Where Does Your Mind Reside? : Crash Course Philosophy #22
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
George
I believe Mary did learn something new, because all that time she had known about colours from an objective view so she had half the understanding but then experiencing it helps her develop a subjective view to which she can accurately match her objective knowledge of colours and better understand them. I doubt she would have completely understood everything about colour in just B/W shades; the mixing of various colours to form another, the different shades of different colours both elementary and primary, you might not think it but there's so much about hue to learn and if your eyes haven't received input about the information that requires visual perception then can you say you have truly learnt about colour?
Your brain has learnt the characteristics of colours but you have not stored visual memories of what blue is or what red is, so if i bring a chart of actual blue and red from the real world will you be able to identify them? what words describe red without visual references? what scientific explanation tells you what blue looks like except a chemical composition of letters and lines which aren't visible when you look at the ocean for example, maybe if i bring you a questionnaire based on the characteristics you learnt or different charts showing their chemical composition then you have a better chance at identifying them. I think even if she knows all that she would still need help pointing out which colours are which, for example red is different from magenta but if she sees a flower of both colours she might mix them up or perhaps not even know which is which or see the difference.
Telling someone blue is a 'cool' colour and red is a 'warm' colour hits differently when you present the actual colours for the eyes and other senses to register the phenomena and store it as an understandable fact rather than just pure data, because the brain need experience and perception to actually process the acquired data to form information which you can then say has been 'learnt' but before then it was 'known' (don't think about it too much.
reply
I believe Mary did learn something new, because all that time she had known about colours from an objective view so she had half the understanding but then experiencing it helps her develop a subjective view to which she can accurately match her objective knowledge of colours and better understand them. I doubt she would have completely understood everything about colour in just B/W shades; the mixing of various colours to form another, the different shades of different colours both elementary and primary, you might not think it but there's so much about hue to learn and if your eyes haven't received input about the information that requires visual perception then can you say you have truly learnt about colour?
Your brain has learnt the characteristics of colours but you have not stored visual memories of what blue is or what red is, so if i bring a chart of actual blue and red from the real world will you be able to identify them? what words describe red without visual references? what scientific explanation tells you what blue looks like except a chemical composition of letters and lines which aren't visible when you look at the ocean for example, maybe if i bring you a questionnaire based on the characteristics you learnt or different charts showing their chemical composition then you have a better chance at identifying them. I think even if she knows all that she would still need help pointing out which colours are which, for example red is different from magenta but if she sees a flower of both colours she might mix them up or perhaps not even know which is which or see the difference.
Telling someone blue is a 'cool' colour and red is a 'warm' colour hits differently when you present the actual colours for the eyes and other senses to register the phenomena and store it as an understandable fact rather than just pure data, because the brain need experience and perception to actually process the acquired data to form information which you can then say has been 'learnt' but before then it was 'known' (don't think about it too much.
reply
GB3770
It IS possible to know the answer to these questions to a degree that will satisfy oneself. i. e. mysticism.
It IS not easily possible to take these insights and present them in an objective way ie translating mysticism into scientific insights.
That is not to say it is impossible but it might be.
Most people would agree the mind is not a function of the brain - ofc the scientist then wants to know how it all works. well the mechanistic explanation is the domain of science not mystics so you can see the issue.
If you are a western minded person inclined to scientific reductionism and you are tempted to belittle the insights of mystics I'd tread slowly. comparative analysis of mystical insights regarding question like the one posed by this video often show cultures differing in time and space greatly to agree - here is ONE example:
Hindus and early Gnostics both believe in re-incarnation - these 2 philosophies are separated by thousands of years and thousands of miles but here they agree - there are MANY examples of religious philosophies agreeing on key answers to the -big- questions. go look.
Also science wants to determine what is what via experimental observation etc - part of the methodology is to have a control subject but humans are unique - so how do you have a control?
Ethics aside you can't.
My position on all of this is pantheism ie everything is god ultimately, no i dont mean the skydaddy christian god, so why do we have rocks then?
Rocks - as everything else is - are a thought in the mind of god - an illusion if you will.
An illusion that allows for REAL experiences.
reply
It IS possible to know the answer to these questions to a degree that will satisfy oneself. i. e. mysticism.
It IS not easily possible to take these insights and present them in an objective way ie translating mysticism into scientific insights.
That is not to say it is impossible but it might be.
Most people would agree the mind is not a function of the brain - ofc the scientist then wants to know how it all works. well the mechanistic explanation is the domain of science not mystics so you can see the issue.
If you are a western minded person inclined to scientific reductionism and you are tempted to belittle the insights of mystics I'd tread slowly. comparative analysis of mystical insights regarding question like the one posed by this video often show cultures differing in time and space greatly to agree - here is ONE example:
Hindus and early Gnostics both believe in re-incarnation - these 2 philosophies are separated by thousands of years and thousands of miles but here they agree - there are MANY examples of religious philosophies agreeing on key answers to the -big- questions. go look.
Also science wants to determine what is what via experimental observation etc - part of the methodology is to have a control subject but humans are unique - so how do you have a control?
Ethics aside you can't.
My position on all of this is pantheism ie everything is god ultimately, no i dont mean the skydaddy christian god, so why do we have rocks then?
Rocks - as everything else is - are a thought in the mind of god - an illusion if you will.
An illusion that allows for REAL experiences.
reply
Isaac
I feel like Descartes' answer to the mind-body problem could be sufficient with further explanation. If the mind belongs to an entity comprising you, then it would have to be housed somewhere as a static fact, at least while you're alive.
I always thought of the brain as being a constituent of the mind. Yes, the brain is physical matter, but it also houses parts of physical matter responsible for consciousness.
I'm hesitant to even entertain furthering the depths and mentioning this. BUT he also mentions memory/recollection, and those faculties are also housed in the physical brain. The brain, specifically neocortex, allows for higher reasoning. The brain is ultimately the physical hardware that allows for the mind's software to be run.
The brain, in one way or another, is a satellite, taking in wavelengths/input in the forms of nerves, light/vision, sound, etc. The brain broadcasts our consciousness. The brain, through the housing of some of the mind's faculties, and receiving input from physical matter, processes these separate realms. The brain houses the common denominator for perceiving/experiencing both nonphysical AND physical matter.
reply
I feel like Descartes' answer to the mind-body problem could be sufficient with further explanation. If the mind belongs to an entity comprising you, then it would have to be housed somewhere as a static fact, at least while you're alive.
I always thought of the brain as being a constituent of the mind. Yes, the brain is physical matter, but it also houses parts of physical matter responsible for consciousness.
I'm hesitant to even entertain furthering the depths and mentioning this. BUT he also mentions memory/recollection, and those faculties are also housed in the physical brain. The brain, specifically neocortex, allows for higher reasoning. The brain is ultimately the physical hardware that allows for the mind's software to be run.
The brain, in one way or another, is a satellite, taking in wavelengths/input in the forms of nerves, light/vision, sound, etc. The brain broadcasts our consciousness. The brain, through the housing of some of the mind's faculties, and receiving input from physical matter, processes these separate realms. The brain houses the common denominator for perceiving/experiencing both nonphysical AND physical matter.
reply
Soutrik
maybe consciousness is the emergent property of the brain. But what is consciousness is a very debatable topic. I believe it is no more in the domain of philosophy but in the domain of medical science. Asking philosophers such scientific questions is like asking a kid about what causes rain. Or what is the sun in that matter. They will argue without reaching any conclusions or performing any experiments to tests there hypothesis.
No wonder philosophers are still asking the same question Aristotle did, without getting any answer. When Cosmology and Neuroscience is giving us actual answers backed by evidence.
As Stephen Hawking said - Philosophy is dead-
And I say we should give it a good funeral!
reply
maybe consciousness is the emergent property of the brain. But what is consciousness is a very debatable topic. I believe it is no more in the domain of philosophy but in the domain of medical science. Asking philosophers such scientific questions is like asking a kid about what causes rain. Or what is the sun in that matter. They will argue without reaching any conclusions or performing any experiments to tests there hypothesis.
No wonder philosophers are still asking the same question Aristotle did, without getting any answer. When Cosmology and Neuroscience is giving us actual answers backed by evidence.
As Stephen Hawking said - Philosophy is dead-
And I say we should give it a good funeral!
reply
Souchira
Yup, (I think) we are just physical. That the mind and body are separate is just wishful thinking, a form of escapism for something we don't fully understand, yet.
I think that the gray room example actually gives credit to this statement. It states she is thought everything about light and color. This everything would have to include these light waves hitting her eyes and transferred to her brain, so the real world experience. Otherwise it would be an incomplete education. The fact that she goes outside and experience color in a way she hasn't before very strongly implies that she wasn't thought everything about color.
reply
Yup, (I think) we are just physical. That the mind and body are separate is just wishful thinking, a form of escapism for something we don't fully understand, yet.
I think that the gray room example actually gives credit to this statement. It states she is thought everything about light and color. This everything would have to include these light waves hitting her eyes and transferred to her brain, so the real world experience. Otherwise it would be an incomplete education. The fact that she goes outside and experience color in a way she hasn't before very strongly implies that she wasn't thought everything about color.
reply
Matteo
If you know everything about the color red, seeing it only tells you about your brains interpretation of the color. to know everything about that color would be to know everything about yourself, which should not be possible because you cannot contain all the information about something within that very thing. What red looks like to me is not what it looks like to others, because I am color blind. We have different measuring tools, and seeing red only shows me something new about my mind and my senses but not about the color itself.
reply
If you know everything about the color red, seeing it only tells you about your brains interpretation of the color. to know everything about that color would be to know everything about yourself, which should not be possible because you cannot contain all the information about something within that very thing. What red looks like to me is not what it looks like to others, because I am color blind. We have different measuring tools, and seeing red only shows me something new about my mind and my senses but not about the color itself.
reply
education
I don't like the Mary in the gray room situation. Of course seeing red is gonna be an entirely new experience, uniquely different from just knowing facts about red. Because seeing red triggers many things in your brain. She might know how to describe those things but experiencing them is always gonna be different. She won't be learning anything new, but she will be having a new experience. Just as someone can experience red without having a single clue of what that means in any technical terms.
reply
I don't like the Mary in the gray room situation. Of course seeing red is gonna be an entirely new experience, uniquely different from just knowing facts about red. Because seeing red triggers many things in your brain. She might know how to describe those things but experiencing them is always gonna be different. She won't be learning anything new, but she will be having a new experience. Just as someone can experience red without having a single clue of what that means in any technical terms.
reply
Jeffrey
My understanding from the Dalai Lama's Mind-Life Conferences is that Buddhists generally hold that the methods of natural science can never fully encompass consciousness, but with effort and training we can as individuals gain enough insight into the nature of mind / consciousness to free ourselves of at least those limitations of biology and physics that cause pain and suffering. The Buddha said, -Within this fathom-long body, one can find everything in the universe. -
reply
My understanding from the Dalai Lama's Mind-Life Conferences is that Buddhists generally hold that the methods of natural science can never fully encompass consciousness, but with effort and training we can as individuals gain enough insight into the nature of mind / consciousness to free ourselves of at least those limitations of biology and physics that cause pain and suffering. The Buddha said, -Within this fathom-long body, one can find everything in the universe. -
reply
Pratit
The mary problem isn't a big deal. If one would just stimulate the receptors for red light in her eyes she will see red colour itself without actually seeing it. That should just prove that Physicalism. And we don't even need to do complicated experiment like that we can just look at illusions. We see things differently than they are and these phenomenons have been explained by scientists by using science behind the way our eyes work.
reply
The mary problem isn't a big deal. If one would just stimulate the receptors for red light in her eyes she will see red colour itself without actually seeing it. That should just prove that Physicalism. And we don't even need to do complicated experiment like that we can just look at illusions. We see things differently than they are and these phenomenons have been explained by scientists by using science behind the way our eyes work.
reply
Soumaya
I think a more of a scientific approach should be taken in consideration when dealing with the mind body problem. the way it feels when Mary sees red for the first time might be totally different from the way I experience it. If we both had a different experience with seeing red for the first time then it has to do with our perception of the color not with the color itself and how's it defined or with its characteristics.
reply
I think a more of a scientific approach should be taken in consideration when dealing with the mind body problem. the way it feels when Mary sees red for the first time might be totally different from the way I experience it. If we both had a different experience with seeing red for the first time then it has to do with our perception of the color not with the color itself and how's it defined or with its characteristics.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
