Hard science relies on isolating and controlling variables. Consciousness cannot be isolated or controlled for. Therefore, hard science cannot be done on consciousness.
I don't know if it would be correct to say that science can't be done on consciousness. I think it would be more correct to say that reductionism, a philosophy in science, cannot be done on consciousness.
@@CeruleanMuun yet hard science is produced by consciousness. Better put, the philosophy of "hard science" is a product of a particular materialistc consciousness.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs that depend on the level of abstraction one chooses to analyze the system and are used to approximately describe underlying physical processes; these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities, and therefore consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that the very foundations of our scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini
My difficulty is not understanding how the brain (or the entire body...) generates behaviors. My difficulty is understanding how my body generates my subjective awareness of my body and the representations that my body generates of itself and the environment. I feel my foot touching the slipper I'm wearing... even more so because I'm shaking my leg a little nervously... aware that I'm doing all this with several other sensations that I don't pay attention to, but if someone asks me if I'm I feel some pain... I realize that I have a slight pain in my back, a ringing in my ears, etc... and then I focus on something else and forget or leave other things in the background... Each may, if he wishes, adopt the hypothesis that all others are non-player characters. In fact, I myself can consider myself a non-player character. Non-player, even though I may enjoy or suffer... Even my own behavior can be explained in a deterministic way and this is not a great mystery or paradox (for me, at least). The great mystery is that I suffer, I have illusions and some joys or even a broad sense of fulfillment (Eudaimonia). It is interesting to remember that in the Jewish and even Christian tradition, in the texts, the one who has a spirit is God... We (and even Jesus) have consciousness with a body (which is why it is a matter of resurrection, with the gathering of dust and breath divine of life...). A spirit does not solve the problem... It can be understood as another type of body, another type of physical reality... but it still generates the problem of how a physical entity generates an entity... mental (conscious, capable of feel and be aware of what you are feeling...).
You have no idea how the brain works - which is ok, no one does yet. It is incredibly complex - and no, your "scientific knowledge" doesn't prove anything about consciousness, because no one yet knows how a living brain works from moment to moment. Most scientific knowledge about the brain is in our future - we only know a tiny bit of what there is to know. What you are providing us with are your guesses - but you're a physicist, you say, and not a neuroscientist.
@@nycbearff We have some or many ideas about how the brain works. But we don't have a broad or comprehensive explanation that is satisfactory... Even worse, some widely recognized hypotheses often fail to be tested, such as the theory about the relationship between seritonin levels and depression - we don't even know how the drugs developed with based on this hypothesis they work, assuming they work...
Carroll's view is very biased; we don't need to hold to physicalism dogmatically - because, to use his own words, at the end of the day physicalism itself is just some extra words you overlay upon matter and the equations that describe it. There's no reason at all to assume arbitrarily that consciousness must eventually be reducible to brain bits and processes - and if you want _real_ progress in understanding as opposed to mere confirmation bias and/or job security, you'd treat it for what it is: a very flimsy working hypothesis of how a particular aspect of the world works.
SC seems to suggest that the only things that exist is material. Concepts, opinions, ideas, ambitions etc are certainly not material and do not consist of atoms, photons etc.
You claim that concepts etc are "not material" - what is your evidence? They don't exist unless they're held in patterns of brain cells. Without brains, there would be no opinions or ambitions.
@@user-xr1vd4pl7w We do. exactly like consciousness can be deactivated via anesthesia/narcotics. You have no clue about the piaget stages of mind development by human experiments or how 2 minds are even merged to see eachother dreams like the merged hogan twins. /watch?v=N1Mac4FeKXg
@@user-xr1vd4pl7w My friend, do you have an example (not an analogy) of "how those things work" without material or the physical ? And is Strength, Sight, Smell, any different than "consciousness" in terms of supposedly lacking "material" ? Can you have any of the 3 aforementioned without the physical as the substrate ? And since like S. Carroll said: "we don't understand the fundamental foundations of quantum mechanics" how can we be "absolute" that: "Concepts, opinions, ideas, ambitions etc are certainly not material and do not consist of atoms, photons etc." ?
Every scientist that wants to get a fast audience starts grifting the same way. " Science can't figure out what consciousness is or how it works" opening the door for mystics 😂
It has taken me 30 years journey to unlock the scientific structure of consciousness from sub-quantum level. Ellen is on the right thinking, I have discovered where thinking starts from. Sean is incorrect as there is organisation of sub-atomic particles structure which give rise to consciousness and phenomenal experiences. Trouble is science has not seen that or reached that level of scientific discovery... Jack Symes has conducted the interview well
What this individual keeps on harping on are the laws of physics which are statistical truths and nowhere to be found in nature. To be precise they are constructs of a materialist mindsett or consciousness. In order to change the " laws of physics" you have to change your consciousness from the material to the spiritual or non-material.
Thanks! "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all" (John 6:63). Can I guess in quantum terms a little: flesh would mean a collapsed observable image, that our eyes can see and it is being collapsed because of our disbelief, that a particle can travel through both slits at once. So since the universe is subjective (see Wigner's friend paradox), there is really no collapsed moon, when I don't look at it. What do I see right now? Your collapsed video. And what about four of you? You are in superposition for me with lots of probabilities. So everyone whom I know also most of the time remains in superposition as long as I see this person or whatever else with my mind's eyes.
This debate is invalid. Check Michael Levin's work. A group of cells is a well functioning cognitive system. Matter and cognition go together. We dont yet know what matter is or can do. Its not about - are we just cogs and gears. Thats underwhelming. Its about - wow! cogs and gears can make this amazing majestic human organism. So yes Science is the way and its going in the right direction. It will just take time, thats all
"the fundamental physics underlying us and our everyday lives is actually understood" -Sean Carroll We have no understanding of how matter transcended into biology or how biology transcended into consciousness. Implying that understanding particle physics translates to understanding consciousness is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Well, he didn't say that. He just said that Langer's claims that science is untrustworthy and only about probabilities is wrong - the standard model of quantum physics doesn't explain a lot of things, but the things it DOES explain have been tested and tested and tested, and it is rock solid in those things.
@@chrisking1986 The brain is a receiver, a transducer, a receptor, an organic machine. It is NOT the creator of consciousness, the origin of consciousness.
@@chrisking1986you mean to say that brains can’t be observed away from consciousness. You’re thinking about it backwards. Everything is mediated through consciousness, even brain-observations, such as fMRI. Check out Federico Faggin to get a better grasp of this. If you really take time to ponder it, the brain cannot be the generator of consciousness. It just doesn’t follow from the facts. It’s an unbridgeable gap… hence the “hard problem” and why it’ll never be solved through a physicalist lens.
@@thstroyur i think the issue is in equating "religious material" with Materialism. For instance... saying "Moses parting the Red Sea" would be "physically impossible"...limits one's consiousness of the fact that Moses (a hebrew name that means "to draw out of water") was preforming a miraculous act of 'Reverse Os-moses"... (or something like that).
@@thstroyur Good point. Let's consider the placebo effect for a moment. Science generally isn't interested in placebo effects and other exotic phenomena (including various supernatural evidence) because they may go beyond the physical as we know it. Thus, we can agree that equating "scientific" with "physical" is more about convenience, capabilities, and confidence than about absolute knowledge. Not to dwell on it but the below example may serve as a good example of ignorance stemmed from the limits of our understanding of the reality. The Greek philosopher Thales noted that amber, when rubbed, attracted small objects. Thales believed that this was due to the amber having a soul or a form of life force that enabled it to attract other objects. While this explanation is far from our modern understanding of static electricity, it proves that our limit of understanding may not be a good excuse for limiting the reality, fabricating it, nor for ignoring the evidence.
@@dyrtyharry6789 If I get what you're saying, one also doesn't need to hold a preternatural event like the parting of the Red Sea, if true, _must_ refer to a naturalistic explanation like, 'at that time a little earthquake or something happened by pure dumb luck'...
Do you know that you can do it yourself using the settings under the video? Clicking the little cogwheel under the video will show you a menu. If you click it you'll see 'quality' at the bottom of the menu. Scroll down and you can lower it all the way down to 144p. That works at < 0.5Mbps. It will be fuzzier though. Try that and if you don't have any problems with the video stopping then try going up to 240p. Fiddle about like that to get the best your connection can handle.
@@LambentIchor not on their site you cant. The file they upload is over 4GB wich excessive for a a 58 minute video. Not even a three hour movie needs to be that large
When I try to think of the mind as an effect of a certain material organization, I break down the problem as follows: if it works on an obscure level (quantum or something like that) it must work on a rustic, macroscopic level, with well-understood tools, even if they are macroscopic stabilizations. of somewhat obscure microscopic phenomena (quantum...). So... if consciousness can emerge from a physical phenomenon... it should be possible to emerge from gears. Okay, it could be terribly slow and limited, requiring, perhaps, a mechanism the size of Jupiter or our solar system, or the Milky Way... and take billions of years to think something lame like "I'd rather keep sleeping a little longer ", in a gigantic experiment in which this peculiar subject would be under the yoke of a type III or IV civilization on the Kardashev scale willing to act like Descartes' evil demon or genius (or God), or Putnam's mad scientist... The issue is not the evil genius or mad scientist (or mad civilization) willing to do the experiment. The question is whether it makes sense to attribute consciousness to a well-known physical system. Where would this "effect" of consciousness emerge from in the strong sense that each of the readers of this (supposedly...) very well experiences: it is not an especially intellectual phenomenon and involves many sensually felt sensations... such as laziness, pain more or less tolerable, habitual or desperate etc... followed by a relative not thinking about anything and then feeling your heart racing when thinking that you are late and then feeling relief because you realize that you are not late and so on... the flow of thought (which is mainly a feeling and resentment...). Another problem is breaking this down into small parts, into simple parts. Based on this hypothesis, that more or less deterministic mechanics generate consciousness, is the toilet flushing mechanism conscious at a very basic level? Does a mousetrap have some, minimal degree of consciousness, let alone a mechanical or purely virtual robot? Does a simulation have consciousness or does it just simulate consciousness? The monist trap is precisely the emergence of consciousness as a ghost of practically any event or system even accidentally combined (or conceived). The scarecrow becomes a conscious entity... perhaps less than an amoeba and much less than a person, but some degree of consciousness seems to be assumed for any organization or integration of elements, even the crudest. The dualist trap, in any case (not necessarily because it is more wrong), is worse, as apparently they are two substances that are either incomplete (perhaps complementary) or redundant (or manifestations of a third Real Substance...). I tend to think in monistic terms. The question of freedom seems different to me. Consciousness does not need to be free, including the feeling of being able to make decisions being an illusion - because we have the constitutive illusion that we can choose A instead of B, but we do so based on interests, pressures, irritations that we do not control - on the contrary , they control us, they "motivate" (move) us, even though they themselves have no will, they are just factors that influence "our" decisions. In this sense, I don't see a problem with how to explain consciousness "moving" our bodies, me thinking "I'm going to move my hand" and it moving doesn't involve any magic, because the phenomenon can be understood as my body deciding to move my hand and giving me the sensation (illusory as an experience of freedom or decision) that I have decided to move my hand. For me, freedom does not emerge from a lack of determination (that is being random, not being free); freedom emerges from the expression of a "nature", of a system, of a subject or person - the problem with this conception is that we are as free as a stone that rolls without obstacles down a slope... we are more complex and "roll" in a more complex way, but basically that's what we do... with the additional complication that we are aware that we are rolling and with the illusion that we decide... something like "on that bump I'm going to take a jump... just because I I want..." Returning to the toilet flush: am I like a toilet flush or an infinity of toilet flushes (billions or trillions of cells, billions of trillions of cellular organelles?)? None of this complexity as great as one wants to consider (we can insert Roger Penrose's quantum hypothesis, recently delirious in quantum phenomena in cell centrioles... or Denis Noble's harnessing of stochasticity)... none of this seems to me to do more than push the issue forward, for something obscure where we can delude ourselves that we have found or will find a solution.
Langer wants perfections and completeness. But we don’t need perfect answers, and probably have never had perfect answers - that doesn’t defeat the purpose of doing science.
I'm not sure it's fair to say she wants perfection or completeness. She was just trying to make the point that science often cannot provide complete explanations on questions such as the nature of consciousness. And science is not supposed to pretend to always give definitive answers... Absolute truths in science are not easily arrived at, because most conclusions are forever subject to revision or refinement. Scientific theories, even when very well founded in the evidence, can often only be honestly characterized as our best explanation of something, for now. And that is how science is known to work, and most scientists understand this limitation. People in general though, often expect more than that, and often erroneously misunderstand that our scientifically best explanations are indisputable scientific facts.
I really resent this extended click-bait technique. Give a taster of an interesting talk, then require subscription to continue watching. It's fine - I'll just remember to avoid iai videos generally, since there are plenty of others talking about the same issues.
Yes... don't "neutrino's" or (other sub-atomic particles) only exists theoretically? And whether they did or didn't... if these are observable phenomena... do we even know what they're for? Far as i know, so far, they only exist to satisfy an equation.
@@dyrtyharry6789 The neutrino exists. It's just the name given to a particular type of beta decay (the sun being a big source). But they have been detected (and Nobel Prizes awarded).
@@_uncreditedthat's good to know. Apparently it's information like that that invalidates any and all of the claims uncovered in egyptian hieroglyphs or vedic scriptures or the Holy Bible. In which case, the science of today is certainly adversarial to the consiousness of the latter.
You can test cells and find some answers which are facts, not probabilities. For a given cell, with a given set of DNA, a given chemical at a given temperature and quantity will have a specific effect. No probability involved. Biology is not like physics, it's much more complex, but also more testable in some ways.
When we talk about consciousness, we are talking about the connection between different parts of the physical world such as particles in combination with energy and time. This connection is of course always there, it is referred to in the statement "everything is consciousness" but is only manifest when there is an observer, in general an observing human being. Man does not become directly aware of reality, but builds a model of the world from the first perception. This model, referred to in Eastern philosophy by stating “the universe is within the person”, encoded in synapses, neurons and hormones, humans use to influence the physical world. The redness of red as quale then arises also only during lifelong learning, in the model in a biological system dominated by hormones, reflexes, memory and the activation of the coherence constructed in this model.
I like the Orchestrated Objective Reduction idea. It's non-computational which seems like a far better avenue for exploration to me. I don't think it's anywhere near correct, but I do think there's something to quantum states as an emergent property of microtubules. At least it's an idea that can actually be developed and tested, given time.
Langer begins by ruling out all forms of Dualism by relying on an assumption (expressed as a rhetorical question): "how do you get thoughts from mind to body?" She ignored the possibility that thought flows in the _opposite_ direction: from brain to mind. In other words, her objection doesn't apply to a little-discussed form of Dualism in which consciousness is a passive experiencer of brain activity. (Until brain death. After that, it could either disappear or continue in an afterlife.) Typical believers of Dualism dislike this "weak" form of Dualism because it associates well with determinism and lack of "strong" free will. But on the other hand, it offers the possibility of an afterlife in which consciousness is freed from the deterministic brain.
Hi, good to meet a fellow commenter on the Closer to Truth channel. It's frustrating that IAI paywalls it's debates. I'm not quite clear what the's advocating for, possibly some form of idealism?
Reality is a limiting biological effect of that which is existence. If everything is better explained by quantum mechanics then love, sadness, feelings in general is just a quantum probability. That we are here at all is a probability. To me however, consciousness transcends the probability of outcomes.
consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
Nobody's talking about the neurons. You won't understand the need to have an immaterial conscious personality if you don't study the neurons. The ancient philosopher scientists discovered the soul by knowing the limitations of the neurons.
There are over 3000 different cell types in the brain. Not just neurons. All of the cell types contribute to its functions - but no one knows how that happens, yet.
@@nycbearff The brain is all-neuronal. There may be different types of neurons but the structures of the brain whether it be the cerebral cortex or the hippocampus or the hypothalamus are all composed of neurons. My point is unless you discuss these constituent units of the brain and understand their nature and limitations how can you seek to understand what consciousness is and how subjective conscious experience comes about.
Why wouldn't you consider Useful, Meaningful, Structured Information as a kind of Spirit or a kind of Operating Systen😅😅😅 What if loving God did give parameters to Evolution just like we to Ai??? 😅
Hard science relies on isolating and controlling variables. Consciousness cannot be isolated or controlled for. Therefore, hard science cannot be done on consciousness.
I don't know if it would be correct to say that science can't be done on consciousness. I think it would be more correct to say that reductionism, a philosophy in science, cannot be done on consciousness.
@@CeruleanMuun yet hard science is produced by consciousness. Better put, the philosophy of "hard science" is a product of a particular materialistc consciousness.
@@FrancoisMouton-iu7jt Perhaps a change in consciousness could help with that
I am so excited to be alive
This is a (mostly) disappointing coverage of the stated theme; in part due to the Institute's wont to insert 'vs' in the topic, albeit not uncommon.
Even consiousness itslef cant solve consiousness. Then How will Science solve it?
Tamar's response completely bodied Sean, my god!
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Purpose. Peace ✌️ 😎. Great video.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs that depend on the level of abstraction one chooses to analyze the system and are used to approximately describe underlying physical processes; these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities, and therefore consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that the very foundations of our scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.
Marco Biagini
OMG here you go guys, catholicism was right, science proves it /s
My difficulty is not understanding how the brain (or the entire body...) generates behaviors. My difficulty is understanding how my body generates my subjective awareness of my body and the representations that my body generates of itself and the environment. I feel my foot touching the slipper I'm wearing... even more so because I'm shaking my leg a little nervously... aware that I'm doing all this with several other sensations that I don't pay attention to, but if someone asks me if I'm I feel some pain... I realize that I have a slight pain in my back, a ringing in my ears, etc... and then I focus on something else and forget or leave other things in the background...
Each may, if he wishes, adopt the hypothesis that all others are non-player characters. In fact, I myself can consider myself a non-player character. Non-player, even though I may enjoy or suffer... Even my own behavior can be explained in a deterministic way and this is not a great mystery or paradox (for me, at least). The great mystery is that I suffer, I have illusions and some joys or even a broad sense of fulfillment (Eudaimonia).
It is interesting to remember that in the Jewish and even Christian tradition, in the texts, the one who has a spirit is God... We (and even Jesus) have consciousness with a body (which is why it is a matter of resurrection, with the gathering of dust and breath divine of life...). A spirit does not solve the problem... It can be understood as another type of body, another type of physical reality... but it still generates the problem of how a physical entity generates an entity... mental (conscious, capable of feel and be aware of what you are feeling...).
You’re a christian masquerading as a scientist … you’re argument is just another “god of the gaps” argument.
You have no idea how the brain works - which is ok, no one does yet. It is incredibly complex - and no, your "scientific knowledge" doesn't prove anything about consciousness, because no one yet knows how a living brain works from moment to moment. Most scientific knowledge about the brain is in our future - we only know a tiny bit of what there is to know.
What you are providing us with are your guesses - but you're a physicist, you say, and not a neuroscientist.
@@nycbearff We have some or many ideas about how the brain works. But we don't have a broad or comprehensive explanation that is satisfactory... Even worse, some widely recognized hypotheses often fail to be tested, such as the theory about the relationship between seritonin levels and depression - we don't even know how the drugs developed with based on this hypothesis they work, assuming they work...
Carroll's view is very biased; we don't need to hold to physicalism dogmatically - because, to use his own words, at the end of the day physicalism itself is just some extra words you overlay upon matter and the equations that describe it. There's no reason at all to assume arbitrarily that consciousness must eventually be reducible to brain bits and processes - and if you want _real_ progress in understanding as opposed to mere confirmation bias and/or job security, you'd treat it for what it is: a very flimsy working hypothesis of how a particular aspect of the world works.
Every view is biased. There is no unbiased view in humans
SC seems to suggest that the only things that exist is material. Concepts, opinions, ideas, ambitions etc are certainly not material and do not consist of atoms, photons etc.
You claim that concepts etc are "not material" - what is your evidence? They don't exist unless they're held in patterns of brain cells. Without brains, there would be no opinions or ambitions.
this is against how dementia and alzheimer and amnesia works.
@@Angelmouscience doesn't know how those things work.
@@user-xr1vd4pl7w We do. exactly like consciousness can be deactivated via anesthesia/narcotics. You have no clue about the piaget stages of mind development by human experiments or how 2 minds are even merged to see eachother dreams like the merged hogan twins. /watch?v=N1Mac4FeKXg
@@user-xr1vd4pl7w My friend, do you have an example (not an analogy) of "how those things work" without material or the physical ?
And is Strength, Sight, Smell, any different than "consciousness" in terms of supposedly lacking "material" ?
Can you have any of the 3 aforementioned without the physical as the substrate ?
And since like S. Carroll said: "we don't understand the fundamental foundations of quantum mechanics" how can we be "absolute" that:
"Concepts, opinions, ideas, ambitions etc are certainly not material and do not consist of atoms, photons etc." ?
Every scientist that wants to get a fast audience starts grifting the same way. " Science can't figure out what consciousness is or how it works" opening the door for mystics 😂
Physics proves that the world is not physical at its core. Consciousness is also non physical.
Said well ellen, and you're quite right i must say. Peace ✌️ 😎 ellen. Keep the fight going.
It has taken me 30 years journey to unlock the scientific structure of consciousness from sub-quantum level. Ellen is on the right thinking, I have discovered where thinking starts from. Sean is incorrect as there is organisation of sub-atomic particles structure which give rise to consciousness and phenomenal experiences. Trouble is science has not seen that or reached that level of scientific discovery... Jack Symes has conducted the interview well
You have "discovered where thinking comes from"? And "science has not seen that"? Then it's time you told science where thinking comes from!
What this individual keeps on harping on are the laws of physics which are statistical truths and nowhere to be found in nature. To be precise they are constructs of a materialist mindsett or consciousness. In order to change the " laws of physics" you have to change your consciousness from the material to the spiritual or non-material.
Huh?
consciousness is not something to be “solved”. What an absurd notion.
Thought-provoking.
... or NOT (insert Wayne's World reference)
They'd be just as bewildered explaining the TV Set.
Yes! Lol
We don't understand how a brain does what it does yet. So how can we know what consciousness is, yet? That doesn't mean we never will.
Langer still calling the hard problem the mind body problem 🤣 didn't get the memo
She's a psychologist. They are easily confused. Any competent biologist will tell you that there is no actual mind body problem, it's all one system.
Ellen have a set of choppers?? Looks like it!
You keep talking about the things that we do not know and according to you we will never understand.
Thanks! "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all" (John 6:63). Can I guess in quantum terms a little: flesh would mean a collapsed observable image, that our eyes can see and it is being collapsed because of our disbelief, that a particle can travel through both slits at once. So since the universe is subjective (see Wigner's friend paradox), there is really no collapsed moon, when I don't look at it. What do I see right now? Your collapsed video. And what about four of you? You are in superposition for me with lots of probabilities. So everyone whom I know also most of the time remains in superposition as long as I see this person or whatever else with my mind's eyes.
This debate is invalid. Check Michael Levin's work. A group of cells is a well functioning cognitive system. Matter and cognition go together. We dont yet know what matter is or can do. Its not about - are we just cogs and gears. Thats underwhelming. Its about - wow! cogs and gears can make this amazing majestic human organism.
So yes Science is the way and its going in the right direction.
It will just take time, thats all
"the fundamental physics underlying us and our everyday lives is actually understood" -Sean Carroll
We have no understanding of how matter transcended into biology or how biology transcended into consciousness.
Implying that understanding particle physics translates to understanding consciousness is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Well, he didn't say that. He just said that Langer's claims that science is untrustworthy and only about probabilities is wrong - the standard model of quantum physics doesn't explain a lot of things, but the things it DOES explain have been tested and tested and tested, and it is rock solid in those things.
Another biased materialist discussion which ignores the non-physical origin of consciousness. Science will never solve consciousness.
Michael Levin is getting science closer to it. Also, Federico Faggin. Empiricism isn’t a lost cause.
We don’t need perfect answers, and probably never have had perfect answers - that doesn’t defeat the purpose of doing science.
Consciousness isn't observed away from brains. It cannot have a non-physical origin.
@@chrisking1986 The brain is a receiver, a transducer, a receptor, an organic machine. It is NOT the creator of consciousness, the origin of consciousness.
@@chrisking1986you mean to say that brains can’t be observed away from consciousness. You’re thinking about it backwards. Everything is mediated through consciousness, even brain-observations, such as fMRI. Check out Federico Faggin to get a better grasp of this.
If you really take time to ponder it, the brain cannot be the generator of consciousness. It just doesn’t follow from the facts. It’s an unbridgeable gap… hence the “hard problem” and why it’ll never be solved through a physicalist lens.
Science can’t even solve disease. Yet consciousness can solve disease. That’s funny
Wow! So true!
You want a reductionist view of emergent behavior. Rots of ruck.
Also, the thesis 'Science VERSUS Consciousness'? Why versus, implying conflict?
Because "Science" (ie Physics) limits the possibilities...
@@dyrtyharry6789 I don't equate "science" or "physics" with "physicalism"...
@@thstroyur i think the issue is in equating "religious material"
with Materialism. For instance... saying "Moses parting the Red Sea" would be "physically impossible"...limits one's consiousness of the fact that Moses (a hebrew name that means "to draw out of water") was preforming a miraculous act of 'Reverse Os-moses"... (or something like that).
@@thstroyur Good point. Let's consider the placebo effect for a moment. Science generally isn't interested in placebo effects and other exotic phenomena (including various supernatural evidence) because they may go beyond the physical as we know it. Thus, we can agree that equating "scientific" with "physical" is more about convenience, capabilities, and confidence than about absolute knowledge. Not to dwell on it but the below example may serve as a good example of ignorance stemmed from the limits of our understanding of the reality. The Greek philosopher Thales noted that amber, when rubbed, attracted small objects. Thales believed that this was due to the amber having a soul or a form of life force that enabled it to attract other objects. While this explanation is far from our modern understanding of static electricity, it proves that our limit of understanding may not be a good excuse for limiting the reality, fabricating it, nor for ignoring the evidence.
@@dyrtyharry6789 If I get what you're saying, one also doesn't need to hold a preternatural event like the parting of the Red Sea, if true, _must_ refer to a naturalistic explanation like, 'at that time a little earthquake or something happened by pure dumb luck'...
Can you please make the files smaller on your main site.
As they are proving impossible to stream for those of us on limited bandwidth
Do you know that you can do it yourself using the settings under the video?
Clicking the little cogwheel under the video will show you a menu. If you click it you'll see 'quality' at the bottom of the menu. Scroll down and you can lower it all the way down to 144p. That works at < 0.5Mbps. It will be fuzzier though. Try that and if you don't have any problems with the video stopping then try going up to 240p. Fiddle about like that to get the best your connection can handle.
@@LambentIchor not on their site you cant. The file they upload is over 4GB wich excessive for a a 58 minute video. Not even a three hour movie needs to be that large
@@rainblaze. Forgive me. When reading I missed where you specifically mentioned the main site.
When I try to think of the mind as an effect of a certain material organization, I break down the problem as follows: if it works on an obscure level (quantum or something like that) it must work on a rustic, macroscopic level, with well-understood tools, even if they are macroscopic stabilizations. of somewhat obscure microscopic phenomena (quantum...).
So... if consciousness can emerge from a physical phenomenon... it should be possible to emerge from gears. Okay, it could be terribly slow and limited, requiring, perhaps, a mechanism the size of Jupiter or our solar system, or the Milky Way... and take billions of years to think something lame like "I'd rather keep sleeping a little longer ", in a gigantic experiment in which this peculiar subject would be under the yoke of a type III or IV civilization on the Kardashev scale willing to act like Descartes' evil demon or genius (or God), or Putnam's mad scientist...
The issue is not the evil genius or mad scientist (or mad civilization) willing to do the experiment. The question is whether it makes sense to attribute consciousness to a well-known physical system. Where would this "effect" of consciousness emerge from in the strong sense that each of the readers of this (supposedly...) very well experiences: it is not an especially intellectual phenomenon and involves many sensually felt sensations... such as laziness, pain more or less tolerable, habitual or desperate etc... followed by a relative not thinking about anything and then feeling your heart racing when thinking that you are late and then feeling relief because you realize that you are not late and so on... the flow of thought (which is mainly a feeling and resentment...).
Another problem is breaking this down into small parts, into simple parts. Based on this hypothesis, that more or less deterministic mechanics generate consciousness, is the toilet flushing mechanism conscious at a very basic level? Does a mousetrap have some, minimal degree of consciousness, let alone a mechanical or purely virtual robot? Does a simulation have consciousness or does it just simulate consciousness?
The monist trap is precisely the emergence of consciousness as a ghost of practically any event or system even accidentally combined (or conceived). The scarecrow becomes a conscious entity... perhaps less than an amoeba and much less than a person, but some degree of consciousness seems to be assumed for any organization or integration of elements, even the crudest. The dualist trap, in any case (not necessarily because it is more wrong), is worse, as apparently they are two substances that are either incomplete (perhaps complementary) or redundant (or manifestations of a third Real Substance...). I tend to think in monistic terms.
The question of freedom seems different to me. Consciousness does not need to be free, including the feeling of being able to make decisions being an illusion - because we have the constitutive illusion that we can choose A instead of B, but we do so based on interests, pressures, irritations that we do not control - on the contrary , they control us, they "motivate" (move) us, even though they themselves have no will, they are just factors that influence "our" decisions. In this sense, I don't see a problem with how to explain consciousness "moving" our bodies, me thinking "I'm going to move my hand" and it moving doesn't involve any magic, because the phenomenon can be understood as my body deciding to move my hand and giving me the sensation (illusory as an experience of freedom or decision) that I have decided to move my hand. For me, freedom does not emerge from a lack of determination (that is being random, not being free); freedom emerges from the expression of a "nature", of a system, of a subject or person - the problem with this conception is that we are as free as a stone that rolls without obstacles down a slope... we are more complex and "roll" in a more complex way, but basically that's what we do... with the additional complication that we are aware that we are rolling and with the illusion that we decide... something like "on that bump I'm going to take a jump... just because I I want..."
Returning to the toilet flush: am I like a toilet flush or an infinity of toilet flushes (billions or trillions of cells, billions of trillions of cellular organelles?)? None of this complexity as great as one wants to consider (we can insert Roger Penrose's quantum hypothesis, recently delirious in quantum phenomena in cell centrioles... or Denis Noble's harnessing of stochasticity)... none of this seems to me to do more than push the issue forward, for something obscure where we can delude ourselves that we have found or will find a solution.
Langer wants perfections and completeness.
But we don’t need perfect answers, and probably have never had perfect answers - that doesn’t defeat the purpose of doing science.
I'm not sure it's fair to say she wants perfection or completeness. She was just trying to make the point that science often cannot provide complete explanations on questions such as the nature of consciousness. And science is not supposed to pretend to always give definitive answers... Absolute truths in science are not easily arrived at, because most conclusions are forever subject to revision or refinement.
Scientific theories, even when very well founded in the evidence, can often only be honestly characterized as our best explanation of something, for now. And that is how science is known to work, and most scientists understand this limitation. People in general though, often expect more than that, and often erroneously misunderstand that our scientifically best explanations are indisputable scientific facts.
I like doctor Langer! You go girl ♀️
It sounds like Tamara has convinced herself of...something? Possibly contained in the word 'no'?
I really resent this extended click-bait technique. Give a taster of an interesting talk, then require subscription to continue watching. It's fine - I'll just remember to avoid iai videos generally, since there are plenty of others talking about the same issues.
Whatever the explanation is, including woo woo as a part of the explanation is not needed.
Science is good for convenience not for knowing 😅 science will keep moving in circles 😵
Interesting discussion, but sorry, I am not going to subscribe to anything to see the rest of it.
'....our science gives us probabilities...'? If Ellen Langer said that, then: so the neutrino only probably exists? That can't be correct....
Yes... don't "neutrino's" or (other sub-atomic particles) only exists theoretically? And whether they did or didn't... if these are observable phenomena... do we even know what they're for? Far as i know, so far, they only exist to satisfy an equation.
@@dyrtyharry6789 The neutrino exists. It's just the name given to a particular type of beta decay (the sun being a big source). But they have been detected (and Nobel Prizes awarded).
@@_uncreditedthat's good to know. Apparently it's information like that that invalidates any and all of the claims uncovered in egyptian hieroglyphs or vedic scriptures or the Holy Bible. In which case, the science of today is certainly adversarial to the consiousness of the latter.
You can test cells and find some answers which are facts, not probabilities. For a given cell, with a given set of DNA, a given chemical at a given temperature and quantity will have a specific effect. No probability involved. Biology is not like physics, it's much more complex, but also more testable in some ways.
When we talk about consciousness, we are talking about the connection between different parts of the physical world such as particles in combination with energy and time. This connection is of course always there, it is referred to in the statement "everything is consciousness" but is only manifest when there is an observer, in general an observing human being. Man does not become directly aware of reality, but builds a model of the world from the first perception. This model, referred to in Eastern philosophy by stating “the universe is within the person”, encoded in synapses, neurons and hormones, humans use to influence the physical world. The redness of red as quale then arises also only during lifelong learning, in the model in a biological system dominated by hormones, reflexes, memory and the activation of the coherence constructed in this model.
I like the Orchestrated Objective Reduction idea. It's non-computational which seems like a far better avenue for exploration to me. I don't think it's anywhere near correct, but I do think there's something to quantum states as an emergent property of microtubules. At least it's an idea that can actually be developed and tested, given time.
Thanks
🤗💖🤗💞🤗💖🤗
No.
Langer begins by ruling out all forms of Dualism by relying on an assumption (expressed as a rhetorical question): "how do you get thoughts from mind to body?" She ignored the possibility that thought flows in the _opposite_ direction: from brain to mind. In other words, her objection doesn't apply to a little-discussed form of Dualism in which consciousness is a passive experiencer of brain activity. (Until brain death. After that, it could either disappear or continue in an afterlife.) Typical believers of Dualism dislike this "weak" form of Dualism because it associates well with determinism and lack of "strong" free will. But on the other hand, it offers the possibility of an afterlife in which consciousness is freed from the deterministic brain.
Hi, good to meet a fellow commenter on the Closer to Truth channel. It's frustrating that IAI paywalls it's debates. I'm not quite clear what the's advocating for, possibly some form of idealism?
Reality is a limiting biological effect of that which is existence. If everything is better explained by quantum mechanics then love, sadness, feelings in general is just a quantum probability. That we are here at all is a probability. To me however, consciousness transcends the probability of outcomes.
consciousness/Consciousness:
“that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”.
As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture.
According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05).
There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child:
“Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”.
In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
Nobody's talking about the neurons. You won't understand the need to have an immaterial conscious personality if you don't study the neurons. The ancient philosopher scientists discovered the soul by knowing the limitations of the neurons.
There are over 3000 different cell types in the brain. Not just neurons. All of the cell types contribute to its functions - but no one knows how that happens, yet.
@@nycbearff The brain is all-neuronal. There may be different types of neurons but the structures of the brain whether it be the cerebral cortex or the hippocampus or the hypothalamus are all composed of neurons. My point is unless you discuss these constituent units of the brain and understand their nature and limitations how can you seek to understand what consciousness is and how subjective conscious experience comes about.
Why wouldn't you consider Useful, Meaningful, Structured Information as a kind of Spirit or a kind of Operating Systen😅😅😅 What if loving God did give parameters to Evolution just like we to Ai??? 😅