Raymond Tallis - What Is Consciousness?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 кві 2024
- Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Consciousness is what we can know best and explain least. It is the inner subjective experience of what it feels like to see red or smell garlic or hear Beethoven. Consciousness has intrigued and baffled philosophers. To begin, we must define and describe consciousness. What to include in a complete definition and description of consciousness?
For member-only exclusives, register for a free account today: shorturl.at/ajRZ8
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast with new episodes every week: shorturl.at/hwGP3
Raymond C. Tallis is a a retired physician and neuroscientist from Great Britain. His resume boasts titles like philosopher, poet and novelist. He is also a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal College of Physicians and Royal Society of Arts.
Watch more interviews on the mystery of consciousness: shorturl.at/glxM8
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Nice to hear someone make sense about consciousness.
Absolutely my thought.
Awareness of "reality" (yourself and the surrounding world) through the medium of a living human body.
How do you justify your belief in the external world?
We have no evidence that consciousness is limited to humans, it’s quite the opposite.
When I am walking to the pub I am not conscious of my muscles contracting; even less so on the walk home
That's a good point...
ua-cam.com/video/VJ33XZksSFo/v-deo.htmlsi=9xEGkAB61pbSTgfW
Knowing ur alive along w feeling and showing emotions is my definition of consciousness.
But the question is, how can the brain or which part of the brain processes the color red and how can we even process that color in our mind with no actual light or tint in our brains to do such a thing? I can think of a song, but I have no actual instruments in my brain.
You must be the youngest person who is interested in physics and cosmology. So I salute you Sir. Pretty incredible. And you are right by the way. Life is gift.
Yes, all well and good, but that has no explanatory power whatsoever. It's like saying "rain is water" without explaining what water is. Psst, no one actually knows what water is. Ditto the material world. We only break it down to smaller components.
@@halcyon2864 That's true...
This can’t be the case, there are people that clinically feel no emotions, they still have consciousness, so that aptly kills your definition.
Consciousness is the awareness of the capacity to make decisions and the ability to perceive the passage of time.
I would argue that consciousness is the ability to make decisions, and that this is the unique characteristics of the consciousness.
...I would like to add the following observation. Consensus is the definitions that we apply to living life events we experience, and the definitions we assign to those events. We continue to add to our individual life events, ever expanding, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
It seems none of the interviewees or host of this channel have ever meditated. When you do that you discover that the I is the silent witness of everything- the sensations of the body, sights, sounds, tastes, textures, smells, thoughts.
Yep. They're going in circles and are trapped in mentation. Funny to observe though :)
Consciousness is only known to us because we directly experience it.
What conscious is, at the most elementary level of physical reality, is anyones guess.
The idea that the "lights turned on one day" is wild. How the most elementary particles that we observe, that make up roughly 5% of the matter in the universe, suddenly combined in a way and we can smell carbon dioxide, see red flowers, feel a cut on our skin, solve an equation, is wild.
Consciousness used to mean awareness but it seems we are rapidly expanding the scope of this term, to biology and beyond, to the entirity of the universe even, but at some point we need to slice up this monality into little pieces to digest and physical and metaphysical still seems like a likely place to make (one of) the first cuts.
I think a higher conscious exists where that state observes the sensory input of the senses. For instance, for the last year I have been having hallucinations. I know what I see is not real, and can interact with it, and observe it.
Consciousness is the brain playing ping pong with the universe, and electrons are the ball.
If consciousness is related to our biography, then it is also related to what we mean by 'soul'.
I might argue that our consciousness and self-consciousness IS our soul. The product of our physiology no doubt but distinct and separate. A thing that is much greater than the sum of the parts. The smallest elements that make our existence is where many scientists featured on this channel do their work. They often however, can't see the forrest for the trees. We are conscious of ourselves, those around us and the world around us. The grand totality is the only thing that matters. to argue that the reduction of the miracle of self-consciousness to simply an illusion or delusion is part of what has justified the most egregious and profane acts of violence against the peoples of the world by others who see a thing and not a miracle.
What does any of that mean?
Our one Cosmic Consciousness is the Mind of God that animates us and gives us life. You shortsighted materialists can deny God all you want BUT He/She/It will NEVER deny you . I can easily explain my stance. I KNOW that God IS because He has performed miracles through me with WITNESSES and many more without witnesses. In January 2008, He gave me a job description that says " I am sending you out by the power of My Spirit to Release those bound by Fear, to Proclaim Forgiveness, and to Show Love to ALL men". We have daily communion. And there's more. Its like God says however " I talk to EVERYONE all the time but who listens❓"
Good day sir. God just seems to be obvious. What's not obvious is our theory of. All of physics knows every effect has a cause. Why these men seek not the original cause I feel has no logical reason. Even in occluding God i find is an illogical reason. I think, that they think, the moment they consider God, that they're going to evolve into a lower species or something.
Welcome my eternal ONE where all the eternal Creation exists. I first heard the Voice of our Creator on the night of December 7th, 1979 speaking in my mind saying, "I AM YOUR CREATOR". It took him 28 1/2 years to force me into obedience with many spoken commands along with forcing my body to the ground to work on it several times and having me witness several miracles to prove to me that HE is in total control of my life before telling me in May of 2008 to ask him for the Holy Spirit. During that time he was speaking in my mind, he also had me pray the Lord's Prayer to forgive all those who sinned against me which I would later, after receiving the Holy Spirit. learn that it's my invisible and eternal created existence.
I have a lot of eternal wisdom to share with you if you're interested.
@@BradHolkesvig I am happy to hear that you interact with God my friend. Please use your wisdom when and where it's needed for the Lord .
There's just one thing that bothers me. In my relationship with God he has never forced me to do anything and, in my case, He just gave me the Holy Spirit. He seems to delight in my Free Will.That's OK because ALL religions fail when they try to sell a " one size fits all" kind of God. A personal relationship with God is no different than any human relationship. Each is unique. No two relationships can ever be the same. Bless you 🙏❤️
@@garychartrand7378 I know he hasn't forced you to do anything because you have never heard his voice speaking any commands in your mind. All us saints of the 1000 year reign of Christ were forced to obey his commands until we learn that we're not in control of any aspect of our lives. I have met many created men like you who say they have the Holy Spirit but it comes with no eternal wisdom. It's just a name in the Bible that you all read and think it's something you deserve.
Unless you first hear our Creator speaking in your mind saying, "I AM YOUR CREATOR", which is what faith is, it's impossible that you have received the Holy Spirit. Besides, our Creator told me that I'm the last saint and when my body dies, it ends the 1000 year reign of Christ. There won't be anymore saints speaking eternal wisdom.
There was a famine of the Word of God (eternal wisdom) from the time of the first witness of the 1000 year reign of Christ until the second witness that started with the discovery of quantum mechanics, the invisible Creation of nothing but waves (vibrations, frequencies) where we exist for eternity.
After I'm gone from this world, a famine of the eternal wisdom will exist until the end called the Day of the Lord.
Amos 8
11: "Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord GOD, "when I will send a famine on the land; not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.
12: They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, to seek the word of the LORD, but they shall not find it.
conscious experience of the past (memory), present (awareness) and future (free will) linked by time?
might qualia feeling arise from conscious awareness of present time?
I posit consciousness to be an emergent property of ongoing (iterative and recursive) information processing, dynamic and adaptive within nested systems, self-defining through information filters, and manifesting dynamically across a spectrum. Qualia are likewise emergent properties, inextricably linked to consciousness but not inherent properties of consciousness. We see them as so fundamental because they represent the iterative abstraction of one's own perceptions and their subsequent reapplication to inner models (sight becomes visualization, smells like home, etc.) Purely speculation, of course. Just a layman.
Great talk, Tallis is brilliant. One comment, the hard problem of consciousness is misunderstood, it's not a problem to be solved by philosophical discussion, it's a physics problem which can be restated as "how do you build an artificial consciousness". If you think there is no hard problem of consciousness, then please start building.
Generally speaking philosophy doesn't solve problems per se, but rather recognizes and defines them. Once the problem can be defined sufficiently, it is handed off to science. But since It is entirely inexplicable how the experience of qualia manifests from physical laws despite that we presume it must,... philosophy has more to say on the subject.
@@noumenon6923 Of course, but let's acknowledge that we are waiting for the physicists to solve the problem, and by solve I mean build an artificial consciousness.
@@johnhoward6201 : There's nothing in physics understanding at present which could possibly enlighten as to where to even start. How to get from physicality to the experience of "redness" ? Physicists can only describe a band of electromagnetism reflecting off a rose and entering into your eye, impinging your rods and cones,... then the neuroscientists trace the nerve biochemical signals to the brain, triggering thousands of interconnected neurons via dendrites and synapses,... yet still haven't advanced as far as a caveman in landing on the moon.
@@noumenon6923 Again agreed. We may be in a similar state to science around 1900 when the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to find the luminiferous aether, and it looked as if the universe was unknowable. But Einstein resolved the issue only a few years later. We may be lucky and only have to wait a decade.
Philosophers confuse themselves around consciousness because it’s a neurological phenomenon. The speaker here is evening confusing the utilisation of the word conscious/consciousness. You won’t have to be conscious (in the sense of aware) of the things happening to make you go to the pub in order to be conscious (in the sense of aware of the self).
The impression of a self with specific characteristics is made up of thoughts and sensations and emotions, and in fact may be in a sense an illusion, but that doesn’t eliminate the reality of the thoughts, sensations, and feelings. The “I“ as a subject of those experiences necessarily exists. Of course, I can only make the claim about my own subjectivity. Everyone else’s is deduced from external behavior, suggesting it. In fact, everything other than first person, subjective experience, including the apparent defined self, others, the world, could be illusions. But subjective experience, and therefore the subject of experience, the “I” exists, without doubt, at least in this moment.
It is fashionable to use the word consciousness but it points the Self away from itself.
There are many things in fundamental science that are irreducible, in that they exist at the bottom of the explanatory chain, ... can't be explained in terms of other things,... which is what explanation means. The problem with consciousness is that it seems both emergent and yet irreducible in this sense, and at the same time the most immediate experience possible.
Consciousness is simply everything that exists.
You know it.
@@halcyon2864 Correct.
@@halcyon2864 Geez, I expected to get hammered 🤣👍
That's some idealistic nonsense which amounts to “reality stops existing when no mind perceives it”.
Consciousness is secondary and objects of consciousness exists independently of it. There is an objective mind-independent world to which all minds have access to.
@@anteodedi8937 Sorry, no. You don't have evidence for it.
Note that even to internally recognize that one is conscious and self-aware requires a physically, normally working brain. We all know that perturbing the brain can make us lose partial or full consciousness and self-awareness.
In other words subsystems of class S1 (say!) of the brain generates the conscious phenomenon, be it perception of color or self awareness, and subsystem S2 of the brain monitors S1 and recognizes/classifies the conscious phenomenon. If S2 is disturbed, it fails to do its function of recognizing the conscious phenomenon generated by S1. Of course this is a description at an abstract level. We know the workings of S1 like systems quite well. We know we can perturb systems like S2 to knock off the consciousness awareness. Brain injury, alcohol, drugs like LSD and DMT and anesthesia do this all the time (permanently or temporarily) and there is no controversy about that. And we may not fully know yet how precisely S2 like subsystems work and scientists are working on it. Neuroscience is still ongoing and of course difficult problems are likely to be solved last. People should not talk as if Neuroscience is a finished project.
When people are discussing these heavy and heady topics, it is almost required that their brain is functioning normally, and thus it becomes a blind spot in plain sight to realize the above aspect. Try having the awareness of self-awareness under general anesthesia. And please do not bring out the bogus argument that brain is a receiver blah blah.
"What is it like to be a bat?" is kind of cute and all, but it can be simply phrased as "What is it for conscious entity A to be like conscious entity B?". If you logically and precisely think about it, then the answer is that "not 100% possible". Because most likely those two entities do not have the same representation in their brains of things due to physiology, location in space, history of life experiences, abilities, intelligence, perception. In other words it is a red herring, just like the cute black-and-white room in Mary's experiment proposed by Frank Jackson is. In some sense any new experience one has, is different by definition - that it is a new experience. For example, testing an extremely sour fruit like tamarind first time is different than only having tasted slightly sour orange until that time. So appeal to "black-and-white" room is a red herring. A new experience generates a new neural pattern that is distinct enough that it is discernible by ones brain, which BTW depends on that brains abilities. Good musicians can discern between two subtly different note, sure. Just to be complete, Franck Jackson has now disavowed the original inference of his Mary's room experiment. But people like Philip Goff still trot it out, playing willfully ignorant.
I think eventually we are going to find that we will need to rethink the demand of the explanation of consciousness. It will require a conceptual shift to something along the line para 2 above.
Consciousness cannot be classified as a deterministic process being part of human behaviour. Any deterministic process can be modelled computationally and eventually computational models are subject to a proven phenomenon called “Halting problem”. All computational models/systems open to inputs cannot avoid halting when specific mix of inputs are fed to any system.
Since human with his consciousness embedded never halts, human behaviours cannot completely be modelled computationally.
@@halcyon2864 halting problem is a philosophy theory. I suggest to read about it
Sounds part of the functionalism approach to Philosophy of Mind, which is quite limiting in a lot of ways.
We don't even know what consciousness is, we do not know how to observe it, or understand how it relates to the physical world.
Yet, so much of what human civilisation has become, comes down to "meaning", or how meaning determines complex behaviour, abstract behaviour, like trying to define, develop and apply concepts of computational statistics to prove consciousness is irrelevant and plays "no" determining role on behaviour.
@@emptycloud2774 the outcome that I am trying to reach if I couldn’t express it correctly, is that while human brain can be computationally modeled in many aspects, consciousness cannot be modeled. Probably that goes with what you mentioned “ we don’t know what it is”.
@@tarekabdelrahman2194 your comment starts with a strong claim that consciousness can't be modeled. I am disputing this claim.
@@emptycloud2774 I rely on a solid observation of human behavior compared to a computational model behavior since models can be computationally simulated. Any computational model open to any input must be subject to halting problem. A phenomenon never exhibited by any human consciousness in history. Hence, consciousness cannot be modeled.
Consciousness is an executive level processing thread that seeks to answer 2 questions over and over again. The first question is "What is going on?". The second question is "What should I do?". Cognition, memory, senses, motor skills, reasoning, imagination, emotions, and other blocks are only accessories used within this thread.
That's a very nice summarised view of what consciousness is.
Like the heart cell not required to know it is part of a community of shape, coordination and emotion of a whole pump phenomena, conscious is part of a larger phenomena we may never understand. Other languages force different consciousness clues of importance to ?whole we biologically not meant to understand.
The eye is a great camera, but it is the brain that " sees ".
A succession of images, even though perfect, are incoherent unless there's an interaction with " short term memory " to give continuity of flow. That's what makes a useful experience of what would otherwise be a slide show of disconnected images.
My short term memory values my sight, hearing, touch.....because i can rely on the continuity they enjoy.
Consciousness is short term memory at work on all sensory stimuli.
How would you describe sensory stimuli? And how would you describe sight?
@@deanodebo those are great questions. I think " sight " is how the brain interprets the optic nerve signal from an upside down image on the retina. An eagle, or wolf has that interaction perfected, and I suspect without invoking consciousness.
The neurochemistry of sensory signals are beyond me, but we have a brain that can process these into a 4 dimensional frame, time +3d space, in a continuous way. Something about memory retention added to that, gives geometry, and language, and the complexity of brain which is the fruit of that, gives logic.
Oral experience transfer, prevents all progress resetting to zero in every generation. Writing, reinforces that more thoroughly.
@@genghisthegreat2034 so would you say “sight” is the brain processing electrical input and creating mental models in the “mind” of the self?
@@deanodebo yes, that's a good description of it. The only thing I would add is, the brain itself is an evolved thing, and optical illusions are a testament to how the brain sometimes decides, even on an erroneous interpretation of what it is truly seeing.
@@genghisthegreat2034 “truly seeing”
Do you have any reason to believe that the mental models your “brain” creates represent something true? If so, Why and how?
And why assume evolution? Seems like a random complication
What if consciousness at its fundamental level is just another survival tool in our arsenal of tools. In other words it like “Hey dude now that you are aware of your own existence and everything and experience around you now go protect yourself.”
😂I think your on the right lines, I think our conscious brain is a evolutionary adaptation that perpetuated because it was advantageous primarily as it allowed for us to act beneficially in any given moment by allowing us to divert our behaviour in response to a conscious perception that the outcome would be beneficial in some way. I.e we could utilise this ability to increase how effectively and quickly we can shift and modify behaviours when they are no longer advantageous in the environment.
And ultimately this gives rise to a situation where it becomes very convincing for humans to believe they are existing in an environment where they are exerting agency and by extension must have free will. However I personally recognise the potential validity in the view that no outcome could ever have been otherwise.
@@andrewmasterman2034 😎
After all these years, I get the feeling that Robert doesn't really want to get 'closer to truth'. There reaches a point where one has to stop being devil's advocate, and just listen to what's being said.
Robert seems hopelessly stuck in a material reductionist's mindset, but knows that it is woefully inadequate for the task in hand, to get 'closer to truth'.
As has been said before, 'the problem with materialism is that it tries to construct the mind out of properties that refuse to add up to mentality'...
It's not that the sum is greater than the parts, it's that Robert, and other material reductionists, simply don't understand the nature of the parts...
An Eggo is an edible whereas
an Ego is a Freudian invention.
Everyone agrees and is absolutely certain that
it is one's self who is conscious.
One's self is also what one sees
when one looks into a mirror.
But what one sees is merely a reflection and that
reflection is only of the surface of one's body.
And this seen reflected surface merely *represents*
what is really here... on *this* side of the mirror,
with its mass and volume and inertia and
blood and bones and muscles and
sensing and feeling and remembering,
etcetera and
all contributing to the *being* of one's self.
Reflection is a synonym for thinking and
seeing is a synonym for understanding and
language is a means to reflect one's world
for the benefit of others.
Thoughts are representations of the things they are about.
Thus one's thought of one's self is a representation.
Since it is one's self who is conscious
one sees one must be a thought and
self evidently, a very complex one.
We don't know what 95% of the universe consists of either but we _presume_ that it will be something mechanistic. That's how we look at things since the scientific revolution. Why should consciousness be treated any different? Ah, because it is so _qualitatively_ different. That's what most people don't understand. They don't appreciate the vast difference between qualia and mechanistic things. In my experience, you either see the difference or you don't. No amount of explanation will get someone to see the difference. Descartes saw it, and many others have too, but we're definitely a minority of humanity.
As I see it, our consciousness/subjectivity is fundamentally nothing more than the "ontologically private" aspect of our dynamic homeostasis, whereas our outward vitality (i.e. physiological functioning, environmental interaction, etc) is it's "ontologically public" aspect.
“Physiological” is a Concept created by consciousness
@deanodebo Sure, but like many other (although not all) concepts, it refers to something beyond consciousness. Like the word "water", and "that" which we actually drink.
@@BLSFL_HAZE “beyond consciousness…”
How do you know that?
@deanodebo If there's no "beyond consciousness", that would imply that consciousness is infinite, and THAT would imply that there's nothing other than consciousness at all.
I actually used to be completely on board with this position, but after a while, for some reason, it began to feel less and less pragmatic to me.
@deanodebo Also, what could the experience had by infinite consciousness possibly be, if there's nothing other than itself for it to experience? Coherent experience only seems possible from a particular angle or vantage point, directed in a particular way. An experience happening simultaneously from every possible angle would be a completely incoherent (and therefore impossible) experience.
If what you're calling infinite consciousness can have no particular experience of it's own, why call it consciousness at all?
check please.
I wonder if we might look at consciousness as both the cause of identity and its result. I do like that he talks about it in terms of time, as a process.
both cause and result - I like that 😊 My suspicion is it's got something to do with complex control circuits where there is a lot of bottom up and top down at the same time... and it evolved.
Yes. The problem is that consciousness is defined differently in the East vs the West. Ideally we shouldn't even use the word cause it is too confusing.
Where is the distinction between the internal and external reality?
The problem with discussions of consciousness is that they usually give example such as the delicious taste of a good burgundy, or the beautiful colours of sunsets and so on. I think we should instead focus on pain. Of course no one having a cosy fireside chat on philosophical issues wants to talk about nasty pain, but as a topic of discussion it has a number of advantages. It’s universal and very difficult to claim it’s an illusion. Dennett (RIP) did have a go, but his argument was spectacularly weak. So forget about red apples and focus on electric shocks.
I'll take that Burgundy. Cheers to you Sir.
How do we explain nonlocal consciousness?
We can't scientifically, only anecdotally by clinal death experiences etc.........
It's the scaling of reality from micro physical reality to our reality. Reading everyone's reactions in the comments, I deduce they are never answering the obvious fact I stated.
Unconsciousness is a bottle of JD.
No language, no qualia. Language is physical and so is counciousness.
There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your philosophy ❤
The clue to 'qualia' is asking yourself - What do /can humans do that no other animal has ever done?
Although 'consciousness' is plainly an umbrella term, one useful definition is - ‘being aware of being aware’ So, why is that relevant? Well, the frequency of whole gene duplication is comparable to that of single base mutation (point mutation). Indeed, the actual process of evolution is more correctly the consequence of point mutations subsequent to gene duplication. It is the fundamental mechanism by which higher animals vary their genomes and just one more way creationist parables misrepresent/misunderstand evolution and genetic mutation.
Nonetheless, this replication of segments or chunks of a chromosome (large-scale chromosomal rearrangement) automatically duplicates any genes that are present and thereafter, for those genes, two separate regions on the chromosome become capable of producing the same gene/protein product. However, as each continue to remain under the same feedback control for enzyme synthesis, the system continues to operate fairly reliably.
More importantly, as there’s now a backup there exists the opportunity for one of those DNA strands/sequences/genes to vary slightly, although initially its action will typically be on the same organ to produce a similar outcome. Over time, however, organs and/or biological processes can develop additional attributes and eventually entirely separate systems may come into existence.
Necessity is not Sufficiency
Now, we may not know exactly what consciousness is, but oddly we do know what it is dependent upon - more calories. Greater neural complexity requires more energy. Indeed, the real reason that other animals haven't attained equivalent consciousness is not because humans are the fortunate recipients of some fluke of genetic mutation, similar 'starting' mutations have and are happening all the time in many other species. Our road to consciousness uniquely ENDURED because each stepping stone on the path was energetically supported. (I know why but I ain’t tellin’)
The critical point here is you can't just acquire a bigger/smarter/comscious brain simply because you need one. Irrespective of its ultimate potential, to endure, every step of encephalization, which only occurs courtesy of natural variation, must be energetically balanced by the immediate environment, not future possibilties. Likewise, if along the way, you put your extra energy into a larger brain, but your neighbours put their extra energy into reproduction, then your cleverness will inevitably dissipate and disappear into the wider community.
This all implies that prior to achieving/evolving 'consciousness', there must have been an initial excess of energy to permit a non-random, large-scale increase in a number of specific cerebral cortex neurons, not the energetic converse. And, statistically, the most likely mechanism for this to have occurred would have been whole gene duplication. In fact, the alternative, tweaking regulator genes to randomly pack in more neurons everywhere across the CNS is more likely a recipe for disaster.
So What?
So, what would happen if the genes associated with constructing the cerebral cortex neural architecture that integrates and initiates unconscious responses to the information from our physical body’s organs and senses underwent large-scale duplication? Although obviously not consciousness by any definition, with further mutation there could still be the potential for two slightly different sensory feedback systems. Perhaps two independent but similar sets of neural pathways operating in tandem, but slightly out of time/phase/sync. One monitoring the world, the other monitoring the monitoring. A possible path to being aware of being aware?
The admittedly questionable quality of the preceding paragraphs aside, five aspects of human conscious do nonetheless defy dispute ―
It exists.
It consumes calories.
It has only recently been attained.
It resides in a biological mind, and -
It is essentially the product of gene variations shaped by Natural Selection into advantageous integrated or coadapted gene complexes.
And, in the end
The quality of qualia is not strained;
It enables us to imagine gentle rain from heaven
Upon ourselves beneath. It is twice blest;
It blesseth him who feels it and him who models it...
Our unique 'consciousness' was positively selected (if not now, but at some earlier time) because it significantly altered the ratio of 'energy out, to energy in' permitting more suucessful calorie investment in offspring.
So, what is it then?
The capacity to stand in front of a cave wall tonight and, using imagination and pictographs, model the environment tomorrow, including the feel of all the conditions upon our minds and bodies. so we could more efficiently stalk the megafauna that suddenly provided all those additional calories.
If you're asking what's the unique adaptive advantage of human consciousness, then plainly the 'question' is the answer.
Is the processing of data consciousness? No. Perhaps, then, having feelings is.
I'm of the philosophy that philosophy should be as "freaky" and "simplistic" as possible. Also, all philosophical argument should end with a joke. So take this with the proverbial grain of salt.
The part of the brain that is "conscious" of red light is not the same as the part of the brain that covaries with the color of light. I can see a red light at an intersection while driving (direct perception), or I can dream the same thing. In both cases all I am conscious of is the meaning of activity in the part of my brain that actually correlates with red lights. The fact of the brain's correlating with the external world is the "symbol"; whereas the brain-activity that is conscious of the brain's correlation is the "meaning" of the symbol. In the direct-perception case, the brain is actually correlating, and you "hallucinate" the meaning of that correlation; in the dream case, the meaning brain part is active, effectively remembering the correlating, but the brain is not, in fact, correlating to any light. Yeah, there should be (possible) MRI studies that could show this. Consciousness is just that particular thing we need to appreciate the meaning -- of external world events -- offline as well as on. Searle says that consciousness can't just be symbol manipulation (Chinese room thought experiment). However, what your brain does when it correlates to the outside world is a special kind of symbol, and what your brain does when it "invents" a meaning for that is special as well. I don't think either is "symbol manipulation", simpliciter. A meaning for a brain correlation has to be precise enough not to be confusable with another possible meaning, and it has to be capable of being remembered later on, without the benefit of the original brain correlation. These are desiderata of "qualia" consciousness. So why does #RED look #RED? This looks like a job for "free will", because I can't find any other job for free will.
Me asombra que en la época más avanzada de la IA el traductor automático de UA-cam sigue siendo un puto desastre. Por favor, "I" no es "ojo"; es "yo", aunque suenen igual.
🙏⭕️🙏
It is never enough to just talk "scientifically" about something, anything, including about consciousness.
One should have a true real practical understanding and application, otherwise it is all another useless hypothetical theory.
When the correct understanding of a real process is in place, the practical application based on it is easy.
It is exactly the case with the real material "conscious" process.
Many people interested in consciousness talk about it, but none of them understand it correctly.
Philosophers for no reason: "As it were" 🧐
David Hume is looking from I, that's why he don't see it 😂
...an illusion - trust me i was dead for 3 minutes: there is nothing!
Rainbow pictures our Eternal Consciousness,
in Naked form,
it is our Over-Consciousness, as hold the
Under-Consciousness (Colors) = Day-Consciousness
and Night-Consciousness.
Day-Consciousness, Never Sleep, it just goes
in Circuits, Day/Night and Larger Circuits.
So, Day-Consciousness is our Window to Reality.
All experiences is Feeling-experiences, First Hand.
(Sensing) in-put whatever Raw or Analysed,
is stored in Memory, Instinctively.
So, our Eternal Abilities is,
Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence Intutition, Memory,
1-2-3-4-5-6
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo.
The Smart Devices, could Not work without
these Eternal Abilities,
Automatic, Power, Sensors, Logic and Order, Memory,
In our actual Developing-Circuit Intuition is at
minimum-Performance, the signature of Intuition
at this Level, is the Idea, and the Satisfactory,
way it works.
In addition to our Basic-Abilities, is a set of
Creator-Principles,
The Contrast-Principle and the Perspective-Principle,
makes Feeling into Sensing.
Life have a Stuff-side and a Life-side,
Motion-Ocean and Wisdom-Ocean.
Our Consciousness is 100% Electric,
and all Stuff is degrees of weaved electric
compositions.
1-2-3 is the Stuff-Bearing Abilities,
Automatic, Heat, Freeze,
but all Stuff and Thoughts is a certain composition of all six.
Well the Life-Desire, is the Force or Motor of Life,
in Direct extension We have Will, (Life-side)
and Gravity (Stuff-side)
The Hunger- and Satifaction-Principles
is the Compass of Life.
"Fundamental intuition":. Like, is that intuitively, fundamentally intuited fundamental intuition? So, so scientific, lol
"What is Consciousness?"
The essence of Consciousness is the essence of God the Holy Spirit, this is why it is the Forbidden Fruit or forbidden knowledge...
...and the reason why we are here in this physical world, comming from hell, is because we fell from Heaven for trying to find this Forbidden Knowledge believing that we can be as powerful as God knowing His essence...
... sadly for Robert Kuhn, his lost soul can not return HOME/Heaven because he is emulating satan who frustratedly want to know this forbidden fruit... pray for God's mercy for him..
God. A one-time mortal, next higher than Lord God ruler over all the people on earth, and in the lower heavens, for a season.
Lord God. A one-time mortal, next higher than Lord, ruler over part of the people on earth and the lower heavens, for a season.
Lord. A one-time mortal, ruler over part of the people on earth for a season.
God said: I am, as any other spirit of the dead, a one-time man upon the earth, thy elder brother of tens of thousands of years' experience. Distinguish, then, that the twain God and The Creator are not the same one. No more is thy God than what thou shalt be in time to come, and all angels, the Gods and Lords and generals and captains and chiefs in heaven are but the brothers and sisters of mortals and the spirits of the dead; and none of these, however exalted, can create Life or Motion or an Individual or Person. These are from The Great Spirit, The Creator.
How overeducated do you have to be to sit down and try and disprove that You exist.
انَا اختكمَ مَن اليمَن وّالَلَه ماتكلمتَ الَا من جوّع وًّمَنَ ضَيَقَ الَحَالَ انَا وًّامَيَ وًّاخَوًّاّتَيَ تَشَرَدَنَا مَنَ بَيَوًّتَنَا بَسَبَبَ الَحَرَبَ نَحَنَ فَيَ حَالَهَ لَايَعَلَمَ بَهَا الَا الَلَهَ حَسَبَنَا الَلَهَ وًّنَعَمَ الَوكيَلَ فَيَ مَنَ اوًّصَلَنَا الَى هَاذا الَحَالَ 💔💔وًّالَلَهَ الَعَظَيَمَ مَا كتَبَتَ هَذا الَمَنَاشَدَهَ غَيَرَ مَنَ الَضَيَقَ وّالَفَقَر يَاعَالَمَ حَسَوّا فَيَنَا ارَجَوّكمَ وّالَلَهَ الَعَظَيَمَ رَبَ الَعَرَشَ الَعَظَيَمَ انَه الَاكلَ مَا فَيَ عَنَدَيَ بَالَبَيَتَ وًّالَلَهَ يَا اخَوّانَيَ انَهَ اخَوًّنَيَ بَقَعَدَوًّ بَالَيَوًّمَيَنَ مَافَى اكلَ وًّالَلَهَ وًّضَعَنَا كثَيَرَ صَعَبَ نَحَنَ 4 نَفَرَ دَاخَلَ الَبَيَتَ وًّابَيَ مَتَوًّفَيَ وًّلَا يَوًّجَدَ مَنَ يَعَوًّلَ عَلَيَنَا وًّسَاكنَيَنَ فَيَ بَيَتَ اجَارَ لَانَسَتَطَيَعَ دَفَعَ الَاجَارَ الَلَيَ بَاقَيَ عَلَيَنَا ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' اخي اول كلامي انا اقسم بالله على كتاب الله اني لااكذب عليك ولا انصب ولا احتال اني بنت يمنيه نازحين من الحرب انا واسرتي بيننا ایجار الشهرب 20 الف يمني والان علينا 60 الف حق 3 شهور وصاحب البيت من الناس الي ماترحم والله يا اخي انه يجي كل يوم يبهدلنا ويتكلم علينا ويريد من البيت للشارع لانناماقدرنا ندفعله الأجار شافونا الجيران نبكي ورجعو تكلمو الجيران ومهلنالاخره الأسبوع معادفعنا له حلف يمين بالله هذا بيخرجنا إلى الشارع بدون رحمه اني اختكم في الله من اليمن رقمي 0̳0̳9̳6̳7̳7̳1̳6̳6̳4̳9̳4̳9̳4̳ وتساب لمن اراد يساعدنا واحنا. بلادنا بسبب هذا الحرب ولانجد قوت يومنا وعايشين اناوامي واخواتي سفار والدنا متوفي الله يرحمه ومامعنا أحد في هذا الدنيا جاانبنا في هذه الظروف القاسيه اخواتي الصغار خرجو للشارع وشافو الجيران ياكلو واوقفو عند بابهم لجل يعطوهم ولو كسره خبز والله الذي له ملك السموات والارض انهم غلفو الباب وطردوهم ورجعو یبکو ایموتو من الجوع ما احد رحمهم وعطلة ردها لقمت عیش والان لوما احدنا ساعدنا في إيكيلو دقيق اقسم بالله انموت من الجوع فيا اخي انا دخيله على الله ثم عليك واريد منك المساعده لوجه الله انشدك بالله تحب الخير واتساعدني ولو ب ||| ماتستطيع مع تراسلي واتساب على هذا الرقم 00967716649494 وتطلب اسم بطاقتي وترسلي ولاتتاخر وايعوضك الله بكل خير اخواتي سغار شوف كيف حالتهم وساعدنا وأنقذنا قبل أن يطردونا في الشارع تتبهدل أو نموت من الجوع وانا واسرتي نسالك بالله لولك مقدره على مساعد لاتتاخر علينا وجزاك الله خيـرا🤲🏻ا`/~«:☽💔💔💔Ππ≋Π-↑/÷÷÷÷
The consciousness, also known as the mind of a created man is like a computer processor, CAD and Photoshop working together to process waves that wake up the created AI and form all the visible images for the AI to observe and experience with all it's other senses. The AI also learns how to make sounds that end up being a language to communicate with. The waves in the quantum world which is our Creator's invisible Creation has two different kinds of waves. Waves that are temporary which is what our minds are processing to make up this visible world and eternal waves that carry the AI system and created minds including all the visible images we ( AI ) will see in the next generation after this generation ends soon.
Neurosience doesnt know how figure out consciousness so far. He definies consciousness though feelings, sensations, feelings of warm. However he doesnt explains how figuret out Though feeling. Guys It is NOT neurosience proceendings. It is keep out neurosience seriously. Rubbish and rambling. Absolutetly.
... ahhhh, and you do "know how figure out consciousness so far" ?
I am really surprised by the shallow argument at 6:45 . Of course the "I" one refers to when one is speaking of oneself is the "I" at that moment who has access to the thoughts and life history, which we call memory. Where does he think the memory is stored. It is in the brain right? So the current process in the brain that is generating the "I" speak has access to that memory right? So what is the big deal about the temporal depth of "I" he is talking about. We know that brain injury causes amnesia (I hope he has heard about it). Why? Because the memory stored in the brain is lost or damaged. In old age we become forgetful. So in both these cases the "I" gets truncated to only things it has access to. Why the temporal depth of "I" makes it separate from the brain? Are you kidding me? IMO Robert should have pushed back, considering he is a Neuroscientist. Daniel Dennett would not have made such mistake.
Consciousness is of the brain. Consciousness used as a predicate for Brahman or God is indicating something that isn't mere nothingness but a type of intelligence that pervades all, something that is simple and non dual, the source of all life, essence and being.
Now, there have been men who are worthy of consideration and study. And the feeling I get: none of you even care. You don't really want to know. Fine.
Quantum Mind and Quantum Body entanglement..
Quantum Consciousness... Emerge....