Statement of Comment Etiquette for New Thinking Allowed You are asked to be courteous at all times to all participants, and to limit your comments to the topics discussed in the videos. Your thoughtful participation is encouraged. If you post insulting comments here or promote political propaganda, conspiracy theories, or religious dogmas as if they were the absolute truth, you will have disqualified yourself and you will be permanently banned from posting on this channel. Except however, if you still want to post an aggressively rude or off-topic comment (and haven't yet been banned from posting), go visit our monolog about George Carlin at ua-cam.com/video/e5MKv667TRI/v-deo.html. All comments will be accepted there, but not here.
Jeffrey Mishlove thank you for all that you do I have enjoyed your shows for many years. I wouldn’t be who I am today without you, my horizons have been expanded while enjoying the beauty of self discovery. So from one soul to another with all of my being I say thank you thank you thank you so very much.
I think it very indicative of where the arena of consciousness research and appreciation of the broader conceptions of consciousness are going when individuals such as Christoph are engaging so openly in discussions like this.
Great talk guys, thanks! What is so interesting about these conversations is that people now say, ‘we must start with consciousness’… Well, I hate to tell you, but EVERYTHING we theorize/build does START with consciousness. The theory came from a Human…WE are the ‘theory of consciousness’. 😳🤔✌🏼
I don't think Koch had a full NDE. I've listened to him in many places, and the way he describes it doesn't quite resemble a real NDE. This seems more like a very strong psychedelic experience. If he had truly experienced an NDE, I believe he would have accepted that the brain is not necessary.
I can be thinking about symbolism *during* a dream but am not always. Things happen and I observe, react, and do things but I can also become a level of aware and think about what is happening - I do not think with a lot of words in those moments though. More so realizations, comparisons, imagery, a word or two, and noticing position in relation to other symbolism in the dream is considered. But I get what is meant, usually we are not running a classic narrative in dreaming, we are acting sort of instinctually in dreams - but is the dream itself the narrative as it flows forth?
Interesting conversation! Mr. Koch's metaphysics are confusing and contradictory to me. He speaks of the primacy of consciousness, in a metaphysical sense. But then when discussing IIT, he reverts to discussing means of telling whether someone 'is conscious' (as opposed to unconscious in a practical sense, like asleep or properly sedated). Does he notice his own sleight of hand here? This is a totally different way of using the word 'consciousness'. This kind of being conscious (or 'awake') is then measured (through IIT) as the amount of information processed. By his own earlier admission, this is not consciousness, but cognition, or perhaps intelligence. It's being conscious OF something. So he is talking about the CONTENTS of consciousness, rather than consciousness itself. IIT tells us what consciousness is DOING for an individual, when a few minutes earlier mr. Koch told us that consciousness is different from cognition/intelligence, in that the former is about BEING rather than doing. As if I were not confused enough, Mr. Koch then seems to misrepresent (or not fully grasp) the idealist position. Within the idealist paradigm, a 'substrate' is not a prerequisite FOR, but rather a physical projection OF a mental state. Fundamentally, there are no substrates in the idealist perspective. In all, it seems to me Mr. Koch is still in a process of coming to terms with the implications of his mystical experiences. Either that or he just needs to give things a bit more thought 😊 EDIT: I should not fail to notice and mention how great it is that Kristof is even having this conversations with Jeffrey. Kudos to both men.
Thank you for this insightful video! You posed such excellent questions and Christof provided an abundance of information in a well-organized manner. I really appreciate your effort in tackling the complex nature of consciousness! ❤
People seem to think that if you roll up the entire carpet of their knowledge often enough, when it comes to difficult things, then it becomes longer. Personal opinion
Consciousness seems to be, among other things, a virtualized 3 D world model of the world we live in. Otherwise we wouldn't know what we are supposed to do and what our memories are based on Whether we are simulation, or someone's thought, or whatever you can think of theoretically And of course everything would then have to have a kind of virtual consciousness, in whatever form Personal opinion
The Conciseness we prove it with our view of reality ? Where do we get the logical resources to do this? From reality itself. Then our view of reality proves it again. Can A point of view actually prove itself then if there are exist prove and not prove simultaneously Reality proves itself by the fact that it is there, but in my opinion it is not possible to prove what its structure completely is. Personal opinion
Logic solutions force a result of 2+2 =4 and thus anticipate the future. Since the solution is already reflected in the solution path. But the future must be indeterminate. And mysticism tries to understand the future differently for this very reason. Of course, this is just an opinion
Statement of Comment Etiquette for New Thinking Allowed
You are asked to be courteous at all times to all participants, and to limit your comments to the topics discussed in the videos. Your thoughtful participation is encouraged. If you post insulting comments here or promote political propaganda, conspiracy theories, or religious dogmas as if they were the absolute truth, you will have disqualified yourself and you will be permanently banned from posting on this channel. Except however, if you still want to post an aggressively rude or off-topic comment (and haven't yet been banned from posting), go visit our monolog about George Carlin at ua-cam.com/video/e5MKv667TRI/v-deo.html. All comments will be accepted there, but not here.
Keeping the outdated intro music is pure class.
It gives me warm fuzzies.
🥰🥰
You being ironic?? I like it BECAUSE it's a bit dated. Like me ...😅
Some things should never change
I love it ! ❤
Christof Koch on NTA??!!! I nearly fell off my chair. Kudos to Koch for going where the evidence leads. Great conversation!
Jeffrey Mishlove thank you for all that you do I have enjoyed your shows for many years. I wouldn’t be who I am today without you, my horizons have been expanded while enjoying the beauty of self discovery. So from one soul to another with all of my being I say thank you thank you thank you so very much.
Everyone from IIT Giulio Tononi to Christof is interesting enough to listen him and learn a lot of new things. Thanks for sharing.
I think it very indicative of where the arena of consciousness research and appreciation of the broader conceptions of consciousness are going when individuals such as Christoph are engaging so openly in discussions like this.
Can’t wait to watch this one!
Christof works on a level I would describe as sublime.
Great talk guys, thanks! What is so interesting about these conversations is that people now say, ‘we must start with consciousness’…
Well, I hate to tell you, but EVERYTHING we theorize/build does START with consciousness.
The theory came from a Human…WE are the ‘theory of consciousness’. 😳🤔✌🏼
Yes, at conception, when life begins, consciousness takes form. Simple
Thank you!
Great conversation 😃👍🏼
I don't think Koch had a full NDE. I've listened to him in many places, and the way he describes it doesn't quite resemble a real NDE. This seems more like a very strong psychedelic experience. If he had truly experienced an NDE, I believe he would have accepted that the brain is not necessary.
Totally agree. He might learn from Pim van Lommel who studied NDEs
I can be thinking about symbolism *during* a dream but am not always. Things happen and I observe, react, and do things but I can also become a level of aware and think about what is happening - I do not think with a lot of words in those moments though. More so realizations, comparisons, imagery, a word or two, and noticing position in relation to other symbolism in the dream is considered. But I get what is meant, usually we are not running a classic narrative in dreaming, we are acting sort of instinctually in dreams - but is the dream itself the narrative as it flows forth?
Interesting conversation! Mr. Koch's metaphysics are confusing and contradictory to me. He speaks of the primacy of consciousness, in a metaphysical sense. But then when discussing IIT, he reverts to discussing means of telling whether someone 'is conscious' (as opposed to unconscious in a practical sense, like asleep or properly sedated). Does he notice his own sleight of hand here? This is a totally different way of using the word 'consciousness'. This kind of being conscious (or 'awake') is then measured (through IIT) as the amount of information processed. By his own earlier admission, this is not consciousness, but cognition, or perhaps intelligence. It's being conscious OF something. So he is talking about the CONTENTS of consciousness, rather than consciousness itself. IIT tells us what consciousness is DOING for an individual, when a few minutes earlier mr. Koch told us that consciousness is different from cognition/intelligence, in that the former is about BEING rather than doing.
As if I were not confused enough, Mr. Koch then seems to misrepresent (or not fully grasp) the idealist position. Within the idealist paradigm, a 'substrate' is not a prerequisite FOR, but rather a physical projection OF a mental state. Fundamentally, there are no substrates in the idealist perspective.
In all, it seems to me Mr. Koch is still in a process of coming to terms with the implications of his mystical experiences. Either that or he just needs to give things a bit more thought 😊
EDIT: I should not fail to notice and mention how great it is that Kristof is even having this conversations with Jeffrey. Kudos to both men.
Thank you for this insightful video! You posed such excellent questions and Christof provided an abundance of information in a well-organized manner. I really appreciate your effort in tackling the complex nature of consciousness! ❤
People seem to think that if you roll up the entire carpet of their knowledge often enough, when it comes to difficult things, then it becomes longer.
Personal opinion
Consciousness seems to be, among other things, a virtualized 3 D world model of the world we live in. Otherwise we wouldn't know what we are supposed to do and what our memories are based on
Whether we are simulation, or someone's thought, or whatever you can think of theoretically
And of course everything would then have to have a kind of virtual consciousness, in whatever form
Personal opinion
The Conciseness we prove it with our view of reality ? Where do we get the logical resources to do this? From reality itself. Then our view of reality proves it again. Can A point of view actually prove itself then if there are exist prove and not prove simultaneously Reality proves itself by the fact that it is there, but in my opinion it is not possible to prove what its structure completely is. Personal opinion
Logic solutions force a result of 2+2 =4 and thus anticipate the future. Since the solution is already reflected in the solution path. But the future must be indeterminate. And mysticism tries to understand the future differently for this very reason.
Of course, this is just an opinion
I am not really sure where this was going. I thought it was pretty basic. No great insights. Just my thoughts. Cut out half way through.😊
❤