“…And it is absolutely essential for the cells to want to…”. When a person states that something unproven is absolutely true it is probably best to be very skeptical.
Saying consciousness is an “illusion” is self-contradictory. An illusion requires an observer to trick, so if consciousness is an illusion then who is it tricking?
I agree. On the one hand there are aspects of our perceptual experience that are massively simplified, filtered and representational rather than literal. Nevertheless we have experiences, that’s a fact about the world.
yup it's like when they say that NDEs are the brain giving "the self" an illusory beautiful death releasing chemicals .., That would mean that brain and "the self" are two different subjects-
@@francesco5581Under physicalism consciousness is an activity of the brain, something the brain does rather than what the brain is. So we can talk about the brain in general, the specific state the brain is in at a given moment, or some activity the brain is performing.
Neuroscience knows brain make up conscieusness. However how figure out consciousness proceendings evidence it is Impossible so far. This guys shows consciousness proceendings . But his evidence though emperism it is rambling. Wortheless neuroscience honestly shown.
@@highvalence7649 Yeah, I really like "Worthless neuroscience honestly shown." As it is both true and reads so damn well. Edit: I just read it a couple of more times, and honestly it almost reads like some kind of mind twisting poem.
Robert Lawrence is a physicalist, all his queries are structured thus, to rule out any possibility of spirituality. He should avoid making his biases taint the questioning process.
Sounds like a low-resolution version of panpsychism applied to cells instead of particles/fields. It suffers from the same problem: how do you get from a bunch of micro-qualia to an unified subjective experience?
Was thinking the same. Hard to distinguish when everything is so sloppily and poorly defined, with high margin for ambiguity and arbitrariness. Ultimately, it's all just a good bit of fun for me, so I'll entertain thoughts like this, but I don't see how anyone can take it too seriously. I mean, it's obviously not science, and even if it's just philosophy, it's not very impressive in that regard either.
It reminded me of Francisco Varela and his definition of cognition. I believe this topic is related to the phenomenon of emergence. It's an interesting perspective: boundaries, internal environment, external environment. Assuming that "identity" begins from the basic unit of life is supported by evolutionary theory. And I also think it's difficult to imagine due to our bias of "being the most intelligent beings." Let's remember that until recently, there was still doubt about the consciousness/identity of other animals. What the interviewee seems to be pointing to, I believe, is the definition of “identity” as a much more basic and simple construct. I truly believe that cognition begins at very simple levels. When one studies the mesolimbic pathway, one thing becomes clear: our notion of will is entirely governed by fundamental principles for our survival (eating, socializing, reproducing, etc.).
About the mesolimbic pathway, it's interesting to think that if consciousness was just an epiphenomenon without behavioral response power, why the need for the reward to make us FEEL pleasure in order to induce specific behavior? How and why dopamine and cortisol would map to such adequate emotions of pleasure and pain instead of the opposite emotions for example?
Interesting, Llinas seems to claim that there is an intrinsic "qualia" in every living cell of our body as well as an overall qualia for the person as a whole. This is very close to the idea of Gestalt - the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. There would be a Gestalt situation for each cell as well as a Gestalt for the organism as a whole. The endocrine system is very sensitive to the life of every cell, and it sends out messengers to modify and enhance the living conditions of every cell while attacking invaders. But in explaining qualia, Llinas also referenced: "What is good. What is bad. What is Food. What is not food." (@ 5:57). This suggests "feelings" and even "emotions." If these are examples of a "larger qualia," it now corresponds to conscious recognition of priorities (good, bad, favorite, loathsome, etc.). This dovetails with other researchers who assign such overall qualia as tied to emotional markers in memory ("somatic-marker" - The Feeling of What Happens by Antonio Damasio, 1999; "hedonic tone" - Why We Feel by Victor S. Johnston, 1999; & "emotive trace" - Emotive Energy by J. A. Keeran, 1985). Such markers enable conscious prioritizations in decision-making. They also facilitate analysis by juxtaposing "pros" against "cons" (high energy markers versus low energy markers). This agrees with theories by Bernard Baars (Global Workspace Theory) and Christof Koch (Neural Correlates of Consciousness) who both contend that decisions are a "winner take all" competition of neural circuits. [Baars contends that the site of the competition is the outer shells of the thalamus (nucleus Reticularis Thalami or nRT) which are bidirectionally connected to cerebral cortex.]
The body in Nature? Or the soul? Is consciousness a reaction or coincidental development of the pereceiver and the perceived? Is it strictly from Nature? Is it strictly from something that we have not encountered, yet, in the universe: life? Can we discover other forms of life? Or are we congenitally prevented, by consciousness, from discovering other forms of life? Is it plausible to consider that the discovery of other forms of life would necessarily determine what we are conscious of? Would necessarily engender a quantum shift in consciousness? Would a new consciousness automatically emerge; or would consciousness just expand? Would our categories and judgements change or just be added to?
@@kallianpublico7517 See Research done by Dr pim von lommel, Jeffery long, Bruce Greyson, Dr Mary Neal, Dr Eben Alexander, Dr Raymond Moody,Dr Rajiv parti , Dr. Rick Strassman,Dr Donald D. Hoffman and many more Scientists. I believe You will find your answers👍.
There are many things in universe that a human cannot sense with the limited “equipment” humans have. We can’t sense X-Rays. There are sound wave frequencies we can’t hear. There is dark matter. There are potentially other dimensions we can’t experience. But some of these we are able to detect with the help of recent technology and others not yet. Consciousness is another such thing we haven’t figured out how to detect directly, however we can detect it indirectly when it interacts with a living being.
'And what it feels like', If there were NO Feeling, there would be NO one feeling anything. All Living Beings, Life-Units, have Eternal Consciousness, Brains is also Living Beings, have their own Consciousness.
How is this surprising to Robert here? How could it be any other way? For anyone not motivated to find some esoteric/supernatural/magical explanation, this seems a rather mundane observation. Which is not intended to insult the man delivering it, just to highlight how needlessly complicated we must make the problem if we search for more scintillating foundations.
Qualia (so-called) is the sensation of being alive. The sensation of being dead is felt by Hamlet in Act VI in the play of the same name. It is odd that philosophers don’t notice that they are alive and recognize that it is noted as a sensation. Perhaps it is better to call it alive-fullness than “consciousness “, which causes so much distress.
Aboriginal people of Australia believed in spirit.. and that spirits govern every aspect of reality . They used these lores to maintained a balanced environment for thousands of years.. in scientific view that's evidence that they have a real understanding of what reality and being might look like in a 3d conscious perspective
@@thomaseast2842 True they never objectified or used nature carelessly. Still they survived in a harsh environment. Drop any modern in the wilderness today and see how they make out without all their camping equipment and essentials.
It is problematic. If consciousness is a cellular phenomenon, is our consciousness an amalgamation of these? How is it then that we can be unconscious? Can consciousnesses be composed of other consciousnesses? More questions than answers.
There should be levels of consciousness. A living organism can be said to be conscious as long as it has an awareness of itself. There are genes in primitive organisms determining whether a part of the organism belongs to itself or not.
@@enginbaspinar4172 That's fine, but the implication then is that a robot that is aware of itself is also conscious to the same extent. I'm entirely ok with that, but not everyone will be.
Not just brain, each and every particle is conscious; the space in between particles is Conscious. It is a vast ocean of Consciousness in which everything in manifestation/creation is floating like fishes in sea. Consciousness is in contact with everything in and out, and in its presence all things vibrate according to their nature creating events in the form of ripples and waves interfering with each other; these wave interference patterns are viewed and interpreted as the various things seen, heard, tasted, smelt and touched by the peripherals of beings with bodies. All of this may have started with a single particle in ignorance, creating ripples in the ocean of Consciousness and further creating its own interference patterns Such occurrence is in the realm of probabilities as Consciousness is not only pure existence but is also Conscious eternally.
I read about the best Neurologist in Canada that did a study of 20 "Brain Dead" people, who were gone for years. He put headphones on them, and would ask questions like "What is 4+7?" Then say 4 random answers, he would get activity when he said correct 1. He would also say things like "I want you to imagine yourself walking across your living room", but then would jumble words, "Living Room to yourself image you through your want I walking it" no activity, but would when said correctly. He was quoted as saying "There is some part of the Brain, we just cant reach" amazing stuff.
If you are going to make a statement like this, you need to give a reference. Anyone can make up a story, 'I read about . . . . . '. If it is true, then quote your source so we can all examine the evidence - otherwise it's just a story.
@@SolveEtCoagula93 Can you cite a source from something you read 4-5 years ago? I think I gave enough info, to where if you really wanted to find, could. Sorry if I make ya work for it.
Just an anecdote. But even if true, this might equally well be an argument for “consciousness” arising as an emergent property purely out of the physical structure of the brain, and the structure was simply responding to inputs that had previously been trained during life.
Fundamentally, a direct experience is a "feeling", which is, itself, nothing more than a reflexive detection event occurring within the living physiology of an effortfully-proactive entity (such as ourselves). All of our physical and mental output are the result of a continual stream of such feelings. From the outside, because the personal quality of the event is inaccessible to others, it appears to be just another (albeit, staggeringly complex) impersonal detection event. This is why feeling is undetectable from outside. We thereby mistakenly extrapolate that "feeling" is ontologically different from (and caused by) the "impersonal detection event" that it falsely appears to be from outside. As a result, feeling SEEMS to be non-physical, even though it actually isn't. Entities such as ourselves ONLY persist by feeling, until we can't. All effortlessly-proactive entities (such as all plants, and all untethered organisms lacking a central nervous system) detect their situation, but their detections are impersonal, and as such, are not feelings. Context is key.
Consciousness begins in the brain stem, the reticular activating system (RAS). Electrical signals fan out to the thalamus, basal ganglia, hippocampus, etc, and finally, the cortex. Some people become conscious quickly, others slowly. Humans have felt emotions, experiences feel like something. We aren’t zombies. Qualia as “what it’s like” is an emergent property, it’s not in cells.
@@kitstamat9356 That's the point of it.... Only consciousness can make a brain conscious.... or appear conscious.. No consciousness, no life. No experience.
@@dr_shrinker That's the assumption, it's just that it's unproven, because physicalists can't even define consciousness and they dont even have theoretical framework to describe how to derive conscious subjects from unconscious objects like atoms, molecules, or the brain. They dont even have any testable predictions 😂 It's like saying "You need a radio set to have music" lol The fact is, you dont know that. But if you think you do, then answer this: *What's the single biggest piece of evidence you're aware of that brain produces consciousness?*
Do i sense, like , 3 different qualitative... 'genres' if you will? One of which is this lucid, thoughtful awareness that can *try* to be objective? Another, a rage or shame or pride or admiration, perhaps? All quality.
All of this he is describing is happening in qualia, no matter of cell or not. Brain is not conscious, rather consciousness is conscious of the cell ie. brain
all cells are aware of themselves and their environments, not just neurons, but there is no evidence cells generally experience qualia like the organism does and there is reason to think they don't qualia is an adaptation to enable organisms to survive in the world this adaptation is necessary bc the world is complex and unpredictable, and qualia lets organisms improvise effective responses to contingencies the internal environment within organisms, otoh, are controlled and regulated it is therefore possible to program responses to the predictable challenges they typically face, like immune responses to pathogens so qualia, such as we experience it at the organism level, is not necessary there may still be something that it is like to be cells but I doubt it is like sight, sounds, smells, etc
neurons may be different perhaps they experience a "bit of qualia" but if they did, then we should experience glitches in these bits like broken pixels on a display, we should see "broken cells" in our visual field, points where the image is blank bc the processing broke down but we don't we never see missing "pixels" we see complete images so I doubt individual neurons work like individual pixels, contributing a tiny piece of the complete image
Consciousness, especially an intellectual one, is not needed for survival. I mean all the other living things do quite well without ever wanting to enjoy a sunset or solve a puzzle. So, why assume that self-experience has evolved? Our brain cells can sense the frequency of light, and our mind translates it to a color. But as meaningless as the frequency of light is to our mind, the color of it is just as meaningless to our brain cells.
@CloserToTruthTV consciousness is traveling in the shape of the infinity symbol in a perpetual motion machine at the center of a diamagnetic structure it is a levitating magnet between two repelling magnets.
The main reason I am watching this video is because I am in lifelong distress, thanks to my qualia trying to understand this thing called self. Sleep mitigates the horror of consciousness only a little, and sleep itself is full of nasty gratuitous dreams, some of which seem intent on harming us, as in that Twilight Zone episode with Richard Conte. I suspect the universe is ultimately responsible for all our woes. I call it the Arlesian Universe (from Bizet's inexplicably recurring Arlesienne suite) because it sounds better than "the supermarket grocery plastic sticker universe". Plastic stickers on groceries are inexplicable to me, the sort of nuisance this universe seems to specialize in.
If we asked the standard model of particle physics we should expect to discover something called a “neurotron” which carries the conscious force. Hey, it’s no more absurd than any other idea materialism can put forth.
The problem CERN's having when they try to produce this particle is the force of the collision immediately knock's it unconscious. That's what I think, anyway. Although, I don't work there anymore.😏
Linas's idea of each cell having a little bit of consciousness and their adding up to a big consciousness is obvious, and very similar to the theater model of the global workspace. And almost as obviously wrong. There is no theory here of how the little bits of (I guess really fuzzy) consciousness add up. Is this new physics? If it can have any effect on the world (a blue flame), it must be new physics. Or it's just stubbornly mystical and implicitly supernatural, as I think. If it is an "epiphenomenon" (black hole), how can we speak of it? How can its existence make our lips and fingers move? What philosophers call "qualia" is just the first-person view. It's a plea for the reification of consciousness, sentience, spirit, soul, as some dual substance. All the things around us are made of atoms of elements which have properties, so likewise our inner world must be made of qualia. But in reality, our experiences of things around us, and of things within us, are both made of the same substance: neural activity. So is our thinking about this subject. It is not a hard problem to understand why we experience the phenomena we do, once we have some understanding of the first person view and its implications. Consciousness may seem a hard problem because it is us and this is unlike any other thing that we think about: The object is the subject.
there is a kind of an intelligent form of energy within all of us. call it conscousness, qualia.. whatever. it is not something you can measure. nor can you calculate it. it's not in the brain nor in the cells and you can not test it since it doesn’t have any physical properties. also, it is not a force it exists outside of the physical realm. we will never understand it by using calculations and physical tools. this intelligence is not physical and it doesn't follow physical law. it is not something that is built into our system, rather it is an intelligence that knows how to use our system. it was here before we became physical and it's still around when we cease to be in the physical world. what remains is the essense of what we are. 🙏🌺
Ok so qualia exists in different scales, forms and quantities with different scopes and qualities. Question: how big and complex can it get? Oh dear, just after I'd totally junked the concept of god.
He asks: What are the requirements to generate qualia?, but what he means is: What are the physical requirements for generating qualia in embodied consciousness? There is a huge difference between these two questions. If you ask what the physical requirements are for generating sound in a computer, you may find that manipulation of some parts of the computer affects the sound, but if you conclude from that that those parts are the only requirements to produce sound, you will delude yourself, because even if you discover all the parts of the computer involved in the production of sound, you will discover only the physical requirements for it, you will never find consciousness without which there is no sound at all. Computer produces sound only when conscious beings use it as a tool to do that type of content. The brain produces certain qualia only when consciousness uses it as a tool to do that type of content.
I'm pretty sure that whatever is our ability to realize that we exist is what everything else is built on. I can't say I think you should believe everything in the Bible but God is referred to as "The Great I am".
Upon fertilization, calcium increases and zinc is rapidly released. When this happens, the zinc joins itself to small, light-emitting molecule probes. In other words, it creates a microscopic flash of light.
@@callmeishmael3031 accept fresh water a priori requires water. Consciousness does not a priori require water. If consciousness requires brains (which i doubt it does) that wouldnt be something analytic it would be synthetic.
@@callmeishmael3031 i doubt it, but even if it was that, that's not something we would know a priori. That's not something we would know just by looking at the meaning of the words and making a deductive inference. It's something that would also involve emprical observations.
We can search but you will never find it... the explanation for consciousness relies on faith and faith alone ... God will never alow humans to find/discover the secret of life... its only by faith that you will understand it...
What makes everyone so sure that the brains creat consciousness. What if it’s the other way around a consciousness enters our body. Are only people conscious? I don’t think so there is evidence that plants are aware of thier surroundings. I think a better question is what is consciousness? Open minds .
Thats the problem of science, he made this theory 50 years ago and he will never back down , no matter what happens because no scientist will admit to be wrong (except a few)... they get in love with their own theory no matter what.
It's not a problem at all. Science operates in a manner similar to defense/prosecution interaction; the scientists are expected to defend their own idea no matter what, while other scientists are expected to do their best to shoot it down.
Lol. U just described the opposite. Science is constantly changing and being reviewed and challenged. The exception is when there is no more debate and it is already settled. There is no reason for us to think water might not hydrate, have a differente molecule composition...but should any sign of that need arise, scientists would be reviewing this knowledge
@@DeniseCoelhoEnglishForLife was Plank who said that science advance one funeral at a time. Just observe how proponents of string theory are totally unable to take a step back ..they will fight for their wrong theories to the end.. and since they are influential people they will continue to keep science back and fool the public.
@@DeniseCoelhoEnglishForLife just think about the string theory ... we know its mathematically wrong but NO ONE of its proponents is backing down. There is too much credibility, prestige, money, pride, at stake. As Planck said "science advance one funeral at a time"
That's a unique take on qualia. Let me find out that some day this guy's going to discover little subatomic particles in each neuron that are the essences of "red", "green", "anger", "funny", "pain", etc. (do I put 'etc' in quotes here?); and that these 'feelings' particles replicate with each cell division. Hah! That's about as cartoon as is even possible. If that actually happens - magic is real ... which I probably wouldn't mind.
Human brain is a gene product.Consciousness is a brain product.Human mind is a meme product.Consciousness is subjective awareness.Consciousness itself does not do anything.Human behaviour ,choices,decisions and actions are controlled by information (both genetic and memetic) residing there.
Trying to penetrate thought in reaching an inclination of God is very arduous. Props to anybody who really endeavors and has the courage to do it. No greater investigation than seeking God.
Help! Ayuda! Aiuto! It's urgent! Urgente! Por amor de Dios! ¿Quién entendió? Who understood?. Chi capice!?. What is your language? ¿Que idiomas hablas?. The truth that saves literally your life is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. La verdad que te salva literalmente la vida es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. La verdad es Dios existe porque lógicamente es imposible la existencia de la creación o finitud sin el creador o infinitud. La humanidad tiene que saberlo. El futuro será mejor con más conocimiento. Escribimos nuestra historia pensando. Se puede ser feliz pensando. La vida son dos días y los único que importa es la eternidad. El verdadero Dios es lo único que importa. I need this loving poem to be read in prisons. Death penalty can be abolish and your life saved. Thank you.
I think it’s going to be a long time before we know for sure what consciousness is - but I think Professor Llinas has made a very intelligent stab at understanding it. As valid as the other hypotheses showcased on Closer to Truth. Excellently presented I must add.
Materialists will always resort to matter for an answer. In this case it does not compute. Consciousness is the hard problem for philosophy. It will likely be found to be the case that it is fundamental while Mind is elemental; emerging with quantum events. Materialism posits one dimension, and it is more than likely that there are three dimensions; Consciousness or Awareness; Mind or Ideas; the ideational. The third dimension the elemental; both macro and micro. Each dimension being separate from the others having its own space. It is difficult for materialists to grasp this or give up their notion that matter is primary and all there is; fundamental to, and responsible for all else. If consciousness is to be understood;; if mind is to be understood it will be necessary to acknowledge their own dimensions separate from the elemental while noting that the mind is a subtler version of the the gross elemental.
But thoughts, ideas, and intent are physical. Neuroscientists are able to read and decipher a person’s thoughts using FMRI. Soon, even your thoughts won’t be private anymore. But thoughts are physical and quantifiable. 25:28 ua-cam.com/video/q3PuQ4Gzx3w/v-deo.htmlsi=1cZjBpfifOyvEIe7
Consciousness is a hard problem for philosophy because philosophers want to think it is. It is not hard to understand why we experience the phenomena of consciousness. This can be fully understood within physics, and it doesn't matter whether that's classical or quantum physics. Computational science has something to say about this, and artificial intelligence is showing how simple it is to understand this. Within this framework, we can know that existing AI such as language models are not conscious, but with the addition of vision and other modalities, with deeper reasoning and with a real-time stream of input processing and internal generations all recorded and accessible as memory, it becomes trivial and almost unavoidable to create a conscious machine.
@deanodebo It's my opinion based on the evidence I've seen combined with Occams Razor. If that's not enough for you feel free to convince me I'm wrong.
Huh? In other words, reductionism and (weak) emergence are two sides of the same coin. I'm not sure what is the big deal. When we talk about knowledge stored on the internet, we don't mean that it is somehow only in the interconnections and network. We obviously know each computer and these days even IOT devices contribute to the knowledge. The hyperlinks in the documents connect the knowledge. When physicalists say that consciousness is nothing but physical brain and body it is implied that cells play a role. And for humans our instruments that are not our bodies extend our perceptions, microscopes, telescopes, hearing aids, infrared cameras, and so on and in turn extend our consciousness. Robert and Rodolfo are fabricating a separate category where there was none. If they thought that other physicalists did not already think that individual cells did play a role, then they already misunderstand physicalism. Mario should get in touch with Michael Levin and learn his take on expanding and shrinking self and cognitive light cone if cells, tissues, organs and organisms. Michael also talks about how cancer cells shrink their notion of self to themselves when the gap junctions between cells breaks down. And this is the reason the compositional nature of physical sub-parts to create bigger notions of consciousness makes sense - which BTW is co-opted by Panpsychists - who have the confidence to deny the compositional claim of physicalism. But Panpsychists claim for themselves that consciousness is composed from proto-conscious parts without defining or explaining what is proto-consciousness. Scientists like Michael Levin concretely show the notion of reduced self of a cancer cell and even show how it can be integrated back into the tissue by applying electric potential. Panpsychism is empty. The issue is not between subdivisions of physicalism. The issue is between supernaturalism and non-supernaturalism - especially the claim that in-principle it is impossible to know how conscious phenomenon occur. Note that I do not mention physicalism because we know that physics is not a finished project. So to some extent physicalism has an open ended aspect.
Incredible watch!
Thank you for keeping these coming.
Thanks for the excellent insights.
“…And it is absolutely essential for the cells to want to…”.
When a person states that something unproven is absolutely true it is probably best to be very skeptical.
Saying consciousness is an “illusion” is self-contradictory. An illusion requires an observer to trick, so if consciousness is an illusion then who is it tricking?
Consciousness is the one “thing”, that is not an illusion. BK.
I agree. On the one hand there are aspects of our perceptual experience that are massively simplified, filtered and representational rather than literal. Nevertheless we have experiences, that’s a fact about the world.
yup it's like when they say that NDEs are the brain giving "the self" an illusory beautiful death releasing chemicals .., That would mean that brain and "the self" are two different subjects-
"illusion" is just a shock phrase used with many other scientific questions - time, reality, etc., too.
@@francesco5581Under physicalism consciousness is an activity of the brain, something the brain does rather than what the brain is. So we can talk about the brain in general, the specific state the brain is in at a given moment, or some activity the brain is performing.
Neuroscience knows brain make up conscieusness. However how figure out consciousness proceendings evidence it is Impossible so far. This guys shows consciousness proceendings . But his evidence though emperism it is rambling. Wortheless neuroscience honestly shown.
Neuroscience believes brain make up concsciousness. And what else can you expect of them?
@@Maxwell-mv9rx this is pretty funny
@@highvalence7649 Yeah, I really like "Worthless neuroscience honestly shown." As it is both true and reads so damn well. Edit: I just read it a couple of more times, and honestly it almost reads like some kind of mind twisting poem.
Robert Lawrence is a physicalist, all his queries are structured thus, to rule out any possibility of spirituality. He should avoid making his biases taint the questioning process.
That's beautiful and on point.
Sounds like a low-resolution version of panpsychism applied to cells instead of particles/fields. It suffers from the same problem: how do you get from a bunch of micro-qualia to an unified subjective experience?
Was thinking the same. Hard to distinguish when everything is so sloppily and poorly defined, with high margin for ambiguity and arbitrariness. Ultimately, it's all just a good bit of fun for me, so I'll entertain thoughts like this, but I don't see how anyone can take it too seriously. I mean, it's obviously not science, and even if it's just philosophy, it's not very impressive in that regard either.
Consciousness is fundamental and until it engages matter does not exist in time-space.
It reminded me of Francisco Varela and his definition of cognition. I believe this topic is related to the phenomenon of emergence. It's an interesting perspective: boundaries, internal environment, external environment. Assuming that "identity" begins from the basic unit of life is supported by evolutionary theory. And I also think it's difficult to imagine due to our bias of "being the most intelligent beings." Let's remember that until recently, there was still doubt about the consciousness/identity of other animals.
What the interviewee seems to be pointing to, I believe, is the definition of “identity” as a much more basic and simple construct. I truly believe that cognition begins at very simple levels. When one studies the mesolimbic pathway, one thing becomes clear: our notion of will is entirely governed by fundamental principles for our survival (eating, socializing, reproducing, etc.).
About the mesolimbic pathway, it's interesting to think that if consciousness was just an epiphenomenon without behavioral response power, why the need for the reward to make us FEEL pleasure in order to induce specific behavior? How and why dopamine and cortisol would map to such adequate emotions of pleasure and pain instead of the opposite emotions for example?
To make it clearer - qualia is an interaction of many cells, it's a PROCESS.
This is why dead/inactive things do not experience qualia.
Interesting, Llinas seems to claim that there is an intrinsic "qualia" in every living cell of our body as well as an overall qualia for the person as a whole. This is very close to the idea of Gestalt - the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. There would be a Gestalt situation for each cell as well as a Gestalt for the organism as a whole. The endocrine system is very sensitive to the life of every cell, and it sends out messengers to modify and enhance the living conditions of every cell while attacking invaders. But in explaining qualia, Llinas also referenced: "What is good. What is bad. What is Food. What is not food." (@ 5:57). This suggests "feelings" and even "emotions." If these are examples of a "larger qualia," it now corresponds to conscious recognition of priorities (good, bad, favorite, loathsome, etc.). This dovetails with other researchers who assign such overall qualia as tied to emotional markers in memory ("somatic-marker" - The Feeling of What Happens by Antonio Damasio, 1999; "hedonic tone" - Why We Feel by Victor S. Johnston, 1999; & "emotive trace" - Emotive Energy by J. A. Keeran, 1985). Such markers enable conscious prioritizations in decision-making. They also facilitate analysis by juxtaposing "pros" against "cons" (high energy markers versus low energy markers). This agrees with theories by Bernard Baars (Global Workspace Theory) and Christof Koch (Neural Correlates of Consciousness) who both contend that decisions are a "winner take all" competition of neural circuits. [Baars contends that the site of the competition is the outer shells of the thalamus (nucleus Reticularis Thalami or nRT) which are bidirectionally connected to cerebral cortex.]
Seinfeld comes from transistors. I know because I disconnected some and he went away.
That’s neuroscience
This is the basic thought that I had also. The Seinfeld bit is funnier than what I pictured though 😂
@@bm0ore43 thanks. It’s the old correlation not equal to causation thing.
Too many people can’t distinguish those - even full blown scientists
The body in Nature? Or the soul?
Is consciousness a reaction or coincidental development of the pereceiver and the perceived? Is it strictly from Nature? Is it strictly from something that we have not encountered, yet, in the universe: life?
Can we discover other forms of life? Or are we congenitally prevented, by consciousness, from discovering other forms of life?
Is it plausible to consider that the discovery of other forms of life would necessarily determine what we are conscious of? Would necessarily engender a quantum shift in consciousness? Would a new consciousness automatically emerge; or would consciousness just expand? Would our categories and judgements change or just be added to?
@@kallianpublico7517 See Research done by Dr pim von lommel, Jeffery long, Bruce Greyson, Dr Mary Neal, Dr Eben Alexander, Dr Raymond Moody,Dr Rajiv parti , Dr. Rick Strassman,Dr Donald D. Hoffman and many more Scientists. I believe You will find your answers👍.
There is an explanatory gap, such matters are not decipherable through application of medical science.
There are many things in universe that a human cannot sense with the limited “equipment” humans have.
We can’t sense X-Rays. There are sound wave frequencies we can’t hear. There is dark matter. There are potentially other dimensions we can’t experience. But some of these we are able to detect with the help of recent technology and others not yet.
Consciousness is another such thing we haven’t figured out how to detect directly, however we can detect it indirectly when it interacts with a living being.
'And what it feels like', If there were NO Feeling,
there would be NO one feeling anything.
All Living Beings, Life-Units, have Eternal Consciousness,
Brains is also Living Beings, have their own Consciousness.
How is this surprising to Robert here? How could it be any other way? For anyone not motivated to find some esoteric/supernatural/magical explanation, this seems a rather mundane observation. Which is not intended to insult the man delivering it, just to highlight how needlessly complicated we must make the problem if we search for more scintillating foundations.
Qualia (so-called) is the sensation of being alive. The sensation of being dead is felt by Hamlet in Act VI in the play of the same name. It is odd that philosophers don’t notice that they are alive and recognize that it is noted as a sensation. Perhaps it is better to call it alive-fullness than “consciousness “, which causes so much distress.
Aboriginal people of Australia believed in spirit.. and that spirits govern every aspect of reality . They used these lores to maintained a balanced environment for thousands of years.. in scientific view that's evidence that they have a real understanding of what reality and being might look like in a 3d conscious perspective
So Aboriginal people of Australia were made up of cells experiencing the qualia of spirit.
Yeah, that got them real far, really industrial and scientific pioneers 😂
@@thomaseast2842 True they never objectified or used nature carelessly. Still they survived in a harsh environment. Drop any modern in the wilderness today and see how they make out without all their camping equipment and essentials.
might the pre frontal cortex be consciously aware of causation in perception of cerebellum / back of brain for qualia?
Would this imply then that every living thing made of cells has qualia? Are all living things conscious? Even my plants?
It is problematic. If consciousness is a cellular phenomenon, is our consciousness an amalgamation of these? How is it then that we can be unconscious? Can consciousnesses be composed of other consciousnesses? More questions than answers.
yes! but that is a short answer. Not only living things. Everything is conciouness or better, the other way around, Conciousness is everyhting
There should be levels of consciousness. A living organism can be said to be conscious as long as it has an awareness of itself. There are genes in primitive organisms determining whether a part of the organism belongs to itself or not.
@@enginbaspinar4172 That's fine, but the implication then is that a robot that is aware of itself is also conscious to the same extent. I'm entirely ok with that, but not everyone will be.
Not just brain, each and every particle is conscious; the space in between particles is Conscious. It is a vast ocean of Consciousness in which everything in manifestation/creation is floating like fishes in sea. Consciousness is in contact with everything in and out, and in its presence all things vibrate according to their nature creating events in the form of ripples and waves interfering with each other; these wave interference patterns are viewed and interpreted as the various things seen, heard, tasted, smelt and touched by the peripherals of beings with bodies.
All of this may have started with a single particle in ignorance, creating ripples in the ocean of Consciousness and further creating its own interference patterns Such occurrence is in the realm of probabilities as Consciousness is not only pure existence but is also Conscious eternally.
I read about the best Neurologist in Canada that did a study of 20 "Brain Dead" people, who were gone for years. He put headphones on them, and would ask questions like "What is 4+7?" Then say 4 random answers, he would get activity when he said correct 1. He would also say things like "I want you to imagine yourself walking across your living room", but then would jumble words, "Living Room to yourself image you through your want I walking it" no activity, but would when said correctly. He was quoted as saying "There is some part of the Brain, we just cant reach" amazing stuff.
Wow. Thx for sharing.
If you are going to make a statement like this, you need to give a reference. Anyone can make up a story, 'I read about . . . . . '. If it is true, then quote your source so we can all examine the evidence - otherwise it's just a story.
@@SolveEtCoagula93 Can you cite a source from something you read 4-5 years ago? I think I gave enough info, to where if you really wanted to find, could. Sorry if I make ya work for it.
@@timorean320 You won’t make me work for it. As I said, your comment is just a story and hence meaningless.
Just an anecdote. But even if true, this might equally well be an argument for “consciousness” arising as an emergent property purely out of the physical structure of the brain, and the structure was simply responding to inputs that had previously been trained during life.
So is he saying that each cell would be like the pixel on a screen?
Fundamentally, a direct experience is a "feeling", which is, itself, nothing more than a reflexive detection event occurring within the living physiology of an effortfully-proactive entity (such as ourselves).
All of our physical and mental output are the result of a continual stream of such feelings.
From the outside, because the personal quality of the event is inaccessible to others, it appears to be just another (albeit, staggeringly complex) impersonal detection event.
This is why feeling is undetectable from outside.
We thereby mistakenly extrapolate that "feeling" is ontologically different from (and caused by) the "impersonal detection event" that it falsely appears to be from outside.
As a result, feeling SEEMS to be non-physical, even though it actually isn't.
Entities such as ourselves ONLY persist by feeling, until we can't.
All effortlessly-proactive entities (such as all plants, and all untethered organisms lacking a central nervous system) detect their situation, but their detections are impersonal, and as such, are not feelings.
Context is key.
Consciousness begins in the brain stem, the reticular activating system (RAS). Electrical signals fan out to the thalamus, basal ganglia, hippocampus, etc, and finally, the cortex. Some people become conscious quickly, others slowly. Humans have felt emotions, experiences feel like something. We aren’t zombies. Qualia as “what it’s like” is an emergent property, it’s not in cells.
What makes hardwear software ?
_"What Makes Brains Conscious?"_
Consciousness.
Nice answer, but in fact the whole question is ill-posed: no brain is conscious, only consciousness is conscius - brain is just a tool.
@@kitstamat9356 That's the point of it.... Only consciousness can make a brain conscious.... or appear conscious.. No consciousness, no life. No experience.
@@Corteumyou need a brain to be conscious. You don’t need consciousness to gave a brain.
@@dr_shrinker That's the assumption, it's just that it's unproven, because physicalists can't even define consciousness and they dont even have theoretical framework to describe how to derive conscious subjects from unconscious objects like atoms, molecules, or the brain. They dont even have any testable predictions 😂 It's like saying "You need a radio set to have music" lol The fact is, you dont know that. But if you think you do, then answer this: *What's the single biggest piece of evidence you're aware of that brain produces consciousness?*
@@Corteumbecause alcohol affects consciousness. As does LSD, Mushrooms, and Prozac.
Are things conscious or are there simply instantiations of consciousness caused by other instances or sets of consciousness?
Do i sense, like , 3 different qualitative... 'genres' if you will? One of which is this lucid, thoughtful awareness that can *try* to be objective? Another, a rage or shame or pride or admiration, perhaps? All quality.
How can a network of neurons give rise to a conscious self?🤔
_How?_
Well, consciousness makes our brain. Not the other way around
All of this he is describing is happening in qualia, no matter of cell or not. Brain is not conscious, rather consciousness is conscious of the cell ie. brain
When was this?
This is still only musings, stemming from oriental mysticism with the characteristic complications, so that it can sound well thought out.
all cells are aware of themselves and their environments, not just neurons, but there is no evidence cells generally experience qualia like the organism does
and there is reason to think they don't
qualia is an adaptation to enable organisms to survive in the world
this adaptation is necessary bc the world is complex and unpredictable, and qualia lets organisms improvise effective responses to contingencies
the internal environment within organisms, otoh, are controlled and regulated
it is therefore possible to program responses to the predictable challenges they typically face, like immune responses to pathogens
so qualia, such as we experience it at the organism level, is not necessary
there may still be something that it is like to be cells
but I doubt it is like sight, sounds, smells, etc
neurons may be different
perhaps they experience a "bit of qualia"
but if they did, then we should experience glitches in these bits
like broken pixels on a display, we should see "broken cells" in our visual field, points where the image is blank bc the processing broke down
but we don't
we never see missing "pixels"
we see complete images
so I doubt individual neurons work like individual pixels, contributing a tiny piece of the complete image
Consciousness, especially an intellectual one, is not needed for survival. I mean all the other living things do quite well without ever wanting to enjoy a sunset or solve a puzzle.
So, why assume that self-experience has evolved?
Our brain cells can sense the frequency of light, and our mind translates it to a color. But as meaningless as the frequency of light is to our mind, the color of it is just as meaningless to our brain cells.
@CloserToTruthTV consciousness is traveling in the shape of the infinity symbol in a perpetual motion machine at the center of a diamagnetic structure it is a levitating magnet between two repelling magnets.
The title presupposes physicalism.
Very interesting theory nonetheless….
The main reason I am watching this video is because I am in lifelong distress, thanks to my qualia trying to understand this thing called self. Sleep mitigates the horror of consciousness only a little, and sleep itself is full of nasty gratuitous dreams, some of which seem intent on harming us, as in that Twilight Zone episode with Richard Conte. I suspect the universe is ultimately responsible for all our woes. I call it the Arlesian Universe (from Bizet's inexplicably recurring Arlesienne suite) because it sounds better than "the supermarket grocery plastic sticker universe". Plastic stickers on groceries are inexplicable to me, the sort of nuisance this universe seems to specialize in.
Embrace the mortality and realize this life is a holographic dream.
Quantum physics is the only way to objectively join many into one! E pluribus unum!
'cept gravity
@@Geo_Knows_Things Ha! You got me! 😀
If we asked the standard model of particle physics we should expect to discover something called a “neurotron” which carries the conscious force.
Hey, it’s no more absurd than any other idea materialism can put forth.
The problem CERN's having when they try to produce this particle is the force of the collision immediately knock's it unconscious.
That's what I think, anyway.
Although, I don't work there anymore.😏
Linas's idea of each cell having a little bit of consciousness and their adding up to a big consciousness is obvious, and very similar to the theater model of the global workspace. And almost as obviously wrong. There is no theory here of how the little bits of (I guess really fuzzy) consciousness add up. Is this new physics? If it can have any effect on the world (a blue flame), it must be new physics. Or it's just stubbornly mystical and implicitly supernatural, as I think. If it is an "epiphenomenon" (black hole), how can we speak of it? How can its existence make our lips and fingers move?
What philosophers call "qualia" is just the first-person view. It's a plea for the reification of consciousness, sentience, spirit, soul, as some dual substance. All the things around us are made of atoms of elements which have properties, so likewise our inner world must be made of qualia. But in reality, our experiences of things around us, and of things within us, are both made of the same substance: neural activity. So is our thinking about this subject. It is not a hard problem to understand why we experience the phenomena we do, once we have some understanding of the first person view and its implications. Consciousness may seem a hard problem because it is us and this is unlike any other thing that we think about: The object is the subject.
Rodolfo is correct here.
there is a kind of an intelligent form of energy within all of us. call it conscousness, qualia.. whatever.
it is not something you can measure. nor can you calculate it. it's not in the brain nor in the cells and you can not test it since it doesn’t have any physical properties. also, it is not a force
it exists outside of the physical realm. we will never understand it by using calculations and physical tools.
this intelligence is not physical and it doesn't follow physical law.
it is not something that is built into our system, rather it is an intelligence that knows how to use our system.
it was here before we became physical and it's still around when we cease to be in the physical world.
what remains is the essense of what we are. 🙏🌺
Ok so qualia exists in different scales, forms and quantities with different scopes and qualities. Question: how big and complex can it get? Oh dear, just after I'd totally junked the concept of god.
He asks: What are the requirements to generate qualia?, but what he means is: What are the physical requirements for generating qualia in embodied consciousness? There is a huge difference between these two questions. If you ask what the physical requirements are for generating sound in a computer, you may find that manipulation of some parts of the computer affects the sound, but if you conclude from that that those parts are the only requirements to produce sound, you will delude yourself, because even if you discover all the parts of the computer involved in the production of sound, you will discover only the physical requirements for it, you will never find consciousness without which there is no sound at all. Computer produces sound only when conscious beings use it as a tool to do that type of content. The brain produces certain qualia only when consciousness uses it as a tool to do that type of content.
I'm pretty sure that whatever is our ability to realize that we exist is what everything else is built on. I can't say I think you should believe everything in the Bible but God is referred to as "The Great I am".
Upon fertilization, calcium increases and zinc is rapidly released. When this happens, the zinc joins itself to small, light-emitting molecule probes. In other words, it creates a microscopic flash of light.
This looks like ancient/medieval philosophy
Addiction
Wrong question dear Robert Lawrence Kuhn. The proper question is "Why conciousness makes/requieres a brain"
@@frebrea wrong question dear you. The proper question is "why think things like consciousness makes/requires a brain"
That’s like asking why does a fresh water lake require water?
@@callmeishmael3031 accept fresh water a priori requires water. Consciousness does not a priori require water. If consciousness requires brains (which i doubt it does) that wouldnt be something analytic it would be synthetic.
@@highvalence7649 Consciousness is brains and all the rest of the sensory perception system. Add it all together and that's consciousness.
@@callmeishmael3031 i doubt it, but even if it was that, that's not something we would know a priori. That's not something we would know just by looking at the meaning of the words and making a deductive inference. It's something that would also involve emprical observations.
could qualia have something to do with instructions by DNA in each cell?
that seems to be the underlying premise that Rudolfo is submitting ... fascinating
Wrong question to begin with
We can search but you will never find it... the explanation for consciousness relies on faith and faith alone ... God will never alow humans to find/discover the secret of life... its only by faith that you will understand it...
What makes everyone so sure that the brains creat consciousness. What if it’s the other way around a consciousness enters our body. Are only people conscious? I don’t think so there is evidence that plants are aware of thier surroundings. I think a better question is what is consciousness? Open minds .
mechanical sensors also react to events in their surroundings. But are they aware?
Is a mechanical sensor aware that it's aware? Nope ,but you are.
Because having no brain makes you unconscious. That’s a simple one to answer.
Plants are made up of cells.
Thats the problem of science, he made this theory 50 years ago and he will never back down , no matter what happens because no scientist will admit to be wrong (except a few)... they get in love with their own theory no matter what.
It's not a problem at all.
Science operates in a manner similar to defense/prosecution interaction; the scientists are expected to defend their own idea no matter what, while other scientists are expected to do their best to shoot it down.
@@ezbody there are also much more trivial forces that operate there, like ambition, pride, money, titles, delusion ....
Lol. U just described the opposite. Science is constantly changing and being reviewed and challenged. The exception is when there is no more debate and it is already settled. There is no reason for us to think water might not hydrate, have a differente molecule composition...but should any sign of that need arise, scientists would be reviewing this knowledge
@@DeniseCoelhoEnglishForLife was Plank who said that science advance one funeral at a time. Just observe how proponents of string theory are totally unable to take a step back ..they will fight for their wrong theories to the end.. and since they are influential people they will continue to keep science back and fool the public.
@@DeniseCoelhoEnglishForLife just think about the string theory ... we know its mathematically wrong but NO ONE of its proponents is backing down. There is too much credibility, prestige, money, pride, at stake. As Planck said "science advance one funeral at a time"
That's a unique take on qualia.
Let me find out that some day this guy's going to discover little subatomic particles in each neuron that are the essences of "red", "green", "anger", "funny", "pain", etc. (do I put 'etc' in quotes here?); and that these 'feelings' particles replicate with each cell division. Hah! That's about as cartoon as is even possible. If that actually happens - magic is real ... which I probably wouldn't mind.
A talker like most Colombians…
Wrong question!
It's only humans who have a capability of "thinking and pondering". Peace be upon you'll out there
y'all
No. This is an anthropocentric view that has been debunked over and over. Most non human animals have slbeen proven to have this ability as well
Daimeter protocal prolongs in a stem to provide cell movement
Human brain is a gene product.Consciousness is a brain product.Human mind is a meme product.Consciousness is subjective awareness.Consciousness itself does not do anything.Human behaviour ,choices,decisions and actions are controlled by information (both genetic and memetic) residing there.
The creation of God it is so amazing thank you God for giving us the freewill to question everything.
Trying to penetrate thought in reaching an inclination of God is very arduous. Props to anybody who really endeavors and has the courage to do it. No greater investigation than seeking God.
The “plasm” is full of microtubules! They make single cells intelligent! Single cells are affected by anesthesia like us!
😂
@@dr_shrinker which part do you think is not true?
All of it. DNA is responsible for cell reproduction.
@@dr_shrinker cell reproduction doesn’t happen without microtubules. [in response to a now deleted objection]
Help! Ayuda! Aiuto! It's urgent! Urgente! Por amor de Dios! ¿Quién entendió? Who understood?. Chi capice!?. What is your language? ¿Que idiomas hablas?. The truth that saves literally your life is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. La verdad que te salva literalmente la vida es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. La verdad es Dios existe porque lógicamente es imposible la existencia de la creación o finitud sin el creador o infinitud. La humanidad tiene que saberlo. El futuro será mejor con más conocimiento. Escribimos nuestra historia pensando. Se puede ser feliz pensando. La vida son dos días y los único que importa es la eternidad. El verdadero Dios es lo único que importa. I need this loving poem to be read in prisons. Death penalty can be abolish and your life saved. Thank you.
Rodolfo Llinas has successfully developed the perfect wrong theory.
😂🙏🏻💯
@sujok-acupuncture9246... Please explain why you say it's the perfect wrong theory.
@@cepamor😢
Is it possible to clearly explain tis issue ?
Lots of words but not enough clarity .
He can't explain
I think it’s going to be a long time before we know for sure what consciousness is - but I think Professor Llinas has made a very intelligent stab at understanding it. As valid as the other hypotheses showcased on Closer to Truth. Excellently presented I must add.
Materialists will always resort to matter for an answer. In this case it does not compute. Consciousness is the hard problem for philosophy. It will likely be found to be the case that it is fundamental while Mind is elemental; emerging with quantum events.
Materialism posits one dimension, and it is more than likely that there are three dimensions; Consciousness or Awareness; Mind or Ideas; the ideational. The third dimension the elemental; both macro and micro. Each dimension being separate from the others having its own space.
It is difficult for materialists to grasp this or give up their notion that matter is primary and all there is; fundamental to, and responsible for all else.
If consciousness is to be understood;; if mind is to be understood it will be necessary to acknowledge their own dimensions separate from the elemental while noting that the mind is a subtler version of the the gross elemental.
But thoughts, ideas, and intent are physical. Neuroscientists are able to read and decipher a person’s thoughts using FMRI. Soon, even your thoughts won’t be private anymore.
But thoughts are physical and quantifiable. 25:28
ua-cam.com/video/q3PuQ4Gzx3w/v-deo.htmlsi=1cZjBpfifOyvEIe7
@@dr_shrinker That is the case as the mind is elemental; emerging with quantum events. But consciousness itself is off-limits as it is not elemental.
@@ALavin-en1krconsciousness has to be otherwise it couldn’t affect physical things.
Consciousness is a hard problem for philosophy because philosophers want to think it is. It is not hard to understand why we experience the phenomena of consciousness. This can be fully understood within physics, and it doesn't matter whether that's classical or quantum physics. Computational science has something to say about this, and artificial intelligence is showing how simple it is to understand this. Within this framework, we can know that existing AI such as language models are not conscious, but with the addition of vision and other modalities, with deeper reasoning and with a real-time stream of input processing and internal generations all recorded and accessible as memory, it becomes trivial and almost unavoidable to create a conscious machine.
@@MarkGubrud I will believe it when I see it and I do not expect to see it. Astro turf is not grass and will never be grass.
Are brains conscious or is consciousness brained?
The former and not the latter, in my opinion
“Brain” is a concept created by consciousness
@@deanodebo Consciousness is created by brain, soo...
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y how do you know that? Can you justify that claim?
In fact, how do you know anything at all with certainty?
@deanodebo It's my opinion based on the evidence I've seen combined with Occams Razor. If that's not enough for you feel free to convince me I'm wrong.
Huh?
In other words, reductionism and (weak) emergence are two sides of the same coin. I'm not sure what is the big deal. When we talk about knowledge stored on the internet, we don't mean that it is somehow only in the interconnections and network. We obviously know each computer and these days even IOT devices contribute to the knowledge. The hyperlinks in the documents connect the knowledge. When physicalists say that consciousness is nothing but physical brain and body it is implied that cells play a role. And for humans our instruments that are not our bodies extend our perceptions, microscopes, telescopes, hearing aids, infrared cameras, and so on and in turn extend our consciousness. Robert and Rodolfo are fabricating a separate category where there was none. If they thought that other physicalists did not already think that individual cells did play a role, then they already misunderstand physicalism. Mario should get in touch with Michael Levin and learn his take on expanding and shrinking self and cognitive light cone if cells, tissues, organs and organisms. Michael also talks about how cancer cells shrink their notion of self to themselves when the gap junctions between cells breaks down. And this is the reason the compositional nature of physical sub-parts to create bigger notions of consciousness makes sense - which BTW is co-opted by Panpsychists - who have the confidence to deny the compositional claim of physicalism. But Panpsychists claim for themselves that consciousness is composed from proto-conscious parts without defining or explaining what is proto-consciousness. Scientists like Michael Levin concretely show the notion of reduced self of a cancer cell and even show how it can be integrated back into the tissue by applying electric potential. Panpsychism is empty.
The issue is not between subdivisions of physicalism. The issue is between supernaturalism and non-supernaturalism - especially the claim that in-principle it is impossible to know how conscious phenomenon occur. Note that I do not mention physicalism because we know that physics is not a finished project. So to some extent physicalism has an open ended aspect.
Electrical signals.
Prefer bernardo kastrups analytical idealism
Qualia is nothing more than language. No language, no Qualia.
God your Father . Jesus is Lord
Axons and dendrites.😂
Brain is s corolory of consciousness and not otherwise.
Entire life is to realise this
What stands for the water that you want to dissolve the soul in? Isn’t that the soul itself? You make logically no sense
No one has a clue
Apparently they do. Science has shown consciousness is purely physical.
@@dr_shrinker How?