Interesting if not sometimes rambling lecture. I'm also not entirely sure of what his solution was, granted I was doing a lot of multitasking while listening, so I could have easily missed it.

He talks a lot about one of my peeves in the way psychological research/study operates. That being a strict adherence to behavioral observation as the only means of scientific observation into the realm of psychology. I often feel psychologist get so wrapped up in trying to prove they're a legitimate science they forget how deeply rooted it is in philosophy. That doesn't mean the scientific method has no place in psychology, it's an extremely important part of it, without which there would be no psychology, just a bunch of clerics. But at the same time, as Dr. Wallace mentioned, they ignore the very tool they use to create their theories and setup and run their experiments, thought.

I'll pick on the behaviorists because I think they are the most flagrant abusers. In "strict" behaviorism thought is merely an illusion, all behavior boils down to genetics and experience/learning (some will only say experience). Everything you say and do is because somewhere you learned that's the best way to react in that situation. For predicting human behavior this means if you can know a person's experiences, you can take any situation/stimulus and predict their reaction perfectly. Great sound theory, but the problem comes in that you can't know. Any time behaviorists fail to predict a reaction its not because their theory is wrong, it's because they've not found the proper stimulus to elicit the desired response. In essence its impossible to process behaviorism wrong, and I feel this is a major violation of the same scientific process they wear like a suit of armor. Dr. Wallace used the word dogmatic, a few times and I'm inclined to agree whole heartedly. The only way I can think of that could be used to disprove strict behaviorism would require (ironically) omnipotence. Now don't get me wrong, I think behaviorism is a very valuable area of psychology, and has produced some extremely important enlightening information towards the essence of being human, but I do dislike the almost religious fanaticism a large portion of psychologists seem to devote to it.

EDIT: Also, great sift, hopefully enough people over look the hour plus play time to sift it. Though I've only been a member for a short time, stuff like this seems to be what the sift is for. Pulling diamonds from among the dregs of other video sites.

Thanks for the thorough review Crosswords, comments like yours are what I come to the Sift for .

I was left wanting more background after listening to Wallace, so I looked for sources to fill in the gaps in my understanding. This talk by John Searle helped a great deal:
http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Searle-Beyond-dualism
His categorization of the qualities of consciousness rings true, and having listened to him I'll definitely look for some of his writing.

About the thesis of the talk, there really does seem to be a convergence happening in the mind sciences right now. It's an incredibly exciting field to follow.

Here's a Salon article on Wallace, called "Buddha on the brain".
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/11/27/wallace/

I'll give these guys one thing, they sure do like to talk. I didn't watch all of the John Searle one, but hopefully enough to get some of the point. At first I thought he was arguing that neuro-science was a worthless pursuit, but that doesn't seem to be the case (which is good cause I don't think anything could be further from the truth). But he instead appears to be arguing we should be looking at both sides of the coin, which I agree with. Having an algorithm to explain a behavior means nothing if we can't explain it in a way that's comprehensible. And at this point in time we really aren't even close to such a feat. Trying to exploring multiple paths to understanding consciousness is more likely to bring us towards a more complete picture of exactly what it is. One of the problems I've noticed in academia is the professors become so entrenched in their own line of research its like they've put on a pair of blinders and can't see anything outside of what they've narrowed their sites on. I also think that's one of the reasons you see so little cross over between disciplines, even if they're looking at the same or similar things.

Moving this video to fissionchips's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 3 days.

*beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Corner to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter fissionchips.

I am a graduate student in transpersonal psychology which, from my perspective, is one of the best scientific approaches so far for the empirical study of consciousness. One of the major questions that has emerged in this field has to do with the means of scientifically supporting the methods of diligence that are necessary for an adequate introspective exploration of the mind that have, until now, been generally associated with a kind religious (e.g., Buddhist) discipline and considered anathema to the scientific (e.g., secular) method of research. The "work" in this case has been in developing empirical evidence that establish so-called "religious" practices (e.g., medititive techniques) that may eventually lay the groundwork for the what must ultimately become a radically subjective approach to the examination of mental processes.

Trancecoach, I was reading your comment while watching this video about the Implicit Association Test-
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/banaji_greenwald08/banaji_greenwald08_index.html

There are so many new tools that can be used to explore the mind, and (as an outsider) I see empirical methods as widening the field immensely, not stifling progress as some have argued.

*brain

Adding video to channels (Brain) - requested by jonny.