I've been watching a number of these videos of Searle that represent his thinking over a span of forty years. Amazing to see his intelligence, curiosity and energy. The guy is a total phenomenon. A living treasure.

"Existence is Identity. Consciousness is Identification." It's exciting when science deals with philosophical questions. Loved this, and this delightful man!

This Talk deserved more time. It was awesome!

Down to earth, practical, common sense. I love it! I can relate!

John Searle is brilliant. This video shows it and his book 'constructing the social world' says it. Simply worth engaging in, which is not to say about many intellectual people these days.

Thank you so mch for sharing this!!

That's quite a feat, staying below 15 minutes for such a deep subject. Kudos, Dr Searle.

Yes, that's what I have been thinking all the time!

I've read about it in a study, but yes it was only one study and I shouldn't be too sure, but it just makes sense to me. I think about noticing thoughts popping up in my head like noticing pain popping up in my head. You are aware of what happens in your brain, but what happens is ultimately determined by chemistry.

They provide the vital service of getting the ideas out, giving people the opportunity to get involved in great ideas. I think how well it works is really impressive, can you really expect more of them?

06:50 what a clever professor

I have never been this excited by a philosopher before...

Sounds great. Thanks for the info

Well,I like this presentation and I like his ideas. A very interesting speech on subject of consciousness that claims the mind-body problema is actually quite simple one and that consciousness must be considered as a fully biological phenomenom.

Reality is limitless, space is infinite, time eternal... Within ourselves there is infinite capacity for connection with all things... An infinite potential for growth...

Excellent talk

Excellent,spot on

LOVE THIS GUY!!

OMGoodness, I hope he doesn't die for many years to come. I want to see more of him.

Continuando la tradición de Oxford, Jhon Rogers Searle asume la distinción de su maestro Austin entre una dimensión constatativa y otra dimensión realizativa del lenguaje, como también el desplazamiento y puesta del énfasis analítico en esta última, el cual intensifica respecto de Austin. Lo hace, sin embargo, introduciendo una crítica dirigida al concepto de «regla» de su predecesor y la supuesta generalización que hace de los actos de habla al proponer siempre ejemplos de actos «institucionalmente ligados», como si estos agotasen la totalidad de los actos de habla o reduciendo los actos de habla a los institucionales (como los propios de juicios, bodas etc). Searle señala que los actos de habla en contextos institucionales no son, de hecho, los únicos, pues tales actos también se dan en contextos comunicativos informales y conversacionales. Para ello introduce una nueva distinción entre: 1) «reglas regulativas», las cuales están dirigidas a permitir, prohibir u obligar conductas humanas (las cuales habría priorizado desproporcionadamente Austin) y 2) «reglas constitutivas», que no se encargan de regular sino que constituyen en sí mismas nuevas formas de conducta, porque han sido abstraídas de las condiciones tanto necesarias como suficientes de los casos particulares en los que se cumple el acto del habla, como por ejemplo el de una promesa. Este tipo de reglas son las que verdaderamente rigen tanto en contextos institucionales como informales, en contra de Austin. Este problema continúa el de la fundación de la normatividad del lenguaje, que ya vimos en Wittgenstein.

good talk like always

It seems I misunderstood his point. Thank you for pointing this out to me! I watched the rest of the video, and it was very interesting. Some of his points I don't quite agree with, but it was a great TED talk.

Isn't it interesting how that works? Cheers man.

I just did a search on that and WOW, holy crap! :D Nice information, thanks for sharing!! ;)

Yes, rhetorically of course. What I'm saying is that researchers would have no way of knowing what someone is going to do before they do it because that person NEEDS to receive the input in order to deliver the output. The researchers may be able to detect the decision being made before someone can physically manifesting the output, but that person must first KNOW the input in order to deliver the output.

I agree with basically everything he said.

What he says is so obviously true that it’s hard to see how anyone can dispute it.

Great talk, if a little rushed. I look forward to advances in the field of consciousness.

Perfect timing for this video :)

Less relevant does not mean irrelevant. Thinking about how we think and why we do things is still very important. Science won't teach us ethics. It allows us to discover what is. Philosophy still teaches us why it matters at all.

Those terms weren't used after the introduction describing various older approaches. The repeated message is @02:52 @14:32 consciousness is a biological phenomenon.

well said indeed !

Excellent talk. Wish he'd had more time and didn't have to rush through it.

I believe I the intended meaning of the quote is to say we are getting away from using philosophy to wonder what something is, and instead replace assumption with facts. I don't think philosophy will ever really be truly irrelevant. Science may be able to find concrete things, but to think in and of itself is the ability to philosophize.

I completely agree! I believe in balance and dualities, and right-brain vs left-brain is a great example of that very concept. Thanks again! ;D

Consciousness is the sum of the human biocomputer's mechanisms that are able to self-monitor some of the other mechanisms. Consciousness is self awareness. Its the ability of the system to be aware of some of its own processes.

Much like the speaker, I've long thought of conscious"ness" as being a *process* rather than a thing. Mr. Searle's defining consciousness as a *condition* leads to a similar conclusion as far as it capable of being the subject of scientific study.

He is younger than me.

You're right about the fact that he skimmed over the subject of spirituality, but this talk was not a waste of time. It explains some physical processes very closely related to consciousness and I think it gives us a better understanding of the 'spiritual' aspects.

I can't wait to be a student in his class. In just a few months i will be enlightened on a regular basis.

I think he's discussing the evidence that much of our conscious thoughts are simply post-hoc explanations to justify our actions. Although we feel we decide to do something and then do it, it might actually be that the "decision" in terms of the conscious choice to act, follows the action. So, when this guy said that his conscious thought "caused" his arm to move, he was only showing a correlation, not causation.

I'm reminded of the story of the baby fish who asks his mother about the Ocean. "Where is it?" said the baby fish. "It's everywhere" said the mama fish, "it's all around you." This is the Ocean being a fish, and a fish being the Ocean, complicated or not. The main reporters of this idea, that consciousness is an aspect of reality is not new. Maybe new to westerners, but it is ancient. It stems back to Upanishads, and a tradition of individuals who had deep experience in meditation.

What was the physical process that made Searle decide to move his arm? Describing the process that his decision initiates does not solve the problem.

This helped me realise that no one is right about everything and being right in the past doesn't mean they will be right in the future so look at the logic behind what they say and how they go about things and decide based on this! Also look at past results they had in the area they are talking about. If they had a lot of success in that area. Then chances are higher they will again. :-)

Okay, that's a decent argument. However, I will assure you I was not on drugs. I was not "falling asleep", just sleepy. Also, I'm 21 and I've never seen or heard of that movie. Imagination takes time, you have to pick the pieces and set the stage. This was all at once and it literally and physically took my breath away with its weight on my conciousness. I can't explain it, I can only describe it. Even if it was only a construct of my mind, it was a beautiful and vivid construct.

Vision is a sense, just like touch or hearing. Color is an aspect of vision, the differentiation of light as sensed by our 3 cones (red, green, and blue). Other aspects of vision are lightness, saturation, texture, etc...

Gotta love Terrence!

Consciousness is without a doubt the single most mysterious thing there is. The "easy problem" is: "How does consciousness work?" The "hard problem" is: "Why does a first-person subjective consciousness exist at all?" Consciousness isn't necessary for a brain to work. Imagine 2 brains that are 100% identical to each other. One has a subjective awareness of what it experiences. The other does not. You could never tell which was which. They'd both behave exactly the same to an outside observer.

The comment section on TED videos restores my hope for humanity.

Philosophy is at the very foundation of science. It's what makes science work. It's why we know it works. The way Stephen Hawking talks about philosophy as if it is a separate entity from science, like they are two different things, shows that Stephen Hawking isn't talking about all philosophy, or doesn't understand philosophy.

FEELS!!!

Have some sight of the bigger picture would you, Sam is a great speaker but hardly alone in the field of thinking about consciousness, and John does a good job. He needed more time I think. My point being we need to get this information out and the best way to go about doing that is (barring a video going ridiculously viral) to attack it from multiple sources, so be happy John is speaking about consciousness and raising awareness of an obvious thing that seems forgotten in this world.

His arguments are in my philosophy textbooks at university! I wrongly assumed all the great philosophers were already dead. :D

I think he dropped the mic at the end! lol

Consciousness is an amorphous and expanding entity.

This old man rocks.

Well predictions of up to 10 seconds will only be possible for predetermined instructions. The brain is optimised as to handle some tasks without you having to be consciously aware of them, that saves energy. If someone throws a rock at you, you do not want to stand about and make conscious decisions of whether you should move. Your cerebellum is extremely good at handling repeated tasks. Your consciousness often comes in late in the process and has the ability to inhibit most of your actions.

...imagination might take time because you are consciously trying to produce, but when it comes to these dream like states of the brain it can come in a flash, just like memories. Our memories are stored in clusters and are joined together (diner, waitress, 50s, suits) thus the expression "trail of thought". You're experience sounds very much like an instant flash where you filled in the details of what is normally associated with a typical diner.

Searle seems more optimistic about consciousness in this talk, than i'm used to from him.

I think Philosophy and experts who focus on specializing in it are essential for the continuance of a healthy society. Science is important, but it cannot answer many essential questions: what is morality? How should we live our lives? When such questions dissolve into irrelevance, there will no longer be any need for Philosophy. But, as these questions are as relevant today as in the 6th century, I cannot see how Philosophy is not.

Well said. ;)

I might have just come from Wittgenstein but I promise it's an idea that I already had - words can not do this subject justice. Understanding it (not that I do fully, but I understand enough to know this) must be about the only non-superficially rewarding echo chamber

A lot of authors tried to describe what decides moral. I'm taking note of this book, another point of view can't hurt.

yes i always felt that you were still conscious when you were asleep, just at a different level. The idea that things are an 'illusion' is meaningless, all that is exists, whether they be dreams, thoughts, ideas, concepts. Everything solid in the world began with an idea, even the universe itself.

Interesting. Consciousness as an emergent property of neurobiological states. I like it.

pure consciousness comes from the ancient and all-knowing infinite being within the self, unhindered by the external translating machine known as the mind. meditation allows us to re-meet our true self, and experience a level of awareness beyond the five senses. the mind is the consistent interruption of this field of energy. it is the device that allows us to experience the physical world, while (pure) consciousness is the spiritual realm. we could all be MORE AWARE of our pure consciousness.

Wish he'd debate Dan Dennett on this topic.

props on the old guy for not passing out and staying conscious after fifteen minutes of not breathing.

talk with Gregg Braden about consciousness

Let me translate, starting from the bottom. Conciousness is void, void is all, conciousness is all. (Referring to "The Void" or "The Singularity" where everything is possible because nothing exists there. Its a complicated subject often discussed in metaphysics and magic.) Here he is trying to describe different planes or levels of un/conciousness. He says, "you can't study it (conciousness) there (the void)" because you experience only nothingness there. "Mirrored". This is a reference cont

I'm curious what people make of the fact that a person loses a certain specific amount of weight at death. What is that? Is it the soul? If it has weight, is it physical? My reco to anyone trying to increase consciousness levels is to make sure their pineal glands are decalcified & functioning correctly. That means checking your water & fluoride intake, eating right, exercise, & adequate rest. If that's the gateway to our higher selves, or our crown chakras, they need to work correctly.

He's cited over 67 thousand times, has tenure at a research university, and is talking about his primary subject of study. If you think he's an idiot then you really just don't understand him. I suggest reading a few of his articles, especially the most well-cited ones, if you'd like a clearer picture of his views. TED talks are rarely the best venue for complex ideas.

I might respectfully intrude. Our innate moral compass may be the product of evolution as it helps us look after our kin and ensure the survival of our genes. These subjective feelings of connection and spirit may be evolutionary mechanisms. That said, it doesn't mean that our consciousness and inner experiences are worthless. In fact, worth is subjective which means that our conscious states are the ONLY things that matter. I hope this was a positive contribution to your discussion.

Decartes's cogito ergo sum, - "I think therefore I am" is a tautology. There is an "I" on both sides of the "therefore" - therefore it's really I=I and that "I" is the self model. One can just as easily say "I feel therefore I am" or "I stink, therefore I am." It is possible for things like chess programs to think and not have an "I" or "self-model" - Thinking is not what makes you an I. It's the self-model.

I have dreams sometimes and I know I am dreaming so I try jumping off of things in the attempt to kill myself and wake up. But when I jump in my dreams I always fall in slow motion and it HONESTLY is the most phenomenal feeling.

Both are important. Science with it's math as most basic description tool, is itself only a rational change of our environment, whereas philosophy is much more relevent for the human mind. It's the spiritual part, which is important to keep everything in track and show people whats really important for happiness. Do you really think people now are more happy than in the medieval times? Look up hedonic treadmill and rationally think about what pros and most of all cons we have nowadays.

Which part of "personal" did you not understand?

How can you be so sure? and how do you suppose that works then?

"Let us know when the field of philosophy itself produces knowledge" Philosophy is the starting point in the acquisition of all human knowledge.

I'll answer this way, we don't know how gravity works, but clearly it does. :) Best!

I'm not sure whether or not he retracted it. My understanding of the passage is that he was targeting a kind of empirically-uninformed practise of inferring essential features of reality. If I remember correctly, his target was specifically Aristotle and the tradition of cosmology that Aristotle largely inspired. Though 'natural philosophy' is certainly an underspecified term, I take it to chiefly refer to this historical tradition.

Well that's simple.... I can't. However, the image/sound/smell was so very vivid and so sudden that I'm positive I didn't just "imagine" it. I was a male in a diner with pastel colors and rounded tables and countertops so I think it was the 60's based on the decor alone. It was either sunrise or sunset because the light was coming in from the rows of windows at an angle. (I think it was sunset because of the pale orange color to the light.) I was wearing a black jacket and sitting with cont

Did I say "Philosophers"? No, I said "Philosophy". Experts on Philosophy, or Philosophers, are crucial for presenting the important fundamental questions and stimulating independent thought. These questions are essential; in fact, a healthy society is contingent on such questions being asked, pondered, and ultimately answered. Philosophy allows an individual to weed out misdirection, fallacy, and dishonesty and finally answer, individually, the most important questions.

He explains this with his concept "the chinese room", look John Searle up on wikipedia or facebook. You'll only have to read the first part :)

Consciousness is the most real thing there is. Everything else might be a dream or an illusions, a construct of my cosciousness. The only thing I know for sure is that I am conscious. If you dont feel the same way, then maybe you are not.

How do we not still need philosophers when all the biggest questions of life are yet unanswered?

The questions I'm still left with are: How do neurological phenomena interact together to create a unified conscious field and, how do precise manipulations of those neurological phenomena change the conscious experience? Are there elements of consciousness that some people experience but others don't? Are there learned aspects of consciousness? I should probably just pick up a neuroscience textbook.

I hope I'm as lucid as he is when I get there.

There is no consciousness apart from cognitive function. By saying "I am conscious of X", one means that one can talk about X, is attracted to/shy away from X, can focus your attention on X, remember X later on and so on. It's a nice term to sum the activity of all of these kinds of cognition. There is no separate 'hard problem' to be solved. By studying cognition, we will eventually come to understand more about our consciousness.

Well. I'm leaning toward Dennett and Hofstadter when it comes to this debate. Damn. Need to go through GEB and Consciousness Explained again.

I guess you are right.

Understanding consciousness is to realize how we are connected to the Universe as bio physical thought ...The ultimate quantum entanglement is within Kirlian photography that has been a subject of scientific research of parapsychology research & bio connection… where special photographs made with Kirlian cameras provide a way of examining the "Quantum Energy" effect in life. I just want to point out… if the probable results of Ion Trap Quantum Processor to make

HIS SHIRT IS AN ILLUSION!

consciousness is like intelligence, you can only be aware of what you know.

I am a physicist and I will explain the reason why our scientific knowledge disproves the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. 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 classifications of underlying processes and arbitrary abstractions of the actual microscopic physical processes, which are described DIRECTLY by the 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. 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, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The claim that emergent properties exist independently of a conscious mind is therefore simply nonsensical because it is equivalent to the claim that an approximation exists as an actual entity. 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 every set of elements is inherently an arbitrary abstract idea which implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. 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 not a physical entity but just an abstract idea and so are all its properties. Any property attributed to the set as a whole is inherently an abstract idea that refers to a property of another abstract idea (the set) and not to a physical entity. So any emergent property is by its very nature an arbitrary abstraction that refers to another arbitrary abstraction (the set). Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any property of a set as a whole, and therefore consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini

I'm not saying it's not possible... but I'm pretty sure I was awake for the experience. You provide a good argument, but like I said, I can't explain it and I'd rather not try to. In the end, it doesn't really matter what it was, and it doesn't really matter what I believe about it. All of this, in reality, has the weight of a flea fart in the wind.

Truth, brother. McKenna had it right. I bet none of the people that disagree with these kinds of claims have had the fundamental experiences to realize what they are. It's sad.

I tohught the video was sped up. He speaks way faster than usual.

Consciousness is an aspect of real Time-space, the Absolute fabric that we all are in and of. Human beings, and other sentient beings, receive and realize this element in a way that is similar to that of a radio receiving a broadcast. The broadcast is not originating inside of the radio. In the same way, consciousness does not originate inside of the brain, the whole body system is simply tuning into consciousness, and does not expressly create it.

I think we forget that having an interest in Science is a higher level of consciousness. It is a new perspective of the world. This can be induce with psychedelic drugs. This area of research should be interested in how this happens.