Since all knowledge of the material world comes from conscious experience, then to presuppose that the former precedes the latter, as does emergence, seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Hindu philosophy sees things somewhat in reverse and describes a primary ground of consciousness, a 4th state called turiya, which may also be referred to as shunyata, the void, Ken Wilbur's "I Am-ness", or even the abyss although that term has taken on negative connotations. This would seem to be Plotinus' The One, the Holy Spirit, the feminine, the dark. A higher 5th state turiyatita is also alluded to, although it is uncertain that 'higher' is a correct description, which may be referred to as sukhavati, moksha, the noumenon, empyrean, elysian fields, arcadia, nous, the divine mind, the first emanation, which relates to the Holy Father, the masculine, the light - reality hidden behind perceptions, Plato's realm of forms.
Well I think that’s just excellent! Appreciated the nods to Bergson. Have a ways to go to be able to follow the second half’s arguments, but appreciated the ride up to that point. Have you read any Lee Smolin? He’s very conservative by comparison but an interesting outlier as a physicist taking seriously the notion of evolution on the cosmological scale. Anyway great work, keep it up! Cheers.
Very interesting. In the Torah it's known as Memra, in the Gospel of John it's known as Logos. In the Qur'an it's referred to with the phrase "'Kun Fayafun". The concept is quite a strong metaphysical strand in many of the world's great religions, in Hinduism there is also the concept of Om.
In Egyptology there is also Ptah who "conceives the world by the thought of his heart and gives life through the magic of his Word" And, Hu, Sia, and Heh which represent “creative command” (or “authoritative utterance”), “perception” (or “intelligence”), and “eternity.” who personify the tongue and heart of Ptah.
@@oceanmachine1906 Thanks for commenting! Just a footnote about "Memra": This is an Aramaic term found in the Targumim, Aramaic translations of the Torah from about the 2nd century CE and later. We do see Memra being used in a way that's closer to how Logos functions in John (without the incarnation theme, of course). In the Hebrew Bible itself divine Wisdom is personified or given a more independent status in the book of Proverbs (cf. chapters 3 and 8).
You did good, professor. There are several reasons why we cannot claim : "Evolution did it." Evolution as understood today, only requires that living organisms engage in effective behavioral strategies to pass on their genes. Nothing about that requires that the organisms feel that anything is happening to them. Under the current paradigm, there is no identifiable functional reason for experience, and organisms could (should) be complicated machine-like automata , but this is simply not what is observed. We can bank on the foregoing mismatch, as even Richard Dawkins admitted such on camera.
We are machine like orgsnisms. Its just your biased notion of machine is that of something more angular and metallic than what we're made of. how can genes be selected for if theres nothing to judge their fitness. What mechanism causes something to defend itself if it has no awareness of pain. How does something feed if it has no desire to feed. Consciousness is the cock-pit. There was once a man who had no ability to feel pain. It wasnt long before he was crippled because had no reflex to avoid accidents. Pain(experience) = life.
@@mctow8554the difference between organism and machines is the fact that organisms organize themselves while machines need an intelligent designer to make them. That's why the machine analogy is stupid and outdated. Machine is an artificial thing, organism is organic and self-emergent
I was planning to comment that the error in your argument is that you are equating information processing with consciousness (and this is indeed one of your errors, I would argue - the same error recently made by e.g. Arthur Reber, a simple-enough rebuke of which can be found here; "Ginsburg, S. and Jablonka, E., 2020. Are Your Cells Conscious?".). However, only in the last 30 seconds or so of your video you make this point (finally) explicit by saying "at whatever scale it occurs, information processing is an experiential process". With this in mind, I would argue that your error becomes that you never even made an analytical argument for why information processing = experiential (and as a biologist I would agree that information processing does indeed seem to occur at virtually all physical scales). I am a keen reader on this topic (particularly the scale of cellular consciousness), however I have yet to see any substantive arguments in favour of this position at all since e.g. Herbert Spencer Jennings "The Behaviour of Lower Animals" (1906, ch. XX). I understand and appreciate that equating information processing with consciousness would be helpful in closing gaps, but I am yet to come across a convincing argument for it. I look forward to hopefully being challenged by your paper.
I believe that this troublesome word, "information" likely holds useful secrets towards a solution of the Hard Problem. But having said that, you should know that we can be much more precise today about this phrase "information processing". The word you want to use here is computation. Computation has a deep and wide edifice in mathematics now as the ``Theory of Computation.`` Some assert that consciousness is a specific form of computation, which I disagree with. There is nothing in the mathematics of computation that can bridge a gap to experiential feeling (-- but I'm getting ahead of myself.) We are in an age of rapidly advancing computer technology , and because our society has this "hammer" now , everything looks a "nail" to us. In the 1990s, the claim "The brain is just a complicated computer" was accepted as binding dogma, even in places like Oxford. Those who challenged the dogma at that time were labelled pariahs. This is August 2020. Today is more likely to me that the brain is not a computer. Ironically this is now the baseline position for all of us.
@@otonanoC Nice points. I would also like to add, that the computers that exist and the information processing they do has been set in motion by humans with teleology based on experiential existence. Computing is programed to serve experential aims.
@@kevanhubbard9673 Yeah I'm about it. I've recently been reading Catherine Keller's *On the Mystery* which is sort of an intro to Christian process theology.
Correct, consciousness is stored in the balls.
Deacon needs to smoke some DMT.
I love your work.....Awesome
Since all knowledge of the material world comes from conscious experience, then to presuppose that the former precedes the latter, as does emergence, seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
Hindu philosophy sees things somewhat in reverse and describes a primary ground of consciousness, a 4th state called turiya, which may also be referred to as shunyata, the void, Ken Wilbur's "I Am-ness", or even the abyss although that term has taken on negative connotations. This would seem to be Plotinus' The One, the Holy Spirit, the feminine, the dark.
A higher 5th state turiyatita is also alluded to, although it is uncertain that 'higher' is a correct description, which may be referred to as sukhavati, moksha, the noumenon, empyrean, elysian fields, arcadia, nous, the divine mind, the first emanation, which relates to the Holy Father, the masculine, the light - reality hidden behind perceptions, Plato's realm of forms.
Matt, when are you releasing your Whitehead ASMR content? Should be a patreon reward lol.
Lol. Nice.
Yo yo yo
YES
Well I think that’s just excellent! Appreciated the nods to Bergson. Have a ways to go to be able to follow the second half’s arguments, but appreciated the ride up to that point. Have you read any Lee Smolin? He’s very conservative by comparison but an interesting outlier as a physicist taking seriously the notion of evolution on the cosmological scale. Anyway great work, keep it up! Cheers.
Good stuff!
Johannes's brother? 😉
As in Genesis too, the basis of cosmic organization is informing speech.
Very interesting. In the Torah it's known as Memra, in the Gospel of John it's known as Logos. In the Qur'an it's referred to with the phrase "'Kun Fayafun".
The concept is quite a strong metaphysical strand in many of the world's great religions, in Hinduism there is also the concept of Om.
In Egyptology there is also Ptah who "conceives the world by the thought of his heart and gives life through the magic of his Word"
And, Hu, Sia, and Heh which represent “creative command” (or “authoritative utterance”), “perception” (or “intelligence”), and “eternity.” who personify the tongue and heart of Ptah.
@@oceanmachine1906 Thanks for commenting! Just a footnote about "Memra": This is an Aramaic term found in the Targumim, Aramaic translations of the Torah from about the 2nd century CE and later. We do see Memra being used in a way that's closer to how Logos functions in John (without the incarnation theme, of course). In the Hebrew Bible itself divine Wisdom is personified or given a more independent status in the book of Proverbs (cf. chapters 3 and 8).
@@25aces Interesting!
The demiurge is "taming the animal" of its creation (3 Days Grace).
You know Terrence Deacon once had a conversation with Terry Patten on his Podcast
You did good, professor. There are several reasons why we cannot claim : "Evolution did it." Evolution as understood today, only requires that living organisms engage in effective behavioral strategies to pass on their genes. Nothing about that requires that the organisms feel that anything is happening to them. Under the current paradigm, there is no identifiable functional reason for experience, and organisms could (should) be complicated machine-like automata , but this is simply not what is observed. We can bank on the foregoing mismatch, as even Richard Dawkins admitted such on camera.
We are machine like orgsnisms. Its just your biased notion of machine is that of something more angular and metallic than what we're made of.
how can genes be selected for if theres nothing to judge their fitness. What mechanism causes something to defend itself if it has no awareness of pain. How does something feed if it has no desire to feed. Consciousness is the cock-pit. There was once a man who had no ability to feel pain. It wasnt long before he was crippled because had no reflex to avoid accidents. Pain(experience) = life.
If u reply be sure to leave a like otherwise I wont be notified.
@@mctow8554the difference between organism and machines is the fact that organisms organize themselves while machines need an intelligent designer to make them. That's why the machine analogy is stupid and outdated. Machine is an artificial thing, organism is organic and self-emergent
Yup .. we are shifting BANG into this territory .. unravelling panspycholigical psychosis
I was planning to comment that the error in your argument is that you are equating information processing with consciousness (and this is indeed one of your errors, I would argue - the same error recently made by e.g. Arthur Reber, a simple-enough rebuke of which can be found here; "Ginsburg, S. and Jablonka, E., 2020. Are Your Cells Conscious?".). However, only in the last 30 seconds or so of your video you make this point (finally) explicit by saying "at whatever scale it occurs, information processing is an experiential process". With this in mind, I would argue that your error becomes that you never even made an analytical argument for why information processing = experiential (and as a biologist I would agree that information processing does indeed seem to occur at virtually all physical scales). I am a keen reader on this topic (particularly the scale of cellular consciousness), however I have yet to see any substantive arguments in favour of this position at all since e.g. Herbert Spencer Jennings "The Behaviour of Lower Animals" (1906, ch. XX). I understand and appreciate that equating information processing with consciousness would be helpful in closing gaps, but I am yet to come across a convincing argument for it. I look forward to hopefully being challenged by your paper.
I read a section from an article. If you read the rest of the article there are more explicit arguments about information being experiential.
Is information processing not teleological ?
How is a being acting with intent not experiencing ?
I believe that this troublesome word, "information" likely holds useful secrets towards a solution of the Hard Problem. But having said that, you should know that we can be much more precise today about this phrase "information processing". The word you want to use here is computation. Computation has a deep and wide edifice in mathematics now as the ``Theory of Computation.`` Some assert that consciousness is a specific form of computation, which I disagree with. There is nothing in the mathematics of computation that can bridge a gap to experiential feeling (-- but I'm getting ahead of myself.) We are in an age of rapidly advancing computer technology , and because our society has this "hammer" now , everything looks a "nail" to us. In the 1990s, the claim "The brain is just a complicated computer" was accepted as binding dogma, even in places like Oxford. Those who challenged the dogma at that time were labelled pariahs. This is August 2020. Today is more likely to me that the brain is not a computer. Ironically this is now the baseline position for all of us.
@@otonanoC Nice points.
I would also like to add, that the computers that exist and the information processing they do has been set in motion by humans with teleology based on experiential existence.
Computing is programed to serve experential aims.
oh yeah .. i have re-interpreted Descartes
So yall ready to go ahead and start replacing "panpsychism" with "animism" yet, bc I feel like the latter term has sharper teeth, if ya catch my drift
....or another pan.... panentheism.
@@kevanhubbard9673 Yeah I'm about it. I've recently been reading Catherine Keller's *On the Mystery* which is sort of an intro to Christian process theology.
Water... it does a body and a speaking voice good.
Shivambu, the REAL WATER/LIGHT/CONSCIOUSNESS
Is there something rather than nothing because God is a necessary creation in itself due to infinite absence?
He is disproving materialism he didn't tell anything about god
Consciousness is completely unnecessary (in principle) and possibly detrimental for producing evolutionary outcomes.