New video - Neuroscientific Evidence: Irreducible Mind (Part 1)

A new and outstanding 18-minute YouTube video documentary has just been released, on the strong neuroscientific evidence that has accumulated for the mind being ultimately separate from and independent of the brain though closely intertwined with it during life.

The new video premiered June 12, 2020. It is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOFGKhvWQ4M  . Note: revised on June 16.

There is a lot of fascinating and well presented material, some of which I had not encountered before. An example: the fact there has been a long and fruitless search for the neural structures supposedly responsible for visual and other sensory unification in consciousness. This is the creation in consciousness of the perception of whole three-dimensional scenes and panoramas. This exhaustive search has so far totally failed, despite having mapped in detail the entire visual neural system. After this much work on the problem, the likelihood of ever finding such structures is very low. Another of many areas that are covered in detail is Wilder Penfield's failed search for neural structures responsible for intentionality and abstract thought, that led him to become a convinced dualist.

And yet of course, there are still YT commenters who respond by saying he hasn't presented evidence when he very clearly has. One of the comments that cropped up was 'well just because the mind can affect the brain doesn't mean it's not a part of it. There's such a thing as a feedback loop'. I'm not sure how a feedback loop can accomodate for things like the placebo effect but whatever. Others are using the typical 'materialism/physicalism of the gaps fallacy', while others are complaining that he formed a conclusion they didn't like, despite the fact this is a five part documentary. 

The downside to this video, besides the short time length, is that this guy is a somewhat well-known Christian channel on YT who has been debated with before and criticised by a few larger atheist channels. Although skeptic and atheist channels are dying out on YT, I won't be surprised if at least one of them decides to respond to him in a poor and ill-informed manner. That, or they'll just dismiss it, because they'll of course point out that he's biased. 

Granted, I don't blame them completely though. Some of this guy's science has been a bit off in the past, and he's made videos with titles like 'Is Atheism a Delusion?' and whatnot.

Some other comments genuinely accuse him of 'god of the gaps' despite the fact God isn't mentioned once in the video. And of course, they bring up stuff like the Phineas Gage case. Has that been discussed on here?

Update: After doing some research into his channel and looking for response videos, I've noticed that he's made a series like this before on evidence for the soul, which is also in multiple parts. The funny thing about that is, from what I've found, there have been no video responses at all from the militant atheist community on YT despite the fact that series has been up for five years. The same can be said for anything the UVA have done as far as I'm aware.

And yet of course, there are still YT commenters who respond by saying he hasn't presented evidence when he very clearly has. One of the comments that cropped up was 'well just because the mind can affect the brain doesn't mean it's not a part of it. There's such a thing as a feedback loop'. I'm not sure how a feedback loop can accomodate for things like the placebo effect but whatever. Others are using the typical 'materialism/physicalism of the gaps fallacy', while others are complaining that he formed a conclusion they didn't like, despite the fact this is a five part documentary. 

The downside to this video, besides the short time length, is that this guy is a somewhat well-known Christian channel on YT who has been debated with before and criticised by a few larger atheist channels. Although skeptic and atheist channels are dying out on YT, I won't be surprised if at least one of them decides to respond to him in a poor and ill-informed manner. That, or they'll just dismiss it, because they'll of course point out that he's biased. 

Granted, I don't blame them completely though. Some of this guy's science has been a bit off in the past, and he's made videos with titles like 'Is Atheism a Delusion?' and whatnot.

Some other comments genuinely accuse him of 'god of the gaps' despite the fact God isn't mentioned once in the video. And of course, they bring up stuff like the Phineas Gage case. Has that been discussed on here?

Update: After doing some research into his channel and looking for response videos, I've noticed that he's made a series like this before on evidence for the soul, which is also in multiple parts. The funny thing about that is, from what I've found, there have been no video responses at all from the militant atheist community on YT despite the fact that series has been up for five years. The same can be said for anything the UVA have done as far as I'm aware.

I think the video should stand on its own merits. It's an old phony debating tactic to smear the reputation or qualifications or some other aspects of the opponent and thereby imply that somehow invalidates the opponent's argument. Just because he's a Christian doesn't invalidate his arguments and reasoning.

I think we have all seen the argument that being a Christian is a disqualifier. I’ve seen that levelled against Rupert Sheldrake, for example. Most prominently, the ID researchers are often dismissed on that basis without attempting to address their research.

That said, I have some sympathy for the argument that anyone who is a bible literalist or an evangelical Christian has a credibility issue. It remains a conundrum for me why someone who is an accomplished and well qualified scientist can accept the bible as the literal truth. I don’t think Sheldrake goes that far, to be fair.

They still mention things like 'feedback loops' being responsible for the mind affecting the brain in all circumstances, as well as apparent electromagnetic experiments that have shown 'memories and morality can be changed via electromagnetism' and stuff like that. Is there that much truth to these?

One commenter even went into a debate with another, mentioning so much evidence like veridical NDEs in a lengthy essay. The physicalist's response? "I'm not practicing bad faith or bias, I'm just arguing that they're just stories in the end that don't say anything about the nature of consciousness"...You'll probably find their debate in the comment section under the username 'nunnya business' or something like that. 

I've gotten so distressed about people like these and how cynical they are to these ideas. It's hopeless...

They still mention things like 'feedback loops' being responsible for the mind affecting the brain in all circumstances, as well as apparent electromagnetic experiments that have shown 'memories and morality can be changed via electromagnetism' and stuff like that. Is there that much truth to these?

One commenter even went into a debate with another, mentioning so much evidence like veridical NDEs in a lengthy essay. The physicalist's response? "I'm not practicing bad faith or bias, I'm just arguing that they're just stories in the end that don't say anything about the nature of consciousness"...You'll probably find their debate in the comment section under the username 'nunnya business' or something like that. 

I've gotten so distressed about people like these and how cynical they are to these ideas. It's hopeless...

I've only been posting again for a few days after quite a long lay-off so your posts are new to me. I have to say that they remind me of me. I used to get so very vexed about the unfairness of the "skeptical" crowd who always had the certainty that science was on their side. They appeared to see the argument as binary - either you are a rational, science-minded advocate or you are a religious (therefore) irrational, anti-science apologist. People like many of us here are regarded with disdain and suspicion by both extremes. Woo-mongers by the scientism devotees and somewhat satanic by the religious. The odd thing is that when I have had debates with (some, not all) atheists I start out by saying that I am not religious myself but this falls on deaf ears as they launch into their anti-religious diatribe because, well, if I'm not 100% in their camp I must be in the other. The trouble is that to such people, science=materialism=atheism and all else is religion-influenced anti-science.

Hopefully I'm a little more dispassionate these days because all that anger is unhealthy, no matter how justified. I just had to accept that I am not going to change all that which is one of the reasons I took a break from this forum (along with many other reasons quite unrelated to this forum). People may support the views that we discuss here but many are reluctant to say so. YouTube is the worst place to air opinions because it seems to be populated by such angry, hateful individuals. One of the most depressing activities of the internet age is to read YouTube comments.

They still mention things like 'feedback loops' being responsible for the mind affecting the brain in all circumstances, as well as apparent electromagnetic experiments that have shown 'memories and morality can be changed via electromagnetism' and stuff like that. Is there that much truth to these?

One commenter even went into a debate with another, mentioning so much evidence like veridical NDEs in a lengthy essay. The physicalist's response? "I'm not practicing bad faith or bias, I'm just arguing that they're just stories in the end that don't say anything about the nature of consciousness"...You'll probably find their debate in the comment section under the username 'nunnya business' or something like that. 

I've gotten so distressed about people like these and how cynical they are to these ideas. It's hopeless...

You give these people way too much weight in your thinking as far as I'm concerned. I think you should just write off such die-hard closed minded materialists as hopelessly irrationally biased to the point that they probably would even dismiss a personally experienced NDE as hallucinatory. Just consider the overwhelmingly greater weight of the accumulated evidence. Even if just one category of the empirical evidence were valid, (like for instance either the veridical NDE evidence or the neuroscientific evidence), it would still clinch the case. Consider how untenable it is to deny the validity of all this data. Beyond any even remotely reasonable doubt, the veridical NDEs happened and their investigation happened in space-time, and the neuroscientific research happened in physical space-time as described. Most importantly, all it would really take to clinch the case would be just one or a few of all these occurrences to be valid as described.

I had noticed Kamarling that you may have felt unhappy here earlier and that your input is unappreciated and ignored. Well, I for one value your opinions greatly as they have brought great consolation and comfort to so many people, including me. As have other members of this forum. Your input is valued and you should not be mistreated for it. This is the most unique and refreshing forum many I'm sure have seen, so I want to ensure that applies to the treatment of respectable persons here. 

I also wanted to say that I'm sorry to everyone when I go off ranting and worrying about whether 'this proves there's no afterlife', it's due to my death anxiety that I'm overcoming gradually. As I'm writing this I am still very much struggling but I have had help from many different people, including here. I panic, I stress, I get all worked up. 

And I agree, it's pretty telling that larger YouTubers themselves are aware of how awful YouTube comments tend to be, especially around topics like these. I don't know why I put these anonymous folk on pedestals while there are smarter and wiser people I could be listening to, like Donald Hoffman or Bruce Greyson.

Those electromagnetic experiments do intrigue me though. I haven't heard of any such experiments myself, just about how ultrasound influences your mood or something.

Those electromagnetic experiments do intrigue me though. I haven't heard of any such experiments myself, just about how ultrasound influences your mood or something.

Huh? This seems to come out of nowhere?