THE THING IT SEEMS TO BE, WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE AND IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN, BUT ONLY SEEMS TO US TO HAVE THOSE QUALITIES, THEN WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS TO EXPLAIN WHY IT SEEMS TO US TO HAVE THOSE PROPERTIES, AND THAT CHANGES AGAIN. IT MAKES IT, THE PUZZLE THEN IS TO SEE IT, HOW WE COULD HAVE BEEN TRICKED INTO REPRESENTING THINGS THAT WAY. >WHILE I'M NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT NICK'S CONCLUSION THAT MIND IS ONLY BRAIN, I'M ENRICHED BY HIS REASONING, SHOWING HOW, IN TERMS OF EVOLUTION, CONSCIOUSNESS MUST BE AN ILLUSION. BECAUSE TO EXPLAIN, IN TERMS OF BRAIN ACTIVITY ALONE, OUR SENSE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS FEELS NON-PHYSICAL, SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE, BUT THIS HARD PROBLEM GOES AWAY IF CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN ILLUSION. BUT IF CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT AN ILLUSION, THEN WHAT? COULD CONSCIOUSNESS OPERATE BEYOND SPACE AND TIME? I MEET ONE OF THE WORLD'S FOREMOST PHILOSOPHERS OF RELIGION, WHO BELIEVES, FROM THE THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, THAT MIND REQUIRES SOME NON-PHYSICAL ASPECT, WHICH HE CALLS 'A SOUL'. TO MAKE THIS CONCEPTUAL SWITCH, I MAKE A GEOGRAPHIC SWITCH. FROM CAMBRIDGE TO OXFORD, TO VISIT RICHARD SWINBURNE. RICHARD, MANY NEUROSCIENTISTS, THE VAST MAJORITY, THINK THAT WHATEVER THE MIND IS, IT WILL ULTIMATELY BE ENTIRELY EXPLAINED BY THE BRAIN. SOME PHILOSOPHERS BELIEVE THAT LITERALLY THERE'S AN IDENTITY THAT BRAIN STATES ARE MIND STATES. >>A FULL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE WORLD CAN'T JUST INCLUDE WHAT'S GOING ON IN YOUR BRAIN, NOT MENTION WHETHER YOU ARE IN PAIN, WHETHER YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT PHILOSOPHY OR WHATEVER. IT'S GOT TO DESCRIBE THE CONTENT OF YOUR MENTAL LIFE. LET'S CALL SOMETHING A PHYSICAL EVENT IF ANYONE CAN KNOW ABOUT IT AS WELL AS ANYONE ELSE CAN, AND LET'S CALL SOMETHING A MENTAL EVENT IF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT OCCURS IS IN NECESSARILY IN A BETTER POSITION TO KNOW THAT IT'S OCCURRING, THAN ANYONE ELSE. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS CHAIR BEING HERE IS SOMETHING THAT I CAN FIND OUT ABOUT AND YOU CAN FIND OUT ABOUT AND ANYONE CAN FIND OUT ABOUT AND NOBODY IS BETTER PRIVILEGED TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT THAN ANYBODY ELSE. BUT WHETHER I AM HAVING A PAIN OR NOT, IS SOMETHING THAT I AM IN A BETTER POSITION TO DISCOVER THAN YOU. OF COURSE, YOU CAN MAKE A REASONABLE INFERENCE FROM MY BEHAVIOR, BUT NEVERTHELESS, WHATEVER WAY YOU HAVE OF FINDING OUT ABOUT IT, I CAN ALSO FIND ABOUT IT. BUT I HAVE A WAY OF FINDING OUT ABOUT IT THAT YOU DON'T, AND I SHALL THEREFORE ALWAYS BE AHEAD OF YOU. I HAVE PRIVILEGED ACCESS. SO A MENTAL EVENT, LET'S CALL IT, IS SOMETHING TO WHICH THE SUBJECT HAS PRIVILEGED ACCESS. NOW, THERE'S TWO SORTS OF MENTAL EVENTS, THERE'S PURE MENTAL EVENTS AND IMPURE MENTAL EVENTS. AN IMPURE MENTAL EVENT IS ONE WHICH HAS A PHYSICAL EVENT AS A PART. FOR EXAMPLE, ME WATCHING YOU. THIS IS A MENTAL EVENT BECAUSE I CAN KNOW BETTER WHETHER I AM SEEING YOU THAN YOU CAN. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I CAN ONLY SEE YOU IF YOU'RE THERE, SO, ME SEEING YOU, ENTAILS THAT YOU ARE SITTING THERE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY CAN HAVE ACCESS TO. SO LET'S CALL A PURE MENTAL EVENT ONE WHICH DOESN'T INCLUDE A PHYSICAL EVENT AS A PART. NOW, WHETHER I'M IN PAIN OR NOT IS A PURE MENTAL EVENT. IT DOESN'T ENTAIL SOMETHING'S GOING ON IN MY BRAIN. IT COULDN'T BE, BECAUSE IT WAS A DISCOVERY OF NEUROSCIENCE THAT SOMETHING HAPPENS IN MY BRAIN WHEN I'M IN PAIN. THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY NEED TO DISCOVER THIS IF IT WERE ALREADY PART OF THE MEANING OF SAYING I WAS IN PAIN. ONCE YOU'VE GOT THIS DEFINITION OF PURE MENTAL EVENTS, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THERE'S RATHER A LOT OF PURE MENTAL EVENTS. THERE ARE SENSATIONS BUT ALL THE RICHNESS OF COLOR AND SOUND THAT WE'RE AWARE OF, AND THERE'S MY BELIEFS AND THERE'S MY INTENTIONS AND FINALLY, YOU KNOW YOUR DESIRES AND A FULL DESCRIPTION OF THE WORLD HAS GOT TO INCLUDE THESE, AND SINCE THE OCCURRENCE OF PHYSICAL THINGS DOESN'T ENTAIL THE OCCURRENCE OF THESE THINGS, THEY ARE FURTHER FEATURES OF THE WORLD. >MANY PHILOSOPHERS CLAIM THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN ILLUSION, AND THEREFORE THE DISTINCTIONS THAT YOU'RE MAKING BETWEEN THE MENTAL AND THE PHYSICAL STATES ARE REALLY NONEXISTENT, BECAUSE THE MENTAL STATES ARE REALLY ILLUSORY RESULTS OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DIFFERENT BRAIN STATES COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER IN GIVING US AFFERENT INFORMATION AND THE RESULT OF THAT, WE THINK IS A MENTAL STATE, WHICH REALLY DOESN'T EXIST. >>AN ILLUSION OF AN ILLUSION IS ALSO AN ILLUSION, IT'S ALSO A MENTAL STATE. THE ONLY WAY ANY PHILOSOPHER AND SCIENTIST CAN PUT FORWARD SUCH A THEORY, IS IN THE BELIEF THAT HE IS HAVING SUCH ILLUSIONS, AND HE IS IN A BETTER POSITION THAN ANYONE ELSE TO KNOW ABOUT IT, I'M AFRAID THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN ENORMOUS RICH LIFE OF CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH MAY BE CAUSALLY CONNECTED WITH THE BRAIN, I DON'T WISH TO DENY THAT. BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT THING, AND IF NEURO SCIENCE IGNORES THAT, WELL NEUROSCIENCE IS JUST CARVING UP A TERRITORY IT CAN DEAL WITH IN REFUSING TO DEAL WITH WHAT IT FINDS TOO DIFFICULT. >I LOVE RICHARD'S RIGOR. I FIND MYSELF AGREEING THAT MENTAL EVENTS ARE FURTHER FEATURES OF THE WORLD, BEYOND THOSE DESCRIBED BY PHYSICAL FACTS. BUT IS THIS DISTINCTION A REAL RESTATEMENT OF THE DEFINITION OF CONSCIOUSNESS? I FEAR TRIPPING INTO MY OWN TRAP, SEEKING THE SOUL WHEN THERE IS NO SOUL. BY A SPACE CREDULITY IS INTELLECTUAL POISON. I NEED A FAST ANTIDOTE. A PHILOSOPHER WHOSE WORLD VIEW HAS NO GOD, BUT WHO STILL PRIVILEGES MIND AND CONSCIOUSNESS. I GO TO LONDON, TO SPEAK WITH ONE OF THE MOST EXPANSIVE THINKERS I KNOW, THE PHILOSOPHER, SOCIAL CRITIC AND MEDICAL DOCTOR, RAYMOND TALLIS. >>THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT ACTIVITY IN THE BRAIN IS A NECESSARY CONDITION OF CONSCIOUSNESS. IF YOU CHOP MY HEAD OFF, MY IQ FALLS A LITTLE BIT, TO PUT IT MILDLY. BUT THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS A NECESSARY CONDITION OF CONSCIOUSNESS, DOESN'T MEAN TO SAY THAT IT IS SUFFICIENT CONDITION OF CONSCIOUSNESS, OR INDEED THAT IT IS IDENTICAL WITH CONSCIOUSNESS, AND THAT'S THE MISTAKE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT NEUROSCIENTISTS MAKE. AND IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT NEUROSCIENTISTS ARE VERY FOND OF, WHICH IS LOOKING AT THE LOCALIZATION OF NEURAL ACTIVITY IN THE BRAIN AND RELATING IT TO EMOTIONS OR THOUGHTS OR MEMORIES OR SENSATIONS, ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT AS CLEAR CUT AS WOULD APPEAR. FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN A SIMPLE MEMORY DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE LOCATED IN A PARTICULAR PLACE IN THE BRAIN, JUST RECALLING, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN A CHAIR AND THE MENTAL IMAGE OF A CHAIR, OR THE WORD 'CHAIR'. IT ACTUALLY APPEARS TO BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. >WELL THAT DOESN'T PROVE THAT MATERIALISM IS WRONG, IT JUST SHOWS MAYBE SOME PARALLEL REPRESENTATIONS. A CHAIR HAS A FEEL TO IT, A VISION TO IT, IT HAS DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS, SO IT VERY NATURALLY SHOULD BE REPRESENTED IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BRAIN, AND THEN THAT GIVES US THE RICHNESS BY BRINGING TOGETHER OF CHAIR, BUT IT STILL COULD BE ALL NEUROLOGICAL. >>SO, WE SET ASIDE THEN, THE NEOPHRENOLOGISTS, THOSE WHO IDENTIFY BITS OF THE MIND WITH BITS OF THE BRAIN. THERE ARE NEUROSCIENTISTS WHO CLAIM THAT THEY KNOW EXACTLY THE CENTER THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH LOVE, EVEN DIFFERENT CENTERS ASSOCIATED WITH LOVE, BRACKETS MATERNAL, LOVE, BRACKETS ROMANTIC, AND LOVE, BRACKETS ALTRUISTIC, AND THEY IDENTIFY THEM. WELL, YOU CAN SEE HOW ABSURD THAT IS, WHEN WE KNOW HOW LITTLE WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE LOCALIZATION. BUT EVEN IF THERE WAS PRECISE AND COMPLETE AND TOTAL CORRELATION BETWEEN BITS OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND BITS OF THE BRAIN, HOW MUCH MORE WOULD WE UNDERSTAND OR LEARN, SUPPOSING I HAD A MACHINE THAT COULD GIVE ME A TOTAL READ OUT OF ALL MY NEURAL ACTIVITY WHEN I WAS ENGAGED AND TALKING TO YOU, FOR EXAMPLE, I'D HAVE ONES AND ZEROS ALL POURING OUT IN THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS, WOULD HAVE GOT ANYWHERE NEARER TO UNDERSTANDING CONSCIOUSNESS. I MEAN, LET ME TAKE A SIMPLE EXAMPLE. I'M LOOKING AT A YELLOW OBJECT, THAT'LL CORRESPOND TO NEURAL ACTIVITY IN MY OCCIPITAL CORTEX AT THE BACK OF THE BRAIN. THAT NEURAL ACTIVITY IS QUITE UNLIKE THE PHENOMENON APPEARANCE OF A YELLOW OBJECT, YET ACCORDING TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE NEUROPHILOSOPHY, THE ACTUAL PHENOMENAL APPEARANCE OF THE YELLOW OBJECT, MY EXPERIENCE OF YELLOWNESS, IS IDENTICAL WITH NEURAL ACTIVITY IN THE BACK OF THE BRAIN. NOW, IF THERE, THOSE TWO THINGS ARE IDENTICAL, WELL, THE LEAST YOU MIGHT EXPECT OF THEM IS THEY LOOK A LITTLE BIT LIKE THEMSELVES, AND OF COURSE THEY DON'T. SO THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN NEURAL ACTIVITY, WHICH WILL ENABLE US TO HAVE EXPERIENCES, EVEN VERY SIMPLE EXPERIENCES LIKE EXPERIENCE OF LOOKING AT A YELLOW FLOWER. >RAY FLOUTS SCIENTIFIC, CONVENTIONAL WISDOM BY STATING, WITHOUT SHAME, THAT MIND IS MORE THAN BRAIN. BUT HE REJECTS RELIGION AND HAS NO USE FOR A GOD-GIVEN SOUL. I ADMIRE RAY'S COURAGE TO DENY MIND EQUALS BRAIN SCIENTIFIC ORTHODOXY, WITHOUT ANY IDEA OF AN ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS. I IDENTIFY WITH RAY, BUT I WORRY. AM I TOO QUICK TO ABANDON BRAIN SCIENCE AS A COMPLETE SOLUTION? CAN INVESTIGATING OTHER STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS HELP? I GO TO BOSTON, TO MEET AN EXPERT IN THE STUDY OF SLEEP, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL PROFESSOR ROBERT STICKGOLD. BOB, MOST BRAINS SCIENTISTS SAY THAT THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING. AS A NEUROSCIENTIST WHO STUDIES SLEEP AND DREAMS, WHAT DO YOU SAY? >>I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONS OF MIND AND BRAIN BEING THE SAME, BECAUSE I CAN TAKE A BRAIN AND PUT IT IN THE JAR, AND IT'S THERE AND THERE'S NO MIND THERE. WE KNOW THAT PEOPLE CAN BE IN COMA, AND HAVE A BRAIN THAT'S STILL THERE AND STILL ACTIVE, BUT THERE APPEARS TO BE NO CONSCIOUSNESS. AND WHEN YOU SLEEP, YOU GO THROUGH PERIODS WHERE IT APPEARS THAT THERE'S NO, OR AT THE MOST, VERY MINIMAL CONSCIOUS ACTIVITY. SO IF YOU WANTED TO SAY THAT THE BRAIN AND THE MIND WERE THE SAME THING, YOU'D HAVE TO SAY THAT THE MIND IS A FEATURE OF THE BRAIN SOME OF THE TIME, WHEN IT'S DOING SOMETHING. THE EXAMPLE OF DREAMING IS A VERY FUNNY ONE, BECAUSE IF YOU TALK TO NEUROLOGISTS, NEUROLOGISTS WILL SAY WHEN YOU'RE ASLEEP, YOU'RE UNCONSCIOUS. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE NOT UNCONSCIOUS WHEN YOU'RE ASLEEP, WHEN ARE YOU UNCONSCIOUS? BUT IF YOU'RE NOT CONSCIOUS WHEN YOU'RE DREAMING, WHAT ARE YOU? SO AT THE VERY LEAST WE HAVE THESE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, ALL WITH THE SAME BRAIN. SO WHEN I TRY TO TEASE IT APART, WHAT I IMAGINE IS NOT THAT THEY'RE THE SAME, BUT TO ME, THE QUESTION IS, IS THE MIND TOTALLY EXPLAINED BY THE BRAIN? AND IF THAT WAS THE QUESTION, I WOULD SAY MY GUESS IS YES. WE CAN PROBABLY EXPLAIN ALL OF IT, EXCEPT ITS VERY EXISTENCE, AND THAT'S THE RUB. WE DON'T KNOW HOW MATTER GIVES RISE TO MIND, AND AS FAR AS WE KNOW, IT SEEMS TO REQUIRE A BRAIN, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE, FROM ALL OF OUR STUDIES, BOTH IN NEUROLOGY AND IN SLEEP RESEARCH, THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS A VARIABLE THING. I THINK OF IT MORE AS SOFTWARE, OR NOT EVEN SOFTWARE BUT THE RUNNING OF THE PROGRAM ITSELF. IT'S AN ACTIVITY OF THE BRAIN THAT HAS THIS VERY BIZARRE PROPERTY OF HAVING SELF AWARENESS. AS FAR AS WE KNOW, AS FAR AS WE CAN EXPLAIN ANYTHING ABOUT THE MIND, THE EXPLANATION IS THAT IT'S A, AN EMERGENT PROPERTY, A PHENOMENON THAT'S ENTIRELY PRODUCED BY THE BRAIN. BUT THAT DOESN'T - >THERE'S NO RESIDUAL, NOTHING, YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT'S IN THE BRAIN TO PRODUCE ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS, THE SO-CALLED QUALIA, THE FEELINGS OF WHAT WE HAVE. >>THERE IS NOTHING OTHER THAN THE BRAIN THAT EXPLAINS ANYTHING THAT THE BRAIN DOESN'T, OKAY? THE BRAIN HAS NOT YET EXPLAINED WHY QUALIA EXISTS. THE BRAIN SCIENCES HAVE NOT GIVEN US ANY INDICATION OF HOW CONSCIOUS AWARENESS OF ANYTHING, OF COLOR, OF WARMTH, OF FEAR, OF HUNGER, HOW ANY OF THOSE FEELINGS OR IMAGES, CAN ARISE OUT OF THE ACTIVITY OF THE BRAIN, BUT WE KNOW THAT YOU ABSOLUTELY NEED THE BRAIN FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS TO OCCUR, AND WE HAVE FOUND NOTHING ELSE THAT CAN GIVE US ADDITIONAL EXPLANATORY POWER. AND SO, THE ONLY THING THAT WE KNOW THAT IF YOU MUCK AROUND WITH IT SCIENTIFICALLY, CAN MASSIVELY ALTER OR ELIMINATE CONSCIOUSNESS, IS THINGS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE BRAIN. AND SO, IN OUR SHORTHAND JARGON, WE SAY, THAT THE BRAIN TOTALLY EXPLAINS THE MIND, BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T, BECAUSE THERE'S THIS PIECE STILL THAT NOTHING EXPLAINS. >SO, WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT? AFTER DECADES OF WONDERING WHETHER MEANING OR PURPOSE INHABIT THE MYSTERY OF EXISTENCE, AND NOW EXPLORING IT ANEW, I SENSE THAT OUR CLOSEST CLUE IS INDEED THE BRAIN-MIND CONUNDRUM. I WRESTLE WITH THE CONTRASTING SOLUTIONS. IF MIND IS ONLY BRAIN, THIS WOULD POSIT A TRULY PHYSICAL COSMOS, WITH NO MEANING OR PURPOSE BEYOND OURSELVES. IF MIND IS MORE THAN BRAIN, MATERIALISM'S FOUNDATION WOULD SHAKE, ENCOURAGING US THAT SOME KIND OF MEANING OR PURPOSE IS ABOUT, THOUGH IT WOULD NOT LIKELY FIT ANY TRADITIONAL RELIGION. PERSONALLY, I DO NOT WANT TO BE ENCOURAGED. I WANT TRUTH, EVEN IF I AM TO BE DISCOURAGED. STILL, I FEEL THERE IS MORE TO MIND THAN BRAIN. BUT HOW I FEEL, MAKES NO MATTER, COMING CLOSER TO TRUTH.

Info

Channel: Closer To Truth

Views: 40,892

Rating: 4.8937111 out of 5

Keywords: closer to truth, robert lawrence kuhn, David Eagleman, Nicholas Humphrey, Richard Swinburne, Raymond Tallis, Robert Stickgold, mind and brain, mind, brain, dualism, mind-body problem, mind body problem, closer to truth full episodes

Id: 2i9UPTDUFJo

Channel Id: undefined

Length: 26min 46sec (1606 seconds)

Published: Tue Jul 21 2020