At 4:40 - "... every molecule is different." I just googled "does DNA change with age?" Conflicting answers returned. E.g., nih.gov says "Some of these changes are epigenetic-they modify DNA without altering the genetic sequence itself." Other sources reference "wear and tear" (entropy) changes to DNA. Why might this question be important? The DNA-entangled neurons that comprise the neuroplastic brain (together with other DNA-entangled body cells) might be key to understanding the unified self. On the topic of hemi neglect, at 8:09 Llinas mentions binding. Fascinating, and ties in with this DNA-entanglement thesis. I mean, how else might we account for binding?
Rodolfo Llinas says at 8:17 at 9:00 and at 9:16 : "so we really begin to understand how the cognitive experience comes to be", "...it tells you how the system works...", "that's what the self ( = consciousness ) is, the thalamus-cortical integration". Yes, a very decent understanding by Rodolfo ( not quite, but closer... ). The main real material functions in the brain, when combined, create a "meta-function" that's called 'real consciousness'. It is in fact the feeling ( = emergent real phenomenon ) of being 'aware', the real material function 'consciousness' of any being out there, biological or artificial. So, Robert, with people like Rodolfo, you really come closer to my side, 'closer to the Truth' of the real world!👍
Wait a second, in hemi-neglect the cortex is not being activated. The signal stops short of activating the cortex or the cortex is damaged. Seeing is simply activation of visual cortex and smelling is simply activation of olfactory cotices etc.
I have one problem with the association of the identity of the man with his memory. Which is the following : How can we get sure with absolute certainty that The memory of the past isn't an property of the present self (memory created by your present )
This is one of the best explanations I've heard, towards answering the question of "qualia" and the "hard problem". The "binding" and "integration" problem. Even though it's still "mechanics", it goes a long way towards taking away the sense of "mystification". ("Deflationary", as Karl Friston would say.)
Ernest S / And just think about the reality that the computer has been created and continuously improved in the image of the human brain for many decades now!😏 What is the meaning of "bios, hard drive ( it does function as memory also ) and software" in reality? In connection with what Rodolfo says, how to connect them correctly, and what to minimally add correctly in order to create full Artificial Consciousness ( AC )? ( not Artificial Intelligence, AI ; we're talking here about something much more advanced = Artificial Consciousness, AC ). The whole correct method is not about "what" you use ( because everything you need has been created already ), but in "HOW" you use it in order to create the relatively simple and specific AC emergent meta-function! Good luck!😉✌️
This guy talks like experience creates self but it is the self that is the knower and enjoyer of what it experiences. We also become conditioned by our experiences and develop phobias and addictions the phobias come from a fearful experience and addictions come from what gives us pleasure so an experience can affect a self but not effect ( being the cause ) a self.
There might not be a self independent of the experiences meaning affect and effect might be inseparable. If you separate them you loose your identity as happens with the loss of half of the hypothalamus.
Raymond said," how do you explain this sense of personal identity we maintain even through every molecule in our body has changed from the time we were a child to now we feel like we are the same person how is this done just simply by the brain "? What you have to ask yourself is,who knows that? Realizations depend on a " knower " and being a " knower " is what makes you a " self " The person he interviewed said, " you are what you remember yourself to be " well, what if you developed total amnesia by whatever circumstance would that mean that your being a knower is no longer there? Answer: No, Why? Answer: I exist, and to know that you exist you have to be conscious or aware that you exist it is this knowing that you " be " or " am " that is self not memory. Memory rides along the stream of self consciousness, it doesn't constitute self consciousness
People that have total amnesia still know who they just cannot remember their past. Their memories are still their it is just they cannot access them. A neurological disease like Alzheimer’s and Dementia destroys people’s identities because they are just not their anymore. There are moments when they briefly come back and they have a flash of connections but they skip away and eventually die.
@@kos-mos1127 True, my grandmother had alzheimer's or dementia but she was in her 80's but what I am saying is that even in such a condition you are still conscious that you exist because my grandmother could still react when addressed so that presence of being is still there it's just your life's drama that isn't there any more.
A good way to in part understand identity of self is to those who have lost it. These are typically people with amnesia, multiple personalities, disease impairing their brain like Alzheimers disease, traumatic injury to parts of the brain, the influence if certain chemical substances such as hallucinagens, schozophrenia. Study these people to understand what has been lost and how it makes them different. Sense of self develops with time and may begin even before birth. We don't know yet.
Lost indentity not explains disordered thought as squizogrenic most studies show identity are apart of the reality. For instance Van Gogh paint has many personalities disordered sometimes are real or not.
@@maxwellsimoes238 Sometimes you can gain some insight by studying differences in certain parts of the brain such as electrical activity, biochemical differences, physical differences. That could even lead to treatment for some people.
Consciousness & free will .. are functions of the MIND of an ENTITY. Animals & Man ... are PHYSICAL entities ... with a physical mind(brain) .. and free well & consciousness of the PHYSICAL environment. The Brain is simply the physical mind ... of a physical entity ... like Man & animals. Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe, with a brain fine tuned to separate the Mind of Man from Animals. Chimps share 99% of Human DNA, but can not think & do 1% of what Man can. The Mind of Man is clearly without any doubt more than just the brain. Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintain, improves, fine tunes, evolves Abstract & Physical Functions. A Function .. is a Process ... with set purpose, form, design & properties (information) ... and ... possess & requires INFORMATION to exist & to function. The brain is a physical function completely composed of Functions ... and can only be made by an intelligence ( like Man). Natural Functions & thermodynamic Systems ... prove the Universe & Life were UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence. The Mind of an intelligence is UNNATURAL & non-physical( ie spirit/soul) The Mind of Man ... is NATURAL ( brain) & UNNATURAL ( soul). Man has a body & Mind. Man is Body & Soul. God did create Man in His image with a body & soul. Jesus( Son of God) confirmed nearly 2000 years ago with the Great commandment that the Mind of Man is body & soul. This is why the Messiah ( Savior) could not actually be descended from King David ... with a corrupted body. The corrupted body of Man is why every single Human Being ... will freely choose to think & do evil. God became a Human Being with a body & soul .. and the mind of man is the body & the soul. Even God's only begotten Son would have sinned if he had a corrupted body ... for Man is body & soul.
@@abelincoln8885 There is no such thing as God or free will. Free will is an illusion in a rational universe where cause and effect are the only operative rules even if we don't understand them. Randomness and god are inventions of the imagination, randomness created because we can't tell one atom from another and god as a way for one group of people to enslave another through fear and punishment for not confirming. I had this out with a British dope professor of thermodynamics McIntosh who didn't know beans about chemical thermodynamics. I think he taught at Leeds University. I told him to stick to engines and refrigerators and leave chemistry to chemists I decided if I ever had a job applicant who attended that school I'd automatically disqualify him or her. He's proof the school's standards are much too low.
@@markfischer3626 lol. Over 6 billion people will disagree with you about free will & "the gods." Stop this silliness. Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintains, improves, fine tunes Functions. All Functions are processes ... with set purpose, form, design, properties. And all thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ... and originate from the Surrounding System(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature to exist & ... FUNCTION. Numbnut. The Universe is a thermodynamic System ... as is a Galaxy, Star, planet, Atmosphere, Life, .... machine ... and can of soup. Even an atom is a thermodynamic system. You can waffle on as much as you want with your religious beliefs of a natural origin of the Universe & Life, for you're not changing the fact that a machine is both a physical Function composed of physical Functions ... but is also a thermodynamic System ... which MUST originate from the surrounding System. The Universe is a Natural System ... that began & is expanding in ... an UNNATURAL System, with unnatural Laws, and an unnatural intelligence ... to make all of the thermodynamic Systems. C'mon. Prove nature & natural processes can make a thermodynamic system ( ie Function). Good luck. lol.
"The star of Shepherd's research is a protein called 'activity regulated cytoskeletal' protein." The Arc protein is apparently necessary for long term memory retention, and it behaves like a virus floating free in the brain, transferring information, so it might have evolved from a virus.
Everything is either an abstract ( time, space, Laws of nature) or physical ( matter, energy) Function. All Functions are Process/System ... with set purpose, form,design, properties( information) ... and possess & require INFORMATION to exist & to function. The Brain is a physical Function composed entirely of Functions. Only an intelligence ( like Man) can extract INFORMATION from a Function. Only an intelligence ( like Man) can make a Function with INFORMATION. Nature & natural processes can never make or operate the most simple machine( a physical Function). The three types of machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ). God did create Man in His image ... with a body & soul. And Jesus (Son of God) told us nearly 2000 years ago with the Great commandment that the MIND of Man is natural ( brain) & unnatural ( soul). "Love God with all her heart, Mind & soul." Obviously the soul has a mind ... but so too does the body. And this is why the Son of God could NOT have a corrupted Human body ... because the physical mind ( brain) is capable of "hating God" or thinking evil. Man is body & soul. Animals are only a body. And God & Angels are spirits.
@@abelincoln8885 "God is an Evil Clown. Fun minus Good plus Evil is Infinity." -godevilclown GODEVILCLOWN RANK ALL TRIPLETS … ETHIC PREFERENCE AGGREGATION UTILITY COMPLEXITY PARADOXY COST BENEFIT OPPORTUNITY COLLECTIVE ACTION PRISONERS PRICE OF INACTION DEMOCRACY CAPITALISM INFINITY FREEDOM AND COMPETITION COOPERATION AND CONFLICT AGENT AND PRINCIPAL SIGNAL AND SCREEN … SPACETIME TRADEOFF MAPS FREE CHOICE COUNTERFACTUALS REVERSE AWARENESS ILLUSIONS … WIN PRACTICE CHEATING KNOWLEDGE BALANCE JOKE BASILISK ZOMBIE SIMULATOR DIRECTED LUNCH THEOREM GOD RACE ME
It wasn't your instrument it was trial & error experimentation. Cognitive arm chairing can lead to deviation without experimentation to keep the mind in check.
This physical combination of functions of our brains allows us to be thinking beings in this physical word but if we exist as souls we may have an entirely different functional system which is non-physical and which may be capable of adaptation to different existences.
A very interesting episode: A common theme that is also regularly featured on this channel is: "Must the universe spawn consciousness and is it inevitable?" The answer is quite often yes, because it seems to be a feature of our universe. But I've always thought a more interesting question would be: "Must the universe spawn our own personal conscious identity?". I mean sure, if we ourselves didn't exist, it's inevitable that other people like us, or even other life forms elsewhere in the universe would exist, because the universe is just simply geared up to produce conscious life. But what would be the point of a universe teeming with life, if we ourselves never came into existence? Hence the more interesting question: "Must the universe necessarily spawn us, ourselves, our own personal conscious identity?" Or is creating everybody else's consciousness except for our own, good enough, as far as universes go?
Just curious if you think that we are the only species on planet Earth with self-awareness? Have you ever seen an animal make a mistake and get embarrassed or even try to cover it up? What is that? Unless it's self-awareness. Maybe just not our brand of self-awareness.
@@rafeller9057 Yes, I have a regular experience that is similar to what you're describing. When my doggy does it's business outside her designated area in the laundry, and she sees me next, she sticks her tail between her legs and walks sheepishly away from me, because she knows I will yell at her for peeing in the kitchen. And throughout the universe, there might also exist different levels or orders of consciousness, or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features. Other questions you could ask include whether only humans are conscious, or all the animals as well as humans, or even the whole universe, and we are just a small subset of that consciousness. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises doubts about whether the right questions are being asked. OK, so here's a simple question. What is the purpose of the universe? And by that, I don't mean philosophically speaking, but at its most fundamental physical level. You could say, it's to maximise entropy. And if that's the case, then you could further ask, how is entropy related to the emergence of consciousness or just physical complexity in general? The simple answer to that could be that in a closed system, entropy and complexity increase together initially. In other words, the greater the disorder, the more difficult it is to describe the system, which in turn can represent increasing complexity. And consciousness could merely be a manifestation of what the universe achieves in its temporary state of maximum complexity. This is my fallback position for when people ask, doesn't a watch imply a watchmaker. I myself prefer the "maxim" (a short, pithy statement expressing a general truth), doesn't dog pee in the kitchen imply a dog that hasn't been properly house trained? aka doesn't dog pee, imply a dog pee maker? My dog of course would vehemently disagree, because she is really smart and always pretends it wasn't her. However of course, we also know that any state of entropy will change later on. And towards the end, as entropy approaches its final maximum where there's also maximal disorder, the complexity will then also diminish. And so therefore, eventually the entire universe will also perish in a heat death and become pretty much completely empty. And if the cosmological constant is zero, the universe will approach absolute zero temperature over a very long timescale. And it would then have evolved to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore would then be unable to sustain processes that further increase entropy. So we just happened to be living at the peak of complexity, aka the anthropic principal. Maybe we should just enjoy our moment in the sun and make hay while it shines. You're not here for a long time, just a good time. The probability of your identity emerging is 1 / the complexity of the universe. And each individual "self" or personal identity, could be a microcosm of The Big Bang which collectively all adds up to 1, with 0 being a completely empty universe. So another question is: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" This also is a common theme featured in various episodes on this channel. My thinking is, why should a state of "nothing" be the default? Why should there be "nothing" rather than something? Some would argue that this is a stupid and absolutely pointless question to begin with? Unless of course the universe embarked upon its own existential struggle to come into existence, in order to reconcile what existence and consciousness represents, and then placed consciousness in each and every one of us, because given enough combinations or permutations within a broader hypothetically infinite Multiverse, eventually our numbers had to come up, and so that's what inevitably the universe had to do. Hence, what existence attempted to do with an inanimate universe, is now manifested in the personal identity of each and everyone of us. Consider this. Our bodies are made from the remnants of stars and massive explosions from other galaxies, including our own. And apart from containing universally common elements like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, which account for more than 99 per cent of the atoms inside you, they also contain some heavier elements like copper and zinc, etc. And these atoms could only have been created in the dying stage of exploding stars and supernovas. These elements were flung into space as dust and gas (aka stardust). Eventually, they coalesced to become part of a new forming solar system and our planet Earth. So hence, we are not just "part" of the universe, we "are" the universe. And by extension of that, so is our consciousness and our personal identity. Now furthermore, on a completely different consideration, whilst it's generally assumed that the universe is more likely than not to be teeming with life, (the Fermi Paradox notwithstanding), there is also another theory, the “Rare Earth Hypothesis,” which argues that the emergence of life and the evolution of conscious complexity require a combination of astrophysical and geological conditions that are simply not common in our Universe. And that for every several universes similar to ours, only one of them would produce life or consciousness. And hence, Earth might be the only place in our entire universe with any kind of consciousness or even life. This of course contradicts previously-held notions by prominent scientists and SETI researchers, who are of the opinion that Earth is typical of rocky planets located throughout the Universe. Now if this was the case, consciousness could still be an inevitability of our Universe, but it would just be that it was really rare. It would be nice if we could find some microorganisms living in the hydrothermal vents of any of the moons in our solar system. It would then give us some idea about where life and even consciousness fits within the greater scheme of the universe. Or at least about it's statistical likelihood of occurring. And then maybe we'll come a bit closer to answering that iconic philosophical question everyone always asks, what is the meaning of life and consciousness.
I think the sensation of self is simply the feeling of the whole universe collapsing to a single point- which is called you. That’s why I say existentially or experientially- the universe is subjective, not objective. As far as memories are concerned, I believe they are out of body experiences because usually you remember things from sort of a top down view.
Every object is a subject and every subject is an object, they are two sides of the same coin. A subject without an object does not know that it is a subject. The object of the universe in itself is to become it's own subject, space and time are these, the original subject and object.
One interesting observation by Joseph Shore. Look up "Joseph Shore ACIM consciousness" here. Also look up "My past life as a Jew Joseph Shore". Joseph was a famous American opera singer and remembers very clearly dying in the holocaust.
@iarguephilosophy It does implies a separateness but that in turn implies a connection. Consider the two hemispheres of the brain, how each side is the subject of the other, and each the object to the other. Together they are one self, one soul, one mind. The word consciousness means "to know together", which implies a unity of parts.
@@dare-er7sw I am beginning to believe that every universe is individual and real , Which is why the placebo effect works , among other things. Therefore if somebody remembers they were in a holocaust for all intents purposes, they were
Humans are not the only entity that experience personal identity. Plenty of animals have found themselves and act based on the biology to be an individual. Like an elephant seal dominating the beach for mating purposes. That individual has its own unique genetics.
Aren't you implying that since neurological damage may change your conception of yourself *, or the person who you see yourself as, the age of someone with a non-negative chronology, who has suffered a loss, is zero from their 'point of view' when resuscitated say and therefore, from then on, unless their name is formally changed, the name that people address them by, cannot correspond with their name to them and if so, then wouldn't you be assuming, instead of concluding, schitzophrenia in some cases, because it is technically possible for the original picture they had of themselves to be resurrected from brain 'neuroplasticity'? * "I" is bound perceptive experience and "myself" is this information given some context.
E = mc² is wrong. Light/photon is not fast. It takes 8 minutes 20 seconds for the light/photon received by the Sun to reach the Earth. But our eyes see a single second 8 minutes 20 seconds of light / photon distance sun before ticking. If the light is fast then our eyes should have seen some distance earlier. Millions of years old lights/pictures are here doesn't mean our eyes should see the distance to the Sun. Light/receipt by stars/sun is also a continuous process. It's invincible, but it also doesn't mean that our eyes should see the Sun. Light/photons are already out of date here but sound always travels in its own way. Sound always travels at 343 meters per second, or a kilometer in 2.9 seconds, or a mile in 4.7 seconds. Similarly our eyes should have seen only a short distance from each other. That's why Light Fast is 100% wrong. Our eyes see stars of light billions of years away even before the clock ticks a second. That's why Light Fast is wrong.
You are conflating two concepts. In terms of physics, we don’t see the sun, we see the photons that reach our eyes from the sun. We don’t see long distances in terms of physics. We infer the distance from our experience and the other things near us and near the distant object (and we don’t see the near things, either, just the photons that hit our eyes). In everyday language, we see those objects. The difference between seeing the object vs seeing the photons from the object is irrelevant to our everyday lives, so before we started studying astronomy scientifically, it didn’t matter.
@@scienceexplains302 The distance of the Sun from the Earth for sunlight is 8 minutes 20 seconds. Our eyes often do not take even a second to see the light distance of 8 minutes 20 seconds. Whereas light/photon takes 8 minutes 20 to reach the earth. Should I have to repeat it again?
It's not our fault, it's the light/photon's fault. That journey takes billions of years. When light/photons come on we see them before they tick a second.
(1:15) *RL: **_"So, we have this entity that we call self which doesn't exist."_* ... Though I do not believe in any god(s) nor in a soul, the "self" absolutely does exist. It's not a spirit, entity, or anything supernatural; it's just "you!" Each individual "self" is a microcosm of Big Bang. Existence has taken its own existential struggle to reconcile what existence represents and placed it in each and every one of us. What Existence attempted to do with an inanimate universe is now made manifest in YOU! *Existence = 1* *Nonexistence = 0* Your self-awareness is the result of the mathematical self-assignment of 1 to Existence at its earliest evolutionary point. Existence has been evolving over the past 14 giga-annum to the point where YOU now represent this same numerical assignment of "1." This is why we only get to experience existence from within our own "individual" physiology ... _and nobody else's._ Everyone's self-awareness is a blank slate at birth, and then we assimilate volumes of information over the course of our lifetime. We evaluate, categorize, and judge this information which forms our own unique perspective regarding "Existence." Existence then takes all of the subjective data accrued from over 8 billion human representatives during every moment of our lives and uses this data to further define what Existence represents. *Examples:* *(1)* Those of you who have judged Existence to be a horrible, unending path of hot coals with no purpose or meaning ... your judgment has been recorded within "Existence." *(2)* Those of you who have judged Existence to be a beautiful, majestic experience steeped in purpose and meaning ... your judgment has been recorded within "Existence." *(3)* Those of you who have judged Existence to be a lonely, isolated journey to which no answers are offered, yet you still keep pushing forward ... your judgment has been recorded within "Existence." Like it or not, YOU are the voice of "Existence." Existence is counting on your own, unique self-awareness to provide the missing data ... _and NOT the other way around!_
I have a Theistic viewpoint.. But sorry, after an initial read (admittedly without a prolonged study of it) what you have posted comes across as eccentric. I'm much more convinced of a God - pure personal being - as the ground and sustainer of the universe and the persons who inhabit it than believing in a non-personal (?) or quasi-personal (?-"Existence is counting on your own, unique self-awareness to provide the missing data ... ") concept or construct such as "Existence" as a ground for being instead. It seems like an imaginative fictional insight rather than a truth insight to me. I hope this your comment elicits a fair number of thoughtful responses as I'd like to read other opinions on it.
@@themanwhowasthursday5616 *"I'm much more convinced of a God - pure personal being - as the ground and sustainer of the universe and the persons who inhabit it than believing in a non-personal ... concept or construct such as "Existence" as a ground for being instead."* ... Theism has God knowing everything in advance. This is problematic for me because if all knowledge is already known from the start, then what benefit (or necessity) is there to create a universe, life, and self-aware humans? Theism went in the right direction regarding existence, but it put the cart before the horse having God be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent from the very start. At its earliest stage, Existence was only a single, rudimentary "bit" of information that has been continuously evolving and acquiring new information (just like we do). An Omniscient God would never need to evolve or acquire anything at all. *"It seems like an imaginative fictional insight rather than a truth insight to me."* ... If Existence was once represented by a hydrogen atom, and then 13.8 billion years later it is represented by self-aware lifeforms known as you and me, then where is this "fiction" you refer to? If you liken everything that exists to "information," and we are living, self-aware "information processors," then this makes far more sense than an infinitely existing, almighty entity that created everything for no particular reason. *" I hope this your comment elicits a fair number of thoughtful responses as I'd like to read other opinions on it."* ... There's a book listed on my channel's "about" page that will give you 282 pages full of insight. Read it, and I guarantee everything I've written will make perfect sense. If you truly desire "truth" then you owe it to yourself to read it. Note that it doesn't require you to sacrifice your beliefs whether you agree with it or not.
I like your analysis of self-awareness. I also don't believe there needs to be a God or an eternally pre-existing intelligent agent of any kind, in order to explain the existence of the universe. There does however need to be a reason which explains why so many people believe in, or experience some kind of theistic awareness. So my theory is that it's due to the evolutionary development of a cognitive bias in the more primitive parts of the brain, which were optimised for executing survival reflexes. And a reflex by it's very nature is an action that is performed without high level logical or even conscious thought, as a response to a particular kind of stimulus. For example, when my dogs hear the roof rafters creaking, or any other unfamiliar noise, they automatically assign an intelligent agent to it. This for any animal, is a good defence mechanism against predators. Our homonid predecessors probably escaped being eaten by tigers and other predators, due to the existence of this reflex. And in order for it to work in an optimal way, you need to have more false positives than genuine ones. If you were to assume that any logical analysis would suggest it's just the rustling of the bushes, you might get eaten by a tiger, and you then get wiped out of the gene pool, leaving behind those homonids who have the more paranoid genes. Over time, as we become more intelligent with higher level logical thinking capabilities, this tendency to assign an intelligent agent to naturally occurring phenomena evolves into a genetically built-in assumption, in the existence of malevolent deities like devil's and demons. Every culture has them. And it's corollary then becomes an assumption also in the existence of benevolent deities. Who also have the capacity for some malevolence, unless of course they are appeased. So he's actually a loving god once you get to know him, provided you sacrifice animals or babies at the altar or down a volcano as the case or culture may be. And this will ensure we are all looked after and our crops don't fail. And this biological reflex, basically took on the form whereby our predecessors described an intelligent agent to various naturally occurring phenomena. The God of lightning, the God of rain, wind, fire, etc, the God of agricultural fertility, the sun God, moon God, the star Gods, etc. So we begin at ground level gods and work away up into the sky and then out into the stars. And over time, these various deities get consolidated into a single all-powerful individual God because this offers people who are in tune with this God, various administrative, sociological and political benefits, rather than maintaining a multiplicity of gods, all of whom might be competing with each other. So we end up with monotheism 1.0 aka Judaism, monotheism 2.0 aka Christianity, monotheism 3.0 aka Islam, etc. And that is why I believe, we as a species historically have always had an inclination to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent in situations that may or may not necessarily involve one.
@@mikmop *"There does however need to be a reason which explains why so many people believe in, or experience some kind of theistic awareness."* ... I believe the reason people believe in God is because the option presents itself. Whenever there are "holes," people gravitate to the most extreme explanations possible. The definition of God is unbreakable and represents the highest possible level of conceivability. There is nothing conceivable beyond an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity that created everything. You can't even conceive a "God Slayer" based on the definition of God. Science is just as guilty of gravitating to the most extreme explanation possible whenever scientists are stuck in a hole. Scientists and physicists incessantly opine about "infinite universes" (multiverse theory) because the option to think this way presents itself. In regard to God and science, it doesn't have to be as complex as biological reflexes and evolutionary development of a cognitive bias in the more primitive parts of the brain. All there needs to be is a "hole" (missing data) and consciousness instantly attempts to fill it. Consciousness will keep conceiving ways to fill this hole until nothing else can be conceived to fill it.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC There are a lot of paradoxes when you try to logically rationalise one's built-in theistic bias to automatically assume the existence of "omnipotence", be it Godly or any other kind. i.e. "there is nothing conceivable beyond the omnipotent??" For example, can God create a pizza that is so big, that even he himself couldn't even eat it? (Or at least not in one sitting anyway). I myself always leave a few slices, so I can have it for breakfast the next morning. Could God roll a joint that is so long, that even he himself couldn't smoke it all. Or at least not in one session anyway. Is it because God suffers from asthma or emphysema or something like that? The omnipotence paradox interestingly enough has medieval origins, dating at least to the 10th century, when the Saadia Gaon responded to the question of whether God's omnipotence extended to logical "absurdities", like my aforementioned pizza and rolling a joint paradox. It was later addressed by Averroës and the Dominican friar Thomas Aquinas. And also, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (before 532) had a predecessor version of the paradox, asking whether it is possible for God to "deny himself". I myself would add, could God commit suicide if he wanted to? Does he have it within his power, or is he powerless to do so? The best-known version of the omnipotence paradox of course is the so-called paradox of the stone: "Could God create a stone so heavy that even he himself, could not lift it?" Or herself in the event that God is female. Which makes me think, could God undergo sex gender reassignment surgery and transition into a female, if he or she identified as such? Hence the absurdity of omnipotence as a concept.
The self is the soul which is created and maintained when the spirit of God is combined with a functioning body. Even when someone is missing most or all of their brain (hydranencephaly) it's been shown in some people that it's possible that they can still have a sense of self. So, if the brain creates the soul/self without God's spirit then I assume that Rodolfo would also think that a computer should be able to have consciousness if it can be made to have memory recall and mimic the same senses as humans?
Elon Musk has already stated that consciousness computer will happen in our lifetime. Does not matter people believe a computer can become conscious or not it is happening.
@@kos-mos1127 Not in our lifetime or anyone's life time. It's not happening, the Google guy who claimed that the LaMDA artificial intelligence chatbot was sentient provided no proof (it doesn't even have any of our five senses) and Google disagrees with him. Life can only come from life not from material things.
@@treasurepoem how will you be able to tell it apart from a human when it will, eventually, be able to complete and/or supersede all of our functions...
@@r2c3 Easy peasy, because it's not alive. We can't even create original cellular life forms without borrowing from nature's own handy work so it's not very likely that we'll be able to create a living thing out of non-cellular material. No matter how fast or good computers can process data they still will be just non-living machines because they will never fully understand good and evil like humans can feel and know it in their hearts.
@@treasurepoem did you watch this latest conversation with lambda... ua-cam.com/video/Emcpg1xkZug/v-deo.html if the dialog was indeed taking place in real-time then what else do you expect even from a human-to-human chat 🤔
Is it true that people who suffer from acute alzheimers sometimes do not recognize themselves in a mirror? They still have their full brain, do they not? Is it not the same brain malfunction that inhibits that kind of self recognition? Of course, biblically speaking, humans themselves are the soul. Genesis 2:7 says: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and MAN BECAME a LIVING SOUL."
the ship of Theseus, after being repaired in a harbor, had all the old parts replaced by new ones and this raised an ancient philosophical question about identity that is related to the old photo and the present self reflection example in today's video description... our body is very similar to hardware, as you say... or more like a vase that serves as a container for the self, in this case... memories, in your example, might not be the software itself but rather information that is saved by that software... in the vase example, memory can be compared with the contents stored in the vase... memories will leak away if the vase is damaged :)
the apes do not like human comments those show the apes their bitter reality, but the same apes do not mind to steal the rest to write a books from stolen comments for the rest of the apes! real apes, unbelievable !
Socrates once said "Know thyself." Physically, I'm pretty much a nobody who drives an old pickup truck on dusty roads in the middle of the backcountry of nowhere. But metaphysically, I'm a highly decorated, space cowboy called the Lone Ranger and I have taken control of a lightship. Like the Blues Brothers, I'm on a mission from good (god). My Mission Impossible is to engage the "supernova" function on my lightship in order to fill a giant black hole in space called ignorance (greed) with light (love) so that its heavy gravitational pull stops sucking the joy out of life and destroying the planet. I face some major obstacles though. 1) Light and truth (love) cause vampires (greed) great pain and suffering. That's why the words compassion, understanding, society (socialism), community (communism), "care for all" and "green new deal" cause the capitalist counting corpses that rule US such misery. 2) Like bats that fly around in the darkness of caves...vampires (greed) are blind and cannot see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war). The capitalist counting corpses are also blind and cannot see the ignorance of destroying the planet. 3) The evangelical monsters are extremely "desperate" to manufacture war. Because working in the dark to suck the joy out of life and destroy the planet is the only way that the loveless, lifeless parasites can survive and thrive. Unlike earthling human beings and creators of joy...the capitalist counting corpses that rule US can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are ignorant (dead). Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children. Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.
yo por las dudas ya escribi a todos los diarios del mundo para que le digan al clon, a quien tiene adentro, como dice mi papà, darse cuenta es importante, siempre darse cuenta
Once more, no explanation of the very existence of consciousness. Every brain process described by this guy could run just as well without any consciousness existing at all. I'm tired of these brain science guys with their conceptual confusions and circular claims.
the apes think that self concept and personal identity are the same ! personal identity generated by self concept to resemble itself (very complicated process, hard for the thief apes to comprehend) for a reason the thief apes can not comprehend too. shame on the thief apes ! those do not know shame !
human writes valuable concise comments while the apes write books based on stolen comments from human, they even do not mind to use blunt theft ! aren't' they real sick irrational apes ! exactly like real apes. but how can the apes understand !
Not if new evidence comes to light though. History proves this. However, if no new evidence does come to light, would you expect them to through away their life's work? What for, a whim?
@@johnyharris On some matters its hard to think that a theory is proven wrong ...in the next 547 billions of years. My problem is that they sell a product as much is a "life of work" ...where "selling a product" start and "scientific work" ends ?
The history of science is the history of theories changing. Or at least being modified or extended. For example, Einstein didn't prove Newton's theory of gravity to be wrong. He just developed a theory of gravity that applies to a new area of observation. Newton's laws still apply for any small mass travelling at low velocities. We went to the Moon using his theory. But we operate GPS satellites that travel around the earth, using Einstein's theory.
@@mikmop Its sure... but on consciousness i hardly envision Llinas, Seth, Tononi, Hameroff, Hoffman, Kastrup, Koch, Harris saying "my theory was wrong ... i was so dumb". Because 1) they have built their notoriety on that 2) hardly something regarding consciousness will be disproved... So where is the line between science and marketing ? Same for example on String theory ... Many became famous and still defend the theory today ...even if string theory is not anymore that mainstream thing of 10 years ago.
@@francesco5581 Sure, of course. There are for example people like Fred Hoyle, who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, and made a massive contribution to the understanding of how chemical elements are made inside stars. But he also had the mistaken the steady-state theory as an alternative to the Big Bang theory of evolution of the universe. He himself believed in his own theory right until his death. But cosmologists as a community, always adopted the scientific method, which involves peer review, examination of new data, continued observation and replication of experiments. Scientists as a community don't cling on to outdated beliefs, they welcome new insights and new theories because it always represents new science, which always excites them more than old theories.
I find these videos a little sad. In most, the interviewer is looking for some evidence against the terminal nature of absolute death. Why not live like this is the only life we have. The only moment that the configuration of the fundamental fields evolve and a conscious entity emerges into existence to live for a few heartbeats and then to be no more. Spend this precious fleeting time to make the world that we are born into better.
At 4:40 - "... every molecule is different." I just googled "does DNA change with age?" Conflicting answers returned. E.g., nih.gov says "Some of these changes are epigenetic-they modify DNA without altering the genetic sequence itself." Other sources reference "wear and tear" (entropy) changes to DNA. Why might this question be important? The DNA-entangled neurons that comprise the neuroplastic brain (together with other DNA-entangled body cells) might be key to understanding the unified self. On the topic of hemi neglect, at 8:09 Llinas mentions binding. Fascinating, and ties in with this DNA-entanglement thesis. I mean, how else might we account for binding?
Rodolfo Llinas says at 8:17 at 9:00 and at 9:16 : "so we really begin to understand how the cognitive experience comes to be", "...it tells you how the system works...", "that's what the self ( = consciousness ) is, the thalamus-cortical integration".
Yes, a very decent understanding by Rodolfo ( not quite, but closer... ).
The main real material functions in the brain, when combined, create a "meta-function" that's called 'real consciousness'. It is in fact the feeling ( = emergent real phenomenon ) of being 'aware', the real material function 'consciousness' of any being out there, biological or artificial.
So, Robert, with people like Rodolfo, you really come closer to my side, 'closer to the Truth' of the real world!👍
Wait a second, in hemi-neglect the cortex is not being activated. The signal stops short of activating the cortex or the cortex is damaged.
Seeing is simply activation of visual cortex and smelling is simply activation of olfactory cotices etc.
I have one problem with the association of the identity of the man with his memory.
Which is the following :
How can we get sure with absolute certainty that The memory of the past isn't an property of the present self (memory created by your present )
This is one of the best explanations I've heard, towards answering the question of "qualia" and the "hard problem". The "binding" and "integration" problem. Even though it's still "mechanics", it goes a long way towards taking away the sense of "mystification". ("Deflationary", as Karl Friston would say.)
Ernest S / And just think about the reality that the computer has been created and continuously improved in the image of the human brain for many decades now!😏
What is the meaning of "bios, hard drive ( it does function as memory also ) and software" in reality?
In connection with what Rodolfo says, how to connect them correctly, and what to minimally add correctly in order to create full Artificial Consciousness ( AC )? ( not Artificial Intelligence, AI ; we're talking here about something much more advanced = Artificial Consciousness, AC ).
The whole correct method is not about "what" you use ( because everything you need has been created already ), but in "HOW" you use it in order to create the relatively simple and specific AC emergent meta-function!
Good luck!😉✌️
This guy talks like experience creates self but it is the self that is the knower and enjoyer of what it experiences. We also become conditioned by our experiences and develop phobias and addictions the phobias come from a fearful experience and addictions come from what gives us pleasure so an experience can affect a self but not effect ( being the cause ) a self.
There might not be a self independent of the experiences meaning affect and effect might be inseparable. If you separate them you loose your identity as happens with the loss of half of the hypothalamus.
Raymond said," how do you explain this sense of personal identity we maintain even through every molecule in our body has changed from the time we were a child to now we feel like we are the same person how is this done just simply by the brain "? What you have to ask yourself is,who knows that? Realizations depend on a " knower " and being a " knower " is what makes you a " self "
The person he interviewed said, " you are what you remember yourself to be " well, what if you developed total amnesia by whatever circumstance would that mean that your being a knower is no longer there? Answer: No, Why? Answer: I exist, and to know that you exist you have to be conscious or aware that you exist it is this knowing that you " be " or " am " that is self not memory.
Memory rides along the stream of self consciousness, it doesn't constitute self consciousness
People that have total amnesia still know who they just cannot remember their past. Their memories are still their it is just they cannot access them.
A neurological disease like Alzheimer’s and Dementia destroys people’s identities because they are just not their anymore. There are moments when they briefly come back and they have a flash of connections but they skip away and eventually die.
@@kos-mos1127 True, my grandmother had alzheimer's or dementia but she was in her 80's but what I am saying is that even in such a condition you are still conscious that you exist because my grandmother could still react when addressed so that presence of being is still there it's just your life's drama that isn't there any more.
Huh. I don't get his point with the one eye'd monster... The self is integration of various parts of the brain? That's pretty vague.
A good way to in part understand identity of self is to those who have lost it. These are typically people with amnesia, multiple personalities, disease impairing their brain like Alzheimers disease, traumatic injury to parts of the brain, the influence if certain chemical substances such as hallucinagens, schozophrenia. Study these people to understand what has been lost and how it makes them different. Sense of self develops with time and may begin even before birth. We don't know yet.
Lost indentity not explains disordered thought as squizogrenic most studies show identity are apart of the reality. For instance Van Gogh paint has many personalities disordered sometimes are real or not.
@@maxwellsimoes238 Sometimes you can gain some insight by studying differences in certain parts of the brain such as electrical activity, biochemical differences, physical differences. That could even lead to treatment for some people.
Consciousness & free will .. are functions of the MIND of an ENTITY.
Animals & Man ... are PHYSICAL entities ... with a physical mind(brain) .. and free well & consciousness of the PHYSICAL environment.
The Brain is simply the physical mind ... of a physical entity ... like Man & animals.
Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe, with a brain fine tuned to separate the Mind of Man from Animals. Chimps share 99% of Human DNA, but can not think & do 1% of what Man can. The Mind of Man is clearly without any doubt more than just the brain.
Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintain, improves, fine tunes, evolves Abstract & Physical Functions.
A Function .. is a Process ... with set purpose, form, design & properties (information) ... and ... possess & requires INFORMATION to exist & to function.
The brain is a physical function completely composed of Functions ... and can only be made by an intelligence ( like Man).
Natural Functions & thermodynamic Systems ... prove the Universe & Life were UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence.
The Mind of an intelligence is UNNATURAL & non-physical( ie spirit/soul)
The Mind of Man ... is NATURAL ( brain) & UNNATURAL ( soul).
Man has a body & Mind. Man is Body & Soul.
God did create Man in His image with a body & soul.
Jesus( Son of God) confirmed nearly 2000 years ago with the Great commandment that the Mind of Man is body & soul. This is why the Messiah ( Savior) could not actually be descended from King David ... with a corrupted body. The corrupted body of Man is why every single Human Being ... will freely choose to think & do evil.
God became a Human Being with a body & soul .. and the mind of man is the body & the soul. Even God's only begotten Son would have sinned if he had a corrupted body ... for Man is body & soul.
@@abelincoln8885 There is no such thing as God or free will. Free will is an illusion in a rational universe where cause and effect are the only operative rules even if we don't understand them. Randomness and god are inventions of the imagination, randomness created because we can't tell one atom from another and god as a way for one group of people to enslave another through fear and punishment for not confirming. I had this out with a British dope professor of thermodynamics McIntosh who didn't know beans about chemical thermodynamics. I think he taught at Leeds University. I told him to stick to engines and refrigerators and leave chemistry to chemists I decided if I ever had a job applicant who attended that school I'd automatically disqualify him or her. He's proof the school's standards are much too low.
@@markfischer3626 lol. Over 6 billion people will disagree with you about free will & "the gods." Stop this silliness.
Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintains, improves, fine tunes Functions.
All Functions are processes ... with set purpose, form, design, properties.
And all thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ... and originate from the Surrounding System(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature to exist & ... FUNCTION.
Numbnut. The Universe is a thermodynamic System ... as is a Galaxy, Star, planet, Atmosphere, Life, .... machine ... and can of soup. Even an atom is a thermodynamic system.
You can waffle on as much as you want with your religious beliefs of a natural origin of the Universe & Life, for you're not changing the fact that a machine is both a physical Function composed of physical Functions ... but is also a thermodynamic System ... which MUST originate from the surrounding System.
The Universe is a Natural System ... that began & is expanding in ... an UNNATURAL System, with unnatural Laws, and an unnatural intelligence ... to make all of the thermodynamic Systems.
C'mon. Prove nature & natural processes can make a thermodynamic system ( ie Function). Good luck. lol.
Energy of organism / person, directed by brain / nervous system, distinguishes organism from environment?
You are what you remember yourself to be. Wow! never thought about it this way.
Why Not.
Might energy in the brain be recohered into quantum field probabilities that connects person / organism to reality beyond nature?
"The star of Shepherd's research is a protein called 'activity regulated cytoskeletal' protein."
The Arc protein is apparently necessary for long term memory retention, and it behaves like a virus floating free in the brain, transferring information, so it might have evolved from a virus.
Everything is either an abstract ( time, space, Laws of nature) or physical ( matter, energy) Function.
All Functions are Process/System ... with set purpose, form,design, properties( information) ... and possess & require INFORMATION to exist & to function.
The Brain is a physical Function composed entirely of Functions.
Only an intelligence ( like Man) can extract INFORMATION from a Function.
Only an intelligence ( like Man) can make a Function with INFORMATION.
Nature & natural processes can never make or operate the most simple machine( a physical Function). The three types of machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ).
God did create Man in His image ... with a body & soul. And Jesus (Son of God) told us nearly 2000 years ago with the Great commandment that the MIND of Man is natural ( brain) & unnatural ( soul).
"Love God with all her heart, Mind & soul."
Obviously the soul has a mind ... but so too does the body. And this is why the Son of God could NOT have a corrupted Human body ... because the physical mind ( brain) is capable of "hating God" or thinking evil.
Man is body & soul.
Animals are only a body.
And God & Angels are spirits.
@@abelincoln8885 This world salad shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
@@abelincoln8885 "God is an Evil Clown. Fun minus Good plus Evil is Infinity."
-godevilclown
GODEVILCLOWN
RANK ALL TRIPLETS
…
ETHIC PREFERENCE AGGREGATION
UTILITY COMPLEXITY PARADOXY
COST BENEFIT OPPORTUNITY
COLLECTIVE ACTION PRISONERS
PRICE OF INACTION
DEMOCRACY CAPITALISM INFINITY
FREEDOM AND COMPETITION
COOPERATION AND CONFLICT
AGENT AND PRINCIPAL
SIGNAL AND SCREEN
…
SPACETIME TRADEOFF MAPS
FREE CHOICE COUNTERFACTUALS
REVERSE AWARENESS ILLUSIONS
…
WIN PRACTICE CHEATING
KNOWLEDGE BALANCE JOKE
BASILISK ZOMBIE SIMULATOR
DIRECTED LUNCH THEOREM
GOD RACE ME
@@kos-mos1127 Clown. Provide the evidence that nature & natural processes can make & operate a simple FUNCTION. Good luck. lol.
It wasn't your instrument it was trial & error experimentation. Cognitive arm chairing can lead to deviation without experimentation to keep the mind in check.
This physical combination of functions of our brains allows us to be thinking beings in this physical word but if we exist as souls we may have an entirely different functional system which is non-physical and which may be capable of adaptation to different existences.
A very interesting episode: A common theme that is also regularly featured on this channel is: "Must the universe spawn consciousness and is it inevitable?" The answer is quite often yes, because it seems to be a feature of our universe. But I've always thought a more interesting question would be: "Must the universe spawn our own personal conscious identity?".
I mean sure, if we ourselves didn't exist, it's inevitable that other people like us, or even other life forms elsewhere in the universe would exist, because the universe is just simply geared up to produce conscious life.
But what would be the point of a universe teeming with life, if we ourselves never came into existence? Hence the more interesting question: "Must the universe necessarily spawn us, ourselves, our own personal conscious identity?" Or is creating everybody else's consciousness except for our own, good enough, as far as universes go?
Just curious if you think that we are the only species on planet Earth with self-awareness? Have you ever seen an animal make a mistake and get embarrassed or even try to cover it up? What is that? Unless it's self-awareness. Maybe just not our brand of self-awareness.
@@rafeller9057 Yes, I have a regular experience that is similar to what you're describing. When my doggy does it's business outside her designated area in the laundry, and she sees me next, she sticks her tail between her legs and walks sheepishly away from me, because she knows I will yell at her for peeing in the kitchen.
And throughout the universe, there might also exist different levels or orders of consciousness, or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features. Other questions you could ask include whether only humans are conscious, or all the animals as well as humans, or even the whole universe, and we are just a small subset of that consciousness. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises doubts about whether the right questions are being asked.
OK, so here's a simple question. What is the purpose of the universe? And by that, I don't mean philosophically speaking, but at its most fundamental physical level. You could say, it's to maximise entropy. And if that's the case, then you could further ask, how is entropy related to the emergence of consciousness or just physical complexity in general? The simple answer to that could be that in a closed system, entropy and complexity increase together initially. In other words, the greater the disorder, the more difficult it is to describe the system, which in turn can represent increasing complexity.
And consciousness could merely be a manifestation of what the universe achieves in its temporary state of maximum complexity. This is my fallback position for when people ask, doesn't a watch imply a watchmaker. I myself prefer the "maxim" (a short, pithy statement expressing a general truth), doesn't dog pee in the kitchen imply a dog that hasn't been properly house trained? aka doesn't dog pee, imply a dog pee maker? My dog of course would vehemently disagree, because she is really smart and always pretends it wasn't her.
However of course, we also know that any state of entropy will change later on. And towards the end, as entropy approaches its final maximum where there's also maximal disorder, the complexity will then also diminish. And so therefore, eventually the entire universe will also perish in a heat death and become pretty much completely empty. And if the cosmological constant is zero, the universe will approach absolute zero temperature over a very long timescale. And it would then have evolved to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore would then be unable to sustain processes that further increase entropy.
So we just happened to be living at the peak of complexity, aka the anthropic principal. Maybe we should just enjoy our moment in the sun and make hay while it shines. You're not here for a long time, just a good time.
The probability of your identity emerging is 1 / the complexity of the universe. And each individual "self" or personal identity, could be a microcosm of The Big Bang which collectively all adds up to 1, with 0 being a completely empty universe. So another question is: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" This also is a common theme featured in various episodes on this channel. My thinking is, why should a state of "nothing" be the default? Why should there be "nothing" rather than something?
Some would argue that this is a stupid and absolutely pointless question to begin with? Unless of course the universe embarked upon its own existential struggle to come into existence, in order to reconcile what existence and consciousness represents, and then placed consciousness in each and every one of us, because given enough combinations or permutations within a broader hypothetically infinite Multiverse, eventually our numbers had to come up, and so that's what inevitably the universe had to do. Hence, what existence attempted to do with an inanimate universe, is now manifested in the personal identity of each and everyone of us.
Consider this. Our bodies are made from the remnants of stars and massive explosions from other galaxies, including our own. And apart from containing universally common elements like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, which account for more than 99 per cent of the atoms inside you, they also contain some heavier elements like copper and zinc, etc. And these atoms could only have been created in the dying stage of exploding stars and supernovas. These elements were flung into space as dust and gas (aka stardust). Eventually, they coalesced to become part of a new forming solar system and our planet Earth. So hence, we are not just "part" of the universe, we "are" the universe. And by extension of that, so is our consciousness and our personal identity.
Now furthermore, on a completely different consideration, whilst it's generally assumed that the universe is more likely than not to be teeming with life, (the Fermi Paradox notwithstanding), there is also another theory, the “Rare Earth Hypothesis,” which argues that the emergence of life and the evolution of conscious complexity require a combination of astrophysical and geological conditions that are simply not common in our Universe. And that for every several universes similar to ours, only one of them would produce life or consciousness.
And hence, Earth might be the only place in our entire universe with any kind of consciousness or even life. This of course contradicts previously-held notions by prominent scientists and SETI researchers, who are of the opinion that Earth is typical of rocky planets located throughout the Universe. Now if this was the case, consciousness could still be an inevitability of our Universe, but it would just be that it was really rare.
It would be nice if we could find some microorganisms living in the hydrothermal vents of any of the moons in our solar system. It would then give us some idea about where life and even consciousness fits within the greater scheme of the universe. Or at least about it's statistical likelihood of occurring. And then maybe we'll come a bit closer to answering that iconic philosophical question everyone always asks, what is the meaning of life and consciousness.
I think the sensation of self is simply the feeling of the whole universe collapsing to a single point- which is called you. That’s why I say existentially or experientially- the universe is subjective, not objective. As far as memories are concerned, I believe they are out of body experiences because usually you remember things from sort of a top down view.
Every object is a subject and every subject is an object, they are two sides of the same coin. A subject without an object does not know that it is a subject. The object of the universe in itself is to become it's own subject, space and time are these, the original subject and object.
@@alexgonzo5508 I would say that perspective is the only true object of all.
One interesting observation by Joseph Shore. Look up "Joseph Shore ACIM consciousness" here. Also look up "My past life as a Jew Joseph Shore". Joseph was a famous American opera singer and remembers very clearly dying in the holocaust.
@iarguephilosophy It does implies a separateness but that in turn implies a connection. Consider the two hemispheres of the brain, how each side is the subject of the other, and each the object to the other. Together they are one self, one soul, one mind. The word consciousness means "to know together", which implies a unity of parts.
@@dare-er7sw I am beginning to believe that every universe is individual and real , Which is why the placebo effect works , among other things. Therefore if somebody remembers they were in a holocaust for all intents purposes, they were
I have to say this. The thumbnail pic looks like a old version of Macauley Caulken. 😆. Sorry if I spelled it wrong. No disrespect. Lol
Humans are not the only entity that experience personal identity. Plenty of animals have found themselves and act based on the biology to be an individual. Like an elephant seal dominating the beach for mating purposes. That individual has its own unique genetics.
split perception might temporarily affect cognitive abilities but if a remedy was available then the self could be promptly reactivated...
unbelievable !
Aren't you implying that since neurological damage may change your conception of yourself *, or the person who you see yourself as, the age of someone with a non-negative chronology, who has suffered a loss, is zero from their 'point of view' when resuscitated say and therefore, from then on, unless their name is formally changed, the name that people address them by, cannot correspond with their name to them and if so, then wouldn't you be assuming, instead of concluding, schitzophrenia in some cases, because it is technically possible for the original picture they had of themselves to be resurrected from brain 'neuroplasticity'?
* "I" is bound perceptive experience and "myself" is this information given some context.
E = mc² is wrong. Light/photon is not fast.
It takes 8 minutes 20 seconds for the light/photon received by the Sun to reach the Earth. But our eyes see a single second 8 minutes 20 seconds of light / photon distance sun before ticking.
If the light is fast then our eyes should have seen some distance earlier.
Millions of years old lights/pictures are here doesn't mean our eyes should see the distance to the Sun.
Light/receipt by stars/sun is also a continuous process. It's invincible, but it also doesn't mean that our eyes should see the Sun.
Light/photons are already out of date here but sound always travels in its own way.
Sound always travels at 343 meters per second, or a kilometer in 2.9 seconds, or a mile in 4.7 seconds. Similarly our eyes should have seen only a short distance from each other.
That's why Light Fast is 100% wrong.
Our eyes see stars of light billions of years away even before the clock ticks a second.
That's why Light Fast is wrong.
You are wrong. Seek help! You don’t sound right!
Gibberish ramblíng. Please show phase in order logic proceedings
You are conflating two concepts. In terms of physics, we don’t see the sun, we see the photons that reach our eyes from the sun. We don’t see long distances in terms of physics. We infer the distance from our experience and the other things near us and near the distant object (and we don’t see the near things, either, just the photons that hit our eyes).
In everyday language, we see those objects. The difference between seeing the object vs seeing the photons from the object is irrelevant to our everyday lives, so before we started studying astronomy scientifically, it didn’t matter.
@@scienceexplains302 The distance of the Sun from the Earth for sunlight is 8 minutes 20 seconds.
Our eyes often do not take even a second to see the light distance of 8 minutes 20 seconds.
Whereas light/photon takes 8 minutes 20 to reach the earth.
Should I have to repeat it again?
It's not our fault, it's the light/photon's fault. That journey takes billions of years.
When light/photons come on we see them before they tick a second.
(1:15) *RL: **_"So, we have this entity that we call self which doesn't exist."_* ... Though I do not believe in any god(s) nor in a soul, the "self" absolutely does exist. It's not a spirit, entity, or anything supernatural; it's just "you!" Each individual "self" is a microcosm of Big Bang. Existence has taken its own existential struggle to reconcile what existence represents and placed it in each and every one of us.
What Existence attempted to do with an inanimate universe is now made manifest in YOU!
*Existence = 1*
*Nonexistence = 0*
Your self-awareness is the result of the mathematical self-assignment of 1 to Existence at its earliest evolutionary point. Existence has been evolving over the past 14 giga-annum to the point where YOU now represent this same numerical assignment of "1." This is why we only get to experience existence from within our own "individual" physiology ... _and nobody else's._
Everyone's self-awareness is a blank slate at birth, and then we assimilate volumes of information over the course of our lifetime. We evaluate, categorize, and judge this information which forms our own unique perspective regarding "Existence." Existence then takes all of the subjective data accrued from over 8 billion human representatives during every moment of our lives and uses this data to further define what Existence represents.
*Examples:*
*(1)* Those of you who have judged Existence to be a horrible, unending path of hot coals with no purpose or meaning ... your judgment has been recorded within "Existence."
*(2)* Those of you who have judged Existence to be a beautiful, majestic experience steeped in purpose and meaning ... your judgment has been recorded within "Existence."
*(3)* Those of you who have judged Existence to be a lonely, isolated journey to which no answers are offered, yet you still keep pushing forward ... your judgment has been recorded within "Existence."
Like it or not, YOU are the voice of "Existence." Existence is counting on your own, unique self-awareness to provide the missing data ... _and NOT the other way around!_
I have a Theistic viewpoint..
But sorry, after an initial read (admittedly without a prolonged study of it) what you have posted comes across as eccentric. I'm much more convinced of a God - pure personal being - as the ground and sustainer of the universe and the persons who inhabit it than believing in a non-personal (?) or quasi-personal (?-"Existence is counting on your own, unique self-awareness to provide the missing data ... ") concept or construct such as "Existence" as a ground for being instead. It seems like an imaginative fictional insight rather than a truth insight to me. I hope this your comment elicits a fair number of thoughtful responses as I'd like to read other opinions on it.
@@themanwhowasthursday5616 *"I'm much more convinced of a God - pure personal being - as the ground and sustainer of the universe and the persons who inhabit it than believing in a non-personal ... concept or construct such as "Existence" as a ground for being instead."*
... Theism has God knowing everything in advance. This is problematic for me because if all knowledge is already known from the start, then what benefit (or necessity) is there to create a universe, life, and self-aware humans?
Theism went in the right direction regarding existence, but it put the cart before the horse having God be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent from the very start. At its earliest stage, Existence was only a single, rudimentary "bit" of information that has been continuously evolving and acquiring new information (just like we do).
An Omniscient God would never need to evolve or acquire anything at all.
*"It seems like an imaginative fictional insight rather than a truth insight to me."*
... If Existence was once represented by a hydrogen atom, and then 13.8 billion years later it is represented by self-aware lifeforms known as you and me, then where is this "fiction" you refer to? If you liken everything that exists to "information," and we are living, self-aware "information processors," then this makes far more sense than an infinitely existing, almighty entity that created everything for no particular reason.
*" I hope this your comment elicits a fair number of thoughtful responses as I'd like to read other opinions on it."*
... There's a book listed on my channel's "about" page that will give you 282 pages full of insight. Read it, and I guarantee everything I've written will make perfect sense. If you truly desire "truth" then you owe it to yourself to read it. Note that it doesn't require you to sacrifice your beliefs whether you agree with it or not.
I like your analysis of self-awareness. I also don't believe there needs to be a God or an eternally pre-existing intelligent agent of any kind, in order to explain the existence of the universe. There does however need to be a reason which explains why so many people believe in, or experience some kind of theistic awareness.
So my theory is that it's due to the evolutionary development of a cognitive bias in the more primitive parts of the brain, which were optimised for executing survival reflexes. And a reflex by it's very nature is an action that is performed without high level logical or even conscious thought, as a response to a particular kind of stimulus.
For example, when my dogs hear the roof rafters creaking, or any other unfamiliar noise, they automatically assign an intelligent agent to it. This for any animal, is a good defence mechanism against predators. Our homonid predecessors probably escaped being eaten by tigers and other predators, due to the existence of this reflex. And in order for it to work in an optimal way, you need to have more false positives than genuine ones. If you were to assume that any logical analysis would suggest it's just the rustling of the bushes, you might get eaten by a tiger, and you then get wiped out of the gene pool, leaving behind those homonids who have the more paranoid genes.
Over time, as we become more intelligent with higher level logical thinking capabilities, this tendency to assign an intelligent agent to naturally occurring phenomena evolves into a genetically built-in assumption, in the existence of malevolent deities like devil's and demons. Every culture has them. And it's corollary then becomes an assumption also in the existence of benevolent deities. Who also have the capacity for some malevolence, unless of course they are appeased. So he's actually a loving god once you get to know him, provided you sacrifice animals or babies at the altar or down a volcano as the case or culture may be. And this will ensure we are all looked after and our crops don't fail.
And this biological reflex, basically took on the form whereby our predecessors described an intelligent agent to various naturally occurring phenomena. The God of lightning, the God of rain, wind, fire, etc, the God of agricultural fertility, the sun God, moon God, the star Gods, etc. So we begin at ground level gods and work away up into the sky and then out into the stars.
And over time, these various deities get consolidated into a single all-powerful individual God because this offers people who are in tune with this God, various administrative, sociological and political benefits, rather than maintaining a multiplicity of gods, all of whom might be competing with each other.
So we end up with monotheism 1.0 aka Judaism, monotheism 2.0 aka Christianity, monotheism 3.0 aka Islam, etc.
And that is why I believe, we as a species historically have always had an inclination to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent in situations that may or may not necessarily involve one.
@@mikmop *"There does however need to be a reason which explains why so many people believe in, or experience some kind of theistic awareness."*
... I believe the reason people believe in God is because the option presents itself. Whenever there are "holes," people gravitate to the most extreme explanations possible.
The definition of God is unbreakable and represents the highest possible level of conceivability. There is nothing conceivable beyond an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity that created everything. You can't even conceive a "God Slayer" based on the definition of God.
Science is just as guilty of gravitating to the most extreme explanation possible whenever scientists are stuck in a hole. Scientists and physicists incessantly opine about "infinite universes" (multiverse theory) because the option to think this way presents itself.
In regard to God and science, it doesn't have to be as complex as biological reflexes and evolutionary development of a cognitive bias in the more primitive parts of the brain. All there needs to be is a "hole" (missing data) and consciousness instantly attempts to fill it. Consciousness will keep conceiving ways to fill this hole until nothing else can be conceived to fill it.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC There are a lot of paradoxes when you try to logically rationalise one's built-in theistic bias to automatically assume the existence of "omnipotence", be it Godly or any other kind. i.e. "there is nothing conceivable beyond the omnipotent??"
For example, can God create a pizza that is so big, that even he himself couldn't even eat it? (Or at least not in one sitting anyway). I myself always leave a few slices, so I can have it for breakfast the next morning. Could God roll a joint that is so long, that even he himself couldn't smoke it all. Or at least not in one session anyway. Is it because God suffers from asthma or emphysema or something like that?
The omnipotence paradox interestingly enough has medieval origins, dating at least to the 10th century, when the Saadia Gaon responded to the question of whether God's omnipotence extended to logical "absurdities", like my aforementioned pizza and rolling a joint paradox.
It was later addressed by Averroës and the Dominican friar Thomas Aquinas. And also, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (before 532) had a predecessor version of the paradox, asking whether it is possible for God to "deny himself". I myself would add, could God commit suicide if he wanted to? Does he have it within his power, or is he powerless to do so?
The best-known version of the omnipotence paradox of course is the so-called paradox of the stone: "Could God create a stone so heavy that even he himself, could not lift it?" Or herself in the event that God is female.
Which makes me think, could God undergo sex gender reassignment surgery and transition into a female, if he or she identified as such? Hence the absurdity of omnipotence as a concept.
Thank you for keeping my little hamster wheel spinning all weekend. This one is deep... Image of self.. What is self? Hmmmm...
Thank you for the 🔥
The self is the soul which is created and maintained when the spirit of God is combined with a functioning body. Even when someone is missing most or all of their brain (hydranencephaly) it's been shown in some people that it's possible that they can still have a sense of self.
So, if the brain creates the soul/self without God's spirit then I assume that Rodolfo would also think that a computer should be able to have consciousness if it can be made to have memory recall and mimic the same senses as humans?
Elon Musk has already stated that consciousness computer will happen in our lifetime. Does not matter people believe a computer can become conscious or not it is happening.
@@kos-mos1127 Not in our lifetime or anyone's life time. It's not happening, the Google guy who claimed that the LaMDA artificial intelligence chatbot was sentient provided no proof (it doesn't even have any of our five senses) and Google disagrees with him.
Life can only come from life not from material things.
@@treasurepoem how will you be able to tell it apart from a human when it will, eventually, be able to complete and/or supersede all of our functions...
@@r2c3 Easy peasy, because it's not alive. We can't even create original cellular life forms without borrowing from nature's own handy work so it's not very likely that we'll be able to create a living thing out of non-cellular material. No matter how fast or good computers can process data they still will be just non-living machines because they will never fully understand good and evil like humans can feel and know it in their hearts.
@@treasurepoem did you watch this latest conversation with lambda...
ua-cam.com/video/Emcpg1xkZug/v-deo.html
if the dialog was indeed taking place in real-time then what else do you expect even from a human-to-human chat 🤔
Real good question and real good answer.
not humans unbelievable !
Is it true that people who suffer from acute alzheimers sometimes do not recognize themselves in a mirror? They still have their full brain, do they not? Is it not the same brain malfunction that inhibits that kind of self recognition? Of course, biblically speaking, humans themselves are the soul. Genesis 2:7 says: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and MAN BECAME a LIVING SOUL."
Maybe your body is hardware & your memories are your software??
the ship of Theseus, after being repaired in a harbor, had all the old parts replaced by new ones and this raised an ancient philosophical question about identity that is related to the old photo and the present self reflection example in today's video description...
our body is very similar to hardware, as you say... or more like a vase that serves as a container for the self, in this case...
memories, in your example, might not be the software itself but rather information that is saved by that software... in the vase example, memory can be compared with the contents stored in the vase... memories will leak away if the vase is damaged :)
the apes do not like human comments those show the apes their bitter reality, but the same apes do not mind to steal the rest to write a books from stolen comments for the rest of the apes!
real apes, unbelievable !
Buddha 2600 years ago "there is no self". Science 2022...
Sometimes progress doesn't impress as one would hope it would.
Socrates once said "Know thyself."
Physically, I'm pretty much a nobody who drives an old pickup truck on dusty roads in the middle of the backcountry of nowhere.
But metaphysically, I'm a highly decorated, space cowboy called the Lone Ranger and I have taken control of a lightship. Like the Blues Brothers, I'm on a mission from good (god).
My Mission Impossible is to engage the "supernova" function on my lightship in order to fill a giant black hole in space called ignorance (greed) with light (love) so that its heavy gravitational pull stops sucking the joy out of life and destroying the planet.
I face some major obstacles though.
1) Light and truth (love) cause vampires (greed) great pain and suffering. That's why the words compassion, understanding, society (socialism), community (communism), "care for all" and "green new deal" cause the capitalist counting corpses that rule US such misery.
2) Like bats that fly around in the darkness of caves...vampires (greed) are blind and cannot see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war). The capitalist counting corpses are also blind and cannot see the ignorance of destroying the planet.
3) The evangelical monsters are extremely "desperate" to manufacture war. Because working in the dark to suck the joy out of life and destroy the planet is the only way that the loveless, lifeless parasites can survive and thrive.
Unlike earthling human beings and creators of joy...the capitalist counting corpses that rule US can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are ignorant (dead).
Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children.
Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.
yo por las dudas ya escribi a todos los diarios del mundo para que le digan al clon, a quien tiene adentro, como dice mi papà, darse cuenta es importante, siempre darse cuenta
thief apes have dignity ! it is a real miracle ! they must be an evolutionary apes !
Beautiful fuckin beautiful
Apes want to defy human ! their theft will never help them.
shame on the apes !
Guys says that comum sense from his minds arent Science speculations. In end of this vídeo guys worthless Science are so obivus .
Once more, no explanation of the very existence of consciousness. Every brain process described by this guy could run just as well without any consciousness existing at all. I'm tired of these brain science guys with their conceptual confusions and circular claims.
the apes think that self concept and personal identity are the same ! personal identity generated by self concept to resemble itself (very complicated process, hard for the thief apes to comprehend) for a reason the thief apes can not comprehend too.
shame on the thief apes ! those do not know shame !
What does this have to do with anything?
not for the apes.
human writes valuable concise comments while the apes write books based on stolen comments from human, they even do not mind to use blunt theft !
aren't' they real sick irrational apes ! exactly like real apes.
but how can the apes understand !
eureka!!! chicos! eureka!
The problem of scientists is that they stick with their own theory... Even if its an old one... For all their life ...
Not if new evidence comes to light though. History proves this. However, if no new evidence does come to light, would you expect them to through away their life's work? What for, a whim?
@@johnyharris On some matters its hard to think that a theory is proven wrong ...in the next 547 billions of years. My problem is that they sell a product as much is a "life of work" ...where "selling a product" start and "scientific work" ends ?
The history of science is the history of theories changing. Or at least being modified or extended. For example, Einstein didn't prove Newton's theory of gravity to be wrong. He just developed a theory of gravity that applies to a new area of observation. Newton's laws still apply for any small mass travelling at low velocities. We went to the Moon using his theory. But we operate GPS satellites that travel around the earth, using Einstein's theory.
@@mikmop Its sure... but on consciousness i hardly envision Llinas, Seth, Tononi, Hameroff, Hoffman, Kastrup, Koch, Harris saying "my theory was wrong ... i was so dumb". Because 1) they have built their notoriety on that 2) hardly something regarding consciousness will be disproved... So where is the line between science and marketing ? Same for example on String theory ... Many became famous and still defend the theory today ...even if string theory is not anymore that mainstream thing of 10 years ago.
@@francesco5581 Sure, of course. There are for example people like Fred Hoyle, who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, and made a massive contribution to the understanding of how chemical elements are made inside stars.
But he also had the mistaken the steady-state theory as an alternative to the Big Bang theory of evolution of the universe. He himself believed in his own theory right until his death.
But cosmologists as a community, always adopted the scientific method, which involves peer review, examination of new data, continued observation and replication of experiments.
Scientists as a community don't cling on to outdated beliefs, they welcome new insights and new theories because it always represents new science, which always excites them more than old theories.
Lol yea I definitely don't agree with any of this
He's not the same person. None of us are the same person. There are in fact no persons at all, only processes.
What is overseeing the processes?
@@richardc861 No one.
@@kos-mos1127 as I say, ‘what entity’ is overseeing the processes not necessarily ‘who’.
@@richardc861 Nothing is overseeing anything. Processes (or perhaps more accurately, one major process) are just unfolding.
@@richardc861 No one oversees the process it is just unfolding.
I find these videos a little sad. In most, the interviewer is looking for some evidence against the terminal nature of absolute death. Why not live like this is the only life we have. The only moment that the configuration of the fundamental fields evolve and a conscious entity emerges into existence to live for a few heartbeats and then to be no more. Spend this precious fleeting time to make the world that we are born into better.
the apes stole everything except comments those show the apes their bitter reality! apes are in denial state ! funny apes !
Babies have no memory and are completely individual. Everything he said is false