Iain McGilchrist & Sharon Dirckx • Brain science, consciousness & God

36 thoughts on “Iain McGilchrist & Sharon Dirckx • Brain science, consciousness & God”

1. We hope you enjoy the show! To watch the audience Q&A, and to keep updated on the latest episodes, sign up to our newsletter at: https://www.thebigconversation.show/

2. Fantastic discussion. The look on Mcgilchrist's face alone with moderator pinned Philip Pullman as an atheist … priceless. I'm doing a book/YouTube channel on that among many other topics.

3. I thought what Iain says about literature was something very interesting because it's something I noticed not just in leftist talking points but in atheist talking points as well whenever someone makes an argument like the Bible is about as real and based in history as Lord Of the rings. Failing to realize that Tolkien actually studied Norse mythology and Old English Literature and came to the conclusion that all storytelling is based in a fact of some kind and he even writes an Essay on this very topic called the fairy story essay where he lays out the blueprint of all storytelling and argues this true fact, whatever it maybe, serves as the foundation for a story because it makes it something relatable and even better to understand especially if that truth is very complicated and requires storytelling to serve as a vehicle to better understand it this is why physicists often use analogy to illustrate what they are theorizing. The woke really don't realize you are supposed to take a good story and you are supposed to analyze it and paraphrase it. It's the very reason the writer himself wrote it in the first place. He is giving a message about this truth of his and he wants you to understand it.

4. WHENEVER ONE COMES UPON A ROAD BLOCK IN QUESTIONS AND DECISIONS WHICH ARE PERPLEXING—"FEEL" WITH YOUR HEART IN YOUR CHERST.
   ONCE YOU BECOME ATTUNED TO THIS TRANSMISSION WHICH COMES FROM OUR REACTIVE ENCOUNTERS, ONE CAN DEVELOPE AND TRUST MORE ON YOUR ABSTRACT THOUGHTS AS TELLING THE INDIVIDUAL TRUTH. THE TRUTH TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE CAN RESULT IN DIFFERING TRUTHS. WHAT´S YOUR TRUTH? JUST KEEP SEARCHING AND YOU WILL KNOW WHEN IT HAS PRESENTED ITSELF TO THE CONTEMPLATOR.

5. Wonderful! And inspiring !👏🏼👏🏼💞

6. Good convo 👍🏻

7. Such beautiful gentleness and patience displayed on the part of Dr. Dirckx. The posture of the gentleman on the left, however, who hands down is very articulate and intelligent , brought to mind the following verse: wise in their own eyes.

8. 🙏💖🙏💖🙏

9. To quote the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:

   “So God is universal. But our relationship with him is particular. The Hebrew Bible expresses this in the two primary words by which it refers to God: Elokim (E) and Hashem (called by Bible scholars J). Elokim is God in his universality. In Genesis, Elokim speaks to Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gen. 20: 3). Joseph, declining the advances of Potiphar’s wife, says, ‘Should I sin against Elokim?’ (Gen. 39: 9). Pharaoh, appointing Joseph, says, ‘Can we find anyone like this man, one in whom is the spirit of Elokim?’ (Gen. 41: 38). Morality in general is described as ‘fear of Elokim’ (Gen. 20: 11). Elokim is a purely universal term that applies to people’s relationship with God, whether they are inside or outside the covenant with Abraham. Hashem, by contrast, is particular. It is what God is called in the context of the Abrahamic and later Mosaic covenant. It is a proper name, not a generic noun. It is the language of intimacy and relationship. When the Bible wants to describe what Martin Buber called an I–Thou relationship, it uses the word Hashem. That is why Genesis describes two covenants, the first with Noah and all humankind, the second with Abraham and his children, who are not all humankind, just one particular people within it. The covenant with Noah (Gen. 9) uses the word Elokim throughout, while the covenant with Abraham uses the word Hashem (Gen. 15: 18; 17: 1–2). The Noah covenant expresses the unity of God and the shared dignity and responsibility of humankind. The Abrahamic covenant expresses the particularity of our relationship with God, which has to do with our specific identity, history, language and literature. The result is that in the Bible there is both a morality that applies to everyone, insider and outsider alike, and an ethic, that is, a specific code of conduct that frames relationships within the group.”

   I suspect McGilchrist’s idea of God is more that of Elokim than Hashem.
   I think the main concept that was conspicuously absent is that of sin

10. Ian does love to hear himself talk.

11. Yes, the Infinite universe do exist and the big bang did happen but it is not the beginning.
    
    The proof is in the math.

    Here is that proof. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1.

    This equation says a number, any number is a set-in space that change with space.
    
    In physics this equation reads: Gravity is matter changing with space. It combines Relativity or fractured space with Quantum mechanics or spatial expansion.

    BUT THE BIGGEST SHOCKER IN THIS EQUATION IS A POSITIVE PROOF FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!

    This equation is God's mathematical name.
    
    God's name in this equation reads: God's Mind Is Man Changed With God.

    Here is the breakdown as to how this equation reads:
    
    God's mind is infinite. In math this measure out as the set of infinity
    
    In math (1/x) represents a fraction of a whole. Any child is a fraction of a parent and man according to the Bible is God's child. Therefore, man is a fraction of God
    
    Change in math is represented by the Greek letter (delta) and it denotes a difference of some kind.
    
    Plus (+) in math means to combine or add something with something.
    
    There is only one God. In math the number 1 means something or someone is complete and individual from all the rest.
    
    Spelled out: God's Mind (Infinity) is (=) Man (1/x) Changed (delta) With (+) God (1).

    Scientific Method

    Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always = 4

    Step 2 Question: Do math and Divinity share a common truth?
    
    Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exist, He should be found in the house of mathematics.
    
    Step 4 Prediction: God's Mind Is Man Change With God is an equation
    
    Step 5 Test: Any number (Infinity) is (=) a set-in space (1/x) that change (x^2) with (+) space (1))
    
    Note: "X" describes any set, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise
    
    This equation tells us why 2 feet is not the same as 2 inches. Both distances are measured out as 2 units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each sets in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance.

    Step 6 Iterate: New look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of 3 domains of space.
    
    a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information

    Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real therefore the value in enumeration demand God exists otherwise the domain for enumeration would be incomplete. We know the domain for enumeration is complete because we can count. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number.

    Cantor's Mistake

    George Cantor known as the father of set theory was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity.
    
    Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity.
    
    Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set.
    
    Example. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement.
    
    Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1.
    
    This is Cantor's big mistake!

    Here is a correct set correspondence method

    Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets.
    
    Match 2.1 with say 2. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of 100 divided by the square root of 25. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity.

    Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality but they also describe our existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Numbers like truths don't lie. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is in many ways our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discovery comes about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long?
    
    Here is my thinking. Mind you in asking and then trying to understand this question I'm not limiting my thinking simply based in math or science but I look to my faith in God to get the most from my fact finding endeavor.
    
    What I see is we have been blessed with this new revelation in math so that we may be able to better prepare ourselves for our next awakening.
    
    I must cite this work because it is not my creation. This equation is a gift to us from God.

12. Before there were humans, was there consciousness????
    Don’t think so. It was evolution which allowed the brains of mammals and especially primates to develop brains able to create consciousness. I don’t believe for a minute that without a brain there is consciousness. Actually Ian is saying this with his example of water. Water morphs into ice and vapor, but without water, no ice and no vapor.
    The brain through the electro-chemical reactions produces the state of consciousness. That’s our “vapor”.
    Spinoza’s philosophy about life and god is the closest to Ian’s thinking. And it would be the best way of thinking about god than what the so called “religious” people practice.

13. Would love to see Donald Hoffman talk to Ian.

14. Consciousness isn't emergent, but, instead, is wholly primal…. the mind/body problem is only a problem if examined upside-down (as in a dualistic outlook towards reality)… read or watch Bernardo Kastrup (here on YouTube), or checkout expert distillers of truth such as Alan Watts, OR… take a DEEP dive off the nondual cliff to directly realize that "God" is the One Mind in which all reality exists, based upon the ancient philosophical gems, called the Upanishads. Nondualism/Idealism is the remedy/solution to the "God" debate. Period. A game changer to say the least 🙌

15. The question posed at the end on metaphysical versus literal truth has its limitations and is clearly demonstrated by her answer to that question regarding one being on the verge of death and which of the two truths they'd prefer.

    Either A: You're consciousness continues on after the last heartbeat; "literal truth"

    Or B: It was all just a sham to remedy the existential anxiety you have about your own mortality; "metaphorical truth".

    Neither of these "truths" are correct. They falsely presume that "life" is limited to [individual] consciousness and that "body" is limited to a modern scientific definition e.g. a physical unique personal code; DNA.

    The early Christian martyrs didn't lay down their lives thinking "It's okay, I'll regain consciousness 5 seconds from now and I'll be in heaven". They layed down their lives precisely knowing that they would never wake up again. The "Christian mythos" posits that there is glory in death, a radical claim that spread like fire. That, is the miracle of all miracles.

    There is a mystery to these things that as McGillchrist points out, cannot be fully contained as the left hemisphere would prefer. This does not exclude one from participation with it. Truth cannot be reduced to "literal" or "metaphorical". This is a modern delusion, which is why I was so surprised to see McGillchrist even entertain that obsurd taxonomy.

16. Arguments from ignorance! Arbitrary verbal fantasising about useless imaginary sky daddies.

17. I was on board and excited about the first half of the talk, but then trinities, miracles, virgin births, etc were smuggled in…

18. The argument that we’re allowing our left brain to be in control remind me of the quip regarding the belief that the sun goes around the earth because “that’s what it looks like”: What would it look like if the earth revolved around the sun?
    What would it look like if our understanding of the brain and the universe moved us away from magical thinking toward rationality? Probably it would look like we’re were letting the left hemisphere be in control. Maybe that’s what knowing our place in the cosmos looks like.

19. I am always surprised when scientists say they are Christians. I have heard numerous accounts of scientists, even neuroscientist, that converted to Christianity. Why Christianity? What about Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Hebrew, etc.? I would think a scientists, if he/she decided that there is a God, the he/she would study all the religions in detail and then choose the best fit. God might be omniscient, but he/she isn't all-loving. Look at all the misery in this world. Look at the Bible, If the old testament is any indication, The God of the Old Testament was one of the most hateful, cruel, and jealous entity that ever existed.

20. A VERY ONE SIDED discussion. felt dr Sharon drickx is not questioned enough and allowed to explain.

21. consciousness is an illusion,its not an inherently real thing,its only asserted to exist

22. To split hairs, or rather hardened steel. You can easily split your head open with water. AT 60,000 PSI you can slice through 8-10 inches of hardened steel with water. Iain McGilchrist said there is a fascist left and a fascist right. The fact of the matter is that there is a MARXIST "left" and a MARXIST "right", and Fascism is often subscribed to the MARXIST "right", although it makes very little sense talking about competing branches on the Marxist tree, when the demonic end result is always the same. There really isn't a "left" or right", only Right or Wrong. And to reach what is Right, one needs Morality. In my opinion, Christianity is a good way to acquire that Morality, although I have seen similar results achieved both in Judaism and in the Philosophy of Buddhism.

23. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ BRILLIANT! Simply BRILLIANT! 👍

24. Free will is an illusion

25. Start with awareness

26. Iain, Water, ice and steam is a bad metaphor. Which one is the essence? Even oxygen an hydrogen are not the essence of these three states of MATTER. It is more like wet, cold, quenching, cleaning, moist, damp etc. All of the essential properties exist because humans named them for what they mean to humans. Humans drink the meaning not the matter. A dog does not drink water it drinks thirsty. A dog does not know what water is.

27. Ok i HAD TO STOP watching this after the endless MMMMMMM mmmmmmm sounds.

28. MMMM mmmm MMMMM mmm stop it with that sound!!

29. Can the 3 of u stop it with that "mmmm" sound every 30 seconds? Sooo annoying

30. Jesus Christ crucifictionTHERE IS A DEEPER TWIST TO THIS WHICH JESUS'S FATHER IN HEAVEN HAS REVEALED TO ME…

31. Loved it. I can't quite figure out why. There's something beautifully Christian in some aspects of McGilchrist's viewpoint. I wonder what this dialogue would have looked like with David Bentley Hart and McGilchrist. Perhaps might have been too much fireworks to be helpful?

32. Another interesting but empty dialogue between two highly educated individuals. At the heart of these gatherings are homosapiens conversing with each other about the physical world and man trying to explain his manipulative state of existence within it all. MAN is the catalyst of it all making him god competing with other men about who is the ultimate GOD, ruler of all existing beings. All has manifested in the hetrosexual MAN and his relationship with women and children of which the boy child born in his fathers image is the holy of holies worthy of worship and not man made things taken from the earth and carved into mans own image. The beginning of all things humanly creative, the baby playing in the dirt with what became clay, moulding himself in his own image then sifting off a piece of clay and moulding the other being female in her own image and placing them in a garden with all the non poisonous fruits and deadly animals. This is a very important fact to the GOD identity and ultimate purpose which is to possess all things material or spiritual for the belivers own survial by living only for the belivers needs in getting all it can from life itself mostly using women and children to assist in this goal. The beliver has to have an enemy beyond navigating nature as all other existing creatures do and the female being along with depending on who the adult male child becomes when he grows up, hetro or homo. This became the focused manifesting into a being known as Lucifer and those who supposedly came from his seed, creaping into the garden womb and siring life a deed only hetro god is ordained to do. Lucifers seeds supposedly works are for him while the beliver works on behalf of YHWH the super natural. The beliver cannot work alone so he has to gather a group of fellow beings, render them into submission using fear to carry out the goal of eating without the hunt, preparing the meal, building the tabanacle behind curtains or performimg any physical work. The beliver is in contact with god using his brain with the help of his brother, nephews then others as the business grows to carry out the deeds leading up to the masses growing into a gang that goes out and steal, kill, lie from the other while covering up the actions with poetry, songs and fantasies of a cosmos working on there behalf, fulfilling all their needs straight into the after life for all internity. Anyone who question his commands or works on their own behalf was struck down with disease, Miriam or put to death, man gathering fire wood to make fire 😉. There is no greater manifestion of greed in any other living being than the believing homosapien leading to the creative man made things that now fullfills the earth for his ultimate existence leaving the earth with so much of his yearning parasitic needs. The dance between ? father and son, or brothers is at the heart of all things human. The purpose for sex and the need for a paradise has lead to a garden separate from the animal kingdom of savagery, smells and death. The hetrosexual man and his nemesis homo/bi/trans man relationship of unwanted male on male rape or male on male annihilation has major consequences not only for the female being and her offsprings but also the animals of the earth. Only nature and its bacteria, viruses and other mysteries knows where this will all end as it did for the dinasours, neanderthals, denisovans and others along the journey. Homosapiens are mentally more agile than those others in his means for survival. From Abram to Abraham the name given by pharoah the physical encountering god in Egypt and Jacob to Israel by another encountering god in Egypt followed by a pushed out ?run away god wannabe named Moses on the Sinai performing tricks he learned in pharoahs fiedom. He carried out some of the most creative tricks using fire, fermented food, incense, fear and death to bring about what became the grestest skills in survival to this very day. Kudos to monoatheism and its relationship within humanity carried out by beliving Jews, Christians and Muslims for there contribution to the pagan fiedoms of yesteryear. The pagan world of Rome was able to take the trinity of father son and holy ghost, no mother, from the Jews for Christ catholics and giving it to form in the virgin woman MARY with baby and mystery father. The greatest cover up of incest and ultimate currancy for working in the Roman kingdom with la promise of life everlasting in the afterlife. A job well done by one trickster brother on another trickster brother or is that father outwitting sons in his old age 👀😉😂🤭. Ah-Man to AMEN, peace and love to you all 🙏🤲

33. Panentheism is the foundation of Christian theism in the Orthodox Christianity since the days of the Apostles. Please don't confuse modern Protestant views of Christian theism with Christian theism in general. There is no conflict between panentheism and Christian theism.

34. I am glad that McGilchrist refused to allow the host to set up an unnecessary opposition between Christian theism and panentheism. He is correct that Orthodox Christians, amongst others, regard panentheism as a valid theology.

35. This seems like a very interesting video but there are too many terms that Iain McGilchrist uses that I simply have no knowledge of (panentheism, knosis/kenosis or whatever, something kabbalah that I am not interested in). His arguments were poor – for example saying we have love – well that could be just an emotion, not to do with the working of spirit/soul. Love could be just an attachment to a feeling. He needs to consider God a lot more – should read a book called the Bible. Also, God is not everywhere, in everything – from the Lord's Prayer it says clearly "Our Father who art in heaven", not 'Our Father who art in everything (or in all the worldly things)'. Heaven is on a higher plane.

36. There is a property in physical systems that may be a panprotopsychic one, & that's responsiveness, if you kick a stone a wave of kinetic energy will move through it & it in turn will move, it experiences the kick even if it doesn't remember that experience, further the sensory systems are highly selectively responsive, consciousness may be a reflexive form of this responsiveness, I suggest the transverse Hall effect of the Glial network may hold the answer.

Comments are closed.