Such shattering genius. But I do think he gives serious short shrift to how philosophically informed and subtle the Integrated Information Theory is. It avoids, when deeply understood, the many absurdities and conceptual pitfalls that bedevil every other “scientific” or “functionalist” theory of consciousness.
I believe he's still working on it, but it should be released in the next year or so. He has posted excerpts from the book (I believe), in various essays on his sub stack, over the past 6 months
Goodness. He's one of the most cogent and eloquent theological writers, but he's also one of the most aimless and pedantic speakers. Rather than just tearing down the tenuous truths and the obvious errors of others, I wish he'd actually say something about some truths he's found. If all you ever do is concern yourself with the banality of what everyone else has said about a given topic, you will become yourself banal-and in an even more vacuous way than the people you criticize, because at least they were trying to articulate something. I'm just tired of his boredom posturing as erudition. P.S. But to give credit where it is due: his "Orthodoxy in America" and "Is Everyone Saved?" are two talks where I find him both sincere and invested, as he unpacks something he's actually and humbly concerned with.
@@mkfort That´s problematic, and it´s worth noting that Western Christianity´s Universities represent a sound foundation in their empiricism. Well, the appearance of scholars like Rodney Stark justify that nicely, and Jung, no less, in extra-University society.
Dr Hart is speaking on the subject of consciousness, mind and brain, correct? Couple of thoughts: (1) Without the physical (the brain) the mind ceases to exist. In this sense anyway, mind is contingent upon brain. (2) Humans know mind to be our most fascinating feature, at least in the philosophy department. The biologist is equally fascinated, and rightfully so. Fascination aside, we recognize that the activity of the mind, the transmission of information from mind to mind, etc, is quite a world unto itself. We seem to be so impressed by the activity of the mind that we start to see the world of mind as something independent and outside of the physical world in which it is embedded. (3) To better understand this fascinating world of the human mind, let's consider the mindful activity of lesser life forms. Does the world of mind exist in rats? It does. I posit that in the case of lesser life forms, we are more comfortable saying that the world of mind and consciousness, is merely the product of the physical brain. Roll this forward to our fascination with ourselves, and we should conclude the same thing - no matter how fascinated we are with the human super mind. (4) This said, the world of the human mind, and all it's production is SUPER COOL! It's so cool that we can rightly stand in awe of it, and wonder deeply about the thoughts produces, the exchanges from mind to mind, AND the turn back affects on the physical world. (5) But then you get to this posit. IF the mind can produce affects and changes to the physical world - actually control the physical world - then is it possible that mind came first, and set the whole thing in motion in the first place? (6) But the evidence of lower life forms, etc, suggest that mind came second. Or rather, the very specific sense of human mind, came second. Life, and the very basic desire to survive, is mixed in here as well. (7) To say that the physical and biological world is passe and void of divine mystery, and the world of mind is fascinating and tends towards divine mystery, is a bad construct. Solving mystery begets new mystery. One view of God is that the whole enchilada resides in Him. We may get closer to Him in some sense with knowledge and intelligence, but we will never get TOO Him. Fun to talk about. I have little to conclude on.
Tim Kuitems Numbers 1 is purely metaphysics. “Mind=brain” is unproven paradigm. There are bunch of studies that show that consciousness can exist without functioning brain
@@a.sobolewski1646 interesting. I'm truly a learner in these matters. Can you direct me to such a study? I will Google as well. Seems like a philosophical posit. How on Earth would you study such a thing? I tend to see it as data on the computer. Again, consider the lower life forms. It's easier to see mechanistic functioning of these minds/brains. Mind is brain full of programs (.exe) and lots of data to go with it.
@@timkuitems4431 Donald Hoffman explains how he and his co-researchers have begun developing the mathematics of consciousness, which could actually lead to empirically testing the theory. So maybe it can be done. I think he would've also protested with number (1): Since we don't know anything about the brain other than what we can understand with the mind, the assumption that the brain is made of something more fundamental than the mind is actually just an assumption of something we really can't know. So it all goes back to the mind. If that is so, number (2) is understandable. In number (3) there is the problem of consciousness is present in animals too. A new study comes around a few times a year showing how animals and humans are so similar in many different ways. Syntax structure in the chirping in one species of birds, fish that feel pain, dogs (I think it was) having different personalities. I'm thinking even of the fly that befriended my aunt while she was sweltering away for ages in the hospital bed (in the 50's), having no else to talk to. Any tint of consciousness in animals would also have to be explained somehow. Number (4) agreed! In number (6), I don't understand why lower life forms couldn't have a mind, even if it would be more rudimentary. (I admit I haven't heard the video yet, but I will soon. I love all discussion about this :-D )
Hasn't other people asked themselves, how are they the experiencer of consciousness? There could be a trillion other human beings, why are you one of them when theres an infinite amount of potential human beings who are none of them. Theres currently absolute void for a potential infinite people, so when your body was birthed into a world of billions of other bodies, why weren't you just another stranger whose not you? How do you have ownership and observance of your own mind? How do you possess your own consciousness in which to experience the mind? Your mind could be anyone elses experience, consciousness is a paradox that constantly asks who is who is who into infinity. The only answer is that you are a soul and the soul possesses the mind and experiences the processes of that mind. Why weren't you born as the body of someone 10,000 years ago? Why weren't you born as the body of someone 10,000 years in the future? Why weren't you the baby born in the hospital room next door? Why were you ever born? Who are you to be plucked out of the infinite void of potential conscious beings? Nobody can win the odds of 1 out of infinity and if you did, you'd have to be an entity from before life in order to be capable of being chosen.
45:00 - The language is very fancy, but the main thing he's really saying at this point is that WE MAKE CHOICES. And of course we do - it's patently obvious to anyone that thinks about it. We have free will and that's the end of the story. The people who try to deny that are being unbelievably ridiculous.
I definitely understand what you are saying. Check out his book “The Experience of God”. There he lays it out in detail and if you don’t understand you can always look up a word. I always have my dictionary ready when reading any philosopher.
Hart is saying relevant things. It is unfortunate that he doesn't even TRY to state it so that a non-PhD can understand it. And he COULD do that for every legitimate point he makes.
The problem is that it would take three or four times longer, if he had to keep breaking down the jargon into digestible pieces. Although it is often derided, academic jargon serves a very real and crucial function. This is clearly not meant for a general or introductory audience.
No, I figured him out reading his stuff. He´s just getting by saying some things can´t be, emergentism can´t be, and soul is a higher causality. He´s an ideologue, Orthodox, apparently.
He has mastered saying the most in the smallest possible time. The complete and total mastery of the philosophical “language game” is the best way to communicate huge ideas in compact form. And he is a master. As with anyone speaking with expertise, familiarity with the linguistic concepts at play is somewhat a prerequisite to full comprehension, but if you comprehend the concepts it’s clear that Hart’s content here is conveyed with maximal lucidity and erudition.
Not every great writer is a great speaker. I wish Hart was as good as his books when he speaks. Maybe he should debate, maybe that would losen him up. Anyway his books are great.
DBH is the most pompous speaker I have ever heard. He proves to me without a doubt that real knowledge and understanding have nothing to do with rational thought.
Hello Brian, Leaving aside your piece of merely minor abuse concerning pomposity, I am puzzled to think what can or does form the basis of knowledge and understanding if rational thought has nothing to do with the job. Perhaps you are hinting that the real basis of knowledge and understanding can only be science (hypothesis testing through experiment, observation, measurement). Am I right? The trouble is that science can never trump rational thought as such a basis because rational thought has to be in place in order for science even to be possible. Rational thought is a necessary condition for scientific enquiry even to get underway. Creatures incapable of rational thought would also be incapable of science, I would have thought. Rational thought is the basis of science. No rational thought, no science. Rational thought, in short, comes first. I can now hear you ask: even accepting this, once science _is_ in place, cannot it then, at least in combination with rational thought, give us more reliable results than rational thought alone ever could? Would this be a better guess as to your more carefully nuanced position? If so I can only say that this would depend on whether the issue under discussion is even open to adjudication by experiment, observation and measurement. Many issues are, of course, but the issue of consciousness seems particularly troublesome here. Despite the fact (I take it to be one) that consciousness seems to exist only where brains (or something like brains) exist, and after huge growth in our empirical knowledge of brain function and in the wake of uncovering countless correlations between brain states and mental (conscious) goings on, we still have no idea how consciousness can actually either _be_ simply a brain process or 'emerge' from a brain process. So things are not looking good for anyone who thinks that science can ever provide an answer (even just modestly accepting the obvious fact that it hasn't done so yet). DBH is simply exploring the question of _why_ the techniques of science and the concepts associated with physicality seem so inept when it comes to understanding consciousness. He is also revealing the conceptual clumsiness of employing the concept of emergence to clarify the issue. This, I think, he clearly shows to be one massive piece of sheer obfuscation. This all seems to be an entirely rational project in which to engage and even one that may give us some insight - and he's using rational thought as a tool in the process. Well done DBH. But what else would he employ? Reading tealeaves? If you have some suggestion that I just haven't thought of here, though, please feel free to bite back. And if you have a burning need to accuse me of being a pompous writer, please feel free to do that as well. I won't mind. It's probably even true. I grieve over it during the long winter nights. Cheers, Theo
@@thomassimmons1950 Greetings Thomas, I am not sure I'm quite with you (probably my inadequacy). How exactly am I suggesting that the mediums the message? With apologies if you are not addressing my offering at all, Theo
Hart´s dismissal of mind´s emergentism is as hollow as his voice is low and his discussion inadequately empirical, or too unempirical. That´s why empirical philosophy is key as a check in Christianity´s globalized civilization in the big pic. My college degree in Bio Anthro and soph paper on the evo of language etc have given me some visualized sense that makes me gag at DBH´s lack of grounding criteria. M Talbot´s proposal of holographics using Pribram and Bohm is one key level of paradigm and mechanics. The meaning of NDEs and reincarnation at UVA and B Greyson et al´s work is another thing that seems to inform other levels of explanation, but doesn´t negate developmentalism, a la Piaget etc. That can only be what´s guiding Hart, that mind isn´t even emergent, it´s divinely granted. And he´s accusing the materialists of "magical thinking," and rightly so. However, he´s slippery-sloped into "god of the gaps," but can´t free himself from that sloppy premature negation and blurred distinction, and it shows in his pedantic overly controlled hush.
Will you Please clarify what you mean by third-person physical systems allowing first-person minds to emerge? What does it mean for such minds to “emerge” from physical systems, and which mechanisms in the process account for and explain the eventual emergence?
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Well, let´s get clear about two basic points first. First, we´re not, say, hunter-gatherers conversing in an Upper Paleolithic cave like Lascaux with a torch by the paintings, much less Corinth and Athens getting crushed by Roman conquest around 85 BC/E. Thus, your/our use of the terms "physical systems" and "mechanisms" involves specific assumptions following the start of Cartesian math and natural philosophy (now "scientific philosophy, and in popular widespread usage "science"). conventionally called the "Cartesian mind-body split," but also involving a "-spiritual-natural" component. DesCartes and Spinoza also engaged in the rudiments of human psychology talking about the "passions/(emotions)" in what is often referred to as moral philosophy becoming social science, etc. As for "first-person minds emerging," a snail may have self-not /self neurons. F DeWaal has written zoology and empathy. Neurobio. A Damasio´s somatic marker hypothesis highlights an unorthodox view of emotional significance in decision-making. Neurobio K Pribram was intrigued by holographic phenomena and neurology, in "distributed info." In addition, Gen. Semantics´ A Korzybski id´d a sequence of plants as energy-binders, animals as space-binders, and humans as time-binders. Basic emergence has a few concepts of phenomena. weak-strong, and three orders: 1) Shape, 2) time and shape, and 3) heritable instructions. "Feedback" also occurs. So, basically, physics to chem to bio to anthro/psych, etc. and their insights into spiritual-religious practice as the foundation of "doctrinal" religion. Psychosomatic healing is amazing, starting as basic as stress relief healing an ulcer, or N Cousins healing with laughter. Then, many healings get Transpersonal, like Rasputin healing the prince. Rasputin´s rise from peasant life is more transpersonal, since he didn´t heal the prince permanently of hemophilia. As with Pavlov´s dogs, and more, study starts to suggest that wave mechanics gets at much of our ability to understand how our minds emerge. Scientists don´t usually know much about human experience. I know, however, because as a Bio Anthro guy, I have dabbled and gotten a taste of shamanism, Christian Science, psychotherapies, etc. Study the physical systems at rock concerts like Woodstock, Live Earth, or any club. Well, a lot of popular mindsets just see "physical," sadly. Woodstock 1970 had yoga, at least. Fritjof Capra is big on emergence. And then there´s God and Jesus´ legacy, with human rights and sustainability in the "equation." That should have you looking a few things up.
Are you saying that you have a mental picture of the sense that you have of Hart’s lack of grounding criteria? Or do you see a pattern or shape in the evolution of language and in biological anthropology that is geometrically incongruent with Dr Hart’s observations? Forgive me, but you are speaking gibberish. You’re time at school would have been better spent studying the precise use of language, than it apparently was in studying the development of language.
Let's get Hart and Bernardo Kastrup together already. And Rupert Spira. Now that would be a worthy listen. Thank you for sharing.
Swap out that sociopath spira for iain mcgilchrist and we got a banger
@@bavingeter423 care to elaborate? i like Spira
I quite enjoy David Bently Hart's speaking style 😄
Definitely, wink, wink. Guffaw.
Starts at 10:37
thank you.
Thanks!
Bless you kind element. 😊
DBH's voice sounds like Robert Brandom's. I'd love to see a conversation between them.
Such shattering genius. But I do think he gives serious short shrift to how philosophically informed and subtle the Integrated Information Theory is. It avoids, when deeply understood, the many absurdities and conceptual pitfalls that bedevil every other “scientific” or “functionalist” theory of consciousness.
We can't step outside of our own experience. The third person comes by way of the first.
Bookmark 30:14
19:00 panpsychism
20:34 Eliminativism. Daniel Denett
What book is DBH referring to that he’s writing on PHILOSOPHY of MIND? Has it been published now? I NEED TO READ THIS BOOK! Please let me know 🙏🏾
I believe he's still working on it, but it should be released in the next year or so.
He has posted excerpts from the book (I believe), in various essays on his sub stack, over the past 6 months
I am not sure but if you haven't read it, The Experience of God Being Conscious and Bliss goes pretty in depth on the topic
It's a book that's coming out this August called 'All Things Are Full of Gods'. It took him a little longer than expected to complete.
Goodness. He's one of the most cogent and eloquent theological writers, but he's also one of the most aimless and pedantic speakers. Rather than just tearing down the tenuous truths and the obvious errors of others, I wish he'd actually say something about some truths he's found. If all you ever do is concern yourself with the banality of what everyone else has said about a given topic, you will become yourself banal-and in an even more vacuous way than the people you criticize, because at least they were trying to articulate something. I'm just tired of his boredom posturing as erudition.
P.S. But to give credit where it is due: his "Orthodoxy in America" and "Is Everyone Saved?" are two talks where I find him both sincere and invested, as he unpacks something he's actually and humbly concerned with.
Samuel Granger literally 100% my thought.
i think this is a good address to those who have abandoned the biblical worldview, that seems to be what hes concerned with here.
I notice that in his negation of emergence here. He´s merely asserting the negation on no clear basis and basically absurdly.
I think it's safe to assume the truth he's found is Orthodox Christianity, which has a long tradition of apophatism.
@@mkfort That´s problematic, and it´s worth noting that Western Christianity´s Universities represent a sound foundation in their empiricism. Well, the appearance of scholars like Rodney Stark justify that nicely, and Jung, no less, in extra-University society.
Dr Hart is speaking on the subject of consciousness, mind and brain, correct? Couple of thoughts:
(1) Without the physical (the brain) the mind ceases to exist. In this sense anyway, mind is contingent upon brain.
(2) Humans know mind to be our most fascinating feature, at least in the philosophy department. The biologist is equally fascinated, and rightfully so. Fascination aside, we recognize that the activity of the mind, the transmission of information from mind to mind, etc, is quite a world unto itself. We seem to be so impressed by the activity of the mind that we start to see the world of mind as something independent and outside of the physical world in which it is embedded.
(3) To better understand this fascinating world of the human mind, let's consider the mindful activity of lesser life forms. Does the world of mind exist in rats? It does. I posit that in the case of lesser life forms, we are more comfortable saying that the world of mind and consciousness, is merely the product of the physical brain. Roll this forward to our fascination with ourselves, and we should conclude the same thing - no matter how fascinated we are with the human super mind.
(4) This said, the world of the human mind, and all it's production is SUPER COOL! It's so cool that we can rightly stand in awe of it, and wonder deeply about the thoughts produces, the exchanges from mind to mind, AND the turn back affects on the physical world.
(5) But then you get to this posit. IF the mind can produce affects and changes to the physical world - actually control the physical world - then is it possible that mind came first, and set the whole thing in motion in the first place?
(6) But the evidence of lower life forms, etc, suggest that mind came second. Or rather, the very specific sense of human mind, came second. Life, and the very basic desire to survive, is mixed in here as well.
(7) To say that the physical and biological world is passe and void of divine mystery, and the world of mind is fascinating and tends towards divine mystery, is a bad construct. Solving mystery begets new mystery. One view of God is that the whole enchilada resides in Him. We may get closer to Him in some sense with knowledge and intelligence, but we will never get TOO Him.
Fun to talk about. I have little to conclude on.
Tim Kuitems
Numbers 1 is purely metaphysics. “Mind=brain” is unproven paradigm. There are bunch of studies that show that consciousness can exist without functioning brain
@@a.sobolewski1646 interesting. I'm truly a learner in these matters. Can you direct me to such a study? I will Google as well. Seems like a philosophical posit. How on Earth would you study such a thing? I tend to see it as data on the computer. Again, consider the lower life forms. It's easier to see mechanistic functioning of these minds/brains. Mind is brain full of programs (.exe) and lots of data to go with it.
Tim Kuitems
Do you have an email?
@@timkuitems4431
check email
@@timkuitems4431 Donald Hoffman explains how he and his co-researchers have begun developing the mathematics of consciousness, which could actually lead to empirically testing the theory. So maybe it can be done. I think he would've also protested with number (1): Since we don't know anything about the brain other than what we can understand with the mind, the assumption that the brain is made of something more fundamental than the mind is actually just an assumption of something we really can't know. So it all goes back to the mind. If that is so, number (2) is understandable. In number (3) there is the problem of consciousness is present in animals too. A new study comes around a few times a year showing how animals and humans are so similar in many different ways. Syntax structure in the chirping in one species of birds, fish that feel pain, dogs (I think it was) having different personalities. I'm thinking even of the fly that befriended my aunt while she was sweltering away for ages in the hospital bed (in the 50's), having no else to talk to. Any tint of consciousness in animals would also have to be explained somehow. Number (4) agreed! In number (6), I don't understand why lower life forms couldn't have a mind, even if it would be more rudimentary. (I admit I haven't heard the video yet, but I will soon. I love all discussion about this :-D )
Hasn't other people asked themselves, how are they the experiencer of consciousness? There could be a trillion other human beings, why are you one of them when theres an infinite amount of potential human beings who are none of them. Theres currently absolute void for a potential infinite people, so when your body was birthed into a world of billions of other bodies, why weren't you just another stranger whose not you? How do you have ownership and observance of your own mind? How do you possess your own consciousness in which to experience the mind? Your mind could be anyone elses experience, consciousness is a paradox that constantly asks who is who is who into infinity. The only answer is that you are a soul and the soul possesses the mind and experiences the processes of that mind. Why weren't you born as the body of someone 10,000 years ago? Why weren't you born as the body of someone 10,000 years in the future? Why weren't you the baby born in the hospital room next door? Why were you ever born? Who are you to be plucked out of the infinite void of potential conscious beings? Nobody can win the odds of 1 out of infinity and if you did, you'd have to be an entity from before life in order to be capable of being chosen.
45:00 - The language is very fancy, but the main thing he's really saying at this point is that WE MAKE CHOICES. And of course we do - it's patently obvious to anyone that thinks about it. We have free will and that's the end of the story. The people who try to deny that are being unbelievably ridiculous.
REALIZE THE KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS WITHIN
How?
Its nice ☺
I really want to comprehend what he’s saying but it’s difficult to with his cascade of words. 😂
I definitely understand what you are saying. Check out his book “The Experience of God”. There he lays it out in detail and if you don’t understand you can always look up a word. I always have my dictionary ready when reading any philosopher.
@@gfujigo thank you!
I'm thinking we're all figments of God's imagination.
Hart is saying relevant things. It is unfortunate that he doesn't even TRY to state it so that a non-PhD can understand it. And he COULD do that for every legitimate point he makes.
The problem is that it would take three or four times longer, if he had to keep breaking down the jargon into digestible pieces. Although it is often derided, academic jargon serves a very real and crucial function. This is clearly not meant for a general or introductory audience.
No, I figured him out reading his stuff. He´s just getting by saying some things can´t be, emergentism can´t be, and soul is a higher causality. He´s an ideologue, Orthodox, apparently.
He has mastered saying the most in the smallest possible time. The complete and total mastery of the philosophical “language game” is the best way to communicate huge ideas in compact form. And he is a master. As with anyone speaking with expertise, familiarity with the linguistic concepts at play is somewhat a prerequisite to full comprehension, but if you comprehend the concepts it’s clear that Hart’s content here is conveyed with maximal lucidity and erudition.
Not every great writer is a great speaker. I wish Hart was as good as his books when he speaks. Maybe he should debate, maybe that would losen him up. Anyway his books are great.
He’s had good debates before
DBH is the most pompous speaker I have ever heard. He proves to me without a doubt that real knowledge and understanding have nothing to do with rational thought.
lol, relax
" real knowledge and understanding have nothing to do with rational thought". Lol I love gormless atheists.
Hello Brian,
Leaving aside your piece of merely minor abuse concerning pomposity, I am puzzled to think what can or does form the basis of knowledge and understanding if rational thought has nothing to do with the job. Perhaps you are hinting that the real basis of knowledge and understanding can only be science (hypothesis testing through experiment, observation, measurement). Am I right? The trouble is that science can never trump rational thought as such a basis because rational thought has to be in place in order for science even to be possible. Rational thought is a necessary condition for scientific enquiry even to get underway. Creatures incapable of rational thought would also be incapable of science, I would have thought. Rational thought is the basis of science. No rational thought, no science. Rational thought, in short, comes first.
I can now hear you ask: even accepting this, once science _is_ in place, cannot it then, at least in combination with rational thought, give us more reliable results than rational thought alone ever could? Would this be a better guess as to your more carefully nuanced position? If so I can only say that this would depend on whether the issue under discussion is even open to adjudication by experiment, observation and measurement. Many issues are, of course, but the issue of consciousness seems particularly troublesome here. Despite the fact (I take it to be one) that consciousness seems to exist only where brains (or something like brains) exist, and after huge growth in our empirical knowledge of brain function and in the wake of uncovering countless correlations between brain states and mental (conscious) goings on, we still have no idea how consciousness can actually either _be_ simply a brain process or 'emerge' from a brain process. So things are not looking good for anyone who thinks that science can ever provide an answer (even just modestly accepting the obvious fact that it hasn't done so yet).
DBH is simply exploring the question of _why_ the techniques of science and the concepts associated with physicality seem so inept when it comes to understanding consciousness. He is also revealing the conceptual clumsiness of employing the concept of emergence to clarify the issue. This, I think, he clearly shows to be one massive piece of sheer obfuscation. This all seems to be an entirely rational project in which to engage and even one that may give us some insight - and he's using rational thought as a tool in the process. Well done DBH. But what else would he employ? Reading tealeaves?
If you have some suggestion that I just haven't thought of here, though, please feel free to bite back. And if you have a burning need to accuse me of being a pompous writer, please feel free to do that as well. I won't mind. It's probably even true. I grieve over it during the long winter nights.
Cheers,
Theo
The medium is the message then?
@@thomassimmons1950
Greetings Thomas,
I am not sure I'm quite with you (probably my inadequacy). How exactly am I suggesting that the mediums the message?
With apologies if you are not addressing my offering at all,
Theo
Hart´s dismissal of mind´s emergentism is as hollow as his voice is low and his discussion inadequately empirical, or too unempirical. That´s why empirical philosophy is key as a check in Christianity´s globalized civilization in the big pic. My college degree in Bio Anthro and soph paper on the evo of language etc have given me some visualized sense that makes me gag at DBH´s lack of grounding criteria. M Talbot´s proposal of holographics using Pribram and Bohm is one key level of paradigm and mechanics. The meaning of NDEs and reincarnation at UVA and B Greyson et al´s work is another thing that seems to inform other levels of explanation, but doesn´t negate developmentalism, a la Piaget etc. That can only be what´s guiding Hart, that mind isn´t even emergent, it´s divinely granted. And he´s accusing the materialists of "magical thinking," and rightly so. However, he´s slippery-sloped into "god of the gaps," but can´t free himself from that sloppy premature negation and blurred distinction, and it shows in his pedantic overly controlled hush.
Will you Please clarify what you mean by third-person physical systems allowing first-person minds to emerge? What does it mean for such minds to “emerge” from physical systems, and which mechanisms in the process account for and explain the eventual emergence?
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Well, let´s get clear about two basic points first. First, we´re not, say, hunter-gatherers conversing in an Upper Paleolithic cave like Lascaux with a torch by the paintings, much less Corinth and Athens getting crushed by Roman conquest around 85 BC/E. Thus, your/our use of the terms "physical systems" and "mechanisms" involves specific assumptions following the start of Cartesian math and natural philosophy (now "scientific philosophy, and in popular widespread usage "science"). conventionally called the "Cartesian mind-body split," but also involving a "-spiritual-natural" component.
DesCartes and Spinoza also engaged in the rudiments of human psychology talking about the "passions/(emotions)" in what is often referred to as moral philosophy becoming social science, etc. As for "first-person minds emerging," a snail may have self-not /self neurons. F DeWaal has written zoology and empathy. Neurobio. A Damasio´s somatic marker hypothesis highlights an unorthodox view of emotional significance in decision-making. Neurobio K Pribram was intrigued by holographic phenomena and neurology, in "distributed info." In addition, Gen. Semantics´ A Korzybski id´d a sequence of plants as energy-binders, animals as space-binders, and humans as time-binders. Basic emergence has a few concepts of phenomena. weak-strong, and three orders: 1) Shape, 2) time and shape, and 3) heritable instructions. "Feedback" also occurs.
So, basically, physics to chem to bio to anthro/psych, etc. and their insights into spiritual-religious practice as the foundation of "doctrinal" religion. Psychosomatic healing is amazing, starting as basic as stress relief healing an ulcer, or N Cousins healing with laughter. Then, many healings get Transpersonal, like Rasputin healing the prince. Rasputin´s rise from peasant life is more transpersonal, since he didn´t heal the prince permanently of hemophilia. As with Pavlov´s dogs, and more, study starts to suggest that wave mechanics gets at much of our ability to understand how our minds emerge. Scientists don´t usually know much about human experience. I know, however, because as a Bio Anthro guy, I have dabbled and gotten a taste of shamanism, Christian Science, psychotherapies, etc. Study the physical systems at rock concerts like Woodstock, Live Earth, or any club. Well, a lot of popular mindsets just see "physical," sadly. Woodstock 1970 had yoga, at least. Fritjof Capra is big on emergence. And then there´s God and Jesus´ legacy, with human rights and sustainability in the "equation." That should have you looking a few things up.
@@robinhoodstfrancis bla, bla, bla.....
@Pius Hälg You’re a little out of your element, kiddo.
Are you saying that you have a mental picture of the sense that you have of Hart’s lack of grounding criteria? Or do you see a pattern or shape in the evolution of language and in biological anthropology that is geometrically incongruent with Dr Hart’s observations? Forgive me, but you are speaking gibberish. You’re time at school would have been better spent studying the precise use of language, than it apparently was in studying the development of language.
He seems very peevish.
is that like amish?