Origin of Consciousness, a Neurologist's Perspective: Part 1 of 3

This video discusses the topic of the origin and nature of consciousness from a neurologist's perspective. Does the brain create the mind? Or are the brain and the mind separate entities?

Links to Part 2 and 3: Pending upon publication :-)

Intro/Extro Song: Sage by Slenderbodies

Image references:

[Beevreeter]

Fascinating topic - on the other hand if you just sat there and smiled for eight minutes it wouldn't be boring ☺

[neurogalmd]

Many of these concepts are taken from Paul Nunez’s book called “Mind, Brain, and the Structure of Reality” 

Another book by Paul Nunez worth reading: The New Science of Consciousness (similar concepts to Mind, Brain, and Structure, but less of the mathematical minutia)

[CosmicFox]

I'm so happy that I found your channel. This is a fascinating video. Thank you for sharing!

[chuckellis]

Was just recently having this discussion with a good friend - they asked ME how human memory is stored and retrieved. My CIS skills are likely above average…memory in that context I would say I know much about with confidence…but the human memory question truly stumped me. Looking forward to your next two parts on this topic! ~C

[geraldomedrano]

Awesome presentation! I enjoyed listening and learning. I look forward to more of your work.

[foofighter]

I am currently a medical student considering neurology as my specialty, and I am so glad I found your channel. This is certainly one of the many conversations that drive my interest to pursue this field of medicine. Thank you for your perspective!

[wboquist]

Not at all boring. And, not overly complex. This may be a little off-topic, but if Carl Jung was right about the existience of a collective unconscious, then the individual mind must be both a receiver and a transmitter.

[wakeupwithdean]

you go, neurogal MD! love the info...insight...questions! thank you for posting!

[hungryplant]

Scientific but with an open unbiased mind, you are a rare breed. I really enjoy hearing these topics from your perspective. In my opinion the science is clearly showing us our conscious lies outside of our material self. Russell Targ did some interesting work on remote viewing that's hard to explain any other way. There's some past life evidence that's hard to shake away too. In fact when you really start looking at the math it's as if time is just a figment of our imagination. Perhaps our subconcious creates it ? Or perhaps there's a place we are part of where time does not exist. We can easily create a theory of everything if we just take time out of the equation, suddenly einstein and quantum mechanics and everything makes sense and works. We just don't want to accept the results of our inquiries. Something that still gives me the creeps is when a hypnotist tells someone that an object doesn't exist, and then that person can somehow see through that object as if it truly no longer exists for that person. Except how does the photon reach the eye ?

[patmcd]

Hi. Just found your channel as I was interested in benefits of cordyceps and just started taking it. So, thank you for a review of that. Weighing in on binaural beats. Interesting. I'll watch later.
Also, it's challenging to make comments about one's physical magnetism without attaching other stories and I am committed, as it were, but the unfair nature of your beauty definitely makes you an easy watch. Congrats on that front.
On to more sincere matters. I would say, as a meditator, contemplator, observer, dreamer, and scientist of self discovery and self observation, I can observe that the cases for origin and meaning of consciousness you present, while they are impressively mired in intelligent-sounding descriptions, eruditic layering no doubt supported by many years of research and study by people who observed and reported the mechanics of anatomy and shifts measurable by crude equipment, they unfortunately lack the most fundamental and obvious data known by mankind significantly longer than 20th/21st century concepts have existed. That would simply be observations made by one who has or is moving through consciousness, which, granted, we all are. But, who has the courage to talk about that??
As a neuroscientist, try a psychedelic journey like Ayahuasca (sp?), then come back and talk about an existential crisis and the nature of consciousness. That's The Hero's Journey.

[Aristotle]

1:45 Descartes was well aware that there were very strong correlations between how the brain worked and how the mind worked, and current advancements in brain scan tech would from his point of view just be a matter of adding more detail to this. Just because we can correlate precise brain maps to certain conscious experiences would not affect his view one bit. He would expect science to get better at that over time. Descartes main argument was (like Chalmers) that the essential features of the brain were of a completely different type than those of the mind. For example, Descartes points out that thoughts (like my thought that "Mt Everest is tall") essentially take up no space. Thoughts, Descartes says, are essentially without extension in space, unlike physical things like the brain. The brain is essentially a physically extended thing, unlike thoughts. So, Descartes concluded, the brain and mind could not be the same thing, since they have these fundamental differences (one essentially extended, one not). By Leibniz's Law, if two things have different essences, they cannot be identical.

[Shaunmcdonogh-shaunsurfing]

Epic, looking forward to videos 2 and 3

[Proosh]

This is so interesting...
Any chance you might upload the 2 other videos?

[NeuroPulse]

Woah! Beautiful *and* cool! What a catch!!!

[Aristotle]

2:40 Descartes thought that the brain affected the mind and vice versa, and this could account for why something happening in the brain affects the mind. He has no trouble explaining why brain issues lead to epilepsy-style experiences.

[alysharoberge]

Would love to see the second and third!!

[garyjjanb]

Good presentation. Maybe you could have a conversation with David Chalmers.

[Aristotle]

I think your version of the Hard problem 1:30 is actually part of what Chalmers calls the Easy problem. Chalmers thinks that accounting for virtually ALL the features of the human mind in terms of the brain is part of the Easy problem. The exception to this is the Hard problem: Why do brain states HURT (in the qualia sense). The Easy problem could explain, for example, how brain states reliably react to damage, and lead an organism to address the damage and protect against further damage. If that is all "hurt" means, then why brain states constitute "hurt" would be part of the Easy problem. But there is the additional Hard problem of why, in addition to all the Easy part of "hurting, " the fact is that "hurting" HURTS (it feels a certain way, from a subjective point of view). There is no account for why the (Easy problem) "hurting" HURTS (in the Hard sense). In sum, most all mental aspects of hurting are part of the Easy problem, save the qualia one. See Chalmers' "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness."

[michaelpedersen]

thank, a great theme you address here ;)

[TheAverageJoe]

Wow very good video, love hearing a summary like this from an expert.