Iain McGilchrist & Sharon Dirckx • Brain science, consciousness & God
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 чер 2022
- The Big Conversation - Episode 3 | Season 4
What does the science of brain chemistry and consciousness tell us about the nature of our mind and our cosmos?
Recorded live at The British Library London, leading psychiatrist and philosopher Dr Iain McGilchrist, author of the influential books ‘The Master and his Emissary’ and 'The Matter With Things' engages in conversation with Christian neuroscientist Dr Sharon Dirckx author of 'Am I Just My Brain?'. They discuss brain science, consciousness and God.
For the bonus audience Q&A video, updates and more shows sign up at
www.thebigconversation.show
Take our survey! survey-star.net/mcgilchrist
For Iain McGilchrist: channelmcgilchrist.com/
For Sharon Dirckx: www.theocca.org/author/sharon...
The Big Conversation is a video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the religious and non-religious community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with John Templeton Foundation.
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
We hope you enjoy the show! To watch the audience Q&A, and to keep updated on the latest episodes, sign up to our newsletter at: www.thebigconversation.show/
Dr. McGilchrist's mention of kenosis around 46:30 brings to mind, of course, the ancient kenotic hymn of Philippians 2:3-11.
Right hemisphere leads to theology, the left hemisphere leads to atheism. I have noticed atheism is reductionist ignoring the conceptual whole and enabling people to ignore contradictory evidence, theology focuses on the conceptual, however, unfortunately some theists ignore details and relevant truths that need to be taken into account for a more realistic view.
L p
@@daneumurianpiano7822 j ķ TV few😊
The brilliance of Iain is, after watching countless lectures and reading all his hooks, he is always consistent, he never oversteps the limit of his knowledge, and never claims anything that is unsupported by science or reason. He quotes from a huge variety of historical philosophers scientists and religious figures. He makes intuitive leaps, but always qualifies it with “in my experience”. This makes him an extremely compelling person to listen to
I literally can't take my eyes off Mcgilchrist. So humble yet witty, on a subject so sombre and eternal. Delighted for such a compassionate and gentle soul-- he's the living proof of the ingenuity of the sacred. A light in the darkest hour. I'm forever grateful for sharing this conversation.
yes spot on
The greatest thinker of our time. Centuries down the line, historians will look back at this era as the turning point in humanity - pre and post-McGilchrist.
I'd also
add Bernardo Kastrup and Hilary Lawson to that category .
@@Homunculas
The fact is that “you cannot go on ‘explaining away’ forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to ‘see through’ first principles. If you see through everything then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see.” (C.S.Lewis)
Materialists assert that abstractions (matter) generates what is concrete. This is quite an extraordinary statement in that it completely inverts the natural direction of inference: normally, one infers the unknown from the known, not the known from the unknown (Bernardo Kastrup).
“Let us begin by giving all proper respect to what neuroscience can tell us about ourselves: it reveals some of the most important conditions that are necessary for behavior and awareness. What neuroscience does not do, however, is provide a satisfactory account of the conditions that are sufficient for behavior and awareness. ... The pervasive yet mistaken idea that neuroscience does fully account for awareness and behavior is neuroscientism, an exercise in science-based faith. ... This confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions lies behind the encroachment of “neuroscientistic” discourse on academic work in the humanities...”
“There is something dodgy, of course, about the claim that an empirical science can address essentially metaphysical questions such as whether or not human freedom is real” (Dr Raymond Tallis)
There can only be THE ONE.
More of these two, please!
right on, bro. it's consciousness all the way down. all the way into and through all the other Dimensional Matrices.
and this panpsychic New Age bullshit animistic magical thinking definitely hasn't been around for millennia. Heraclitus was high af on shrooms when he come up with his "pyr aeizoon" shit.
this has been revealed to me by the Entity known as Maharg.
So glad we're finally in a post-Ditchkins era.
The Ditchkins era, as you called it, was painfully theologically illiterate.
@@bayreuth79 It was a collective noun invented by Terry Eagleton who was one of the first to say "enough is enough" and put them in their place.
yes. but let's not go too far the other way
@@bayreuth79 PAAAAINfully.
I appreciate both camps. Hostility towards religion was unavoidable and had to come about, and was well deserved because lots to do with religion is ludicrous. Hitchens' conclusions might be right or wrong, but he made excellent points regardless.
Iain McGilchrist is a delight to listen to and learn from. Justin does his usual great job of moderating!
What is soooooooooo notable about this discussion...and EVERY discussion about this topic (what is consciousness)...is just how little is actually definitively known about it! It is the single most consequential phenomena in the universe (we ARE it!)...and we literally have no idea what it is, how it is created, or where it comes from. The inevitable question becomes... can any of us actually say we know who or what we ourselves are...if we cannot say that we know the Truth of our own ontology? And the...perhaps even more consequential question which follows is...are there any among us who do, in fact, know the Truth of who and what they are?
We don't need truth when we have purpose backed up by human/male behaviour. The believer works not for the man, he works for the lord/himself and all others are here to submit and "work for the lord" If not, it's the believers job to annihilate the others who are not willing to work for him and the righteous gang. All about going out and stealing, killing, raping and getting paid in virgins for the profit, concubines for the helping belivers and nothing about clearing the land, planting grain, taming animals and settling the land. Sad but this is the fundemental FACT!
Within all is an abstract eye that sees systemically. We are that until we know more. It is the abstract eye that enters all fields of knowledge. One ring to rule them all if you will. UA-cam newparadigmfish - stripping it right back by Yap.
Do ants, apes or octopuses know who what they are?
Why should we? Life is.
Not a satisfying answer but surely the only one we know.
Profoundly moved. I love having my prejudices ripped apart!
I read The Master & His Emissary after seeing it cited in a book called Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn. This must have been 2013/2014? Great book. While Dr McGilchrist is an extremely erudite psychiatrist, you can see that his world view is very much colored by his educational background in literature and the classics. Truly a master of both left and right brain thinking. I’m glad to see him getting the attention he deserves.
How does anyone know anything?
@@cloud1stclass372 a scientist would say through experimentation and dissection. A Spiritualist would say through experience.
As an uneducated lay person can you explain\expand on why his educational background has a bearing please?
@@daddycool228 Iain McGilchrist? He’s a psychiatrist.
Spot on, Iain. In the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition 'panentheism' is a part of the theological tradition.
In Orthodox - or (Catholic) Eastern Ortodox ? Pardon me for asking...
@@halvardlund4782 I do not know about Roman Catholicism. I am talking about Eastern Orthodoxy (not to confuse with Roman Catholicism).
52:21 "Prayer is not about talking, it's about listening"
I thought that meditation!
Delusional Telepathy?
What about feeling?
@@martinwilliams9866 feelings are the language of the soul. The greatest prayer is one of gratitude. Praying for some need is acceptable but God will answer it before it's even asked. Special consideration:. A mother's prayer is always given special attention. Bless you.
Strictly speaking, it is reverential communication.
What a beautiful Sunday song, of listening to this one again and stopping for several hours with reverence and respect who all listens to these lectures of Dr. Iian McGilchrist's books 📚
🙏❤️🌎🕊🎶🎵
I saw Iain in the video, and I instantly knew I had to watch it. He's a brilliant man, and one of my favorite thinkers in the world today. I wish he was Christian, but he raises amazing points I've never heard before.
Same.
I am a Buddhist, and I have made a Christian friend in my adulthood. We talked about our religions, and realized how similar our religions actually are. We reached the conclusion that our religions have very similar, almost identical teachings, but what's different is how the teachings are communicated. Such realization has made me appreciate Dr. McGilchrist's view of the cosmos much more.
Iain is a Daoist/Buddhist, I'm very glad he is not Christian,
A Christian? Does one need a religion when one simply is part of creation already. That’s saddling the horse double!
Why?
Very much enlightening interview. Thanks to both McGilchrist and Sharon.
Fantastic discussion. The look on Mcgilchrist's face alone with moderator pinned Philip Pullman as an atheist ... priceless. I'm doing a book/UA-cam channel on that among many other topics.
Quite refreshing to experience the presence of two "REAL" human beings with still an intact SOUL having a conversation about LIFE instead of CARCASSES OF IT putting their EGOS on display.
Excellent! Loved this! Learned so much. Thank you for this. Iain is such a treasure. So grateful that he shared his work with us. Dare I say, thank God for McGilchrist. ;-) HUZZAH!!
Completely and totally fascinating. Sharon was remarkable presenting situations that needed a response from an extremely intelligent man.
A discussion between Iain McGilchrist and Robert Sapolsky would be a dynamic interaction
To answer Iain’s early question about the Right/Left brain: I was in a park about a year ago, talking to an American Indian (who was half in the bag, kinda wish I’d been) while our dogs played together. A guy went by on the lake rowing a canoe. He’d put in oarlocks and a sliding seat so he could row it like a crew shell.
I said “Wow, look at that, he’s rowing a canoe! That’s pretty cool, look how fast he’s going!”
The Indian said innocently “But, he can’t see where he’s going.”
I didn’t see the point of his statement, so I repeated “Yeah, but look how fast he can go!”
The Indian repeated, in a pleasant manner “Yeah, but, he can’t see where he’s going.”
We might have gone through the routine one more time, I don’t remember. I think that I thought to myself “Well, he’s drunk, this is going nowhere, he just doesn’t get it.”
Then we chatted a bit more. I can’t remember if it took me an hour or two or a day or two but it finally came to me, what he was getting at. The left brain was my view, the right brain, his. And for western society, I think of myself as fairly slanted to the right brain.
I’ve watched this 3, 4 times. Absolutely wonderful!
Wonderful! And inspiring !👏🏼👏🏼💞
Loved it. I can't quite figure out why. There's something beautifully Christian in some aspects of McGilchrist's viewpoint. I wonder what this dialogue would have looked like with David Bentley Hart and McGilchrist. Perhaps might have been too much fireworks to be helpful?
I'm fairly positive there is a video with DBH and Ian.
That was SOOOO much fun, and so satisfying! Thank you!!!!
As somebody currently going to an ivy league school, I must say that the opinions of the students and teachers on questions like God, consciousness, and naturalism is a highly mixed bag. And I would say I've met more religious people in the higher levels of learning than purely atheistic.
That depends on where you go to school, but western university professors are definitely more in the atheist / agnostic field.
Are you, perhaps, describing a pigeonholed environment that supports your own unsubstantiated view?
@@XRP747E lol no. Most highly educated people are religious, and most religious people are moderately to highly educated. Someone would have to have surrounded themselves with nonreligious people, and they would have to be motivated not to see the religious in higher education, in order for them not to see it.
My daughter who was in a Buddhist high school, told me that consciousness and matter had to happen together because ("well, duh") without matter there would be nothing to be conscious of!
Not true, when you dream or imagine, you are completely conscious of the dream world, you are completely conscious of the imaginative world, neither are matter, psychedelics will also give an experience that is also not matter, you can be conscious of the outer (matter) and the inner (non matter)
@@LewieT-MX 😉
Matter is nothing, but illusion created by different types of energies and hardness is created by vibration, that's one of the main principles of quantum physics. Everything around us is created by energy and force called electromagnetism , it's the very fabric of our universe. It's the most fundamental part of everything we see . The universe has laws every law in the universe is intention made to balance the system and make it work in perfect order. The other main principle of quantum physics is that our minds our conciseness is what creates reality.
The Master and His Emissary is one of the best books I've read. It blew my mind. Love McGilchrist.
then u must buy the new book!
Excellent and Edifying !
Sharen u are pure
Content creators do these things of course to promote their website. A way to actively (aggressively?) invite interested viewers and also expose those inquiring to more of what they offer. I do understand that it can be off putting, but then that's how they promote what their stuff. I'm a Christian by the way. Very interesting conversation by the way.
Excellent!
I have a degree in frisbee from Oxford and I’m very offended by what Dr. McGilchrist said at the beginning.
Vandenberg:
Did u also get his implicit amusement with Oxford's "moving" with the time ? No ?
(It was because he published a book when he was in Oxford all those years back, which rendered him being not very popular.
One says imitation is a form of flattery, I'd argue that criticism, as unlikely as it may seem, is the same.)
Bless.
It's where you ambitious work get stacked dear Professor McGilchrist.
Huh ???
I've been looking for a McGilchrist conversation that's "easy" enough to share with people. I think this may be it.
Riveting & delightful !......If only we could hear Richard Holloway (previously Archbishop of Edinburgh) and Ian sharing ideas and conundrums !
This is one of the best videos I have watched. It touches on most --- but not not all ---- of 90 years of experiences ---- that I am trying yo record in a book strictly for the medical profession ---- for which I may have another 30 years ---- minutes --- hours ---- days --- to complete. Half a story makes no sense. Mine has a beginning, a development ----- but so far no conclusion --- so- it is like a novel that has lost its last chapter. .
I think it is worth trying to write because, as a qualified therapist (Oxford 1957) it might help other people. I am a novice re computer science ---- so i will need a lot of practical help.
My sister is left-handed and never really recovered from the ways she was treated at school. I am ambidextrous and have no sense of Left and Right apart from using a violin with my left hand ---- but a strong sense of North -- South --- East --- West ----- so long as I am facing the mid-day sun ----- which was different in Zimbabwe ---- or was it? Can't remember. I have recovered from a few strokes (left side) --- melborp rorrim gnitiirw --- well --- mirror writing doesn't work here ---- also Goldsmith College Art school in London ----
The October Synod in Rome 2014
Oh come and join the catholic Church, now we’ve completed our research
on how to run our Kingdom's rules and what to teach in all our schools.
Now no anointed King need rule, as all the pupils in the school
enjoy equality with Him, with Cherubim and Seraphim.
No hierarchy need you fear, as all the Bishops gathered here
have equal rights to have their say, to tell you whom you must obey.
Committees now are all we need to sort the problems of our Creed.
All Dogmas that offend your ear can now be made to disappear.
Nor need you ever doctrines hear, nor false opinions need for-swear,
as all depends what you believe, as anything they preconceive
has all evolved from man-made laws, which change with time and man's applause.
With ten Commandments out of date, we're free to new ones innovate.
Subjective feelings over-rule objective Truth. We ridicule
the Fathers of the ancient Church; rely upon our own research.
Oh come and join the free-for-all that Adam chose, when, at the Fall,
historically, he lost the plot and thought that God could be forgot.
!deedni, melborp gnitirw rorriM. ksat yhtrow a si secneirepxe ruoy fo drocer a gnitaerC
Healthy discussion is good.
Here is a ChatGPT summary:
- 11-12% of people in the US follow a religion, while 95% believe there is more to the cosmos than reductionist materialism.
- Ian McGillchrist is a psychiatrist, philosopher and author of The Master and His Emissary and The Matter with Things.
- Sharon Dirich is a speaker, author and adjunct lecturer at OCHA, and author of Am I Just My Brain?
- Ian and Sharon discussed the question, "Is there a master behind our minds?"
- Ian's journey to investigating the brain began with his interest in literature and philosophy, and his realization that the way we approach literature destroys its most important qualities.
- Ian learned that the right hemisphere is good at understanding metaphor, implicit meaning, irony, humour, narratives, and myths, while the left hemisphere takes things literally and puts them in categories.
- Ian believes that society has become a left hemisphere society, where things are atomistic, static, certain, known, black and white, disembodied, abstract, and categorical.
- Sharon's background is in biochemistry and neuroscience, and she studied cocaine addiction and the areas of the brain involved in reward and addiction.
- Sharon believes that science can show a connection between the mind and the brain, but cannot explain the nature of that connection, which requires a worldview perspective.
- The left hemisphere has come to dominate the right hemisphere, leading to a reductionist view of the world.
- This has caused people to lose the ability to believe in spirituality, purpose, and beauty.
- Panpsychism is an increasingly popular view that starts with consciousness and builds back to the building blocks of the brain.
- The water, ice, and steam analogy is often used to explain this concept.
- The left hemisphere is not happy with ambivalence and prefers black and white thinking.
- The right hemisphere is able to see the whole and is content with the idea of two things being true at once.
- Ian's work has been helpful in understanding the importance of distraction and rest, the influence of algorithms, and the need for a change of perspective.
- We are becoming less cognitively and emotionally intelligent due to the increase in time spent interacting with machines and algorithms.
- Intuition and imagination are now thought of as second class ways of coming into contact with reality.
- Fantasy is one thing, but imagination is the only chance we have to reach reality.
- Maths should serve the thing that really matters, which is the imagination and contact with values and purpose.
- Ian believes that the whole cosmos is conscious and his view is that of a panentheist, where God is in all things and all things are in God.
- Sharon believes that science can't answer all questions and that the answer to why we can think lies beyond the forces of nature.
- Sharon believes that the divine being is in process and that we are in co-creation with the divine, unfolding aspects of the divine.
- Classical theism states that God is already in complete and fulfilling relationship with God and created out of love, which is the foundation of why we are given freedom and why evil exists.
- Creation is a dance of individuation and union, where both forces are necessary
- Oriental people say "all is one" and Heraclitus said "all is many and the many are one"
- God speaks to us through the things that happen in daily life
- God is omnipresent, but not necessarily omnipotent
- Miracles are a huge area and can be seen as a suspension of the laws of nature
- Christian mythos is the most powerful mythos about God
- Emotional intelligence can be regained by listening and understanding the Christian mythos
much if what Iain says ( very brilliantly, of course) has been said (back in the Sixties by, say, Alan Watts in his expression of Zen and Taoism, or earlier by Aldous Huxley in The Perennial Philosophy and The Doors of Perception, (and many others)....there was, also, back then, much talk pf the two hemispheres of the brain......
True, but none of them was as accurate as he is in The Master and his Emissary about the two hemispheres, in fact, in the book, he corrects many of their stereotypes.
This was such a thoughtful, intelligent, and respectful conversation. It made the substance of the discussion, which covered some really big issues, so easy to take in. I found my way here from the discussion between Paul Kingsnorth and Rowan Williams, and it too was just a pleasure to listen to. Two from two - I'm subscribed!
Awesomeness
So, I’m downloading this now and will watch it soon when I can. I promise to watch it as generously as I possibly can. I’m sincerely hoping that I’ll hear a better argument for god that can’t be reduced to “We don’t know how the brain works, so god must have done it.” I’m desperate for anything that isn’t another argument from ignorance.
If we knew how the brain works, why couldn't God have done it?
I’m just gonna repeat that: If we understood how the brain works, why would that mean God didn’t do it?
We understand how cars are made. This doesn’t force us to think that there are no car inventors.
@@geomicpri Great. Demonstrate how god did it then. If you don’t know how he did it, then your argument again gets reduced to “ I don’t know how it happened, god must had done it”. Arguments from ignorance are fallacious and don’t advance anyone’s understanding.
@@KN-ul5xe See my response to Geo.
@@pasqualecirone9755 No, you misunderstand. This isn’t an argument for God’s existence. The argument for God’s existence is that, if anything exists, then there must exist that which allows things to exist, as opposed to existence not being an act for things to participate in. And whatever that thing would be, it’s God. And since this argument exists, something exists, as opposed to the absence of any existence. Therefore that which allows & causes existing, exists. And we call that God.
Ok, that’s out of the way.
Now, that God is also the source of consciousness is baked in to the concept of God. What we want to know is HOW God makes consciousness, or, how our brains avail themselves of it.
Just because we now understand how God chooses where lightning will strike doesn’t mean He no longer makes the lightning strike there. It just means He uses different factors than we thought.
“All truths are God’s truths”. So WHATEVER turns out to be the truth about where consciousness comes from, THAT will be “how God did it”.
Lastly, assuming that consciousness could be explained by purely physical processes, consciousness would still not be a physical thing. It would still be an experience. When computers process information, it’s still just information, & that’s purely physical. Our thoughts are also processed information, as are the thoughts about our thoughts, etc., & they too are purely physical. But even if the capacity to experience is just the sum or product of all those processes, the experience itself is not. We are experiencING the information process, the experience is not the information process.
Good convo 👍🏻
aMAZING! Absolutely loved it. I can't seem to get enough of Iain McGilchrists thoughts, and this conversation in particular...There never seems to be anything he says that I can't agree with wholeheartedly.
Exciting to listen to! Don’t hide the link to get us to your site and subscribe. Feels like a sneaky move and with these kind of guests I doubt you need it.
EDIT: Great discussion!
Darn, I got called away after having signed on for the newsletter in order to hear the Q &A. By the time I got back it was over and I don’t seem to be able to replay it without signing up for the newsletter again. Surely there is another way?
More Sharon Dirckx please
🌷Interesting and cordial exchange.🌷
Would love to see Donald Hoffman talk to Ian.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ BRILLIANT! Simply BRILLIANT! 👍
To split hairs, or rather hardened steel. You can easily split your head open with water. AT 60,000 PSI you can slice through several inches of hardened steel with water. Iain McGilchrist said there is a fascist left and a fascist right. The fact of the matter is that there is a MARXIST "left" and a MARXIST "right", and Fascism is often subscribed to the MARXIST "right", although it makes very little sense talking about competing branches on the Marxist tree, when the demonic end result is always the same. There really isn't a "left" or right", only Right or Wrong. And to reach what is Right, one needs Morality. In my opinion, Christianity is a good way to acquire that Morality, although I have seen similar results achieved both in Judaism and in the Philosophy of Buddhism.
excellent!
Start with awareness
Insightful
faith in God, that is a miracle
Brilliant.
I'm always surprised by the wisdom and insight that dreams can provide and that seems to illustrate his point well.
Beautiful conversation brilliantly conversed by Sharon and Ian.
Another good one!
Fancy seeing you here.
Where is the breakdown!
Your survey link is not working. I have answers to all the unanswered questions that are discussed in this talk. Please let me know how to contact you and the guests in this video.
WHENEVER ONE COMES UPON A ROAD BLOCK IN QUESTIONS AND DECISIONS WHICH ARE PERPLEXING---"FEEL" WITH YOUR HEART IN YOUR CHERST.
ONCE YOU BECOME ATTUNED TO THIS TRANSMISSION WHICH COMES FROM OUR REACTIVE ENCOUNTERS, ONE CAN DEVELOPE AND TRUST MORE ON YOUR ABSTRACT THOUGHTS AS TELLING THE INDIVIDUAL TRUTH. THE TRUTH TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE CAN RESULT IN DIFFERING TRUTHS. WHAT´S YOUR TRUTH? JUST KEEP SEARCHING AND YOU WILL KNOW WHEN IT HAS PRESENTED ITSELF TO THE CONTEMPLATOR.
Man your podcast is very important
This is true
Kastrup convo with Ian was v good too
I thought what Iain says about literature was something very interesting because it's something I noticed not just in leftist talking points but in atheist talking points as well whenever someone makes an argument like the Bible is about as real and based in history as Lord Of the rings. Failing to realize that Tolkien actually studied Norse mythology and Old English Literature and came to the conclusion that all storytelling is based in a fact of some kind and he even writes an Essay on this very topic called the fairy story essay where he lays out the blueprint of all storytelling and argues this true fact, whatever it maybe, serves as the foundation for a story because it makes it something relatable and even better to understand especially if that truth is very complicated and requires storytelling to serve as a vehicle to better understand it this is why physicists often use analogy to illustrate what they are theorizing. The woke really don't realize you are supposed to take a good story and you are supposed to analyze it and paraphrase it. It's the very reason the writer himself wrote it in the first place. He is giving a message about this truth of his and he wants you to understand it.
YES!
Wetness is an emergent property of water. Two gases combine to make a wet substance.
damn. Iain is on fire
Wow!
There is a property in physical systems that may be a panprotopsychic one, & that's responsiveness, if you kick a stone a wave of kinetic energy will move through it & it in turn will move, it experiences the kick even if it doesn't remember that experience, further the sensory systems are highly selectively responsive, consciousness may be a reflexive form of this responsiveness, I suggest the transverse Hall effect of the Glial network may hold the answer.
MicGilchrist is Plato of our time, in my view.
Heraclitus
His interviews and books are so wonderfully inter-penetrating. When he speaks he helps bring the through-line back into presence - a hard thing to maintain over a 1,200 page book.
Quite interesting, it seems at times like the real me is the one looking out my eyes from in within my body lol. Make sense of that idk
Everything is a miracle. You have to jump, before you know you can fly.
When we learn, our brain creates and strenghtens neural connections. When we're under the influence of certain physical substances, our mind is affected. If a part of the brain is impaired or missing, that very funcion it is assigned to do will also be impaired or missing. But none of this apparently suggests that it is the brain that forms thoughts.
If the body of a flute chips or breaks or gets damaged in any number of ways, the music coming out of it will not be the same. And yet the flute obviously is not the source of the music that comes out of it.
Very short sighted from the lady, still worth scouring for - Thoughts are packages of energy and therefore waves and particles. Neuronal transmission to thoughts is well within the purview of science, not outside
Neurons help create thought when you put on AA helmut
The argument that we’re allowing our left brain to be in control remind me of the quip regarding the belief that the sun goes around the earth because “that’s what it looks like”: What would it look like if the earth revolved around the sun?
What would it look like if our understanding of the brain and the universe moved us away from magical thinking toward rationality? Probably it would look like we’re were letting the left hemisphere be in control. Maybe that’s what knowing our place in the cosmos looks like.
Read Iain’s new book ‘The Matter with Things’ if you have the time. He deals with this question in an erudite and beautiful way
Re:29:00 ff., putting militant fundamentalist Christians and atheists together in a box, I suggest that they be glued together: "Epoxy on both your houses!" 😀 My "Live Armadillo" concept involves going to both shoulders of the road and bringing extremists out of ditches. See Jim Hightower's book _There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos_.
I can imagine dr
As a theologian and music teacher, I work with kenosis, but in one of the books I'm writing, I call it "keynosis." Yesterday I taught music to elementary students and then gave a piano lesson to a five-year-old. In a way, I set aside my 65 years of experience playing the piano in order to connect with my students, but in another way I was fully myself at all times.
👏👏👏
His thoughts give too much comfort to those who are looking for a prop from normal religion.
"Why is there "anything" rather than "nothing"?"
It is intuitive that there is no such thing as "nothing" (there is no way to prove theoretically that absence "exists" except possibly through quaantum physics as "black holes" but the concept of "nothing" or absence is only temporary and is part of the process of becoming "something" so I prefer not to conceive of "black holes" as "nothing" for that reason. But of course the question is rooted in concepts only a human can conceive of and is ultimately naieve. But of course the "proof" or evidence for a proposition depends on the case we make for it and the case we make for it really has nothing to do with its existence, only the soundness of logic or whatever method of proof we're using.
"What is" should be defined as "god" because this intuition is of "something" and there is no intuition of "nothing".
Americans beware giving this group your email address as I did during signup. You will not have access to the extra content, all of which shows as blocked on the site. Bait and switch without even an email address to contact someone.
❤❤
Another trinity to consider: left-brain, right-brain, heart-mind (or 'shen' in Chinese).
Where is the survey?
As a collective phenomenon, religion is close to art. Both activities aim for experientiality. Science does not aim for this. The possible experience is a by-product, even experienced by few.
Psychological studies have long evoked negative or repulsive experiences, and their progress is therefore laborious.
What these two have most in common is that they are both eager to be of service to others, each in their own way.
The greatest difference between them is that Ian is a genius, and she's pretty well your run of the mill scientist. Their honesty is heartening.
Regarding the so-called Hard Problem, Todd Murphy, student of the late maverick behavioral neuroscientist Dr Michael Persinger, claims to have solved it, in a paper (& youtube vid) entitled, _Consciousness Arises As Intrinsic Property Of Magnetism._
Now, when you include the theories of Kant and understand time is a priori to inner sense itself, and, include the physics of Dewey Larson -- the guy who found the Universal Theory of Everything mainstream science claims to be searching for -- and thereby recognize the connection between _time and magnetism and inner experience,_ you'll be close to the truth!
Of course, Larson posits time is 3 dimensional. Where do you think the two hidden dimensions of time are? Everything in creation is an EXACT displacement from Unity, which is the speed of light. Light is but space over time + 1. We live in a universe composed solely of MOTION. In the time-space sector, faster than light motion is the commonplace. Where we are in the space-time realm, we approached the speed of light. Think of Aristotle's telos. The future itself is drawing matter to It. In the time-space sector, space is one-dimensional and time 3-dimensional. In the space-time sector, the reverse. His theory is called the _Reciprocal Systems Theory Of Space And Time._
You didn't think they'd rewrite all the textbooks to account for the true nature of time, did you? Larson explains everything in the universe, small and big, starting with THREE fundamental propositions.
Hope that's useful to someone. I myself am attempting to use Larson's physical theory to explain the phenomenon of hypnosis. Catalepsy, dissociation, anesthesia, amnesia, regression .... Someone like Ian could take Larson's Theory the distance!
One of the astonishing things that his theory demonstrates is that matter is not 99.99999% empty space; matter is made of time.
Also, don't call yourself a Christian, call yourself a Catholic. Going to church and watching a magician perform a magical ritual, and participating in it, does not make you a Christian. A true Christian walks with the Holy Spirit, is full of the promise of resurrection, is ALIVE. I see this in Ian. I don't see this in her. I see a Catholic. By the way, the Pope is a Marxist, and Marx was a Satanist. Oh dear, I confess, you are in a bind.
I am glad that McGilchrist refused to allow the host to set up an unnecessary opposition between Christian theism and panentheism. He is correct that Orthodox Christians, amongst others, regard panentheism as a valid theology.
I’m not so sure. I think Orthodox Christians would have a rather,moerhaps,very different take re sin
🙄 Speaking of ‘artificial stupidity’ algorithms etc on balance I persist with the auto spell thingy but it’s a constant struggle ... moerhaps?
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and our experience-able Universe.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it interesting!
Only when we accept truth as to where we are will we return to order and divine nature. Kingdom of GOD in which we are is as foretold
Great podcast to watch....so highly intelligence person with great academic achievement in the front research of consciousness both have Believe in God...
Godbless.
17:30 Daniel Dennett's name is mentioned and the good Dr. 's face can't hide his disdain. Love it!
disdain? probably because McGilchrist doesnt understand him...
All three people on stage hold a phd, wich doctor are you talking about
No, Mats Wessling. It is Dennett who does not understand the mind and has the simplistic view of materialism.
@@johnnastrom9400 Dennett follows a very clear argument. you might not agree with the premisses but he is totally transparent and intellectually honest, which cannot be said about McGilchrist.
Consciousness is a complex interaction between inner and outter phenomenon. The higher the complexity of a system, the higher the complexity of its consciousness.
Mind you; this does not mean simply having more matter in a particular place is more complex. The structure of the human brain for example has been said to be more complex than the structure of the observed universe.
It has on average more choices to make than a rock or a planet; and therefore more control over its conscious ability.
It has more connections in a relative space, whose interactions have a more complex myriad of possibilities than a planet; and is therefore on a higher level of conscious thought.
Thats not to say nothing else is conscious; only that a human being is more complicated than say an atom. However both are conscious. Both interact with their environment; with varying degrees of decision making authority over their own conditions. With that said our own ability to be conscious as we are is a collaborative effort of EVERY part governing our physical make-up; from quantum to neuron. If not for quantum interaction and its effect on greater complexity such as atoms, there would not be the phenomenon chemistry; nor the concept of a thought, or the ability to act on one.
The only reason that God is even being mentioned in this conversation is because people have personified reality so thoroughly they've conflated nature and human ego.
It is wrong for instance to say that there is a god telling everyone what is right or good, when there has never been a unanimous common consensus on what is good, or when it is good; given any amount of deliberation over any given subject of importance.
There is therefore conflict between differing thoughts. So either there is multiple gods with multiple views; or there is one who changes it's answer based on the listener; and gives that answer FOR that listener; and only that listener; which is hardly different from the first proposition.
So god is not a single entity. It is at best multiple; at worst in pieces; and each of us, and nature, are representative aspects of it; with our own individual powers of autonomy.
Wait a minute. What is consciousness, the definition?
When I get up in the morning for breakfast, is it my brain that decides whether I will choose a peanut butter sandwich or ham and eggs or is there a “me” who makes that choice? Naturalism has reduced us to a dualism…attempting to explain everything with the amazing but limited tools of science.
Thank you Steve jobs
If a very large asteroid was on track to smash into the earth, the kind of thinking that Gilchrist seems to disdain is just what will save us. Not EQ, ‘imagination’ & ‘seeing reality’ in the manner of Wordsworth & Coleridge. If Gilchrist ever required advanced medical treatment I’m sure he’d instantly begin to appreciate the categorising kind of thinking. The universe is a dangerous place & if we are to survive, we need to put our left hemispheres to work.
What or who is this, king of thinking you speak of ?
@@psycho6542 That emotionally plugged-in, ‘holistic’ or perhaps mystical kind of thinking, if one can call that thinking. ‘Feeling’ is probably a better description.
@@carvakasatyasrutah9249 gottcha, kinda makes more sense now, and would agree
Sharon made so much sense and was so patient. :)