Nicholas Humphrey - Are Brain and Mind the Same Thing?

For the brain and mind to be the same thing, mind must be entirely the output of brain. This means the mind must be the brain—literally, identically. If so, then the physical world is likely all that exists. But if mind and brain are not the same thing, then what? Could there be extra stuff in the physical world? Could reality go beyond the physical?



Nicholas Humphrey is an English psychologist, based in Cambridge, who is known for his work on the evolution of human intelligence and consciousness.


Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[-by-_Publishing_LLC]

(0:30) *NH: **_"I'm a materialist; I believe that matter is all that makes up this extraordinary world we live in._* ... Existence = information, and matter is just one of many types of information. To claim that "matter" is at the core of existence is like claiming a "canvas" is at the core of van Gogh's _"Start Night"_ painting. Neither matter nor canvases speak to their purpose for existing.

Sure, a human brain is composed of matter, but its ability to process abstract information transcends its matter-based structure. A brain is an organic example of "information analyzing information" and rendering value judgments that are absolutely NOT made of any type of matter.

The ability for a human brain to introspectively contemplate what a brain represents speaks to the transcendence of the mind embedded within it.

[alaanasser]

If you are a true materialist and believe in the evolution, then you believe that our brain imposes the "illusion" of experience on us, the question is to what end does the brain do that? If you believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, there was certainly no need for the brain to create a scenery of experience for us.. It could have just through the physical body with whatever is needed for the sake of evolution and that's it.
Second since you believe that consciousness has been progressively transforming itself into matter, where did it originate before deciding to take the shape of matter? What makes you certain that there is nothing still in its pocket for further evolution and what is the nature of that pocket?

[thedudegrowsfood]

It comforts me that the amount of things we do not know is so colossal that certain things will be beyond our ken forever.

[justa_dude]

Your channel is 🔥🔥🔥 to thinkers. Always gets my small brain thinking. I like how you get right to it in your videos.

Thank you

[MeRetroGamer]

This man represents perfectly the huge categorical mistake of the old minded scientists (I apologize if I sound rude).

The question on consciousness (the "hard problem") is not about how the different qualities and the mind arise, it's about how are there qualities at all, the fact that there's experience. How a inert world, devoid of any kind of mind or experiential/qualitative reality, can give rise to consciousness?

They mistake the map (the abstract "material" world) for the true nature (the qualitative world).

[vonrecht]

I see where Humphrey comes from, but I regret to say he explains very little, however 'rational' he may sound. There is no real illumination, no transcendence, nothing to inspire. "There are more things...etc etc"
Apparently not in the Humphreyan universe...

[debyton]

"Matter is all that makes up this extraordinary world ...". Is electromagnetism matter? Are the strong and weak forces matter? Is gravitation matter? Is entanglement matter? We admit to knowing little about 5% of the universe we can measure and next to nothing about the 95% of nature we can't see or measure, how can anyone still claim that materialism is well-grounded?

[shelwincornelia]

It's an awful thing to deny one's own spiritual nature while trying to convince the world of one's materialistic point of view.

[TheUltimateSeeds]

Nicholas Humphrey is implying that the mind is a *"weakly emergent"* property of the brain, when, in fact, it is a *"strongly emergent"* property of the brain. Which means that the mind, along with its accompanying self-aware *"agent"* is something *wholly other* than anything that the constituent (material) properties of the brain can account for.

[robertdorr]

Still grasping on an idea, enclosed in an impossibility.

[JungleJargon]

Information is *NOT* a material thing. It’s a preexisting written word that makes *ALL* life on earth.

[TheStobb]

A religious friend told me. Our brains are very similar to televisions built to receive but even when the television is damaged and not working the signal is still there It just cannot get it out, the same with our brains, if it’s damaged it can’t transmit. Good way of putting it but you’ll never prove one way or the other

[bltwegmann]

And what exactly is our brain trying to fool with this illusion? Itself?

[jjharvathh]

Interesting theory/assumptions (that is, this idea of materialism), but it is almost certainly not correct. There is something very important here that we do not understand, and, it seems that we have no hint about it.

[ahsanmohammed]

His speech is so choppy it’s hard to comprehend.
Turn off the volume, put it on captions, slow it to 0.75x, read exchange.

[EggtherSong]

Is Hardware and Software the same thing?

[jamesruscheinski]

Could quantum field probabilities provide perceptions to human brain, such as sight of red, smell of cheese, musical sounds; to which neural correlates add a subjective conscious feeling?

[BulentBasaran]

Nick says he wants to explain everything in terms of nature and that search gives him joy and purpose. Can nature explain nature? How can the eye see itself? It can look at a mirror and see itself. Mind is looking at nature to see itself. For a while, it thinks that it sees itself, not just an authentic image. Soon, it shall realize that looking is not in nature, we are looking at nature. Yet, this is not the simplistic Cartesian dualism. All that we look at, all that we explain, how we explain may come and go. Yet, looking itself, understanding, explaining, describing, all absolute abstractions, are immortal and eternal. Compare that to the impermanence of nature, including personal histories, memories, objects of our attention. Attention itself, not part of nature, but the cause and reason for the existence of nature -- that's is the mystery of existence and consciousness and the mind.

[esorse]

The complement of 1, 2, from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is 3, 4, 5, and similarly for 1, 2, 3 it is 4, 5 and this does not violate the law of non-contradiction :  nothing is both x and not-x, leaving monism, dualism and pluralism, or one, two and more than two entities respectively categorization redundant, while whether syntax and semantics are necessary, sufficient, or both, conditions for conceptualization depends upon your categorical claim.

[harrywoods]

Just a thought, To me the brain is an consciousness processing receiver With our senses as input. Our great filter of consciousness of the conscious universe🤔