Hi, level 7 atheist skeptic here, I'm curious to know the best books on the nature of consciousness and neuroscience...

Hi, level 7 atheist skeptic here, I'm curious to know the best books on the nature of consciousness and neuroscience, from things like how the brain processes information, how consciousness arises, and why human beings think and act the way they do according to the physical makeup of our brains, or whatever other subjects about the brain you personally find interesting enough to read a book about with the brain!

I find it especially interesting the studies I have been reading about why some people are conservative vs liberal, and it has a lot to do with your amygdala, people who are more conservative have a higher fear and disgust response. That has changed my perspective on politics a lot, because I stop looking at it as solely a matter of your choices you make, and factor in more how a person's human nature comes into play. That's something that really interests me.

Other urls found in this thread:

researchgate.net/profile/Karl_Friston/publication/26323868_Friston_K_The_free-energy_principle_a_rough_guide_to_the_brain_Trends_Cogn_Sci_13_293-301/links/00b7d516fbc976ec91000000.pdf
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8f4d/b680a0cd140bc36033220c2f03d1661ddc5f.pdf
nature.com/nrn/journal/v2/n11/pdf/nrn1101-820a.pdf
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1708/20160007.full
web.natur.cuni.cz/filosof/markos/Publikace/FAVAREAU Essential Readings in Biosemiotics.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It's important to realize that in physics today we have no knowledge of what energy is.

Did you reply to the wrong thread? I'm not talking about physics lol.

i would say there aren't really many books (certainly not that i know of) but theres lots of papers.

researchgate.net/profile/Karl_Friston/publication/26323868_Friston_K_The_free-energy_principle_a_rough_guide_to_the_brain_Trends_Cogn_Sci_13_293-301/links/00b7d516fbc976ec91000000.pdf

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8f4d/b680a0cd140bc36033220c2f03d1661ddc5f.pdf

nature.com/nrn/journal/v2/n11/pdf/nrn1101-820a.pdf

rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1708/20160007.full

I'd also be careful about interpreting those kinds of papers. not that they aren't correct or whatever but people see those soundbite conclusions and start to oversimplify an incredibly complex issue. More so, those studies can't really tell if those brain relations are causal and to be frank, most psychologists wouldn't be able to give you a good reliable reason as to why those brain areas might be connected to political orientation. Psychology study results are also quite context dependent.

Theres a difference between saying "theres some kind of relationship between this and this statistically in a study" and then thinking "this means that if you are this, you are going to be this and this and this is why you are this"

As a rule of thumb, in order to keep your mind open but still follow the facts, to consider level 6.

Google Jonathan Haidt and Steven Pinker.

thank you
I'm guessing this "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by jonathan haidt is what I'm looking for? And I'm guessing it's "how the mind works" by steven pinker I'm looking for too?

He is making a point.
Physics is technically easier to compute and study, because it's something that is much more consistent to study. Brains are so much more complex, I believe if we cannot understand some basic physics, then we'll never ever fully understand the brain. Everything in psychology is very rough estimates at this year of 2016.

stephen pinker is not it man. pop/psy/ is so shit. hes not even on the same level as dawkins/

Yeah, I sort of get that sense from what I've gathered about brain science, that we understand very little. Every time I hear people talking about brain studies it's with these awful, primitive machines that show the brain lighting up in certain areas, which just gives people some idea of "aha, that area of the brain responsible for this form of thinking!" But it's frustrating to me that we can't diagnose people or even explain the processes of the brain, using some sort of actual biological method other than crude observations of behavior or these primitive brain scans.

We Are Our Brains: From the Womb to Alzheimer's

that is actually a good book by a guy with lots of research experience and isn't stephen pinker ^.

Yes those books are both great. You can save yourself the reading by watching videos, both writers have given full-length lectures on their respective books.

>I'm too dumb to understand him, so he must be poppsy!

Pinker is a neuroscientist, a linguist and a psychologist, he is probably the best qualified person to talk about the nature of thought.

yes, i know hes a psychologist, i wouldn't say hes a neuroscientist and he doesn't do alot of his own original research. He does write books and he collates information but he often has clunky interpretations and opinions. hes a public intellectual, hes not the best person you would want to look at for expertise in a field or view of research. Hes basically a Dawkins of psychology. Yes he will talk about scientific kind of issues that seem to be relevant to the public ut they won't be nuanced and won't give anyone a deep understanding of the field he talks about.

There are many other people i'd rather ask about psychology than steven pinker.

hes also never made any big contributions to psychology.

plus there is only speculation no real evidence for the nature of consciousness so he is as qualified as an undergrad... Take everything you read with a pinch of salt and do some research of your own. don't get too into and stuck with an idea because then you may become blind-sighted and find yourself in an echo-chamber like bad scientists and morons.

what do you mean

"real evidence for the nature of consciousness" ?

I should have been more specific, i am targeting the nature of 'higher level cognitive functioning' over basic consciousness.

>There are many other people i'd rather ask about psychology than steven pinker.

Name three.

Hi, owner of a dog named Bob here, curious about rhe rusting rate of steel.

What does you being atheist have to do with anything you just wrote?

glorious comment

topkek, heres a ((you))

Karl friston, anil seth, adele diamond.

>a brain guy, a discount steven pinker, and a woman

Top kek

loool fuck off baitlet.

>a discount steven pinker
I'm not the person you're replying to, and I actually worked with Seth, but that still made me lol.

really? doing what?

Granger causality analysis of EEG data during cognitive control

Being an atheist has to do with the OP because a lot of times people equate consciousness and the mind to spiritual and metaphysical ideas, which I find retarded and don't have anything to do with what I am looking for. So, it's like that, but I know that immediately something that's implied isn't automatically picked up, because fuckers like you probably still don't understand the point of why I would say that, and keep misunderstanding the world with your idiotic spiritual beliefs and misunderstanding of rational thinking, you retarded fuck.

thoughts are metaphysical by nature so gg youll never get any scientific answers

i contest this.

I got a book for yahs
It's the first anthology of biosemiotics, a fast growing prospective science that studies the biological processes of meaning making.
web.natur.cuni.cz/filosof/markos/Publikace/FAVAREAU Essential Readings in Biosemiotics.pdf
Shhh
If springer asks you paid $300.

>if it worked