This is real wisdom, maybe the highest wisdom about what life is. But it’s important to understand that, like with human development, we do this also as children. Then with a lot of living, or therapy, 😊 we overcome those earlier patterns we cling to like pieces of an invisible egg shell that used to serve us but now is in the way. All of reality may be this kind of conceptual egg. This to me is the spirit of creation behind everything. This is a very key 🔑 piece of wisdom. Thanks for highlighting this ❤️🔥🚀
We know absolutely nothing about Consciousness and I don’t think we ever will, it’s so refreshing to hear someone say “ I don’t know” rather than pretending they do
Another idea to contemplate: The brain doesn't create consciousness, the consciousness creates the brain. Inside consciousness, everything unfolds. It is the primal, most foundational aspect, and anything that we can perceive through our senses (objects/forms) is happening within and against this background of consciousness/formlessness. Consciousness is like a massive infinite, unlimited and absolutely creative mind that "thinks up" all of reality, and you are a coordinate of that consciousness, having your unique perspective of the reality as it manifested within your field.
Wonderful interview. I can't help but wonder if Jaron's target audience for this interview was PhD scientists instead of the majority of us laymans longing to learn from his professional experience. Although his honesty was striking, I wished he had shared his deeper personal "leanings" on the topic as they would be very credible from someone with his experience and achievements. Thank you for the videos.
i kinda think he hit his target audience---he is doing nothing more than philosophising which is incapable of ever understanding consciousness. We need hard science and he//they can talk 'dualisms' and tightropes, but this discussion kinda went NOwhere
I do thinking "leanings" are interesting and worthy of discussion, but I think he sets an excellent basis for such discussion. It does seem unsatisfying to simply end with, "I don't know." But I think there's ample room for, "I don't know, but..." And I don't think it would be an effective way to launch a crusade. The world is full of people only too willing to tell us "how it is." Hooray for the ones content to reflect on how it might be.
I really liked this. Einstein said that the most important decision a person can make is to decide if we live in a benevolent or hostile world. Or something like that (paraphrasing). The more I live the more I realize that. Here’s an example from my new book: A squirrel runs to a tree when I walk by. We think “wow it’s a hostile world, where small animals run to trees because death lurks around every corner.” But there’s another way to view it. A squirrel is an aspect of me, of my own mind. It runs to a tree in the presence of a human, not a bird, not a bug, because they cannot learn from that action. They cannot remember something by it. What does the tree symbolize? What does the squirrel? Is the universe talking to me using the mechanism of life? And then I go on to explain what the mechanism of evolution is constructed to say, how the mind of reality is a SETI program which can only speak through forms over vast expanses of time. So yeah the point here is that what he says is true. We cannot close off the universe to the new. To close off the explanation at the functional level is to miss the message and the meaning. To miss the journey for a chimerical goal which isn’t even the point. I want to be the fuel of the human rocket 🚀 for humanity to reach the next level. And they will have to keep moving and growing to do so. That means keeping the loop of thought open. To allow higher patterns to the weave. To use what we have learned to emerge into new realms. An egg was never meant to stay in the loop of a nest, but to develop there for a time, only to emerge into the sky. 🕊🌈
In the observation of conscious experience there is no dualistic division. Division occurs from analysis/thought and categoriezes consciousness different from empirical evidence because of incomplete knowledge but it doesn't mean there is an actual division. Division only comes about as a result of concluded thought. The observer is the observed -J Krishnamurti
Frequent recent opinions in the discussion about the essence of consciousness refer to phenomena occurring outside (above) the brain. Usually an unresolved so-called “hard problem” is mentioned. It is true that the experience of qualia is difficult to explain by processes of the described neural networks. So I believe that an effective theory of consciousness should be based on the integration of several known theories of consciousness. In particular, the theory of neural circuits realizing imagery should be integrated with the "conscious electromagnetic information field theory (cemi)". One of the theories included in an effective explanation of the essence of consciousness should also be one of the theories linking the experience of qualia with the physics (fine structure) of the Universe. We published recently an article [ Neural Circuits, Microtubule Processing, Brain's Electromagnetic Field - Components of Self-Awareness. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 984. ] which shows how to integrate the explanations of the essential components of consciousness.
There’s a valid sense in which the empirical world can also be thought of as derivative, since we never actually get down to a reality, which has been cleared of all the obfuscation that comes from interpretation - from the direct experience we have of our own immediate consciousness…. We impute the modes of our own computation into everything we observe - including the notion we have of an embedded physical reality that is performing the computation. I’m not saying that physical reality doesn’t exist, but it’s disingenuous to make the empirical leap of assumption that reduces consciousness to the physical when consciousness is the only means we have for identifying or considering the physical at all. In that sense, consciousness is an unavoidable fact. We make a critical abstraction of both consciousness and physical reality when we artificially peel them out of our native situation to contemplate them in isolation… That’s not to say we shouldn’t, or that it isn’t an approach that will shed light on it, but we need to be honest about how this step potentially modifies the questions we ask about it. We shouldn’t fail to examine the way our assumptions are imputed into the phenomenon we’re attempting to interpret.
Nicely stated. I never fail to be amazed that quite brilliant people believe that our experience is a brain-based simulation, full stop, AND therefore that somehow that very brain simulates itself, as itself, as the source of itself in the simulation. Me no comprehendo.
Which is the default position for science. Somethings we don't know, we will work on it to find out. Build the best model based on data and logic so far. Revise if contrary data is presented. Keep being fascinated and curios and continue to work on it. IMO the humble approach. Opposite of we-know-it-all-and-here-it-is-and-this-is-the-only-way attitude of religions.
Been listening to Kastrup a lot recently and he makes a very strong argument for consciousness and it being the source of everything. From a very layman perspective, it looks like there is a lot of tiptoeing around the subject . Almost as if people recognize the phenomenon exists without wanting to admit its existence.
I feel like the Universe takes pleasure in the growth of our consciousness! Our understanding of all that is around us and our need to sustain within it, feeds the universe! As if, our existence and interaction with it is the purpose of our consciousness!
I very much appreciate your perspective on this and mine is quite similar. I do believe that as individual consciousnesses we can learn so much more about things by looking inward as opposed to outward. That all of the answers we seek about anything can be found there. I also feel that God and the universe are one and the same and that each individual consciousness within it is a fragment of his own. That collectively we are His way of looking inside for answers. That if you add up the collective perspectives and knowledge of every conscious mind, you will have His mind. Then you will know all supremely and only then have complete understanding of existence.
Many times in history we thought we knew everything. Newtonian Mechanics seemed to explain it all until Einstein's Relativity. Then Quantum Theory messed it up again. Surely, physics is now mature enough to know that there are always things that we do not know. That's what makes it so exciting.
always there is more--my simple studio apt always yields more even if nothing from the outside--time yields change even with no input---the beauty of science is the understanding of the change--even directing Change.
@Sky Gardener your original statement about "swarms" ----i would think physics is the only way to investigate 'swarm' action//behavior---all aspects of science are needed to understand any of this, and the base of all of that is physics imho---what else? (even basic chemistry, is based or driven by physics>>>"the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, distinguished from that of chemistry and biology, includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms."
@Sky Gardener i get the feeling you are way 'smarter' than me----but i am also thinking you are overthinking this question of consciousness---of course there are many sub factors---math, chem, etc---but only the understanding of mass//energy and the forces can explain what consciousness//awareness is. The brain is flesh and blood---nerves and their workings is mostly chemistry, but the chem is based in physics (The math guy Roger Penrose, proposes that nerve structure has micro tubules and within the tubules structure there is quantum potential that allows for biological computing---the study of all that comes under the main heading of physics)---right?
@Sky Gardener you say " When you have such a rich structure with billions of neurons you don't need any magic to happen with individual neurons. " ahhhh, but you see, you do need that in order to understand where consciousness resides and how it is manifested----some animals have dense neuronal structure, yet they don't even recognize themselves in a mirror------know that each neuron contains the full compliment of genetic material---on//off gene mechanisms is part of the workings of neuron cells---the dynamics of that is hugely complicated and how that works can only be thoroughly investigated by using physics. Even the coiling of the genetic material so that it fits inside the cell, is based on physical forces (put a rubber band between 2 index fingers and stretch it out and spin index fingers and then bring the fingers closer together---the rubbe band folds and coils upon itself---that is PHYSICS----and just as the rubber band looks and acts differently, so do genes because of the physical dynamics of each gene being in different proximity to each other than if in a straight line
What I am absorbing from your conversations is that existence is considerably stranger than we think it is. I just am not buying that there is a theory of "everything". The word everything shows our ignorance. Its arm waving. What is everything in a bottomless pit? I hope we can learn a bit more about our existence, but I don't think we fill "figure it out".
I would suggest you to read David Deutsch's Fabric of Reality to at least to see that 'figuring it out ' may be theoretically possible, even if that won't change your mind.
we would like to figure it all out and i agree that even if possible, it is out of reach by our current brain state of evolution. But, that does not mean we should not work bit by tiny bit to uncover things---sad that time is limmited for all of us and we will only see a tiny bit of this revealing in our lifetime---nature will continue, and hopefully our seed will spread off earth and give our human consciousness time to continue trying to figure it all out.
There is a mysterious aura that I guess isn't detectable by our instruments yet, but I was alone with my dying mother at night in hospice when I felt a stillness come over the room. Curious I checked mom's pulse and she had just passed. That unusual atmosphere lasted a couple minutes and was sorta reassuring.
I once had a precognition. The WEIRDEST thing that ever happened to me. I did some research on it later and bumped into a forum where others were claiming they had one also. Most of the stories sounded SILLY to me. But this ONE PERSON out of all them explained their story and the DETAILS they gave about their experience were EXACTLY like what I went through. Even what they thought what triggered their precognition was the exact same thing as mine. I put my arm through my shirt sleeve and WHAM. It hit me. The person in the forum said "It felt like my sitting on that chair is what triggered it". And I was like YEAH!!! LIKE MY HAND THROUGH MY SLEEVE! Felt like that is what triggered mine also. Long story short??? That event let me know there is something else BEYOND this. And psychic abilities are REAL. At least precognitions are. NO SCIENTIST CANT TELL ME OTHERWISE. PERIOD!!! I know what I experienced. There is something bigger than what we perceive. So when you say you felt the stillness of your mother's spirit passing into the spiritual realm? I BELIEVE YOU! Your mother may no longer be with us........ BUT SHE ISN'T GONE. THERE IS .... SOMETHING BEYOND THIS PLACE. I BELIEVE YOU.
@@bogtrotter5110 You cant tell me that I am being dishonest until you know exactly what I experienced. Your disbelief doesn't mean I'm being dishonest. When YOU have a precognition? THEN you tell me if I know what I'm talking about or not.
The question is about fact. Is there a fact that is universal? Is there a fact that is universally corroborateable? In other words is corroboration universally possible or does there exist a non-corroborateable realm that cannot even be inferred? We can state what is and from that infer what is not. Is our inferentiability of what is not controlled and limited by what is; or is our inferentiability controlled by what is not corroborateable?
I understand why Lanier holds the mental to be irreducible, but I'm not seeing why the physical must also be irreducible. One can believe the physical is real without holding it is of a different substance or property than the mental.
The mental is not reducible - yet. We've only had neuroscience for about 50 years and we haven't even defined consciousness sufficiently to talk about yet. He's wrong.
@@havenbastion That's inaccurate: the scientific study of the nervous system increased significantly during the second half of the twentieth century, but that doesn't mean it's only been around since the second half of the twentieth century. The earliest study of the nervous system dates to ancient Egypt around 1700 BC and this study continued through the scientific revolution. So physicalists trying to reduce mental states to brain states have had more than enough time and ultimately time is irrelevant when it comes to resolving a contradiction. No amount of time is going to make a married bachelor coherent, and likewise no amount of time will make a reduction of mental states to brain states coherent either. A common definition for consciousness comes from Thomas Nagel, though it originated with Timothy Sprigge: "a being is conscious just if there is “something that it is like” to be that creature, i.e., some subjective way the world seems or appears from the creature's mental or experiential point of view. In Nagel's example, bats are conscious because there is something that it is like for a bat to experience its world through its echo-locatory senses, even though we humans from our human point of view can not emphatically understand what such a mode of consciousness is like from the bat's own point of view." Source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#CreCon
I think it's a huge leap to go from accepting our ignorance to accepting dualism. Dualism doesn't help to explain anything. Either we're asking "How does consciousness arise from material reality?" or "How does material reality interact with this other thing that's separate from it?" I think introducing a whole other reality into the question is less simple and less honest.
Thank you very much for the information.According to the basic neuroscience the source of conciousness resides in thereicular activating system and there are feeling systems in the brain. Even for time brain runs a separate program by means of hippocampus. The Joys , the sorrows , the feelings all emanate from the material brain. There is no free will .Our thoughts are the result of activity of ensembles of neurons and the networks. They all disappear with the death of the material brain .
yes! we need to continue studying the brain with theory leading to experiment---it is there in real life and dead life---we are getting so good at it and the with the help of modern tech and computers, we shall learn more and more. Knowledge always moves foreward and only time is an obstacle. We will learn as learning allows us. All good as the youth know
Why would a toothbrush need to be conscious of anything? If it doesn't need to be conscious of anything, then why would it be? I think Occam's razor would say, it isn't conscious.
All "what is the nature of?" questions are semantic; how do we use the word? The nature of consciousness is that it refers to our experience. The kind of thing consciousness would be if it were a universal attribute or possible in a non-biological substrate, is entirely different and unrelated to our experience and would require it's own word.
@@havenbastion I agree, metaphysics are all BS. "The kind of thing consciousness would be... would require it's own word." I made that very same point the other day. I seem to be having this discussion a lot lately. Cheers!
I agree that the reality of consciousness must be acknowledged by science, and cannot be explained by materialistic reductionism. However, I don't see how dualism can be a better answer. Dualism solves the "hard problem of consciousness" by proclaiming that consciousness cannot be an emergent property of the brain since there is a categorical difference between the two phenomenon. But dualism cannot explain how the two interact. In other words, we know that there are at least brain correlates associated with conscious states. No one denies this; i.e. if you get kicked in the head by a horse or have a stroke, the resultant brain damage will affect the function of your conscious mind. So just like the materialist cannot explain how the mind emerges from the brain, the dualist likewise cannot explain how the brain/mind interface with each other. To my way of thinking, the problems are one and the same.
But I'm certain we will never know in this life time. I think the ultimate goal is to just live. Stop trying to figure everything out. The fact that life in the 1800's and prior was simple because of just living and knowing that things happen weather by design or by choice and so you deal with it or you give up.
@You are correct But My (totally unscientific) speculation is that mental phenomena represents an aspect of reality that will never be explained in terms of modern physics in its current model. In other words, I think there will someday be a significant restructure of our scientific understanding of the world which leans more towards philosophical idealism and less towards materialistic reductionism.
@You are correct But I never said it wasn't interesting but if you live your life trying to figure everything out then you are taking your life and throwing it away because you aren't actually living, you are just existing in a world that will never be sorted out.
I think the problem of explaining how consciousness and the brain interact is made more difficult by subtly assuming consciousness must be orchestrated by the brain, because consciousness is only ever considered as a total function. If there is a deeper relationship between consciousness and physical reality, we should consider consciousness at the level of a brain to be an emergence that reflects the way more foundational “modalities” of consciousness assemble themselves into higher forms of it. I’ve come to like the notion that consciousness is a vector space through which entities become encounterable to one another. Vector bundles compose a primordial orientation between “entities” like atoms and coordinate them into complexes of dynamic correspondence. We wouldn’t consider consciousness an emergence from the brain as a physical entity, but an emergence from the network of more basic consciousness-vectors that correspond to the brain. This wouldn’t ostensibly remove consciousness from the domain of physics, but it would meaningfully recognize the difference between discussing consciousness as an objective fact and being unavoidably immersed in a subjective experience, which includes consciousness in every facet of its function.
What an absolutely refreshing and honest view: (paraphrasing) “The world *seems* dualistic, consciousness and matter *seem* of a fundamentally different nature, and *I don’t know* how to put them together *nor do I see* that anyone else has done it either.” Fantastic, I wish more of us could be so honest. Notice how the honesty is almost too much for the interviewer: (paraphrasing) “But I want to accept it if reality is terrible.” Ha, it’s okay brother! But your priors are showing!
@@kayakeb I really liked when he said that too. Hardly anyone does that, everybody feels like they have to take this or that position, and he just said what he sees, not what he'd like to think.
Awareness of internal and external existence, awareness of awareness but I think that`s the first of four states of consciousness, I think the other three are, dream filled sleep, deep sleep and beyond deep sleep, but I usually have a cup of mushroom tea before thinking about consciousness
Isn’t that the observable and measurable things can cause only observable and measurable things? On every level? There’s no thing in a “material” world that on every level, no matter how small and detailed, that the other thing from the same “material” world cannot observed (although we might not yet discover the tool or the way to do that). Conscience can’t be observed or measured therefore I don’t know how can it be reduced to the observable and measurable causation.
Have you interviewed Michael S. Gazzaniga on the consciousness issue? If yes, please send me the link to this episode. If no, It would be really great to document Gazzaniga's view on consciousness
My hunch is that a great many questions will be answered if we take seriously the possibility of DNA entanglement (nonlocality). Has implications for mind-body problem, entropy, etc. Everybody, including Hameroff/Penrose, writes it off because of decoherence in "warm, wet environments". But what if decoherence is actually REcoherence. This needs to be unpacked. But we're missing vital clues by writing off DNA entanglement. Hameroff/Penrose (ORCH-OR) inserts microtubules in its place, but what if this is a mistake?
according to hameroff microtubules are fact..they have been proven to exist by science and exist within the brain therefore his theory is quite possible..
@@Dion_Mustard of course microtubules are fact and they exist. They are part of the cytoskeleton of every eukaryotic cell. Indeed, Hameroff/Penrose's conjecture is not unreasonable, on the face of it. What I have a problem with is their dismissal of the possibility of DNA entanglement because of decoherence. There's the question of recoherence, and I believe we're missing a possible golden opportunity by not exploring it further.
How can anyone say that we don't know if there is dualism? Dualism means that there is a difference between the external and the internal. If somebody were to ask you, " tell me something about yourself "? If you in turn were to take a syringe and extract some chemicals from your body and say " study these chemicals under a microscope and that will tell you what I am like as a person" the person asking you to tell him or her something about yourself would probably think you are crazy for thinking that examing chemicals from your body would give them information about you as a person.
Consciousness is not only Ultimate, Consciousness is Eternal, Life and Consciousness is two sides of the same nameless 'Eternal something that exists' life and consciousness cant be created, consciousness, can 'only' be re-newed and developed. The Basic-Structure of Consciousness, is very simple, mirror'ed in the Rainbow and our Body-structure, and partly in the devices as can do mental functions.
@@thereligionofrationality8257 That was a good comeback to KJ my friend. I would quibble with your original point however. We are middle sized creatures evolved to live in middle sized world. We perceive our level of reality intuitively. When you get to the very big or the very small, then I agree that we are not seeing what we think we are seeing at all.
The world we experience is a filtered version of reality, not a separate thing. Specifically, we have biological, cultural/subconscious, and psychology/personality filters. The fact that we understand a limited version of Actuality does not indicate it's an illusion or a distinct reality.
Adjusting to the darkness of reality isn't easy: you got that 100% right! 😉. The confusion is deep and the pain fierce. We live in a confusing and painful world of experiences and it's seems as if we're the pawns in a cosmic waterboarding game: sometimes we can breathe, sometimes we can't. I'm tired of it.
When you know that our planet earth is a dot, you'd try to find out which God created all of the universe 🤷♀️and why...you will have a different perspective on all things, all beings and all gods:)
Done ? Which pocket universe do we live in and can we tunnel over to a different universe and what the Laws of Physics will be there for if it is even so it would be unlikely many universes would support having even material but slightly different enough for you to no longer exist once there..... If.....it is more likely just a mathematical equation for this and that on a kinda mother nature self created computer program or what is the word self evident... creates itself ...
If anyone believe in dualism and at same time consciousness can be reduced to materialism (or only an emergence from the physical matter) then he/she should start to derive a new physics equation (s) that includes the consciousness parameter because consciousness is absent in today's physics equation(or current physics is fundamentally invalid/wrong).
Because the existence of consciousness in nature is ontologically undeniable ... effectively whether one believes in monism( - physicalism or metaphysicalism) or dualism... the consciousness parameter in one way or another should appear in a complete physics equation to represent the universal reality. ( Although it is working the current physics equation obviously is either fundamentally either insufficient or inadequate)..
Why do we start with either.. we must set the hypothesises and as much as we might have fate in on or the other.. we must acknowledge that we don’t have the fate position confirmed by the hypothesis yet. My fate position is when I look around and examine my feelings I honestly can’t except it from my physical being so I have no reason to believe that traditional dualism is true.
Does it matter no in fact not .. my feeling of wonder and being conscious will not change because the fact show that there is no real dualism or the opposite.. why should it.. but it will influence my opinion on other matters but the subjective feeling of me will still be there.
Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain (there is no mind/body problem). The conscious mind is clearly a sub-set of mind, and consciousness is clearly a momentary instance of awareness within that space.
Soul is in itself wholesome. Human body is designed with supremem intelligence. The shadow self which is also a matter influences and finally takes over the body. These particular phenomenon can make a person very unhappy as it's soul enslaving itself as it is cnvinced to be weaker and powerless. It is e separate entity that can overshadow the human consciousness which is directly connected always to supreme intelligence.
In my opinion, our universes naturally are operated by all possibilities of things. We just can’t use the Math and materials to find the the possibilities, unless we must be in consciousness with them first, then Math and materials will help to create and understand barriers between possibilities (statistics, measuring, limit….) and have more consciousness about things. Albert Einstein would not be able to create his theories without his consciousness. The consciousness is really most important thing, but where is coming from (brain, heart, free will…)? Two gator hunters just got a big gator. One of them said: “ The gator at least is 14 ft”. Other one replied it must be 15 ft. They use a scale for measuring the gator. It is 14.1 ft. The hunter guessed with number 14 yelled joyfully: “Math is beautiful and my consciousness is correct”😁
Since the existence of consciousness as much the material thing in nature are ontologically accepted by both monism( - physicalism or metaphysicalism) and dualism believers without(philosophical and scientific) proof and both are effectively recognized to have existed in information state in human living mind only (which of course can be only ideas or imaginations or illusions or hellucinations) the consciousness parameter, in one way or another, should appear in a complete physics equation if it is to represent the universal reality. (Although the current physics equation is working it is obviously either insufficient or inadequate if it is not valid to explain universal reality).
I do believe that Eastern TEACHINGS may be able to bring at something more to the table as our Buddhist scholar brought to ur attention with better focus at least for my uneducated but heart desire for great understanding for what I witnessed each moment of Life ,for it blow my mind ,so to speak
i am always amazed. cause and effect . everything has to fit that singular relationship, a very narrow path for truth seeking. imho truth is what is, even if a truth has no causal dependency. currently we just limit our understanding because the need for causal dependency..otherwise we have no idea how to understand thigs. replicability is hard under computational irreducibility. so why the heck is causal dependency even contemplated as under limit for our understanding of things? sort of how i think about it.
Materialism says nothing exist but matter but that is an observational statement, but is the observer ( self ) who makes that observational statement something material by nature? By observation science has determined that the atom is 99% empty space and they can make that determination because the atom is within the realm of objectivity, but how the observer becomes something that fits within the realm of objectivity? By it's own self-effusive nature and since truth can be defined as " that which is realized to be true " knowledge of the self's nature is exclusive to it's own self which makes " self " a reality that is self-exclusive and self-reliant. Since the self can only know it's own nature of being an eternal " in the now " reality of " stillness " by studying matter alone we can never know the nature of self. Your subjective reality is beyond anything matter can reveal so duality obviously exist.
The human universe: Was the cosmos made for us? For millennia, we humans have thought of ourselves as a pretty big deal. Then along came science and taught us how insignificant we are. Or so we thought Was the cosmos made for humans? Sam Chivers But maybe we were too hasty to write ourselves off. There is a sense in which we are still the centre of the universe. Science also teaches us that the laws of physics are ridiculously, almost unbelievably, “fine-tuned” for you and me. Take the electromagnetic force. It has a value that is perfectly set for getting stars to bind protons and neutron to create carbon - the building block of life as we know it. Or the strong nuclear force, which binds the insides of protons and neutrons. If it were even a tiny bit stronger, the whole world would be made of hydrogen; if it were weaker, there would be no hydrogen at all. In either case, life as we know it wouldn’t be possible. Even the amount of energy contained in empty space seems perfectly set to allow intelligent life to flourish. That’s not all. All told, about 12 parameters have been identified as being just right for life. Why is the universe so perfect? Most physicists now argue that in some sense, it could not have been otherwise. That reasoning has given rise to several different answers known as “anthropic principles”. One end of the spectrum puts us truly back in the centre. This extreme anthropic principle posits that the universe is so perfect that it must have been made for us, either by an intelligent creator or, more likely, because of some fundamental feature of the cosmos that drives it towards intelligent life. In his book The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, a cosmologist at Arizona State University, tentatively suggests the possibility that life could be a law of nature. He calls it the “life principle”, although he admits it is verging on the theological. Most physicists have no time for ideas like this. “To say that this is all for us? That is just completely bizarre,” says Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. Perhaps, then, it is the other way round: according to another formulation of the anthropic principle, the universe only exists because we do. We conjure it up with our consciousness. Some less mind-bending versions of the principle are also available. They try to explain why the universe would appear perfectly made for us, even if it isn’t. In a nutshell, this weak anthropic principle says that given that we are around to observe the universe, it simply has to allow for our existence. This is often taken to imply that there are other regions of the universe - or even other universes - where physical laws and constants are different. So asking why things are this way amounts to asking why we are in this region. In that case, the anthropic principle is merely pointing out that places that are hospitable to our kind of life are the only places we can possibly be. This line of reasoning has been bolstered by the possible existence of a multiverse, versions of which emerge from both quantum mechanics and standard cosmology. With lots of other universes, each with their own physical constants and laws, the mystery of our own fine-tuned universe evaporates. We can only be in one that is fine-tuned for carbon-based life. But even if this version of the anthropic principle explains fine-tuning, it still restores us to some of our former (self-appointed) glory by putting human observers firmly back into our description of the cosmos. “If you want to explain the universe that we see, the very fact that we are seeing it is part of that explanation,” says Davies. “It is a bit of a U-turn in the history of science that has been removing the observer from the picture altogether.”
The problem with exploring theology, is that truth is never a fact. You can explore on and on regarding topics that relate to things, but never conclude in a fact. So ultimately, what are you trying to prove? It's equitable to understanding how the universe is infinite. Our puny human minds are simply unable to grasp the concept.
“Dualism is the most honest manner of organizing your ignorance” How so exactly? Seems to me that this is just asserted out of thin air. We have the material/physical world and all the things we can explain are explained within this scope. And then we have some things that we have so far failed to explain. So is the most honest manner of organizing my ignorance to invent another realm of existence to fit this mold. It seems to me a bit like inventing sock eating goblins to explain where you missing socks went.
Agreed. If he's saying, "I don't know," then the more honest position would be to assume that there is nothing beyond the physical until presented with evidence to the contrary. Occam's Razor in full effect. This is a perfect example of Dawkin's Belief Scale properly applied to other domains of knowledge or belief. I don't know for sure so I live under the assumption that consciousness is not something "other" from my physical brain.
The sock eating goblins would be a part of the physical world. Inventing such hidden variables is exactly what he is not doing by remaining a dualist. He’s not inventing a false explanation, he’s just sticking to the facts he experiences: material world, and awareness of it. More, he doesn’t know. Nor do you!
@@markcounseling on the other hand I feel like pointing out that the sock eating goblins are more likely as an explanation for missing socks that a soul is for our consciousness since sock eating goblins are at least allowed withing the framework of understanding we call the physical world. Or to put it differently - if sock eating goblins were discovered tomorrow science would be more or less unchanged and after analyising a few DNA samples modern scientists would probably be able to account for how such creatires could have evolved. But if a metaphysical realmin which souls existed was discovered tomorrow we would more or less have to start physics over from scratch.
@@itsjustameme I agree, this is exactly why Descartes separated res cogitans from res extensa, which Galileo followed, because they needed a *simplified* framework in order to begin physical science. The problem is that that simplified framework does not, and never has begun, to explore much less explain res cogitans. It can only explain NCCs. Which is great, though strictly limited. That said, I don’t think that Jaron is positing the metaphysical realm assumed by Descartes. He’s trying to stay on the thin line between materialism and idealism, which is what impressed me. He’s not demanding that the world accord with a materialist belief system, nor is he specifying a spirit or soul realm. The only way to read what he said in that way is to hold the belief that it HAS to be materialism or fantasy/souls. That’s just materialist dogma. One thing is clear, the sharpest physicists we have working today don’t believe that space and time are fundamental. Physics is definitely going to change and we may be privileged to see it. But presently, Reality is a totally unsolved problem and all bets are off, best to stick to observables, which Jaron states clearly is what he is doing.
@Sky Gardener Perhaps we see it the same way. He seems to just present our naive or native view of the appearance of two very different realities, mind and matter. He doesn't make a case for it, he just points out that that this appearance is, as of yet, unexplained. Which is true.
@@Traderhood Wisdom does not come by chasing or attaining anything in particular in life but through experience of the true nature of your own existence by taking a moment to realize that everything in your experience is just you. If you need more explaining, you will have to experience it, as no words can explain to anyone as to what the true nature of reality is... it is the void that engulfs eternity and is truely boundless. Be blessed! PS: A Spore is an Enlightened Bacteria...
Does one want that truth even if it leads them to the God of the Bible? I would love to see more human hearts approach God with the same humility. I have been a Christian for 30 years and God continues to reveal layers about Himself which can only be revealed as I learn foundational truths about him. In our superficial attempts, it would seem that God is unfair and often extremely angry while extremely caring and other chapters. Many answers to these questions come over many many years of walking with God in humility. Unfortunately we are all rebels at heart and it’s difficult to lay down our arms.
0:05 "Accept the reality of consciousness"?? 0:07 It's an arguable point?? He doesn't see himself as a consciousness? 0:15 "Is it a product of the brain that somehow comes out?" 😂🤣😭 0:32 This man is hilarious! 😂🤣 0:43 "Experience consciousness"?? What does that mean? Your consciousness does the experiencing. Where is he existing outside his consciousness to 'experience consciousness'?? 1:38 ".. is to try to say something but not even a smidgeon more than you can really say.." 😂🤣😭 I'm dying! 1:41 "So you really can't say very much." "Well but this is important..." 😂🤣😭 THIS IS THE BEST COMEDY I'VE SEEN IN AGES! 1:54 "Dualism is impossible because there can't be anything other than the physical world.." What's he trying to say? 2:19 I don't know what they mean by 'dualism'. For us; 'dualistic view' is 'dualistic view of self'. 3:35 The Middle View. Avoiding the two extremes of 'inherently existent' and 'nihilism'. 4:22 Well no! If you trust SCIENCE and empirical evidence you're not gonna access The Middle View! Impossible! You CANNOT be TOLD what reality is AND see it for yourself. You cannot begin to see ultimate reality until you start to dismantle 'conventional reality'. 6:12 "Reduced to 100% explanation in the physical world"? Means what? I can't latch on to anything this man says. 6:54 The 'seat' of consciousness is not in the brain. It's at the heart centre. 8:37 "The world that we see through SCIENCE"?? Seriously? The consciousness sciences are sciences too you know! Just because the god SCIENCE doesn't recognise us doesn't mean that we don't exist! The god SCIENCE is a fascist!
It's more sad though when it has to be mentioned at the beginning that it's not objectively thoroughly recognized that it is true that consciousness exists. lol Like - there you go, be scared of those which do not take it as an objective fact. And... aka, the Hard Problem is already solved. He will be scared by the zombies. But some of these comments are pretty funny they make.
“Dualism” isn’t really well defined here, so, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “…… we can say that there is a mind-body problem because both consciousness and thought, broadly construed, seem very different from anything physical and there is no convincing consensus on how to build a satisfactorily unified picture of creatures possessed of both a mind and a body.” Everybody understands that, the basic difference between a rock you can kick and a rock you saw yesterday (i.e. a mental image). And therein lies the real problem. That’s how we think. That’s how our brains work. So for example: you are aware of an image of a rock. How do you know if it is outside your body, or in your mind? “Normally”, you just know and don’t even question it. That situation in itself is the fundmental basis of duality. In fact, everything we think is based on comparison - e..g. duality. If you think about something, whether it be the weather or consciousness, it has to be in dualistic / comparative terms. Oh sure, you say, what about Monism. Well that’’s in comparison to Dualism, isn’t it? You cannot express the concept of monism without inoking terms common to dualism or quadrism or whatever and contrasting them. You can be consciously aware without identifying things, but that’’s not monosim or dualism, it’s just awareness. Once you start thinking about what you see, you are comparing it against your memories, and hence you are invoking dualism. That’’s just the way it is.
You are presuming emotional attachment to top down thought process is a given , when its not ! its a creation made by man You are born bottom up , Then under the conditioning of dualism, an accountable "I" is created in your mind and top down dominance takes place We know that as an adult, that we can return to bottom up process and anyone who has returned to this state, always say they have no accountable "I" left in their mind So what has happened, what exactly is dualism The original state had no language no words You still lived , loved, felt all that we feel today, but there was nothing to read in your mind Language was developed, but the language had no individuality The tribal mind, thought, worked, together always, there was no separation Imagine from the day you are born to the day you die, you are surrounded by the same people forever The communication that took place amongst these humans can almost be seen in the best trained teams in life , not as good because its trained These humans stayed bottom up all their life as the dominate state This is because the "WE" was accountable And that "WE" included all life on Earth, every plant, insect, animal and mushroom , every bit of it "WE" There was no separation, the trees did not give you responsibility , they did not measure you , they did not try to separate you The only way a human can be made individually accountable is by other humans Here comes the word that creates the separation duality preaches Slavery Now you have an accountable "I" talking away to you in your mind My master says this, my master says that, I need to do this, I need to do that See this is the trick in the slave language we use now They separated the children, kill the adults, then teach the children via education to be accountable to the master This is dualism, the separation from the eternal "WE" They create the concept the idea of individuality , When its empirical that man is not separate from life, He is just another lump of biology all attached to each other Therefore the individual experience is an illusion and should be treated as such There is not 2 or 3, or 4 life forms on earth, There is just one The delusion that there is duality where man is separate. is why the people that teach that delusion are destroying all life they touch utter insanity And the message that there is a duality of man and nature was successfully argued against many many thousands of times That's why they have tanks and bombs Fucking slavers To clarify There is no individual to compare anything , The individual is an delusion that leads to insanity, I cant find him, I keep trying to hear him listen to him , the individual, But on examination and serious investigation there is nothing there, at all Just "WE" the opposite direction of the Spectrum to the "I" And I know which one is accountable for everything and its certainly not "I" It helps to look at a mushroom, on the surface it can seen , that it can sense its individuality , and can be accepted it thinks its individual, But on examination its not separate at all, and under the surface its connected in ways it does not understand to a larger organism its perceived individuality is just ignorance or delusion We can always take ignorance away
That there is no consensus does not imply that there's an actual problem. The answer is that mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. It is both necessary and sufficient, and cannot be Rationally disagreed with.
@@havenbastion But your still , taking an unproven step forward , in pre determining individuality in your response As you again limit the mind to the word brain(which means matter in a humans skull). its just constant top down processing "I" the individual has a individual response ! When you are born you are bottom up in flow , there is no individual The individual is constructed in your head And "WE" need to stop coming from the delusional creation of the "I" When we are investigating consoiuness Otherwise as with all else, we just learn that illusions are illusions And never deal with the empirical And find the opposite to the "I" And because its empirical Zero/void/nothing/vacuum are not allowed due to being imaginary in concept
@@thomassoliton1482 Again without any empirical proof you presume individual processing You do not have an individual brain processing individual things You are multi cell organism that is the same both ways lets say the critical operating system in your mind, is Windows But on examination you are really DOS running windows on hardware You just have not been taught DOS exists But the whole system runs on DOS fine and does not need windows in way shape or form, its just temporary software, which to the hardware is an delusion where it pretends things Dualism is the creation of the accountable "I" Where there was none before Dualism is the belief that your hardware needs Windows to work When its clear it does not There is no "I" experiencing anything, there is only "WE" experiencing everything above are words, Empirically, MRI scan you flow top down , The "I" is top down The "WE" is bottom up, just the same when you are born Now ask yourself , when was the day they said to you at school, "Today we are going to reverse the flow of your brain to make you a profitable and deluded compliant slave to words, we are going to put a SPELL on you, with spelling" And program you to do exactly what we want The "I" is not accountable, The "WE" that grew you, she is accountable If all biology is accountable for you even being here How can you imagine you are accountable ? Unless your nuts You are it, it is you, there is no separation of experience It does not happen to you, it did not happen to me It happened to all of us
@@thomassoliton1482 Brain flow, Spectrum, Two directions of flow, you get to choose flow, that's what dualism means, 2 options and choosing the known imagined one Its not about there being only 1 way you idiot
Consciousness is seen as everything including you and me and exists without everything including you and me just as clay is seen as all pots and exists without them.
Most of these thing don't even start with a definition of what they mean by "consciousness". They usually mean something to do with mind and thought but they still don't define anything
I think one is complicating things with no gain by straying from the fact that we consist of energy and information to 100%. This means that everything that goes on in us and the whole universe is the result of some physical law and that must include all thought processes in our brains. At its core there is no difference between a machine and a biological system and people think there is since they confuse the huge difference in complexity with one having exotic properties thet other would not have if they had the same level of complexity.
So many episodes on conscience and free will and yet Einstein was already proven right several times on the relativity of time/space, it follows that an observer far away can be moving slowly and change direction and be in its present on our future or past so since events can't be contradicting to all observers there can't be an agent anywhere with free will to change a future far from it in time and yet already present to another observer.... end of story to free will and also to conscience is special.... this block universe can't change or events won't be shared alike at any time in space... i hope i was clear in trying to explain my point...people like Prof. Brian Greene explain well the facts about special/general relativity and yet seem to not accept it when it comes to loss of free will the facts they so well explain.
The charcters inside the virual reality cannot in any way directly prove there is another reality outside itself using ANY tool created within that virual reality.
yeah exactly. unless we'd presuppose something like The Matrix, where somehow, there is a way to escape the VR and transpose the mind into the actual reality. i wouldn't say we CAN ever know that this isn't possible. being certain about this would require being certain that our reality is 100% mechanistic. it's a bit of a rabbit hole.
@@notoverlyacerbic9574 you can rationalise a one supreme being that fashioned you and answers the question of where you came from and with a bit more thought and open mindedness, where you are going. The fact that your life is then out into s perspective that involves recognising a creator becomes an uncomfortable reality because let's face it, you want to worship your desires and live a hedonistic life where you can do whatever you want. Simple.
@@GH-wy9mo you are not arguing for deism..deism is simply saying there is a God...you appear to be arguing for Islam..which is not simply saying that there is a God..islam, like every other religion gives a long list statements that must be proven.. Look my friend,I was just making a funny..i am all for debating a deist however I don't debate fundamentalists.
@@notoverlyacerbic9574 a long list of statements? I would be interested to know what has to be proven before palming it off? Are you not a seeker of truth? I don't think you have a grounded understanding of what we believe. If belief is the very problem, then the issue Is an internal one of cognitive dissonance I would argue
"Either you know everything or you organize your ignorance in some intelligent and honest manner".
Choice words, words to live by.
This is real wisdom, maybe the highest wisdom about what life is. But it’s important to understand that, like with human development, we do this also as children.
Then with a lot of living, or therapy, 😊 we overcome those earlier patterns we cling to like pieces of an invisible egg shell that used to serve us but now is in the way. All of reality may be this kind of conceptual egg. This to me is the spirit of creation behind everything.
This is a very key 🔑 piece of wisdom. Thanks for highlighting this ❤️🔥🚀
We know absolutely nothing about Consciousness and I don’t think we ever will, it’s so refreshing to hear someone say “ I don’t know” rather than pretending they do
Jaron has such a nice character.
he's like a gentle cuddly teddybear
@@Dion_Mustard lol
Yeah he's a character all right 😄
Another idea to contemplate:
The brain doesn't create consciousness, the consciousness creates the brain. Inside consciousness, everything unfolds. It is the primal, most foundational aspect, and anything that we can perceive through our senses (objects/forms) is happening within and against this background of consciousness/formlessness.
Consciousness is like a massive infinite, unlimited and absolutely creative mind that "thinks up" all of reality, and you are a coordinate of that consciousness, having your unique perspective of the reality as it manifested within your field.
Well, we have to pity that unlimited consciousness... imagine how much suffering it has to endure!
@temet nosce No
I am glad that was cleared up
Haha, that's a good one
Visualizing Jaron on a tightrope.......priceless. 😳😂❤️🙏🏼
Wonderful interview. I can't help but wonder if Jaron's target audience for this interview was PhD scientists instead of the majority of us laymans longing to learn from his professional experience. Although his honesty was striking, I wished he had shared his deeper personal "leanings" on the topic as they would be very credible from someone with his experience and achievements.
Thank you for the videos.
i kinda think he hit his target audience---he is doing nothing more than philosophising which is incapable of ever understanding consciousness. We need hard science and he//they can talk 'dualisms' and tightropes, but this discussion kinda went NOwhere
I do thinking "leanings" are interesting and worthy of discussion, but I think he sets an excellent basis for such discussion. It does seem unsatisfying to simply end with, "I don't know." But I think there's ample room for, "I don't know, but..." And I don't think it would be an effective way to launch a crusade. The world is full of people only too willing to tell us "how it is." Hooray for the ones content to reflect on how it might be.
Find your own truth, stop relying on anyone or anything. Your answers are in your heart.
The man is a legend ! Thank you both for this interview !
I really liked this.
Einstein said that the most important decision a person can make is to decide if we live in a benevolent or hostile world. Or something like that (paraphrasing). The more I live the more I realize that. Here’s an example from my new book:
A squirrel runs to a tree when I walk by. We think “wow it’s a hostile world, where small animals run to trees because death lurks around every corner.” But there’s another way to view it. A squirrel is an aspect of me, of my own mind. It runs to a tree in the presence of a human, not a bird, not a bug, because they cannot learn from that action. They cannot remember something by it. What does the tree symbolize? What does the squirrel? Is the universe talking to me using the mechanism of life?
And then I go on to explain what the mechanism of evolution is constructed to say, how the mind of reality is a SETI program which can only speak through forms over vast expanses of time.
So yeah the point here is that what he says is true. We cannot close off the universe to the new. To close off the explanation at the functional level is to miss the message and the meaning. To miss the journey for a chimerical goal which isn’t even the point.
I want to be the fuel of the human rocket 🚀 for humanity to reach the next level. And they will have to keep moving and growing to do so. That means keeping the loop of thought open. To allow higher patterns to the weave. To use what we have learned to emerge into new realms. An egg was never meant to stay in the loop of a nest, but to develop there for a time, only to emerge into the sky. 🕊🌈
In the observation of conscious experience there is no dualistic division. Division occurs from analysis/thought and categoriezes consciousness different from empirical evidence because of incomplete knowledge but it doesn't mean there is an actual division. Division only comes about as a result of concluded thought. The observer is the observed -J Krishnamurti
Frequent recent opinions in the discussion about the essence of consciousness refer to phenomena occurring outside (above) the brain. Usually an unresolved so-called “hard problem” is mentioned. It is true that the experience of qualia is difficult to explain by processes of the described neural networks. So I believe that an effective theory of consciousness should be based on the integration of several known theories of consciousness. In particular, the theory of neural circuits realizing imagery should be integrated with the "conscious electromagnetic information field theory (cemi)". One of the theories included in an effective explanation of the essence of consciousness should also be one of the theories linking the experience of qualia with the physics (fine structure)
of the Universe. We published recently an article [ Neural Circuits, Microtubule Processing, Brain's Electromagnetic Field - Components of Self-Awareness. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 984. ]
which shows how to integrate the explanations of the essential components of consciousness.
There’s a valid sense in which the empirical world can also be thought of as derivative, since we never actually get down to a reality, which has been cleared of all the obfuscation that comes from interpretation - from the direct experience we have of our own immediate consciousness…. We impute the modes of our own computation into everything we observe - including the notion we have of an embedded physical reality that is performing the computation. I’m not saying that physical reality doesn’t exist, but it’s disingenuous to make the empirical leap of assumption that reduces consciousness to the physical when consciousness is the only means we have for identifying or considering the physical at all. In that sense, consciousness is an unavoidable fact. We make a critical abstraction of both consciousness and physical reality when we artificially peel them out of our native situation to contemplate them in isolation… That’s not to say we shouldn’t, or that it isn’t an approach that will shed light on it, but we need to be honest about how this step potentially modifies the questions we ask about it. We shouldn’t fail to examine the way our assumptions are imputed into the phenomenon we’re attempting to interpret.
Nicely stated. I never fail to be amazed that quite brilliant people believe that our experience is a brain-based simulation, full stop, AND therefore that somehow that very brain simulates itself, as itself, as the source of itself in the simulation. Me no comprehendo.
"ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat"
In other words, it's perfectly fine and acceptable to say, "we don't know."
Which is the default position for science. Somethings we don't know, we will work on it to find out. Build the best model based on data and logic so far. Revise if contrary data is presented. Keep being fascinated and curios and continue to work on it. IMO the humble approach. Opposite of we-know-it-all-and-here-it-is-and-this-is-the-only-way attitude of religions.
Been listening to Kastrup a lot recently and he makes a very strong argument for consciousness and it being the source of everything. From a very layman perspective, it looks like there is a lot of tiptoeing around the subject . Almost as if people recognize the phenomenon exists without wanting to admit its existence.
I notice this too. I feel like they're afraid of the potential implications.
I feel like the Universe takes pleasure in the growth of our consciousness! Our understanding of all that is around us and our need to sustain within it, feeds the universe! As if, our existence and interaction with it is the purpose of our consciousness!
I very much appreciate your perspective on this and mine is quite similar.
I do believe that as individual consciousnesses we can learn so much more about things by looking inward as opposed to outward. That all of the answers we seek about anything can be found there.
I also feel that God and the universe are one and the same and that each individual consciousness within it is a fragment of his own. That collectively we are His way of looking inside for answers. That if you add up the collective perspectives and knowledge of every conscious mind, you will have His mind. Then you will know all supremely and only then have complete understanding of existence.
@@Baal1one1 Amen!
@@Baal1one1 that does put a smile on my face you discovered it :)
"It isn't easy . . . " Talk about the understatement of all of human history.
I love this honesty, no one does know!
ua-cam.com/video/wm8M_xQrgCk/v-deo.html
Many times in history we thought we knew everything. Newtonian Mechanics seemed to explain it all until Einstein's Relativity. Then Quantum Theory messed it up again. Surely, physics is now mature enough to know that there are always things that we do not know. That's what makes it so exciting.
always there is more--my simple studio apt always yields more even if nothing from the outside--time yields change even with no input---the beauty of science is the understanding of the change--even directing Change.
@Sky Gardener it is all physics---otherwise, let us google or wik the ghosts or gods that drive humanity and learn from that.
@Sky Gardener your original statement about "swarms" ----i would think physics is the only way to investigate 'swarm' action//behavior---all aspects of science are needed to understand any of this, and the base of all of that is physics imho---what else? (even basic chemistry, is based or driven by physics>>>"the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, distinguished from that of chemistry and biology, includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms."
@Sky Gardener i get the feeling you are way 'smarter' than me----but i am also thinking you are overthinking this question of consciousness---of course there are many sub factors---math, chem, etc---but only the understanding of mass//energy and the forces can explain what consciousness//awareness is. The brain is flesh and blood---nerves and their workings is mostly chemistry, but the chem is based in physics (The math guy Roger Penrose, proposes that nerve structure has micro tubules and within the tubules structure there is quantum potential that allows for biological computing---the study of all that comes under the main heading of physics)---right?
@Sky Gardener you say " When you have such a rich structure with billions of neurons you don't need any magic to happen with individual neurons. " ahhhh, but you see, you do need that in order to understand where consciousness resides and how it is manifested----some animals have dense neuronal structure, yet they don't even recognize themselves in a mirror------know that each neuron contains the full compliment of genetic material---on//off gene mechanisms is part of the workings of neuron cells---the dynamics of that is hugely complicated and how that works can only be thoroughly investigated by using physics. Even the coiling of the genetic material so that it fits inside the cell, is based on physical forces (put a rubber band between 2 index fingers and stretch it out and spin index fingers and then bring the fingers closer together---the rubbe band folds and coils upon itself---that is PHYSICS----and just as the rubber band looks and acts differently, so do genes because of the physical dynamics of each gene being in different proximity to each other than if in a straight line
I really need the description for every video about who are you interviewing
What I am absorbing from your conversations is that existence is considerably stranger than we think it is. I just am not buying that there is a theory of "everything". The word everything shows our ignorance. Its arm waving. What is everything in a bottomless pit? I hope we can learn a bit more about our existence, but I don't think we fill "figure it out".
I would suggest you to read David Deutsch's Fabric of Reality to at least to see that 'figuring it out ' may be theoretically possible, even if that won't change your mind.
we would like to figure it all out and i agree that even if possible, it is out of reach by our current brain state of evolution. But, that does not mean we should not work bit by tiny bit to uncover things---sad that time is limmited for all of us and we will only see a tiny bit of this revealing in our lifetime---nature will continue, and hopefully our seed will spread off earth and give our human consciousness time to continue trying to figure it all out.
Every thing is a set of boundary conditions in a mind. Some of those things also have an external correlation.
@@havenbastion can you fully expand on what you say? what is MIND to you and what boundaries are you talking about---what is EXTERNAL mean?
WE probably won't figure it out. But at some point in time perhaps we will, because we don't know.
There is a mysterious aura that I guess isn't detectable by our instruments yet, but I was alone with my dying mother at night in hospice when I felt a stillness come over the room. Curious I checked mom's pulse and she had just passed. That unusual atmosphere lasted a couple minutes and was sorta reassuring.
I once had a precognition.
The WEIRDEST thing that ever happened to me. I did some research on it later and bumped into a forum where others were claiming they had one also. Most of the stories sounded SILLY to me. But this ONE PERSON out of all them explained their story and the DETAILS they gave about their experience were EXACTLY like what I went through. Even what they thought what triggered their precognition was the exact same thing as mine.
I put my arm through my shirt sleeve and WHAM. It hit me. The person in the forum said "It felt like my sitting on that chair is what triggered it".
And I was like YEAH!!! LIKE MY HAND THROUGH MY SLEEVE! Felt like that is what triggered mine also.
Long story short??? That event let me know there is something else BEYOND this. And psychic abilities are REAL. At least precognitions are.
NO SCIENTIST CANT TELL ME OTHERWISE. PERIOD!!! I know what I experienced. There is something bigger than what we perceive.
So when you say you felt the stillness of your mother's spirit passing into the spiritual realm? I BELIEVE YOU!
Your mother may no longer be with us........ BUT SHE ISN'T GONE. THERE IS .... SOMETHING BEYOND THIS PLACE. I BELIEVE YOU.
Just like the double slit experiment it won't let us see (know)
@@syriouskash537 Sure you experienced something, but to say you know what is not honest.
@@bogtrotter5110
You cant tell me that I am being dishonest until you know exactly what I experienced.
Your disbelief doesn't mean I'm being dishonest.
When YOU have a precognition?
THEN you tell me if I know what I'm talking about or not.
@@syriouskash537 It does not matter what you experienced. I am sure your experience was real. It is your interpretation of it that is not honest.
The question is about fact. Is there a fact that is universal? Is there a fact that is universally corroborateable? In other words is corroboration universally possible or does there exist a non-corroborateable realm that cannot even be inferred?
We can state what is and from that infer what is not. Is our inferentiability of what is not controlled and limited by what is; or is our inferentiability controlled by what is not corroborateable?
I understand why Lanier holds the mental to be irreducible, but I'm not seeing why the physical must also be irreducible. One can believe the physical is real without holding it is of a different substance or property than the mental.
@OnceTheyNamedMEiWasn't You're welcome, I'm glad I could help. If you ever feel like sharing your poem after it's written I'd love to read it.
The mental is not reducible - yet. We've only had neuroscience for about 50 years and we haven't even defined consciousness sufficiently to talk about yet. He's wrong.
@@havenbastion That's inaccurate: the scientific study of the nervous system increased significantly during the second half of the twentieth century, but that doesn't mean it's only been around since the second half of the twentieth century. The earliest study of the nervous system dates to ancient Egypt around 1700 BC and this study continued through the scientific revolution. So physicalists trying to reduce mental states to brain states have had more than enough time and ultimately time is irrelevant when it comes to resolving a contradiction. No amount of time is going to make a married bachelor coherent, and likewise no amount of time will make a reduction of mental states to brain states coherent either.
A common definition for consciousness comes from Thomas Nagel, though it originated with Timothy Sprigge: "a being is conscious just if there is “something that it is like” to be that creature, i.e., some subjective way the world seems or appears from the creature's mental or experiential point of view. In Nagel's example, bats are conscious because there is something that it is like for a bat to experience its world through its echo-locatory senses, even though we humans from our human point of view can not emphatically understand what such a mode of consciousness is like from the bat's own point of view."
Source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#CreCon
I think it's a huge leap to go from accepting our ignorance to accepting dualism.
Dualism doesn't help to explain anything. Either we're asking "How does consciousness arise from material reality?" or "How does material reality interact with this other thing that's separate from it?" I think introducing a whole other reality into the question is less simple and less honest.
Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. There's nothing else meaningful to say about dualism.
Who's the knower of the knowing?Who's the feeler of feelings?Where is the thinker of thoughts?
Thank you very much for the information.According to the basic neuroscience the source of conciousness resides in thereicular activating system and there are feeling systems in the brain. Even for time brain runs a separate program by means of hippocampus. The Joys , the sorrows , the feelings all emanate from the material brain. There is no free will .Our thoughts are the result of activity of ensembles of neurons and the networks. They all disappear with the death of the material brain .
yes! we need to continue studying the brain with theory leading to experiment---it is there in real life and dead life---we are getting so good at it and the with the help of modern tech and computers, we shall learn more and more. Knowledge always moves foreward and only time is an obstacle. We will learn as learning allows us. All good as the youth know
Marvellous!
Why would a toothbrush need to be conscious of anything? If it doesn't need to be conscious of anything, then why would it be? I think Occam's razor would say, it isn't conscious.
All "what is the nature of?" questions are semantic; how do we use the word?
The nature of consciousness is that it refers to our experience. The kind of thing consciousness would be if it were a universal attribute or possible in a non-biological substrate, is entirely different and unrelated to our experience and would require it's own word.
@@havenbastion I agree, metaphysics are all BS.
"The kind of thing consciousness would be... would require it's own word." I made that very same point the other day. I seem to be having this discussion a lot lately. Cheers!
I agree that the reality of consciousness must be acknowledged by science, and cannot be explained by materialistic reductionism. However, I don't see how dualism can be a better answer. Dualism solves the "hard problem of consciousness" by proclaiming that consciousness cannot be an emergent property of the brain since there is a categorical difference between the two phenomenon. But dualism cannot explain how the two interact. In other words, we know that there are at least brain correlates associated with conscious states. No one denies this; i.e. if you get kicked in the head by a horse or have a stroke, the resultant brain damage will affect the function of your conscious mind. So just like the materialist cannot explain how the mind emerges from the brain, the dualist likewise cannot explain how the brain/mind interface with each other. To my way of thinking, the problems are one and the same.
But I'm certain we will never know in this life time. I think the ultimate goal is to just live. Stop trying to figure everything out. The fact that life in the 1800's and prior was simple because of just living and knowing that things happen weather by design or by choice and so you deal with it or you give up.
@You are correct But My (totally unscientific) speculation is that mental phenomena represents an aspect of reality that will never be explained in terms of modern physics in its current model. In other words, I think there will someday be a significant restructure of our scientific understanding of the world which leans more towards philosophical idealism and less towards materialistic reductionism.
@You are correct But I never said it wasn't interesting but if you live your life trying to figure everything out then you are taking your life and throwing it away because you aren't actually living, you are just existing in a world that will never be sorted out.
@You are correct But I agree with that.
I think the problem of explaining how consciousness and the brain interact is made more difficult by subtly assuming consciousness must be orchestrated by the brain, because consciousness is only ever considered as a total function. If there is a deeper relationship between consciousness and physical reality, we should consider consciousness at the level of a brain to be an emergence that reflects the way more foundational “modalities” of consciousness assemble themselves into higher forms of it. I’ve come to like the notion that consciousness is a vector space through which entities become encounterable to one another. Vector bundles compose a primordial orientation between “entities” like atoms and coordinate them into complexes of dynamic correspondence. We wouldn’t consider consciousness an emergence from the brain as a physical entity, but an emergence from the network of more basic consciousness-vectors that correspond to the brain. This wouldn’t ostensibly remove consciousness from the domain of physics, but it would meaningfully recognize the difference between discussing consciousness as an objective fact and being unavoidably immersed in a subjective experience, which includes consciousness in every facet of its function.
What an absolutely refreshing and honest view: (paraphrasing) “The world *seems* dualistic, consciousness and matter *seem* of a fundamentally different nature, and *I don’t know* how to put them together *nor do I see* that anyone else has done it either.” Fantastic, I wish more of us could be so honest. Notice how the honesty is almost too much for the interviewer: (paraphrasing) “But I want to accept it if reality is terrible.” Ha, it’s okay brother! But your priors are showing!
When he started his answer with “I’m in a bind” My ears perked up and I was primed for some thing deep and probably true.
@@kayakeb I really liked when he said that too. Hardly anyone does that, everybody feels like they have to take this or that position, and he just said what he sees, not what he'd like to think.
Awareness of internal and external existence, awareness of awareness but I think that`s the first of four states of consciousness, I think the other three are, dream filled sleep, deep sleep and beyond deep sleep, but I usually have a cup of mushroom tea before thinking about consciousness
Isn’t that the observable and measurable things can cause only observable and measurable things? On every level? There’s no thing in a “material” world that on every level, no matter how small and detailed, that the other thing from the same “material” world cannot observed (although we might not yet discover the tool or the way to do that). Conscience can’t be observed or measured therefore I don’t know how can it be reduced to the observable and measurable causation.
Have you interviewed Michael S. Gazzaniga on the consciousness issue? If yes, please send me the link to this episode. If no, It would be really great to document Gazzaniga's view on consciousness
By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out-Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins is the antithesis of open-minded.
Dawkins is just annoying.
How can you not experience wonder at the process of evolution?
My hunch is that a great many questions will be answered if we take seriously the possibility of DNA entanglement (nonlocality). Has implications for mind-body problem, entropy, etc. Everybody, including Hameroff/Penrose, writes it off because of decoherence in "warm, wet environments". But what if decoherence is actually REcoherence. This needs to be unpacked. But we're missing vital clues by writing off DNA entanglement. Hameroff/Penrose (ORCH-OR) inserts microtubules in its place, but what if this is a mistake?
according to hameroff microtubules are fact..they have been proven to exist by science and exist within the brain therefore his theory is quite possible..
@@Dion_Mustard of course microtubules are fact and they exist. They are part of the cytoskeleton of every eukaryotic cell. Indeed, Hameroff/Penrose's conjecture is not unreasonable, on the face of it. What I have a problem with is their dismissal of the possibility of DNA entanglement because of decoherence. There's the question of recoherence, and I believe we're missing a possible golden opportunity by not exploring it further.
How can anyone say that we don't know if there is dualism? Dualism means that there is a difference between the external and the internal. If somebody were to ask you, " tell me something about yourself "? If you in turn were to take a syringe and extract some chemicals from your body and say " study these chemicals under a microscope and that will tell you what I am like as a person" the person asking you to tell him or her something about yourself would probably think you are crazy for thinking that examing chemicals from your body would give them information about you as a person.
Exactly! How absurd to think we know everything about science. Never lose your ⚡️ and fascination
Not for a second would anyone assume that you know everything about science. 😋
Don't let hormones be more meaningful then they are already. This feeling come and go. Consciousness is not about being high on "Eureka" drug.
Consciousness is not only Ultimate, Consciousness is Eternal,
Life and Consciousness is two sides of the same nameless 'Eternal something that exists' life and consciousness cant be created, consciousness, can 'only' be re-newed and developed.
The Basic-Structure of Consciousness, is very simple, mirror'ed in the Rainbow and our Body-structure, and partly in the devices as can do mental functions.
The only honest answer to questions such as these is, "I don't know", so far at least.
There is the world we experience. There is the world that is. Never the twain shall meet.
So sayeth Thor reincarnate👍🏼. Dost thou truly believeth thine own words? 😎
@@koolzjackz8401 Insofar as words are worthy of belief
@@thereligionofrationality8257 That was a good comeback to KJ my friend. I would quibble with your original point however. We are middle sized creatures evolved to live in middle sized world. We perceive our level of reality intuitively. When you get to the very big or the very small, then I agree that we are not seeing what we think we are seeing at all.
If they don’t meet, there is no relationship between them.
The world we experience is a filtered version of reality, not a separate thing. Specifically, we have biological, cultural/subconscious, and psychology/personality filters. The fact that we understand a limited version of Actuality does not indicate it's an illusion or a distinct reality.
Everything is consciousness
It's our mind that identifies with body and gets into an illusion that "I am independent"
If you don't mind, how do you justify your statement?
@@pentosmelmac8679 i mean try being alive without eating any nourishment. couple weeks and you're dead. that's how independent we are from nature.
Time and space are functions of ones conceptual scheme, consciousness is the fundamental reality
Adjusting to the darkness of reality isn't easy: you got that 100% right! 😉. The confusion is deep and the pain fierce. We live in a confusing and painful world of experiences and it's seems as if we're the pawns in a cosmic waterboarding game: sometimes we can breathe, sometimes we can't. I'm tired of it.
When you know that our planet earth is a dot, you'd try to find out which God created all of the universe 🤷♀️and why...you will have a different perspective on all things, all beings and all gods:)
Done ? Which pocket universe do we live in and can we tunnel over to a different universe and what the Laws of Physics will be there for if it is even so it would be unlikely many universes would support having even material but slightly different enough for you to no longer exist once there..... If.....it is more likely just a mathematical equation for this and that on a kinda mother nature self created computer program or what is the word self evident... creates itself ...
If anyone believe in dualism and at same time consciousness can be reduced to materialism (or only an emergence from the physical matter) then he/she should start to derive a new physics equation (s) that includes the consciousness parameter because consciousness is absent in today's physics equation(or current physics is fundamentally invalid/wrong).
there is ZERO evidence consciousness is a product of matter.
Because the existence of consciousness in nature is ontologically undeniable ... effectively whether one believes in monism( - physicalism or metaphysicalism) or dualism... the consciousness parameter in one way or another should appear in a complete physics equation to represent the universal reality. ( Although it is working the current physics equation obviously is either fundamentally either insufficient or inadequate)..
Why do we start with either.. we must set the hypothesises and as much as we might have fate in on or the other.. we must acknowledge that we don’t have the fate position confirmed by the hypothesis yet.
My fate position is when I look around and examine my feelings I honestly can’t except it from my physical being so I have no reason to believe that traditional dualism is true.
Does it matter no in fact not .. my feeling of wonder and being conscious will not change because the fact show that there is no real dualism or the opposite.. why should it.. but it will influence my opinion on other matters but the subjective feeling of me will still be there.
Wow. This brings me back...I saw this person speak at MIT in 1998ish. He's still on top of his game.
awesome
Consciousness isn't more than the sum of the parts. We just don't fully understand the nature of the parts...
Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain (there is no mind/body problem). The conscious mind is clearly a sub-set of mind, and consciousness is clearly a momentary instance of awareness within that space.
Being a duelist means that you believe in the soul or “the mind” being separate from the brain/body. I don’t see why he is calling himself a duelist.
Dualists are the humans who acquires the shadow self as a body.
Soul is in itself wholesome. Human body is designed with supremem intelligence. The shadow self which is also a matter influences and finally takes over the body. These particular phenomenon can make a person very unhappy as it's soul enslaving itself as it is cnvinced to be weaker and powerless. It is e separate entity that can overshadow the human consciousness which is directly connected always to supreme intelligence.
@@onefishtwofish2771 there is zero evidence for the soul.
@@Boomer22z , not true
@@Boomer22z Not everything needs evidence.
In my opinion, our universes naturally are operated by all possibilities of things. We just can’t use the Math and materials to find the the possibilities, unless we must be in consciousness with them first, then Math and materials will help to create and understand barriers between possibilities (statistics, measuring, limit….) and have more consciousness about things. Albert Einstein would not be able to create his theories without his consciousness. The consciousness is really most important thing, but where is coming from (brain, heart, free will…)?
Two gator hunters just got a big gator. One of them said: “ The gator at least is 14 ft”. Other one replied it must be 15 ft. They use a scale for measuring the gator. It is 14.1 ft. The hunter guessed with number 14 yelled joyfully: “Math is beautiful and my consciousness is correct”😁
Very refreshing. Saw him on Lex Fridman. Agree with him on his views on consciousness for sure.
yh conciousness exsists on many vibrations... it exsists outside of the 3d construct..
Since the existence of consciousness as much the material thing in nature are ontologically accepted by both monism( - physicalism or metaphysicalism) and dualism believers without(philosophical and scientific) proof and both are effectively recognized to have existed in information state in human living mind only (which of course can be only ideas or imaginations or illusions or hellucinations) the consciousness parameter, in one way or another, should appear in a complete physics equation if it is to represent the universal reality. (Although the current physics equation is working it is obviously either insufficient or inadequate if it is not valid to explain universal reality).
I do believe that Eastern TEACHINGS may be able to bring at something more to the table as our Buddhist scholar brought to ur attention with better focus at least for my uneducated but heart desire for great understanding for what I witnessed each moment of Life ,for it blow my mind ,so to speak
There are no facts without consciousness.
There are no things except in a mind. Actuality is undifferentiated stuff doing stuff.
We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further-Richard Dawkins.
Naaah ! He is the one with many gods and can't even admit it...
If you say you don't know then you know you don't know that you know.
It’s really difficult to dislike Jaron, irrespective of his tremendous accomplishments.
How can someone doubt the existence of consciousness? Just asking the question presupposes consciousness. It's just silly.
consciousness exists..but it cannot be explained and probably never will.
i am always amazed.
cause and effect .
everything has to fit that singular relationship, a very narrow path for truth seeking. imho
truth is what is, even if a truth has no causal dependency.
currently we just limit our understanding because the need for causal dependency..otherwise we have no idea how to understand thigs.
replicability is hard under computational irreducibility.
so why the heck is causal dependency even contemplated as under limit for our understanding of things?
sort of how i think about it.
in short, if computational irreducibility is a truth
then causality is just a cosmic fluke
After him I found Palmer Luckey to be a free voice
Materialism says nothing exist but matter but that is an observational statement, but is the observer ( self ) who makes that observational statement something material by nature? By observation science has determined that the atom is 99% empty space and they can make that determination because the atom is within the realm of objectivity, but how the observer becomes something that fits within the realm of objectivity?
By it's own self-effusive nature and since truth can be defined as " that which is realized to be true " knowledge of the self's nature is exclusive to it's own self which makes " self " a reality that is self-exclusive and self-reliant. Since the self can only know it's own nature of being an eternal " in the now " reality of " stillness " by studying matter alone we can never know the nature of self. Your subjective reality is beyond anything matter can reveal so duality obviously exist.
I do find it staggering that people wonder if animals are conscious, they surely pretty much all must be
The human universe: Was the cosmos made for us?
For millennia, we humans have thought of ourselves as a pretty big deal. Then along came science and taught us how insignificant we are. Or so we thought
Was the cosmos made for humans?
Sam Chivers
But maybe we were too hasty to write ourselves off. There is a sense in which we are still the centre of the universe.
Science also teaches us that the laws of physics are ridiculously, almost unbelievably, “fine-tuned” for you and me. Take the electromagnetic force. It has a value that is perfectly set for getting stars to bind protons and neutron to create carbon - the building block of life as we know it. Or the strong nuclear force, which binds the insides of protons and neutrons. If it were even a tiny bit stronger, the whole world would be made of hydrogen; if it were weaker, there would be no hydrogen at all. In either case, life as we know it wouldn’t be possible. Even the amount of energy contained in empty space seems perfectly set to allow intelligent life to flourish. That’s not all. All told, about 12 parameters have been identified as being just right for life.
Why is the universe so perfect? Most physicists now argue that in some sense, it could not have been otherwise. That reasoning has given rise to several different answers known as “anthropic principles”.
One end of the spectrum puts us truly back in the centre. This extreme anthropic principle posits that the universe is so perfect that it must have been made for us, either by an intelligent creator or, more likely, because of some fundamental feature of the cosmos that drives it towards intelligent life. In his book The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, a cosmologist at Arizona State University, tentatively suggests the possibility that life could be a law of nature. He calls it the “life principle”, although he admits it is verging on the theological.
Most physicists have no time for ideas like this. “To say that this is all for us? That is just completely bizarre,” says Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.
Perhaps, then, it is the other way round: according to another formulation of the anthropic principle, the universe only exists because we do. We conjure it up with our consciousness.
Some less mind-bending versions of the principle are also available. They try to explain why the universe would appear perfectly made for us, even if it isn’t. In a nutshell, this weak anthropic principle says that given that we are around to observe the universe, it simply has to allow for our existence.
This is often taken to imply that there are other regions of the universe - or even other universes - where physical laws and constants are different. So asking why things are this way amounts to asking why we are in this region. In that case, the anthropic principle is merely pointing out that places that are hospitable to our kind of life are the only places we can possibly be.
This line of reasoning has been bolstered by the possible existence of a multiverse, versions of which emerge from both quantum mechanics and standard cosmology. With lots of other universes, each with their own physical constants and laws, the mystery of our own fine-tuned universe evaporates. We can only be in one that is fine-tuned for carbon-based life.
But even if this version of the anthropic principle explains fine-tuning, it still restores us to some of our former (self-appointed) glory by putting human observers firmly back into our description of the cosmos. “If you want to explain the universe that we see, the very fact that we are seeing it is part of that explanation,” says Davies. “It is a bit of a U-turn in the history of science that has been removing the observer from the picture altogether.”
The problem with exploring theology, is that truth is never a fact. You can explore on and on regarding topics that relate to things, but never conclude in a fact. So ultimately, what are you trying to prove? It's equitable to understanding how the universe is infinite. Our puny human minds are simply unable to grasp the concept.
yep.
“Dualism is the most honest manner of organizing your ignorance”
How so exactly? Seems to me that this is just asserted out of thin air. We have the material/physical world and all the things we can explain are explained within this scope. And then we have some things that we have so far failed to explain. So is the most honest manner of organizing my ignorance to invent another realm of existence to fit this mold. It seems to me a bit like inventing sock eating goblins to explain where you missing socks went.
Agreed. If he's saying, "I don't know," then the more honest position would be to assume that there is nothing beyond the physical until presented with evidence to the contrary. Occam's Razor in full effect. This is a perfect example of Dawkin's Belief Scale properly applied to other domains of knowledge or belief. I don't know for sure so I live under the assumption that consciousness is not something "other" from my physical brain.
The sock eating goblins would be a part of the physical world. Inventing such hidden variables is exactly what he is not doing by remaining a dualist. He’s not inventing a false explanation, he’s just sticking to the facts he experiences: material world, and awareness of it. More, he doesn’t know. Nor do you!
@@markcounseling on the other hand I feel like pointing out that the sock eating goblins are more likely as an explanation for missing socks that a soul is for our consciousness since sock eating goblins are at least allowed withing the framework of understanding we call the physical world.
Or to put it differently - if sock eating goblins were discovered tomorrow science would be more or less unchanged and after analyising a few DNA samples modern scientists would probably be able to account for how such creatires could have evolved.
But if a metaphysical realmin which souls existed was discovered tomorrow we would more or less have to start physics over from scratch.
@@itsjustameme I agree, this is exactly why Descartes separated res cogitans from res extensa, which Galileo followed, because they needed a *simplified* framework in order to begin physical science. The problem is that that simplified framework does not, and never has begun, to explore much less explain res cogitans. It can only explain NCCs. Which is great, though strictly limited. That said, I don’t think that Jaron is positing the metaphysical realm assumed by Descartes. He’s trying to stay on the thin line between materialism and idealism, which is what impressed me. He’s not demanding that the world accord with a materialist belief system, nor is he specifying a spirit or soul realm. The only way to read what he said in that way is to hold the belief that it HAS to be materialism or fantasy/souls. That’s just materialist dogma. One thing is clear, the sharpest physicists we have working today don’t believe that space and time are fundamental. Physics is definitely going to change and we may be privileged to see it. But presently, Reality is a totally unsolved problem and all bets are off, best to stick to observables, which Jaron states clearly is what he is doing.
@Sky Gardener Perhaps we see it the same way. He seems to just present our naive or native view of the appearance of two very different realities, mind and matter. He doesn't make a case for it, he just points out that that this appearance is, as of yet, unexplained. Which is true.
If the existence of consciousness is debatable to you, you can debate with other insane aliens because it's absolutely real to me.
When did Rob Zombie switch to philosophy?
What does Rob Zombie have to do with this?
@@moriyokiri3229 It's a joke.
i heart Jaron Happy for his commentary
Guillermo del Toro with dreadlocks... i dig it..
Closer to truth: If you will be ready for it, the truth will come to you. Chasing it only pushes it away! Wake-up...
You are basing that assumption on what?
@@Traderhood Wisdom does not come by chasing or attaining anything in particular in life but through experience of the true nature of your own existence
by taking a moment to realize that everything in your experience is just you. If you need more explaining, you will have to experience it, as no words can explain to anyone as to what the true nature of reality is... it is the void that engulfs eternity and is truely boundless. Be blessed!
PS: A Spore is an Enlightened Bacteria...
He was wrong about VR, perhaps ultimately.
Consciousness is the engine of the Universe. Everything else is accessory
And yet we see no evidence of consciousness anywhere but in a biological brain. Strange.
Dude's hands are hypmotizing me !
Does one want that truth even if it leads them to the God of the Bible? I would love to see more human hearts approach God with the same humility. I have been a Christian for 30 years and God continues to reveal layers about Himself which can only be revealed as I learn foundational truths about him. In our superficial attempts, it would seem that God is unfair and often extremely angry while extremely caring and other chapters. Many answers to these questions come over many many years of walking with God in humility. Unfortunately we are all rebels at heart and it’s difficult to lay down our arms.
0:05 "Accept the reality of consciousness"?? 0:07 It's an arguable point?? He doesn't see himself as a consciousness? 0:15 "Is it a product of the brain that somehow comes out?" 😂🤣😭 0:32 This man is hilarious! 😂🤣 0:43 "Experience consciousness"?? What does that mean? Your consciousness does the experiencing. Where is he existing outside his consciousness to 'experience consciousness'?? 1:38 ".. is to try to say something but not even a smidgeon more than you can really say.." 😂🤣😭 I'm dying! 1:41 "So you really can't say very much." "Well but this is important..." 😂🤣😭 THIS IS THE BEST COMEDY I'VE SEEN IN AGES! 1:54 "Dualism is impossible because there can't be anything other than the physical world.." What's he trying to say? 2:19 I don't know what they mean by 'dualism'. For us; 'dualistic view' is 'dualistic view of self'. 3:35 The Middle View. Avoiding the two extremes of 'inherently existent' and 'nihilism'. 4:22 Well no! If you trust SCIENCE and empirical evidence you're not gonna access The Middle View! Impossible! You CANNOT be TOLD what reality is AND see it for yourself. You cannot begin to see ultimate reality until you start to dismantle 'conventional reality'. 6:12 "Reduced to 100% explanation in the physical world"? Means what? I can't latch on to anything this man says. 6:54 The 'seat' of consciousness is not in the brain. It's at the heart centre. 8:37 "The world that we see through SCIENCE"?? Seriously? The consciousness sciences are sciences too you know! Just because the god SCIENCE doesn't recognise us doesn't mean that we don't exist! The god SCIENCE is a fascist!
"I'm very insistent in not having anything else put in my mouth."
Not so sure about that.
It's more sad though when it has to be mentioned at the beginning that it's not objectively thoroughly recognized that it is true that consciousness exists. lol
Like - there you go, be scared of those which do not take it as an objective fact. And... aka, the Hard Problem is already solved. He will be scared by the zombies. But some of these comments are pretty funny they make.
"People who follow fashion are silly, who has time for that"? Jaron
Hiding your ignorance in a honest fashionable manner is a great option. I agree with the idea of wonder though.
“Dualism” isn’t really well defined here, so, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “…… we can say that there is a mind-body problem because both consciousness and thought, broadly construed, seem very different from anything physical and there is no convincing consensus on how to build a satisfactorily unified picture of creatures possessed of both a mind and a body.” Everybody understands that, the basic difference between a rock you can kick and a rock you saw yesterday (i.e. a mental image). And therein lies the real problem. That’s how we think. That’s how our brains work. So for example: you are aware of an image of a rock. How do you know if it is outside your body, or in your mind? “Normally”, you just know and don’t even question it. That situation in itself is the fundmental basis of duality. In fact, everything we think is based on comparison - e..g. duality. If you think about something, whether it be the weather or consciousness, it has to be in dualistic / comparative terms. Oh sure, you say, what about Monism. Well that’’s in comparison to Dualism, isn’t it? You cannot express the concept of monism without inoking terms common to dualism or quadrism or whatever and contrasting them. You can be consciously aware without identifying things, but that’’s not monosim or dualism, it’s just awareness. Once you start thinking about what you see, you are comparing it against your memories, and hence you are invoking dualism. That’’s just the way it is.
You are presuming emotional attachment to top down thought process is a given , when its not ! its a creation made by man
You are born bottom up , Then under the conditioning of dualism, an accountable "I" is created in your mind and top down dominance takes place
We know that as an adult, that we can return to bottom up process and anyone who has returned to this state, always say they have no accountable "I" left in their mind
So what has happened, what exactly is dualism
The original state had no language no words
You still lived , loved, felt all that we feel today, but there was nothing to read in your mind
Language was developed, but the language had no individuality
The tribal mind, thought, worked, together always, there was no separation
Imagine from the day you are born to the day you die, you are surrounded by the same people forever
The communication that took place amongst these humans can almost be seen in the best trained teams in life , not as good because its trained
These humans stayed bottom up all their life as the dominate state
This is because the "WE" was accountable
And that "WE" included all life on Earth, every plant, insect, animal and mushroom , every bit of it "WE"
There was no separation, the trees did not give you responsibility , they did not measure you , they did not try to separate you
The only way a human can be made individually accountable is by other humans
Here comes the word that creates the separation duality preaches
Slavery
Now you have an accountable "I" talking away to you in your mind
My master says this, my master says that, I need to do this, I need to do that
See this is the trick in the slave language we use now
They separated the children, kill the adults, then teach the children via education to be accountable to the master
This is dualism, the separation from the eternal "WE"
They create the concept the idea of individuality ,
When its empirical that man is not separate from life,
He is just another lump of biology all attached to each other
Therefore the individual experience is an illusion and should be treated as such
There is not 2 or 3, or 4 life forms on earth,
There is just one
The delusion that there is duality where man is separate. is why the people that teach that delusion are destroying all life they touch
utter insanity
And the message that there is a duality of man and nature was successfully argued against many many thousands of times
That's why they have tanks and bombs
Fucking slavers
To clarify
There is no individual to compare anything ,
The individual is an delusion that leads to insanity,
I cant find him,
I keep trying to hear him listen to him , the individual,
But on examination and serious investigation
there is nothing there, at all
Just "WE" the opposite direction of the Spectrum to the "I"
And I know which one is accountable for everything and its certainly not "I"
It helps to look at a mushroom, on the surface it can seen , that it can sense its individuality , and can be accepted it thinks its individual,
But on examination its not separate at all, and under the surface its connected in ways it does not understand to a larger organism
its perceived individuality is just ignorance or delusion
We can always take ignorance away
That there is no consensus does not imply that there's an actual problem. The answer is that mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. It is both necessary and sufficient, and cannot be Rationally disagreed with.
@@havenbastion But your still , taking an unproven step forward , in pre determining individuality in your response
As you again limit the mind to the word brain(which means matter in a humans skull).
its just constant top down processing
"I" the individual has a individual response !
When you are born you are bottom up in flow , there is no individual
The individual is constructed in your head
And "WE" need to stop coming from the delusional creation of the "I"
When we are investigating consoiuness
Otherwise as with all else, we just learn that illusions are illusions
And never deal with the empirical
And find the opposite to the "I"
And because its empirical
Zero/void/nothing/vacuum are not allowed due to being imaginary in concept
@@thomassoliton1482 Again without any empirical proof you presume individual processing
You do not have an individual brain processing individual things
You are multi cell organism that is the same both ways
lets say the critical operating system in your mind, is Windows
But on examination you are really DOS running windows on hardware
You just have not been taught DOS exists
But the whole system runs on DOS fine and does not need windows in way shape or form, its just temporary software, which to the hardware is an delusion where it pretends things
Dualism is the creation of the accountable "I" Where there was none before
Dualism is the belief that your hardware needs Windows to work
When its clear it does not
There is no "I" experiencing anything, there is only "WE" experiencing everything
above are words,
Empirically, MRI scan you flow top down ,
The "I" is top down
The "WE" is bottom up, just the same when you are born
Now ask yourself , when was the day they said to you at school, "Today we are going to reverse the flow of your brain to make you a profitable and deluded compliant slave to words, we are going to put a SPELL on you, with spelling"
And program you to do exactly what we want
The "I" is not accountable,
The "WE" that grew you, she is accountable
If all biology is accountable for you even being here
How can you imagine you are accountable ?
Unless your nuts
You are it, it is you, there is no separation of experience
It does not happen to you, it did not happen to me
It happened to all of us
@@thomassoliton1482 Brain flow, Spectrum, Two directions of flow, you get to choose flow, that's what dualism means, 2 options
and choosing the known imagined one
Its not about there being only 1 way you idiot
Consciousness is seen as everything including you and me and exists without everything including you and me just as clay is seen as all pots and exists without them.
Check out the recent work of professor Mark Solms.
Quite simply...Brilliant!
That's sort of how I feel, good on you Jaron.
Big Think: Truth vs Reality: How we evolved to survive, not to see what's real...
Seeing what's real is the best way to survive so...
Most of these thing don't even start with a definition of what they mean by "consciousness". They usually mean something to do with mind and thought but they still don't define anything
This man has gotten so much smarter since he sold the Full Throttle Saloon.
True liberation is knowing we know nothing now all doors open are seen
Why are these guys on eachothers lap
Lmaooo🤣
lol
I think one is complicating things with no gain by straying from the fact that we consist of energy and information to 100%. This means that everything that goes on in us and the whole universe is the result of some physical law and that must include all thought processes in our brains. At its core there is no difference between a machine and a biological system and people think there is since they confuse the huge difference in complexity with one having exotic properties thet other would not have if they had the same level of complexity.
Yeah that conversation made a lot of sense!
Brain ferret attacks again! Battlefield Earth fends Kuhn off with a measure of respectful efficacy.
So many episodes on conscience and free will and yet Einstein was already proven right several times on the relativity of time/space, it follows that an observer far away can be moving slowly and change direction and be in its present on our future or past so since events can't be contradicting to all observers there can't be an agent anywhere with free will to change a future far from it in time and yet already present to another observer.... end of story to free will and also to conscience is special.... this block universe can't change or events won't be shared alike at any time in space... i hope i was clear in trying to explain my point...people like Prof. Brian Greene explain well the facts about special/general relativity and yet seem to not accept it when it comes to loss of free will the facts they so well explain.
The charcters inside the virual reality cannot in any way directly prove there is another reality outside itself using ANY tool created within that virual reality.
yeah exactly. unless we'd presuppose something like The Matrix, where somehow, there is a way to escape the VR and transpose the mind into the actual reality. i wouldn't say we CAN ever know that this isn't possible. being certain about this would require being certain that our reality is 100% mechanistic.
it's a bit of a rabbit hole.
After listening to this and contentplating, I keep coming back to the realization that I only have one bowl left and that makes me sad...
Try your options.... Islam being one from which I can guarantee your contentment. But that's a choice entirely in your hands
@@GH-wy9mo I really don't have a preference when it comes to the invisible floating sky gods...
@@notoverlyacerbic9574 you can rationalise a one supreme being that fashioned you and answers the question of where you came from and with a bit more thought and open mindedness, where you are going. The fact that your life is then out into s perspective that involves recognising a creator becomes an uncomfortable reality because let's face it, you want to worship your desires and live a hedonistic life where you can do whatever you want. Simple.
@@GH-wy9mo you are not arguing for deism..deism is simply saying there is a God...you appear to be arguing for Islam..which is not simply saying that there is a God..islam, like every other religion gives a long list statements that must be proven..
Look my friend,I was just making a funny..i am all for debating a deist however I don't debate fundamentalists.
@@notoverlyacerbic9574 a long list of statements? I would be interested to know what has to be proven before palming it off? Are you not a seeker of truth? I don't think you have a grounded understanding of what we believe. If belief is the very problem, then the issue Is an internal one of cognitive dissonance I would argue
Such an honest opinion I like the way he looks at the world.