Alva Noë: You Are Not Your Brain | Big Think

So it's dance ..he defined Mana (Mind) not the consciousness.

YOUR MIND IS SOFTWARE.
RUNNING ON HARDWARE ANIMATED BY NEUROTRANSMITTERS AND HORMONES.

You gotta be a fool to believe that a human is just a brain when the brain can't even live on its own without other vital organs like the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys. The brain is just a vital organ that works hand in hand with other organs to keep the body functioning properly. Our body, in totality is a unit which makes us the being we are.

awakening happens in the body. hi alva

Sir, does conscious attention convert Short term memory into Long term memory in human ?

I am a physicist and I explain why current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics.

It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally 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 objectively as a 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 of molecular processes 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

He sounds and looks like rumplestiltskins

His voice sounds like trump's

And yet, if your shred a dollar bill it loses it's value. But if you copy a dollar bill to a point where the copy and the original are indistinguishable they would have the same value.

So there is something embedded in the dollar bill that makes it valuable. But yeah, a dollar bill is also an element of a larger system, namely a society that gives a special meaning for this object.
I get it, but you did little to support your claim. I understand that that is a possibility, but you did nothing to defend it, or give a reason to believe that that is the case.

Martin Buber – all life is meeting, relationship.

Legendary. The problem is that contemporary neuroscience(I'd argue all material sciences) don't want to go against the assumptions no matter how dumb they are either out of arrogance if ignorance. The thing is the materialistic perspective is so prevalent that I a layman feel to be pressured into never bringing up the immaterial. But facts don't care about feelings, yet feelings care about facts, which in this case are the false assumptions being made.

Regardless, the point I understood was that material sciences answer how and not why and that there are different explanations for different things. John Lennox actually introduced me to this idea.
Watch John Lennox Did science kill god if anyone interested or by destiny reads this.

In our arrogance of claiming to know all we forget and ignorantly assume

BS

the like to dislike ratio😮

Athiesm is pure bullshit

He is just right

I know this to be perfectly true because I am consciousness and I am driving a temporary, flesh-covered earth vehicle, albeit very badly :/

Consciousness is not the brain, there is the interaction of the intentional body with the world that brings forward the consciousness …

Some woo woo panpsychism nonsense. I still think Vilayanur S. Ramachandran has the best explanation of consciousness. I highly recommend his book, The Tell-Tale Brian.

I think the majority of critics for this guy is missing what he's really saying. He's not saying that he has a soul, or something mysterious. He's simply stating that the way in which consciousness behaves is not necessarily looking at brain matter, but rather how that brain matter creates or designs certain things. Think of emergence. Psychology is an extension of biology in a way, just the way biology is an extension of chemistry, just the way chemistry is an extension of physics. Now, using that understanding, you could argue that you could using laws of physics to describe psychological processes. Not only would that be probably impossible, it would also miss out on the emerging laws of chemistry, biology, and psychology that produces meaning to psychological behaviours. He's not saying some immaterial soul exists, he's saying that the way we are looking at consciousness may not be the most effective way.

Yeah because I chose to be conscious.

You are not your brain but what is most central to you is your brain and your consciousness is certainly in your brain.

Way too much bass in the voice track.

Can we please appreciate that this guy is NOT saying some spiritual nonsense, despite his calm, deep voice, but instead that conscious experience may be more in the ACT of the experience (the particular interrelation between the sensory stimulation and the motoric action that caused it. Seeing for example, is impossible with eye movement) than simply as a byproduct of neural processes. He's not saying the brain has nothing to do with consciousness. Sure, the brain is a precondition for consciousness and it''s very important, that does NOT mean that our consciousness is LOCATED in the brain.

If neuroscience has to look outside the material world for evidence of consciousness then they are no longer scientists, they instead become philosophers. The problem with philosophy is that it never feels compelled to follow the material evidence of the world around us towards logical conclusions. Philosophers and theologians often excuse themselves from the world of material evidence whenever they see fit and somehow think they are at an advantage because of this subjective relativism they are in possession of. Philosophy and theology have a lot of catching up to do, not the other way around.