What is Extended Mind? | Episode 1811 | Closer To Truth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2024
- What is extended mind? How does the mind work? It’s not obvious. Where does the mind stop and the rest of the world begin? What is extended mind? What is embodied mind? Featuring interviews with David Chalmers, Andy Clark, and Raymond Tallis.
Season 18, Episode 11 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth 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.
#Mind #Consciousness
Ego dissolution is very important vector deserving questions with this extended mind discussion.
This series is priceless and everything the internet should aspire to.
Ego dissolution cant be acchived if the brain itself (godsystem) is pestering the ego, calling the ego to be bad when there is something ethical that the godsystem isnt seeing as ethical. We humans have our own ethics but the godsystem doesnt have the same ethical system (god is unchangable). The reason there is hard for some people to dissolve the ego is because of this unfair accusation the godsystem is doing to some people. Those people end up with mental illnesses. And i can tell you this much, if your ego have a super ethical respons, even better than god have, then he will call out on you thinking youre unethical, just because you cant have better ethics than god itself. Probably because it gets to advanced for god to have a perfected ethical system, and work flawlessly. God will have to be more detailed than God can handle. So it is a dilution to think everyone can dissolve the ego. And if there is a way to change God and the godsystem, it must be done via the people that God trust most, and those are the obviously one's, those that are perfectly created. Beautyfull and smart people need to stand up for all of us and have perfect ethical responses to tell the world that we must follow, and write down these ethics, and implement them in our society. Otherwise people that is mentally ill and have a higher ethical standard than god will allways end up as targets to God's bullying. God seem to do a type of genocide imho.
It's not an Internet production. It's a television series which are posted on UA-cam (not by Robert Lawrence Kuhn btw).
This particular episode is relatively recent (about 2 years old) but most of these are ten or more years old. It's been on and off the air for over 20 years.
It's amazing how many people think it's just Kuhn's personal UA-cam channel.
Excellent point! Thanks. Love how this gets people thinking 🤔 ❤️
@@b.g.5869 Robert does admin the Closer to Truth channel. Robert owns the rights to his television show, no one else. He most certainly posts every video uploaded on this channel.
@@joshkeeling82 You don't know what you're talking about. These are episodes from a long running PBS (public broadcasting service in the US) television show, reposted to UA-cam; they're not made for UA-cam and they're certainly not posted by Kuhn himself.
Most are well over ten years old and many are older than UA-cam..
Over the past year and a half or so he's done new material, in a very different format to the TV show called "Closer To Truth Conversations" which is essentially one on one roughly hour long Zoom interviews.
It is his show and his channel but he's certainly _not_ administering this channel personally.
This is one the best episodes of CTT in terms of explanatory approach to an idea. Despite the lack of contrary views like other episodes, this one, in the context of what I've already read and studied about mind, was very helpful. I appreciate your work.
What is, or how do you experience, "ideas or an idea?
My left pocket bets my right pocket that you have not the faintest idea and are about to demonstrate that by signally failing to set out what you mean by "idea".
Yeah this is a great episode.
Great discussion
This is worth exploring, very interesting food for thought.
Love your intros
Cool final thought
this episode blew my mind
means what?
Very interesting
I could see where the phone is superior in retaining memories. Lord knows we chop them up as we age.
it remembers the taste of food does it?
Do let me know the next time that "we" as a headache.You can experience only your own direct immediate personal experiences not anything of the experience of any apparatuses other than yourself
I know you have an episode that discusses how brain damage gives us insights into the brain and mind. But instead of a one time brain injury, why not explore alzheimers or dementia. A degenerative brain disease may provide more insights, as the brain constantly adapts to deterioration. Thank you.
As cognition deteriorates dementia patients appear to lose everything, but most apparent to me is their loss of placing themselves in the present… they seem to exist in the past, and as they become more ill the further they regress.
You speak of the mind or brain as if were that of someone other than you-whatever you are- as if all minds/brains were identical, and your problem or confusion stems from the fact that you are using the very thing you seek to examine to examine itself, which is no different from trying to use a mirror to reflect itself.
Do you recognise that?
That rather depends on what you mean by "the mind", or how you define it, does it not?
Your difficulty- not to say impossibility of trying to discover the nature and characteristics of the mind is that you are using the very thing which you are seeking to examine to examine itself-which is(by definition) futile, and can only be circular or a form of dreaming.
If it is circular and what that goes on in your head/brain/mind is not circular, or is not dreaming.
The fundamental question is how can dreamers awaken? the trouble with men(human beings) is that they dream that they can dream themselves awake. They want to go to heaven(which is awakening) with their boots on( or cut off the legs and keep the feet, which is no doubt why the experience little but calm intelligence joy and prosperity, but sadly they suppose(God alone knows why) that they can understand with their minds alone, or imagine that they can understand by dreaming, which is pretty much all whatever they mean by the mind, can do -it is a dreaming machine, because it works by associations or dreams, but is a jolly useful machine, depending on your aim. Men are dreamers precisely because they have n aim because dreamers cannot have a aim and make that aim more important to them than anything else or their God.
Because they are dreamers.
@@vhawk1951kl well peter , that was tasty point fun
Mind the mind and the mind will mind itself .
... another one of my favorites :-)
With the extended mind idea, we are just starting to sake a few tentative baby steps toward the truth, which is so far beyond the common conceptions.
whose truth?
@@vhawk1951kl No one owns the truth. They either know it or they do not.
Whose truth?
@@vhawk1951kl You either know or you dont.
@@jjharvathh And you have just demonstrated that you don't, but in the same time you don't say what you mean by "know" and doubtless you have no idea about that either.
What is matter? Never mind!
What is mind? Doesn’t matter!
I'm not really seeing a difference between using the mobile phone as an external tool to aid the brain to do what it needs to do (store numbers, take photos, use as a notepad) and having a prosthetic leg or similar. Tools are tools whether simple or technologically rich.
The difference the same as the difference between having a calculator and wearing a hat - they have different functions
My mobile phone exclusively only makes telephone calls when I am not near a proper telephone.
I still take a pen-to-paper approach for internalizing scientific research. This helps visualizations of complex periodical materials. Even when there are a concepts that are not fully understood, I can go back and revisit it after a few night of sleep where things will fall into place.
What exactly do you mean by "internalising"?
@@vhawk1951kl, this is because I am a 74 yo retire and by writing things down I can visualize, (or "internalizing"), scientific research materials. My career was in analytical chemistry. We had to document experiments in a notebook, how we came to any final conclusions.
Presently, I am trying understand of quantum physics. This keeps my mind active and is enjoyable. Perhaps nothing will become of this, but it gives me purpose.
"internalising" meaning what-*Exactly*? -Inside- or internal to, what?
My left pocket bets my right pocket that if I ask you what you mean by concept or concepts, you will have no choice but tell me that you have not the faintest idea.
I would be interested in your observations on the truth or correspendance with experience of the following not originated by you present interlocutor:
"Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect, whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided, once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too.
A question, perhaps, does sometimes arise in him when he hears an entirely unfamiliar word the first time; but in this case he is content merely to substitute for the unfamiliar word another suitable word of familiar consonance and then to imagine that he has understood it.
To bring home what has just been said, an excellent example is provided by the word so often used by every contemporary man “world.”
If people knew how to grasp for themselves what passes in their thoughts when they hear or use the word ”world,” then most of them would have to admit-if of course they intended to be sincere-that the word carries no exact notion whatever for them. Catching by ear simply the accustomed consonance, the meaning of which they assume that they know, it is as if they say to themselves “Ah, world, I know what this is,” and serenely go on thinking.
Should one deliberately arrest their attention on this word and know how to probe them to find just what they understand by it, they will at first be plainly as is said embarrassed,” but quickly pulling themselves together, that is to say, quickly deceiving themselves, and recalling the first definition of the word that comes to mind, they will then offer it as their own, although, in fact, they hadn’t thought of it before.
If one has the requisite power and could compel a group of contemporary people, even from among those who have received so to say “a good education,” to state exactly how they each understand the word "world,” they would all so “beat about the bush” that involuntarily one
would recall even castor oil with a certain tenderness."
Interesting. What science ask and observe from its beginning? Anomalies?
I have a tremendous thirst for the subject of the human mind and consciousness you study and so skillfully deliver to us. A simple thanks is so understated.
what do you use for understanding? -Assuming you have any idea what understanding is, but you are about to demonstrate that you have no ide, by signally failing to set out what you mean by understand.
And you experience this "thirst" using what apparatus or sense?
What is mind? Doesn’t matter--what is matter? Never mind
Go back to school and don't ask pointless "deep" questions! Chalmers is a nutcase!
I’ve listened to Chalmers many times and he always seems to prattle on and on without ever really saying anything
Any philosophy which needs a particular language (especially puns!) is just wrong.
When are you going to California to meet Quantum Gravity Research team?
The word should be expanded
Does anyone know where this is filmed? The nature
What if just like Light is a duality of particle and wave, mind & consciousness may be attributed in the same way, sort of !
how would you go about discovering whether or not that was the case?
You experience light as particles and waves do you?
What exactly do you mean by consciousness?
whose consciousness of what?
Consciousness in vaccuo or without context is meaningless, but if you cannot mumbo, why not just jumbo?
This was interesting. Particularly with the "One Note" exampler. I think this can become a habit by a certain age. Although the change on a phone could be offensive to some owners, but I think maybe the phone can never intuit what is needed from one moment to another. It can freeze, go incognito, load errors and make us put it aside but it won't actually know how the person intuits each moment that is not written down.
But then if the phone is a metaphor for consciousness then having your stuff altered by someone else is correct ... a violation. Simply because the electrical field is shared with every living object with its own unique settled state. But if the capacity for learning new rules outgrows the person's field, each catergory for the new problem areas will need to be adjusted and restabilized with suitable features that are broader and in other fields of forgotten origin potentials.
This theory actually could explain creativity in general
Care to explain?
what creativity, hearing which word always triggers my pretentiousness alarm; only god creates.- men re-arrange.
Were I to ask what you mean by" creativity" or seek to convey when you use that word, I would draw a blank would I not? The mere mention of that silly word 'creativity sets of my BS/pretentiousness alarm. Men both do not and cannot " create"(whatever create" might mean) they merely re-arrange.
What is "creativity"?
When you say things like
" more than metaphor "
It implies that metaphor is derogatory.
Every aspect our ourselves involves metaphor .
Any connection to objective reality we have is metaphor.
Metaphor is an arbitrary symbol representing a pattern of information for which it isn't.
Any scientific experiment
Involves metaphor from the idea of it all the way to interpretation of the results .
We don't stop and realize often that metaphor is almost all we have .
Metaphor is the primary way we understand.
Only to you. Is it not screamingly obvious to you that it is and can only possibly be, an analogy?
It does nothing of the sort to me.
Consciousness connection to the UNIVERSE
Those that abuse capital letters emphasis nothing but the hysteria of the abuser.
What do you mean by" the universe"?
That you have no idea you will demonstrate by signally failing to set out what you mean by " the universe", which, like all universals, can only be imaginary or just a vague unfocussed idea- a vague generality.
X is imaginary if it cannot be directly immediately experienced *as* X
Would I be correct in supposing that if I asked you exactly what you mean by "the universe", you would have to tell me that you have absolutely no idea?
The concept seems very cyberpunk to me.
I do wonder if there's anyone who has explored the cognitive link between the internal consciousness (unextended) and the idea of a "soul"
It's very oskalinopnian to me.
How exactly would you go about exploring the cognitive link(whatever tf that means)between internal conscious(which you do not define) and the idea of a soul?
In blue blazes is "cyberpunk"?
You have not the faintest idea? - No surprises there
Maybe Albert Einstein was right, when he stated, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Anil Seth seems to agree with what was Albert’s opinion. “We are all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.” Anil Seth … neuroscientist.
Quoting other people doesn't make you smart.
I see the point. Many of the features of the world I am expereincing is contingent not absolute. for example color, solidity, emotions, if one parts of the brain, or my physical body was different, this thing will be radically change. for example, let's say all the people who has normal vision died, and only people who is conlor blind survive, and they continue their generation. everyone at some point belive there is no such thing as color, and unable to imagine it
Who told you that anyone-perhaps a man like any other man called Einstein, said any such thing?
I'm almost certain he said nothing of the sort, because he made no study of the psyche, nor was he a philosopher.
You speak of "we" seeking to convey you and who else?
An hallucination is some associative apparatus taking some sort of experience as other than it is, is it not, so when you speak of an hallucination you must specify an hallucination of what.
Are you saying that because you are deluded- or suppose yourself to be deluded, others are as well?
Einstein said nothing of the sort.
Did you personally hear what Einstein said, or didn't say, or are you just going by what you read and want to believe, as do the rest of us?
How does the mind work? By associations of course.
With the Internet, I can look up things that years ago I had to remember. I also don't know phone numbers anymore. As a kid and until I got a cellphone in 2001, I memorized phone numbers. My mind is lazier. I still can multiple two digit numbers in my head, but I even do simple additions with my computer normally.
with the tower of Babel, or internet you cannot even begin to verify or falsify whatever you may discover in that source of lies and misinformation.
Robert should try microdosing psychedelics, that would truly bring him Closer To Truth.
Totally agree
Or the nearest lunatic asylum.
Whose truth?
Often, when I look at something - a table, a cigarette, an aubergine, West Sussex, a frog - something is triggered in my mind that cues a thought, a memory, an emotion, that was not there immediately before. So those things - the table, the cigarette, etc - are contributing to my mental processes - without them those processes would operate differently. To this extent the whole array of physical things forms a part of my mind, possibly of my consciousness - without them my mind would operate differently. So, to the extent that they affect my mind, do they not also contribute to the whole that I like to think of as my consciousness?
Thanks! This makes a lot of sense. Not just physical things like the frog but ideas etc of course.
you are describing your associative apparatus no more.
It evokes associations in you associative apparatus does it not?
Does it matter what you*call* that associative apparatus which clearly acts choicelessly or mechanically, which is to say that whatever you might be is entirely passive when it comes to what takes place in that apparatus or mechanism.
Men tend to speak of or use the word I without having any clear notion of what they mean by it, or seek to convey when they use it, which is to say that they at least appear never to ask "what am or is I,"? or to question whether or not they have whatsoever it might be.
Purely as a matter of idle interest how exactly do you distinguish between for example west Sussex and East Hampshire? Is there anything West Sussex_ish about West Sussex or East Hampshire for that matter?Are you not using your associative apparatus to discover that it is indeed an associative apparatus?
How does that differ from a mirror reflecting itself?Is it possible for a mirror to reflect itself, moreover it is possible for an associative apparatus to recognise itself to be an associative apparatus (or mind)?
It's almost as if Doctor Paul Pearsall book "The Heart's Code" might be more profoundly ahead of its time, when viewed through the lens of extended mind. If Botox decreased a person's ability to read, what more would swapping out a heart do?
George Lakoff and Evan Thompson are the ideal people to discuss this subject with
with what? just goes to show why not to end sentences with prepositions flapping pointlessly in the wind
While the difficulties or unattractivenesses of ending sentences with prepositions is that your interlocutor wonders for example with what? Another reason not to end sentences with prepositions is that they look ugly flapping pointlessly in the wind at the end of a sentence But that is purely aesthetics
20:00 when a person says the mind is outside of itself I think we can reasonably claim, they are out of their mind.
"We" (with the meaning of which you appear unfamiliar) being you and who else?
"We" is imaginary - can only possibly be imaginary, unless you suggest that "we" can have a headache.
More likely they have no idea whatsoever what they mean or seek to convey-mainly because it is gibberish.
As A.R. Orage points out in his excellent little essay "Consciousness, animal man and superman, using the mind or or some sort of experiencing mechanism or device to examine whatever it is or might be is directly analogous to seeking to stand on ones own shoulders, or seeking to use a mirror to reflect itself, which is as impossible as using the microscope which you use to examine very small things, or the telescope you use to examine very distant things, simultaneously to examine themselves, and thus you get what you get when you point a television camera at its output monitor- a feedback loop or just simple confusion, thus it is a futile endeavour.
Is not speaking of the mind being "outside itself" almost identical to speaking of a mirror reflecting itself? Would you say that the mind is a species of mirror - that assuming that you know what you mean by "the mind"
The mind is in the brain, the brain functions through electric pulses, which is linked to electric and magnetic fields; the earth has a magnetic field; do these two fields communicate? Where is the boundary between mind and no mind?
Perhaps your perspective of mind is innacurate. Its the common perspective but perhaps it is incorrect. Think of mind as a field that can be measured by its effects and that extends beyond the physical body and into the environment...
Who told you that and why do you believe them?
Who told you that and why do you believe them?
Who told you that the brain functions through electric pulses and why do you believe them?
I find music in the intro to these videos a tad too dramatic;)
7:50,,, add in imagination and epigenetic
Robert zweifelt noch an der Theorie vom erweiterten Geist. Er fragt danach, ob das, was man für erweiterten Geist hält, zur Essenz des Geistes zählt, oder das eigentlich einfach nur eine Bereicherung des Geistes ist. (22:42)
Dass er diese Frage stellt, ist keine Überraschung. Ich glaube, diese Zurückhaltung hat mit dem Sprachgebrauch des Worts “Mind” zu tun. Wenn Extended Mind akzeptiert würde, müsste man vieles verändern. Z.B. auf die die Redeweise “I have a change of my mind” würde man so reagieren: “Wait, you mean you change your notebook or the content in your head?” Ein Notizbuch stehlen heißt Diebstahl, aber wenn man den Geist eines anderen Menschen vermasselt, ist es ein anderes Niveau des Verbrechens. Vieles ist an dem Sprachgebrauch gebunden. Es fühlt komisch an, Extended Mind als Essenz des Geistes zu betrachten.
Imagine if there were another world which were identical to our world except this: that imaginative world had no Philosophy of Mind and did not even have the word “Mind”. If the people in that world were introduced to the idea of Extended Mind, they would have no problem accepting it.
If you want to sell the idea of Extended Mind, it’s simple: Find a world where there is no tradition of how we use the word “Mind” that might pose obstacles to accepting the new way of speaking about the mind.
It is said, " our mind can be our greatest friend, but it can be our greatest enemy as well " we make it our friend when we practice sacrifice and austerity, we make it our enemy when we don't even try to control it.
"Our" mind? being Your mind and who else's mind?
What experience have you of other minds?
Are all minds identical and how would you go about discovering that?
"We" being you and who else?
@@vhawk1951kl " we" refers to anyone who lets addictions ruin their lives by not being able to control their mind. In that condition our mind is our enemy but by practicing disciple " we " can also refer to those who have made it their friend.
@@vhawk1951kl Action begins from subtle too gross, our activities and speech are just our minds expressing themselves.
"Our" mind, being that of you and who else that you can directly immediately personally experience, so what is "our mind"?
Do you suppose all (whatever you mean by) minds to be identical or homogenous?
How exactly do you experience (if you do experience it) "our mind"?
This philosopher (of whom I’ve listen to before) basically just rambled in circles for the first eight minutes; actually kinda agonizing to listen to. Let’s see what happens for the remaining 18 minutes. Hope it gets more captivating.
Edited, updated synopsis:
So, this theory of “extended mind” actually validates how having a good wife or husband is advantageous (thee old adage “two minds are better than one” essentially, two minds are one); because he or she would personify “extended mind”.
Now having a bad wife or husband might be the metaphorical equivalent of a one legged person walking around without their “prosthetic”.
Remaining “18 minutes” certainly complimentary to the first “eight minutes” I was so critical of. Those initial eight minutes now seem necessary for the remaining 18 minutes to supervene upon.
Chalmers is a very good philosopher with excellent insights. I agree this was not his best input.
Recalling a memory can be absolutely plagued with erroneous stuff. Using a device to recall is more accurate.
Recalling memory as opposed to non-recalling memory?
Try memory is fallible.
I had braindamage due to an accident. Skul fracture... Couldn't walk for years because I had no balance. Now I'm ok thanks to a lot of recovery done. My mind works the same but have memory problems...
Can there be whatever you mean by " consciousness(but you have no idea) without memory?
skull- 2 L's, not that it matters in the least. A stroke did the same for me and I cannot walk at all. Is not the mind little more than memory which experience shows to be unreliable at the best of times?
Some men(human beings) speak of consciousness without having any clear notion of what the word conveys to them or anyone else, but etymology can help in that science, conscious, conscience and any English word containing the letters 'sci'(sic) is a compound of the Latin word to know, specifically the infinitive sciere, and its first person singular, scio-I know, so they are words having to do with or indicative of knowledge, the study of- or enquiry into, which is within the purview of epistemology.
Why can this not be extended to roll a dex's .. even personal journal's .. if we take this to first principle the first use of the extended mind was .. the paintings on the wall of caves. Or the development of writing ...update ..as often is the case me and Kuhn think the same .. some thing i'm totally cool with
If there is supposedly something called an "extended mind" is also something that could be called an extended headache? All this nonsense about extended minds is simply random imagination or idle speculation.
How do we explain esp and mind altering physcodelics like DMT?
"We" being imaginary, how do you explaining them?
What experience do you have of ESP and "mind altering physcodelics?
Yeah, right.
What exactly is your experience of DMT?In what respects was your "mind" "altered" from what to what?
@@vhawk1951kl The only knowledge I have of DMT is from what I've seen and read and it most definitely appears to alter or open something in the mind. As for ESP, yes I've experienced numerous incidents that cannot be explained by usual logic.
@@artsmart If you accept my assertion that knowledge is direct immediate personal experience, as direct immediate and personal as pain, then your reply tellsme that you what exact knowledge (as defined) you have of whatever DMT might be, and what you are telling me that that you have absolutely no knowledge of it whatsoever is it not? You are telling me that somebody told you something about it and you believe them what you accept what they say without question, or have I misunderstood you?
Now you need to ask yourself is what I am told direct immediate experience of what I am told?What is your answer to that?Do you say that being *told* about DMT is identical to having direct immediate personal experience (as direct immediate and personal as pain) of DMT?
If you do not care for, or agree with, my definition of knowledge, how would you replace it or improve upon it?
If it is not as I describe it or define it, what exactly is knowledge or rather I suppose a better way of putting that is how do you experience knowledge?
@@vhawk1951kl By your definition, maybe we should throw out all books, films, etc. and rely solely on our own cognitive personal experiences. Well sorry Peter, I do not accept your assertion as you stated it. I think I see what you're driving at but that would open a whole new level of understanding which is outside the scope of my original question.
Unconscious adaptation is the human ability, the brain is learning and extending its source for data storage outside its physical body. Extended mind.
This would have been a great opportunity to talk with Rupert Sheldrake. Unfortunately, you didn't
I guess active externalism makes sense if you’re speaking about it in a metaphorical way or if you separate it from consciousness entirely.
If only you could define " consciousness" but you are about to demonstrate that you cannot, by signally failing to do so.
Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect,
whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided, once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too.
A question, perhaps, does sometimes arise in him when
he hears an entirely unfamiliar word the first time; but in this case he is content merely to substitute for the unfamiliar word another suitable word of familiar consonance and then to imagine that he has understood it.
To bring home what has just been said, an excellent
example is provided by the word so often used by every
contemporary man “consciousness.”
If people knew how to grasp for themselves what
passes in their thoughts when they hear or use the word
”consciousness,” then most of them would have to admit-if of course they intended to be sincere-that the word carries no exact notion whatever for them. Catching by ear simply the accustomed consonance, the meaning of which they assume that they know, it is as if they say to themselves “Ah, consciousness, I know what this is,” and serenely go on thinking.
Should one deliberately arrest their attention on this
word and know how to probe them to find just what they
understand by it, they will at first be plainly as is said
“embarrassed,” but quickly pulling themselves together,
that is to say, quickly deceiving themselves, and recalling the first definition of the word that comes to mind, they will then offer it as their own, although, in fact, they hadn’t thought of it before.
If one has the requisite power and could compel a group of contemporary people, even from among those who have received so to say “a good education,” to state exactly how they each understand the word consciousness,” they would all so “beat about the bush” that involuntarily one would recall even castor oil with a certain tenderness.
what in blue blazes is "active externalism?
I knew it, you have no idea, do you?
You defining consciousness precisely how?
What would be an example of "active externalism"?
I have to write a philosophy paper on this, and I don’t know whether to be pro active externalism or not.
Please don't be inspired by these guys. They are awful.
it's no more than psychobabble or mumbo jumbo.
How exactly do you understand "active externalism"?
You have absolutely no idea? - No surprises there
@@vhawk1951kl I already wrote my paper, and I received 98% on it.
@@Jeremy-sj3pr From who that could define 100%?-Do you always look to others for comfort or whatever it is you want?
Yes our phone is made of consciousness not matter. Thank you for this.
with how many do you share your phone?
If only you could define consciousness, but you cannot.
If only you had some they idea of what consciousness might be, but you are about to demonstrate that you have no such idea by signally failing to set out what you mean by "consciousness; quantities of what and who is consciousness?
What consciousness? Dreamers like you cannot be conscious.
Perhaps Douglas Hofstadter could help you answer this question.
"Parity of opportunity not parity of process"
Therefore what?
Where and what is your syllogism?
What would be an example of either?
Extended mind seems to take the job of the mind and transfer it to an external object leaving whatever the mind is to depend on itself less and depend more on the example: a smartphone. I wonder could our Brain chemistry change?
What exactly do you mean by "mind" and what exact associations are evoked in your associative apparatus by that word, "mind"?
Conciousness is NOT the tip of the iceberg, on the contrary, it is the hidden base!!! + the physical body does not limit at all our existence (with mind, etc.+++)
How exactly do you define "consciousness"?
That you have no idea, you are about to demonstrate by signally failing to define consciousness
@@vhawk1951kl Define define and see yourself ...if you understand what understand means.
I think it's rather opportunistic and reckless to characterize objects/things outside the body as property of the mind--his argument that destroying someone's Evernote app on their phone should be viewed equally as harm done physically to someone. It's a slippery slope without clear boundaries or definition.
Semantics.
Elephants, Since we are going in for non sequiturs and words picked at random
I think that when something is trusted to the point that it aids how you process things, then it feels like it's part of you. If you lose it, you may even feel grief. However, if you die, the item in question doesn't continue your existence. I think extended mind is a longer way to say prosthesis.
What doy you mean by " feels"?
Is that something you suppose or something you know for a certainty as a result of direct immediate personal experience as direct immediate and personal as pain?
Aside from that that is a very Interesting point.
We should be able to see now today new discoveries and help others and open to just a person
At some point we together will go through this uncertain time to better days
"should" meaning you would-like-it-if? Why would you like it if you could see new discoveries?whois " we"? You and your imaginary friend?
Quantum Physics proclaims that the act of observation changes the state of the sub-atomic particles. Now, observation does not stop with the photons on the retina; one has actually observed when the mind and consciousness participate. Has the mind communicated with these atoms? Where is the boundary between mind and no mind?
And - let me guess, you believe that.
Help me with this please: Do you suppose that Quantum Physics is a discrete entity with a mind that can "explain" things? Of exactly how many " photons" have you direct immediate personal experience qua photons? Are these " photons" figments of some religious teaching rather like angels? how do you recognise a photon to be a photon?
A lot will be learned about ourselves and consciousness in considering what it would take for a machine to be conscious and to have a sense of self. If biology plus a human mind’s connection to the environment through biology imparts a sense of self that would not be available to a machine which can never have a live connection to the environment. Even if consciousness is universal, a machine would not be able to access it as a living system because it is not, and never can be, a living system. Consciousness would not necessarily make it a living system and consciousness may not be even possible other than in a living system. It could likely have a robotic mind and no more.
What follows from this is there is only one mind that is shared among everything. This can't be right....
Interesting point but it forces the question: "why can't it be right"?
i dont feel like this is taking me any nearer the truth.
Whose truth? If you have a headache or other pain that is no doubt true for you but nobody else, so whose truth - assuming you can define truth which I rather doubt
The phone is entangled in a network. It participates in an energy that surrounds all participating phones in the network. The network extends the phone’s participation with all others.
PS Watch Paul Selig’s gifts as an intuitive empath at work.
Huh?
@@rudy8278 "intuitive empath"?
what the hell, if you cannot mumbo you might as well jumbo.
@@vhawk1951kl "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." ~Albert Einstein
The Ai we have today will become the subconscious of the Ai after the singularity.
When there’s some information already available, what is the points to repeat them
If we had the technology to take someone's brain out and exchange it with someone else, where would each person be? Would they be where their brain is or would they be where their original body is?
Are you Doctor Frankenstein?
"we" being you and who else? Do *you* have what you call " the technology" to do that? Who told you that anyone could do that and why do you believe them?
Extended mind extends scientifically to the environment / nature, and also extends through language to metaphysical reality of consciousness. While the mind extends scientifically to nature, it also extends language to conscious metaphysical reality beyond nature.
If only you had the slightest idea what you either mean by " consciousness" (Or reality for that matter)or seek to convey when you use them term,. That you have not the slightest idea you are about to demonstrate that you have no idea by signally failing to set out what you mean by " consciousness", or reality or either
Whose consciousness , and of what? Whose reality?
Is it suggested that there is a common mind? - If so it is also suggested that there is a common headache, which is demonstrably nonsense?
"scientifically" meaning what?
What you mean by "scientific"?
You have absolutely no idea? - No surprises there
Woefully, absent from this discussion is the Copenhagen Interpretation and the role of the observer in QM. I'm surprised at its absence, actually. If, as the interviewer seems to subscribe, that our brains and minds are synonymous and they are limited to our heads, does he throw away all of QM?
If the interview is so rigidly embedded in his view that brain and mind are synonymous and doesn't believe that the mind is non-local, but local, please pinpoint EXACTLY where it is. Where is this mind/self? Gray matter? Pre-frontal cortex? The pineal or pituitary gland? One of the lobes? Where exactly? Because the brain is a very vague, general term.
This video is polluted by ads
Really? - I didn't see any, perhaps that is an experience restricted to the "extended mind"
I think the television is a kind of an extended mind because from childhood we kind of rely on it for info and reminders which in turn have made many people very subceptible to manipulation
Information is an extension of the mind. Before tv it was radio and before that is was book ,symbols ect.
What are the functions of the mind and does the television perform them?
What exactly do you mean by either mind or extended mind?
It would not surprise me to learn that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever either what you mean by "mind", or "extended mind" and my left pocket is now betting my right pocket that that is exactly what you are about to tell me
@@redeagle5813 yes, the problem is that most information has been diluted and tweeked. Most is just trash so they can keep an agenda going.
Hello @Peter Codner!
Depends on the pocket you put your pills in.
I sincerely hope you are not too far in the blue right now.
My phone is me. It's taken over!
I thought this was going to be woo merchants discussing the nonmaterial mind but no; a rational discussion about how the function of mind is so embedded in context that some of that context can reasonably be regarded as mind.
Woo merchants? So the metaphysical is woo? How funny.
is multiplication" material" or areWednesdays material?
@@vhawk1951kl you can't really dialogue with people who see no irony in calling mind and metaphysics 'woo', but ignore how concepts such as language, thought and perception are inexplicable by the material brain.
@@cdb5001 Dialogue is a noun not a verb, only savages turn nouns into verbs.
you might have to define " woo merchants" given that not all speak or understand gibberish
This all seems like all a categorical rebranding of terms. Sure anyone can do that but its not a profound discovery of how the world truly IS. Its merely an expanded view of how our "mind" functions. I feel like people will hear some of what is being said here and apply their own woo woo like the mind can leave our physicals bodies like some sort of ghost. Honestly the extended mind is an interesting point but pretty underwhelming in its over all implications.
We are cosmic radios.
If only you had the faintest idea of the meaning of etymology of cosmic, but you are about to demonstrate that you have no idea whatsoever by failing to set them out.
@@vhawk1951kl Your dogmatic denotation puts me in mind of a relevant quote from the bleeding edge of particle physics: "Shut up and calculate." Carry on.
I think that we can extend our minds by making use of other people’s brains resources. That way we can make other people indirectly expanding capability of our thoughts processes, by receiving the informations produced by other people’s minds. Like a boss telling you to calculate some sheets so that he can use them to calculate the financial health of the company.
for example?
Who or what is "we"? Another way of putting that is how exactly do you experience "we"?
From where from where do you creatures get this "we" fantasy?
The trouble with you creatures is that you tend to use words without having the faintest idea what you mean by them or what you seek to convey when you use them, moreover it never crossed your mind to ponder and reflect upon exactly what you seek to convey when you use words or what they convey to you when you hear them. You just chuck words about like confetti.
@@vhawk1951kl when i say "we" I mean people, human beings.
@@piotrn2491 Which human beings?
Means of access. Without my phone, or Rolodex, etc., I cannot recall the data. Speed of access. Calling a friend used to require recalling their number and physically dialing the numbers, today, I click one button. Automating a process, or making it shorter does not mean it acquires mind. No need for a number to call a friend. It's not my mind.
Dave smokes a lot of good stuff so Robert should too to find his answers easier
He does not. Weed impairs thought
@@kimjongun5172 Maybe it does in you, but not in everyone
@@John-kb7pv It's okay if you want to ignore multiple studies showing that it lowers IQ
@@kimjongun5172 I'm sure there are multiple studies that show the opposite too. I"m not denying that it does lower IQ in some people. I certainly know lots of people (including myself) who it disagrees with. But in some other people, it doesn't have that affect. We're not all wired in exactly the same way
I'm agnostic about his drug use, but I can certainly infer that David loves 4/20.
On account of it being his birthday.
The extended mind idea could infact explain selfhood once the agency is transferred from the agent or his brain to the outside environment...
What in blue blazes is " selfhood" apart from meaningless psychobabble?
What in blue blazes do you mean by "agency"?
You have no idea? Nonsurprises there.
If you cannot mumbo, jumbo.
What is "selfhood?
You have absolutely no idea? - No surprises there
I'm surprised no one even mentioned the rubber hand illusion. Rubber hands can feel real-- as if a biological extension of your body (even pain), given the proper tactile and visual cues. Was a good episode, but it could have been much more.
"Real" for whom?
If you experience pain that is doubtless very real to or for you, but absolutely no-one else, so whose reality?
What do you mean by" reality"?-How do you define reality?
You cannot? - no surprises there.
The trouble with you creatures is that you use words without it ever curing to you to enquire what you mean by them. You simple *assume* you know and that others know it also.
Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect,
whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided, once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too.
What caused the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect? one word: It is that evil that men(human beings) call education.
What would be an example of the "rubber band illusion"?
@@vhawk1951kl The video is about how the mind might be extended by objects in the world (like how phones memorize phone numbers so that we don't have to). Not sure if you misunderstood what my comment was about, but I simply was pointing out the "rubber hand illusion" (not rubber band illusion), and how this is yet another example of how the mind is extended; in the rubber hand case, an extension of sensory experience. See it here: ua-cam.com/video/sxwn1w7MJvk/v-deo.html
@@brennanbortz4634 whose mind? Your exact words were:"'I'm surprised no one even mentioned the rubber hand illusion. Rubber hands can feel real-- as if a biological extension of your body (even pain), given the proper tactile and visual cues. "
Do you suggest that rubber bands stretching is an illusion?
If the general proposition is right any aide memoire is an " extended mind with is simply a pretentious term for aides memoires, or a thicko American would say using fancy words to appear what those savages call " smart, what ever such savages mean by smart. Giving them English was like letting a child with a can of spray paint loose in the Prado or national gallery, what an abortion they have made of it
@@vhawk1951kl Lol, I get it now, you are a bot.
My iPhone is connected to the internet so my mind is huge.
Does consciousness requires memory and sensory perceptions?
Yes, not to initiate consciousness but surely to propogate through time for creating new experiences with the help of relative world .
Would that not rather depend on how you define "consciousness"? Is it not correct to say that you have no idea what you mean by "consciousness" and are about to demonstrate that by signally failing to define it?
Extended mind is the subconsiousness.
which is psychological algebra or x=y=x where both x and y have no value- merely swapping one unknown for another, and little more than saying that Wednesdays are bluish.
gosh david, of course that is part of your consciousness. i think what you meant, and what you should have said - is that it is not part of your current awareness. our consciousness is all about our complete experience. it separates us from being a robot. all that we are is the sum total of our consciousness. what we are currently thinking about is a very small tidbit of the whole. i think the words "mind" and "consciousness" are one and the same. i am guessing that in order for us to have a good conversation, we would first need to make a few definitions of what we mean when we say specific words or phrases. but to equate consciousness with awareness is a huge mistake, if that is what you truly think.
"Our" consciousness"?
Any relation of " our headache?
Whose knowledge and of what?
@@vhawk1951kl our consciousness is everything about our mental state. it is our subjectiveness. so it includes our "sub-conscious", which i might define as a part of our consciousness that we do not have a current awareness of.
that could probably also be said of much of our memories. some of our memories we can recall, if we get prodded. but we arent currently aware of them. others we dont recall at all, at the moment. but we could recall them at some later point. again, all this is a part of our consciousness. that which gives us a subjective feeling. that defines us, and what makes me, me. and you, you.
i did not understand your comment about "our headache". it sounded like you were being sarcastic, but i still did not get it.
What on earth could you give a person to increase their facial fluidity??!
Maybe a stimulant
What is actually mean?
The entire contents of your brain can be downloaded to a computer.However would YOU actually experience that? Consciousness is EXPERIENCE and that's a transcendent phenomenum.
Who told you that and why do believe them?
@@vhawk1951kl What I mean by "The entire contents of your brain could be downloaded to a computer"is that all the information in your brain could be downloaded to a computer if you could remember it all.No body told me any of this I just figured it out.
@@Sharperthanu1 and can support it by what direct immediate personal experience of your own?
yeah, right, if you cannot mumbo you might as well jumbo.
The organism/environment is 1 system of behaviour, they can not be seperated. Within this system it makes sense that things such as memory or failing cognition will migrate to the more efficient position.
This isn't a new concept. It's just a rewording of John Locke's 17th century idea of external material objects as external ideas.
I find it interesting how old philosophical ideas are constantly recycled and ostensibly not recognized as recycled by world class philosophers that are certainly familiar with them.
KA meaningless psychobabble.
Therefore what? Where and what is your syllogism
@@vhawk1951kl I guess you just learned the word "syllogism" and are anxious to use it? Your question is incoherent so you don't quite understand what a syllogism is yet.
My comment doesn't require a syllogism. I'm simply pointing out that the concept of extended mind isn't new; it's the sort of thing you read about in an undergraduate elective introductory course in philosophy (a common example being the views of John Locke).
At what page of what chapter of which book does John Locke address that?
@@vhawk1951klThis is like asking what track of what album Beethoven's 5th is on; you're obviously not at all familiar with the literature. It's not a matter of books and chapters.
Read his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding".
4:20 - Why be modern? Your library on your shelves must then be part of your memory too. That's a bit of a stretch for me.
You understand that modern means no more than fashionable?
Why be a sheep and follow the flock? Because the other sheep are jumping off cliffs-and good riddance?
makes sense to me chum, if you cannot mumbo you might as well jumbo.
From we have no real reason for our existence.we can honestly say we know sod all
"We", being you and who else?
Do let me know the next time "we" as a headache.
Maybe these are more accurately named extended body rather than extended mind.
extended mind is not more than psychobabble or mumbo jumbo.
Wherein lies the difference between "the body" and "the mind"?
In what particular do they differ?
@@vhawk1951klThey say "Mind over Matter," but if mind is matter, its just "Some different type of matter over Matter."
@@omy444 Whoever "they" might be, my supposition is that "they" have no more idea of what they mean either by mind or matter then you do, and my left pocket is now betting my right pockets and if I were to ask you what you mean by either mind or matter, you would have to tell me that you have absolutely no idea, but you might pause to reflect how you would go about discovering what associations are evoked in your associative apparatus by those words and what apparatus you would use to discover that, and in the process you might find yourself embarking upon endeavour not wildly dissimilar from a mirror trying to reflect itself or someone using a mirror to reflect itself which some might say is as impossible as you trying to stand on your own shoulders or jump over your own knees.
Men (human beings) frequently try the impossible without actually cognizing that is - on any view, utterly impossible, both conceptually impossible, definition of the impossible and experientially impossible.
Do you suppose that is because of something to do with the nature of men (human beings)?
Matter could be something that takes up space and affect something else.
Why is Raymond Tallis never looking into Kuhn's eyes? (if you study the video, he is mostly looking in the direction allmost on Kuhn's chest) You see it most clearly when you see camera angle towards Tallis where you also see Kuhn's hands)). Is it because the soul relaxes more when we look away from those we speak with, so the mind dont get personal with eachothers? Maybe this is what makes the universe and our reality hard for some, because we know many refuses to look into peoples eyes.
Normal answer is that he is shy.
@@DontKnowHowToSayNo I doubt he has gotten skier with the years, before in his younger years interviewed by the same kuhn he used to look into his eyes as people do.
Channel wouldn’t be too bad if they cut the waffle and ditched the music.
There is very little on UA-cam that would not be improved by removing the waffle and the wholly unnecessary music
The mind is in the brain. Both the and the air that the brain is in are made up of sub-atomic particles. Quantum Physics talks about quantum entanglement known as "spooky action at a distance." Where is the boundary between mind and no mind?
"In the brain or a function of the brain or brains?
How do you directly immediately personally experience (as directly immediately personally as pain)that the mind is the brain? What mechanism or apparatus do you use to come to that constatation?
Isn’t this just what “culture” is?
If only you could define "culture", but you are about to demonstrate that you have no idea what you mean by culture by signally failing to define it
🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️
It's a begging the question fallacy
Why?
The US government hired people for 20 years to pursue Cold War intelligence remotely using just the mind, an extended mind. Remote viewing is real thing and companies employ remote viewers to help them compete..
controlled premonition is not realistic, due precisely to the very laws of physics. Having the mind play in the slipstream of time with unpredictable results doesn’t disqualify it as a skill some protocol
people possess.. That it doesn’t perform on demand as required by science through rigid protocols is not an indication of a non existence. When certain people reliably predict outcomes beyond chance as has been demonstrated often in studies at the Institute Of Noetic Sciences and
the DOPS program at the University Of Virginia, Rhine Institute at Duke. I have had dreams come true in surprising detail that would defy chance for example.
Who told you that and why do you believe them?
The mind may sense an evolutionary urge to be able to use computers to help expand our abilities.
Thats the goal. Continuously reach for a deeper understanding of self actualization. There literally no other purpose for this dimension of matter.
Evolution doesn't have urges.
That is not an evolutionary urge.
Given that to "evolve" means to unroll, what exactly do you mean by evolutionary?
You have not the faintest idea? - No surprises there
All non-locality is an extension of mind.
You having exactly how much experience of "non-locality"?
Yeah, right.