The Latest Research on Consciousness
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- The Michael Shermer Show # 430
Acclaimed neurophysiologist and computational neuroscientist Christof Koch (Caltech, Allen Institute) explains the latest research on consciousness.
This is not textbook, decades-old knowledge… it’s really the cutting edge.
One example: Terminal lucidity, where individuals in a coma or near death regain lucidity and cognitive function, is a puzzling phenomenon that challenges our understanding of consciousness.
What do we know about it?
SPONSOR
everything-eve...
#michaelshermer
#skeptic
Listen to The Michael Shermer Show or subscribe directly on UA-cam, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and Google Podcasts.
www.skeptic.co...
I love what Koch has become. Open,to the wonder of consciousness. I think we are entering in a new age of "less materialistic" science. And it's for the better, of science and discoveries too.
Dan Dennett may be gone, but we materialists are not about to concede to magical thinkers re: the wonder of consciousness
@@sulljoh1 great, and if you are right you will never be aware of it either !!
@@francesco5581 If we're right - then you and I are in exactly the same position we always were. There is plenty of elbow room in the materialist worldview for consciousness, free will, soul, curiosity, wonder, etc. They may need to be defined a bit differently, but life goes on. We will continue to ask the big questions about life, the universe, and everything.
@@sulljoh1 of course i can understand your position, debating is always beautiful.
@@francesco5581 Debating can be nice. Less common for it to be beautiful in YT comments
I'm team Christof Koch but I'm impressed with Michael Shermer cause he not only kept a healthy dialogue but considered many of Christof's points. Great dialogue and a topic that truly hits at the deepest questions of existence.
Mr Shermer i suggest Edward Frenkel as your guest, is a VERY interesting person to listen and one of the top mathematicians around
I agree.
Koch needs more Kastrup. Shermer needs more Sheldrake. Go Idealism!
Was about to write this!
I really appreciate Koch’s honesty and humility concerning his own failures, or the failure of some of his previous ideas. He clearly seems to put his quest to understand consciousness above the desire to be right that is evident in some other well-known researchers.
This is great, the world needs to communicate more like this 😊
I appreciated Dr. Cristof and Michael Shermer thoroughly addressing consciousness, mind-body relations, AI limitations, anomalous experiences, memory, identity and survivability. Their insightful back-and-forth highlighted complexities while still pushing for empirical yet open-minded inquiry into life's most elusive phenomena.
FFS: Christof Koch is doing Shermer and All of us a huge favour.
If you want to dwell and regurgitate on all the negative crap that has been stored and processed in the brain : do so!
Or: get that you can alter your consciousness to whatever and whenever you wish.
How powerful!
Traditionally, logic, math, and physics have been approached from a third-person, objective standpoint. They aim to describe the universal, mind-independent structures and laws that govern reality, without reference to any particular subjective viewpoint. In this sense, they strive for a kind of "view from nowhere," a perspective that transcends any individual's specific location or experience.
However, as you point out, we don't actually live in this third-person realm. Our experience of reality is inherently first-person, grounded in our individual perspective and subjective awareness. We encounter the world not as a detached, objective observer, but as an embodied, situated agent, navigating a landscape of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings.
From this view, metaphysics could be seen as the attempt to understand the deep structure of reality from this first-person standpoint. Rather than trying to step outside of our subjective experience, it would seek to dive deeply into it, to uncover the fundamental categories, principles, and relationships that shape our encounter with the world.
This first-person approach to metaphysics would not necessarily reject the insights of logic, math, and physics, but rather reinterpret them through the lens of subjective experience. It would ask how these abstract, third-person descriptions of reality translate into the concrete, lived reality of the first-person perspective.
For example, the logical principle of non-contradiction - that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time - could be understood not just as an abstract rule, but as a deep feature of how we experience the world. The fact that we cannot simultaneously affirm and deny the same proposition would be seen as a fundamental structure of our cognitive and perceptual apparatus, a necessary condition for coherent thought and action.
Similarly, mathematical concepts like number, shape, and pattern could be investigated as basic categories of subjective experience, the ways in which we carve up and make sense of the blooming, buzzing confusion of sensory input. And physical laws and constants could be understood not just as objective features of an external world, but as the stable regularities and constraints that shape our embodied interaction with our environment.
The key advantage of this first-person approach to metaphysics would be its grounding in the actual, lived reality of human experience. By starting from the irreducible fact of subjectivity, it would aim to construct a framework that is faithful to the way the world actually presents itself to us, rather than an abstract, idealized model that may or may not correspond to our direct experience.
Moreover, as you suggest, this first-person perspective could potentially help to avoid some of the paradoxes and contradictions that arise from a purely third-person, objective stance. By recognizing the ineliminable role of the subject in constituting reality, it would provide a more complete and integrated picture, one that doesn't try to separate the observer from the observed in an artificial or absolute way.
Very well said 👍🏻
Subscribe 👍
"Ineliminable role of the subject in consituting reality" seems to be the Human 's Personality's journey.
The eternal adventure to find, know, and be with the Source.
Totally in agreement with Koch. We are on the threshold of a collective quantum leap to a spiritual consciousness which is more integrated than the previous material consciousness.
I’m loving this more holistic and inclusive approach to science and philosophy and spirituality and mysticism. I feel we have a movie, and a behind the scenes making of, and both are necessary for a full life. The subconscious realm is mysterious and fascinating, as is the mystery of quantum field theories and our origins, both the universe, and metabolising life.
There are qualities of experience, the color blue, the taste of chocolate, and there’s the scientific description of it, there’s a massive gap between the two.
Which amounts to ... we don't know yet.
Is that what you mean?
@@killingtime4250no which amounts to, descriptions of something is different than the things being described
We can give a description of the Sun, and that description will never give us heat or light, but it's still valuable to have a scientific description, cuz it lets us produce nuclear energy and other things from building on that knowledge
Same way we can have a description of life or our conscious experience, without actually recreating it
But understanding it could let us create new technology or whatever. Or help to cure brain injury and so on.
But we know what life is, we understand biology, and neurology and genetics. And we know what happens when a biological system dies and becomes dust. It Doesn't keep experiencing in some other realm.
@@killingtime4250 The hard problem might be an impossible problem. It requires we change the way we think about matter.
@@origins7298secular scientists do Not know what Life is. More correctly, scientists on earth do Not know the source of Life - living organisms.
Scientists know the effects of Life, not the cause.
Also, materialistic neurologists do Not know the source of human Consciousness.
@Earthad23 so are we not going to change our description of matter?.. or are we going to just be insecure of being wrong and live in a illusion. or are we just going to call woo and insult the people the study this so that your old ideas can be preserved
Consciousness is all that actually exists.
Everything else we experience is Perception In Consciousness.
This is what Max Planck meant, I proffer, when he said "matter is derivative from Consciousness."
I'm a skeptic but I'll have to side with Dr Cristof on many of the topics they discussed. Especially about the world just being stuff without a conscious animal to define it. I look forward to reading his new book!
Keep going Christof!
I was Gobsmacked where starting at the 31:00 minute mark when immediately after Shermer mentioned the, " Radio Signal Hypothesis" that Koch actually said that he absolutely knows that is not the case because we can damage certain areas of the brain etc, and see the behavior change...see how specific areas of the brain when affected, cause certain specific changes to our physicality and so on. WHAT? Applying the radio theory, if you damage a certain part of a radio's circuits, yes, you will detect a change in the radio's RECEPTION. That does not however imply in any way that the SIGNAL going to the radio stopped or disappeared or was damaged at it's source, not at all. The signal is still whole and complete. The only thing that has changed is the FILTER'S full ability to filter it. In the same way, if you unplug a television set the screen will go blank and no programming will appear, but the signal that was going to the television is fine and whole and still exists as it did before the TV's plug was pulled. Koch not realizing that correlation to the brain in regards to applying the radio signal theory to consciousness is just, shocking.
I have to agree, but still the theory it's self have some problem because its distinguishing between thoughts and experience, you don't have to think to have an exprience, for example in meditation there are moment which you dont think in but you still have an exprience of consciousness. And the theory it's self still have some mystical and "whoo whoo" taste in it, I haven't heard any major scientist supporting it.
@@yuvalkaplan3074 Nope, disagree because people who have an NDE are absolutely thinking during the experience. That's just a fact because they gave a complete narrative to tell afterwords and everything in their experiences involve relating to other beings, dead relatives they meet, things they see and ponder on and explain. They have observations and opinions on each thing in the experience, they come to realizations and conclusions during the experience, they learn lessons and etc., etc. So, all those things require thinking ability, thought, communication, memory, relating, recognition, reasoning. With that said, we know from neurophysiology that the brains ability to think and have any kind of thought, memory, reasoning, computing, observing, rationalizing, dreaming, hallucinating, having a delusion is physically IMPOSSIBLE after 15 to 30 seconds after cardiac arrest. Therefore these people who had veridical perception and communicate that veridical perception to doctors in emergency rooms right after they get resuscitated, are proof that they were thinking, having thought, reasoning, observing, pondering, relating at a time where their brain was totally offline and incapable of allowing for any thought at all.
@@philosopher0076 so what about the rest of people (and most) who have cardiac arrest and doesn't have NDE?
Koch: brilliant. That is exactly it - try looking at consciousness as (more) fundamental.
For being a skeptic Shermer sure does like to quote Deepak Chopra a lot
😅
It amazes me now that I understand Ideolism and "The Direct Path" from Vedanta, how I could have ever been a materialist?! You only know when you know (and clinical death 3 times, flatlined) before returning as well as having experienced countless NDE's and mystical experiences over my EXTREMELY traumatic 17 years with the 2 x most painful and horriffic Autoimune Disseses a human being can possibly aquire.
Once you have directly experienced the Spirit Realm you don't need to believe...
You 'know!' 🙏
No need for faith or religion when you have "knowing" with direct lucid experiences.
Great podcast and YES!
ITS ALL CONNECTED!! ✨️💫
Yes because people never miss attribute their experiences... they know what they experienced was in fact what they attribute to it. Everyone who ever meet any of the thousands of gods throughout history knew they really did meet their god.
So let's be real, you experienced things which you honestly believe where god or whatever... but you don't actually know... you only know what you believe.
Let not just jump ahead...
21:26 I think when Berkeley wrote 'esse est percipi' he really meant it: because, and only when sth is perceived, it exists. But as Koch explains, he does not argue against an existence of things (i. e. matter, physical reality) independent from the observer.
If someone says that mind is not physical (not forces flowing thru structures and loops of neural pathways), then they need to explain how the implied interface/boundary between 'soul' and the physical world communicates forces to and from the physical world, and how mind participates in cause and effect.
Certainly. A view of this kind can be achieved through the following readings.
(1) Bergson’s Time and Free Will
(2) Bergson’s Argument Against The Classic Metaphysics of Einstein - as it relates to the real manifold and simultaneity
(3) Whiteheads process philosophy.
(4) Quantum mechanics re contextualised under the third.
The mind itself is insufficiently described by “forces flowing through neural loops” (the connectome) as it is insufficient for actually describing real information in qualitative experience (as captured by Gibson information). The brain itself is a far more complex physical device consisting of this classical computer, sure, but also of a brain wide network of microtubules who are primarily focused on quantum coherence and resonance, not on receiving and integrating classical signals.
The “mind” participates in cause and effect because the “moment of causation” if you will, is an experience with a requirement for causal binding to select future states. This can be easily seen as a re contextualisation of quantum collapse in the light of Whitehead.
I may also ask, how does the “spirit” emerge from classical computational processes. Even a more concrete question, how do we get brain wide and body wide parallelism without the rate of neural integration needed to support it? This surely destroys the classical metaphysical understanding of mind.
Idealism has finally reached the Western world 👍fabulous 💯👌
I love flowing into nature too!!
Priceless look on Shermer's face at 13.40. And he's still stoically clinging on to his beloved materialism, occasionally enquiring if Koch thinks there might be something more (42.50). People see themselves and what is occurring in the room from a position out and above their physical bodies when their brains are not working. What else other than a separate consciousness (substance dualism) could this possibly be? The only response from Shermer would be that it didn't really happen like that, but it actually really did and continues to do so. If sceptics are going to keep denying the data, they will of course never get to the truth ...have another drink of tea, Michael and think about that
Everything Dr. Koch is saying has been studied by Hindu yogis, Taoist meditators and Buddhist masters, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Lamdre, Zen, Vipassana, for literally thousands of years.
I think he could learn a lot by looking into Buddhist philosophy.
27:45, the distinguishing element is that sound is a subjective media of sensing the world humans and human consciousness possess which requires the sensing agent, however the vibrations, the phenomenon is happening either way
The identity of consciousness, to me, is that which reads the neural patterns. Basically, the neural correlates are the neural patterns. What then "reads" them has to be outside these neural process, ie. can not vibrate as do the neurons.
Then what is it that's doing the reading, and how did it get here is the question.
@@polymathpark Exactly! Now we are narrowing this down! Characteristics: not another neuron pattern, as it would be affected from sensory signals and their vibrations; independent; access to entire brain's neural patterns. Possibly the default mode network (0.01 - 0.1 Hz, lowest frequency, most active at rest, on all the time, internally focused, self-referential, remembering past, planning future, contemplating present thoughts and feelings); or, outside the brain.
@@stridedeck indeed. We can ask "is it emergence or a permeating, ever present consciousness?"
@@polymathpark That question is jumping the gun! First, to pinpoint and define exactly and mechanically how this works. Take it step-by-step from sensory signals stimulating the neurons into a neural pattern which vibrates. This vibration is then "read" by another system which is sensitive to the slightest vibration. I can then continue this process.
Grof was fascinated by the transpersonal experiences his patients would report in the context of their work with LSD and on occasion he reports being able to corroborate certain perinatal experiences or transpersonal experiences. I remember reading about one case from his research in Prague where an LSD patient reportedly found themself at one point floating in a place where they were aware of spirits or disembodied energies around them and one in particular tried to communicate. This spirit identified himself by name and asked the patient to contact his mother to let her know that he was OK and gave the patient a name and a phone number. Grof writes that he later decided somewhat hesitantly to call the number and when a woman answered, Grof gave her the message and she became very emotional and reported that her son by the same name had earlier been killed in an accident. There were other incidents where patients reported what felt like past-life memories and the historical details they reported were astoundingly accurate and not something these patients would likely have knowledge of previous to their LSD experience.
It's funny, even I have had the "without an observer, would anything truly exist" idea. (Basically, the old philosophical question of whether a tree falling in the forest when no one is around makes a sound...just like Koch goes on to say.) Or the idea that things only exist as they appear to us in our minds. Interesting stuff, but some of it does sound dangerously close to something Deepak Chopra would come up with. (You can spot Koch making a face when Shermer mentions Chopra!)
As far as diagnosing the consciousness of coma victims, wouldn’t a Neuralink implant be an obvious tool to monitor an unresponsive host?
I think other things and life forms existed long before we humans appeared. If true how can human consciousness be so central to the rest of existential reality. Infinity is just a bit bigger than us. Big questions. Thanks for this stimulating video.
We are all one eternal consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there’s no such thing as death, life is a dream in which we are the imagination of ourselves, here’s Tom with the weather. - hicks
Dreamin' of
that face again....
Its bright and blue and shimmerin'
It was true yesterday, it’ll be true tomorrow.
Drug story on the news: "Young man takes LSD, learns that..."
👍 Michael, now please Talk to Prof Michael Levin
Michael Levins not controversial
Min 1:04 "Consciousness is about being, while intelligence is about doing."
The question that we are trying to answer here is , who’s looking? In a physical universe how does the subject arise from the object? That’s a myth.
There is no fact of the matter about the self; selves do not exist like asteroids (if you’re a physicalist or a non-dual monist). The referent of the idea is not real, but the idea itself is.
Agreed
The idea that "really smart people can be very good at self deception" comes to mind when listening to Dr Koch
There is (must be) a solution to "What is consciousness ?". Two epistemological 'puzzle pieces' are 1) thought is physically made of forces flowing through the brain's neural structures and sub-systems that include loops, comparitors, differencing and summing, and 2) existence is always and exactly now (the duration of every Now is exactly zero). This is why when being in states of flow, the sense of time disappears. Feeling conscious is 'simply' experiencing those changing, merging, and opposing forces in each moment.
After experiencing this conclusion, and with practice, one can step into this knowable state by simply choosing to BE. The causal continuum of forces (that is the entire universe) is just running; it cannot do otherwise. Enjoy the ride.
Sorry no, the physical world exists even without a consciousness to experience it. The molecular patterns that we categorize as tree leaves exist even if no intelligence categorize them into "leaves". There is a naive hubris in saying things only exist if you perceive them. It may just be stuff, but the qualities we use to distinguish "stuff" from other "stuff" are qualities of real stuff.
How do you know objects exist without an observer?
Real stuff? What privileged perspective do you inhabit? I would recommend W. V. O. Quine’s observation: objects and “real” numbers are “convenient myths”. I think David Hume would have applauded that view.
This is also and observation made throught consciousness....nobody have seen the world without consciousness how can you be so sure it there as you see it in consciousness....and btw neuroscience proves we simulate the world not just observe it....
Methinks we just don’t have the cognitive ability too understand
Humility ….
1) In "The Tao of Physics," Fritjof Capra describes a profound mystical experience he had while sitting on a beach. According to his own words, he experienced a sense of unity with the cosmos, where he perceived the rhythmic dance of waves, the sparkling of water, and the flow of energy in the ocean as interconnected and harmonious. He describes it as follows:
> "I 'saw' cascades of energy coming down from outer space, in which particles were created and destroyed in rhythmic pulses. I 'saw' the atoms of the elements and those of my body participating in this cosmic dance of energy. I felt its rhythm and I 'heard' its sound. At that moment I knew that this was the Dance of Shiva, the Lord of Dancers worshiped by the Hindus."
In this moment, Capra felt a deep realization of the interconnectedness of all things, resonating with the principles of Eastern mysticism and modern physics, particularly quantum mechanics. This experience was a key inspiration for his exploration of the parallels between modern physics and Eastern philosophies, which he elaborates on throughout "The Tao of Physics."
2)Christof Koch, in his book "The Feeling of Life Itself: Why Consciousness Is Widespread but Can't Be Computed," describes an experience of profound oneness and connection while on a beach in Brazil. According to Koch:
> "I lay on the beach and felt one with the universe, overcome by a profound sense of connectedness. The waves and the sky, the sand and the sea, all seemed to be part of a greater whole of which I was an integral part."
In this moment, Koch felt a sense of unity with the world around him, similar to the mystical experiences described by other thinkers. This experience deeply influenced his views on consciousness, leading him to explore the nature of subjective experience and the sense of self in relation to the universe.
The BEACH experiences of Fritjof Capra and Christof Koch share several key similarities:
Sense of Unity with the Universe
Capra: Describes experiencing a "cosmic dance of energy," where he perceived the interconnectedness of all things and felt a deep unity with the cosmos.
Koch: Describes feeling "one with the universe" and a profound sense of connectedness with everything around him.
Mystical and Transformative Nature
Capra: His experience was mystical, leading him to a realization of the interconnectedness of particles and energy, which he equated with the Dance of Shiva from Hindu mythology.
Koch: His experience was also mystical and transformative, providing him with a profound sense of being an integral part of a greater whole.
Connection to Nature
Capra: Felt the rhythm and energy of the ocean, seeing the waves and particles as part of a larger cosmic dance.
Koch: Felt connected to the natural elements around him-the waves, the sky, the sand, and the sea-as parts of a unified whole.
Inspiration for Intellectual Pursuits:
Capra: This experience inspired his exploration of the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism, leading to his seminal work "The Tao of Physics."
Koch: This experience influenced his views on consciousness and the nature of subjective experience, which he explores in his scientific and philosophical inquiries.
Deep Emotional Impact:
- Both authors describe their experiences as deeply emotional and life-affirming, leading to a sense of awe and wonder about the universe and their place within it.
Conclusion :
Both Fritjof Capra and Christof Koch had experiences on a beach that led to a profound sense of unity with the universe, inspiring their respective intellectual and philosophical explorations. Their descriptions highlight the powerful impact that such mystical experiences can have on one's understanding of the world and one's place in it.
Both are likable and based in sientific thinking
Do black holes exist to worms? It takes the critter to think for anything else to exist to that critter. Like we hear sounds, but there are all sorts of wavelengths we can't hear, and many we actually can see, and many more we can't see or hear. Yes, those wavelengths have existed before, but without eyes/ears and a brain to process it, they weren't sound or light. We convert those waves into sound and images.
Any theory of conciousness has to start with identifying what conciousness is. Nobody has succeeded in that. Anil Seth, mentioned in the discussion, punts on this, which seems a bit weasilly, but I fully understand why he does it. It allows him to move on and analyse things which are clearly related to whatever conciousness is, and maybe that will eventually allow a proper definition to be formed. Free will is another difficult area in a similar vein. That is much more definable, but people have long discussions about whether we have or lack free will, without any effort to define what they mean by free will.
Talk to Nir Lahav about his Relativistic Theory of Consciousness
Christof went from one end to the opposite. Most likely, however, things are less twisted than he (we) think. The contrasty nature of the reality is the basis how this reality became possible in the first place. People need to jump out of the human centric view to understand better about what is consciousness.
“The kingdom of god is inside you” could be a metaphor for the universe within, accessed by the psychedelic breakthrough” meaning that all reality bleeds out of mind??
The real difference between AI and robots versus human thought ? Machine 'thinking' occurs in finite and descrete pathways (digital, even if extremely high resolution). Whereas human thought is BOTH continuum of forces (analog, causal and random) AND simultaneously forces flowing through structures of pathways and dendrites (analog forces within finite 'digital' structures). What will be truly scary is if 'MRI' (Machine Realistic Intelligence) is in a continuum substrate, such as a quantum computer or wetware like our brains.
'Nullius in verba' makes me think of Wittgenstein 😮😂😂
I "feel" that my inner voice is like in the middle of my brain somewhere. Pretty sure that doesn't help at all :D
When I think in my head has a different feeling then when I speak out loud. Its also really hard or almost impossible to count out loud and think the alphabet or visa versa.
Christof is particularly bad at explaining what he has understood. He arrived at the right conclusion, but he didn't explain it well to Michael. The world we see is obviously created by our minds. There is no tree, house, river or planet in the actual quantum substrate. If you break up the components far enough, there is no space. We have no access to the actual substrate. We only have access to what we (as patterns on the substrate) model the rest of the substrate to be.
Christof should have just told Michael that the substrate has the same relationship with the world you see that a computer chip has with the graphics of a videogame. And tour brain is a particular subset of transistors on the chip.
Totally with you. I don’t see how the universe and all the systems within it would cease to function as systems if there was no consciousness to observe it. That’s nonsense. It’s the same kind of make belief that says that fairies exist just because we choose to believe in them.
“You didn’t directly feel your brain.“ Try telling that to someone with a migraine
"the universe and all the system" were experience by consciousness. Tell me one think that you "know" outside of consciousness...... knowledge started with consciousness.....space-time isnt fundamental according to science...but we still experience space and time... Why are you experience this illusion?...and what more illusion are there.
@@causalityismygod2983 we have no way to know for sure that our experiences are representative of a greater reality beyond them. But by the same token, we have no way to know for sure that they’re not, that they’re an illusion. And as our consciousness is the only tool we have for engaging with life and attempting to discern what’s real, we’d probably be sensible to employ a fairly pragmatic approach and use the tools we have. This doesn’t mean only trust what you see and feel. That’s what the flat earthers do. Science tells us a lot that’s counter intuitive, but we trust it, because we trust the process despite the fact that science isn’t a belief system. It doesn’t tell us what’s definitively true. It’s a method of enquiry that updated our understanding as new data challenges old assumptions.
This idea that the universe is a product of consciousness, this is only a theory. And it’s very theoretical indeed. It’s just one idea.
They may mention it later but I'm sure they're familiar with the case of Phineous Gauge. He was a railway worker back in I believe the early 30th century and due to an accident he had a railroad spike get shot through the bottom of his jaw, through his brain and out the top of his head. He survived the ordeal but it was said that his personality had been totally changed. He became rude, aggressive and surly when before he was polite and gregarious. I'd been trying to understand exactly what I and the rest of us are as fat as are we just meat machines or is there more to us. I'd been mulling over that story for a decade along with looking at the questors from opposite sides. It's what made me decide that yes, we are just biological machines. If my character and personality can be altered by simply removing or rearranging some of my neurons then that's where "I" am. I forget who wrote it but there was a passage from a book questioning the existence of a soul. It went down the line and asked if my soul could see, could speak, could hear, could taste, could move or could think. The answers to those are all no and the conclusion was "If it can't do any of those things then what use is it"? All of those things take place in the physical space of your brain. If you alter your brain then you change the way those things function and can stop them altogether, so absolutely everything I think I am is in my brain. I became a material reductionist at that point. However there was something nagging me from a place I couldn't locate and I couldn't reason with.
So some years passed and I'd put the question of if I'm a physical being or a spiritual being to rest and I was pretty happy. I just lived without wrestling with those deep questions, but again there was something tugging at me to come back and keep looking. I got into reading trip reports and the DMT reports in particular. They now muddied the waters because even though I've never done DMT (I did quite a bit of acid, mescaline and shrooms along with pretty much all the categories of other drugs while in my late teenage years and most of my twenties, but never DMT) aspects of the reports seemed familiar somehow. Long story short I've now revered my position and I don't think the brain creates consciousness, I think it's the other way around.
Yes, it creates what I am here, a human, but it doesn't create what I'm pretty sure is the most fundamental "thing" to exist, and that's the feeling of '"I am". You can trick a brain into thinking all manner of events are taking place and you can alter them by altering the brain but there's one thing you can't do that with. You cannot "trick" someone into being aware that they exist. Schizophrenics have a variety of delusions that are objectively not real but they know they exist no matter what. Sure people who are mentally ill or on some type of drug can say ",I don't feel like I exist" but that's the ego breaking. The thing they're saying doesn't exist is the identity that's been built,.but strip that away and they still know they exist, just not how they thought they did. You must exist to be able to think that you don't exist. Look I have no idea how the ',I am" aspect creates matter, but I'm pretty sure it does. You can't fake it and you can't break it down to any constituents parts. It's fundamental I n the most literal sense.
I mean after an accident like that I would be angry and bitter asf too ???
How do we know that someone else, or a unicellular organism, or a future, very advanced robot is having a conscious experience? The reason that philosophers like Chalmers are so interested in the philosophical zombie idea is that it asks us how we could possibly know the answer to that question. It’s related to the Turing Test. The advent of increasingly powerful computers and narrow AI, and the possibility of AGI are making us consider the question more carefully.
In my opinion, we can never know.
We make an inference based on the outward behaviour of the entity we are observing. In our everyday life it is something that we conventionally assume about other human beings and we probably learn this when we are children. However, since we only view our own experience from the inside and that of everything else from the outside we can only infer that the two things are the same.
Tom Campbell….the forgotten man of consciousness
Guy dedicated his life to the subject and yet, is missed where he should be added
consciousness is faster than chemistry, faster that electricity or neurons,, it's faster than we can explain, perhaps quantum consciousness is instant enough.
The brain can produce a gigantic number of extraordinary experiences, near death, out of body, singularity, spiritual love, god encounters, plain haluzinations, dreams and nigtmares, flow feelings, loosing the sense of self, enlightenment and nirmal everyday experiences of time and space and things, WE can classify these experiences, and can take some of these very seriously, and learn to accept that the basis of things is conciousness or mind. We need to move forward and accept this new paradigm of conciousness or mind being fundamental and move on from physicalism. I mean does anybody still believe that the fundamental world has anything to do with our ordinary experience of things. Such a physicalist position is a bit like flat earthers. Move on girls and boys.
Sorry, but I know quite a bunch of analytic philosophers who argue against physicalism and also have two decades ago.
The problems may not be "soluble" in water, say. But they may be solvable. Or then again, maybe they're not.
The physicality or matter will still be there, but the semantics or epistemic projection of what it is to be that thing will be gone. I like to imagine the childrens book Frindle, what is stopping anyone from changing the name of a Pen to the name Frindle? The world is an emergent property, where there is physical matter but there is a emergent property given rise from semantic meaning which stems from consciousness or mind stuff.
The universe as we experience it is not made of objects, it’s made of information, the hard problem of consciousness is a reduction to absurdity of the materialist postulates.
Information is a human concept
@@rockapedra1130 Human beings don’t have an objective view of the universe, everything we see is processed through our brains.
@@rockapedra1130 We don’t see the world as it is, we see the world as we have evolved to see it.
information IS a materialistic concept. It refers to patterns in matter and energy.
@@BUSeixas11 Information requires brains, more accurately it requires minds.
@26:00:00
Consciousness = meaning
We will never know
Aliveness states are always before consciousness ,
"If we all died then all the physical stuff would still be here"
-Except that quantum mechanics has been telling us for about 80 years that particles which make up the universe do NOT have standalone existence until we measure/observe them.
That’s not my interpretation of quantum mechanics. In order to measure or observe something, it must be disturb, whether it’s with a ray of light, or something else, I don’t think the findings from quantum mechanics tell us anything about how physical stuff would react with no observer. My interpretation is rather that something must be disturbed before it can be observed.
@@adamstevens5518Correct. Measurement of sub-atomic phenomena affects the particles/ energy measured.
If nothing would exist without some form of consciousness to be aware of it, how did our solar system form?
That's not what quantum physics says at all.
@@adamstevens5518 no, the delayed choice experiments and the quantum eraser experiments (variations on the double slit experiment) show that it is not just "disturbing" the particle that causes the wave function to collapse. Because it happens even when the measurement is taken after the particle has already hit the screen. And when you "erase" the information from the detector then the particle acts as if it is not being observed.
@@BUSeixas11 it is though. It is the most plausible and straightforward interpretation of quantum mechanics, unless you want to hypothesize a quadrillion bajillion megazillion new nearly-identical universes being formed every infinitesimal fraction of a nanosecond, for which there is zero evidence (the Everett "many worlds" interpretation).
You should bring dave farrina. He is beating the shit out of the people from discovery institute. He has some valid points. He says that most of the gullible people believe in things posted by discovery institute. He says they dont have any new idea and only thing we see them posting is about the complexity of life. You are an atheist but you are not so agressive.
Dave Farina was destroyed by James Tour in a couple of debates. He does not have the basis .
Id suggest to look into why you need consciousness to exist or why you need consciousness to survive . If dinosaurs had consciousness then what else before dinosaurs had consciousness and what is its function or purpose for existing if not to survive. If all extensions of matter are related to survival or for the purpose of survival or survival in essence like the brain the heart lungs and blood then consciousness itself is survival but as an abstract composition of survival. What one needs is to participate in the survival process itself or matter needs to be part of the survival process to which then evolution may occur to build upon survival itself so that complexity may occur or increases in consciousness. Survival the force is first protocol of substance or living systems then evolution then complexity, if all extensions of matter are survival oriented in there disposition then consciousness itself must be for and for the need to survive to promote survival itself or to make that system more relevant in the need or process to survive.
If all complexities are survival in form of matter on earth or have this natural disposition of survival as first protocol then all subsequent evolutions are branches or relations to survival itself except that with consciousness it is the abstract version of it created by the brain to promote survival or you could say that without consciousness the human would first struggle to survive or exist then not exist at all. If the opposite of survival is death then and you need consciousness to survive then it is a branch or survival in essence but it is abstract disposition coupled with material substrates.
In a more complex structure like a human the abstract is more pronounced as our brain is complex so it has the ability to form abstract versions of survival or projections of itself to survive. The need to be conscious correlates to the need to survive and it creates more relevance in the ability to survive but it is much stronger that also. This is why all creatures with complexity have consciousness dinosaurs. lions, giraffes so that it may choose what to do to survive in its habitat. Without a conscious ability this is reduced the ability to survive so survival in system becomes less relevant, but in a more complex system it actually becomes survival itself or the abstract idea or notion of survival from mind because of focus and evolution or time spent surviving.
Its a character of survival or survival as abstraction force by subtraction of consciousness measured against the ability of that system or entity to survive in its habitat.
You could say that consciousness itself is a mode of survival in abstraction terminology. If it is required for survival or without it death is likely or relevant then it becomes its opposite translation .
What I understand in this , relations and ratios ..etc are the objects of consciousness and have no physical counter part. You have to be conscious for existence to be in terms of differentiation without which there is no boundaries no relations no causality no ontology at all. It then possible that quala in the mind is nothing more than ontological in nature a kind of first order ontology. I believe LLMs are first order ontologies
WHY IDEALISM SHOULD BE THE DEFAULT POSITION
1. Your mind exists
2. Other minds apart from your own also exist
3. Things independently exist outside minds
4. Things outside minds can generate minds
A true sceptic realises that materialism violates Occam's razor and concludes that idealism provides the simplest and most effective, metaphysical explanation of reality. Materialism, or physicalism, requires all these four statements to be true. Idealism only requires the first two to be true. As you can see, materialism requires more leaps of faith than idealism.
The only statement that one can be sure of is number one, but in order to avoid the problem of solipsism and pragmatically uphold the theory of mind, both metaphysics must consider that statement number two must be true: other minds exist apart from one's own. This is the only leap of faith required of idealism-and it is a small one since we already know, from personal experience, that a mind can and does exist. It's easy to extrapolate from what is already known and posit the existence of a plurality of the same kind of phenomenon, namely, the conscious perception of other sentient beings.
Materialism requires statements three and four in addition, and both are bigger leaps of faith, since we can never truly confirm that a world exists outside of consciousness without being aware of it in the first place, and we have no evidence nor the slightest idea of how anything unconscious could ever give rise to consciousness. As the scientist Bernardo Kastrup pointed out, '...everything you can ever know comes into consciousness the moment you know it, so the belief that there are things outside consciousness is an abstraction beyond knowledge.' So now consider how bad the last statement is as it postulates that things whose existence you cannot verify are responsible for the only thing you can be absolutely sure to exist: your own consciousness.
Statement number four runs counter to the natural direction of inference, which is, the unknown is inferred from the known, not the other way around. Materialism isn't empirically deduced from the scientific process, it is a belief born out of medieval propaganda to politically subvert the power and influence that ancient religious dogma had over people. It began with the heretical rebellion of the Middle Ages as religion stood in the way of freedom and progress. Materialism isn't just false, it's untenable. The only reason we have come to believe in the last two statements with the advent of the age of reason is that we seem to share a common world. After all, two different individuals can describe the same surroundings and come to a mutual agreement based on what they observe simultaneously. But idealism is congruous with this observation without requiring huge leaps of faith like materialism.
Metaphysical idealism doesn't require solipsism to be true as we have already established. Different conscious observers can agree on a shared mental construct that makes up an ostensibly external reality apart from their egoic minds. One can have one's private dreams as well as share a collective dream, as it were. At the moment, as human beings, we experience a narrow and limited perspective of reality, but without our anthropic avatars, we are, in theory, unbounded consciousness. We are both the part and the whole as access to other states of awareness, including a primordial and pristine cognition, is available to us through certain types of meditation. The interactive holarchy described in the alumnus Cosmin Visan's idealist theory of consciousness-which was brought to my attention recently-aligns well with subjective as well as ostensibly objective, verified facts about reality.
Death is a mystery noth new here, but there is smth in us that goes beyond that process. Call it energy, consciousness, soul but we dont just dissappear in the eternal darkness and void. But then again i might be wrong. Ill let you know when i die 😂
No brain - no mind - no consciousness! Great show - thanks Michael!
However Your brain and consciousness will return here when eternal metaphysical nothing turns inside out at the time of the next big bang (scientists have abundant proof that the big bang actually happened) and becomes its' theoretical opposite:limited mundane physics.Your brain will likely be in the next turn of the cosmic wheel.You should read about physicist Rodger Penrose's Quantum Soul and his cyclical universe theory
except that there is a good deal of evidence that consciousness is not just in the mind.
Consciousness as we know it!
@@dave4deputyZXSuch as?
No matter noh mind no problem. .. . Platform sutra
Without consciousness there are no planets. Isn't this just a language game? Why does this matter? Kock doesn't seem to deny the universe doesn't change with or without us. BUT, as I understand it, he argues the PERCEPT of a 'planet' can only exist if a conscious mind that knows of planets sees it. Again, so what? Well, I surmise, then PERCEPTs have a physical reality. PERCEPTS arise only as the result of certain neural activity (IIT), as far as we know.
Yes?
Was interesting till Christof told us that if all humans disappeared all things in the universe disappear into fundamental particles lol. Thanks for pushing back on this Michael.
Yeah I mean obviously trees are complex living system so if all quote unquote sentient life disappeared and you still had plants and trees then obviously the trees would still exist in a complex form. I mean it wouldn't be all quarks because trees are dependent on complex chemistry to continue living
You could say the same thing about even geology if all biology disappeared I mean geology is a complex process so it's reliant on complex molecules and interactions which are more than just quarks
At the end of the day he's just running wild with taking one concept that you need minds to be differentiate things and then going too far and saying if all minds were gone you would only have quarks that makes no sense
In few words, if I send you an email saying your hair is on fire, you have acquired information. If I set your hair on fire, you will instead EXPERIENCE qualia of various sorts. They both communicate the same thing, but are nevertheless VERY different things.
It sounds as if something is rubbing against the microphone when he speaks. The sound quality is pretty bad as well.
Names, and the ability to identify anything, IS IMPORTANT. Otherwise, God would not have set man to the task. The Bible says: “And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: and whatever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field” (Genesis 2:19-20).
Michael did not really understand donald hoffman nor does he want to accept christophs view of reality and stuff, nor does the current physics Orthodoxie accept that conscious is primary, all mystical traditions know this, we will need to learn and accept this new consciousness paradim, it will take a few decades till it becomes common.
Christof Koch and Shermer were both on Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.
What came first? (25:30)... The tree or the seed.
its irrelevant, the question is if the "first thing" was created or was there by chance.
@@francesco5581 chance is the same as created. It always comes from something that can't be seen aka unexpected.
@@missh1774 but you are asking what is the First Causation of something.
@@francesco5581I think it is relevant if we have to understand how someone is proposing the idea before we make it a viable thought exercise to do.
Poor old Shermer, trapped and chained in a cave that doesn't exist!
You have to really understand why a lion or dinosaur is conscious of its surroundings and compute or measure the need to survive. What correlation or frequency or disposition or common traits do the y have what is the goal of consciousness or its reason to exist and what its used for in terms of evolution or survival of values.. Or is it a requirement of existence to actually 'Stay alive' or at a minimal to help survival in constituents. Without it what is the likely hood of that entity surviving?
A common mistake is this, to class the conscious agent as a soul as you then have to assume that all entities have soul and then must be available to go to heaven if they were good souls not just a conscious agent. This deforms the reality quite substantially or what I refer to as is obvious delusion. One must not merely exist in space time but one must survive in space time and. Every structure built up from the small to the complex every extension or biological extension or attribute is survival itself in essence from the heart to the brain to the eyes to the teeth to the abstract of consciousness all are extensions of survival itself with the exception of consciousness to the power of abstract cognition. If you break down each specific piece or structure of what constitutes a human you will find that every piece has this survival purpose or disposition, the conscious state is no different except it survives as a free agent in abstract realm but coupled or connected to the material as it stems from material itself without the material it cannot realise its character or disposition or it cannot survive or realise its true nature.
The basic composition or nature if you need clarification or definition is that consciousness itself is required to exist in a complex structure as survival agent or entity if it is indeed coupled with the need to exist or survive with survival being a process or disposition and existence is not by participation but as stationary compared to survival itself. If you can survive without it then it is not survival or if you can still partake in survival it is not so if it is a requirement or necessity to be alive or survive then it is indeed in relation to it if not the same quality but different in its mode or character which is abstract disposition of survival in space time.
If you ask why it exist consciousness rather than what is it then you can correlate better and get to a reasonable definition of it to which then understanding can be greater than. What is its function in correlation to survival and evolution and why it would exist rather than not. Coupled with the need to survive then ask why does Dinosaur need to be conscious of its environment in relation to survival.
You could search for a million years and still not understand it or be able to define it to a satisfactory realm. you could have the answer and not even realise it unless you get a correlation from its use.
Did Liverpool just get beaten 15 -0 by Everton
And klopp age by 10 years
Some people say or wonder if this is all a simulation. If the Big Simulator In The Sky is asking itself if this is all a simulation, the confused identity-crisis Simulator needs to get Real. 😅
16:44 not 19th century introspection! 21st century introspection! 🤪
I turned off when Christof says we don't know some stuff, like dark matter, so consciousness might magic?! Ahhhh no. No Woo Woo allowed.
Neptune was once "dark matter"
We knew something was there because of gravity - but couldn't see it yet
But we saw it eventually with some effort
christof is so many orders of magnitude beyond you its not even funny. get a grip.
from a science pov the more you look at an asserted basis of emergence for a mental event, the less you observe any of its asserted emergent property. this is akin to claiming that a pattern on a shell is an emergent property of the shell, and yet the more precise your observation of the shell is, the greater the absence of the pattern that is its emergent property is observed. this indicates that it is logically incoherent and intellectually delusional to continue stating that the pattern is an emergent property of the shell
Perhaps woo woo is required, LOL. Everything else has failed spectacularly. Besides, a well characterized woo woo is indistinguishable from science (see quantum mechanics).
@@rockapedra1130 Let me know when your tea leaves can make predictions with the same level of accuracy as quantum mechanics
@@sulljoh1 relax, man. I'm saying that QM works even if it is highly counterintuitive. Before it was proven 100x over, it sounded like woo woo. Read the history of the development of QM, plenty of woo woo accusations flying all over the place. Similarly, explaining consciousness might sound like woo woo to our current science but if it turns out to be "proven woo woo", we are all going to have to swallow it whether we like it or not.
Time to have Sam Harris back on to wash off the metaphysics....
Gotta laugh when someone wonders if the moon would exist if moon observers didn't exist. Kinda like a child thinking that his being born and becoming aware of any object makes that object exist, ignoring that people saw the moon before he was even conceived. It's a good thing that things exist whether we are aware of them or not, or we would all be the center of the universe. 😅
A imaginary thinking ethereal being that can pass through most structures we as humans experience as solid surfaces but cant pass through certain types of gas and only percieves the world in line with this. What would this being think off as real things?
Micheal is stuck on this idea that a moon can exist without at mind to render it. It’s a reasonable intuition, but one that breaks down after a while. It’s like thinking GTA 5 is on the disk, whether there is a console to play it or not. It’s 1’s and 0’s
is a tree falling if conscious people exist but nobody sees it falling?
Trees have been falling for millions of years.
probably so, BUT we need to notice the immense difference of a reality with inside something able to perceive it and a reality without anything conscious inside. Could have really existed a reality without consciousness ? a reality not felt by anything ?
@@francesco5581
Then how many realities exist? One for every conscious being plus one real reality.
@@werner_s yes of course there must be one playground with billions of point of views BUT there could be something "higher" or more "collective"... who knows...
@@francesco5581
How was this higher collective playground created with or without conscious beings and how much consciousness is required? And how about playgrounds for apes, craws, bats and bees?
everything talked about was already discovered 1000s of years ago in yoga science ...
yoga and science do not fit in the same sentence
@@joaocosta3506 the hardest and the most detailed science of them all, mind you .. search a bit
Michael I love you but you saying DMT is supposed to be “relaxing”. Lol. That is wildy incorrect. Read the book by Rick Strassman, dmt the spirit molecule. Thats not to say it is bad, its just not relaxing. Exhilarating and profound are much better terms.
this guy a quack. come on shermer
Why? Please explain.
💗🍃🙏🏻
For the better for science and discoveries... Um... Can you name literally ANY science or "discoveries" of I guess any noteworthy value that doesn't fit into the materialist reductionist paradigm? Like literally what are you talking about?
There is no heaven or hell.
Is everyone here some sort of PhD? These comments make me feel so dumb.
@29:07 Kristof clears up the confusion. If all humans disappear, then the human specific CLASSIFICATIONS of objects disappear with us. The universe remains, of course. If another thinking creature evolves, it might be sufficiently different from us such that it will not classify things in the same way as we did. To them, the concept of "moon" for example might be incomprehensible and perhaps even illogical in their perfectly adequate understanding of their world. To them, moons might not exist as a "thing". So who is right? The conclusion is that neither is right EXCLUSIVELY if both mental frameworks are equally useful in dealing with survival in the universe.
2 things on NDE's:
1. The biggest research into NDE's was done at Southampton University in the UK with over 1,000 participants and headed by a theist. With one exception (not considered worthy of further investigation), NDE's were found to occur before actual death i.e. were live brain manifestations not involving any actual "floating over the bed" or similar.
2. Studies show rat's have NDE's (even the one that don't believe in gods).
Whilst I understand the concepts of "conscious" and "unconscious" I'm not sure consciousness, based on the premises we research it (beyond simply biological), exists at all.
1. Ad hominem here. The fact that the researcher was a theist means nothing. Also, Sam Parnia hasn’t ceased his research, and he has not shown to be uniquely interested in the phenomenological value of NDEs, but their effective application in medicine and resuscitation.
2. Did a rat tell you this? Because otherwise we’re just mapping the rat’s electrochemical reactions in the brain, and creating assumptions from that-we don’t know what the rat’s subjective experience is.
@@moon8520As always: Try looking up "Ad hominem" before you try you use it. I guess if you weren't so dumb you would have realised that relevance of NDE's is a theist concept so the fact it was a theist running the study was totally relevant. The value of the study was observed by the fact the university couldn't be persuaded to continue.
Go ask the researchers about the rats, I wasn't there.
@@Lightbearer616 Relevance of NDEs is a theistic concept ??? Thats absurd, The relevance of an NDE is given by the subject who experienced it, atheist or theist. Can you give a link to that research ? thanks...
@@francesco5581 I've noticed in comments made on NDE's atheists tend to not discuss going to heaven, seeing god and returning. I also note atheists don't tend to use NDE's as proof of god. The concept may be absurd but nonetheless it is claimed by theists. The relevance of the trial was there was no evidence of what the theist leader wanted to prove. It's a simple concept that relates only to theism i.e. proof you live after death and there must therefore be a god. It doesn't happen because, after you physically die there is a period where the brain is still shutting down and hallucinates. That's how they can measure it in rats, they're dead but the brain is still active for a period of minutes. Not looked at this for a decade. Look up Southampton University NDE trials.
the ex-pope of church physicalism who gave up physicalism
next stop, stop spending billions on neural correlates and spend some on actual methods of actually rigorously observing it of you want to learn something about it.
if it was that simple monks should already have an answer, which surprise surprise they don't. so ye, we definetly shouldn't be altering scientiific epistemology just because we don't have a answer at the moment, just like we did not change it to solve any other problem.
@@joaocosta3506 of course they have the answer. for a long time. see the lecture by leading neuroscientist richard davidson on soon to be published work regarding 'the tukdam project'. that alone breaks physicalism. also we have known the neural correlates for attention and concentration for 2 decades now and can monitor in real-time for whom it is possible in principle to sustain uninterrupted concentration not for 2 seconds like a normal person but rather for several hours without being impinged upon by any external sense stimulus or internal distraction.
there is hordes of data to be discovered regarding what the mind does and can do if you study these ppl. if they let you anywhere near them. youre an ant compared to the handful of normal humans who have been found to possess perfect autobiographical memory, and these ppl are ants compared to someone who has cultivated perfect single-pointed concentration.
as noam chomsky said on the mind chats channel 'maybe the buddhists can do it, but i cant, so im just going to keep doing good biology.' he is wrong for once.
@@joaocosta3506 dumf censors around removing posts
@@joaocosta3506of course they have the answer. for a long time. see leading neuroscientist david richardson lecture here on tukdam project. it alone breaks physicalism, scientifically. and we have know the neural correlates for attention and concentration for 2 decades now. we know based on real-time neural monitoring that an ordinary persons is capable of 2 seconds concentration max on avg whereas someone who has developed skill can sustain uninterrupted single-pointed concentration on their object they wish to rigorously observing not for seconds but rather multiple hours without any impingement by any sensory stimulus or internal distraction.
@@5piles which post got removed?
Kristof, the fact that you take a chemical and it changes your conscious experience MEANS that your conscious experience IS CHEMICAL! 100% physical. I feel sorry that you have spent your whole life wrestling with consciousness and you’re still so terribly confused about it.
yes play with chemicals and do a consciousness in a glass....flavor banana.
pls learn basic logic! yikes!
Stanislav Grof was fascinated by the transpersonal experiences his patients would report in the context of their work with LSD and on occasion he reports being able to corroborate certain perinatal experiences or transpersonal experiences. I remember reading about one case from his research in Prague where an LSD patient reportedly found themself at one point floating in a place where they were aware of spirits or disembodied energies around them and one in particular tried to communicate. This spirit identified himself by name and asked the patient to contact his mother to let her know that he was OK and gave the patient a name and a phone number. Grof writes that he later decided somewhat hesitantly to call the number and when a woman answered, Grof gave her the message and she became very emotional and reported that her son by the same name had earlier been killed in an accident. There were other incidents where patients reported what felt like past-life memories and the historical details they reported were astoundingly accurate and not something these patients would likely have knowledge of previous to their LSD experience.
I wonder where and how that information is encoded in chemicals...
Not necessarily. What you surmised is only correlation, not science. If the brain/mind is a filter of true reality, and a chemical brings down the filter, then that would mean the exact opposite of what you suggested.
Don't you have a misrepresented idea of his position? I only listened while working so maybe I'm mistaken, but I felt his position was quite nuanced. And I think Michael has some problems to understand some concepts that made the conversation a bit difficult..
Dieu est dans l'ORDRE DE L'Univers ua-cam.com/video/_82nnwx1OCc/v-deo.htmlsi=UkGxiaCqZW3jzLOL
Sabine a raison. Einstein a raison.