I can prove that the brain cannot produce Consciousness
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- "If the brain cannot generate a consciousness inside a single trillionth of a second, then it cannot generate a consciousness at all".
The brain has no operational complexity of the type that can generate consciousness. This is because consciousness exists in the immediate now, only, and in the immediate now nothing is moving...and therefore, there is no process where the consciousness exists. The brain is effectively frozen.
Am I wrong? Watch the video and explain how I am. Good luck.
Down the rabbit hole you go...
andrewatkin.bl...
Wow. You’ve used the same proof that Zeno did to demonstrate that motion is impossible. Brilliant. Hats off.
Watch it again, and more carefully. You are reacting to a false association.
I could have avoided the infinity word by simply saying "a trillionth of second" and referred to the brain as "almost frozen" as opposed to "infinitely slow"...and my assertion would have been structurally sound all the same.
Building Utopia
Your argument is sound, but couldn’t one argue that the brain is causing consciousness in that very small region of time if it’s not completely frozen. I don’t believe the brain is consciousness itself, but couldn’t an objected argue that?
@@monsterhuntervideos4446 Well, if say 13 switching actions occur in one trillionth of a second, then we would have to argue that 13 mechanical "on-offs" is all it takes to generate a consciousness.
That would have to be completely far-fetched to even the most materialistic mind. Yet, as I claim, this is in fact exactly what their faith forces them to believe.
Building Utopia
Yeah it would be a clutching at straws argument. If consciousness isn’t generated in the smallest region of time by the brain then surely it transcends time and materiality then. That would mean there has to be spiritual or immaterial aspects to reality.
@@monsterhuntervideos4446 It ultimately means we don't have a clue what it ultimately is, but we know it can't be simple materialism as we understand it. Calling the great unknown 'spiritual' is ok by me.
The past doesn't exist the future doesn't exist everything's happening at one time
Also cells die and new cells are made through your whole body, But consciousness is constant.
yeah! imagine if consciousness also changes just like brain cells then everyone would be a different person everyday.. imagine what world would be like if consciousness also changes..
all the information have been copied to the new cells
@@MrDabboe that's straight up faith
Because they are copies. How is it that tattoos never leave your skin if every cell changes
@@dextermorgan7439 That’s a good question I never thought about that lol
As a similar thought experiment, if the entity “myself” is material or physical (a measurable waveform in the brain), then standing aside from the brain to conduct a thought experiment is a vivid idea but is not physically possible, proving that the brain cannot produce Consciousness.
@ching chong A waveform isn't aware of itself, is my point.
We exist as conscious entities; we are not our bodies or our brain. The body is just a biological machine/computer with a processor (the brain) which keeps the body functioning and we, the conscious entity use these biological bodies as a tool in order to do physical things in a physical dimension.
If this is your argument. I would also like an explaination of the physics phenomena called 'emergence'. Your literal point, as in producing is indeed true. Water doesn't generate 'wettness'. However, many water molecules do create/generate an emerging effect such as wettness. If that statement is true, the same could be true for consciousness, however this can't be measured by a single point in time as the emergence concept proves that the whole can be more than the sum of the parts.
You have missed it completely. Try and watch it again.
I think once you introduce a second point in time, the brain model or emergence model has failed.
Individual adding machines emerged as an electronics technology but they are not more than the sum of their parts.
Emergence is the new word for "abra kadabra". It's so magical that we do not even have to know anymore when things emerge.
I disagree. Consciousness could operate on a different resolution scale. Consider that neurons have a resolution of how often they can fire, and that process takes a specific amount of time which is much larger than a trillionth of a second.
Watch again. You've completely missed it.
I could argument that present time does not exist since you can never catch a present moment and everything is past memory. By the time you say "now", the moment is gone. It is a past continuous. Or i can also say that your perspective is wrong and that the continous present moment is built by the succesive events and that everything material depends of the time line to be computed and in existance. A construction made by time which doesnt make any sense in any frozen present moment. Nothing makes sense as still, and everything makes sense in the continuous of time. Movement is what makes things alive. Without motion you dont have life nor consciousness. Time is part of the whole process.
in physics they still have a problem with time. we use time in daily matters and use time in astronomy 4 example, but let's not fool ourselves, we don't really know if time trully exists.
@@pi3tr3 we experience time though.
@@pi3tr3 maybe time only exists because we remember the past but the same could be said for anything
Put the kush down for a bit
This should be revolutional. This could give us the proof we need to prove the exsistence of soul. Afterlife e.t.c.
Mark Gober's book, An end of upside down thinking, is the closest to that. It links from my article attached in the subheading.
@@buildingutopia7617 Thanks for the book name. I'm interested in that for my researching.
@Alex Yordanov Wow.... No explanation needed for that overpowering declaration!! Thanks for sharing.
Soul is yet another artificial construct we made up, they do not have to be what occupies afterlife! I do believe in afterlife (or afterexistence would be better term...since we aren't sure whatever there is that is "after" is life or not...) So yes for afterlife, no for soul!...
This is pretty amazing! But what makes us conscious? Self awareness? I believe in our Spiritual being and soul. Do those two work through the brain? I have seen people that have bad brain injuries. Myself included. Different things about me changed for instance I became withdrawn, suffer from chronic pain, and hallucinations all from a brain injury. The injury is largely located in my frontal lobe in the left hemisphere. But as far as God and the spirit and the soul, yes I believe whole heartedly. The brain governs your body and is responsible for many things but consciousness can not be nailed down. It doesn't reside in the brain. It resides in our spirits. Great video my friend and sending greetings from Roswell New Mexico United States.
By that logic hurting your brain hurts your soul. Even more interesting that consciousness isn’t there right away but arises after some years of brain development and you stop going off of autopilot
If you were to stunt the brain that wouldn’t arise and you wouldn’t be aware of yourself
@@ParadiseLordRyu
You don't need a brain to be aware of one's self. Have you not heard of cases where people have gone "out of body" (died for a brief moment) and were still aware of everything going on around them?
@@redblade8160 Spoiler alert: those people still had brains
@@ParadiseLordRyu spoiler alert if you hurt your brain your soul does NOT get hurt why am I saying that because when you die your soul leaves your vessel/physical container your soul is immortal ;)
Who or what is viewing the images that our brain produces?
Also your describing the point in which
The sinwav crosses the zero point and
The frequency can be from 0+ to 1000-
Depends on the state of consciousness.
Your consciousness will never get that 4:15 back into
Sir, wanted to ask you. What would be your solution for the interaction problem ? This argument implies dualism of consciousness and brain
I see the brain like a bioelectric eBook that the consciousness 'reads'. The eBook interfaces with the consciousness and the wider reality, working as a junction point.
The story is totally immersive for the consciousness, for our ~60+ years. Maybe when we die (meaning, biological death) we "wake up" out of the story, and into whatever reality we are really in. Curiously, this is exactly how people who go through an NDE experience it. They claim that this earthly reality is the real "dream", albeit collectively generated and experienced with billions of other consciousness. Maybe it is?
@@buildingutopia7617 the Buddha is very cautious in discussing this. Reality is unimaginably vast. If little tiny clumps of matter like us can discover how to describe and harness the power of information, and can use imagination to create new structures, imagine what orders of information could be processed by intermediate and large structures in cosmic terms. Mind is something that has evolved over incomprehensibly many many generations of expansion and contraction of cosmos. Lesser minds diverge from greater minds, and the quality of consciousness devolves as they become entrapped in desire.
This video is immensely satisfying! Thank you for making it. I am going to watch it over a few times, but if i have understood it correctly, there is an obvious distinction between the activity of the brain, versus consciousness.
The activity of the brain can be boiled down to the sound-note.
Consciousness is the line which is experiencing th encoded data, which for the brain, is depolarizing oscillations of ions. The ions oscillate in and out of axons, but regardless of what vibration is occurring, Consciousness is the frozen 'beingness' (for lack of a better term) which experiences it. Is this in line with what you had said?
Actually kind of gives that 'non-physical' vibe in a way, and that by no means is a bad thing, not entirely sure why material science is so obsessed with particle-like existences anyway.
Yes, that's basically it. The model-picture I have, is that the consciousness 'reads' the brain like a book, and within its subjective generates experience in response to the [bio-electric] books directive. In the same way that we read one word at a time, and experience the story from there, we also "read" the brain one impulse at a time.
Like a letter in a book, a consciousness can not be emergent from a single "letter" of the brain, yet that's all that's going on at any given point of time. Just one impulse at a time (basically).
By consciousness do you mean spirit-soul?
@@debbiereid7362 If you like - yes.
I have had paranormal experiences, which come across from spirits/souls without bodies. They want me to not give up on my life and my causes.
@@debbiereid7362 Do your best :)
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain.
Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
I will read your addition properly a bit later, but this here, to quote you, is actually my presented argument:
"In fact we can break down the process and analyze it moment by moment, and in every moment consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. "
Bingo.
...and this argument of ours is so 'nuts and bolts', that it should be respected as a true proof that consciousness cannot be an emergent property of the brain. That's why I made this video, on this specific argument.
@@buildingutopia7617 In my comment you can find other solid arguments agaisnt materialism.
So tell me: how much time does that red line represent in that wave file? It's not infinitely small. There is a sample rate for sound.
The same is true for the brain; it receives signals at different points in time - all of which are a sample of time - not an infinitely small point. Those signals arrive in the brain at different times as well. Then it takes time for the brain to process those signals. Here's an example:
Clap your hands in front of your face. What do you experience? You see your hands clap, and you perceive the sound made by your hands at the same time. But that's not what happened.
The sound generated by the clap takes some amount of time to arrive at your ears. The light that illuminates your hands also takes some time to arrive at your eyes - but much less time than the sound takes to reach your ears - so the event is already out of sync.
The signals received at your ears and eyes takes time to travel through their respective nerves and reach your brain, where they are then processed by different structures inside your brain. This entire process can take upwards of 80ms - yet - your brain is able to synchronize the clap visually and audibly, even though those moments happened at different times.
In effect, everything you experience as conscious reality, is something that happened in the past. It is processed as a stream within your conscious mind.
So, of course the brain constructs consciousness. It's the only structure that is capable of it.
No, what you experience in the moment is in the moment. When you experience what happened in the past, it is an experience of what happened in the past but in the moment. Like watching an old sports show - you experience it in the moment, as you watch it.
@@buildingutopia7617 i’m trying to understand your argument you are saying we are conscious with time being so little the brain couldn’t produce it? Can you try to explain it to me more simple. I believe in God and I am not a crackpot I have seen angels with my own eyes it’s real consciousness it’s a gift from God and God sent his son to the earth to die for our sins and we could have eternal life through him consciousness proves we are more than just our bodies Jesus rise from the dead proves he was gods son and everything he said was true but if you can please explain this argument clearer because I don’t understand what you’re saying and I look for arguments for God‘s existence even if you don’t believe in God consciousness helps my world view
@@MMAGUY13 Take one trillionth of a second. If the brain produces consciousness, as some assume, then it must produce a conscious state in a single trillionth of a second. Otherwise it cannot do it at all, because every moment in time is only a single given trillionth of a second. That is the best I can do.
Ps. There is no hell :)
@@buildingutopia7617 thank you for taking the time to answer my question I read your paragraph and I’m sitting here meditating on it. Jesus fulfilled prophecies look at Isaiah 53 and he did that exactly the book of Daniel puts the messiah at the same time that Jesus came I watch the debates of the resurrection and the smartest man in the world cannot disprove it and the best! Explains the facts is Jesus really did rise from the dead. So I believe Jesus really was the son of God and he is the one that told us about hell punishment for man’s rebellion. Hopefully hell isn’t eternal and there are good arguments that it’s not you will be punished for your sins and destroyed. But Jesus was already punished for our sins and we could be forgiven and become children of God through him have a good day and thank you for responding.
@@buildingutopia7617 I read your comment I went back and watch the video one more time I finally got it the brain would be too slow to produce consciousness in the present because consciousness is as small as one trillionth of a second at that rate of speed it wouldn’t be fast enough to produce consciousness our brains can’t work that fast. That’s an excellent argument
I agree, consciousness is the result of perception for example then collapses into memory.
ok, but in physics, there may be Plank minimum time interval. Also an interaction between two particles is a quantum event, between two interactions there is an interval of time where the particles are wave like and sort of background processing. So a state of consciousness is when these interactions happen therefore consiousness comes in lumps, basically is quantum, I mean it should be based on how physics works. Also two different states of consciousness are different like having a different soul every time, you die then a new conscious entity or what we call soul is born.
Actually, it's proven by the zeno's paradoxes that in reality things can't ve infinitly divisible. There are "blocks" that are the limit of how small something is in space as well as in time and all other measures we have about the universe.
The Plank length.
The stream "our participation in life and the meaning of life, our perspective and attitude about life" is a long and woven thought that does not fit into the instant of time we call "being conscious of now.” So, being conscious of now comes from a stream in the outside world.
You said the present is infinitely small, then the red line cannot exist. The present is just dissipation of space. The present is not the red line. There is no present.
this is very much connected to the question I have asked myself.. if I am simply consciousness being generated by a physical brain over time.. does that mean that my sense of self and flow of a single consciousness is an illusion? and all that really exist are moments of individual now consciousness's coming in and out of existence suggesting that I don't really exist at all? I feel like this is beyond my comprehension, sort of paradoxical and very scary to think about...
If consciousness is an illusion, then that means it does not exist. If it does not exist, then I could hit your knee with a hammer and you would not care, because you are not conscious (dead) and therefore can't experience pain. It takes consciousness to experience.
Consciousness is totally real. Not an illusion.
@@buildingutopia7617 not sure if you undertand what i was trying to say .. i didnt articulate it well. I wasn't so much meaning or suggesting consciousness doesn't exit... im not doubting that..
Im doubting the sense of self existing and that the consciousness over time is a single connected being.
We have a mind that connects past memories with our present state. But does that necessarily mean the you (consciouness) in this moment is truly or literally the you of say 5 years ago, 5 days ago or even 5 seconds ago.
If you subscribe to materialism than consciousness is a byproduct generated by the brain. You are the consciousness it creates. You may be connected to flow of consciousness up to now by memories but does that necessarily mean that it is you.
@@stussysinglet Yes, because consciousness is something that makes you aware. The brain is the receiver that generates it. The memories that you have are discarded when you die, but consciousness cannot. Your consciousness does not carry life lessons either. It's an endless cycle of life and death. Consciousness must be seperate too, as this quote explains perfectly:
"Consciousness is matter, therefore matter is consciousness in the universe."
welcome to my ill mind. I would recommend to not go down that rabbit hole.
If consciousness were an illusion you would have to be conscious to experience the illusion. It’s a self defeating concept to argue it’s an illusion; an oxymoron, because to say it’s an illusion you would still have to experience it.
Excellent argument. I agree.
A zero point, which could be termed an infinite point, can be enfolded. This point, if infinite, also exists at every point of unfolding of an enfolded state. Whether you call it the past is irrelevant since it exists infinitely. Consciousness may be the unfolding of this point, necessarily determined in time or at least subject to it. This is why I think music is so appealing to us.
To reduce this moment we call "now" from the unfolded brain state I think is a mistake but naturally made by unfolding from an infinite point seems logical, but is only restricted by the unfolding of an enfolded state which I don't think is reducable since it isn't necessarily confined by time.
THIS COMMENT, is actually quite long, but also very insightful if your still on the edge of whether to believe what comes first, the brain or consciousness?!
Oh boy, i have to admit, the back and forth is quite entertaining 😂In all seriousness however, Building Utopia, has made an extremely intelligent theory, that for the most part has solid roots in common sensical thinking. There's certainly in my perspective a much higher consciousness that governs all in existence including our consciousnesses as well, this SUPREME consciousness operates on a level that completely defy's our current awareness of time, for all intensive purposes, its a timeless consciousness that knows no beginning or end.
If consciousness is a byproduct of the brain, why is it that people who have come very close to dying (absent heartbeat for a few minutes, limited to no blood flow to the their brain!) have described some very spectacular experiences of heightened consciousness, such as meeting ethereal looking beings, who greet them by name, possess the ability to telepathically project thoughts and feelings such as love towards their consciousness, and even show them visions of there past, things they said, and things they did towards others with particular attention going towards how those actions affected the other person morally.
And before anyone try's to dismiss the near death experience, as hallucinations orchestrated by the dying brain to ease us into death, has materialist would like us all to believe, just know there a two facts that would put that rebuttal to a quick death! Firstly, hallucinations are very incoherent by nature, meaning that there's no rhyme nor reason behind them, just a random sequence of thoughts that make no sense, and often time have nothing to do with each other. Near death experiences are the exact opposite of that, the story's you'll hear from people all around the world, who have experienced them should suffice as evidence, that these experiences have a some reasoning behind them, especially with how significantly impactful it can be upon there lives afterwards!
Secondly, if consciousness is a byproduct of the brain, which produces said consciousness from our senses. Why is it that people who were born diagnosed with no sense of sight due to some diseases, and have grown up there whole lives not having any perception of what different colours look like, and could never know what colours look like (How do you explain what red looks like to someone who's blind?!!!) have experienced seeing everything in vivid detail during their near death experiences, even going on to baffle doctors and scientist alike by describing things in great details that they have never seen with there natural eyes!
My case for higher consciousness made, can one of you so called materialist please tell me why it's so difficult for you to even try and consider higher consciousness, when there is an impressive amount of hints pointing to that eventual realization?
Thanks for this.
Yeah, the thing with NDE's is that we now have tens of millions of them reported in the USA alone, due to modern medical technology bringing so many people back from the brink of death. NDE's are hard to flippantly dismiss because of their remarkable consistencies. Same patterns. If the brain was just "going crazy" it should not be like that - it should just be chaos from one person to the next.
I think part of the reason why so many people embrace crude materialism, is because they think everything boils down to just atoms and molecules, etc, which would in itself justify their assumptions...yet that's only because they've never even been exposed to the arguments against that, which are alive and kicking in themselves. Also, their entire world view becomes rooted in basic materialism...painful to do all that philosophical reengineering?...
And sometimes they secretly hate the idea of being one day accountable for a maybe corrupt life...or, at worst, I think they can enjoy rubbing dirt in the face of religious people because it makes them feel superior.
I go on about that stuff in the link in my description, if you're interested.
I think our conscious is gifted to us by god.
Hello Sir, thanks for the post.
I felt interested to look into the case of blind people having vivid sight full experience at near death.
Could you please link me to some material on the case 🙏. It’s for my personal research.
Thank you so much.
Dear Sir, thank you for your kind response 🙂.
I have looked into the video. you did also sent me a second link for a paper research, it however brought me back to the video. Was wondering if you could sent me again the link for the paper, thereby I may get a more solid grasp of the study.
Thank you so much Sir. 🙏
i think i agree with your conclusion but not with your argument or method. All of your consciousness is very rarely focused in the present on one point in time and space (i.e. unless you are in very deep states of mediation). This has functional reasons- for instance, visual pattern recognition uses memory and memory essentially uses past experiences to create a picture in your brain of a visual conscious experience. Also consciousness is like a stream - let me explain this with the help of an example. For instance, if you freeze a movie free in the very moment, on the red line in your vid, you will see nothing but the frozen pixels. That does not mean that the movie does not exist, you just see frozen pixels when you look at the movie on the red line. Similarly, with consciousness, if you could freeze consciousness at one point in time and space, you will a frozen picture of consciousness during that point of time and space. Consciousness needs to think of the past and imagine the future to exist in the present.
I know where you're coming from. The experience of the 'complete story' itself exists only in the immediate moment of time.
@@buildingutopia7617 You said movement is illusion because it can not happen in the now. I dissagree, movement exists in the now. Speed, slower or fastrer is moving in the now. Yes, past and future are illusions but it does not mean movement is illusion. Everything is happening now, it is not frozen.
@@tombraider1970 Movement is not an illusion. That's not what I mean.
@@buildingutopia7617 Yeah, but you said now is infinitely small point in time. So, it sounded like now is frozen moment or that there is no movement in the now. I would say there is no infinitely small point in time because time does not exist. Past is something that has happened in the now present moment is what is happening in the now and future is what will happen in the now
@@buildingutopia7617 And also now or present moment is not some point in some kind of video or whatever. Everything that is happening, everything that exists is in the now.
Sir, would be nice if you could explain this argument with some simple analogy of real life, may be easier to grasp the concept
In short, it means that going by this example,
> Brain cannot be conscious before it gets a signal of consciousness,
> Brain cannot be conscious while it is processing the signal of consciousness, and
> Brain cannot be conscious after the signal of consciousness has been processed.
So if all above are true, then it means the brain is never conscious at any time.
In other words, the brain is not processing consciousness. So it has to be happening somewhere outside the brain.
@@alcinnovations thanks, that is help full 🙏
@@alcinnovations I guess, the an answer to this would be that the brain is inherently conscious. It is always conscious
Doesn’t the complexity of a human brain at any given infinitely small moment have to be compared to literally everything else’s complexity at any infinitely small moment?
The gut is the heart and it also instructs the brain on many matters concerning how the body is controlled
The heart as such is just a pump
Thank you for sharing, this was illuminating.
If any process there is, associated with the generation of consciousness, it's discontinued, nonlinear and dynamical, not linear and continuous. That's validated by EEG recordings of patients under general anesthesia.
Also, we can't actually infer from correlation, that brain processes are partly or solely responsible for consciousness. As such, there is no point in proving consciousness is not generated by the brain, because the burden of proof is on the side of those who make such a claim.
For materialists, if brain produces consciousness then how can brain be a subject of consciousness? How can consciousness study brain since its very existence depends on the brain processes? Yet consciousness is able to study brains and its process which means consciousness is independent of the brain.
Is it the ability to study anything in general or specifically the study of brains which you believe means consciousness is independent of the brain? Does studying automotive repair also lead to that conclusion?
And if it is the study of another brain, for instance the brain of a cadaver in medical school, how does that mean that your own consciousness is independent of the same kind of brain? If we were studying another heart does this also mean consciousness is independent of the blood flow from a heart? If blood flow were suddenly stopped, as in a heart attack, what happens to consciousness? Now there is no problem with the brain and instead the heart has ceased. So is consciousness independent of the flow of blood from the heart?
@@michaelhoward3048yes.. everything we know is through consciousness. Consciousness alone is the knower. Only consciousness can study matter, therefore matter is objectified. Hence, consciousness is independent. We can't be sure if matter exists for real, but we're sure of consciousness.
@@bhaktiyogadivine7295 But why then can what is known become what is forgotten? And all that is known can never be all that is consciousness at once? Where does what is known go when it is not currently a part of consciousness? And finally, since what is known was once unknown to consciousness, and only through experience and time can anything become known to consciousness, then the existence of consciousness with the capacity to know anything depends on matter and time.
In other words, what is known to consciousness can be forgotten as well, and loss of memory often increases as the brain ages. A disease like Alzheimer's can actually erase memories from conscious retrieval and the victim is often reduced to an infant-like state without memories of the experiences of their lives, even learned skills like using a spoon or going to the restroom are forgotten.
And we never have all the knowledge we have learned, all the memories of our lives, active and in use by the consciousness. If this knowledge is not located in the brain itself, then where are memories stored until future retrieval, and why do brain injuries and diseases prevent our consciousness from accessing them anymore?
@@michaelhoward3048 good question. I recommend you watch this to understand my viewpoint, it's really short: ua-cam.com/video/KcGC2kKyMMk/v-deo.html
But according to this theorem ,leave conciousness there cannot be any complexity whatsoever in any process it's just disproval of complexity overall and to what i understand past and future doesn't exist doesn't mean that past didn't have any connection to the state existing right now, infact it is the past which almost totally decided the outcome of what present is as now with just some little quantum uncertainty, or lead to what it is today. it is be the very series of phenonmenon that produce conciousness ,where past determines the present state existence (lead to existence of material brain and it subparts which produces conciousness)and present state of brain runs it and according to me saying past and future doesn't sxist doesnt cut it off from present all are interconnected their existence depend on each other
Second, complexity is not limited to just one single thing
I think complexity is of 2 different kinds
1. Where one system goes through a huge number of changes in a relatively small amount of time or just 1 system goes through many phenonmenon in a tiny interval
2 many small systems go through simple changes within themselves and among themselves which apparently acts like a single system i think as you pointed out is right just take 2 different examples 1. Lifting a bucket and tilting it ,it was a simple and single system and to complete through this process many small steps occured and led to completion of phenonmenon
2. Example is working of computer where many independent machineries work and exchange a data to keep a software running just like brain
Last i also think that your conclusion also derived from the method that you forgot to account the very holistic and continous existence of this world that this world is not divided into systems inherently and its just human perception of this way of dividing
I hope i could answer your query to distinguish a difference between a task and a function by this i am by no means saying you are wrong i am a follower of advaita vedanta,a philosophy near to idealism but i just found it a little erroneous
Leave a like either temporarily or permanently otherwise i won't get notification
Hope i edited it in a more articulate and understandable sense
Inside one single trillion, trillionth of a second (1,000,000,000,000,000,000th) the brain (supposedly) generates a conscious state.
Try to visualise that standing reality to understand what I am saying. It is the entire point.
@@buildingutopia7617 Basically what we are is not a being ,we ourselves are functions ,if i say what is self then the answer will be or maybe that the self is an experiencer or thinker but if you pay enough attention all of them are functional words there is no experiencer without act of or happening of experiencing which is a phenonmenon which requires timporal succession just imagine if time stops or if time stops moving forward all the phenonmenons,the very happening of everything will cease to exist so will your experiencing moreover the very atoms which are formed out fluctuations formed by energy in quantum fields will cease to exist as there would be no fluctuations no transmission of data between two to occur ,the entire universe as you see is not just being or existence it's a play of the fundamental entities it's a phenonmenon its like annata of Buddhist doctrine if you read it in detail morever i doubt that it's really that one trillionth or anything like that present doesn't exist as an interval but as a state when you specify its trillionth or something you are making reference to a time interval and any time interval to be measured requires atleast 2 states to exist between which interval will be measured and present is only one state which means it's a perfect line or has no interval i think you are confusing two aspects of A and B theory of time A theory days time isn't an entity but an absense of restriction that a thing cannot change or just is a possibility of change and what we are is not thing itself but the change that occurs according to materialism we are phenonmenon not a thing
@@buildingutopia7617 atlast my point is we are not formed out of any time interval but through progression of time itself we emerge as a result like swinging of a pendulum not a pendulum in classical sense we are functions conciousness is not a being a being perfectly which lies beyond space time or isn't subject to space time can't yield anything it may exist just like an absolute like a stone is in terms of physicality that's also one of reason why hindus also regard and don't worship their ultimate god or Brahman because thei upanishads say it's functionally nothing just existentially infinity that's why they worship other dieties gor help
Interesting argument. An infinitely small quantity of something can't exist and cannot be measured. The conclusion could be: because the past and future also not existing, it would follow that physical time doesn't exist at all just a mental construct. It means that it cannot be a physical generation because no such physical moments exists to be reconciled with our existing mental experince.
Even a cursory survey of the relevant literature from philosophy of the mind and cognitive science reveals that "consciousness", as you appear to understand it, is far from being self-evident. If you're truly committed to the idea that you've disproven that the brain can generate consciousness (so be it, as someone else has already commented, by means of reenacting Zeno's error) you could've at least entertained the possibility that consciousness (once again, as you seem to conceive it) does not exist. Instead, you immediately go on to assert that it obviously exists so it must based generated outside the mind. You even made a picturesque mention of the "ether", but I'm sure you'd be willing to settle for any suitable spiritual realm.
Right, as you define more precisely all these terms, consciousness doesn't exist except as a word in our books!
Consciousness is an arrangement of matter such that the entity “myself” is created and sustained. Nature understands how to make and sustain each individual “myself” from molecules, and so nature meets the testable requirements to prove that the ecosystem is aware of us. And, each individual who grew from a fertilized egg cell did not understand how to build itself from molecules and so is not to any testable measure aware of itself. Society, which is part of the ecosystem now, understands in its books (relevant literature from philosophy of the mind and cognitive science) how to make and sustain each individual animal from molecules, and so society meets the testable requirements to prove that the ecosystem is aware of us. Therefore, each person represents a qualia or subjective event in our consciousness studies, but an individual person is not conscious as a result of our consciousness studies. Consciousness studies is an arrangement of books such that the entity “myself” is created and sustained.
@@straightedgerc What do you mean by the ecosystem being aware of us?
@@CofradeArrepentido I mean as a universal consciousness, two short essays are below you might enjoy, thanks.
.
Consciousness is the mechanism of subjective experiences. Since subjective experiences are your experiences as an individual, then consciousness is the mechanism of individual experiences, which is our ecosystem and its ancient family tree, an idea called Brahman in Hindu. The earth has proven it is capable of constructing this paragraph about awareness and therefore it is aware by tautology (irony) and not by sensory processes.
Does light exist? Are our eyes cameras that convert light waves into electrical information for processing in the brain so that our mind can form a perspective viewpoint within a virtual world? An almost exact copy of the outside world needs to exist in our mind in order to think about it. Since we never grab at non-existent items we thought we saw and never bump into invisible objects we don’t see it means that our self-awareness is occurring within virtually an exact copy of the real world. Rather than say that our body’s self-awareness is occurring within a virtual copy of the outside world, or that the mind is a perspective within a virtual world, why not say that we are the self-aware outside world? Imagine standing and talking with someone looking at a complicated scene. You don’t really know whether “you” are dreaming inside your brain, a small mechanical box, about talking with someone, or “you” are a real person talking to another real person each with optical sensors in their face, or if the earth is “I” dreaming in pitch blackness about two real people talking. The latter is the only physical reality that doesn’t rely on light cameras and a small mechanical box to render and continually update an exact copy of what we call the outside world. Hence, mental knowledge sometimes requires its own academic preservation ahead of other publicly held beliefs and learned knowledge.
@@straightedgerc Thank you.
Crazy. How can anyone that is conscious believe it does not exist? I feel reminded of this sickness where people believe that they are dead while they are not.
I believe you're saying that since now, is not earlier or later, but an infinitely small amount of time, the electrons in our brains would practically be frozen in time and wouldn't have had the time to even process anything, so if you're conscious right now, it can't be just because of your brain.
But what if now is happening now, but we perceive it delayed. You only perceive time as your brain takes in information. It may seem instant but it's not. This allows the brain to be the creator of consciousness, as if we experience now, slightly later once our brain processes it. Smaller animals are generally able to process time faster which gives them a better reaction time, which is why it's hard to catch a fly. You may think that what you're experiencing now is happening exactly now, but it's likely slightly later.
Everything you experience as a conscious event, is ultimately a recording of what happened in the recent past. That changes nothing. You watch a 're-run' in the immediate now.
@@buildingutopia7617 Your "immediate now" may only exists once your brain has taken in information and processed it. People like the idea of thinking theres some higher power involved with everything. But it's likely thats not true. We may be less significant than we think. The universe may not revolve around us. We come up with false theories to explain things we don't understand because we don't like not knowing. You don't know what you don't know, which will make you think you know everything. We may not even be smart enough to ask the right questions. Like and insect trying to understand complex math.
@@cryptobets9968 You're diverting into false abstractions. I can't make it clearer than I have.
@@buildingutopia7617 No, I think you've missed it. Try reading what I wrote more carefully and you may eventually understand.
@@cryptobets9968 I understand you totally. You don't understand me - but I can't prove that better than I have. Ultimately you have to visualise the structure of the situation to understand it properly, and I know you're not doing that. It's one of those funny things....many, maybe even most, people just can't 'see' it.
Perception of time has been shown to be varying because of biology. During adrenaline rush, blood flow is higher, instead of 30 fps, eyes take data in 60 fps. Things around you appear to be slower, so time depends upon your brain's speed of sending you info.
This does not disproof the conclusion of the argument.
If you see, you are describing the brain as an information carrying tool. It is carrying information that, is then transformed as experience content. You have refer to a “ you “ as a receiver of the brain info. This “ you “ is the consciousness that is constant and exists in the immediate now. In physicalism the brain is seen as a biological machine, that functions on processing steps and produces consciousness. In that case, there is a period of time where there is not movement in the brain, there is not steps to produce subjective consciousness. On the other hand there is not what so ever a moment in time when consciousness does not exists, there for the brain it’s not producing subjective consciousness but rather processing perception content.
The argument is a defeater to materialists assumptions.
@@yadurajdas532 I was just pointing out to the 'time' thing. The title of the video is what I am very open about.
You missed yourself.
I see that you like comparaison, let's go if you get it.
Pardon my French.
Consciouness is the red line. It's the accumulation of what supports it that help it to stay stable.
The brain is in perpetual neuron firing, the neurons are the space that are used to transport a discret information.
It's the information taking time and being processed that makes up consciouness. Else by your logic your consciouness life time experience would evaporate at the same time being created.
Consciouness is the flux of electron interacting with others and also itself in a superposable model (CF self-mass comparison).
Neurons are the physical fabric that bends the complexity, enough to a point that times emerges to solve YOUR logic.
The electrons states, speed and position is your consciouness.
These electrons to exist must at least interract with themself. Else what retain them from vanishing ?
It's their mass. Small enough to interract with a probabilistic future of themself, not large enough to probabilisticly shoot themself in a side dimension (probabilistic with non interaction future).
Let's get this straight :
- Your neurons are the rules of the universe, they exist because something that was there (no reason needed) warped space and made a new interraction : entropy.
- Your subjective experience -are- the overlappings layers of interractions electrons have with what that bends them
- Electrons exist (That's a consciouness subjective axiom and it's therefore true since without no consciouness you can't process subjective experience, thus make the electrons thinks about themself)
You are on purpose mixing the idea that a single event and what he will forms are not possible.
Thus mixing subjective experience and consciouness.
I'm basicly saying that an electron is consciouss because he has to interract thus responds to a stimuli and you might get surprise that he can interract with a past itself, a future itself but never itself, preventing the particle to even get a chance to know it future state. (Exclusion principle)
Consciouness is down to quantum foam the fact that it is possible.
Also down to most basic time unit is a planck time lenght, it's not here to put rose on the board.
You could refute this idea, but that would make you assume that :
- I am wrong and neither subjective experience nor consciouness is possible
But since we knew it's anything but impossible, you just have to admit this :
Consciouness doesn't exist in the way that people think it is.
But it not also inexistent
Conciousness is a concept emerging from a biotite system.
Let's forge that last fact :
- Consiouness is a subfunction of entrophy
- Time is a flowing vector of that entrophy
- entropic system forms holobiont
- holobiont forms hologenome
- hologenome forms reccurencing pattern of hologrenome
-From our current knowledge and logic your are at most an intricated quantum field (with itself), until prooven objectively (also impossible, because our analysis remains confined to what we only can't do)
I feel sorry for you, I really do, but your idea of cracking down a concect, but not all the objective component because they are not subjective to your system just fireback.
Expect us
-To live in a simulation.
-Or hologenome system managed just get a solution to a "Ackermann function" system. Thus letting us experience time in a universe that outside never existed (btw P=NP then).
-Or a univers that will tear his own metric just to prevent the probability of the system doing it. Meaning after an infinity amount of time you will have an even that will be infinitly larger to destroy by reccurence itself and what it contained, without destroying itself first. Hard uh ?
-A universe where it's nothing White bubble that will just expand, creating energy, just to prevent one being made inside (if there is an in/out ? xd), and the growing factor of itself is fractal but not continous !
Good night :)
Consciousness occurs on the red line but perception of reality is not immediate and It's always filtered by our senses and our capacity to process and decode those signals. So all consciousness is related to the immediate past, not present. There will be always a slight delay.
Watch it again.
You are describing a conscious computer with free will.
You are right, the brain doesn't produce consciousness but without the brain consciousness is impossible.
It is like a movie on a dvd(knowledge) and a dvd player(the brain). So consciousness is 'played' by the brain. In other words the brain takes the knowledge from somewhere and makes it visible in the form of consciousness.
Consciousness mean in the state of being aware. And a crazy fact is that plants & Microorganisms are aware of their environment, yet they don't have a brain. Their Consciousness isn't mature enough to be self-aware but they are still aware.
And awareness is a product of consciousness
@@EnejJohhem So many people are conscious but not aware. Thus consciousness has nothing in common with awareness. Awareness comes from another source. This source is spirit. The spirit is what makes plants to be aware of their environment. And there can't be more different "things" than spirit and consciousness. Even matter is more alike to spirit than consciousness. The consciousness comes to life when the spirit connects itself with the matter. It is the result of that connection.
@@igorchemmykelly7202 you believe in 'Spirit'.
And besides human consciousness isn't mature enough to simulate feelings on it's own, that's why it depends on a physical system, our brain hosts the Consciousness but it's not really a part of it.
@@EnejJohhem Only human beings have consciousness and therefore can be UN-conscious. But there is no a living being without a spirit. The spirit is what makes the living beings to move or to live altogether.
@@igorchemmykelly7202 I don't really knew 'Spirits' exists, we haven't found any evidence for that?
If we deny past and future, accepting only the here and now, then how, for instance, do tap dancers factor in to this? Do they lose awareness when you press the pause button? The reference to a frozen motion through time doesn't seem to illustrate any filter theory. I don't understand. I might do, next week, out the blue, in the middle of the night.
Consciousness is just the word we use to describe the constant relaying of electrochemical signals that a brain never stops receiving. The brain does not "compute" anything. When you learn, for example, that 1+1=2, the brain recalls electrical patterns associated with the problem 1+1=2. Another example is thought. There is a reason why deaf people do not have a "voice" in their head. When they think to themselves, they visualize "see" sign language. Or when a hearing person reads a book, the brain uses the auditory area of the brain to mimic sound. Thus, you "hear" your voice reading the words. Every thought or action you take comes down to reinforced patterns that your brain relies upon.
Consciousness is the thing that experiences (or translates, then experiences...like text in a book) those processes.
@@buildingutopia7617 but how can consciousness "experience" mental calculations? Unless what you meant to say is that the brain's neurons are activating in such a pattern as to mimic the senses (visual, auditory, etc.), which the brain as a whole interprets as numbers.
First, you have used the Zeno's Arrow paradox here and replaced the Arrow with consciousness. So the first step is presenting Zeno's Arrow here so anyone can identify it:
In the arrow paradox, Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (duration-less) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not. It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.
But philosophers, mathematicians, physicists and anyone who has ever heard of Zeno's Paradoxes have pondered solutions for thousands of years now. As a result, there are several solutions to the paradox attacking it from various fields. In physics there is a solution using Special Relativity. In mathematics there is a solution using calculus.
You have made several presuppositions upon which your entire argument depends which themselves are debatable. The first is that the brain has no operational complexity "of a type" that can generate consciousness. Where has this been determined? By whom? Based on what conclusions? Let's start by asking what do you define as consciousness and if you think humans have a unique type of consciousness apart from any other species or lifeform? Or is there a basic universal kind of consciousness applicable to all species and lifeforms and intelligence is therefore a physiological variable according to the neurological conditions of the species or individual. For starters, it is a matter of evidence that people stricken with Down Syndrome have brain abnormalities, including reduced gross brain weight, a lower number and depth of cerebral sulci, enlarged ventricles and hypoplasia of several brain structures such as the brainstem, cerebellum, frontal and temporal lobes.
If the brain has no operational complexity to generate consciousness, why then does it's complexity, or rather it's reduced complexity, in both form and physical structure directly effect the cognitive and emotional capacity of the individual? If consciousness were originating from some location outside the brain then wouldn't we expect some consistency in the quality of such consciousness? If the brain itself has no operational complexity that can generate or effect consciousness, why do people with Down Syndrome exist only in brains with reduced complexity, reduced weight and physical structures?
I figured this is a good stopping point. I have addressed the highly debatable presuppositions you need to confirm or discard to make a valid argument. Which, ultimately, is Zeno's Arrow and has already been argued effectively before either one of us were born! Your next big presupposition is that consciousness exists in the now only. I will argue against that later depending on if you even respond to what I have already said here. But consider this quote from the Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."
Oh. I forgot. On the subject of paradoxes like Zeno's Arrow, there are many famous ones throughout history that are quite fascinating! On the subject of omnipotence in a God there is one that demonstrates the contradictions inherent in having such an attribute when claiming "God is so powerful he can do anything!" Really?
"Can God make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it? If he does make the stone, and cannot lift it, then that is something he cannot do. So God is not omnipotent. And if God cannot make the stone, then that is something else he cannot do and therefore cannot be omnipotent. So God cannot be omnipotent.
A man can make something he cannot lift, so the question itself is not illogical or irrational. It's only an issue to those trying to apply the omnipotent attribute to a God.
No, I haven't. It just looks like it if you're not listening carefully. Ignore "infinitely small" and replace it with "One trillion, trillionth of a second", which is not infinitely small at all. My argument still stands. And to stress, as soon as you're not talking infinities, the Zeno thing is a total false-association.
@@buildingutopia7617 The argument never stood. It's based on presuppositions you still need to prove, which you have not.
@@buildingutopia7617 "The brain has no operational complexity *of the type* that can generate consciousness." This is your first premise which you need demonstrate upon which your conclusion rests. If you believe that consciousness does not require, nor is dependent upon, a brain to exist then you have to propose an alternate source and mechanism for consciousness instead. If you are presupposing a source of consciousness outside the brain that needs to be explained.
I already asked you to explain why the physical complexity of the brain actually does determine conditions such as Down Syndrome, or rather, lack of brain complexity that causes mental retardation and impaired cognitive capacity in this case. There is a clear distinction in various imaging comparisons between normal and Down Syndrome brains, both alive and dead.
So, if the brain cannot generate consciousness, then explain the existence of Down Syndrome as a condition occurring within the consciousness itself separate from a brain. Once you can begin to offer arguments to support your presuppositions you can begin to make claims of any accurate conclusions.
@@michaelhoward3048 You haven't got the picture. I can always immediately tell. Please, just read through my other comments. If you can't 'see it' though, I know you never will.
Oh, I presupposed nothing. I asserted what the consciousness isn't - not what it is.
@@michaelhoward3048 why he needs to provide an alternative theory? Find instead why it's happening. Because it is happening that's the truth. But if we can't find that the brain is doing anything in this case then why to still hold on to it? Just because we have assumed that only the brain can produce consciousness. Don't start with any assumption to find anything.
The large meaning of life will not fit into the small current instant of our awareness. Therefore, the conscious human mind, pondering the meaning of life, is located in the world around us.
If the argument is true, and if therefore brain processes can't produce consciousness, why wouldn't that apply to _all_ processes rather than just brain processes?
If the argument is true, wouldn't it basically prove that nothing can ever happen?
BTW, I don't think brain process produce whatever I-the-experiencer am. The idea of _any_ physical process being able to produce, or being identical to, a subject of experience is just incoherent. I don't know what it means, but I know that my self--that which is having the experience--is non-physical.
It means the consciousness is totally incomprehensible to the human mind.
@@buildingutopia7617 yeah, a knife can't cut itself.
Consciousness is a 'FUNCTION' involving TWO Components... 1/. An analytical Process such a brain, involving TIME, and 2/. "AWARENESS" which is STATIC, and Non-Dimensional, so it doesn't involve TIME.... When a 'Link' exists between these TWO, the brain is able to access "The ALL" if it desires to, through Learning How to access "The Processing System of LIFE"..
I think that the whole experience we perceive, is a lot of information to process, that a machine (the brain) is probably not physically capable to handle.
yea,there is no evidence for the brain producing consciousness, it's so hard to understand, but yea materialism doesn't work, many reasons
Until you realize it’s tied to brain development
When you’re born you don’t start out with it
As your brain develops you start to get it until you get that vast self-awareness referred to as “soul”
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your math is wrong. You can't divide time into an infinite small-time frame and expect a brain that is 100% frozen it will go towards 100% for infinity. The brain communicates with neuron chemicals with a constant speed. Let's assume consciousness is computational. The only thing that will happen in an infinite small-time frame is that the computation of consciousness is not done? I don't understand your argument that states that consciousness is present to infinity.
Forget that I said 'infinity', and instead assume I said "one trillion, trillionth of a second".
We are always alive at any given moment....🧠🧠🧠
As we presume.
@@buildingutopia7617 LOL 😂
I'm more concerned as to what the endgame solution the uploader is saying. As perviously mentioned this is Zeno's arrow.
No, ignore the infinity word, and instead just say I said "trillionths of a second". The argument still stands.
@@buildingutopia7617 You really need this win don’t you? The smugness coming from this video and your comments is insane.
@@AdamasOldblade Wow....really? I simply made the point that we don't have to go to infinities to create the picture I am communicating. You are not the first person to assert this.
Could you explain how someone's consciousness can exist at all after their brain has been removed?
Maybe in the same way your email account still exists, even after someone blows up your personal computer.
@@buildingutopia7617 ok so where does it go when the brain dies? And why is everyone so afraid to shoot themselves in the brain?
@@ericgraham8975 Who knows! And where is the consciousness in the first place?
@@buildingutopia7617 seems like it's in your brain because when you remove someone's brain they die. The consciousness is gone and the dead body remains. If there is an afterlife seems like your consciousness would have to be reconstructed elsewhere.
@@ericgraham8975 Watch the movie, Avatar. Remember how the avatar body, when killed, did not lead to the death of the conscious human within it? It's the same dynamic that is possible, with the consciousness based within the field - not the brain. Or, more radically, the consciousness is the basis of matter, and matter is only a construct in the 'imagination' of consciousness, in some form. Many believe that, but we don't and as of yet can't know.
“I think, therefore I am” takes time to read and understand if it is a true statement. Therefore, the hypothesis of an almost frozen in time state of the brain creating consciousness is only a vivid idea, not a true statement.
" I think therfore I am ", but how do you know this? And where do you range that statement on a number from one to ten as far as significant?
@@adamburling9551 “I think, therefore I am”, but how do you know this? By taking time to read and understand the statement “I think, therefore I am” we try to imagine ourselves thinking, that is, rearranging ideas. We can confirm that the ideas being rearranged existed and that the re-arranger (called “I”) existed. Hence, we know or label as true “I think, therefore I am”.
“I think, therefore I am” takes time to read and understand if it is a true statement. Therefore, the hypothesis of an almost frozen in time state of the brain creating consciousness is only a vivid idea, not a true statement.
(Computer software logic developer): I think you are partly right, but my thoughts are that it does produce allmost all the needed info for a conscious experience from the memory only, because if you loose all of your memory, you can,t think of anything even when you get input from your senses, you just act like a big question-mark, that,s the only conscious feeling/state you will be in then, but personally I don`t think even this minimal state of consciousness is the «displayed experienced state» of the consciousness, cause I don’t think you will find this state displayed in any cell/atom in the brain; my feeling is that this «displayed experience» of consciuosness is NOT a physical state, but some kind of NON-physical state, surely the brain gives all the needed input to it, through some kind of «interface» between the center of the brain that has all the connections needed (through all the senses and the memory, and the «processing» part, and then produces the input to this «interface») and for the moment 2 parts of the brain (one of each side) calles «Claustrum» who seem to work like an on/off swich of the consciousness seem to be the best candidate where this interface is located, in order to produce what I feel to be the NON-physical «displayed experience» of the physical neuron-output (from these particular brain-parts) it,s like your computer does not have the monitor-display/sound inside the processor-hardware, YOU get the «displayed» experience OUTSIDE it, through an interface at the part of the computer-brain where the needed output for it is produced; well this was some ideas I do hope some of you might find a bit interesting around this topic (smile
If consciousness is here today and gone tomorrow, why do you remember stuff? The answer is the consciousness lives on because you wouldn't have any current experience if your consciousness was dead tomorrow. Its just logic. Logic proves that the brain does not produce consciousness.
I've wrestled with this same "problem" you described, for a long while now. I'm glad I'm not the only one to have thought about this.
It's a hard concept to describe to people... But here's where I've landed with it:
The question, "If I will cease to exist at some point in the future - and my consciousness along with it - why have I been able to remember anything at all during my life?" - is... flawed.
We experience consciousness, because our brain exists and is capable of remembering stuff. This experience continues, until our brain is incapable of remembering stuff. And, it is at that point, our consciousness essentially ceases; it can't "live on" because it has nothing generating it - nowhere to go.
The key to consciousness is memory. Memory is required for a "present-moment" conscious experience - and I'm not taking about long-term memory. I'm talking about very short-term memory. Without memory, we would not be able to process ANY signals received by our brain. Our conscious experience is essentially made up of of the stimuli that reaches our brain. That stimuli (sight, sound, touch, smell, etc) are all received at different moments it time, because they all propagate at different rates. Light is faster than sound, for example. These signals also take time to travel along our nerves - and then, once received at the brain, are processed in various structures within the brain - and then assembled and synchronized - which also takes time. Without memory to hold these signals and process them, the signals would go in, but never get stored or processed - and therefore, never experienced. Our brain is very much like a computer in this regard; you need RAM to do the processing. Without it, an experience cannot be produced.
You are in essence, experiencing this, because your brain is doing what it does, right now. And you remember things that have happened in the past - even the distant past - because your brain is currently capable of holding moments (or at least impressions of moments). Once your brain isn't capable of storing signals it receives, your conscious experience will effectively stop. This process can be slow - like during a drowning, where the brain still survives for some time, and functions to some extent; experience can be very distorted, disjointed or even surreal. Or it can be instantaneous - like in the event where the brain suffers, quick, severe trauma (like a gunshot to the head).
We get hung up on the idea of "where do we go when we die", because our sense of self is persistent (due to memory); but it's only persistent until it's not. The good news is, you won't care when that moment happens, because you won't be around to do any caring :)
Because your brain stores memories over time that you can look back on although they aren’t always reliable
I thought consciousness was simply self awareness? So how could the brain no produce that?
My theory is consciousness is a type of electro magnetic wave , our brains acts like cel phone it receives and transmits . there is a bigger consciousness around us and we connect to it we live in it , like.Internet . when we sleep we are not conscious .
Can you then prove the brain accesses the “mind” of consciousness outside or above the body ?
which direction is above?
@@punchster289 dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/above
@@thenetisthebeast6910 lmao i meant how does the mind decide which direction is up.
@@punchster289 Well, I personally, think the collective mind of consciousness is accessible from within each of us, whereby there is no separation as in outside or above etc
Maybe the brain is a bioelectric eBook that the consciousness logs on to, and writes, and reads. Finally, like a VR-headset to interface with the outside world. Where's the consciousness? Maybe in the field.
andrewatkin.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-hand-of-god.html
Perhaps an easier analogy is like a camera. The camera experiences what is in front of it, and it is stored as a memory.
Maybe our brain is what holds the memory. It doesn’t produce it, but it can hang on to it for awhile.
Where do you find memory or information in the brain though? That's like opening up a transistor radio and trying to find the music or the people however small they might be.
The brain is receiving information outside and relaying it to consciousness.
I can't prove where information is stored. But I personally hold the belief that information is everywhere, outside of the body and inside of the body.
If you have to remember something you haven't thought of in forever, where do you get that information? And how do you know the difference between forgetting something and not knowing something when you aren't thinking about what that something is.
In the moment you know nothing unless there's a collapse at the wave function and you retrieve information. But where do you retrieve it from? You retrieve it where it exists, in the information field.
Consciousness and information exist in the same place at the same time. Everywhere.
@@adamburling9551 well scientists have implanted memories across snails so it’s stored somewhere in there as physical data
Spacetime is relative and cannot be reduced to a quantum. There is no way to separate space and time. If you were to “freeze time” so that no motion is occurring and no interactions are occurring you would have eliminated time. This is not possible in reality.
If you were to say that “now” is a quantum of time in which no objects were moving, no interaction were moving, and no calculations were being made, then for each “now” you would also have to conclude that gravity does not exist. You would have to say that wave particle duality does not exist. You would have to say that photons are not traveling at the speed of light because they would be stationary. This is not an accurate reflection of reality.
Of course, this comment won’t convince you because you already stated that you believe this to be true as much as 1+1=2. You take it as an article of faith and are not open to changing your beliefs.
I would say, just rethink your concept of spacetime. There is no “now” that is a quantum “moment”.
What if you counted the time in between each second .0000000001 , .00000000000000000000000002 etc. there infinite many subdivisions.
Also how did I know it was the sound of a high hat ? It had to have occurred in the past for me to recognize it? I was consciously aware in the present of the sound that occurred , tapped into the past to recognize that type of sound , and also made a prediction of the future of how the sound would reverberate all within that starting point. Same idea can be applied to you other senses .
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics and ‘time ‘.
Pure sophistry; following this logic, everything in existence cannot generate anything further.
No, it's entirely structural - but hard to visualise, I know.
You are absolutely right. Consciousness is not part or product of Body or Brain but it is a independent Entity along with Matter(of which this body and brain made of). For me Consciousness is that keeps the body conscious, active, alert and alive, and as soon as Consciousness exist the body, that body becomes a dead body.
You are mixing the idea of philosophical zombie and dead body
If you have an operation under general anaesthetic, it will ‘turn off’ consciousness, then after the operation it’s ‘turned back on’ again?! A Jolly interesting video :-)
That only implies his idea in a way
I totally agree with your argument! However, how can the consciousness experience something that is over "time"? Like a song or like a sinewave? The brain (or the consciousness) has to be aware of the frequency of the sinewave in order to "feel" and experience the pitch of it
That's a good question. I would suspect that consciousness, whatever it is, is fundamental to space/time. Or at least derives from the same "thing" as space and time. The Physicist Donald Hoffman has pretty much spent his life on that exact problem.
Thank You, finally someone who understands.
Yeah I just tried explaining to a guy that the brain oversees the functions of the body but the consciousness oversees the brain from outside the brain but contrary to popular believe your consciousness is outside the brain.
Then why aren’t we conscious outside of the body when knocked out or suffering a severe brain injury
Hell you’re not even quite yourself if you wake up and you’re half asleep
I was saying stuff that didn’t make any sense when that happened
People, check out the attached link in the description.
Consciousness is experience. And experience is a form of memory so quick that it leads us to believe it's the present. It's like a movie. It begins with one still frame. That goes not memory. Then as time goes on more stills are added. We are at a fraction of a second but part of the brain is interpreting several of these frames retroactively, playing it back. Another part of the brain is recording ongoing experience. Watch this video : - “Conscousness is Memory” by Matt Faw
@@SuperDeepzone : Consciousness is not memory. Memory is what we are sometimes conscious of. Consciousness is the thing that experiences memory.
If a coded memory was consciousness itself, then recorded memories on a chip would experience themselves. There is no evidence of that and absolutely no way to comprehend how it could work.
-Watch the video carefully, appreciate it on the level of a machine, objectively, and you will better understand what I am saying.
Building Utopia
What do you think our consciousness would feel like in itself without a body or a brain? Could it still see, hear? Or would it be in some kind of sublime state where it just experiences itself? Does consciousness need a body for diverse experiences? Or can it have diverse experiences without a body?
@@monsterhuntervideos4446 : Who knows!
Is consciousness same as soul?
Doesn't this say that time and energy needs to exist for consciousness? Since it cant in a "picture" (no time)
The brain is not a singular. It is a collective. And while each unit (not conscious) individually performs binary / discontinuous operations as you show here, the billion-celled collective operates continuously forming a distribution curve of activity. As long as the average activity remains above a certain threshold, an experience of continuous consciousness could be arising out of it.
But in a way this probably also means that consciousness is not located inside any specific brain cell - but is non-localized as a generalized process spread across the brain, which is sampled and processed intermittently by different brain cells.
No , think twice , that's not even proved , you sound like those mad religious people
@@juiceer3320 And you sound immature and poorly educated, going by the glaringly uninformed conclusion you jumped to.
Just like u want to say that when a car races it did not move actually in the "now" but there are certain aspect to this body which is connected through time and again boundations of certain laws
Time only cannot exist where there is space if there is movement through physicality time is involved
I think your argument is quite easy to refute.
It is can be taken as read that memory is one aspect of conscious awareness. Memory is required in order to sense the passing of time. Therefore consciousness requires time in order to express itself.
You are reducing the argument to a single Planck unit of time and this negates in the passage of time from one moment to the next.
In your theory, you are thetefore excluding the possibility for consciousness to exist rather than explaining why it cannot be generated by the brain.
As it happens, I consider the brain to be a transducer that processes a nonlocal grand unified field of consciousness rather than generating it - but that’s another story. 🤔
Brilliant reasoning with so many implications for example there’s no time in the present moment, and For generating anything you need time. If the brain has no time how could it generate consciousness? Also perception, we are always perceiving some thing that is already dead or gone. However I have a question what do you mean by the brain is frozen? Thanks!
Take a moment as a 'trillionth' of a second. In that moment, nearly nothing has happened - like the brain is frozen.
You're assuming a presentist picture of the universe in which all that exists (formally all that which bears truth value) is within the sliding infinitesimally small (not infinitely small by the way) present moment. That's the A-series of time, and it's pretty widely thought of as incoherent. The better theory is the B-series or the eternalist picture on which the universe is a massive region of four-dimensional spacetime which features the past, present, and future existing simultaneously, despite our illusion of temporal passage. Presentism is wrong because it means that any given moment fundamentally is past and present and future, or, in other words, past and not past (for example) and that's internally contradictory. Eternalism is right because there's no other way to account for variation across time and it is presumed by contemporary physics; if it's not true than neither is science most likely.
You have not got my picture - like 80% of the people commenting here. All I can say is watch it again.
Good, I think you agree with the video. Time independent ideas exist, such as illusion of temporal passage. Our hard problem is that contemporary physicists assume their brain is observing their physics experiments, even though their own contemporary science doesn't allow that assumption.
hmmm I can't agree totally nor disagree totally. your logic seems valid to me, but I feel there's something else involved too.
of course it's a movie, but if you've seen Lucy, there is a scene there with a car moving and when the time stops the car dissapears. we live in a space-time continuum and therefore everything moves... in time. talking about what happens when the time is frozen is not practical as far as I see it. because time just flows. in case it really flows. physics itself as we know it is not possible in a frozen time frame (or is it?) so consciousness matters even less from this perspective.
Can someone explain this more simple for me I don’t understand he says time what we are experiencing is exactly right now and that’s infinitely small until time stops and if time stops that cannot be generating consciousness if time stopped we would stop he lost me and I believe in God and I believe in dualism so if he has an argument for dualism I want to understand it
You logic is correct, but all your assumptions are unproven.
What about the relationship between consciousness and instinct or is it the same?
Can this not be applied to any process? How can any series of linked events unfold if there is only here and now? How can there be any causality at all? How, indeed, can the computation on your example take place?
Do you deny that processes exist? If you don’t, then you need to show that consciousness is not a process.
A process takes action in time , consciousness is not , it is time itself
@@juiceer3320 , I highly doubt that. Humans are slooow, we take a lot of time to perceive, analyze, and conclude.
You have become confused in some way.
The reason for your confusion is that you (like most people)
are thinking about time as though it were an objective reality
when in fact time is a concept only.
Indeed there is no past or future but
neither is there a present.
What exists is matter and its relative movements and
these existents are of radically different kinds.
As the philosophers say,
movement 'supervenes' on matter which means,
if there is no matter then there can be no movement.
Thoughts (which are all representations) exist in the encoded form of
neural discharge timing patterned processes and
processes supervene on matter because
processes are simply collectivities of the movements
of tiny bits of matter.
It might take a little time
to overcome a lifetime of being programmed
to believe 'time' to be an objective actuality
when it is in fact a concept only.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL I am not confused. Abstract intellectuals never seem to get the simple picture I am communicating.
If you wanted to define time, in the abstract, you could only refer to it as the apparrent displacement ratio between two presumed to be continuously moving objects, that are in constant motion.
@@buildingutopia7617 'Time' is not the movement of objects relative to each other (or the ratio of distances objects cover).
Time is the concept we use to think about objects and their relative movements.
Thus there is no future, present or past and no trillionths of a second.
There are only objects moving relative to each other.
Self evidently, movement supervenes on matter,
i.e. no matter, no movement.
Being conscious arises from movement in the form of processes
(which are nought but the movements of collectivities of tiny objects).
Thoughts are representations accomplished by neural discharge timing patterned processes and
it is from thoughts that selfs and being conscious are constructed.
This is all perfectly clear to me probably because it's been many years
since learning/discovering that time and selfs are abstract entities and
not objective actualities.
(I am a tad lazy so please bracket my assertions with
appropriate doubt, maybe, seems very likely, hypothetically speaking, etc).
I'm not following your logic, but I do want to. Watching this, it seems like, for any given process, that for any snippet of time it looks like nothing is happening at all. It looks frozen. As a pactical matter, we know otherwise, that the process is happening. We only know this by looking at it as a whole. So, if I'm missing the point of your demonstration, please enlighten me. I would very much like to understand.👍
Hi, All I can do is refer you to look at some of my comments in the comments section. I know it can be hard to visualise - and hard to describe.
@@buildingutopia7617 I will look, thank you. I'm missing something, obviously, but I do want to understand your argument.
A computer can not be conscious therefore can not read or comput inter consciousness but is learning that’s for sure.
I think ,If brain is frozen, how other processes are happening, for every other processes (brain process)there should be a flow or motion.for a very minute time, there should be a minute motion(or change)also, the flow or motion (or change)can't be zero for the small time interval, this is my opinion. For a '0' change in time(∆t=0) the change can be '0' (∆x=0), but for a 0.00000000000000000000000001, time interval, the change can be also ,0000000000000...x . Because there is a speed( for information processing).
We know v∆t=∆x
;v can be anything a constant
; put ∆t=some small value ( not zero)
Love this.
You are confused. If the brain was one neuron, you have a point. The brain is immensely more complex having 86 to 100 billion neurons, hundreds of trillions of connections, 100s of billions of glial cells and more and more. Examine how the brain process sound waves and light photons. If you decomposed an automobile as you have done down to an atom, then you might say that is no way the automobile can run. But with the proper organization of the components into functional subsystems and arranged in just the correct way, then the automobile starts up and begins running until it runs out of fuel or a part fails.
And how many electrons are firing within one thousand trillionth of a second?
@@buildingutopia7617 Electrons do not fire.
“I think, therefore I am” means “I think, therefore I exist” but does not mean “I think, therefore I am aware”, proving that a mechanical or biological brain autonomously constructing “I” within its thoughts does not make it aware!
"I experience therefore I am" is what should have been said. A computer arguable "thinks", but as far as we know it certainly "isn't".
@@buildingutopia7617 I agree. A computer could “think” in true statements and then output the true statement “I think, therefore I am” but not be aware. So, since thinking doesn’t create awareness for the computer, then thinking about thinking must be what creates the conscious experience as we read “I think, therefore I am”. And, as you say, the process of referring to your own thoughts (thinking about thinking) cannot occur in an instant, but takes time.
All you need to prove now is that an "I" devoid of awareness is actually capable of thinking. I think you'll find that as soon as you define more precisely all these terms that the original assertion is self-defeating.
@@CofradeArrepentido A robot animal could achieve the benchmark “I think, therefore I am” by learning to respond to its name, meaning that, as it draws its knowledge and information from its environment and previous 'experience' the audio of a word its microphone hears often (its name) correlates well with a nearby animal shape (the robot itself). So, the robot did not learn to hear (actually experience) its name, but only learn to respond to it.
@@straightedgerc Sure, but quite a bit more is involved in generating an "I" capable of truly subjective experience, an X capable of speaking intelligently in "first person" will not be necessarily endowed with a first person perspective.
That's a nice argument. I have to think about it. Thanks
I don't get it. The brain isn't just a long series of single computations -- at every given time there are multiple computations. Why must consciousness in a materialistic worldview be consist out of single computations? Isn't it more pluasible that consciousness is a certain kind of interactions between neurons (multiple regions of the brain in the same time? I think there must at least some certain level of neuronal activity for consciousness (think about deep sleep, in this kind of level of neuronal activity there isn't a strong kind of consciousness). Please explain further why this video shows that the brain can not produce Consciousness.
In one trillion, trillionth of a second all that's happening is a few atoms bumping into each other. So in than trillion, trillionth of a second there is no way a consciousness can be formed. Every point of time is just a trillion, trillionth of a second. One after the next. The past does not add into the present - it only shapes it.
That's the best I can do.
@@buildingutopia7617 Why do you assert that consciousness must be "formed" during such a small unit of time? Using your same logic, nothing meaningful happens at that small of a scale - everything appears pretty much motionless. Replace the word "consciousness" in your sentence, with something else that we know is physical; let's use "video". "In a trillion, trillionth of a second, there is no way video can be formed." But video can be formed. It just takes longer than a trillion trillionth of a second to accomplish. The same is likely true for consciousness.
The Plank time is the smallest unit of time we can meaningfully define; anything smaller and things just don't make sense any longer. All this aside, you haven't explained why you assert why consciousness "must be" formed at the smallest time scale.
If consciousness is an emergent property of the brain (which is the position I currently hold), it necessarily takes time to process. What we experience as the present moment, is a representation of the physical world, as it was, some time in the very recent past. The visual data your eyes take in are some 80ms old by the time you experience it. Sounds are even older, since they propagate slower. So, the reality is, your "present moment" is your brain's best estimation of what has physically occurred - presented a constant stream of various stimuli, all stitched together to form this experience.
A blind person has a totally different experience than a sighted person. A deaf person has a different experience than someone who can hear. But everyone exists in the same physical reality. What senses you have and what your brain is capable of processing, determines your experience. And it doesn't happen instantaneously - everything your senses bring in, are to some extent, delayed and out of sync with whatever caused them to happen. Your brain utilizes a kind of memory to hold and process signals; it uses a different kind of memory to hold impressions of what has happened in the distant past (like memories of your 5th birthday). It's wildly imperfect and inaccurate too - We know that memories warp and change with age. Yet, without memory, we would have no way to experience anything. All the stimuli that is picked up by your eyes, ears, nose and nerve endings would be largely useless if the brain didn't have a way of holding them to process them and stitch them together to form this conscious experience. But try and notice how long the "present moment" lasts. It's hard to quantify; it's very fleeting - yet, it is constantly being updated. There is no real "moment", as what we experience is a series of different moments, all presented together, and constantly replaced.
@@ryandinan I get you - but you don't get me. You need to watch it again.
This involves the assumption that we completely understand and can identify truthfully how a brain functions, can u link anything in reference to that?
It doesn't. It assumes only that the brain is matter in motion (the definition of energy, for the record) which is all that needs to be assumed for my argument.
@@buildingutopia7617 how do u assume it is, and my concern is regarding ur comparison of it with computation? I just dont understand the context of ur kmowledge of brain functions which i why if u could link something, it would be great
Absolutely brilliant !!
Nice of you to say :)
@@buildingutopia7617 🙏👍
Disproved by; you used words... that doesn’t represent consciousness. Words are sound... and memory (of sound) isn’t consciousness but the opposite.
You have to be in the state of no memory or recollection to be conscious but it’s unknown how you demonstrate it.
However we’re conscious enough to recollect memory. So proof via memory and 2 people’s acknowledgement of the same thing suggests consciousness is genuine but both must be conscious to share.
Rather the question is how do you prove loyalty to share the same memory? Again it’s unknown and has flawed circumstances. What if the argument transformed to - just remembering if someone said the same thing back? But then you can debunk solipsism as a sole person by reflecting on what you see and being unable to alter it.
But then you move onto... what if we’re stuck to something else’s control? Again it’s unknown... because you can’t alter anything doesn’t imply something else is in control.
This then leads to whether the self is in control for asking the unknown... again it’s unknown.
There’s a trace of “history” that isn’t “memory” but simply consciousness. These were processes the brain made by itself because it detected what’s unknown.
Memory is something material - it’s what we like or dislike... we tend to stick to what we like because it makes our brain feel good and we tend to remember what we dislike to avoid it happening again or any similar situation.
I'm trying to grasp your argument but I find it escaping me every single time. How can our brain be frozen as you say if its actually still working, even in that very short moment of time, the neuros are still firing, there is brain activity etc you cant say that it stops working in the present
Hi,
In 0.0000000000000000000001 of a second, the brain is *almost* frozen in terms of activity, inside that point of time. Yet, If the brain cannot achieve a conscious state within that tiny piece of time, then it cannot achieve a conscious state *at all*. Because, all time is only one tiny piece of time, after the next. I know this can be hard to visualise. That's the best I can do.
@@buildingutopia7617 what do you mean the brain cnnot achieve conscious state within that tiny piece of time, what would stop it
@@buildingutopia7617 if the brain can process our thoughts, filter informations from the senses etc. it could theoritcally also create consciousness even if that would be in a very small chunk of time
@@Hunter-wx7td How can it process all that info that fast? How can it record the non existent past and make an experience in the presence if it's processes are frozen?
@@kristheobserver well it records present and stores it and this present then becomes the past. I still dont understand how can brain be frozen even in a tiny bit of moment, if it was indeed frozen how could it function with regards to the environment around us?
But for that you have to say time is discrete but its continuous.
Oh man wow you are saying that how does brain knows that it is going to receive a sound wave next millisecond and it produces consciousness that instant but how does it knows that next instant it is going to receive a wave
Consciousness is not a thing, its effect for you to understand it its like car on road and the road is time
You can slow down the car or otherwise of course
Nice work!
Isn't consciousness simply the effect of your brain constantly thinking, memorizing etc?
How does the brain think?
Who thinks?
@@adamburling9551 How it works exactly is not completely clear but we understand it better and better. But that we think with our brain we do know. Who think? At least animals with brains.
@@bustinjieber2673 Where are thoughts and information stored inside the brain? Isn't trying to find information In the brain, just like opening up a transistor radio and trying to find the little people playing their instruments and creating music?
The brain is receiving information outside and is relaying it to consciousness.
How do you know that you don't know anything at all, or that you've simply forgotten about It? Because in a single moment there is nothing, you know nothing, unless it's retrieved. Personally hold to the belief that information and consciousness exist at the same place at the same time, everywhere outside and inside of the body, but certainly not subject to the brain.
@@adamburling9551 Right, the flow of single moments forms a movie about us, a movie showing us retrieving information relevant to the movie. If the movie stopped, so would our awareness of it, and so therefore would we.
Logical but ignores re-entrant or feedback loops which are biological.
Watch it again.
"re-entrant or feedback" all occur to the Self in the present instant, and so are addressed in the video correctly.
@@straightedgerc Exactly.
Sir Does consciousness souls exists ?