Mind, Metaphysic and Meaning with Iain McGilchrist, Mark Solms and Hyman Schipper

“We die to each other daily. What we know of other people is only our memory of the moments during which we knew them. And they have changed since then. To pretend that they and we are the same is a useful and convenient social convention which must sometimes be broken. We must also remember that at every meeting we are meeting a stranger.” ~ T.S. Eliot

OH my, thank you so much - you have no clue how these conversations open our minds further and further...Love you!!!! A FEELING!!! MARK - IAIN - HYMAN - IAIN is my favorite!!!!

Having spoken to Iain and Mark in conversation individually it is so exciting to see this! I can’t wait to hear this conversation between them and see how they reconcile their perspectives on consciousness

I am a physicist and I will explain why scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated solely by the brain; this leads us to conclude that our mental experiences cannot be purely physical/biological. The brain operates in a fragmentary manner, with many separate processes happening simultaneously. I prove that such fragmentary structure implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness; therefore, something else must be involved—something indivisible and non-physical, which we often refer to as the soul. (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes—they are abstract concepts created by our minds. Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct. Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams) From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Clarifications The brain itself doesn't exist as a completely mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Conclusions My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness. An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties. Marco Biagini

“Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.” ~ Albert Einstein

Each person has their own view, experiences and perceptions which are true to them. We are all one, all parts of the world, all need one another and the planet. Respect and love for all.

I keep going back to the cns and its contributions to the tool kit that evolved above it, thank you Hyman, Iain, and Mark, as well as those people who, especially Ivy, have presented this to all of us, peace

In a talk recently with Rupert Sheldrake and Marc Vernon (if I recall correctly), Sheldrake demonstrated the possibility that the attractive forces are greater than the repulsion forces in magnetism. He tossed perhaps a dozen 1/2 inch rectangular magnets into a ceramic dish one by one in random directions and eventually after banging and moving around a bit they all congregated lining up, N to S poles, in a linear manner leaving a long strand of magnets - less one that stuck on the side of the strand of magnets. He also mentioned that rather than decaying the magnetic force of a refrigerator magnet (for holding notes or lists) will remain stuck to the refrigerator door for years without signs of weakening.

This channel's one of the best on YT IMO, pls keep it up.

Utterly delighted to see and hear my two favorite contemporary authors in dialogue, Iain McGilchrist and Mark Solms. I’d been hoping for such a conversation for the past 5 years. Thank you!

🙏❤️🌎🌍🌏🌿🕊🎵🎶🎵 Thank you all for this amazing discussion.

Holy shit what a crossover! I’ve been waiting for mcgilchrist and solms to have a discussion forever

Fantastic conversation. Love the general humility. I would love it to have someone with the neurologist background (like Mark) on with someone who is an expert in rigorous NDE research (such as Bruce Greyson). Both the seeming causal effect of deep brain stimulation on conscious experience AND the fact that experience seemingly CAN take place with no brain activity (see Pam Reynolds’s case in which neural activity was monitored during her NDE, AND which has time stamps of her perceptions during her procedure) need to be accounted for simultaneously. Otherwise we are wasting our time theorizing with grossly incomplete information/theories!

I took Dr Solms' free online course and recommend it. His philosophical views are grounded in real science and a modern understanding of how the brain works, that people like Carl Jung didn't know about. The first concept to understand is "subjectivity." This is one of the first things a newborn baby has to learn - what is me, and what is outside of me? The other key understanding is that the feeling of being yourself, of existing and having an unchanging point of view, comes from the brain stem, not the cortex. This is where AI goes wrong. They think that "consciousness" somehow arises from the processing of language in the cortex. But other animals have the same kind of subjective consciousness and it has nothing to do with language or thinking with words. Lately I've been interested in studies of brain cell organoids. At some point the inter-neuron communications have to give rise to this phenomenon.

Just what I need at the moment! Thanks ❤

Ivy great to see u doing so well with this work… was with u starting out on clubhouse. Very inspiring. !

Thanks all, great. Mark from around 40 mins on, the two different perspectives

Excellent 💯

Absolutely great thinking going on here. You would all love my work although you'll likely never see or be aware of it. Se la vie.

"Dialogue is a way of observing, collectively, how hidden values and intentions can control our behavior, and how unnoticed cultural differences can clash without our realizing what is occurring. It can therefore be seen as an arena in which collective learning takes place and out of which a sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise." ~ David Bohm