First of all, those self-images are NOT his "false self." They are defining characteristics, ethics, and values that found his beliefs. They are not trivial and they are not simply things that "worry" him.

Failing an exam on account of a death in the family makes sense in that stress is a biological suppressant of the immune system and many advanced brain functions.

"Am I a failure?"
No one doesn't express this emotion. This video implies that only a certain population does. That's a lie.

"She wants to party all the time."
Another lie. Anyone...Anyone wants to enjoy their lives. If you are a depressing lump on the couch, she's going to leave... no surprise.

"He doesn't know what to believe in his Christianity anynore"
Well, to be blunt, he hastn't read the book. Period. He is basing his beliefs on what he has heard and not what he has read or thought about.

"He is taking a journey into his own soul"
This is a nice way of saying he's stoned. Drugs have their advantages, but understanding reality is not one of them. This is basically proven in science if you read the literature. Stoned scientists have a brilliant discovery once about every 50 years.

"Once your brain is functioning enough to ask you questions"
This is no "side-comment," you are able to ask your mind and unconsciousness mind questions

"Your soul was never really happy living up to those false expectations"
Bullshit. What do you know about the soul to begin with? NOTHING. This youtuber is plainly made aware that he depends on only unreviewed, wack-job "reporting" of things he wishes were true. No evidence. No Genetics. Nothing. Ignore everything this moron says. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

"Drugs have their advantages, but understanding reality is not one of them."

I didn't watch the video but I wanted to respond to this ^

I actually think certain drugs are very instrumental in helping to understand the true nature of reality. Many, many people have had mind opening experiences on certain psychedelic drugs that have changed their lives completely. I think some drugs can take us beyond the five-sense reality into what lies behind it. Reality is subjective. My reality is mine, yours is yours - what's true for me might not be true for you. But I have found certain drugs to make me much more in tune to what's going on around me; my reality.

in the end this cat is speaking of an ego death, really the loss of the mythology of the self.
wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death

Ive had a few moments like this and they were pretty scarry, but they make you realize that consciousness itself is really the same thing in everybody, its just the ego that is operating on it. You arent 'john smith'. You are just an organism that believes you are 'john smith'.

its a fun concept, but this kid is obviously taking it on a very pseudo-science level

i agree with endall,shamanism is not a new thing.it has been used over the centuries to change our perceptions of reality.humans are limited in their ability to perceive actual reality,we have 5 senses which are our only connection to the physical universe.to say we KNOW conclusively just because our 5 senses tell us so is inaccurate.the brain is the decipherer of these senses,and it is wholly subjective,predicated on our experiences,knowledge and yes...our ego.which is just a construct of who we think we are,not in actuality who we may be.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Perceiving-Reality-A-useful-philosophy
i also agree with tsquire1,but i have to give this guy credit for asking the ultimate questions:who am i really?why am i here?for what purpose do i serve?
are these not questions we all ask?
this video is this mans answer,condensed im guessing,takes courage to throw it out there for people to appreciate,or many times..attack.people tend to get very defensive when you point to their firmly held beliefs and say "i think your subjective reality is incorrect".

OK, I will grant that some psychedelics have a tendency to "open minds" but the fact is that they biologically work by damaging the brain's cognitive functions. They take one the single most amazing machine in the known universe and put holes in it like swiss cheese. This is not a good thing, but no one can deny that those holes have a way of letting unique thoughts in. I've experienced it and I'll admit it.

>> ^EndAll:
"Drugs have their advantages, but understanding reality is not one of them."
I didn't watch the video but I wanted to respond to this ^
I actually think certain drugs are very instrumental in helping to understand the true nature of reality. Many, many people have had mind opening experiences on certain psychedelic drugs that have changed their lives completely. I think some drugs can take us beyond the five-sense reality into what lies behind it. Reality is subjective. My reality is mine, yours is yours - what's true for me might not be true for you. But I have found certain drugs to make me much more in tune to what's going on around me; my reality.

>> ^Doc_M:
OK, I will grant that some psychedelics have a tendency to "open minds" but the fact is that they biologically work by damaging the brain's cognitive functions. They take one the single most amazing machine in the known universe and put holes in it like swiss cheese. This is not a good thing, but no one can deny that those holes have a way of letting unique thoughts in. I've experienced it and I'll admit it.
>> ^EndAll:
"Drugs have their advantages, but understanding reality is not one of them."
I didn't watch the video but I wanted to respond to this ^
I actually think certain drugs are very instrumental in helping to understand the true nature of reality. Many, many people have had mind opening experiences on certain psychedelic drugs that have changed their lives completely. I think some drugs can take us beyond the five-sense reality into what lies behind it. Reality is subjective. My reality is mine, yours is yours - what's true for me might not be true for you. But I have found certain drugs to make me much more in tune to what's going on around me; my reality.


The cool thing about psychedelics, Doc_M is they don't require a lot of use to get what you need out of them. Furthermore, I'd like to see some documentation backing up the claim of natural psychedelics' damaging effects on the human brain. That's mushrooms, Ibogaine, salvia, opium, peyote, marijuana, hell throw in LSD for good measure. And I'm not talking short term, I'm talking permanent damage to the brain's cognitive functions.

Oh and also, this video says very little about how he was bipolar. He started with some good name-dropping but it was all downhill from there.

I really like this video.

But don't fuck with Shatner!

I get kind of crazy when fools threaten my captain!

(bad joke - this was a great video)

The scientists will never explain the soul.

The poets have tried since we could scratch on cave walls.

The ego analogy wasn't far off.

Doc_M: the fact is that they biologically work by damaging the brain's cognitive functions....

You do not know.

WHAT?

Fucking hell... you're a DOCTOR?


>> ^Doc_M:
OK, I will grant that some psychedelics have a tendency to "open minds" but the fact is that they biologically work by damaging the brain's cognitive functions. They take one the single most amazing machine in the known universe and put holes in it like swiss cheese. This is not a good thing, but no one can deny that those holes have a way of letting unique thoughts in. I've experienced it and I'll admit it.
>> ^EndAll:
"Drugs have their advantages, but understanding reality is not one of them."
I didn't watch the video but I wanted to respond to this ^
I actually think certain drugs are very instrumental in helping to understand the true nature of reality. Many, many people have had mind opening experiences on certain psychedelic drugs that have changed their lives completely. I think some drugs can take us beyond the five-sense reality into what lies behind it. Reality is subjective. My reality is mine, yours is yours - what's true for me might not be true for you. But I have found certain drugs to make me much more in tune to what's going on around me; my reality.

TTTTTTTHISSS VIDEOOOOO ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHH.
poor guy has been so fucking misinformed.

WTF.... WTF IS GOING ON

VIDEOSIFT?

HELLO?

>> ^rougy:
The scientists will never explain the soul.

uhh. personally, i just thought of it as a little clip on a "jerry maguire" approach to life's crises. a healthy shedding of shitty preconceived notions and expectations built up since childhood.

certainly not taking any medical advice from anything said here.
and i skipped all the yap about spirituality and souls.

>> ^Doc_M:
the fact is that they biologically work by damaging the brain's cognitive functions.


All we have is AN understanding of how the brain works. It may not be definitive, we never made it to claim that we know exactly how it is intended to work.

Therefore how can we know that something damages it rather than enhances it? Perhaps we were supposed to take these drugs in order to develop our brain correctly?

We don't and perhaps can't! Everything we know thanks to science is an interpretation of what we observe that is convenient to us to identify a pattern in nature. That doesn't mean we know how it works. It means we've identified a pattern and a system in place that seems to accurately describe and predict how the thing works. And we accept that theory until it fails us and we adopt a better one that doesn't fail us. How long ago did we think that we KNEW that the earth was the centre of the universe? Is anyone so arrogant as to claim that we know better NOW? We have to hope that we know better (else why try?), but accept that we might not

I know i'm getting a little bit philosophical, but i think that's the underlying point of the video. How do we know that what we think is true is true? Maybe bipolar is just an alternate state of being, or maybe an evolutionary step. And the same for many other things which we percieve. Or maybe not.

I will say that i think people with bipolar (and in fact depression) are more prone to the kind of introspection that might lead to the belief that they're not broken, they're just different.

Doc_M, there is absolutely no hard evidence that psychedelic drugs leave holes in one's brain, that's just an anti-drug propaganda myth. They work by altering the balance of neurotransmitters in the brain leading to all kinds of changes in perception and introspection.

>> ^dannym3141:

All we have is AN understanding of how the brain works. It may not be definitive, we never made it to claim that we know exactly how it is intended to work.
Therefore how can we know that something damages it rather than enhances it?

Sure we don't know exactly how the bain is intended to work, but we can still know that smashing in your skull with an icepick will damage your brain. Similarly, we know that certain drugs like meth will damage your brain.

That doesn't mean we know how it works. It means we've identified a pattern and a system in place that seems to accurately describe and predict how the thing works.

Science gives us accurate models of how things work. Maybe reality is a lie that God crafted to fool our senses, but that kind of metaphysical argument is the realm useless and neverending bullshit.

How long ago did we think that we KNEW that the earth was the centre of the universe? Is anyone so arrogant as to claim that we know better NOW?

Pssst: science never claimed that the earth was the center. We know better now because our claims are based on actual fact and observation. Science: 1, Philosophy: 0.

How do we know that what we think is true is true?

It is not the goal of science to look into the nature of being. That is the job for religion and philosophy. Stop dismissing science because it cannot answer the unanswerable.

>> ^berticus:
WTF.... WTF IS GOING ON
VIDEOSIFT?
HELLO?
>> ^rougy:
The scientists will never explain the soul.


prove that the soul does not exist.
cant?
then chalk it up to the "i dont know" factor,and dont even try the "prove it DOES exist" because i cant either.to even attempt that futile argument is an exercise in wasted time.
i will suggest reading about the father of "humanism" the collective unconcious,carl jung.if you have taken any psychology courses you have heard of him.
http://www.nndb.com/people/910/000031817/

well well well,i really didnt think this vid would get sifted,not only DID it get sifted,but seems we have a discussion going.
good.
every person is in part a product of their enviroment and experiences,and each is different in their own right,people who purport to be of a spiritual nature are dismissed by both religious AND atheist as being weak-minded and wrong.
yet neither side can prove or disprove.
and that suits me just fine.
a religious person will use dogma and doctrine to make their point,oddly enough,so will the atheist.doctrine and dogma are based on tangible text,i can come up with a counter argument everytime using the VERY same doctrine.
but to disprove someones experience?
thats far trickier,and i am not so arrogant to believe i know everything.
i cannot discount this mans experience,and honestly,would drugging him up into a medicated zombie be prefferable to his way of dealing with his perceived existence?
just a thought.

>> ^enoch:
prove that the soul does not exist.
cant?
then chalk it up to the "i dont know" factor,and dont even try the "prove it DOES exist" because i cant either.to even attempt that futile argument is an exercise in wasted time.
i will suggest reading about the father of "humanism" the collective unconcious,carl jung.if you have taken any psychology courses you have heard of him.

prove that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist.
prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.
prove that the orbiting teacup does not exist.
prove that god does not exist.

prove, prove, prove.

i've taken plenty of psychology courses, actually, and if you had too, you would know that you learn very early on that jung (and freud) had some fun ideas... but they were just that. they are not science. they are ideas, and unfortunately some of them have been quite damaging. they are outdated and the fact that people still give credit to either freud or jung's untestable unprovable psychobabble is scary.

how you came to the conclusion that jung of all people was the founder of humanism boggles the mind. if you take 2 minutes to look at what jung espoused and then compare that to what humanism is... quite different.

>> ^mentality:

Sure we don't know exactly how the bain is intended to work, but we can still know that smashing in your skull with an icepick will damage your brain. Similarly, we know that certain drugs like meth will damage your brain.

Of course, stopping something from functioning is obviously a worse state than having something functioning, but this example is obviously flawed - and in two ways.

Way the first:
If you beat a brain with an icepick until it stops functioning, that is obviously a worse state of affairs than when you began - but we are referring to percieved 'damage' rather than a cessation of function, so either this isn't your point, or it's an invalid point

Way the second:
There are of course cases of head trauma leading to an IMPROVEMENT of brain function - such as a return of senses (hearing, sight). Also operations on the brain resulting in a businessman becoming an accomplished painter virtually overnight. Just because all icepick-head collisions we've ever seen have never resulted in a brain enhancement doesn't mean that it can't occur, as we can see in these examples that the possibility is there. It just takes the RIGHT KIND of icepick blow.

Science gives us accurate models of how things work. Maybe reality is a lie that God crafted to fool our senses, but that kind of metaphysical argument is the realm useless and neverending bullshit.

No, i think you misunderstood my point. My point is nothing to do with God. It's a scientific idea and i know scientists that agree with me. In fact, i don't think there's a scientist that would disagree because .. well, because it's true. I will have to drastically simplify the idea in order to explain it well here.

If we see a sequence of numbers 3 5 7 - and we think they are a series of odd numbers increasing. We can see that there may be numbers beyond 7, but at the moment we are incapable of identifying it. Time passes, technology improves, then we get the next number in the sequence and it's an 11 and we realise that it's a sequence of prime numbers. Although our system accurately described what we could observe to begin with, the system failed when we discovered something new.

That's all there is to it. As a practitioner of science, you MUST perform experiments with an open mind. To do otherwise is to taint your observations with your own bias and is poor science. Tomorrow, we may find that all our theories are not necessarily the most accurate theories. Continued below...

Pssst: science never claimed that the earth was the center. We know better now because our claims are based on actual fact and observation. Science: 1, Philosophy: 0.

To carry on from above, this has proven true in the past. Theories that were raised showed us accurate results. Then we found a case where they DID NOT accurately predict the results, and we had to throw the theory away and adopt a new one. If you would like to nitpick examples then i will give you a better one - that of the classical view of atomic structure vs. the modern view.

We used to think that the nucleus of an atom was solid, and now we think that it is made up of protons and neutrons. But wait, those again are made up of quarks. Wait, are the quarks made up of strings!?

It is not the goal of science to look into the nature of being. That is the job for religion and philosophy. Stop dismissing science because it cannot answer the unanswerable.

Firstly, i have never dismissed science for not being able to answer the unanswerable. I think you have an idea in your head that i somehow approached this from a religious standpoint and that is your downfall in your 'debunk'.

Secondly, semantics aside, i think science has a duty to look into the nature of being whenever possible. Check out the anthropic principle - i think that's a little bit to do with the nature of being. You could argue it, and i'll accept that, but i still think it does. If it's possible for science to shed any light on the nature of being, then it will, people won't go "THAT'S NOT OUR REALM BOYS LEAVE IT ALONE!" Philosophy is philosophy, and science is science. If the two can help each other out, of course they will, and of course we don't know that the answers won't be helpful to each other

But, of course, that was never my point, i simply reply to it as you raise it

--- Please don't ask me to cite examples, you can find them for yourself ---

berticus,
whats with the adversarial tone bud?
all i was saying is that you cannot prove or disprove either argument concerning the validity and nature,or even existence of a soul.
your counter was,lets just say,less than creative.
and then you admonish me for making the conflation of jung being the father of humanism,well...i have the textbook right in front of me and the title of the chapter is.../drum roll
carl jung, father of humanism
if you disagree with that title take it up with the authors,all i was suggesting
was some reading,which i gather you have already done.
i also gather you found freud and jungs work ill-thought and crazy.
ok..thats your right..i dont.i guess psychoanalysis really IS dead,and the super ego was just a "fad".
i find neitzche nihilistic and depressing,but thats my opinion.i do like hegel though,you may not.
psychology is NOT an exact science,and anybody who says it is,is talking out their collective ass.
but all this is not the point,the point of my comment,one you conveniently ignored...is that arguing about the existence of a soul is a dead end argument.
you are free to feel and believe what you wish my friend,i am not your enemy,and my comment was not of a antagonistic flavor.it was just a statement,and an accurate one at that.even richard dawkins will concede the point i made.
but i do thank you for your contributions to this topic.
and BTW..
the answer is:socrates,kung fu tzu

adversarial? yeah.. and you're not patronising in the slightest huh?

i think i understood full well your point. but then i also think you've misunderstood why i originally quoted rougy's comment, and why i subsequently mentioned the ridiculous ideas of FSM, IPU, teacup etc. they are all untestable, outside the realm of science. hence for someone to say 'science will never explain the soul' is absurd. of course it won't. it can't. just as it can't explain an infinite number of other hypothetical things -- which IS a useful point. they are all equally ridiculous. the soul is as likely as god is as likely as FSM etc. this boils down in the end to an argument on ontology, which if you are a rational person, brings you to science as the best method we have for testing reality. that method relies on evidence. evidence for all those things == 0. therefore, likelihood of those things being real approximates 0. which means you should apply the same reasoning to the existence of a soul as you do to unicorns, fairies, and a magical cupcake with feet that created the universe.

does that explain how i responded to "prove that the soul does not exist" the way i did?

i really do apologise if my views on freud or jung are upsetting, but i feel strongly about it because i have learned of the damage freud's ideas have inflicted.

now let's have a hug and talk about how we want to fuck our mothers and kill our fathers.

This is, uh, not really about bipolar disorder. Bipolar disorder is cyclical, alternating extreme highs and extreme lows. This guy is describing a kid who goes through a traumatic event and a difficult period in his life and comes out changed.

That's not a disorder; that's life.

Oh, and all that soul-babble is clearly *religion

Adding video to channels (Religion) - requested by xxovercastxx.

*Dead - Sadly,
I wish I'd caught this sooner - I'll hunt it down on youtube sometime - Don't want to his Youtube while I'm at work

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Sagemind.

Awarding dystopianfuturetoday with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.