To me, the rejection of materialism or physicalism upon the basis that you cannot fully describe all of experience and consciousness with it is not an issue with materialism. It is simply the incomplete nature of language. Language cannot capture the full diversity and intricacy of existence as it is just a very very small part of existence. Material truth requires unrestricted forms of expression to allow for completeness of understanding. You can only fully be informed of the taste of vanilla ice cream by being partially constructed of vanilla ice cream. Words can only fully inform you of linguistic truths, truths about words and language themselves.
Consciousness is fundamental to reality. Meaning that materialism is imagined in consciousness. To say that consciousness developed as a survival mechanism assumes that materialism is already true to begin with. It's an absurd philosophical mistake that should be easy to spot. All of reality is just infinite possibilities of direct experience, everything you think is "outside" of it is imagined within your conscious experience.
Thanks for this! I happen to resonate with this argument quite a lot. Materialists seem to be guilty of circular reasoning. I nonetheless aspired to make a video articulating their viewpoints.
Well, no, it's the other way around, beginning with "consciousness is only qualitative and immaterial" is circular. It just assumes that not everything is physical. And I don't see that just because consciousness is fundamental to reality and we imagine materialism with that it means that it's not material. Pointing out how it could evolve is not a premise, it's rather an explanation of why materialism is viable. Explanation how it emerged, you know, the thing non-materialists have never been able to give...
@@krcprc It's not circular because no assumptions were made. Direct experience is all you have, nothing else. Materialism is something consciousness imagines. You keep assuming that there are material things "outside" consciousness but notice that those are just more thoughts arising within consciousness.
@@EezySeven Well I never said that the physical world we experience exists outside of consciousness. You're right, I wouldn't be able to prove it. I think it would be nice to present the definition for "physical" at this point: By physical I mean simply everything we observe and we agree on observing. But we kinda agree on observing the consciousness (at least scientifically - you can easily distinguish a conscious person and a person in oblivion). Therefore it follows that consciousness is physical, whether it "creates our whole experience" or not.
Materialism - as any type of Monism - presupposes wrongly that there is an unique way of being or an unique ontological ambit. Yet, there are many of them. In sum, the scientific materialism is a mix of bad ontology with a miscomprehension about the nature of science (i.e., an ceaseless inquiry about the mundane phenomena rather than dogmatism)
Science doesn't really use such metaphysical labels so it's not really monist. But if we use that word to simply oppose to the idea of spiritual dualism, then yes the most rational ontology is monism. I'm curious why you would think otherwise.
Every time I hear physicist talk about qualitative experience the always bring up mechanistic processes, but at the end of the day it doesn’t explain why certain things feel the way they feel. It’s hard to explain but I think the scientific method kind of lost its originality with modern scientist assuming how things work broadly then trying to find the explanation that fits their model. Remember a hypothesis is a fact that hasn’t been proved yet.
This happened because early enlightenment scientists were religious and had the underlying assumption that God was underneath it all.This gradually changed over time and everyone forgot that science today feels very empty and without purpose. It also doesn't actually tackle the underlying question everyone wants to know which is why? It simply replaced God with "Science" and then called it a day completely ignoring the giant hole in the entire argument that is, while the Big bang theory is a good description of the how, it doesn't explain the why.
A hypothesis is an educated scientific guess - not a fact. Science provides evidence, not proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics. The evidence provided by science provides levels of confidence in a hypothesis, based on the content and quality of the evidence.
I tried and failed for years to understand non-dualism and consciousness-only philosophies. I found them so convoluted that I could never grasp them. What is presented as deeply intuitive appeared to me as insurmountably opaque.
The route to understanding subjectivity under physicalism starts with understanding information. Information consists of the properties and structure of a physical phenomenons. An electron, atom, molecule, organism, etc. It could also be some subset of those, such as the holes in a punched card, the pattern of electrical charges in a computer memory, written symbols on paper, etc. Meaning is an actionable relation between two sets of information, through some process. Take a counter, what does it count? There must be a process that increments it under certain circumstances, which establishes it’s meaning. Similarly a map might represent an environment, but you need to understand how to interpret the map to act on it. Think of a map in the memory of a self-driving car. It’s just binary data, but the navigation program and sensors interpret it into effective action via a program. Without the program the data is useless. Meaningless. So the meaning of information is relational, it’s the set of actionable correspondences a set of information has. Since each of our brains is different, we each have different sets of correspondences between all the information encoded in our neural networks, and received by our senses. An observer of that information has a different set of correspondences with that information than the information in the brain has itself. Therefore the meaning is different. The only way to have the same meaning relation is literally to have all the exact same relations in the same way. Consciousness is the activity of these interpretive, relational processes in action. It’s a very specific kind of activity, not just any process on information. Everything about consciousness is informational. It is perceptive, interpretive, analytical, self-referential, recursive, reflective, it can self-modify. These are all attributes of information processing systems, and we can implement simple versions of all of these in information systems right now. Qualia are a highly complex set of actionable relations between a fantastically complex set of sensory stimuli, metabolic processes and emotional responses. They’re also very personal because their meaning is so intricately tied into our own personal informational activity - not -state - but process. They aren’t something we know, or are, they are something we do. Watching a process is not the same as doing the process, and so subjectivity is always beyond the reach of an external observer of it.
i am an idealist, but under a physicalist framework wouldn't consciousness have a quantifiable effect since the mind knows about it? though i doubt it'd offer any evolutionary advantage.
Quantum panpsychist here. The solution to the epiphenominalism problem is see that the irreducible unity of consciousness implies a quantum substrate. The unity in quantum physics has physical/behavioral/computational consequences, so objectively unified states or processes could be selected for. The unity is the natural psychophysical bridging principle to the consciousness property of the unified physical system. In this picture you can understand how such conscious states could evolve, without having to tell some incoherent story about how “consciousness” can push physical things around like Descartes’ pineal gland. 👍 Incidentally the ontological holism of quantum states is also the conceptual solution to the “combination problem” of panpsychism. Note also that experimental evidence for quantum microtubule states as the substrate of consciousness is growing fast. Eg. Babcock 2024 microtubule super radiance at room temperature and Khan 2024 anesthetic gas binds to microtubules to cause unconsciousness in rats. 💪🏻
You claim that consciousness cannot cause a real difference in the world. This is clearly false. If consciousness is an emergent property of the physical mechanisms that make up your body and brain, it can also have feedback effects. For example, when you feel fear, this is occurring due to physical processes in your brain; your brain then sends signals to your body, producing adrenaline. It's a feedback loop with both parts impacting one another. Yes, you can feel fear after seeing a tiger. But you can also feel fear and release adrenaline by imagining a tiger leaping at you. In fact, merely seeing the tiger has no effect. If you didn't know what a tiger is and that it's dangerous, you wouldn't feel fear when seeing one, and your adrenaline wouldn't kick in. So someone with a brain that causes a more fearful consciousness to emerge might be more likely to escape a tiger, so a healthy amount of fear is selected for.
The operation of the brain is a tangible difference. The scale in which a creature experiences various qualia is a tangible (measurable) difference. The brain causes qualia and thus qualia is predicated on a physical component. How can we know that the brain causes qualia? If we stimulate various sections of the brain an individual can report various experiences of qualia. This sustains qualia as being a product of the brain. Why are various points of ignorance taken to be evidence against something? It seems to be the case that we don't understand how the brain generates qualia, but it has been the case that there have been many things that we didn't know about such as evolution. Evidence against an idea that has been shown to be reasonably correct would entail showing some fundamental flaw in the idea and/or basis for acceptance. Your video has done neither. If we could show that qualia was not a product of the brain and/or that such was at least uncorrelated with the brain, that would be a basis to assault a physicalist account. However, neither has been done. I consider myself ontologically neutral, but I find none of the accounts of materialism (that which can have interactivity) to be an issue. Why do you? Your video has the air of propaganda.
If I have a radio that is receiving a signal and i tamper with it, mess with the circuits, take out a bolt here or there it will disrupt the signal and the obvious explanation is that the radio itself produces the signal since interfering with the receptor causes the sound to change while ignoring that something else is causing the underlying wave that the radio is interpreting. If the radio breaks then the underlying information cannot get through. That is what scientific materialism does, it assumes the radio makes the underlying information and not just interpreting it.
Naïve realist materialism entails a contradiction in terms: namely, it presupposes that the qualia of consciousness are not the qualia of consciousness. Now, not only is a naïve realist materialism self-refuting, because it presupposes and is founded upon a contradiction in terms (the assumption that qualia are not qualia), but, it is naïve too, implying the absence of impartial criticism, because under no circumstances whatsoever does impartial criticism lead to a contradiction in terms: in other words, naïve realist materialism entails dogmatism (accepting some thesis as true (namely, the thesis that qualia are not qualia) without further reflection, without grounds, without substantiation). The application of impartial criticism inevitably, incontrovertibly, and necessarily leads to a phenomenalist stance (if by phenomenalism is meant “the acknowledgement that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia”): the application of impartial criticism cannot lead to a contradiction in terms, and, ipso facto, cannot lead to a naïve realist materialism. In a word, it is superfluous to refute materialism, because materialism refutes itself (by way of entailing a contradiction in terms, by assuming that qualia are not qualia); additionally, naïve realist materialism is incompatible with a genuinely impartial criticism, since the application of impartial criticism inevitably leads one to the conclusion that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia (that we are consciousness ouroborically in a state of interaction with itself, namely, consciousness interacting with its own qualia). ua-cam.com/video/6r2r0LtJIjg/v-deo.htmlsi=9FJsI_XJoefpWyXD
>it presupposes that the qualia of consciousness are not the qualia of consciousness. No physicist philosopher I've listened to or read has said any such thing, and I certainly don't believe that. I've posted a comment detailing my account of subjective experience under physicalism if you're interested.
We think consciousness is important because we're conscious. It's only important to us as conscious beings. The material universe doesn't care. Consciousness can well be a spandrel - an insignificant byproduct. That it couldn't be so due to its "centrality" to our lives is a self-serving circular argument. Likewise, arguing that spandrels take rigour away from materialism is not persuasive: clearly spandrels exist, so why can't consciousness be a spandrel?
So many wrong things in the video and in most of the comments. I found the common mistake is that you don't know what materialism is. Most refer to classical materialism or mechanical materialism and reduce it to an idea. I am sure those classical philosophers would not agree with. Most modern materialist philosophers have added the concept of hyperealism or pluralism to their materialist philosophy and include in their ontology things like pain, distances or the number PI. You should think as materialism as the way of thinking where, whenever you dont know something, you don't immediately try to use gods, magic, souls, angels or conciousness to explain it. Hundreds of years you have failed once and over again, recently saying that AIs would be impossible or computer would not win against a chess master due to consciousness. Will you ever learn?
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Materialism / Physicalism as a branch of metaphysical theories that the material / physical is all that is real or exists. This does include the belief that consciousness or mental states ultimately derive from material or physical processes. Essentially, Materialists believe that the ultimate metaphysical grounding of reality is material. My question is: How was this determined to be the case?
When you say, "you should think of Materialism as the way of thinking where, whenever you don't know something, you don't immediately try to use gods, magic, souls, angels, or consciousness to explain it." Hmm, well under this definition then you'd be defining all Christians who apply the scientific method as believing Materialism. Which can't be true.
Also, you ended with the accusation, "hundreds of years you have failed once and over again, recently saying that AIs would be impossible or that computer would not win against a chess master due to consciousness. Will you ever learn?" Uh, here you seem to be addressing strawman arguments that weren't said in the video. It seems as though you have a stereotype in your mind regarding what non-Materialists claim about AI, technology, computers and chess, etc... and you're assigning that stereotype to the creator of the video without justification. People who understand the Bible well will actually realize that the advancement of AI, computers beating humans at chess, etc... all is actually predicted in the Bible. That's the beast system for you. How would satan deceive so many people unless he has something like AI, technology, computers that are able to beat humans at chess, etc? Anyone you heard who said AI isn't possible, that computers wouldn't beat humans at chess, etc... obviously do not understand the potential of technology. They were lacking in knowledge on that particular subject, which made their predictions of the future inaccurate. This, however, is not exclusive to non-Materialists. Plenty of Materialists said the same thing back then. So, this critique isn't valid for multiple reasons. First, its a strawman. Second, it isn't exclusive to non-Materialists. So there isn't any relevance here.
The problem with reductive materialism, is that its proponents stretch the methodology of reduction so successful in the work of physicists as a metaphor for all phenomena. The problem with this view is that it is itself anti-scientific, i.e., making leaps from specific controlled cases to generalizations about, well, anything and everything, then passing it off as cold hard fact.
@@josefpdx Schopenhauer was an atheist and not a materialist, as well. He was influenced massively by certain schools of Buddhism and Indian thought that are similar in orientation.
@@enekaitzteixeira8144 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism Well, materialists lack imagination in the sense of "if there isn't 100% definitive proof, it isn't real." Whenever lots of things are not definitively proven, including emotions, feelings, the existence or protons, or until recently the existence of the black hole. I'm not advocating for believing in myths and wild fantasies, but I am not impressed by philosophical materialism.
Much like the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, we have created the "hard problem of consciousness" by inventing an untestable, unfalsifiable claim and then being baffled when we cannot grasp it. Then we twist ourselves in mental knots trying to crack the code of these "hard problems." This is akin to searching for a four-sided triangle. It is an untouchable idea that demands far too much mental gymnastics of the adherent. Every mammal on earth has a lifelong subjective experience via their nervous system. Disable the nervous system and you remove the organism's consciousness. I have found no evidence to the contrary.
Yeah, the issue is that you used and depended a lot on qualia for that. It's like this narcissistic psychologist talking on narcissism saying he has no persistent self... And I'm like: "how do you know that if there's no memory?"
But you really havent. If you have a radio that is working and producing sound and then you rip out the antenna or break the circuit and it stops producing sound you haven't proved that the radio by itself makes the sound, you just broke the radio.
To me, consciousness is awareness. How is awareness not a trait beneficial in the natural selection process of evolution? As taste is subjective or objective, this is also a trait that could detect food that is either beneficial or not in the natural selection process. In past times, it would be beneficial to fatten up on something high in sugar and fat, even though today it would be detrimental. I'm not a materialist, but none of the arguments in this "Case Against Scientific Materialism" hold up.
I think, fundamentally, you and the video are using 'consciousness' in two different ways. 'awareness' comes close but it's more of a cognitive awareness versus a reactive awareness. The latter being instinctive and ingrained, is the form we see being most successful in the animal kingdom since evolution had chosen that route for almost all animals but us and maybe a handful of others.
@@noblebrown6077 Cognitive reasoning? Problem solving? Learning from experience? Planning based on experience? Squid, dolphins, elephants, crows, and numerous other ‘successful’ animals display this trait besides humans. Consciousness is not uniquely human, no matter if you define it as instinct or cognitive.
@@creepyog2008 Yeah, this video didn't make much sense from the moment they said consciousness doesn't produce quantifiable results. That's why it's not an epiphenomenon: It's a direct active trait of complex nervous systems. However, the term "materialism" is a metaphysical term and science just isn't interested in that. All we can say is that there's no a single reason to believe in any supernatural claim.
Thank you. Bernardo Kalstrup is a formidable proponent of monistic idealism. He is of course not the only highly intelligent person (many in history too) who logically put forward the fact of consciousness (awareness) as something primal and necessary for existence to happen. Materialist science has its definite place of course, but it is making (I think very erroneous) metaphysical statements and positions against its own need for objectivity. It has become ideological and reactive, preventing it widening its view. This will not cause the collapse of science, but expand it. It will also explain mysterious phenomenon and how life emerges from inert matter. The current linear model of evolution fails to see the need for a coordinating holistic information communciative function in existence, primal in nature. I am a monastic idealist and also respect deeply science and its achievements. But it is now being hampered from further expansion by its refusal to consider awareness is possibly not emergent at all, but an infinite absolute Ground of all experience. Without awareness nothing is, including science and all discovery. All expereince of existence at all levels is null without some subtle form of informing holistic type of awareness. I think strict monistic materialism sucks out all the deeper meaning of existence and life. It has lost it soul and created a world without utlimate value and unity.
Though I wouldn't call myself a monistic idealist, I see the merits of that position. Most debates regarding scientific materialism that I've run across lately seem to always circle back to the problem of free will. The argument invariably boils down to this: "Free will does not exist, because that's what the science says. You're not a science denier, are you?" It's the oldest defense in the book: "If you disagree with me, you're either an idiot, or a fool living in denial!"
@@ericv7720 The certainty that science has "proven" the 'illusion' of free will appears dubious. Least of all because it seems to totally disvalue all human human discovery and thought. Such as appears here. Are we automatons? I think that really is a big call. While there are obviously conditional and influential aspects to our decisions, there remains much mystery to what actually happens and when a decision is made. There is also the problem of sudden and immediate non-cognitive, some say intuitive decisions and actions made in reactions to danger etc. The extended discussion on Wiki on free will is also instructive, including the implications of quantum indeterminacy. "...This shocking conclusion [that free will is an illusion] comes from a series of experiments that revealed something quite remarkable: Our brains decide a course of action before we know it. Benjamin Libet’s pioneering experiments in the 1980s using EEG and more recent ones using fMRI or implants directly into neurons found that the motor region responsible for making a motion in response to a question fired up seven seconds before the subject was aware of it. The brain seems to be deciding before the mind knows about it. But is it really? The experiment has been debunked, which actually is far from surprising. But what was surprising was the huge amount of noise that the claims against free will emerging from this type of experiment generated. To base the hefty issue of free will on experiments that measure neuronal activity when people move fingers to push a button should hardly count as decisive. Most of the choices we make in life are complex, multi-layered decisions that often take a long time." - MARCELO GLEISER, “DO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND NEUROSCIENCE DISPROVE FREE WILL?” AT BIG THINK (NOVEMBER 10, 2021)
@@ericv7720 Scientific materialism also does not answer and off course it can't answer where the matter came from. Even the big bang theory is just an explanation of how it happened not where it came from or why it is. It has the same basic problem religion has, well then who created matter (or god), well other matter (god) and on and on and on and on. At least with idealistic monism or similar ideas there is a presuposition of why things started, what was the starting point, what was the impetus. And consciousness is the best explanation as it exists outside of time and space as we understand it and is consistent with all of us existing within a timeless spaceless point of infinite energy or awareness that exists because rationally if something exists then nothing by definition cannot exist and can also be expressed mathematically and rationally as rationality is necessary for anything like this to actually exist as a substrate of existence.
I've read somewhere that more philosophers are materialists nowadays and I don't really understand why that is exactly. Can someone give me an answer I'm just curious about it. Aren't dreams completely unmaterial worlds that we often mestake for our „real“ world? That isn't proof this world is non-materialistic but at least we know a non-material world can exist and there is a possibility we won't be aware that it's a different world than the one we live in right? Also, when we think of something in our minds and we have phisical reactions like release of some hormons for example? I know that, when we imagine something there is brain activity that scientists can observe, but is it really the brain activity that makes our images in the brain appear, or is it the other way around? If the the imagination is the boss, that means idea „controls“ and changes matter and and if it's the other way around, that means matter is the boss. But I find it kind of weird that „dead“ matter is so organized when giving us these images in our head. Anyways I'm not a philosopher nor claim to be one so maybe there are good explanation for these phenomena from the materialists. As a science student, I can give philosophers just one advice, and that is to not treat scientific information as godly evidence. We make mistakes more than you think and because of that, sometimes 2 studies about the same thing come out with different conclusions. I've seen that in medicine way too many times.
If the brain is only reacting rather than causing, how is it that when people suffer brain damage it affects their consciousness? There are many examples in neuroscience of people who have suffered small amounts of brain damage in specific areas which had a huge effect on their personality
@@randomguy4488 Neuropathology is not the only cause of personality changes; socio-environmental issues can also alter a personality. However, personality is not consciousness. They are different but quite distinct. A neurologist, Penfield, showed in his research of seizure disorders that when the operation in splitting the brain's corpus callosum, the seizures stopped, but there were no changes to the person's sense of self. If the materialists are correct, you would have a person with a split personality or two persons, but that doesn't happen with this procedure. Moreover, in experiments, he showed that while some forms of memory and involuntary bodily movement could be elicited by stimulating specific brain areas, there were areas of higher intellectual order that could not be manipulated. He could not create involuntary acts of doing math and logic or make them do ethics. According to materialists, if the mind is equal to the brain, then it would be possible to manipulate one against their will to do these actions by simply stimulating specific areas of the brain. Penfield's research suggests that the higher intellect is transcendent to the brain. He started off his career as a hardcore materialist but ended as a substantial duelist.
@@randomguy4488 Your brain controls your physical body and how you interact with the world. You do not have a choice in this matter. A very commonly cited analogy is the piano player with the piano. If the piano is damaged, no matter what the piano player tries to do, the piano will not play as it used to and will, for all intents and purposes, be different. That is how I see things.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. While dreams are not tangible in the way you can touch a rock, they are a direct result of the physical workings of your brain in the materialist worldview. A dream is a sort of like a hallucination that your body produces during your slumber. It is entirely a result of neurotransmitters, regions of your brain cooperating, hormones, etc etc. Dreams are thus not directly physical in the way a rock is, yet physical in that it entirely originates from physical processes. Same thing with thoughts, conceptions, and all things in our external world and our internal self (brain). To a materialist, all real things are physical in nature, and there exists no such thing as the immaterial.
Materialism cannot explain meaning and purpose (philosophically speaking) which are intrinsic features of a conscious mind. Their frame of reference is limited due to their reductionist world view. In the physical realm, they cannot explain the opposite phenomena called emergence of complex systems behavior.
The hard problem of consciousness, the measurement problem of quantum mechanics, and Kant's critique of pure reason are 3 pretty good reasons not accept the argument that scientific materialism explains reality or even it's basic foundations.
"Evolution grants capacities"?????????? One thing I have noticed about people who try to argue that there is a hard problem in the first place is that they assume some supernatural explanation from the beginning. (I use "supernatural" merely to indicate that it is other than material or natural) Organisms have capacities in their genetic diversity. This explains why the organisms that manifest those traits survive in an environment where that trait is an advantage, It also explains why, when the environment changes, they perish. There is no force, god or whatever, granting abilities ad hoc to its favored to ensure their survival. Materialism is the favored view simply because there is no viable alternative. Still, that is no reason to stop questioning. We don't know everything and probably never will. We can't explain the transparency of water by analyzing the molecular structure of water anymore than we can explain why higher lifeforms exhibit forms of consciousness but the fact that we don't know doesn't mean we do know that it is because of some occult supernatural whatever. At the moment it appears that it will have a material explanation if we ever solve it. All I know is that when I don't know the only thing I'm sure of is that I Don't Know.
Yet the fact is that science and scientists routinely squash any dissent against orthodoxy and it makes perfect sense since scientists are just petty humans trying to further their own goals or careers and are perfectly willing just like anyone else to sell out their principles.
Perhaps I have missed something, but no one even knows what consciousness is. So to take a position on either side of the debate is fallacious. Consciousness and thought might well be turn out to be entirely physically based - but until we can say with any confidence, surely a good old fashioned 'we don't know!' Is the right response.
Taking the position "no one even knows" is the same type of "fallacious" thing that you argue against. You dont know that nobody knows, unless you have the knowledge about what is in everyone´s head.
@@eklektikTubb No it isn't. We can say that no one *knows* all kinds of things - eg whether the Universe has a beginning, the state of matter in the core of a neutron star, or what time is. Some things might even be unknowable. The point is no one in any of the scientific / philosophical fields that seek to know what consciousness is has reached anything close to a consensus. Even if someone outside of those fields happened upon the answer, it wouldn't be 'knowledge' any more than if I pick the right numbers to the lottery. Epistemic knowledge has certain standards, and so we can say that no one knows what consciousness is.
@@andrewhorton481 Oh, so you meant "no one (that i know about) in any of the scientific / philosophical fields came to epistemic knowledge of it with some certain standards"? Ok, but that is not the same as literal "no one knows". And it is also begging the question: how do you know that those certain standards are the right standards that shoud have been held.
NB/ and even then it's not strictly accurate to say we 'know' something 100%. Science doesn't claim to know things, it just builds theories and models based on observations. After all, we could all be in The Matrix :-D
@@eklektikTubb I don't know they're the right standards. And like I said, some things might be unknowable. Our brains might simply not be able to comprehend some things. But all we can reasonably do is follow the evidence and adapt our understanding (and our standards) as we go. Our understanding of everything might change this year, or in 10,000 years, or not at all - who knows?! Also - to pick upon the literal sense of 'no one' in my original comment is another fallacy (reductio ad absurdum). Of course I can't see into everyone's minds. But the whole point of knowledge is that it can't just exist in someone's head - anyone can claim to know anything, but until that claim is shared and tested it's just a meaningless, unfalsifiable thought.
"Consciousness is inherently qualitative". From a first person perspective well duh but to truly understand something one must examine it from a third person perspective. If anything about consciousness is to truly be known then it should be through empirical third person means.
Consciousness is the only thing that isn't complex, it is that which simply exists but people can't rap their calculations around it. It's impossible, only a fool tries to make primary colors from mere shades of black and white. If the nature of it is like I say than it is, the foundation of all complexity and is therefore infinitely uncomplex. But if it is complex as you say it is, than it is infinitely so and is still impossible to dissect. Zero and infinitely are the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, they cannot be split in a way that equals anything less than themselves nor multiplied in a way that makes them more than themselves. They are the canvas of creation itself which are beyond all things because they contain all things.
@@YgorTheBest The real BS is that everyone assumes by default that they live in base reality and they base science on this exact misconception, science by that definition is complete nonsense. There are so many things people experience that make an assumption like that incredibly naive and stupid, in fact an assumption like that with or without so-called evidence is ALWAYS stupid!!! The entire point of science is to discover possibilities not to draw absolute conclusions based on present data, that's a HUGE logical fallacy and anyone that is truly intellectual doesn't fall for that type of idiocy. If you're the kind of person that claims to be quote on quote ''allergic to woo woo stuff'' than that is coming from your own uncontrolled emotional beliefs. A lot of the western beliefs about science aren't even accepted in the east so who in the hell are you to say scientists over there are any less intelligent than ones over here??? Even your western belief that hallucinations are connected to mental illness as well as arguments of what is deemed ''Evidence'' isn't universally accepted which renders any point you try and make against spiritual realities completely baseless. At the end of the day materialism is nothing more than a philosophy, and is as much a leap of faith as anything. And the proof against it isn't necessary as there are many different ways of viewing the same happenings but it all comes down to faith when all is really said and done. You can see God and still not believe.
It’s interesting the more I learn about this. I’m able to relate it to a conflict within myself on the debate between free will and determinism. I’ve positioned free will as idealistic and determinism as materialist. If determinism was absolute, then we could predict everything, but there’s still random phenomenon. That doesn’t mean that free will is absolute or that the crown should be given to idealism. What it is is a blend. Determinism dominant, but with some free will that can change things in an opposite direction that is unpredictable. dialectics solves this. dialectical materialism says that materialism is first, but not the end, that ideas do still matter. Not just mechanical materialism. I’m a dialectical materialist.
I am pretty confident that brains cause consciousness - no brain, no consciousness. Exactly how or why that happens, I do not know. We may never know, but I am hopeful. Why is it that major physical changes or injuries to the brain have such a huge effect on consciousness, if consciousness is not a direct result of activity in the brain?
@@matthewalan59 in my view a rational soul as described by Plato, but I meant to keep it neutral wrt what consciousness is besides being distinct from brain activity.
@@KamikazethecatII A few question for you: 1. Does an earthworm have a soul? 2. Does a dog have a soul? 3. Is a dog conscious? 4. My friend David was a superlative mathematician. After a heart attack he woke up without the ability to understand arithmetic. He cannot count and simply lacks any understanding of numbers. He retains enough intelligence to understand the irony of the situation. Why would an injury to the brain cause the rational soul to lose the ability to count and add numbers like two and three? FYI here are my answers. Souls do not exist so earthworms and dogs do not have souls. Dogs are conscious. Being able to do arithmetic is a function of a properly functioning physical brain. Damage the brain and that function may cease to work.
@matthewalan59 1. yes, but in a lower stage of spiritual development relative to a human, with a position in the hierarchy of being suitable to it. 2. same as 1 3. yes 4. You shouldn't think of the soul and brain as two distinct substances lying side-by-side. They are distinct, and the soul is prior to the body, but when embodied they form an integrated functional unit. I don't know the exact details of your friend's condition, but organic cognition involves bidirectional relationship between body, most importantly the brain, and soul. His rational soul hasn't lost any abilities, without more details the best I can offer in way of an explanation is his meat computer broke and now he can't compute. I don't find any of this sort of neurological evidence very compelling. We've known that the brain plays a crucial role in cognition at least since Galen.
Can you please edit the settings so the video language is english and the auto-subtitles are appropriate ? I would like to be able to understand them please !
It seems obvious that we are headed to a theory that has consciousness as fundamental, even if just as a potential. Either the entire unified quantum field is made of Consciousness as Bernardo Kastrup claims or Consciousness as we know emerges from the unified field when the right conditions are met. The galaxy of Andromeda and a cat may be different (in nature) just because the cat actualized Consciousness that has always been there as a potential.
There is nothing that isn't consciousness, but most of the consciousness is unaccusable at our currant level of development. No'one is going to levitate a book 12 feet in the air upon a day of practice.
But the second explanation doesn't explain what started the field that manifested the consciousness, while the first one does. Consciousness as far as we understand it exists within us in a space that is not bound by time and space but has thrusted those limitations upon itself so that it could experience itself.
It is inopportune to say that 'matter' alone is the foundation of materialism, as matter, under its current conception, is simply a physicist's notion for understanding what he sees under his microscope. "Matter" for people who are not physicists is rather the immutable 'terms and conditions' they must follow in order to be accepted into the fold of the experience rich world of real living human beings. The material world isn't a faceless, nameless string of particles that humans only represent through numbers, matter is the relationships of matter and the forms of being that those relationships help create. Particularly, human beings as material beings are the primary recipient of these relations of matter and the main form of being that they help create. For people, before they arrive at any particular form of qualia, in their subjective experiences, they must first exist objectively. You first need to eat the ice cream before you can taste it, even if the tongue precedes the stomach. Because the mother who bought the ice cream, the salesman who sold it to her, the cow the milk came from, the machine that extracted it and the engineer who designed it, all precede the child who eats the final product. The qualia of experience, although maintained through subjective experience, is irreducible to it. Every connoisseur of ice cream, appreciates both the scoop he tastes and the hand that scooped it. True qualia is the sum total of the world, not just the part the individual happens to stumble upon, let alone only one of his senses manages to capture. No individual is born into this world with a palette, no sommelier is born as a sommelier. The tongue is there not to "readily experience the world", but for the world to leave its mark on it, as it leaves a mark on you. The five sense are inseparable complex that exist as one on behalf of the particular form of life called the human being. Moreover, every form of life is simultaneously a way of life and the function of tasting is a function of a species that has learned to enjoy food for more than just survival or nourishment. The tongue of a human is no instrument for tasting without it being made so through evolution.
Advaita Vedanta is a philosophy which explains consciousness very well & it says Science will not ever be able to find consciousness cuz it is not a materialistic phenomenon World exist because of your consciousness & not vice versa
The anti-spandrel argument comflates importance to us with importance to natural forces like natural selection. Religion is an important force in many people's lives, and yet, some people get on fine without it altogether. Importance to me does not entail importance simpliciter. We should be careful not to elevate human priorities to an objective assessment of import. From the perspective of the universe, consciousness, intelligence, and life itself, may be no more consequential than a virtual particle randomly popping into and out of existence.
The ideas that arise from materialistic ideals can be measured and to a degree verified by predictions. There are limits to science, there are constraints so descriptions of nature made my scientists are ALWAYS described as "the best idea on this topic but subject to change as more research is done". In philosophy it seems the metaphysician argues an idea to be true USING cherry picked ideas from science and creating a narrative that is not subject to experimentation. Hence, metaphysicians play in the worlds where ideas cannot really be tested and falsified. Even in this video the narrator uses "consciousness" to undermine materialistic ideas. Consciousness is such a complex and incompletely understood phenomenon it would be virtually impossible to falsify any of his arguments. His arguments are largely based on intuition, which cannot be tested. Hence, I find his argument essentially empty. I absolutely agree there are limits to science. I don't think philosophical musing prove anything about the natural world if only based on the discussion and arguments of philosophers sitting in a room and talking.
Consciousness is the only thing that isn't complex, it is that which simply exists but people can't rap their calculations around it. It's impossible, only a fool tries to make primary colors from mere shades of black and white. If the nature of it is like I say than it is, the foundation of all complexity and is therefore infinitely uncomplex. But if it is complex as you say it is, than it is infinitely so and is still impossible to dissect. Zero and infinitely are the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, they cannot be split in a way that equals anything less than themselves nor multiplied in a way that makes them more than themselves. They are the canvas of creation itself which are beyond all things because they contain all things.
All the lexical family of spirits, consciousness, soul matters, humanity- are physical layers of the lengt beyond our physical grasp. Leaving an effect on us- that is translated into a valid impression. And that is the approximatiom by reducing the rigor to our level. There we have a perfect circle or a genuine experience. Which is merely a mistake. If we look closer to a screen even the circle has square pixels. The same with our eyes and everything we examine. There is no escape. Everything is dead. Including us. Yet we need to understand that life goes on. Therefore if all is dead, then death does not exist in contrast to life. Everything is alive. We are just mad and invested into circular stories.
All these arguments are based on the premesis that consciousness is non quantifiable. Just because a system is too complex for us to understand, doesnt mean it can't be quantified. We're just slightly smarter than the plants and animals around us, but somehow human consciousness is the one that defines it. Everything is consciousness.
"Just because a system is too complex for us to understand, doesn't mean it can't be quantified." We would have found a way to quantify at least some of it by now, given the massive advances we have made technologically. We have not. Tens of thousands of papers have been written on this subject, yet no consensus has been reached in the slightest. There is a reason for that. "We're just slightly smarter than the plants and animals around us..." I think that is vastly oversimplifying things. You know as well as I do that despite humanity's shortcomings, we are great anomalies in this universe.
@@BabyBugBug I don't believe we are anomalies. I believe we greatly overate our importance. We've been in existence for essentially no time on the cosmic scale, we've been at higher intelligence for a fraction of that, and these great technologies are not even an instance at this point. We're still only seeing the universe from our limited human perspective.
Consciousness is the only thing that isn't complex, it is that which simply exists but people can't rap their calculations around it. It's impossible, only a fool tries to make primary colors from mere shades of black and white. If the nature of it is like I say than it is, the foundation of all complexity and is therefore infinitely uncomplex. But if it is complex as you say it is, than it is infinitely so and is still impossible to dissect. Zero and infinitely are the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, they cannot be split in a way that equals anything less than themselves nor multiplied in a way that makes them more than themselves. They are the canvas of creation itself which are beyond all things because they contain all things.
True, but consciousness itself can be quantifiable as for existence to exist then the thing enabling existence has to have a set of rules, rules that by definition need to be rational otherwise the entire thing collapses in on itself.
people don't say "it is complex" people are saying consciousness can't be reduced to electrons buzzing around your neurons. it is simple as that. reductionist materialism is lacking. it is great while doing engineering medicine and things like that though.
I know nothing on consciousness. But even if evolution can't explain it, doesn't mean it didn't come on naturally. Science is always making new discoveries. So who knows what we'll find out in the future.
By definition anything that happens in the universe is natural. But we're talking about the underlying substrate that started it all and this is something scientific materialism cannot answer as it operates solely within the parameters thrust upon it by the way the universe works. It cannot explain how this universe came to be. A character inside a game cannot by observing the game world understand how the game world was created.
It seems to me that scientific materialism is forced to assume absolute determinism, and that by assuming that determinism is absolute, its proponents should be left with nothing they can say. At least, we should tell them their arguments are futile, sound and fury signifying nothing.
"It seems to me that scientific materialism is forced to assume absolute determinism, and that by assuming that determinism is absolute, its proponents should be left with nothing they can say. At least, we should tell them their arguments are futile, sound and fury signifying nothing." Why should the material world be any more deterministic than any other kind of world? What is there that you know about some other world/state of existence that shows IT to be non-deterministic...other, that is, than by sheer assertion. IOW sure, we can see, measure, touch, assess, track and count/weigh/measure the material world. We can see things happen because of other things happening. So it's easy to assume everything in the material world is deterministic...and perhaps it is. But what is this 'other' world that one might imagine that ISN'T material/physical/natural and what can we say with certainty about IT? Why would IT somehow, unexplored as it is, provide some mechanism, means of working, way of interacting that isn't deterministic? It's not so much that I favor a materialistic/physical/natural view of things and maybe there is another world. But all that does is push the issue up and away from exploration such that it is only by assertion and...faith...that we assume IT provides for what...free will? non determinism.
@@rizdekd3912 The discussion is not about materialism, it is about scientific materialism. In scientific materialism, we are to assume that strict physical laws control everything. If once we could find anything that did not obey this paradigm, we could find a lacuna through which we might reach a non-physical reality. Science frowns on this possibility. The statement you highlight simply notes that these assumptions of science may be true, but if they are true, they inundate all comments that the scientists might make, for those possible statements are not based on reason or logical argument.
@@JackPullen-Paradox "scientific materialism is forced to assume absolute determinism" People make assumptions, worldviews don't make assumptions. A person...a scientist, may adopt an operational 'scientific materialism' mindset when doing science. What else would you have scientists do. But that doesn't mean the person himself has to be a strict scientific materialist all the time...in other parts of his life. Why do you want to focus on scientific materialism? What do you see as the alternative to doing science assuming scientific materialism?
@@rizdekd3912 Agreed. I think that we may want to look around for a more inclusive theoretical structure. This may take some time to develop. I focus on scientific materialism because it is used as the hammer to destroy everything that is not mundane and humanly meaningless. Its hammer attacks consciousness, free will, spirituality, morality, and meaning.
@@rizdekd3912 It is not true that only individuals do this or that. There is a group dynamic that can create or impose a worldview that the individual will find difficult to diverge from. What I think we are seeing in science is the people at the top of their professions becoming incapable of challenging the dogmas and stating their personal interpretations of the world while remaining viable in the community. I would make the assumptions as explicit as possible and update them as needed. Now the problem is, science, or anything else, is a group endeavor. But to participate in it, you do not need to accept all of its dogma or assumptions--you see how science and other endeavors are more than the individual? Anyway, I suppose you need brave people at the top who are willing to shake things up from time to time. Perhaps there is no other way.
1: Formal thought processes can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content. However, 2: Nothing material can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content. So, 3: Formal thought processes are not material.
I find this confused idea of consciousness strange. Consciousness is not a physical property it is a simulated property. Reliance on Bernardo is a mistake since he adheres to belief in spirit.
Consciousness itself is spirit. It is spirit that creates within it parameters to shackle itself and experience itself in a way it cannot do when boundless, timeless and limitless. Imposing limitations on yourself to see what you can do and improve yourself is emminently rational.
if the brain perceives things with awareness (learning from its experiences, having memory, differentiating chemical compositions of food (taste), differentiating photons wavelength to perceive objects more clearly (colours)), i dont see why its immaterial. Like when someone tells me "but how do you explain that im actually consciously experiencing things, seeing them, smelling..." all i see is a brain describing its experiences with a language it learned. Nothing immaterial. What consciousness means is that we actually exist, not that there is something immaterial.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf you technically could see it if you connected axons from the part of my brain were my thought is ouputed to my visual cortex (when i visualise it in my head) to your visual cortex
@@jaxmc1912 1: Formal thought processes can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content. However, 2: Nothing material can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content. So, 3: Formal thought processes are not material.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf what do you mean by that? thoughts are part of our reasonning. Thoughts are not to be interpreted, they are part of the complex interpretation of the human brain. they help the human being make logical decisions.
Nice drawings but invalid reasoning. You are unable to explain the qualia of the color blue and feel it is non-physical, because you are immersed within the system that produces this qualia. The brain generates the reality that is experienced. You who experience the qualia have no access to the underlying processes, which is what makes it subjective. "You" do not exist or experience apart from brain states. You ARE brain states - and you are part and parcel of the entire process of perception - an unwitting, immersed, part of the process. So of course it seems mysterious, magical, and non-physcial. There is little doubt that physical mechanisms inherent in neural processing are responsible for qualia. It has been demonstrated that qualia are generated by electrical stimulation of the cortex which we know activates neural ensembles. The electrical behavior of neurons is necessary and sufficient to generate qualia and can accordingly be recognized as their cause. In principle it is possible to understand how the color blue is encoded in neural activity and presented to our frontal cortex. There is no reason to assume that this process is in any way non-physical in nature. Everything we feel, think and experience consists of neural processes. When these processes stop, you can legally be pronounced dead. If you believe there is something non-physical at play, then you own the entire burden of proof. As for evolution: To assume that qualia had no evolutionary purpose is a bald assertion. A primate needs to differentiate edible vs poisonous fruit.That differentiation can occur because of the impact of the particular qualia tied to each respective fruit. Thus, a more "vibrant" visual impact can allow for better perceptual discernment. Since a qualia of a particular color and vibrancy may promote eating, it is false to claim that qualia cannot produce action in the physical world. We react to the qualia that we experience. One part of the brain can physically affect another. That is why actors are able to willingly engender real emotions and make themselves cry. The brain is a physical system with no demonstrable tie to notions such as Substance Dualism, Platonism, or any such ghosts in the machine. Get over it, and marvel at what wonders can be performed by a physical, neural system sculpted by evolution. It is more intriguing and awe inspiring than every incoherent, non-physical speculation that has been trotted out over time. For a recapitulation of most of the above, by a philosopher, see this UA-cam vid: John Searle - Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism?
There's so many assumptions you make. Humor me here but lets say the brain a one part of a duo, like an antenna and a radio and you knew nothing of these thingsa and you had a radio. Then you started tinkering with the radio, taking a part out here, shocking a bit there and seeing how it worked it would appear as if the radio was producing the sound since toying with it changed the sound. But it didn't change the underlying wave it merely changed the sound. If the radio breaks then there is no sound. There's nothing to receive the wave.
Understood, but we can demonstrate the role of an antenna and we can demonstrate radio waves. You perhaps want to speculate, without any evidence, that the brain is "receiving" something immaterial. As I said above, you own the entire burden of proof. Methodological naturalism that is the heart of the scientific method does not state that something outside the brain could not possibly contribute to consciousness. The scientific method simply requires evidence, and the weight of evidence does not support this notion in the slightest. If one then makes the bald assertion that there is a basis for the immaterial in our consciousness, well, that is religion, not science. @@Butmunch666
@@protonman8947 Actually the burden of evidence is on you too. Scientific materialism claims that all we know is a part of this world and is a consequence of the physical processes occuring within it.Yet it shies away from the same problem that religions have, it can't explain why its here, what it is and how it became what it is. Its the exact same argument yet science shits on the God explanation while their retort is...but the Big Bang...thats not an explanation of why, thats an explanation of how. It's like the placebo effect, you can explain what it is, but no one knows why it happens, it just does. Some mind over matter crap, which clearly can't have anything to do with consciousness since we all know that we're all just material beings. It's such a circular argument. The biggest problem is that at least he religious people have some kind of salvation, you have nothing.
At this point with all the evidence for Concsciousness as being fundamental and spacetime emergent, Dawkins should be having fits. 🤣 "Materialism is untenable for several reasons. One of them is the internal contradiction: it defines matter as something that is independent and alien to consciousness and has no inherent qualities, and then it tries to explain the qualities of experience in terms of something that was defined as having nothing to do with experience. And that failed to do that and then we wonder why it failed." Bernardo Kastrup.
If you are interested I can explain how consciousness is not what you say. I don't see you responding to anything here so I don't want to waste my time writing something you will never read.
"Materialism is a worldview according to which nothing exists except matter: measurable, reproducible, subject to the laws of physics. Materialists view consciousness, will, dreams, and all mental-psychological phenomena as reducible to material events (e.g. neurons firing and the presence of hormones)." This is not correct. And your argument, based on qualia, also misses the way this is incorrect. The correct way to state this would be, "Materialism is a worldview according to which nothing exists except matter: measurable, reproducible, subject to the laws of physics. Materialists view consciousness, will, dreams, and all mental-psychological phenomena as reducible to material events, all of which are in-turn GOVERNED by PHYSICAL LAWS, which themselves have no physical existence." Materialism emerges from the functioning of non-material laws. Materialism itself is fundamentally derived from the non-material. It is true that nothing exists except matter. But this ignores the fact that there are physical laws, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the speed of light is a maximum, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, etc., that have no material properties, and yet are everywhere and in all times present and determining. The materialist simply chooses to ignore this when thinking about consciousness.
We know that is not true. If there were no matter, we would still have spacetime, right? Quantum mechanics claims there would be virtual particles popping in and disappearing all over the place. They are not quite matter. But the minor point is that there is more to the world than matter. The larger point is, there seems an almost metaphysical quantum world undergirding the material world. Fantastic things happen that violate normal logic in some cases.
The idea that materialism is the answer to everything makes me not want to live!!! I watched Esoterica's video on the Origin of Yahweh and it felt like a part of me died!!! The notion that God is all things and is in all things is ESENTIAL to my well being, and a world where truth is without spirit is a world I am not willing to fight to live in. There is something very wrong about letting surface level logic ''false intellect'' dictate how you should live your life.
Don't let it bog you down. Esoterica is an edgy pagan atheist who uses his deep knowledge of the occult as a shield those who would criticize him for reasons like you just did. He doesn't understand Christianity. Just read the FAQ on his website. How can someone understand the origins of Yaweh but ignore the thousands of years of history and interconnectedness afterwards?
@@strivingcobra I believe in true esoteric knowledge, the occult was never meant to be taken Atheistically, it's a long line of spiritual traditions passed down from generation to generation. One should stand by God regardless of whether the Bible is a metaphor or not.
@@strivingcobra He is unfit to be called "Esoterica'' anyway because atheism is the exact opposite of esoteric, it is carnal, selfish, and literalist. Basically what Atheism is is dead fruitless philosophy, and works of the flesh!!!! It isn't at all that we aren't saved by works but if ones works are of the world they are dead. Your works you preform through the indwelling spirit on the other hand are a natural part of what makes you ''reborn''!!! Your passion for the creator does those works through you rather than you doing them just because you think you should.
Why not think of The Source as the universal energy or life force or whatever words you choose? Why can't the power that creates everything be enough? Does it need to be supernatural instead of natural to be adequate?
@@nrm55 Because God is what it is, no supernatural label necessary to call it God because what you call ''supernatural'' is just a purer form of that which is already natural, and it's as simple as that, it's not a matter of ''why can't this that or the third be enough''. I have single handed experience with it, but I've learned that converting anyone to a certain way of thinking isn't right. It doesn't work anyway because the nature of God works in opposition to the human ego, the very thing that makes you try and prove something out of arrogance and pride removes you from its grace because that isn't how any of this works. The creator is only concerned with those who care about divine law it doesn't want you to believe in something to be saved from some nonsensical condemnation. It's not like I believe in some magic man in the sky, and he'll punish people for not knowing he exists. I believe that one's desire to prove Gods existence in an egoic way rather than letting a person become receptive to its existence on their own is a form of blasphemy and God will distance itself from people with such an attitude. The separation of God realization from the person through ego in and of itself is the punishment. But God doesn't punish us, the fire of arrogance and pride does that. As for the ''eternal'' part, in Hebrew thought this word simply meant a far distance off beyond the horizon that no'one can see. In other words, your lack of humility will keep you in this state for as long as you can imagine, but probably not forever in the truest sense. With that being said though the closest thing I can make to a solid argument for Gods existence PUN INTENDED, is that the evolutionary will to survive makes no sense. It would make more logical sense that if we wanted to live in the most ideal way with no problems at all in life, ''life'' shouldn't even be part of the equation at all because we should just be a rock on the ground that does absolutely nothing. It doesn't need to breed because it's eternal and doesn't need to eat or drink because that pesky thing called ''life'' doesn't get in the way, and it has no predators at all, it just sets around for billions of years until the Earth heads back into the Sun. I could ask you an equally ridiculous question and say, why did natures laws arrive at us being alive??? Isn't being a rock enough? And the answer is that's just how it is, and in some sense of the term our higher mind and collective consciousness manifested through the seemingly non-living source of existence is what God is anyway, that's why the Bible says the word became ''flesh''. So you tell me sir, why are we living breathing beings instead of star dust?
I think consciousness is quantifiable- aren't there some biochimical and neurologicalprocesses behind it? Doesn't that make it "material", tangible enough? Like Collin said in a comment below, I'm an average Joe and definitely open to debate
It's really never been proven exactly where it comes from in the brain, it seems as if direct expeirnece concious sensation can be flipped on and off tinkering with certisn aspects of the brsin. Science has yet to prove exactly.how its generated though
Just because there are correlations between THE CONTENT of consciousness (i.e. what is being observed within the mind) and brain chemistry does not infer that consciousness itself is reducible to those processes
Disclaimer:I'm an average Joe so I don't claim to know what I'm talking about, just seeking truth... I didn't understand the point with humans developing consciousness for survival. Is that just a relatable example? All biology seems to be aware just in different capacities... This seems to be the argument I can deduce: Does a living vessel receive something that was already there? OR Does physics in certain conditions produce complex organisms that are aware, and that consciousness stops when the organism dies? Also, how do we know consciousness has no physical component/s to it just because it hasn't yet been broken down/mapped using a scientific model? Isnt that like saying there's no more to discover because it hasn't been discovered yet? If that logic was applied I would not have this phone I'm watching your video on... Thanks for the video!!!
Hi! Thanks for the question! :) The argument about consciousness evolving to enhance survival was not a mere example to illustrate a greater point. It's an actual argument some materialists posit to explain its existence in biological terms. The idea (at least in one of the argument's formulations) is that, to the extent that a being possesses awareness (in this case interchangeable with consciousness), it is more capable of making "flexible decisions". Here's a resource that goes through an overview of the topic in a little bit more detail: www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01537/full. Maybe I failed to properly understand your question. I guess I would ask you, how does the fact that -as you said- "all biology seems to be aware just in different capacities" invalidate the biological explanation of consciousness in question? As regards to your second question. I wasn't claiming that we absolutely know that consciousness doesn't have any physical components. What I was claiming was, that in order to defend the materialist-evolutionary explanation of consciousness, you have to adopt that assumption. Otherwise, you wouldn't be a materialist (since consciousness not having any physical components would imply that there is something beyond matter). I hope I'm explaining myself clearly. These topics are quite complex and at times I find it difficult to articulate my thoughts on them. Again, thanks for the intelligent questions!
@@epistemicmind4175 i appreciate the message back! I've taken a leap of faith lately and meditated on it, I've come away with a whole new attitude. It just was a lot to chew and swallow that consciousness is more than what it appeared to me as at that moment. I will read over your answer though and click the link. Thanks so much for getting back to me! 🙏
I think the problem is presenting this hypothesis as the true one, when in fact it is the most supported, falsifiable and unsuccessfully contrasted. That means that it is the hypothesis that makes the most sense to defend and on which to rely
"Consciousness has no physical component to it" Who ever made this claim? I disagree. You can not have consciousness without a brain. How can anyone claim consciousness has no function? The central premises in this video appear to me to be entirely without foundation.
There is a video on UA-cam about a well-known psychologist whose name escapes me who talks about a chimpanzee who had the visual cortex removed. This chimpanzee could still see in effect, but had clearly did not have the experience of seeing--something like hysterical blindness. So, it is not so clear what we need to experience consciousness, for this chimpanzee apparently needed the visual cortex to be conscious of her visual experiences on the one hand; yet could actually see without the visual cortex on the other. I don't think anyone considers the visual cortex a seat of consciousness, but perhaps it feeds into something that is. It may be one of the "sense organs" of the consciousness, which may reside in the brain or not. If in the brain, it may be of another character that mundane physical processes. The fact is, we are only guessing. The answer may be found by studying the brain, the mind, or physics itself.
This doesn't make any sense, the entire reasoning falls apart from the moment they say consciousness can't produce quantifiable results. That's demonstrably false.
The common issue that people struggle to grapple with is that the evidence seems to point to everything is a set of motions that initiated at the big bang and the "control" that we feel we have isnt real. Consciousness is actually just like "us" watching a movie of our lives. There are very complicated factors that go into why you do what you do. We even see this with some tests that have been done were in short participates brain waves are being monitored and they are told to raise either hand whenever they want, there is a clock in front of them. They are told to remember the time you finally "decided" which hand an actually went ahead and did it. What we found is that there is a spike in brain activity right before the participates "decide" to life their hand and we can pretty accurately with this data predict when someone is about to raise their hand before they are consciously aware. This seems to suggest that our subconscious is really running the show here. So in conclusion while its a bleak and dark seeming reality that maybe we have no control this doesnt justify us doing terrible things and this doesnt mean life is meaningless. Enjoy the ride and do what you think is right to do. Figure out ways to get that dopamine release in your brain and be honored to get to exist and watch this film in first person because its really cool whats happening right now.
But tell me this, what actually is the Big Bang? Where did the energy for it come from? Where did the matter come from? Why? The Big Bang is not an explanation of why, it is an explanation of how. So it doesn't explain anything. It's just like saying God did it. Ok then who made God? It has the same basic issue that is unsolvable by scientific materialism because you cannot solve a question like that while living inside the universe. WHY DID THE BIG BANG HAPPEN? Big Bang is just an explanation of how. We know the placebo effect exists, we've proved it, so why does it happen? What are the underlying mechanisms? No one knows and you can't within a materialistic viewpoint.
the problem of saying that consciousness is the result of evolution is that a biological organism cannot survive without consciousness. I can buy that consciousness evolves as we humans evolve, however, the question remains of what is the origin of that first instance of consciousness? and the fact to the matter is you cannot answer that question through a materialistic point of view because if consciousness is material then that first instance of material consciousness basically created itself which is materialistically impossible we have answered this question of where does this first instance of consciousness comes from, through Ontological Mathematics; soon more people will know where we come from
@@Pinterong of course plants are conscious, anything that is born, grows and dies possesses consciousness; that's part of how we define consciousness... that is not to say that they have the level of awareness about their surroundings as we humans. just think about how a tree can heal its wounds and perform photosynthesis, some plants like Mimosa tenuiflora and carnivorous plants can even move. you cannot explain how billion of cells which have their own energy storage and in theory live on their own can agree and synchronise to be able to perform such complicated processes; only a higher intelligence which we call consciousness could do that
@@neyson220293 if everything that lives is conscious then doesn't that prove materialism, for example rocks aren't conscious, soil isn't, only things containing biochemical compounds result in consciousness
@@Pinterong You see, consciousness is what gives life to those biochemicals... biochemicals on their own without a consciousness that can make use of them are just empty chemicals; a car without a driver, a plane without a pilot, a bike without a biker. all that you are proving is that you need complicated chemicals as the building block of complicated structures/organisms; big deal! Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulphur and Phosphorus just happen to be the most available chemicals in the biosphere so it is only logical that such chemicals would be used as building blocks; you're still not explaining what is it that gives life to such structure. you might argue that homeostasis gives life to these structures, but then again, what is it that makes the structure want to be in a state of homeostasis in the first place? I can assure you that whatever your next argument is, will ultimately fall into an infinite regress because consciousness just cannot be explained in terms of matter the fact to the matter (no pun intended) is that Ontological Mathematics has managed to explain consciousness, mathematically and logically, without mysticism by solving the infinite regress issue. if you want to know more about it check Joseph E Postma youtube channel www.youtube.com/@OntologicalMathematics/videos or read the God series by Mike Hockney
To me, the rejection of materialism or physicalism upon the basis that you cannot fully describe all of experience and consciousness with it is not an issue with materialism. It is simply the incomplete nature of language. Language cannot capture the full diversity and intricacy of existence as it is just a very very small part of existence. Material truth requires unrestricted forms of expression to allow for completeness of understanding. You can only fully be informed of the taste of vanilla ice cream by being partially constructed of vanilla ice cream. Words can only fully inform you of linguistic truths, truths about words and language themselves.
that my freind is what gnosis is.
Consciousness is fundamental to reality. Meaning that materialism is imagined in consciousness. To say that consciousness developed as a survival mechanism assumes that materialism is already true to begin with. It's an absurd philosophical mistake that should be easy to spot. All of reality is just infinite possibilities of direct experience, everything you think is "outside" of it is imagined within your conscious experience.
Thanks for this! I happen to resonate with this argument quite a lot. Materialists seem to be guilty of circular reasoning. I nonetheless aspired to make a video articulating their viewpoints.
Well, no, it's the other way around, beginning with "consciousness is only qualitative and immaterial" is circular. It just assumes that not everything is physical. And I don't see that just because consciousness is fundamental to reality and we imagine materialism with that it means that it's not material. Pointing out how it could evolve is not a premise, it's rather an explanation of why materialism is viable. Explanation how it emerged, you know, the thing non-materialists have never been able to give...
@@krcprc It's not circular because no assumptions were made. Direct experience is all you have, nothing else. Materialism is something consciousness imagines. You keep assuming that there are material things "outside" consciousness but notice that those are just more thoughts arising within consciousness.
@@EezySeven Well I never said that the physical world we experience exists outside of consciousness. You're right, I wouldn't be able to prove it.
I think it would be nice to present the definition for "physical" at this point: By physical I mean simply everything we observe and we agree on observing. But we kinda agree on observing the consciousness (at least scientifically - you can easily distinguish a conscious person and a person in oblivion). Therefore it follows that consciousness is physical, whether it "creates our whole experience" or not.
@@krcprc is that to say we observe the same conciousness the way we observe the same, idk. Tree over there in the distance?
Materialism - as any type of Monism - presupposes wrongly that there is an unique way of being or an unique ontological ambit. Yet, there are many of them.
In sum, the scientific materialism is a mix of bad ontology with a miscomprehension about the nature of science (i.e., an ceaseless inquiry about the mundane phenomena rather than dogmatism)
Science doesn't really use such metaphysical labels so it's not really monist. But if we use that word to simply oppose to the idea of spiritual dualism, then yes the most rational ontology is monism. I'm curious why you would think otherwise.
You have an idealistic view about science. I suggest you to read Patrick Tort to understand what materialism truly is.
@@enekaitzteixeira8144
"Science" is not a single entity/institution. There are scientists who are either materialists, dualists, idealists etc.
Every time I hear physicist talk about qualitative experience the always bring up mechanistic processes, but at the end of the day it doesn’t explain why certain things feel the way they feel. It’s hard to explain but I think the scientific method kind of lost its originality with modern scientist assuming how things work broadly then trying to find the explanation that fits their model. Remember a hypothesis is a fact that hasn’t been proved yet.
Wonderful!
This happened because early enlightenment scientists were religious and had the underlying assumption that God was underneath it all.This gradually changed over time and everyone forgot that science today feels very empty and without purpose. It also doesn't actually tackle the underlying question everyone wants to know which is why? It simply replaced God with "Science" and then called it a day completely ignoring the giant hole in the entire argument that is, while the Big bang theory is a good description of the how, it doesn't explain the why.
A hypothesis is an educated scientific guess - not a fact. Science provides evidence, not proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics. The evidence provided by science provides levels of confidence in a hypothesis, based on the content and quality of the evidence.
I tried and failed for years to understand non-dualism and consciousness-only philosophies. I found them so convoluted that I could never grasp them.
What is presented as deeply intuitive appeared to me as insurmountably opaque.
Yup. Convoluted and incoherent with no evidentiary basis.
@@protonman8947you don’t even need evidence to know you are conscious, it’s actually the only thing you can’t ever doubt.
I find it very intuitive and simple to understand
The route to understanding subjectivity under physicalism starts with understanding information.
Information consists of the properties and structure of a physical phenomenons. An electron, atom, molecule, organism, etc. It could also be some subset of those, such as the holes in a punched card, the pattern of electrical charges in a computer memory, written symbols on paper, etc. Meaning is an actionable relation between two sets of information, through some process. Take a counter, what does it count? There must be a process that increments it under certain circumstances, which establishes it’s meaning. Similarly a map might represent an environment, but you need to understand how to interpret the map to act on it. Think of a map in the memory of a self-driving car. It’s just binary data, but the navigation program and sensors interpret it into effective action via a program. Without the program the data is useless. Meaningless.
So the meaning of information is relational, it’s the set of actionable correspondences a set of information has. Since each of our brains is different, we each have different sets of correspondences between all the information encoded in our neural networks, and received by our senses. An observer of that information has a different set of correspondences with that information than the information in the brain has itself. Therefore the meaning is different. The only way to have the same meaning relation is literally to have all the exact same relations in the same way.
Consciousness is the activity of these interpretive, relational processes in action. It’s a very specific kind of activity, not just any process on information. Everything about consciousness is informational. It is perceptive, interpretive, analytical, self-referential, recursive, reflective, it can self-modify. These are all attributes of information processing systems, and we can implement simple versions of all of these in information systems right now.
Qualia are a highly complex set of actionable relations between a fantastically complex set of sensory stimuli, metabolic processes and emotional responses. They’re also very personal because their meaning is so intricately tied into our own personal informational activity - not -state - but process. They aren’t something we know, or are, they are something we do. Watching a process is not the same as doing the process, and so subjectivity is always beyond the reach of an external observer of it.
Put your word salad on a diet.
i am an idealist, but under a physicalist framework wouldn't consciousness have a quantifiable effect since the mind knows about it?
though i doubt it'd offer any evolutionary advantage.
Quantum panpsychist here. The solution to the epiphenominalism problem is see that the irreducible unity of consciousness implies a quantum substrate. The unity in quantum physics has physical/behavioral/computational consequences, so objectively unified states or processes could be selected for. The unity is the natural psychophysical bridging principle to the consciousness property of the unified physical system. In this picture you can understand how such conscious states could evolve, without having to tell some incoherent story about how “consciousness” can push physical things around like Descartes’ pineal gland. 👍
Incidentally the ontological holism of quantum states is also the conceptual solution to the “combination problem” of panpsychism. Note also that experimental evidence for quantum microtubule states as the substrate of consciousness is growing fast. Eg. Babcock 2024 microtubule super radiance at room temperature and Khan 2024 anesthetic gas binds to microtubules to cause unconsciousness in rats. 💪🏻
You claim that consciousness cannot cause a real difference in the world. This is clearly false. If consciousness is an emergent property of the physical mechanisms that make up your body and brain, it can also have feedback effects. For example, when you feel fear, this is occurring due to physical processes in your brain; your brain then sends signals to your body, producing adrenaline. It's a feedback loop with both parts impacting one another. Yes, you can feel fear after seeing a tiger. But you can also feel fear and release adrenaline by imagining a tiger leaping at you.
In fact, merely seeing the tiger has no effect. If you didn't know what a tiger is and that it's dangerous, you wouldn't feel fear when seeing one, and your adrenaline wouldn't kick in.
So someone with a brain that causes a more fearful consciousness to emerge might be more likely to escape a tiger, so a healthy amount of fear is selected for.
The operation of the brain is a tangible difference. The scale in which a creature experiences various qualia is a tangible (measurable) difference. The brain causes qualia and thus qualia is predicated on a physical component. How can we know that the brain causes qualia? If we stimulate various sections of the brain an individual can report various experiences of qualia. This sustains qualia as being a product of the brain.
Why are various points of ignorance taken to be evidence against something? It seems to be the case that we don't understand how the brain generates qualia, but it has been the case that there have been many things that we didn't know about such as evolution. Evidence against an idea that has been shown to be reasonably correct would entail showing some fundamental flaw in the idea and/or basis for acceptance. Your video has done neither.
If we could show that qualia was not a product of the brain and/or that such was at least uncorrelated with the brain, that would be a basis to assault a physicalist account. However, neither has been done.
I consider myself ontologically neutral, but I find none of the accounts of materialism (that which can have interactivity) to be an issue. Why do you? Your video has the air of propaganda.
Correct. But don't expect folks here to buy it. People are too addicted to spooky explanations.
If I have a radio that is receiving a signal and i tamper with it, mess with the circuits, take out a bolt here or there it will disrupt the signal and the obvious explanation is that the radio itself produces the signal since interfering with the receptor causes the sound to change while ignoring that something else is causing the underlying wave that the radio is interpreting. If the radio breaks then the underlying information cannot get through. That is what scientific materialism does, it assumes the radio makes the underlying information and not just interpreting it.
Naïve realist materialism entails a contradiction in terms: namely, it presupposes that the qualia of consciousness are not the qualia of consciousness. Now, not only is a naïve realist materialism self-refuting, because it presupposes and is founded upon a contradiction in terms (the assumption that qualia are not qualia), but, it is naïve too, implying the absence of impartial criticism, because under no circumstances whatsoever does impartial criticism lead to a contradiction in terms: in other words, naïve realist materialism entails dogmatism (accepting some thesis as true (namely, the thesis that qualia are not qualia) without further reflection, without grounds, without substantiation). The application of impartial criticism inevitably, incontrovertibly, and necessarily leads to a phenomenalist stance (if by phenomenalism is meant “the acknowledgement that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia”): the application of impartial criticism cannot lead to a contradiction in terms, and, ipso facto, cannot lead to a naïve realist materialism. In a word, it is superfluous to refute materialism, because materialism refutes itself (by way of entailing a contradiction in terms, by assuming that qualia are not qualia); additionally, naïve realist materialism is incompatible with a genuinely impartial criticism, since the application of impartial criticism inevitably leads one to the conclusion that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia (that we are consciousness ouroborically in a state of interaction with itself, namely, consciousness interacting with its own qualia).
ua-cam.com/video/6r2r0LtJIjg/v-deo.htmlsi=9FJsI_XJoefpWyXD
If you would define qualia as you wish to use the term, the above might rise above word salad.
>it presupposes that the qualia of consciousness are not the qualia of consciousness.
No physicist philosopher I've listened to or read has said any such thing, and I certainly don't believe that. I've posted a comment detailing my account of subjective experience under physicalism if you're interested.
I vote for word salad.
We think consciousness is important because we're conscious. It's only important to us as conscious beings. The material universe doesn't care. Consciousness can well be a spandrel - an insignificant byproduct. That it couldn't be so due to its "centrality" to our lives is a self-serving circular argument. Likewise, arguing that spandrels take rigour away from materialism is not persuasive: clearly spandrels exist, so why can't consciousness be a spandrel?
So many wrong things in the video and in most of the comments. I found the common mistake is that you don't know what materialism is. Most refer to classical materialism or mechanical materialism and reduce it to an idea. I am sure those classical philosophers would not agree with.
Most modern materialist philosophers have added the concept of hyperealism or pluralism to their materialist philosophy and include in their ontology things like pain, distances or the number PI.
You should think as materialism as the way of thinking where, whenever you dont know something, you don't immediately try to use gods, magic, souls, angels or conciousness to explain it. Hundreds of years you have failed once and over again, recently saying that AIs would be impossible or computer would not win against a chess master due to consciousness. Will you ever learn?
Nah.
You are wrong KKK
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Materialism / Physicalism as a branch of metaphysical theories that the material / physical is all that is real or exists. This does include the belief that consciousness or mental states ultimately derive from material or physical processes.
Essentially, Materialists believe that the ultimate metaphysical grounding of reality is material.
My question is: How was this determined to be the case?
When you say, "you should think of Materialism as the way of thinking where, whenever you don't know something, you don't immediately try to use gods, magic, souls, angels, or consciousness to explain it."
Hmm, well under this definition then you'd be defining all Christians who apply the scientific method as believing Materialism. Which can't be true.
Also, you ended with the accusation, "hundreds of years you have failed once and over again, recently saying that AIs would be impossible or that computer would not win against a chess master due to consciousness. Will you ever learn?"
Uh, here you seem to be addressing strawman arguments that weren't said in the video. It seems as though you have a stereotype in your mind regarding what non-Materialists claim about AI, technology, computers and chess, etc... and you're assigning that stereotype to the creator of the video without justification.
People who understand the Bible well will actually realize that the advancement of AI, computers beating humans at chess, etc... all is actually predicted in the Bible. That's the beast system for you. How would satan deceive so many people unless he has something like AI, technology, computers that are able to beat humans at chess, etc?
Anyone you heard who said AI isn't possible, that computers wouldn't beat humans at chess, etc... obviously do not understand the potential of technology. They were lacking in knowledge on that particular subject, which made their predictions of the future inaccurate.
This, however, is not exclusive to non-Materialists. Plenty of Materialists said the same thing back then.
So, this critique isn't valid for multiple reasons. First, its a strawman. Second, it isn't exclusive to non-Materialists. So there isn't any relevance here.
The problem with reductive materialism, is that its proponents stretch the methodology of reduction so successful in the work of physicists as a metaphor for all phenomena. The problem with this view is that it is itself anti-scientific, i.e., making leaps from specific controlled cases to generalizations about, well, anything and everything, then passing it off as cold hard fact.
Yup. I’m an atheist but not a materialist. Philosophical materialists are some of the most closed minded people ive ever met.
@@josefpdx Schopenhauer was an atheist and not a materialist, as well. He was influenced massively by certain schools of Buddhism and Indian thought that are similar in orientation.
@@ericv7720 I can't understand anything in your OP. What methodology? What reduction? What metaphor? What generalization?
What are you talking about?
@@josefpdx What do you even mean by materialist? What makes materialists so closed minded?
@@enekaitzteixeira8144 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism Well, materialists lack imagination in the sense of "if there isn't 100% definitive proof, it isn't real." Whenever lots of things are not definitively proven, including emotions, feelings, the existence or protons, or until recently the existence of the black hole. I'm not advocating for believing in myths and wild fantasies, but I am not impressed by philosophical materialism.
Much like the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, we have created the "hard problem of consciousness" by inventing an untestable, unfalsifiable claim and then being baffled when we cannot grasp it.
Then we twist ourselves in mental knots trying to crack the code of these "hard problems."
This is akin to searching for a four-sided triangle. It is an untouchable idea that demands far too much mental gymnastics of the adherent.
Every mammal on earth has a lifelong subjective experience via their nervous system. Disable the nervous system and you remove the organism's consciousness. I have found no evidence to the contrary.
For Mammals sure but there are concious creatures without a nervous system.
Yeah, the issue is that you used and depended a lot on qualia for that.
It's like this narcissistic psychologist talking on narcissism saying he has no persistent self...
And I'm like: "how do you know that if there's no memory?"
But you really havent. If you have a radio that is working and producing sound and then you rip out the antenna or break the circuit and it stops producing sound you haven't proved that the radio by itself makes the sound, you just broke the radio.
@@alexalke1417 an example?
To me, consciousness is awareness. How is awareness not a trait beneficial in the natural selection process of evolution? As taste is subjective or objective, this is also a trait that could detect food that is either beneficial or not in the natural selection process. In past times, it would be beneficial to fatten up on something high in sugar and fat, even though today it would be detrimental. I'm not a materialist, but none of the arguments in this "Case Against Scientific Materialism" hold up.
I think, fundamentally, you and the video are using 'consciousness' in two different ways.
'awareness' comes close but it's more of a cognitive awareness versus a reactive awareness. The latter being instinctive and ingrained, is the form we see being most successful in the animal kingdom since evolution had chosen that route for almost all animals but us and maybe a handful of others.
@@noblebrown6077 Cognitive reasoning? Problem solving? Learning from experience? Planning based on experience? Squid, dolphins, elephants, crows, and numerous other ‘successful’ animals display this trait besides humans. Consciousness is not uniquely human, no matter if you define it as instinct or cognitive.
@@creepyog2008 Yeah, this video didn't make much sense from the moment they said consciousness doesn't produce quantifiable results. That's why it's not an epiphenomenon: It's a direct active trait of complex nervous systems.
However, the term "materialism" is a metaphysical term and science just isn't interested in that. All we can say is that there's no a single reason to believe in any supernatural claim.
Here, he means qualia and is fairly clear about it.
Maybe because you don't get them.
Thank you. Bernardo Kalstrup is a formidable proponent of monistic idealism. He is of course not the only highly intelligent person (many in history too) who logically put forward the fact of consciousness (awareness) as something primal and necessary for existence to happen. Materialist science has its definite place of course, but it is making (I think very erroneous) metaphysical statements and positions against its own need for objectivity. It has become ideological and reactive, preventing it widening its view.
This will not cause the collapse of science, but expand it. It will also explain mysterious phenomenon and how life emerges from inert matter. The current linear model of evolution fails to see the need for a coordinating holistic information communciative function in existence, primal in nature. I am a monastic idealist and also respect deeply science and its achievements. But it is now being hampered from further expansion by its refusal to consider awareness is possibly not emergent at all, but an infinite absolute Ground of all experience. Without awareness nothing is, including science and all discovery. All expereince of existence at all levels is null without some subtle form of informing holistic type of awareness. I think strict monistic materialism sucks out all the deeper meaning of existence and life. It has lost it soul and created a world without utlimate value and unity.
Though I wouldn't call myself a monistic idealist, I see the merits of that position. Most debates regarding scientific materialism that I've run across lately seem to always circle back to the problem of free will. The argument invariably boils down to this: "Free will does not exist, because that's what the science says. You're not a science denier, are you?" It's the oldest defense in the book: "If you disagree with me, you're either an idiot, or a fool living in denial!"
@@ericv7720
The certainty that science has "proven" the 'illusion' of free will appears dubious. Least of all because it seems to totally disvalue all human human discovery and thought. Such as appears here. Are we automatons? I think that really is a big call. While there are obviously conditional and influential aspects to our decisions, there remains much mystery to what actually happens and when a decision is made. There is also the problem of sudden and immediate non-cognitive, some say intuitive decisions and actions made in reactions to danger etc.
The extended discussion on Wiki on free will is also instructive, including the implications of quantum indeterminacy.
"...This shocking conclusion [that free will is an illusion] comes from a series of experiments that revealed something quite remarkable: Our brains decide a course of action before we know it. Benjamin Libet’s pioneering experiments in the 1980s using EEG and more recent ones using fMRI or implants directly into neurons found that the motor region responsible for making a motion in response to a question fired up seven seconds before the subject was aware of it. The brain seems to be deciding before the mind knows about it. But is it really?
The experiment has been debunked, which actually is far from surprising. But what was surprising was the huge amount of noise that the claims against free will emerging from this type of experiment generated. To base the hefty issue of free will on experiments that measure neuronal activity when people move fingers to push a button should hardly count as decisive. Most of the choices we make in life are complex, multi-layered decisions that often take a long time."
- MARCELO GLEISER,
“DO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND NEUROSCIENCE DISPROVE FREE WILL?” AT BIG THINK (NOVEMBER 10, 2021)
@@ericv7720 💯
@@ericv7720 Scientific materialism also does not answer and off course it can't answer where the matter came from. Even the big bang theory is just an explanation of how it happened not where it came from or why it is. It has the same basic problem religion has, well then who created matter (or god), well other matter (god) and on and on and on and on.
At least with idealistic monism or similar ideas there is a presuposition of why things started, what was the starting point, what was the impetus. And consciousness is the best explanation as it exists outside of time and space as we understand it and is consistent with all of us existing within a timeless spaceless point of infinite energy or awareness that exists because rationally if something exists then nothing by definition cannot exist and can also be expressed mathematically and rationally as rationality is necessary for anything like this to actually exist as a substrate of existence.
I've read somewhere that more philosophers are materialists nowadays and I don't really understand why that is exactly. Can someone give me an answer I'm just curious about it. Aren't dreams completely unmaterial worlds that we often mestake for our „real“ world? That isn't proof this world is non-materialistic but at least we know a non-material world can exist and there is a possibility we won't be aware that it's a different world than the one we live in right? Also, when we think of something in our minds and we have phisical reactions like release of some hormons for example? I know that, when we imagine something there is brain activity that scientists can observe, but is it really the brain activity that makes our images in the brain appear, or is it the other way around? If the the imagination is the boss, that means idea „controls“ and changes matter and and if it's the other way around, that means matter is the boss. But I find it kind of weird that „dead“ matter is so organized when giving us these images in our head. Anyways I'm not a philosopher nor claim to be one so maybe there are good explanation for these phenomena from the materialists. As a science student, I can give philosophers just one advice, and that is to not treat scientific information as godly evidence. We make mistakes more than you think and because of that, sometimes 2 studies about the same thing come out with different conclusions. I've seen that in medicine way too many times.
If the brain is only reacting rather than causing, how is it that when people suffer brain damage it affects their consciousness?
There are many examples in neuroscience of people who have suffered small amounts of brain damage in specific areas which had a huge effect on their personality
@@randomguy4488 Neuropathology is not the only cause of personality changes; socio-environmental issues can also alter a personality. However, personality is not consciousness. They are different but quite distinct. A neurologist, Penfield, showed in his research of seizure disorders that when the operation in splitting the brain's corpus callosum, the seizures stopped, but there were no changes to the person's sense of self. If the materialists are correct, you would have a person with a split personality or two persons, but that doesn't happen with this procedure.
Moreover, in experiments, he showed that while some forms of memory and involuntary bodily movement could be elicited by stimulating specific brain areas, there were areas of higher intellectual order that could not be manipulated. He could not create involuntary acts of doing math and logic or make them do ethics. According to materialists, if the mind is equal to the brain, then it would be possible to manipulate one against their will to do these actions by simply stimulating specific areas of the brain. Penfield's research suggests that the higher intellect is transcendent to the brain. He started off his career as a hardcore materialist but ended as a substantial duelist.
@@randomguy4488 Your brain controls your physical body and how you interact with the world. You do not have a choice in this matter. A very commonly cited analogy is the piano player with the piano. If the piano is damaged, no matter what the piano player tries to do, the piano will not play as it used to and will, for all intents and purposes, be different. That is how I see things.
Nice pontificating
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. While dreams are not tangible in the way you can touch a rock, they are a direct result of the physical workings of your brain in the materialist worldview. A dream is a sort of like a hallucination that your body produces during your slumber. It is entirely a result of neurotransmitters, regions of your brain cooperating, hormones, etc etc. Dreams are thus not directly physical in the way a rock is, yet physical in that it entirely originates from physical processes. Same thing with thoughts, conceptions, and all things in our external world and our internal self (brain). To a materialist, all real things are physical in nature, and there exists no such thing as the immaterial.
Materialism cannot explain meaning and purpose (philosophically speaking) which are intrinsic features of a conscious mind. Their frame of reference is limited due to their reductionist world view. In the physical realm, they cannot explain the opposite phenomena called emergence of complex systems behavior.
The hard problem of consciousness, the measurement problem of quantum mechanics, and Kant's critique of pure reason are 3 pretty good reasons not accept the argument that scientific materialism explains reality or even it's basic foundations.
"Evolution grants capacities"?????????? One thing I have noticed about people who try to argue that there is a hard problem in the first place is that they assume some supernatural explanation from the beginning. (I use "supernatural" merely to indicate that it is other than material or natural) Organisms have capacities in their genetic diversity. This explains why the organisms that manifest those traits survive in an environment where that trait is an advantage, It also explains why, when the environment changes, they perish. There is no force, god or whatever, granting abilities ad hoc to its favored to ensure their survival. Materialism is the favored view simply because there is no viable alternative. Still, that is no reason to stop questioning. We don't know everything and probably never will. We can't explain the transparency of water by analyzing the molecular structure of water anymore than we can explain why higher lifeforms exhibit forms of consciousness but the fact that we don't know doesn't mean we do know that it is because of some occult supernatural whatever. At the moment it appears that it will have a material explanation if we ever solve it. All I know is that when I don't know the only thing I'm sure of is that I Don't Know.
Yet the fact is that science and scientists routinely squash any dissent against orthodoxy and it makes perfect sense since scientists are just petty humans trying to further their own goals or careers and are perfectly willing just like anyone else to sell out their principles.
Perhaps I have missed something, but no one even knows what consciousness is. So to take a position on either side of the debate is fallacious. Consciousness and thought might well be turn out to be entirely physically based - but until we can say with any confidence, surely a good old fashioned 'we don't know!' Is the right response.
Taking the position "no one even knows" is the same type of "fallacious" thing that you argue against. You dont know that nobody knows, unless you have the knowledge about what is in everyone´s head.
@@eklektikTubb No it isn't. We can say that no one *knows* all kinds of things - eg whether the Universe has a beginning, the state of matter in the core of a neutron star, or what time is. Some things might even be unknowable. The point is no one in any of the scientific / philosophical fields that seek to know what consciousness is has reached anything close to a consensus. Even if someone outside of those fields happened upon the answer, it wouldn't be 'knowledge' any more than if I pick the right numbers to the lottery. Epistemic knowledge has certain standards, and so we can say that no one knows what consciousness is.
@@andrewhorton481 Oh, so you meant "no one (that i know about) in any of the scientific / philosophical fields came to epistemic knowledge of it with some certain standards"? Ok, but that is not the same as literal "no one knows". And it is also begging the question: how do you know that those certain standards are the right standards that shoud have been held.
NB/ and even then it's not strictly accurate to say we 'know' something 100%. Science doesn't claim to know things, it just builds theories and models based on observations. After all, we could all be in The Matrix :-D
@@eklektikTubb I don't know they're the right standards. And like I said, some things might be unknowable. Our brains might simply not be able to comprehend some things. But all we can reasonably do is follow the evidence and adapt our understanding (and our standards) as we go. Our understanding of everything might change this year, or in 10,000 years, or not at all - who knows?! Also - to pick upon the literal sense of 'no one' in my original comment is another fallacy (reductio ad absurdum). Of course I can't see into everyone's minds. But the whole point of knowledge is that it can't just exist in someone's head - anyone can claim to know anything, but until that claim is shared and tested it's just a meaningless, unfalsifiable thought.
"Consciousness is inherently qualitative". From a first person perspective well duh but to truly understand something one must examine it from a third person perspective. If anything about consciousness is to truly be known then it should be through empirical third person means.
Consciousness is the only thing that isn't complex, it is that which simply exists but people can't rap their calculations around it. It's impossible, only a fool tries to make primary colors from mere shades of black and white. If the nature of it is like I say than it is, the foundation of all complexity and is therefore infinitely uncomplex. But if it is complex as you say it is, than it is infinitely so and is still impossible to dissect. Zero and infinitely are the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, they cannot be split in a way that equals anything less than themselves nor multiplied in a way that makes them more than themselves. They are the canvas of creation itself which are beyond all things because they contain all things.
@@jamesworley9888well put, you’re striking on the paradox of being and it’s name as God/the monad.
@@jamesworley9888 how much bullshit in just a few sentences
@@YgorTheBest The real BS is that everyone assumes by default that they live in base reality and they base science on this exact misconception, science by that definition is complete nonsense. There are so many things people experience that make an assumption like that incredibly naive and stupid, in fact an assumption like that with or without so-called evidence is ALWAYS stupid!!! The entire point of science is to discover possibilities not to draw absolute conclusions based on present data, that's a HUGE logical fallacy and anyone that is truly intellectual doesn't fall for that type of idiocy. If you're the kind of person that claims to be quote on quote ''allergic to woo woo stuff'' than that is coming from your own uncontrolled emotional beliefs.
A lot of the western beliefs about science aren't even accepted in the east so who in the hell are you to say scientists over there are any less intelligent than ones over here??? Even your western belief that hallucinations are connected to mental illness as well as arguments of what is deemed ''Evidence'' isn't universally accepted which renders any point you try and make against spiritual realities completely baseless.
At the end of the day materialism is nothing more than a philosophy, and is as much a leap of faith as anything.
And the proof against it isn't necessary as there are many different ways of viewing the same happenings but it all comes down to faith when all is really said and done. You can see God and still not believe.
And if that third person is not conscious, how can they study it?
It’s interesting the more I learn about this. I’m able to relate it to a conflict within myself on the debate between free will and determinism. I’ve positioned free will as idealistic and determinism as materialist. If determinism was absolute, then we could predict everything, but there’s still random phenomenon. That doesn’t mean that free will is absolute or that the crown should be given to idealism. What it is is a blend. Determinism dominant, but with some free will that can change things in an opposite direction that is unpredictable. dialectics solves this. dialectical materialism says that materialism is first, but not the end, that ideas do still matter. Not just mechanical materialism. I’m a dialectical materialist.
Correct me if I misread, but dialectical materialism rejects the notion of randomness in favor of chaos theory, no?
I am pretty confident that brains cause consciousness - no brain, no consciousness. Exactly how or why that happens, I do not know. We may never know, but I am hopeful. Why is it that major physical changes or injuries to the brain have such a huge effect on consciousness, if consciousness is not a direct result of activity in the brain?
because the brain feeds it information, and because the brain controls the nerves and thereby movement
@@KamikazethecatIIWhat exactly is "it?"
@@matthewalan59 in my view a rational soul as described by Plato, but I meant to keep it neutral wrt what consciousness is besides being distinct from brain activity.
@@KamikazethecatII A few question for you:
1. Does an earthworm have a soul?
2. Does a dog have a soul?
3. Is a dog conscious?
4. My friend David was a superlative mathematician. After a heart attack he woke up without the ability to understand arithmetic. He cannot count and simply lacks any understanding of numbers. He retains enough intelligence to understand the irony of the situation. Why would an injury to the brain cause the rational soul to lose the ability to count and add numbers like two and three?
FYI here are my answers. Souls do not exist so earthworms and dogs do not have souls. Dogs are conscious. Being able to do arithmetic is a function of a properly functioning physical brain. Damage the brain and that function may cease to work.
@matthewalan59 1. yes, but in a lower stage of spiritual development relative to a human, with a position in the hierarchy of being suitable to it.
2. same as 1
3. yes
4. You shouldn't think of the soul and brain as two distinct substances lying side-by-side. They are distinct, and the soul is prior to the body, but when embodied they form an integrated functional unit. I don't know the exact details of your friend's condition, but organic cognition involves bidirectional relationship between body, most importantly the brain, and soul. His rational soul hasn't lost any abilities, without more details the best I can offer in way of an explanation is his meat computer broke and now he can't compute. I don't find any of this sort of neurological evidence very compelling. We've known that the brain plays a crucial role in cognition at least since Galen.
Can you please edit the settings so the video language is english and the auto-subtitles are appropriate ? I would like to be able to understand them please !
It seems obvious that we are headed to a theory that has consciousness as fundamental, even if just as a potential. Either the entire unified quantum field is made of Consciousness as Bernardo Kastrup claims or Consciousness as we know emerges from the unified field when the right conditions are met. The galaxy of Andromeda and a cat may be different (in nature) just because the cat actualized Consciousness that has always been there as a potential.
There is nothing that isn't consciousness, but most of the consciousness is unaccusable at our currant level of development. No'one is going to levitate a book 12 feet in the air upon a day of practice.
But the second explanation doesn't explain what started the field that manifested the consciousness, while the first one does. Consciousness as far as we understand it exists within us in a space that is not bound by time and space but has thrusted those limitations upon itself so that it could experience itself.
It is inopportune to say that 'matter' alone is the foundation of materialism, as matter, under its current conception, is simply a physicist's notion for understanding what he sees under his microscope. "Matter" for people who are not physicists is rather the immutable 'terms and conditions' they must follow in order to be accepted into the fold of the experience rich world of real living human beings. The material world isn't a faceless, nameless string of particles that humans only represent through numbers, matter is the relationships of matter and the forms of being that those relationships help create. Particularly, human beings as material beings are the primary recipient of these relations of matter and the main form of being that they help create. For people, before they arrive at any particular form of qualia, in their subjective experiences, they must first exist objectively. You first need to eat the ice cream before you can taste it, even if the tongue precedes the stomach. Because the mother who bought the ice cream, the salesman who sold it to her, the cow the milk came from, the machine that extracted it and the engineer who designed it, all precede the child who eats the final product.
The qualia of experience, although maintained through subjective experience, is irreducible to it. Every connoisseur of ice cream, appreciates both the scoop he tastes and the hand that scooped it. True qualia is the sum total of the world, not just the part the individual happens to stumble upon, let alone only one of his senses manages to capture. No individual is born into this world with a palette, no sommelier is born as a sommelier. The tongue is there not to "readily experience the world", but for the world to leave its mark on it, as it leaves a mark on you. The five sense are inseparable complex that exist as one on behalf of the particular form of life called the human being. Moreover, every form of life is simultaneously a way of life and the function of tasting is a function of a species that has learned to enjoy food for more than just survival or nourishment. The tongue of a human is no instrument for tasting without it being made so through evolution.
Curious what yall think about "The Idealist Inference Argument for Immaterialism" video on YT? I think mental substance is fundamental. ❤
Maybe stop distinguishing between qualia and quanta.
Which would also demolish the barrier between physical and metaphysical.
Several scientists have recently published books on how consciousness can be explained with materialism. It’ll only be a matter of time.
It is called Promisley Materialism
Like "I don't know anything yet but I promise you,we'll find it"
My reply to this is: So till then STFU
Advaita Vedanta is a philosophy which explains consciousness very well
& it says Science will not ever be able to find consciousness cuz it is not a materialistic phenomenon
World exist because of your consciousness & not vice versa
Lmao the eternal promiseland that will never happen.
Explaining consciousness with materialism is a categorical mistake
@Anon Ymous Don’t be passive aggressive
@@adarshsatam4462 Theory already exists and is coherent with evoolution, read Chumin Conchillos and Patrick Tort to no longer be an ignorant.
There is a guy named R. Descarte that my have said something similar about "reason"...
The biggest fool is the one who thinks he knows it all.”
The anti-spandrel argument comflates importance to us with importance to natural forces like natural selection. Religion is an important force in many people's lives, and yet, some people get on fine without it altogether. Importance to me does not entail importance simpliciter. We should be careful not to elevate human priorities to an objective assessment of import. From the perspective of the universe, consciousness, intelligence, and life itself, may be no more consequential than a virtual particle randomly popping into and out of existence.
The ideas that arise from materialistic ideals can be measured and to a degree verified by predictions. There are limits to science, there are constraints so descriptions of nature made my scientists are ALWAYS described as "the best idea on this topic but subject to change as more research is done". In philosophy it seems the metaphysician argues an idea to be true USING cherry picked ideas from science and creating a narrative that is not subject to experimentation. Hence, metaphysicians play in the worlds where ideas cannot really be tested and falsified. Even in this video the narrator uses "consciousness" to undermine materialistic ideas. Consciousness is such a complex and incompletely understood phenomenon it would be virtually impossible to falsify any of his arguments. His arguments are largely based on intuition, which cannot be tested. Hence, I find his argument essentially empty. I absolutely agree there are limits to science. I don't think philosophical musing prove anything about the natural world if only based on the discussion and arguments of philosophers sitting in a room and talking.
Consciousness is the only thing that isn't complex, it is that which simply exists but people can't rap their calculations around it. It's impossible, only a fool tries to make primary colors from mere shades of black and white. If the nature of it is like I say than it is, the foundation of all complexity and is therefore infinitely uncomplex. But if it is complex as you say it is, than it is infinitely so and is still impossible to dissect. Zero and infinitely are the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, they cannot be split in a way that equals anything less than themselves nor multiplied in a way that makes them more than themselves. They are the canvas of creation itself which are beyond all things because they contain all things.
All the lexical family of spirits, consciousness, soul matters, humanity- are physical layers of the lengt beyond our physical grasp. Leaving an effect on us- that is translated into a valid impression. And that is the approximatiom by reducing the rigor to our level. There we have a perfect circle or a genuine experience. Which is merely a mistake. If we look closer to a screen even the circle has square pixels. The same with our eyes and everything we examine. There is no escape. Everything is dead. Including us. Yet we need to understand that life goes on. Therefore if all is dead, then death does not exist in contrast to life. Everything is alive. We are just mad and invested into circular stories.
All these arguments are based on the premesis that consciousness is non quantifiable. Just because a system is too complex for us to understand, doesnt mean it can't be quantified. We're just slightly smarter than the plants and animals around us, but somehow human consciousness is the one that defines it. Everything is consciousness.
"Just because a system is too complex for us to understand, doesn't mean it can't be quantified."
We would have found a way to quantify at least some of it by now, given the massive advances we have made technologically. We have not. Tens of thousands of papers have been written on this subject, yet no consensus has been reached in the slightest. There is a reason for that.
"We're just slightly smarter than the plants and animals around us..."
I think that is vastly oversimplifying things. You know as well as I do that despite humanity's shortcomings, we are great anomalies in this universe.
@@BabyBugBug I don't believe we are anomalies. I believe we greatly overate our importance. We've been in existence for essentially no time on the cosmic scale, we've been at higher intelligence for a fraction of that, and these great technologies are not even an instance at this point. We're still only seeing the universe from our limited human perspective.
Consciousness is the only thing that isn't complex, it is that which simply exists but people can't rap their calculations around it. It's impossible, only a fool tries to make primary colors from mere shades of black and white. If the nature of it is like I say than it is, the foundation of all complexity and is therefore infinitely uncomplex. But if it is complex as you say it is, than it is infinitely so and is still impossible to dissect. Zero and infinitely are the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, they cannot be split in a way that equals anything less than themselves nor multiplied in a way that makes them more than themselves. They are the canvas of creation itself which are beyond all things because they contain all things.
True, but consciousness itself can be quantifiable as for existence to exist then the thing enabling existence has to have a set of rules, rules that by definition need to be rational otherwise the entire thing collapses in on itself.
people don't say "it is complex" people are saying consciousness can't be reduced to electrons buzzing around your neurons. it is simple as that. reductionist materialism is lacking. it is great while doing engineering medicine and things like that though.
I know nothing on consciousness. But even if evolution can't explain it, doesn't mean it didn't come on naturally. Science is always making new discoveries. So who knows what we'll find out in the future.
By definition anything that happens in the universe is natural. But we're talking about the underlying substrate that started it all and this is something scientific materialism cannot answer as it operates solely within the parameters thrust upon it by the way the universe works. It cannot explain how this universe came to be.
A character inside a game cannot by observing the game world understand how the game world was created.
It seems to me that scientific materialism is forced to assume absolute determinism, and that by assuming that determinism is absolute, its proponents should be left with nothing they can say. At least, we should tell them their arguments are futile, sound and fury signifying nothing.
"It seems to me that scientific materialism is forced to assume absolute determinism, and that by assuming that determinism is absolute, its proponents should be left with nothing they can say. At least, we should tell them their arguments are futile, sound and fury signifying nothing."
Why should the material world be any more deterministic than any other kind of world? What is there that you know about some other world/state of existence that shows IT to be non-deterministic...other, that is, than by sheer assertion. IOW sure, we can see, measure, touch, assess, track and count/weigh/measure the material world. We can see things happen because of other things happening. So it's easy to assume everything in the material world is deterministic...and perhaps it is. But what is this 'other' world that one might imagine that ISN'T material/physical/natural and what can we say with certainty about IT? Why would IT somehow, unexplored as it is, provide some mechanism, means of working, way of interacting that isn't deterministic?
It's not so much that I favor a materialistic/physical/natural view of things and maybe there is another world. But all that does is push the issue up and away from exploration such that it is only by assertion and...faith...that we assume IT provides for what...free will? non determinism.
@@rizdekd3912 The discussion is not about materialism, it is about scientific materialism. In scientific materialism, we are to assume that strict physical laws control everything. If once we could find anything that did not obey this paradigm, we could find a lacuna through which we might reach a non-physical reality. Science frowns on this possibility.
The statement you highlight simply notes that these assumptions of science may be true, but if they are true, they inundate all comments that the scientists might make, for those possible statements are not based on reason or logical argument.
@@JackPullen-Paradox "scientific materialism is forced to assume absolute determinism" People make assumptions, worldviews don't make assumptions. A person...a scientist, may adopt an operational 'scientific materialism' mindset when doing science. What else would you have scientists do. But that doesn't mean the person himself has to be a strict scientific materialist all the time...in other parts of his life. Why do you want to focus on scientific materialism?
What do you see as the alternative to doing science assuming scientific materialism?
@@rizdekd3912 Agreed. I think that we may want to look around for a more inclusive theoretical structure. This may take some time to develop.
I focus on scientific materialism because it is used as the hammer to destroy everything that is not mundane and humanly meaningless. Its hammer attacks consciousness, free will, spirituality, morality, and meaning.
@@rizdekd3912 It is not true that only individuals do this or that. There is a group dynamic that can create or impose a worldview that the individual will find difficult to diverge from. What I think we are seeing in science is the people at the top of their professions becoming incapable of challenging the dogmas and stating their personal interpretations of the world while remaining viable in the community.
I would make the assumptions as explicit as possible and update them as needed. Now the problem is, science, or anything else, is a group endeavor. But to participate in it, you do not need to accept all of its dogma or assumptions--you see how science and other endeavors are more than the individual? Anyway, I suppose you need brave people at the top who are willing to shake things up from time to time. Perhaps there is no other way.
1: Formal thought processes can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content.
However,
2: Nothing material can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content.
So,
3: Formal thought processes are not material.
formal thought processes are merely tools that humans use to organize reality. you wouldn't have any thoughts if there wasn't stuff to think about.
I find this confused idea of consciousness strange. Consciousness is not a physical property it is a simulated property. Reliance on Bernardo is a mistake since he adheres to belief in spirit.
Consciousness itself is spirit. It is spirit that creates within it parameters to shackle itself and experience itself in a way it cannot do when boundless, timeless and limitless. Imposing limitations on yourself to see what you can do and improve yourself is emminently rational.
Boson vs fermion is a non-quantitative physical property…
if the brain perceives things with awareness (learning from its experiences, having memory, differentiating chemical compositions of food (taste), differentiating photons wavelength to perceive objects more clearly (colours)), i dont see why its immaterial. Like when someone tells me "but how do you explain that im actually consciously experiencing things, seeing them, smelling..." all i see is a brain describing its experiences with a language it learned. Nothing immaterial. What consciousness means is that we actually exist, not that there is something immaterial.
When you have a thought of a unicorn can I open your brain and see a unicorn?
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf you technically could see it if you connected axons from the part of my brain were my thought is ouputed to my visual cortex (when i visualise it in my head) to your visual cortex
@@jaxmc1912 1: Formal thought processes can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content.
However,
2: Nothing material can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content.
So,
3: Formal thought processes are not material.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf what do you mean by that? thoughts are part of our reasonning. Thoughts are not to be interpreted, they are part of the complex interpretation of the human brain. they help the human being make logical decisions.
@@jaxmc1912 if you picture a red dot right now in your mind does it exist? Can you experience redness?
Nice drawings but invalid reasoning. You are unable to explain the qualia of the color blue and feel it is non-physical, because you are immersed within the system that produces this qualia. The brain generates the reality that is experienced. You who experience the qualia have no access to the underlying processes, which is what makes it subjective. "You" do not exist or experience apart from brain states. You ARE brain states - and you are part and parcel of the entire process of perception - an unwitting, immersed, part of the process. So of course it seems mysterious, magical, and non-physcial. There is little doubt that physical mechanisms inherent in neural processing are responsible for qualia. It has been demonstrated that qualia are generated by electrical stimulation of the cortex which we know activates neural ensembles. The electrical behavior of neurons is necessary and sufficient to generate qualia and can accordingly be recognized as their cause. In principle it is possible to understand how the color blue is encoded in neural activity and presented to our frontal cortex. There is no reason to assume that this process is in any way non-physical in nature. Everything we feel, think and experience consists of neural processes. When these processes stop, you can legally be pronounced dead. If you believe there is something non-physical at play, then you own the entire burden of proof. As for evolution: To assume that qualia had no evolutionary purpose is a bald assertion. A primate needs to differentiate edible vs poisonous fruit.That differentiation can occur because of the impact of the particular qualia tied to each respective fruit. Thus, a more "vibrant" visual impact can allow for better perceptual discernment. Since a qualia of a particular color and vibrancy may promote eating, it is false to claim that qualia cannot produce action in the physical world. We react to the qualia that we experience. One part of the brain can physically affect another. That is why actors are able to willingly engender real emotions and make themselves cry. The brain is a physical system with no demonstrable tie to notions such as Substance Dualism, Platonism, or any such ghosts in the machine. Get over it, and marvel at what wonders can be performed by a physical, neural system sculpted by evolution. It is more intriguing and awe inspiring than every incoherent, non-physical speculation that has been trotted out over time. For a recapitulation of most of the above, by a philosopher, see this UA-cam vid: John Searle - Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism?
There's so many assumptions you make.
Humor me here but lets say the brain a one part of a duo, like an antenna and a radio and you knew nothing of these thingsa and you had a radio. Then you started tinkering with the radio, taking a part out here, shocking a bit there and seeing how it worked it would appear as if the radio was producing the sound since toying with it changed the sound. But it didn't change the underlying wave it merely changed the sound. If the radio breaks then there is no sound. There's nothing to receive the wave.
Understood, but we can demonstrate the role of an antenna and we can demonstrate radio waves. You perhaps want to speculate, without any evidence, that the brain is "receiving" something immaterial. As I said above, you own the entire burden of proof. Methodological naturalism that is the heart of the scientific method does not state that something outside the brain could not possibly contribute to consciousness. The scientific method simply requires evidence, and the weight of evidence does not support this notion in the slightest. If one then makes the bald assertion that there is a basis for the immaterial in our consciousness, well, that is religion, not science. @@Butmunch666
@@protonman8947 Actually the burden of evidence is on you too. Scientific materialism claims that all we know is a part of this world and is a consequence of the physical processes occuring within it.Yet it shies away from the same problem that religions have, it can't explain why its here, what it is and how it became what it is. Its the exact same argument yet science shits on the God explanation while their retort is...but the Big Bang...thats not an explanation of why, thats an explanation of how.
It's like the placebo effect, you can explain what it is, but no one knows why it happens, it just does. Some mind over matter crap, which clearly can't have anything to do with consciousness since we all know that we're all just material beings. It's such a circular argument.
The biggest problem is that at least he religious people have some kind of salvation, you have nothing.
@@protonman8947
You've articulated this subject remarkably.
Thanks.
@@nrm55 Thank you.
Try making an observation without awareness..... without the tool of awareness of the self and awareness of what is being observed.
At this point with all the evidence for Concsciousness as being fundamental and spacetime emergent, Dawkins should be having fits. 🤣
"Materialism is untenable for several reasons. One of them is the internal contradiction: it defines matter as something that is independent and alien to consciousness and has no inherent qualities, and then it tries to explain the qualities of experience in terms of something that was defined as having nothing to do with experience. And that failed to do that and then we wonder why it failed." Bernardo Kastrup.
If you are interested I can explain how consciousness is not what you say. I don't see you responding to anything here so I don't want to waste my time writing something you will never read.
"Materialism is a worldview according to which nothing exists except matter: measurable, reproducible, subject to the laws of physics. Materialists view consciousness, will, dreams, and all mental-psychological phenomena as reducible to material events (e.g. neurons firing and the presence of hormones)." This is not correct. And your argument, based on qualia, also misses the way this is incorrect. The correct way to state this would be, "Materialism is a worldview according to which nothing exists except matter: measurable, reproducible, subject to the laws of physics. Materialists view consciousness, will, dreams, and all mental-psychological phenomena as reducible to material events, all of which are in-turn GOVERNED by PHYSICAL LAWS, which themselves have no physical existence." Materialism emerges from the functioning of non-material laws. Materialism itself is fundamentally derived from the non-material. It is true that nothing exists except matter. But this ignores the fact that there are physical laws, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the speed of light is a maximum, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, etc., that have no material properties, and yet are everywhere and in all times present and determining. The materialist simply chooses to ignore this when thinking about consciousness.
We know that is not true. If there were no matter, we would still have spacetime, right? Quantum mechanics claims there would be virtual particles popping in and disappearing all over the place. They are not quite matter. But the minor point is that there is more to the world than matter. The larger point is, there seems an almost metaphysical quantum world undergirding the material world. Fantastic things happen that violate normal logic in some cases.
Wow that is a great way of phrasing it. Materialism defeats itself through its own definition. Marvelous.
I'm saving this. :D
any quotes along your thoughts u csn share
The idea that materialism is the answer to everything makes me not want to live!!! I watched Esoterica's video on the Origin of Yahweh and it felt like a part of me died!!! The notion that God is all things and is in all things is ESENTIAL to my well being, and a world where truth is without spirit is a world I am not willing to fight to live in. There is something very wrong about letting surface level logic ''false intellect'' dictate how you should live your life.
Don't let it bog you down. Esoterica is an edgy pagan atheist who uses his deep knowledge of the occult as a shield those who would criticize him for reasons like you just did. He doesn't understand Christianity. Just read the FAQ on his website. How can someone understand the origins of Yaweh but ignore the thousands of years of history and interconnectedness afterwards?
@@strivingcobra I believe in true esoteric knowledge, the occult was never meant to be taken Atheistically, it's a long line of spiritual traditions passed down from generation to generation. One should stand by God regardless of whether the Bible is a metaphor or not.
@@strivingcobra He is unfit to be called "Esoterica'' anyway because atheism is the exact opposite of esoteric, it is carnal, selfish, and literalist. Basically what Atheism is is dead fruitless philosophy, and works of the flesh!!!! It isn't at all that we aren't saved by works but if ones works are of the world they are dead. Your works you preform through the indwelling spirit on the other hand are a natural part of what makes you ''reborn''!!! Your passion for the creator does those works through you rather than you doing them just because you think you should.
Why not think of The Source as the universal energy or life force or whatever words you choose?
Why can't the power that creates everything be enough?
Does it need to be supernatural instead of natural to be adequate?
@@nrm55 Because God is what it is, no supernatural label necessary to call it God because what you call ''supernatural'' is just a purer form of that which is already natural, and it's as simple as that, it's not a matter of ''why can't this that or the third be enough''.
I have single handed experience with it, but I've learned that converting anyone to a certain way of thinking isn't right. It doesn't work anyway because the nature of God works in opposition to the human ego, the very thing that makes you try and prove something out of arrogance and pride removes you from its grace because that isn't how any of this works. The creator is only concerned with those who care about divine law it doesn't want you to believe in something to be saved from some nonsensical condemnation.
It's not like I believe in some magic man in the sky, and he'll punish people for not knowing he exists. I believe that one's desire to prove Gods existence in an egoic way rather than letting a person become receptive to its existence on their own is a form of blasphemy and God will distance itself from people with such an attitude. The separation of God realization from the person through ego in and of itself is the punishment. But God doesn't punish us, the fire of arrogance and pride does that. As for the ''eternal'' part, in Hebrew thought this word simply meant a far distance off beyond the horizon that no'one can see. In other words, your lack of humility will keep you in this state for as long as you can imagine, but probably not forever in the truest sense.
With that being said though the closest thing I can make to a solid argument for Gods existence PUN INTENDED, is that the evolutionary will to survive makes no sense. It would make more logical sense that if we wanted to live in the most ideal way with no problems at all in life, ''life'' shouldn't even be part of the equation at all because we should just be a rock on the ground that does absolutely nothing. It doesn't need to breed because it's eternal and doesn't need to eat or drink because that pesky thing called ''life'' doesn't get in the way, and it has no predators at all, it just sets around for billions of years until the Earth heads back into the Sun.
I could ask you an equally ridiculous question and say, why did natures laws arrive at us being alive??? Isn't being a rock enough? And the answer is that's just how it is, and in some sense of the term our higher mind and collective consciousness manifested through the seemingly non-living source of existence is what God is anyway, that's why the Bible says the word became ''flesh''.
So you tell me sir, why are we living breathing beings instead of star dust?
I think consciousness is quantifiable- aren't there some biochimical and neurologicalprocesses behind it? Doesn't that make it "material", tangible enough? Like Collin said in a comment below, I'm an average Joe and definitely open to debate
It's really never been proven exactly where it comes from in the brain, it seems as if direct expeirnece concious sensation can be flipped on and off tinkering with certisn aspects of the brsin. Science has yet to prove exactly.how its generated though
Correlation is not causation
Just because there are correlations between THE CONTENT of consciousness (i.e. what is being observed within the mind) and brain chemistry does not infer that consciousness itself is reducible to those processes
If I hit someone in the head with a rock their conciousness is gonna change, which proves mateiralism
Disclaimer:I'm an average Joe so I don't claim to know what I'm talking about, just seeking truth...
I didn't understand the point with humans developing consciousness for survival. Is that just a relatable example? All biology seems to be aware just in different capacities...
This seems to be the argument I can deduce:
Does a living vessel receive something that was already there?
OR
Does physics in certain conditions produce complex organisms that are aware, and that consciousness stops when the organism dies?
Also, how do we know consciousness has no physical component/s to it just because it hasn't yet been broken down/mapped using a scientific model? Isnt that like saying there's no more to discover because it hasn't been discovered yet? If that logic was applied I would not have this phone I'm watching your video on...
Thanks for the video!!!
Hi! Thanks for the question! :) The argument about consciousness evolving to enhance survival was not a mere example to illustrate a greater point. It's an actual argument some materialists posit to explain its existence in biological terms. The idea (at least in one of the argument's formulations) is that, to the extent that a being possesses awareness (in this case interchangeable with consciousness), it is more capable of making "flexible decisions".
Here's a resource that goes through an overview of the topic in a little bit more detail: www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01537/full.
Maybe I failed to properly understand your question. I guess I would ask you, how does the fact that -as you said- "all biology seems to be aware just in different capacities" invalidate the biological explanation of consciousness in question?
As regards to your second question. I wasn't claiming that we absolutely know that consciousness doesn't have any physical components. What I was claiming was, that in order to defend the materialist-evolutionary explanation of consciousness, you have to adopt that assumption. Otherwise, you wouldn't be a materialist (since consciousness not having any physical components would imply that there is something beyond matter).
I hope I'm explaining myself clearly. These topics are quite complex and at times I find it difficult to articulate my thoughts on them.
Again, thanks for the intelligent questions!
@@epistemicmind4175 i appreciate the message back! I've taken a leap of faith lately and meditated on it, I've come away with a whole new attitude. It just was a lot to chew and swallow that consciousness is more than what it appeared to me as at that moment. I will read over your answer though and click the link. Thanks so much for getting back to me! 🙏
@@1roomof21 My pleasure!
I think the problem is presenting this hypothesis as the true one, when in fact it is the most supported, falsifiable and unsuccessfully contrasted. That means that it is the hypothesis that makes the most sense to defend and on which to rely
when the student is ready the teacher will appear
"Consciousness has no physical component to it" Who ever made this claim? I disagree. You can not have consciousness without a brain. How can anyone claim consciousness has no function? The central premises in this video appear to me to be entirely without foundation.
So you say. While there's no hard scientific evidence and is entirely philosophical. Personal experience of some people would suggest otherwise.
I disagree with you,
"you can not have conciosness without a brain"
Wrong, what you're thinking is Eliminative Materialism. And it's fallible.
@@UN1VERS3S There is not a fraction of an atom of evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain. There is nothing more to debate.
@JEpronuke Yes, you are right, but I derive a weird sort of ghoulish fascination when I see how stupid and self-delusional some people can be.
There is a video on UA-cam about a well-known psychologist whose name escapes me who talks about a chimpanzee who had the visual cortex removed. This chimpanzee could still see in effect, but had clearly did not have the experience of seeing--something like hysterical blindness. So, it is not so clear what we need to experience consciousness, for this chimpanzee apparently needed the visual cortex to be conscious of her visual experiences on the one hand; yet could actually see without the visual cortex on the other.
I don't think anyone considers the visual cortex a seat of consciousness, but perhaps it feeds into something that is. It may be one of the "sense organs" of the consciousness, which may reside in the brain or not. If in the brain, it may be of another character that mundane physical processes. The fact is, we are only guessing. The answer may be found by studying the brain, the mind, or physics itself.
So your answer is...
ua-cam.com/video/AhAzJwTN1ZE/v-deo.htmlsi=91qvUyc4jE8B2Jqa
the existence of god perceived by the intuition it's an innate knowledge
...of stupid people
Nonsense.
The axiom you claim is an axiom is nonexistent. The rest of your essay is incoherent, fallacious and of no merit.
hegel and engles are rolling in their grave
What do they have to do? Arent they in the political spectrum?
LOL? hegel and engles have diametrically distinct perspectives wtf are you even talking about???
@@purpose6113How is Hegel in the political spectrum?
(I do not think you meant political philosophy)
At least Hegel and Engles don't need a materialist brain to be conscious!
could be this or could be that, might be this or that...this is how Physicalism defends it self
Not a Materialist, but that last argument by Kastrup is just dumb.
This doesn't make any sense, the entire reasoning falls apart from the moment they say consciousness can't produce quantifiable results. That's demonstrably false.
The common issue that people struggle to grapple with is that the evidence seems to point to everything is a set of motions that initiated at the big bang and the "control" that we feel we have isnt real. Consciousness is actually just like "us" watching a movie of our lives. There are very complicated factors that go into why you do what you do. We even see this with some tests that have been done were in short participates brain waves are being monitored and they are told to raise either hand whenever they want, there is a clock in front of them. They are told to remember the time you finally "decided" which hand an actually went ahead and did it. What we found is that there is a spike in brain activity right before the participates "decide" to life their hand and we can pretty accurately with this data predict when someone is about to raise their hand before they are consciously aware. This seems to suggest that our subconscious is really running the show here.
So in conclusion while its a bleak and dark seeming reality that maybe we have no control this doesnt justify us doing terrible things and this doesnt mean life is meaningless. Enjoy the ride and do what you think is right to do. Figure out ways to get that dopamine release in your brain and be honored to get to exist and watch this film in first person because its really cool whats happening right now.
Who is watching the movie?
But tell me this, what actually is the Big Bang? Where did the energy for it come from? Where did the matter come from? Why?
The Big Bang is not an explanation of why, it is an explanation of how. So it doesn't explain anything. It's just like saying God did it. Ok then who made God? It has the same basic issue that is unsolvable by scientific materialism because you cannot solve a question like that while living inside the universe. WHY DID THE BIG BANG HAPPEN? Big Bang is just an explanation of how.
We know the placebo effect exists, we've proved it, so why does it happen? What are the underlying mechanisms? No one knows and you can't within a materialistic viewpoint.
the problem of saying that consciousness is the result of evolution is that a biological organism cannot survive without consciousness. I can buy that consciousness evolves as we humans evolve, however, the question remains of what is the origin of that first instance of consciousness? and the fact to the matter is you cannot answer that question through a materialistic point of view because if consciousness is material then that first instance of material consciousness basically created itself which is materialistically impossible
we have answered this question of where does this first instance of consciousness comes from, through Ontological Mathematics; soon more people will know where we come from
Plants arent conscious and yet they survive
@@Pinterong of course plants are conscious, anything that is born, grows and dies possesses consciousness; that's part of how we define consciousness... that is not to say that they have the level of awareness about their surroundings as we humans.
just think about how a tree can heal its wounds and perform photosynthesis, some plants like Mimosa tenuiflora and carnivorous plants can even move. you cannot explain how billion of cells which have their own energy storage and in theory live on their own can agree and synchronise to be able to perform such complicated processes; only a higher intelligence which we call consciousness could do that
@@neyson220293 if everything that lives is conscious then doesn't that prove materialism, for example rocks aren't conscious, soil isn't, only things containing biochemical compounds result in consciousness
@@neyson220293 also that's just called homeostasis, have you taken a biology course?
@@Pinterong You see, consciousness is what gives life to those biochemicals... biochemicals on their own without a consciousness that can make use of them are just empty chemicals; a car without a driver, a plane without a pilot, a bike without a biker. all that you are proving is that you need complicated chemicals as the building block of complicated structures/organisms; big deal! Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulphur and Phosphorus just happen to be the most available chemicals in the biosphere so it is only logical that such chemicals would be used as building blocks; you're still not explaining what is it that gives life to such structure. you might argue that homeostasis gives life to these structures, but then again, what is it that makes the structure want to be in a state of homeostasis in the first place? I can assure you that whatever your next argument is, will ultimately fall into an infinite regress because consciousness just cannot be explained in terms of matter
the fact to the matter (no pun intended) is that Ontological Mathematics has managed to explain consciousness, mathematically and logically, without mysticism by solving the infinite regress issue. if you want to know more about it check Joseph E Postma youtube channel www.youtube.com/@OntologicalMathematics/videos or read the God series by Mike Hockney
Relevant: 72 - Consciousness and Mechanism ua-cam.com/video/1qTAYIV8FLo/v-deo.html