11 Jul 2012
Renowned academic, author, and director of the Mindsight Institute Dan Siegel, visits the RSA to reveal an extremely rare thing - a working definition of the mind.
Listen to the podcast of the full event including audience Q&A.
Download the video (mp4)
Watch Daniel Siegel on our YouTube Channel
Watch Daniel Siegel on our Vimeo Channel
If your browser is Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome: Right-click the link to the video and choose 'Save Link As'.
(Need help viewing this file?)
Listen to the podcast of the full event including audience Q&A.
Download the video (mp4)
Watch Daniel Siegel on our YouTube Channel
Watch Daniel Siegel on our Vimeo Channel
How to download a video
If your browser is Internet Explorer: Right-click the link to the video and choose 'Save Target As'.If your browser is Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome: Right-click the link to the video and choose 'Save Link As'.
(Need help viewing this file?)
You are welcome to link to, download, save or distribute our audio/video files electronically. Find out more about our open access licence.
Video file hosting and streaming is provided by GroovyGecko
Share
eajjplmkvmx - 21 Dec 2012 10:57am
l3RE5i , [url=http://fndrllbxnjdp.com/]fndrllbxnjdp[/url], [link=http://necqgpmxsdls.com/]necqgpmxsdls[/link], http://hydlbeyddwro.com/
Melis - 19 Dec 2012 10:32am
This was my favorite of this seeirs. I think because he created such a full picture of the human organism, making, to my mind, a perfect case for a place on earth for science ( knowlege about the world we live in including our selves) while omitting entirely Consciousness itself and the transcendent dimension, which is unquantifiable the stuff of spiritual teachings. They all omitted that section which makes me, my organism, feel comfortable and open to what they have to say.. (well, there is Dr. Deutsch : ) )I also liked it so much because he so beautifully included all the parts of the human mind/brain, demonstrating how it pervades and affects the whole human form, what it is and what it does, and acknowledges that that form includes the ego as we know it little me. His explanations filled out a picture of why modern teachers focus so much, last hundred years or so, on bringing the human attention/conscious awareness back into the body, here, now ..(then it may become a habit but that would be a good habit because it redresses the unbalance form vs being) which, according to some was the more naturally a balanced state of the human plus being when we as a whole were closer to nature. The others, with, I have to say, the exception of Dr. Deutsch, focused on the main Brain which in modern times, much more then a couple of hundred years .maybe closer to 2000, has been steadily taking precedence in individual lives i.e. the root cause of the egoic driven world we find our selves living in. Highlights the question Is there a difference between the ego/mind and the egoic mind in humans? and ..I leave Buddha and Christ states of pure Being inhabited forms out of the equation. Forget about them. Eckhart seems to say there is.
paul - 12 Sep 2012 11:08pm
the writings of buddha..? i think you mean teachings.. which you haven't studied or you will have come across lots of clear and precise definitions of the many categories and sub-categories of mind.. definition not required.. how can a mechanic build a safe bridge without a good definition of the concept of 'mechanics' ermm.. quite easily.. try it and see.. i don't require a definition of arm and finger in order to type this What he offers is not a 'definition of mind'.. it's something of a description of a part of the working of a human being.. I was quite annoyed at first but then came to see that actually his intentions are in fact therapeutic.. I think what he is trying to say is that when we understand that consciousness is non-physical and non-local and we develop awareness of our actions and intentions and relationships within this framework then we feel more stable, functional, happy and 'wholesome' yes.. well said.. but there's a whole lot of jumping around to get there.. what he's saying is not new.. he's trying to find new ways to say something very old and you're expressing something essentially simply in an unnecessarily complex way .. perhaps feeling that the ties with new understandings in science justify his thoughts or are even requited for validity.. by the end i quite liked him and would enjoy a long chat but i didn't like this talk.. it was confusing.
Ben - 23 Aug 2012 7:12pm
This Isn't a new definition and has been used for a very long time in eastern philosophy: http://viewonbuddhism.org/mind.html Mind is defined in Buddhism as a non-physical phenomenon which perceives, thinks, recognises, experiences and reacts to the environment.