The Mystery of Consciousness: Dr. Iain McGilchrist’s Keynote

Prepare to have your understanding of consciousness transformed. In this captivating keynote, world-renowned philosopher and neuroscientist Dr. Iain McGilchrist delves into the depths of the human mind, exploring how the hemispheres of the brain shape our perception of reality. He challenges conventional thinking about consciousness, matter, and the nature of existence, offering a radical yet insightful perspective that will leave you questioning what you thought you knew.

Chapters:

0:00 – Introduction by Elizabeth
1:41 – Keynote begins: Consciousness & Epistemic Humility
2:46 – Defining consciousness and unconsciousness
4:26 – The unconscious mind and its vast scope
6:19 – Consciousness and the hemispheres of the brain
9:23 – Consciousness vs. matter debate
12:32 – The brain as a transmitter or sculptor of consciousness
17:23 – Matter, consciousness, and interconnectedness
24:07 – The role of attention and the hemispheres
31:00 – Left vs. right hemisphere delusions
35:00 – Creativity, order, and the role of consciousness
46:00 – The emergence of meaning and creativity in life
55:06 – Final reflections on consciousness and reality
59:55 – Closing thoughts and Gerard Manley Hopkins’ poem

In The Master and his Emissary, I outlined important differences in cognitive and emotional style between the brain hemispheres. In this talk I will build on that work, examining the capacity of either hemisphere to achieve an understanding of what it is we mean when we speak of the realm of the sacred and divine. The relevance is that I believe that in the modern West we live in a culture whose take on the world is strongly aligned with that of the left hemisphere at the expense of the right. I will suggest that hemisphere differences should not be expected to lead simply to theism or atheism, but to predictably distinct types of either phenomenon.

IAIN MCGILCHRIST is a Quondam Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, an Associate Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford, a Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and former Consultant Psychiatrist and Clinical Director at the Bethlem Royal & Maudsley Hospital, London. He has been a Research Fellow in neuroimaging at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore and a Fellow of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Stellenbosch. He has published original articles and research papers in diverse publications on topics in literature, philosophy, medicine and psychiatry. He is the author of a number of books, but is best-known for The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World (Yale 2009). His book on epistemology and ontology called The Matter with Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World will be published by Perspectiva Press in November 2021. He lives on the Isle of Skye, and has two daughters and a son

This conversation is part of an online seminar series taking place in the Spring and Summer of 2023 bringing innovative thinkers into conversation with Iain McGilchrist to explore his philosophy as laid out in The Matter with Things. https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Things-...

The conversation is with physicist Phillip Goyal.

The conversation is with physicist Phillip Goyal.

An outstanding quote from the Youtube video that I cannot help but want to share here for discussion purposes. (It's not an article, so there's no copyright claim that can be made, I presume?)

Excerpts from the comment from 1 year ago by @marcobiagini1878:

Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (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).

1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary 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 is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). 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 and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property.

[...]

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 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 exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property.

[Laird]

An outstanding quote from the Youtube video that I cannot help but want to share here for discussion purposes.

Ian (@Ninshub) started a thread about Marco's argument last year: Marco Biagini: arguments against epiphenomenalism.

It's on my mental todo list to respond to, because I find his arguments pretty suspect, even though I agree with his conclusion.

(It's not an article, so there's no copyright claim that can be made, I presume?)

It's no different to any other copyright material; our Guidelines for reproducing external content apply. You can ask for Marco's permission to reproduce his comment, but otherwise, please don't quote it in full.

Ian (@Ninshub) started a thread about Marco's argument last year: Marco Biagini: arguments against epiphenomenalism.

It's on my mental todo list to respond to, because I find his arguments pretty suspect, even though I agree with his conclusion.

I took the time to fully read his quote, and I find nothing meaningfully suspect, to be honest. Keep in mind that he's criticizing Physicalism / Materialism here.

It's no different to any other copyright material; our Guidelines for reproducing external content apply. You can ask for Marco's permission to reproduce his comment, but otherwise, please don't quote it in full.

Not sure how I'd contact Marco, as I do not use Youtube nor does his email seem to be available.

[Laird]

I took the time to fully read his quote, and I find nothing meaningfully suspect, to be honest.

Maybe I'll be able to explain if I ever get around to that to-do item.

Not sure how I'd contact Marco, as I do not use Youtube nor does his email seem to be available.

It does seem difficult to find his email address. In that case, you'll just have to quote excerpts from his comment, and/or simply refer readers to it as the "Highlighted comment" when accessed via the "1 year ago" link at the top of your current quote of his comment, under his linked YouTube username.

Maybe I'll be able to explain if I ever get around to that to-do item.

nbtruthman's critiques don't do it for me, alas, but maybe you're angle might help more.

It does seem difficult to find his email address. In that case, you'll just have to quote excerpts from his comment, and/or simply refer readers to it as the "Highlighted comment" when accessed via the "1 year ago" link at the top of your current quote of his comment, under his linked YouTube username.

Maybe someone here with a Youtube account can invite him. Would solve that little annoyance.

[Laird]

nbtruthman's critiques don't do it for me, alas, but maybe you're angle might help more.

His critique of the second argument is roughly along the same lines as mine.

Maybe someone here with a Youtube account can invite him. Would solve that little annoyance.

Maybe. In the meantime, I've edited your post.

His critique of the second argument is roughly along the same lines as mine.

Then maybe nbtruthman isn't expressing it in a way that I can properly comprehend from my perspective.