Agreed. I found it very calming and somehow satisfying. I would love to know what it is about the video that triggers (i assume) a chemical cocktail in my grey matter that has this effect. Any psychologist and neuroscientists out there that can help? *promote

Your video, Neuroscientist Explains 1 Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 134 Badge!

Yes, it's called Psychopathy, or Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

It doesn't mean you go around killing people (though it certainly lowers the bar!)

Here's a good article about a scientist studying the characteristics of psychopathic brains who accidentally found out that he was a psychopath. He'd never realized it, because everything in life had gone his way, but once he saw what he was, he reflected and found things he'd done without any guilt that ordinary people might have dwelt on (or not done in the first place).

As I understand it, Psychopathy (or ASPD) means that there's no empathy for other people. They can't read emotions like the rest of us can, and so they see other people almost like unfeeling robots. In extreme cases, the psychopath believes they are the only real person in a world of automatons and they think no more of other people than you or I would think of plant life. There's a range, this isn't an absolute on or off switch. About 10% of the male population and 1% of the female population has it to some degree (much higher in politics and executive offices).

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/?no-ist

I'm a neuroscientist. I get it. I'm not saying it doesn't suck for this kid. Lots of things that happen suck for lots of people. I'm saying one cop tasering one kid doesn't constitute national news. People get tasered all the time. This one is particularly jarring because it's a kid. Thus, it's a heartstrings story, not one that will help you inform your decisions in any way whatsoever.

>> ^Murgy:

I'm not sure you understand what it is like to be shot with a taser, my friend.
To give you a very brief picture, I can pretty well guarantee that this child wouldn't have noticed the puncture wounds from the electrode prongs until long after the incident itself.
In a nutshell, an electroshock weapon seeks to exploit the way the nervous system works to make the brain think electrical impulses are being send from every muscle in the affected are to contract, even if a pair of said muscles are in direct opposition to each other. Obviously muscles pulling against each other is quite a painful thing. Hell, if an adrenaline release has occurred, these conflicting muscles can literally tear themselves off of the bone with a long enough shock.
At the time, though, much of the real pain comes from the simple interaction of sensory nerves and electricity. For the sake of simplicity, we'll call prong one A, prong two B, and motor nerve pathways C.
For the brief moment that said energy moves from point A to point C, all affected sensory nerves send the maximum amount of electrochemical signals as possible in response to what the nerves think is a harm causing force far greater than an electric shock actually is. This manifests itself as the greatest possible amount of pain from an extremely localized area, the amount of possible pain being proportional to the concentration of sensory nerves in the affected area. This then repeats itself during the transition from point C to point B.
>> ^bmacs27:
They aren't exactly knocking on doors or digging through leaked memos here. This story doesn't really address any of the real issues we're facing. It doesn't address unemployment, or our economic crisis. It doesn't address the global clusterfuck we're in the midst of. It isn't telling us anything we need to know about our elected officials, or how we're being governed (really, unless you consider some local cop to be governance). In the end it's just another piece about some asshole cop because that's what gets eyeballs from lefties. Same shit, different patriotic backdrop.

I've done a fair bit of work in AI, mostly genetic programming and evolutionary computing. The popular conception that if we just had more processing power we could create a truly intelligent machine is, well, nonsense. The machine still needs some code to run. The problem for AI isn't one of computational power, it's a problem of representation. (The history of Deep Blue is an excellent example of this.)

I'm not suggesting that more computational power won't help - quite the opposite. But it doesn't solve anything on its own. As Michio notes, machines can already see and hear better than humans, but they have no understanding. That understanding can only occur with good information representation. I personally think evolutionary techniques are probably the quickest path to get there, but then, the coders will be no more aware of the machine's internal representations than neuroscientists are of humans' internal representations today. Whether that understanding is important is something of a philosophical question.

I'm definitely with you on that.

But this new contributor, Neuroscientist Ms. Cara Santa Maria, has me smitten.

Mmmm, gorgeous latina nerd girl. :: Homer face ::

>> ^Fletch:

I'm a Kasparianist. You are my Goddess, Ana.

I thought I'd chime in too. Great work on the sift lucky, I hardly recognize it from nigh six years ago when I found it, then months later I made an actual account to get slightly involved. But, mostly I joined so that I could support VideoSift as it was a unique site and something I visited daily; I basically stopped going to youtube and various other video sites because the sift, voted on, and decided what were the videos to be seen. This process is still working great and helps us sort out the mediocre on the Internet and allow people that visit to find the best of the best in videos.

You of course lucky have made great strides in the interface and inner workings of the sift since those early days. Now, whether I use the sift on my PC, my cell, or my iPad--it works seamlessly and well. If it happens to be your birthday, then happy birthday as well!!!

To VideoSift and its future success and to @lucky760 !

P.S.- I don't know if you're responsible for setting it up or helping, but the "Dark" mode (which of course changes the background to black and makes it in general easier to see in different conditions) is an option that was created that I use all the time and if you created it, I want you to know how much I appreciate it--and I appreciate it in a way that you may not even suspect! I suffer from debilitating migraines that at one time were only present a few time in a week (easy enough to handle). Along with this I also have Cluster headaches (at that time I had them maybe once a month), which are...essentially extremely bad headaches (if anyone reading is interested, when they start they fire of in the brain and give the same indications that a seizure would give--neuroscientists literally have no idea what causes them), the Clusters can play games with your nervous system causing odd symptoms, like uncontrolled tearing of the eyes usually accompanied by a runny nose or up to the extreme of losing all the feeling on the left side of your body (I've seen both and many other things in between)--the Cluster headache is strong enough that it's even difficult to think while it's fully active, sometimes time is the only cure--narcotics tend to be like a drop of water in a well, they do nothing (the best relief comes from high-flow oxygen at around 12-14 LPM O₂). I ended up getting the Swine Flu (or Influenza Type A) back in 2006. It unfortunately got to my nervous system and beyond the other damage that it did that i now have problems with, it changed the nature of the headaches. The migraines became daily, sometimes they are unrelenting--they never leave, for days. Worse of all the Clusters became much more prevalent hitting twice a week on average.

Then VideoSift changed their setup, allowing for a "darkroom" environment. The headaches and their intensity are related by light in a room; for example if I want to help myself out going to a dark room with some cool air helps the most. To tell you the truth a small change, like the one VideoSift made, and it may not have been completely all your doing, but either way I wanted you to know this IN DETAIL so that when I thank you it means just that much more! So now you know just how much a small change to the environment and viewing area has had a profound change on me and my web-surfing experience. I can view VideoSift much easier now, as the previous pure white scheme literally hurt to look at. If you've ever wondered if the smaller features are worth it, this is a testimonial that explains why it is. So, once again @lucky760 thanks for everything you have done here at VideoSift and continue to do!

//I know that was a bit long and involved, but I hope it makes you realize how appreciated you are here!

@enoch
I'm gonna respond as I run through your comments.

To talk about fundamentalism, you have to have a foundation (something holy) to be fundamental about. Secular fundamentalism is a misnomer, but I do know what you mean - militant, head-in-the-sand atheists, who are right no matter what, with nothing to back up their case. Those do exist. Heh, I guess the establishment clause or the constitution might be regarded as sacred in some circles.

I am constantly surprised when otherwise very smart people attest to a faith, or indeed a religion. It's not that they are stupid, but they don't apply critical thinking to their faith, for whatever reason, some say "it's meant to by mysterious", "it can't be analyzed with critical thinking", "it's beyond reason". It is like an alcoholic justifying his addiction.

Of course, the word "faith" may mean different things to different people, so to preemptively judge someone before they've said anything about what it means to them is unfair. "I have faith in love".. well la di dah, that so nice.

Stubbornness is the death of discovery, I completely agree there. "The sun revolves around the earth.. because... YOUR FACE that's why!"

I am very open-minded to new ideas, even though it might not seem like it in my comments here, but that's entirely because no one has yet presented any new ideas with any shred of evidence or backup other than, for instance, the bible which is not a credible source. @shinyblurry, I'm looking at you.

I would love to purge you of your faith, enoch, but I don't want to do it by fire. I want you to essentially do it yourself by looking at the world in amazement, looking at how things work, and so on and so on in the same way as I came to this conclusion myself.

I would agree with Harris that all other things being equal, the world would be better without religion than with it. Not a heaven on earth at all, but better.

Harris and Hitchens do go at religion from different angles. Hitchens attack religion, while Harris is attacking faith. You have to remember their background as well, Hitchens was a historian and journalist, while Harris is a neuroscientist. From a neuroscientist standpoint faith is the interesting part, while from an observational position like a journalist the results of faith and religion is the interesting part. So they go after what they think is interesting.

Daniel Dennett also goes against faith, because he's a cognitive scientist (and a bloody brilliant one at that).

Like arguing about God, arguing about Faith requires a definition of the word, otherwise we all just talk about different things.

"the meat of what you are talking about is the prove/disprove god.
this is a futile argument,for neither side can conclusively prove either position.so just as an intelligent person has to leave the option that god MAY exist (though unlikely in their view),the person of faith has to come to the exact same conclusion but in reverse.
my view is that this argument is a waste of time and produces nothing of value."
This cannot be proved either way, but that does not at all mean the two sides are equal. The argument is a waste of time until someone who claims X exists brings some evidence to the table to back up the claim, until that time the discussion is moot.

Why someone has faith, religion etc. is far more interesting, agreed.

Faith carries a stigma, because it implies a whole lot of things, which is why it is judged very quickly.

I'll concede that I may simply not understand people of faith, I don't see the allure of it. I don't have it and I don't miss it, and essentially I see it as a breach of an otherwise floating reasonable boat. heh. I've still not really seen good results of anyone having faith.

thank you @ghark.
i always appreciate your insightful comments but i have to disagree with your main premise and here is why:
i have made no bold statements concerning my faith,just that i am a man of faith.
so i have not put myself in a position where i have to defend a non-existent dogma or doctrine.
because i have none.

which leads me to my next point.
to argue faith JUST on the faith itself is a wasteful argument.by its very nature faith is based on the intangible and therefore cannot be argued in any concrete or conclusive manner.this is why you will not find me knocking on your door asking if you have found jesus,or allah or buddha for that matter and to imply that the onus is on me to prove the validity of my faith further implies that i have the desire to do so.
which i do not.
because faith is personal.

the meat of what you are talking about is the prove/disprove god.
this is a futile argument,for neither side can conclusively prove either position.so just as an intelligent person has to leave the option that god MAY exist (though unlikely in their view),the person of faith has to come to the exact same conclusion but in reverse.
my view is that this argument is a waste of time and produces nothing of value.
now the discussion on WHY somehow has faith,or a lack of it is a much more interesting conversation and THAT conversation can open so many avenues of dialogue which can benefit all parties involved.

i think the best approach to have a decent discussion about faith vs atheism is to define the terms before the discussion even begins.
and this has to be the main definition to discuss:
define GOD.
because if you begin a discussion without making that vital distinction the discussion has a tendency to devolve into presumption based on ones own subjective knowledge.

i have had many discussions with atheists (quite a few here on the sift) and usually this is due to their curiosity about me being a man of faith.they were respectful.they allowed me to express where my faith resides and they didnt judge,many times they even understood (though still disagreed).
those discussions with "militant" atheists went in a totally different direction which almost mirrored my discussion with fundamentalist christians and muslims and what i found most abhorrent about those discussions was the PRESUMPTION that not only were they absolutely correct but also where my faith originated.
this is the epitome of fundamentalism and i find it not only lazy but distasteful.

concerning harris, you may be correct.my opinion of him is anecdotal and based on his lectures i have watched and being a neuroscientist i am sure he has much to say about things concerning the mind.my point was that hitchens went after what needed to be addressed.which is dogma and doctrine.harris shows a palpable disdain for anybody who deems themselves a person of faith.which is just arrogant and weak.

my whole point was to express the difference between a regular atheist (is that even a term?) and a militant atheist.just like their is a huge difference between a religious person and a fundamentalist religious person.
in my experience i have found the militant will react viscerally just by the mere mention of "faith" and will presume a whole litany of non-presented facts based on nothing more than their own prejudice.the fundamentalist will do basically the same thing when the validity of their holy writ is brought under scrutiny as not being the un-erring word of god.both of these factions make the mistake that their position is inviolate based on their own limited understandings.

at least i KNOW i do not know everything and wisdom needs to be tempered with reason and conclusions drawn from experience otherwise it is not wisdom but rather misused data.
i am a man of faith.
you are not.
and i am totally ok with that.
namaste.

Dude, I'm a neuroscientist. If you want to talk brains, we can talk brains. I'll tell you this much though, we have virtually no idea how conscious experience relates to the brain. We know ways in which it relates to sensation and action, but consciousness seems to be this pesky nuisance parameter which defies any explanation based in the physical world.

The alternative to jumping to reductionist conclusions is to withhold belief until you are supported by evidence. You know, not doing that thing you malign religious people for doing.

>> ^hpqp:

You mean, apart from everything we know about how the brain works? And that our experience of consciousness is a function of that organ?
Moreover, what is the alternative, an immortal "soul"?
>> ^bmacs27:
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, yeah, it's the same as your "conscious experience" before you existed.
>> ^bmacs27:
So, do you guys hold any opinion on what happens to your conscious experience after death?


You should listen to Admiral Ackbar more often.
What evidence do you have for that opinion?

I don't think neuroscience speaks to the question of souls. If you are trying to speak vagaries like souls, you should start by defining your terms. It isn't even clear, for instance, that neuroscience speaks to concepts like "consciousness" (again, whatever that means). Maybe this is a clip that would be better served with some context about the claims he is refuting. Otherwise, it's a pompous Sam Harris doing what pompous Sam Harris does: read some Oliver Sacks and call yourself a neuroscientist.

Thanks, thats a good point. To be clear, I worded it that way ("Anti-statism, just another religion?') as a play off of @MikesHL13 's summary of the video... my point was that both statism and anti-statism (freemarketology) could be viewed as having a heavy reliance on belief,... in the anti-statism case I refer to belief about the nature of human emotions and desires, and the formation of human societies.

To be transparent, I'm a biologist (specifically a neuroscientist), so my views on society tend to be colored by reading E.O. Wilson, and my views on emotions and desires tend to be colored by a familiarity with anger/emotion/desire issues stemming from hormonal/biological/physiological/chemical/genetic/epigenetic origins. So, yeah, there's that.



>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

If you are going to make a religious analogy, focus on the pro instead of the anti. Anti-statism is not a religion, but Freemarketology is.

>> ^Bidouleroux:

One thing for certain is, that you have a belief that you lack belief in gods. You can't escape having beliefs, everyone has and needs beliefs to survive day to day. Lack of belief in X is the same as not believing in X. Trying to circumvent the argument that atheism is a belief by saying you have no belief is ridiculous. Atheism is not the same as theism precisely because it is a non-belief. The "lack of belief" presented here is a form of noncommittal and could be construed to mean that while you have no belief concerning things generally labelled "gods", you might have beliefs concerning other supernatural entities having certain, but not all characteristics of "gods". Atheism on the other hand clearly rejects anything associated with anything ending in "-theism". It explicitly does not say anything about supernatural entities that are not theistic (for example, ghosts).
Anyway, it is impossible to simply lack belief in something (or, conversely, to simply believe in something). You can lack belief in something's existence, but then it's the same thing as saying you believe it doesn't exist. You can also be of the opinion that it doesn't matter if you believe something exists or not, but then you're only hiding under logic's skirt (i.e. you still believe one way or the other but you won't tell). If that's the argument the video wants to make then it's dumber and more juvenile than a theist.
Of course, you could take the path of saying that "belief" is a useless psychological concept that should be reduced to neurological patterns, but then you're not going to convince anyone except neuroscientists. And we'd still don't know whether you believe theistic entities exist or not. There may be multiple forms of atheism and theism, but you're still going to have to choose where your own belief stands sooner or later because they're fundamentally incompatible sets of worldviews (it's like the axiom of choice: use it or not, or use a stronger or weaker version of it but you can't be in the middle between using it and not using it).


I quite enjoy hiding under the skirt of logic -- she doesn't wear panties.

One thing for certain is, that you have a belief that you lack belief in gods. You can't escape having beliefs, everyone has and needs beliefs to survive day to day. Lack of belief in X is the same as not believing in X. Trying to circumvent the argument that atheism is a belief by saying you have no belief is ridiculous. Atheism is not the same as theism precisely because it is a non-belief. The "lack of belief" presented here is a form of noncommittal and could be construed to mean that while you have no belief concerning things generally labelled "gods", you might have beliefs concerning other supernatural entities having certain, but not all characteristics of "gods". Atheism on the other hand clearly rejects anything associated with anything ending in "-theism". It explicitly does not say anything about supernatural entities that are not theistic (for example, ghosts).

Anyway, it is impossible to simply lack belief in something (or, conversely, to simply believe in something). You can lack belief in something's existence, but then it's the same thing as saying you believe it doesn't exist. You can also be of the opinion that it doesn't matter if you believe something exists or not, but then you're only hiding under logic's skirt (i.e. you still believe one way or the other but you won't tell). If that's the argument the video wants to make then it's dumber and more juvenile than a theist.

Of course, you could take the path of saying that "belief" is a useless psychological concept that should be reduced to neurological patterns, but then you're not going to convince anyone except neuroscientists. And we'd still don't know whether you believe theistic entities exist or not. There may be multiple forms of atheism and theism, but you're still going to have to choose where your own belief stands sooner or later because they're fundamentally incompatible sets of worldviews (it's like the axiom of choice: use it or not, or use a stronger or weaker version of it but you can't be in the middle between using it and not using it).

"But unfortunately there still remains the difficult problem of just how the brain gives rise to conscious experience."

We're getting there slowly but surely.

Researchers separately stimulated parts of the brain involved in the desire to move, the belief that we've moved, and movement itself. ... Up to now it has been very difficult for neuroscientists to deal with the idea of intentions or wishes or will."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17092-possible-site-of-free-will-found-in-brain.html

My sense is if you isolate and take out of the equation enough of the components of consciousness, like 1. intentions/desires, 2. short term and long term memory, and 3. actions themselves (which don't require consciousness to be executed) we're left with a stripped-down version of consciousness that isn't very meaningful.

If it can't do anything or express preference, and it doesn't know anything, even that it exists, does it really exist in any meaningful way? In that sense, consciousness in its normal form is just a "user illusion" that is a conglomeration of separate brain functions.

When scientists talk about reverse engineering the human brain and building a complete computer simulation, they say we'll have to decide what that means... if it's a complete simulation, that means it has the same user illusion and it thinks it's alive. When we get to that point, I think we'll just build the simulations so that they don't have things like our fear of death.