Consciousness, Split-Brain Experiments, and Combining Minds | Documentary

26 thoughts on “Consciousness, Split-Brain Experiments, and Combining Minds | Documentary”

1. Hi everyone. I hope you find this video interesting. I'm looking forward to hearing what you think about these subjects.

2. Wouldn't this be proof of the physicality of consciousness, or at least, the self?

3. tbh a lot of my most cherished memories werent things i experience but rather things i read that others wrote. in a way humans already have developed mind melding. music and art has the ability to create emotional responses we've never felt before, which is why a song youve listened to a thousand times can sound even better the 1001st time after you experienced something new that made you really crave listening to that song. humans already have mixed all our minds into one. its called the internet, and it makes the decision to make itself grow every day, and forces humans to do things that they ordinarily wouldn't do.

4. did you delete your telepathy video?

5. I’m very confused about one thing, can anyone help? If they slice through the corpus callosum, how do the motor impulses from the right hand side of the brain get through to the muscles on the left side off the body, and vice versa, to stimulate their contractions? Would cutting the corpus callosum not paralyse the individual?

6. Love it! Part 2 please!

7. Bro I would get so annoyed because then your not controlling the hand

8. Thanks for freaking me out, lol.

9. Fascinating! 👍🏻😉

10. This video intellectually explains mediumship. Thank you for creating this thought provoking and informative video!

11. Greate video with great knowledge

12. Here is another proof of being 2 sides in creation and combination of these 2 sides(dark and light in puplic titles) are the results of reality and consciousness in every level and in many details,,

13. I don't understand how you say that the seperate entities that result from brain splitting surgery doesn't compel a materialist understanding of consciousness. As a Christian, I would prefer that consciousness is a supernatural phenomenon that follows our bodies around, but these split brain examples seem to contradict that notion.

14. This is by FAR the best explanation of the experiment I've seen yet. The other videos I've watched regarding the tests on split brain people don't explain it very well

15. Interesting. Transhumanism probably is the key to answer this question.

16. i was born with a thalamic bridge …now i know why ive been able to read /observe others hearts intentions

17. I am a physicist and I will provide sound arguments that prove that consciousness is not generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is not physical (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). This implies the existence in us of an unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.
    
    Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it can be proved that this hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledge and implies logical contradictions. There are in fact 2 arguments that prove such hypothesis contains a logical fallacy.
    
    1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions of underlying processes and arbitrary abstractions of the actual physical processes. An approximate description is only an abstraction, 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; an approximate description is an idea that exists only in a conscious mind. This means that emergent properties are concepts that refer to something that has an inherent conceptual nature (abstract ideas).
    
    2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that every set of elements is inherently an arbitrary abstraction which implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set. Therefore, any property attributed to the set as a whole is inherently arbitrary because it depends on the arbitrary choice used to define the set. Arbitrariness is a precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and consciousness is a precondition for the existence of arbitrariness.
    
    Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property.

    In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. 

    If a concept refers to “something” whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness, such “something” cannot exist independently of a conscious mind and can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example consider the property of "beauty": beauty is intrisically subjective, abstract and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties are of the same nature as beauty; they are intrinsically subjective and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property.

    The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else; however, there is no objective criterion that allows us to identify what separates brain and non-brain. Obviously, consciousness cannot be a property of an abstraction, because an abstraction cannot conceive of itself. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction because it implies the arbitrary choice of including some elements in the set and excluding others. Physically the brain is not a single entity and therefore every alleged property of the brain is an arbitrary concept, a subjective abstraction. This is sufficient to prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is a property of the brain is nonsensical because it contains an intrinsic logical contradiction; consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of arbitrariness, and therefore the existence of consciousness cannot be a consequence of all that implies arbitrariness.

    An example of a concept that does not refer to something that is inherently subjective and presupposes the existence of arbitrariness, is the concept of “indivisible entity”.
    
    Consciousness can exist only as the property of an indivisible entity, because only an indivisible entity does not imply any kind of arbitrariness; furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity cannot be physical, since there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. Marco Biagini

18. Can a hive mind of woke SJWs combine? Sometimes I fear so, yeah. A very terrifying vision.

19. Split brain patients claim they are one person, whereas the conjoined twins claim they are separate (I would imagine). What do you make of this? Amazing video. I have to say, a thalamic bridge sounds terrifying, if not permanently traumatizing.

20. We've been doing it for so long. It's just that the feedback has boundaries. I wonder if NeuraLink could help in making society more efficient & resilient in terms of creating a technological hivemind? If it could then I might change my violent stance about it.

21. IP seems to come to different conclusions: split-brain patients appear completely normal under ordinary circumstances. The disunity in their behaviour only appears under very special testing conditions. He quotes Hal Pashler and Michael Gazzaniga for instance: Sense of unification is still present in split-brain patients. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIJiAhRd4jI

22. Excellent thought provoking production. Thank you.

23. Absolutely fascinating

24. Your videos are really good! You always point to something I have not thought of before, even though I think a lot about these topics. Today it was the theoretical possibility of bridging human and non-human animals. Will have to ponder that for a while. Thank you.

25. Its Called Bipolar

26. Your content is above and beyond,no doubt about that.

Comments are closed.