This is a meaningful video, and the debate is worth appreciating. This is definitely one step forward in the right direction. May be a long way to go but ultimately, we will find the truth.
Because we have given ourselves the task to define consciousness based on partial consciousness, we now create new names for what consciousness is 🙏🏽 All is mental- the universe is mind.. The first part of the truth lies The Kybalion 🙏🏽
Creating more unknowns without learning the basic one. Just because we don't know how matter acquire consciousness when it comes together, it doesn't mean other things(conciouss particles, conciouss Universe). Maybe this is the case and we just don't know how exactly it works. Assuming that the particles or the entire cosmos has consciousness is a stretch, but also I can not falsify.
I used to think so too, but then I had a direct experience that showed me that consciousness is something fundamental, something universal, something unbounded by space or time. They way I understand it now is that consciousness is the substance of the phenomenal world that we experience. So it may be the most simple explanation that consciousness is the substance of the universe itself.
It doesn't look as many little bits of consciousness, because each bit perceives individually. It's easy to prove by the case of people who got their brains split. Even if two parts of the same person starts to behave independently, neither part feels much of the difference. Each hemisphere works like it worked before but unable to coordinate their movements. These are still the same parts of the same person.
The conscious is the superficial part of the mind which is lighted, and below it lies the unconscious buried in the dark. Then below the unconscious lies the collective unconscious, and at the bottom lies the cosmic unconscious - which is the mind of the entire universe, which is the total mind, the universal mind. Remembrance of God or self-remembering happens at the level of the cosmic mind, which is the ultimate in consciousness. God or self is known when we become completely integrated - not only with our unconscious and collective minds, but also with the cosmic consciousness, which is of the highest. Osho , from the book 'Krishna : The Man And His Philosophy '
Dr. Donald Hoffman, Dr. Bernard Carr, Dr. Iain McGilchrist, and Dr. Rupert Sheldrake are among a growing body of scientists that also subscribe to the philosophy of #panpsychism rather than that of #physicalism.
I'm a salesman by trade and lawyer by education, yet I can prove panpsychism wrong in under a minute. If you assumes panpsychism is true, and you create a simple algorithm that i.e. keeps rising a displayed number by one each second; the assumption of panpsychism does not affect the computation performed by your algorithm in any way. It keeps doing the same thing, as any computation would. However, if you ask a human if they are conscious, they will provide a response. They will think about it, move their lips and push the air out of their lungs. They can write an answer on a keyboard. So you would still need a "bridge" between computational component, and this "conscious" aspect of matter, to use panpsychism as an explanation to anything. Intelligence of humans would not change anything here. Why would only human brains somehow be physically affected, but not simple algorithms or apples falling from trees. Panpsychism just does not work. Honestly it's even worse than God, because technically you can't logically exclude a God.
Felicitaciones Robert por tu búsqueda profunda e inteligente sobre la verdad de muchos fenómenos fisicos clásicos, quánticos, el significado de la existencia, Dios, el tiempo, realidad, freewill, conciencia y cerebro, religión, filosofía, problemas metafisicos, etc. Te invito a conocer mi teoría del alma y mi teoría de la conciencia. Muchas gracias por tu gran aporte. Saludos. Paper.Vet.Chile
Panpsychism is an intriguing concept when you consider all living things show a similar disruption of function under the influence of general anesthetics.
@@pedade02 Cosmic Consciousness is part of God. No religion required. God has nothing to do with religion. A creator is the Creator, even if we don't know who or what he is . Science can speculate and theists can speculate too
The hard problem of consciousness it's hard to define. I was trying very hard to precisely name one thing about consciousness that can't be explained by physical interactions between neurons. But it still feels like there is a problem.
May I suggest that one such thing would be what we could call it's "ontological privateness". Physical interactions between neurons would be "ontologically public". I think neuroscience not knowing how such privateness can self-evidently occur in some entities and apparently not occur in others is the hard problem of consciousness.
@XOPOIIIO True. Maybe it's so hard to define because, by its very nature, it can't be looked AT, because it can only be looked FROM. Not sure I can get any closer with concepts. Not at this point, anyway.
I guess... "Why SHOULD physical interactions between neurons have subjective experiences?" While we can presumably identify any experience with some physical structure, it doesn't explain the why aspect. That's what I would reply.
Consciousness being a first person experience, can never be verified. But Conscious behavior on the other hand is very possible. Panpsychism or Cosmic panpsychism or cosmic consciousness can all be behaviors. we can for example say that gravitational pull is possible because there is some level of consciousness in the objects. This is more of a framework to build complex conscious behavior.
We are the multiverse we claim we can't find what exist is really sheer agreement the love it doesn't register that's the limits of the body when I end would time also no it doesn't exist
continuous cosmic consciousness has subjective feeling / experience? a subjective being or existence external to physical nature, in contrast to human being internal physical body?
@@jay64j I didn’t make an assertion, I made an observation. Get your lexicons in order before trying to act pretentiously fresh, and become a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Refrain from making commentaries above your pay grade.
If consciousness is the fundamental reality, the building block of reality or to put it simply the Being itself, then that Consciousness is God. Because God is Being. If for example materialism is true, then there should be a primary particle that is eternal and unchanging from which everything else is created. But then, that would be God under this model of existence. It would not be a personal God or a sentience, but simply a building block.. But Being is God. Philosophy calls it Being, religion calls it God
1:07 how did that "arrangement" from proto-conscious elements come to be is the question... because arrangement to fot a particular functionality requires a higher level of complexity than the one starting with (the proto consciousness) 🤔
How many consciousness do you have in your body? What if there's a roundworm in your gut?🪱 Is there no other consciousness in Zeus's body besides Zeus himself?🌌
I am a true believer of Pan psychism because I have literally seen with my own two eyes that everything holds consciousness not at the same levels so a broom for instance cannot get up and talk and walk, but it does know that it is a broom it’s aware of itself I telepathically communicate with objects that you wouldn’t proceed to be alive all the time. And I always tell people, even if it makes you look nuts talk to objects talk to them and show them love so say a broom I show the broom love and say what a good job you’re doing . That broom is gonna work his damnedest to sweep the stuff I need to sweep and it’s gonna take less effort for me to do so I have tested this theory. I know it sounds nuts, but try it.❤
Particles>Atoms>Molecules,>Organic >Molecules>Biological Cells>Neurons>Neuronal Networks....as you climb the ladder of nature we can say eventfulness or time aka Planck Time Increases. The devil is in the details or how do neuronal networks achieve such huge Planck Times which accompanies emergence?
Cosmic panpsychism/cosmopsychism suffers from the same problem in reverse (the decombination problem). Also, other problems that characterize monism or mereological problems like how can the whole be prior and more fundamental than the parts. It conflicts with basic common sense and intuition.
I agree with your first comment, that we need to explain how the One becomes many, how the singularity of pure consciousness fragments/dissociates/decombines into individuals. But to me, the idea that the whole exists is prior to, and more fundamental than the parts is actually more in line with my intuition. I used to think it was clear that things are made of parts, but now I think it makes more sense to think in terms of existence as a whole. There is only one Existence.
I'm a salesman by trade and lawyer by education, yet I can prove panpsychism wrong in under a minute. If you assumes panpsychism is true, and you create a simple algorithm that i.e. keeps rising a displayed number by one each second; the assumption of panpsychism does not affect the computation performed by your algorithm in any way. It keeps doing the same thing, as any computation would. However, if you ask a human if they are conscious, they will provide a response. They will think about it, move their lips and push the air out of their lungs. They can write an answer on a keyboard. So you would still need a "bridge" between computational component, and this "conscious" aspect of matter, to use panpsychism as an explanation to anything. Intelligence of humans would not change anything here. Why would only human brains somehow be physically affected, but not simple algorithms or apples falling from trees. Panpsychism just does not work. Honestly it's even worse than God, because technically you can't logically exclude a God.
@@mystic1der2000 You have it all wrong and you are falling straight into cognitive mistakes and fallacies. The "individual" is something your brain models with memories. You have a consistent train of thought thanks to your short term memory systems. You think you were the same person as yesterday, because you can replay you memories. If you relate to how can multiple parts of the brain create a singular, momentary experience; i.e. why does the activity of individual neurons create integrated sensations (i.e. faces, shapes, melodies); the answer is simply TIME. Neurons can communicate because computation happens in a linear time, so different parts can communicate. No panpsychism or mystical mumbo-jumbo required.
@@szynkers Ok Mr. Big Brain. Let's give it five years and see if anyone can show how sentience magically emerges from computation. I guarantee you that panpsychism is the paradigm that will be accepted in the future. Calling mysticism mumbo jumbo just shows how ignorant you are.
@@nickc.5783 This is from my experience of having a set of lucid dreams about a new source of energy. The dreams were astoundingly accurate: The first one I had a vision of a crucible containing several materials that after a career in Analytical Chemistry I cold mostly identify. I asked “what is the Crux of the reaction?”. A voice said “Bismuth”. I questioned the answer and said “Manganese?”. Then I saw a pink neon sign with BISMUTH on it. After researching several years, I came across a Nobel Prize winning phenomenon on ‘Negative Refractive Index Meta materials’, I found the Negative indexed material Bismuth ferrite that fits the profile. The source of energy is water splitting. With Climate Change approaching and the overheating of Earth, it is imperative that we stop burning fossil fuels. Water is the perfect fuel, as there is a near infinite supply. I won’t go into detail on the system. I have been working with AI CHAT GPT-4, but that is tedious and needs details verbalization.
Upside down approach to consciousness. Consciousness is as real as digestion, or metabolism, and just as reliant on the material, physical world from which it seems to emerge as a process. "Seems to" because it is akin to any other process having recursion in awareness of it's state. e.g. digestion having "awareness" of digestion. Consciousness is just a result of the organ that engages in ideation. There is no ghost in the machine.
Neurosience keep out how knows consciousness. And what about this video. It means nothing in terms consciousness definitions . Because what he show up about consciousness it is wortheless neurosience. Inconsistency with brains reality . Rambling. Absolutetly .
"What is Panpsychism?" It is not conscious.. it just seems to be conscious... ... because every tiniest particle of matter in this Universe is an extension of God's existence... this is what OMNIPRESENCE means. .. and this is why NO SOUL can hide from the eyes of the Almighty Holy Spirit.
Yujin Nagasawa new fundamental and Absolute Law of Universal Conscious Nature: you can solve the problem of a big stupidity by unleashing a much bigger stupidity.
Do you want to know if the Quran was memorized? I don't believe the Quran was memorized. Do you want to know if muslims lied to you?. I want proof that the Quran was memorized. Islam is dead and you can bury the lie. What would be the future of atheism if atheists continue to refuse to ask for evidence that the Quran was memorized? To not waste this loving poem I say atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Thank you.
Whether or not panpsychism has any scientific evidence, it's not word salad. It's a coherent possibility that can be formalized very simply. And consciousness is that to which all ideas appear. That which experiences all ideas. Including the idea of consciousness.
@@ghostgate82 You say the Christians might be right and I say they might be wrong and I'm the one with an emotional problem? What nonsense... What rational justification can you provide for anyone to conclude that some omnipotent being exists? Otherwise, without rational justification then, by definition such beliefs are irrational...
@@Akira-jd2zr Because hierarchies and fractals exist. You’re essentially saying humans are the top of the Universal food chain. How arrogant. Atheists lack the organ to sense God. You’re spiritually handicapped, bro.
@@ghostgate82 That's your go-to argument? Firstly the top of the food chain is the most precarious place to be, they go extinct first. But anyway we are where we are, making stuff up purely to avoid arrogance is false modesty on the one hand, and presumptuous to assume the authority to invent what exists on the other. There, I can be an arse when I want to as well. 😊 In terms of sensing god, sure, some people genuinely seem to have this imperative feeling that there is or must be a divine presence. I don't have that, never have. I grew up in a religious household going to church and when I found out many of the adults actually really believed this stuff it was a bit of a shock, at quite a young age. I understand some people do have these experiences or feelings, and others don't. Just the way it is I suppose.
What is Panpsychism? 1. It is a fad that will pass. 2. A last attempt at staving off the steady march of physical-ism or more correctly non-super-naturalism. Dualism, Idealism, Panpsychism comes and goes, but note that physicalism is a constant and marching forward steadily. Heck, all our modern societies including my ability to write this comment using the wonderful technology of internet, is a fruit of physicalism. Show some gratitude :) 3. Posits something it needs to prove. Does not explain it. 4. Demands from science to explain what electron IS (opposed to what it does), and then refuses to answer what consciousness IS in the same way. Do you think that is fair? 5. Says fundamental particles are "proto" conscious - without saying what that means, and then goes on to say that when many fundamental particles come together in a special configuration the "proto"-consciousness of each somehow adds up and gives human like consciousness - but turns around and refuses to accept the same explanation of the mechanism when given by physicalists. Do you think that is fair? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, No?
2. If science cannot even explain the intrinsic nature of matter, it cannot do so for consciousness. But it is possible for consciousness to know its own essential nature
This is a meaningful video, and the debate is worth appreciating. This is definitely one step forward in the right direction. May be a long way to go but ultimately, we will find the truth.
I love how hard they panned this panpsychism video. I only had one headphone on and could only hear half the convo🤣
You could have changed your audio settings to mono.
Because we have given ourselves the task to define consciousness based on partial consciousness, we now create new names for what consciousness is 🙏🏽
All is mental- the universe is mind.. The first part of the truth lies The Kybalion 🙏🏽
Oh nice. I'm a big believer in this. I think the double slit and entanglement kinda hint at panpsychism being real, too.
No. The double slit experiment is misunderstood.
Creating more unknowns without learning the basic one. Just because we don't know how matter acquire consciousness when it comes together, it doesn't mean other things(conciouss particles, conciouss Universe). Maybe this is the case and we just don't know how exactly it works. Assuming that the particles or the entire cosmos has consciousness is a stretch, but also I can not falsify.
I used to think so too, but then I had a direct experience that showed me that consciousness is something fundamental, something universal, something unbounded by space or time. They way I understand it now is that consciousness is the substance of the phenomenal world that we experience. So it may be the most simple explanation that consciousness is the substance of the universe itself.
It doesn't look as many little bits of consciousness, because each bit perceives individually. It's easy to prove by the case of people who got their brains split. Even if two parts of the same person starts to behave independently, neither part feels much of the difference. Each hemisphere works like it worked before but unable to coordinate their movements. These are still the same parts of the same person.
The conscious is the superficial part of the mind which is lighted, and below it lies the unconscious buried in the dark. Then below the unconscious lies the collective unconscious, and at the bottom lies the cosmic unconscious - which is the mind of the entire universe, which is the total mind, the universal mind. Remembrance of God or self-remembering happens at the level of the cosmic mind, which is the ultimate in consciousness. God or self is known when we become completely integrated - not only with our unconscious and collective minds, but also with the cosmic consciousness, which is of the highest.
Osho , from the book 'Krishna : The Man And His Philosophy '
Because we are conscious we cannot see consciousness to understand it objectively.
Dr. Donald Hoffman, Dr. Bernard Carr, Dr. Iain McGilchrist, and Dr. Rupert Sheldrake are among a growing body of scientists that also subscribe to the philosophy of #panpsychism rather than that of #physicalism.
Don't forget Philip Goff!
Yes, great thinkers! Also Galen Strawson, Philip Goff, Bernardo Kastrup, and Dr. Tony Nader (Maharaja Rajaraam).
I'm a salesman by trade and lawyer by education, yet I can prove panpsychism wrong in under a minute.
If you assumes panpsychism is true, and you create a simple algorithm that i.e. keeps rising a displayed number by one each second; the assumption of panpsychism does not affect the computation performed by your algorithm in any way. It keeps doing the same thing, as any computation would. However, if you ask a human if they are conscious, they will provide a response. They will think about it, move their lips and push the air out of their lungs. They can write an answer on a keyboard. So you would still need a "bridge" between computational component, and this "conscious" aspect of matter, to use panpsychism as an explanation to anything. Intelligence of humans would not change anything here. Why would only human brains somehow be physically affected, but not simple algorithms or apples falling from trees.
Panpsychism just does not work. Honestly it's even worse than God, because technically you can't logically exclude a God.
@@szynkers A salesman's tongue and a lawyer's ego clearly
Can the TV watch itself? Observed can not see the observer observing it.
Felicitaciones Robert por tu búsqueda profunda e inteligente sobre la verdad de muchos fenómenos fisicos clásicos, quánticos, el significado de la existencia, Dios, el tiempo, realidad, freewill, conciencia y cerebro, religión, filosofía, problemas metafisicos, etc. Te invito a conocer mi teoría del alma y mi teoría de la conciencia. Muchas gracias por tu gran aporte. Saludos. Paper.Vet.Chile
Hola -- Could I learn more about your theory of consciousness? Is there a paper you have written?
Panpsychism is an intriguing concept when you consider all living things show a similar disruption of function under the influence of general anesthetics.
Just adding to this, give Allison Hanson research papers on Hydras a peek and CBC theory is also great fun if you're into these type of things
Panpsychism is a fascinating, deeply respectful concept. Though, how does his hypothesis differ from the hypothesis of God?
there is no need of a religion here... that's a huge difference.
Very obvious -- we know consciousness exist
@@pedade02 Cosmic Consciousness is part of God. No religion required.
God has nothing to do with religion.
A creator is the Creator, even if we don't know who or what he is .
Science can speculate and theists can speculate too
@@dongshengdi773Almighty Unicorn agrees.
To understand it you must also need to understand what it means to lose the concept of "self" and think of everything as one
He speaks of the higher mind only the mind receives our experiences
The hard problem of consciousness it's hard to define. I was trying very hard to precisely name one thing about consciousness that can't be explained by physical interactions between neurons. But it still feels like there is a problem.
May I suggest that one such thing would be what we could call it's "ontological privateness". Physical interactions between neurons would be "ontologically public".
I think neuroscience not knowing how such privateness can self-evidently occur in some entities and apparently not occur in others is the hard problem of consciousness.
@@BLSFL_HAZE Still hard to define what ontological privateness means.
@XOPOIIIO True. Maybe it's so hard to define because, by its very nature, it can't be looked AT, because it can only be looked FROM.
Not sure I can get any closer with concepts. Not at this point, anyway.
I guess... "Why SHOULD physical interactions between neurons have subjective experiences?" While we can presumably identify any experience with some physical structure, it doesn't explain the why aspect. That's what I would reply.
Consciousness being a first person experience, can never be verified. But Conscious behavior on the other hand is very possible. Panpsychism or Cosmic panpsychism or cosmic consciousness can all be behaviors. we can for example say that gravitational pull is possible because there is some level of consciousness in the objects. This is more of a framework to build complex conscious behavior.
Interesting! Can you explain what you are saying a bit clearer?
nested vortexes;
of infinite layers;
of conscious matter;
This is derived from the Organic view of the Cosmos from Taoism. 🙏🏼😊
Is the facist actual idealism by giovanni gentile the same as panpsychism?
cosmic continuous consciousness transcends physical nature in panentheistic universe?
We are the multiverse we claim we can't find what exist is really sheer agreement the love it doesn't register that's the limits of the body when I end would time also no it doesn't exist
present time may have awareness?
continuous cosmic consciousness has subjective feeling / experience? a subjective being or existence external to physical nature, in contrast to human being internal physical body?
time might be smooth, continuous?
Sometimes speculative nonsense has the tendency to come in layers, pilled up upon layers.
And sometimes on stilts.
Sometimes the assertion that something is nonsense is speculation from a point of incomprehension.
@@jay64j I didn’t make an assertion, I made an observation. Get your lexicons in order before trying to act pretentiously fresh, and become a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Refrain from making commentaries above your pay grade.
@@NothingMaster assertion, assertion 😅... or prove it was nonsense.
What if the agency of life resides more in the process that continuously builds it than in the it that is being built.
human awareness in the present portion of infinite time having continuous (cosmic) consciousness?
Is this any different than idealism?
There is a God… but he didn’t create consciousness. It existed before him, and he arose from it, just like we did. No one owns it or controls it.
Interesting idea
The consciousness before your 'god' would be god
Nice story
If consciousness is the fundamental reality, the building block of reality or to put it simply the Being itself, then that Consciousness is God. Because God is Being. If for example materialism is true, then there should be a primary particle that is eternal and unchanging from which everything else is created. But then, that would be God under this model of existence. It would not be a personal God or a sentience, but simply a building block.. But Being is God. Philosophy calls it Being, religion calls it God
I agree!
1:07 how did that "arrangement" from proto-conscious elements come to be is the question... because arrangement to fot a particular functionality requires a higher level of complexity than the one starting with (the proto consciousness) 🤔
Interesting question
@@mystic1der2000 mind boggling :)
If you really pay close attention to the visual experience it isn't uniform or smooth.
How many consciousness do you have in your body? What if there's a roundworm in your gut?🪱
Is there no other consciousness in Zeus's body besides Zeus himself?🌌
I am a true believer of Pan psychism because I have literally seen with my own two eyes that everything holds consciousness not at the same levels so a broom for instance cannot get up and talk and walk, but it does know that it is a broom it’s aware of itself I telepathically communicate with objects that you wouldn’t proceed to be alive all the time. And I always tell people, even if it makes you look nuts talk to objects talk to them and show them love so say a broom I show the broom love and say what a good job you’re doing . That broom is gonna work his damnedest to sweep the stuff I need to sweep and it’s gonna take less effort for me to do so I have tested this theory. I know it sounds nuts, but try it.❤
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡
@@ricliu4538 I’m such a clown and you don’t believe in this stuff. Why are you even watching his video? Have a good day
He seems to suggest that cosmic c0nsciousness is like a quantum scalar field.
Particles>Atoms>Molecules,>Organic >Molecules>Biological Cells>Neurons>Neuronal Networks....as you climb the ladder of nature we can say eventfulness or time aka Planck Time Increases. The devil is in the details or how do neuronal networks achieve such huge Planck Times which accompanies emergence?
Cosmic panpsychism/cosmopsychism suffers from the same problem in reverse (the decombination problem). Also, other problems that characterize monism or mereological problems like how can the whole be prior and more fundamental than the parts. It conflicts with basic common sense and intuition.
I agree with your first comment, that we need to explain how the One becomes many, how the singularity of pure consciousness fragments/dissociates/decombines into individuals. But to me, the idea that the whole exists is prior to, and more fundamental than the parts is actually more in line with my intuition. I used to think it was clear that things are made of parts, but now I think it makes more sense to think in terms of existence as a whole. There is only one Existence.
@@anteodedi8937 mm good point
I'm a salesman by trade and lawyer by education, yet I can prove panpsychism wrong in under a minute.
If you assumes panpsychism is true, and you create a simple algorithm that i.e. keeps rising a displayed number by one each second; the assumption of panpsychism does not affect the computation performed by your algorithm in any way. It keeps doing the same thing, as any computation would. However, if you ask a human if they are conscious, they will provide a response. They will think about it, move their lips and push the air out of their lungs. They can write an answer on a keyboard. So you would still need a "bridge" between computational component, and this "conscious" aspect of matter, to use panpsychism as an explanation to anything. Intelligence of humans would not change anything here. Why would only human brains somehow be physically affected, but not simple algorithms or apples falling from trees.
Panpsychism just does not work. Honestly it's even worse than God, because technically you can't logically exclude a God.
@@mystic1der2000 You have it all wrong and you are falling straight into cognitive mistakes and fallacies. The "individual" is something your brain models with memories. You have a consistent train of thought thanks to your short term memory systems. You think you were the same person as yesterday, because you can replay you memories.
If you relate to how can multiple parts of the brain create a singular, momentary experience; i.e. why does the activity of individual neurons create integrated sensations (i.e. faces, shapes, melodies); the answer is simply TIME. Neurons can communicate because computation happens in a linear time, so different parts can communicate.
No panpsychism or mystical mumbo-jumbo required.
@@szynkers Ok Mr. Big Brain. Let's give it five years and see if anyone can show how sentience magically emerges from computation. I guarantee you that panpsychism is the paradigm that will be accepted in the future. Calling mysticism mumbo jumbo just shows how ignorant you are.
that I am is the onlything Im certain of...for now. the rest is ...fun n games
what audio is this? i have headphones on and interviewers voice is in the left ear and yujin is in my right ear... very uncomfortable.
wonderful ideas though!
This is just religion with extra steps
How do you view this as religion? Religion is very close minded and set in one way.
Trying to put Zen into a philosophical argument.
Have you ever heard of Delores Cannon or Abraham Hicks 🤔🤫🤭
Consciousness isn’t an intellectual construct.
Agreed, consciousness isn’t a concept or intellectual construct, in some way it’s fundamental
@@nickc.5783 This is from my experience of having a set of lucid dreams about a new source of energy. The dreams were astoundingly accurate: The first one I had a vision of a crucible containing several materials that after a career in Analytical Chemistry I cold mostly identify. I asked “what is the Crux of the reaction?”. A voice said “Bismuth”. I questioned the answer and said “Manganese?”. Then I saw a pink neon sign with BISMUTH on it.
After researching several years, I came across a Nobel Prize winning phenomenon on ‘Negative Refractive Index Meta materials’, I found the Negative indexed material Bismuth ferrite that fits the profile. The source of energy is water splitting. With Climate Change approaching and the overheating of Earth, it is imperative that we stop burning fossil fuels. Water is the perfect fuel, as there is a near infinite supply.
I won’t go into detail on the system. I have been working with AI CHAT GPT-4, but that is tedious and needs details verbalization.
No is not fundamental it is ground of everything. Everything is consciousness
Upside down approach to consciousness.
Consciousness is as real as digestion, or metabolism, and just as reliant on the material, physical world from which it seems to emerge as a process. "Seems to" because it is akin to any other process having recursion in awareness of it's state. e.g. digestion having "awareness" of digestion. Consciousness is just a result of the organ that engages in ideation. There is no ghost in the machine.
Neurosience keep out how knows consciousness. And what about this video. It means nothing in terms consciousness definitions . Because what he show up about consciousness it is wortheless neurosience. Inconsistency with brains reality . Rambling. Absolutetly .
"What is Panpsychism?"
It is not conscious.. it just seems to be conscious...
... because every tiniest particle of matter in this Universe is an extension of God's existence... this is what OMNIPRESENCE means.
.. and this is why NO SOUL can hide from the eyes of the Almighty Holy Spirit.
💪🥷❤🙏☯️
Yujin Nagasawa new fundamental and Absolute Law of Universal Conscious Nature: you can solve the problem of a big stupidity by unleashing a much bigger stupidity.
This is borrowed from Hinduism
PAN PSYCHOS: Psychos EVERYWHERE.
Do you want to know if the Quran was memorized? I don't believe the Quran was memorized. Do you want to know if muslims lied to you?. I want proof that the Quran was memorized. Islam is dead and you can bury the lie. What would be the future of atheism if atheists continue to refuse to ask for evidence that the Quran was memorized? To not waste this loving poem I say atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Thank you.
Lol no
Don’t forget that consciousness is itself an idea. Panpsychism isn’t science, it’s endless word salad, led by Philip Chopra.
Wow sounds like you have it all figured out then huh? You're scientifically certain panpsychism isn't a possibility?
@@Ludawig What’s the evidence for panpsychism?
It's logic
Okay but everything is an idea that comes from the human view/perception of the universe around us
Whether or not panpsychism has any scientific evidence, it's not word salad. It's a coherent possibility that can be formalized very simply. And consciousness is that to which all ideas appear. That which experiences all ideas. Including the idea of consciousness.
I think the Christians might be right…
I think the Christians might be wrong...
@@Akira-jd2zr Sounds like an emotional problem.
@@ghostgate82 You say the Christians might be right and I say they might be wrong and I'm the one with an emotional problem? What nonsense...
What rational justification can you provide for anyone to conclude that some omnipotent being exists? Otherwise, without rational justification then, by definition such beliefs are irrational...
@@Akira-jd2zr Because hierarchies and fractals exist. You’re essentially saying humans are the top of the Universal food chain. How arrogant. Atheists lack the organ to sense God. You’re spiritually handicapped, bro.
@@ghostgate82 That's your go-to argument? Firstly the top of the food chain is the most precarious place to be, they go extinct first. But anyway we are where we are, making stuff up purely to avoid arrogance is false modesty on the one hand, and presumptuous to assume the authority to invent what exists on the other. There, I can be an arse when I want to as well. 😊
In terms of sensing god, sure, some people genuinely seem to have this imperative feeling that there is or must be a divine presence. I don't have that, never have. I grew up in a religious household going to church and when I found out many of the adults actually really believed this stuff it was a bit of a shock, at quite a young age. I understand some people do have these experiences or feelings, and others don't. Just the way it is I suppose.
What is Panpsychism?
1. It is a fad that will pass.
2. A last attempt at staving off the steady march of physical-ism or more correctly non-super-naturalism. Dualism, Idealism, Panpsychism comes and goes, but note that physicalism is a constant and marching forward steadily. Heck, all our modern societies including my ability to write this comment using the wonderful technology of internet, is a fruit of physicalism. Show some gratitude :)
3. Posits something it needs to prove. Does not explain it.
4. Demands from science to explain what electron IS (opposed to what it does), and then refuses to answer what consciousness IS in the same way. Do you think that is fair?
5. Says fundamental particles are "proto" conscious - without saying what that means, and then goes on to say that when many fundamental particles come together in a special configuration the "proto"-consciousness of each somehow adds up and gives human like consciousness - but turns around and refuses to accept the same explanation of the mechanism when given by physicalists. Do you think that is fair? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, No?
Your first point is patently false. It's an ancient concept that is still around; the opposite of a fad.
The rest of your comment is just word salad.
@@elgatofelix8917 Thanks.
Physicalists don’t know how brain activity could create conscious experience. They just describe brain activity then claim that it does.
1. Don't confuse science -- a method --- with Physicalism -- a paradigm.
2. If science cannot even explain the intrinsic nature of matter, it cannot do so for consciousness. But it is possible for consciousness to know its own essential nature