There’s a lot talk about the hard problem of consciousness but little discussion about hardest problem of all - our seeming individuality. Why would electricity in my head create my consciousness and electricity in your head create your consciousness? Why am I, I and you, you? As well as not being able to explain any specific qualia materialist theories cannot explain this, the most important thing. Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should suddenly find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question. What is the principled explanation for why: A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness? Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness? Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness? Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness? A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness? Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not even possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject.
Excellent comment. I am deep diving into a range of disciplines trying to better understand consciousness: physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology...and, in my view, the 2 greatest tools in this endeavor, mathematics and philosophy. I am a software engineer, doing quite a bit of AI programming. Some in my profession are materialists...saying consciousness is a function of brain state driven by fundamental forces. What's more, there is no free will in their reckoning. Inferring that since action at the quantum level is deterministic, with some randomness, so too are decisions, that they cannot be free. Talk about quantum leaps of logic. You nicely laid out the most important problem: what is transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia? Like you, I consider topics like quantum collapse, retroactive causality, neural correlates, and so. I'm certainly no master of these area, but still see the gap you do. Speaking of which...that is another criticism and quantum leap of logic by some materialists: gods of the gaps. They assume progress is linear and that gaps in due time will be explained deterministically. But I think more questions have been raised rather than answered. With no progress in bridging the massive gap on individuality you posted.
In addition any materialistic explanation would somehow have to be able to define and PREDICT each personal existence and when it should show up. An obvious absurdity.@@banmate6
Also, by my lights, if individuality is a problem at all it would not only undermine the notion that the mind is a physical process but you would have to deny that interaction between body and mind is possible, after all what makes your mind able to only control the specific atoms of your body and not any other?.
best exposition in a long time of this problem- others get side tracked but David's incisive arguments are compelling- quite exhilarating to have it defined so precisely to make any counter argument effectively impotent
Kuhn is a corrupt shill for the Chinese Communist Party. Fact check it if you don't believe me. Bentley-Hart should've done his research on this guy before sitting down with him
It's interesting how someone who is not a prominent name in the study of consciousness has a much greater clarity and deeper understanding of the problem than those who are prominent in the field.
@@kitstamat9356 It means "one" literally, but in their philosophy it refers to a certain type of god, and this god is not the Christian God of Moses: YHVH the Father. The god of Aristotle is a cold emotionless involuntary machine of just 1 act who's like programed & dependant of his nature or necessities like creation & can will only 1 thing - this is contrary to Scripture & Thomists impose this Aristotlian metaphysics on the Bible, instead of the other way around - putting Scripture 1st & take it at face value. They have a false Greek presupposition which says that incorporeal things like virtues, attributes & emotions, cause distinctions within God or plurality: that is FALSE. Since there are by DEFINITION as incorporeal cannot be "parts" or compositions, that would be an oxymoron, since incorporeal things don't have forms or amount, therefore don't cause ANY distinction in God. Thomists should wake up.
@@LyovaCamposDBH has made it very clear that God is Personal within his wiritngs. DBH has always heavily emphasised the importance of Divine Simplicity and opposed the idea of introducing Plurality into God's Essence. Also, Universalism is not a Heresy. It existed prominently in Early Christianity and he'd be excommunicated by now if it were heretical. I suggest you actually read his books to understand he's merely defending the Classical Theistic notion of God.
I hope your journey carries on. I like some of the off-the-cuff descriptions he uses about the positions of his philosophical foes: "It's the nuclear option", "It hardly rises to the level of a vicious circle", and "Well, I suppose there's some sort of consistency in total destruction". DBH cuts through the unworkable positions in post-Cartesian Philosophy of Mind. I look forward to his forthcoming book on the topic. But I'm rather afraid that it will have limited impact on the bigger philosophical traditions. He is better known for being a philosophical theologian which almost guarantees oblivion in wider circles.
@@theophilus749 Agreed, I've tried to talk to people about Hart's work on consciousness, and they just brush it away saying "oh he just thinks it's all God." I hope they eventually realize that they have such a hard time fitting consciousness into their philosophical systems, yet traditional religious philosophy does not
@@repentantrevenant9776 I sympathise, I have suffered similarly in discussion with people about various philosophical theologians (and that includes fellow Christians). Firstly, it is, of course, a cheap and easy way of by-passing the much harder intellectual work of responding to their actual arguments. Secondly, it rests upon the mistake of seeing God as just another cause acting on events in the same playing field as nature's own causes and thus being locked into some zero-sum competition with them. Thirdly, as you acknowledge, their own minds are well insulated from the mediaeval philosophical synthesis which arguably has the far richer response - because, you've guessed it, that's 'all God', too. So, good luck. Theo
Reading other comments, it seems like many haven’t had that “penny-drop” moment yet. They don’t fully grasp the problem (which might be the hardest part!)
Robert Kuhn's energy and passion to tackle these knotty questions from various angles is highly commendable! A theologian this time? I am listening. Maybe some insights from Buddhists and Advaitins would fit in somewhere too. Thanks for your relentless curiosity!
I think your statement would be closer to truth if stated this way... Consciousness and Physicalism are ONE. Why? Because Materialism does not include 'movement' whereas Physicalism does and being conscious is obviously a process and process entails movement.
Nothing is obvious here. Physicalism is the same as materialism to most. Dont be too pedantic. You haven't figured it out either. We'll all know if you do.
@@pjaworek6793 "Physicalism is the same as materialism to most". Are they the same to you? Materialism is about material existence. Mind is obviously not material. So some conclude matter and mind must be unrelated. Physicalism is materialism with the addition of movement. Movement is not a property of a piece of matter because movement is relative. Movement is not matter and not a property of any material object. Thus movement, like mind, is immaterial. Movement is thus a fine candidate out of which mind and being conscious may be built.
10:38 "It's the entirety of all experience and all of it's discernible properties." What discernible property could experience have other than experience itself?
Experiences have an experiencer. They can be of different phenomena such as sensations, memories, intellectual responses, emotional responses, etc. They are informational, in that they are about something. They are transitory. Just off the top of my head.
It’s a good question. I would offer such things as attention, agency, intentionality, and its phenomenal aspect (qualia). It might be prudent to call them ‘apparent’ properties, but they are nevertheless discernible.
@@mandelbot5318 Thanks. My point is that all candidates for the properties are merely the contents of experience. To me the nature of experience is empty, it's the medium in which all else seems to appear.
I believe by "it", David is referring to the content of a self's conscious field. Experience is simply the word we use to refer to what is going on in that field coupled to the recording of the field's content. (I.e., no self can enjoy an 'educational experience' should the content of the conscious field fail to be recorded).
@@SurrealMcCoy Mandelbrot and myself are thinking of experience as a category, in which various different things can be experiences. If it’s a container, then it’s an object or material, or a medium as you say. Thats a completely different view along the lines of dualism, so a kind of substance.
Paraphrasing... You are conscious. Not you are consciousness. You are alive. Not you are aliveness. When you are conscious, you are conscious OF something. When you are not conscious OF anything, you are not conscious. It is my self that is conscious of something. When my self is not conscious my self is non existent.
@@dr_shrinker The proof is self-evident. That you are consciousness itself is the most obvious thing but so many people don't take notice. It's like looking through a clear window and seeing the outside. You're ignoring the window and only focusing on the tree and birds or whatever. I come up and point out that you're looking directly at a window and you fail to see it because you're looking past it.
@Promatheos - This is a great way of explaining why many smart people just don't "see" the problem of explaining consciousness in terms of physical processes. I didn't "see" it until I was like 35. It was just a completely out-of-the-blue, spontaneous realization. It's like I was struck by a lightning bolt! Once you "see" it, it becomes difficult to understand why so many people don't "see" it. 🤔
It is the most important question of all and was debated for 1000 yrs by Hindu monks. This was 1st best described by ancient Hindu. Interview Swami Sarvapriyananda from Vedanta Society of NY.
Great interview, the last minute is the best… It’s really not hard to imagine when you “see and think in Sound… 9 random unorganized sounds actually Create “Intelligent, Organized Tones… My numbers prove it, especially when I convert my numbers into musical Notes… It literally comes out of my 64-digit 3:6:9 Harmonic Matrix, from Vacuum Substance… 100% Evolved Structured Sound Torus, Radiating Pure Perfection, at least from my Theory… Magical “108…”
@@mandelbot5318 Loved "Life on the Edge." Haven't read the other. I am intrigued by his CEMI field theory, his partial solution to the hard problem which he has written two papers about.
We can understand that 1 + 2 + 3 = 6, but that “6” is experienced as consciousness by that 6, we cannot. But neither can we know what it feels like to be that 1 or 2 or 3, nor anything at all except our own consciousness. It seems to me that as no man knows the things of anything except its own spirit, we are attempting to know Consciousness (of others and in general) in a way that we know no other thing. My idea is that all is physical, and that the only portion we know is the combination in our brain, and that the vast majority of it, which we can only see from the outside, is the physical plant to its physical bloom.
The mechanical picture of Nature doesn't remove the mental from Nature it removes choice from intention. Instead of meaning requiring choice, it substitutes a utilitarian cause and effect guided by logical sequence: math. Instead of man being the "necessary connection" of meaning, logic plays the part of "constant conjunction" between cause and effect: causation. In the instrumental picture of reality "described" by science, meaning is removed. By gaining the instrumental control of sequence, we lose the explanatory "connection" of mind. By insisting on material, definition we take meaning out of consciousness. We substitute what some thing is doing to what some other "concept" is. Instead of an apple falling from a tree we cite gravity. Instead of an animal obeying its urges we cite consciousness. By naming the imperceptible we utilize meaning to give meaning to relationships.
Consciousness should be understood in the context of an ever evolving universe. It's the current state of complexity, but we have no idea what form it may take in the far future, what will replace it.
Great comment. It has much deeper implications for materialism than you might think. To highlight how universal evolution has changed consciousness is a strong argument for the reducibility of consciousness. Thanks for your comment.
Consciousness does not change or evolve, it's constant and ever present. consciousness is not a property of anything in nature. it is the fundemental reality. Mind (thoughts, feelings, perceptions) changes and evolves and is affected by the physical world, consciousness is not.
Perhaps somebody can help me out, but I don’t really see how hart has a good answer to the eliminative physicalist. It seems like his response really comes down to saying, “well it’s all phenomenal, even the material stuff.“ But what that doesn’t give you as an explanation, which is some thing that the interviewer rightly points out. What we do have with eliminative physicalism is an explanation or at least a potential explanation.
@@legron121Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irreducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to the contrary is but to concede.
Dear NATURE, Please give the human species the serenity to accept the things they will never know, the courage and responsibility to change the things they can and ought to, and the wisdom to be able to tell the difference between the two.
This man is worth considering. No Philosophy and Metaphysics is denying matter and physical contact, simply prespertous to assume such is principle and true reality. What's real about a movie is the film reel; what's real about a film reel is the substance captured; what's real about the substance is its essence; what's real about essence is emanation; what's real about emanation is 'The right here right now and all of this.' If there is dualism, it's of the mind. The mind is the enemy - you know: beliefs notions, misconceptions, conditioning.... throw it all away, disobjectify, you become closer to Truth at that moment than trying to instead make sense of all unconcentrated information that we consider empiricism.
Energy defeats materialism. And the soul/consciousness is energy. Energy and consciousness are in separable. Inanimate objects know their purpose and function in this reality, Otherwise this reality could not hold together -- The word of Goth
Beautiful interview in every aspect, theme, questions, scholarship. At the core is dualism versus materialism. Silly question since we are all at least dualists. We believe in a physical universe ruled by the 2nd. Law, and a non-physical universe ruled by mathematical theorems. According to materialism, all the particles of this universe and all the neat new things, the emergent things that different arrangement of those particles create like liquid water or electromagnetic waves, must obey the second law. The high intensity photons of the beginning, reach us now as downgraded red light. That downgrading does not occur in mathematics. The ratio of circumference to diameter is the same then as today, no redshift in Pi. Over the long haul, all the water molecules will cease their cute "emergent" metamorphosis and will become gas and then photons. But even then, Pi will be Pi. We must conclude that mathematics, whatever its ontology, is not of this physical universe because it does not obey the 2nd Law. occur
according to Adveta vedanta, only consciousness is subject in the world and everything else is objects. All objects do have life, beginning and end while subject has no beginning or end.
Can you choose to believe it’s night when staring at the sun? ☀️ Can a person choose to believe something they don’t? If not, then consciousness, and will, are determined and reducible. Freewill and consciousness are two locks with the same key.
For theists and for a lot of people in general it injures our intrinsic subconscious human exceptionalism resulting in vehement resistance to materialism or reductionism. IMO
You are merely informing us of your unproven beliefs. Consciousness is a requirement for a belief. We are capable of changing our beliefs whenever we want but we're too stubborn and attached to them to do so. Our beliefs were not pre-determined but were shaped by our life experiences that occurred as a result of our free will choices and those of others. Determinism is only true on a broad scale. The light bulb blows causing you to replace it. But you actually chose of your own free will to replace it because it was in your best interests to do so. On another level, what were you thinking and feeling while you were replacing it? You can't say light bulb failure caused all that. Hard determinism is crazy because it says all human thoughts, feelings and actions that ever occurred or will occur were determined before the earth even existed. Its so ridiculous because it contradicts the way human beings behave in the real world. If it were true then blame shouldn't exist but clearly it does. Its ludicrous to say the complete works of Shakespeare were somehow pre-determined at the start of the universe. Determinists know how stupid absolute determinism is and so are careful never to mention this aspect of it.
@@ianwaltham1854 so what you’re saying is, you can convince yourself it’s nighttime while staring at the sun? Have you ever considered the alternative that there are a finite number of determined slices of reality, and every event is not preset since the Big Bang? Like a game of billiards. Each turn is a “quantum reset” of random conditions that are played out. (Also, quantum chaos is not freewill either) Once the turn commences, there’s no changing the determined outcome until the balls reach their destined position. Not all effects are linked to causes stretching back to the Big Bang - but causes stretching back to the beginning of localized events; events that are the result of quantum fluctuations and their effects on causality. There isn’t a single series of events back to the BB, but a zillion to the zillion power of localized events. Each event is determined until the localized conditions which caused the event is annihilated, returning the particles to the quantum field. Shakespeare was not destined to write Titus since the Big Bang, but he was since his birth. Interesting enough, he was no longer destined to write anything after his brain turned to dust.
All people who watch these videos are probably more educated than average. Yet I am surprised by how overwhelming the comments seem to favor determinism. It shows me that education can corrupt by replacing experiences and common sense with smart sounding nonsense. Free will is obvious but denying it gives an excuse for any shortcomings.
@@firstlast9043you said,,,,”Yet I am surprised by how overwhelming the comments seem to favor determinism. It shows me that education can corrupt by replacing experiences and common sense with smart sounding nonsense.” You totally contradicted yourself. You deny determinism, then you blame the corrupt education system for the overwhelming number of determinists! (Physicality) lol.😂 I couldn’t even stage this sort of comedy gold. I love how you tried to insult me but it backfired.-- classic. I am obligated to "like" your comment!!!! Plus, you never answered the question. Do you think a person can convince themselves it’s night time while staring at the sun? 🤷🏻This should be a cinch for a dualist!!🕺🏻🕺🏻🕺🏻
Life has to be transformed, not avoided. if you avoid life you will remain immature. Life is a great blessing, an opportunity to grow, a challenge, a constant challenge that helps awareness, centering, grounding. Nothing has to be avoided. That is the ancient most stupidity; man has been living under its shadow for so long that it has become almost part of his blood, his bones, his very marrow. Materialism is perfectly good in its place. If there is matter, matter has to be absorbed in a total life view. It has not to be avoided; it has to be used as a steppingstone towards spirituality. There is no contradiction between materialism and spiritualism, although it has been told again and again for thousands of years. You have been conditioned so much -- the conditioning has gone deep -- that nobody ever thinks about it again. It is one of the greatest calamities that has happened to humanity. Matter is the outer side of spirit, spirit is the inner side of matter. They are not separate. The outside and the inside cannot be separate, they are inseparable, they are inevitably together. Hence, a right vision, a total vision of life will be a synthesis, a synchronicity between matter and consciousness. Materialism has its own beauty, its own significance, just as spiritualism has its own beauty. But don't make "isms" out of them. Life is one -- it is spiritual and material. In fact, to use the word "and" between spiritual and the material is not right; but languages come from the past. Better will be to make one word out of the two: spiritmatter. And they are existing together in perfect harmony. In you they are existing together -- your body, your mind, your soul, they are all existing in deep at-onement, attunement. There is a subtle rhythm. They are all part of one dance. The body is not against the soul -- it is the temple of the soul. It is time enough that we should get rid of this whole division between matter and spirit. They are not divided anywhere. They are not divided in you -- your body and your soul are functioning totally together, in deep synchronicity. You can experience it: if your body is sick, your innermost core also becomes sad, and if your innermost core is joyous, your body also wants to dance. I am not for any escapist attitude, I am not for any split in you. I want you to be one, I want you to be integrated. I want you to be totally natural, accepting, affirming. I teach you a materialist-spiritualist approach to life. It has never been done before -- that's why I am so much condemned. I accept it. I don't feel any trouble with it because that is natural. : Never create any antagonism between materialism and spiritualism - they go together"
A completely new quality/phenomenon can emerge from a combination of, say, an electron and a proton, that is n o t present as such and is different from them. So, for example, the two physical entities, an electron and a proton, can be in a normally bound quantum state -- the so- called ''1s'' state -- of the resulting hydrogen atom (H). The physical state ''1s'' is a quantum probability amplitude, a kind of numerical 'information', but it is not something what a philosopher would call 'material'. Moreover, the physical atom can also be in another non-material excited quantum state where it can exhibit new qualities, not present in the 'material' entities, the electron and the proton, as such. To wit, when the atom is present (or brought into) an excited quantum state, it would emit some thing new e.g. real 'light' or a 'photon', that was not present in the atom when it was in its lowest/ground/normal quantum state. One sees that 'light' as a new quality 'emerges' from the same material object (the H atom made of an electron and a proton) if it finds itself in (or, is brought into) a higher/excited quantum state. In principle, therefore, it seems quite possible for a 'material' living body or a brain to sustain/generate a new quality like 'consciousness', under possible excitation of its appropriate states. In other words, there seems to be nothing in principle that can hinder the appearence in material systems certain physical 'states' exhibiting a 'non-material' quality/experience/qualia, one calls 'consciousness'.
How about the opposite of eliminativism, namely idealism. It is quite coherent to explain the appearance of a material world in subjective terms. The apparent lawfulness of materialism is rather the lawfulness of appearances. Idealism has troubling implications, but it is at least logically coherent, unlike materialism, which is forced ultimately to deny that which is undoubtable, namely first person subjective experience, on which our impression of a material world is derivative.
I agree we don’t need to throw out the empirical models that have built the modern world. We just need to change the bedrock presupposition that these observables are local and real with the alternative deeper orientation that they are instead phenomena being a derivative of consciousness rather than matter. Let me start that I can both accept the naturalist claim that the consensus picture of the Standard Model is correct while at the same time questioning whether it is actually validating a deeper truth about core reality. I will use the term “physicalist/ naturalist” to convey the “science worldview” that encompasses the entirety of the collective broader academic schools of science and modern analytic philosophy that reigns supremely as the current consensus view and paradigm. I take it as a given that there is much diversity and nuance of ideas within this collective body of work. However this collective “body of work” is laden with certain presuppositions. These assumptions in turn determine what arguments and evidence are deemed credible and which are dismissed as unconvincing. In this respect all committed naturalists; as a consequence non-naturalistic approaches (idealism, theism, etc.) are not considered to be live options. This “body of work” is also massively persuasive due to it’s powerful success as a predictive epistemic explanatory model of almost all classical phenomena. I am using the term “classical phenomena” very deliberately here. Physicalists like Sean Carroll can say with genuine confidence that the “core theory” of the classical world is a completed project. Everything from QFT through the Standard Model to the periodic table and relativity gives us a precise description of the classical world that we as a species perceive and can accurately and predictively model and manipulate. This is an undeniable “given” and I won’t argue against its empirical validity and it’s powerful applicable functionality. I will however make one key and massively important observation. This “all” falls into that constrained “cone of knowing” through our “sense data” and the mathematical formalisms that model this data. Everything is perceived through this constrained prism extending from our gross body sense organs all the way to the data produced in high energy Particle colliders. What is undeniably true today is that the classical and causally deterministic reality-the principle of cause and effect-has been replaced by Quantum indeterminacy. Instead the picture that arises with all the many odd quantum effects challenge our human-centered macroscopic worldview. The understanding of the world in terms of concrete objects, having definite properties, that are in a specific place and can jump over walls only with sufficient energy, following precise paths like pinpointed particles in a mathematical diagram and ruled by a strict principle of classical cause and effect, no longer stands. This kind of Cartesian, Galilean, Newtonian, and Laplacian mechanistic realism based on a reductionist, deterministic, local worldview made of unconscious matter following classical laws of physical causality, and that has been so tremendously successful for almost three centuries, is now under serious question. The dream of reducing reality to a completely predictable unconscious and mechanistic clockwork universe is no longer tenable. Moreover, the consensus paradigm conflates sense data with reality or in other words how this “naive realism” is the assumed unquestioned perspective without acknowledging that perhaps it may all be an evolutionary construct- a Headset interface-that “renders” a functional classical reality but also “hides” a deeper core reality-the “thing in itself.” I will use what QM is possibly telling us to add credence to this idea. P. F. Strawson has called “our pre-theoretic scheme, which is “realist” in character” -the way our “realist view” of the world is reflected by our ordinary perceptual judgements and should not be accorded the status of a theory-for its acceptance is the very condition for the sensory experience to be understood as what it is, viz. as what supplies the data or evidence for such a theory. This seems to be the horns of the problem or the presupposition that most physicalists are blinded too. I don’t think we as a species that are locked in our evolutionary sensory “filter headset” can ever get to a final “truth.” The best we can do is realize how deeply erroneous our perceived reality construct and deep intuitive notions really are. Neils Bohr one of the eminent founders of QM saw this dilemma quite clearly and always maintained that we will never cross over to the point where we have access to “true reality.” This is of course Kant’s view as well. The place to start is to understand what this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics is pointing at. At the very least we can see that our reality is non-local and that this stand alone objective reality’s very existence is dependent on observation and measurement (really the same thing.) This astounding -experimentally verified-finding was started by John Bell and then confirmed experimentally by last year’s Nobel Laureates. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle already showed us that any observation can only ever give us a half truth about reality. If we measure a particle’s momentum we cannot ascertain it’s location and vice versa. That already implied that we only have phenomenological access to one aspect of the whole reality. David Bohm’s Implicate / explicate order postulate takes this understanding further and paints a reality that is an expression of two sides-one that is open to our sensory experience and one hidden from us. But these are two sides of the same holistic coin. Kant essentially says the same things with his Noumena / Phenomena distinction. You see that when it comes to “understanding” QM foundational science it is more philosophical speculation than empirical and verifiable research. Part of the problem and why we may never get an answer is that we are part of the very thing we are trying to observe. That is the crux of the measurement problem and why it may be an intractable problem forever. John Wheeler’s speculation on this and his “Participatory Universe” goes along similar thinking. The key take away here is that Bell’s inequality theorem must be taken literally which ever interpretational path you choose to endorse. It applies “in principle” as a core feature of reality. However the “world view” of a causally deterministic “realist” classical reality still holds its assuming grip on the imagination of scientists and the public at large.
You can never understand consciousness because we are it. We lack the perspective to explain it. We would have to be outside of ourselves (so to speak) to gain perspective enough to understand. Also, we have nothing to compare it to. We just have conscious and not conscious. It's like trying to explain the universe. We are in it, so we can not even grasp the entirety of it. We have absolutely nothing to compare it to. Funny how there are two "things" we can not explain- consciousness and the universe (maybe that's a clue in of itself). All the other "mysteries" are tied to those two.
Rabbits, wolves, frogs and insects have sensory perceptual systems beginning in eyes, ears, noses, taste buds and touch sensors and ending in brain areas not dissimilar from our own-producing an awareness of sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touches, also very likely not very different from our own…. I think we can grant that other animals do not have conscious awarenesses much different than our own. Consciousness is obviously not an impossible thing to study.
## Problems Discussed in the video The primary problem discussed in the text is the difficulty of understanding the nature of consciousness within the framework of traditional scientific and philosophical approaches. The text explores various perspectives and theories on consciousness, highlighting their limitations and inconsistencies. **Specific problems include:** * **Correlation vs. Causation:** While there's a clear correlation between brain activity and conscious experience, establishing a causal relationship between the two is challenging. * **The Hard Problem of Consciousness:** The text discusses the difficulty of explaining how subjective experiences arise from objective physical processes. * **The Limits of Materialism:** The text examines the limitations of reducing consciousness to purely physical or mechanistic explanations. * **The Incompatibility of Consciousness with Physicalism:** The text argues that certain qualities of consciousness, such as intentionality and subjectivity, seem incompatible with a purely physicalist worldview. * **The Difficulty of Explaining Emergence:** The text explores the challenges of explaining how consciousness could emerge from physical processes without violating the laws of physics. * **The Incoherence of Eliminativism:** The text critiques the position of eliminativism, which denies the existence of consciousness altogether. * **The Limitations of Panpsychism:** The text discusses the limitations of panpsychism, which proposes that consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter. ## Arguments Made in the Text The text presents various arguments related to the nature of consciousness: **Arguments against Materialism:** * Consciousness is a fundamentally subjective phenomenon that cannot be fully explained by objective physical processes. * Certain qualities of consciousness, such as intentionality and subjectivity, are incompatible with a purely physicalist worldview. * The emergence of consciousness from physical processes is difficult to explain without violating the laws of physics. **Arguments for Non-Reductionism:** * Consciousness cannot be reduced to its underlying physical components. * Consciousness is a unique phenomenon that requires a non-reductive explanation. **Arguments against Eliminativism:** * Eliminativism is incoherent because it denies the existence of the very phenomenon it seeks to explain. * Eliminativism would imply that our own thoughts and experiences are illusory. **Arguments for Panpsychism:** * Consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter, existing in varying degrees of complexity. * Consciousness emerges from the integration of these proto-conscious elements. **Criticisms of Panpsychism:** * Panpsychism does not provide a clear explanation for how consciousness emerges from physical processes. * Panpsychism posits two fundamentally different types of reality: the physical and the conscious. The text ultimately concludes that none of these perspectives offer a fully satisfactory explanation for the nature of consciousness, highlighting the ongoing challenges in this field of inquiry.
Taking a certain part of the brain and losing that function is analogues to destroying a chapter or a page in a book and losing the function or information in that part of the book. On the other hand, it is all too clear to everyone that the book is not the source of that information rather the information was coded in the book by consciousness. If you were to bring back the same consciousness, the conscious individual who originally created (coded) that chapter or page in the book, the person may find it practically impossible to recreat the exact content, word for word, of the missing part, eventhough that individual was the one who authored the book. So the brain is like a book authored or coded by consciousness. The conscious mind may find it practically impossible to recreate or recode the exact content of the missing part. However, losing a motor function of the brain is a little different. It is the same as having a damage arm or leg, they cease to function properly or so.
Books are reducible. A written paragraph is reducible. The words and writing in the book are not fundamental. They would not exist without the book. Thoughts are reducible. A brain 🧠 divided cannot make up its mind. 😅
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement, Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality. Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge, Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge. Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
I’ve never understood why humans could even begin to understand, let alone reason out, what is actually the Truth. Fun, but futile language games imho. We are what we are.
Functionalism doesn't get enough love, imo. Consciousness is as consciousness does. If you can build something out of material things, non-biologically (i.e., mothers don't count), for which it is a "conscious fact" that you perceive it as conscious, then you can say you've used a materialistic POV to understand consciousness. This is kind of a behaviorist POV for consciousness, but note that physical theories are like that; you have a theory for why "something physical" and it predicts some kind of behavior in addition to the "something physical". Of course, you might build Commander Data, perceive and interact with him as conscious, or even human, and then ask him if he is conscious, and he might say "no" (then after you leave the room, he might break out laughing).
It can’t be established empirically, and it is not falsifiable, but I think probably the Vedantic idea that there is one consciousness in which appears, as a kind of dream, all seeming diversity, is the, uh, closest to truth.
*"Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism?"* ... We have materialism, idealism, determinism, physicalism, dualism, panpsychism, substantialism, theism, atheism, and a new one that I had to look up: _eliminativism._ I like how all of these "ism's" are treated like contestants in a Kickboxing tournament for which only one can be left standing. If you have one *all-encompassing ideology* that can supposedly negate the existence of an opposing *all-encompassing ideology* (i.e. "dualism vs physicalism"), then most likely neither is totally accurate. In fact, the odds are that "Existence" is a mixture of both! "Existence" freely offers us observable pairings such as existence and nonexistence, matter and space, black and white, positive and negative, proton and electron, up and down, wrong and right, dead and alive, and a long-long list of other "oppositional pairings" that pepper the entire spectrum of reality. ... So why do we think that only one "ism" will rise to the top and completely explain reality?
Your description of "Existence" greatly resembles the ancient Chinese philosophy of Lao Tzu called Taoism. The Yin-Yang symbol represents the polar opposites of Everything unified in the Tao.
You said. “"Existence" freely offers us observable pairings such as existence and nonexistence,” Existence offers us non-existence? Does that work with money also?! 🤪
@@Resmith18SR *"Your description of "Existence" greatly resembles the ancient Chinese philosophy of Lao Tzu called Taoism."* ... Yes! Yin-Yang is an integral element in the ToE presented in my book. I deal with it in a different way, though. Not everything is harmonious.
“Consciousness” defeats materialism if attention, awareness and memories are not physical. Seems odd that we cannot figure this out. I had a thought today that maybe there are neuronal patterns that form when an organism has experiences which is when they are awake. Mechanisms happen when certain organism are sleeping so we also don’t know exactly how sleep helps with memories but we do know some things. But the growth of neurons, neuroplasticity as well as being able to learn and form memories throughout one’s life and remember as well as forget may have something to do with more than one thing such as the chemical messengers, types of brains cells/neurons, DNA and patterns of neurons growth and connections. Otherwise holy crap is their a cloud service that holds our memories? Literally a universal biological cloud system? That would imply simulation theory possibly right?
Seems to me the most interesting and germane aspects of neurons are their ability to maintain discharge-timing-patterns and their ability to allow other neurons to adjust those patterns via their synapses. Since thoughts are representations it seems to me that neural discharge-timing-patterns are ideal for instantiating representations in encoded form. Most religious folks believe their bodies are mere vehicles for their 'consciousness' or soul and this because 'consciousness' seems to be an immaterial entity. But in light of the fact that discharge-timing-pattern representations are immaterial entities... I once thought that my entire self was my body but later came to the conclusion that my self is a complex thought, a thought entirely dependent for its immaterial existence on my body as its necessary substrate in the just explained way that a thought is. It's late and my thoughts are getting hazy so good night.
Science is always empirical, or it is not science. Consciousness is the most empirically evident fact we have about the world. Any theory that seeks to deny it is unempirical.
Consciousness doesn't begin in the cerebral cortex, it ends there. It begins in the brain stem with the reticular activating system. Impulses go to the thalamus, basal ganglia, and adjoining structures (e.g., hippocampus) and finally to the cortical structures. They are "booted up" (activated to a level sufficient for consciousness). Consciousness isn't all of what we have. We have dreams. I think David is wrong to believe that consciousness is more than the brain ("physical causes"). Consciousness is caused by the brain using physical means, electrochemical neuronal circuits. When we are unconscious (sleeping), our neural circuits are somewhat quiescent except for those circuits needed to maintain life. We have a type of consciousness even in dreams (we know we are dreaming and can recall the dreams). Brain circuits are active in dreaming. Regarding subjective experiences (qualia), the brain alone provides those experiences: the feeling of color, art, music, "what it is like to be", and so on. Why is that so difficult for some to accept? Pain is a subjective experience. We know how pain works in the somatosensory system and motor system. We know the mechanisms involved in "fear", "joy", and other felt emotions. Somehow, even highly trained intellectuals cannot accept the fact that the 3-pound mass of "tofu" in their cranium produces all that they are - their sense of self, of being, of relating to others, love, hate, greed, benevolence; it all done by the brain. What is difficult to understand is the notion of "free will." Certainly, we do not have totally "free" will. We are influence in varying strengths by genetics, childhood experience and environment, the years of maturation and experiences, and developed preferences and biases, and unseen forces that tend to "mess with our brain/mind" (e.g., advertising). So, when we are faced with a decision (choice), our subconscious brain/mind is already tending towards a specific decision (choice). The extent to which we can override the subconscious forces varies with one's genetics, past, and factors like intelligence, character, courage, etc. (but those too are influenced by genetics and experiences). Little do we know what the brain is actually doing on "our" (its) behalf "under the hood." We ask ourselves after the fact, "Why did I say that?", "Why did I marry her/him?" "Why did I choose that car?" "Why did I cheat on that exam?" "Why did I take advantage of her;him?", and so on. There is much more going on "under the hood" than we know.
@@BugRib just the ability for 0ne to want to combine to another one to make two displays consciousness this works from the microscopic to the macroscopic and seen in the fibonacci sequence i know im crazy lol
He doesn't think there are any pure Cartesian (Dualists I assume) out there that think there is a soul substance ontologically distinct from the material that it is like an alien. Really? Isn't that pretty much the whole religious worldview...at least for the Abrahamic religions which make up a huge portion of humanity? Best I can tell, they really believe the soul/spirit/mind is a completely different kind of thing than the physical body to the extent they don't think we 'are' our bodies with a mind/spirit/soul but rather we 'are' a soul that has a body.
Scientists and philosophers should consult with mathematicians to get a fuller perspective. Math is the precise language of God. Philosophy is that of the spirit and science brings the third element to the table. There you have a complete meal. Peace is possible.
Materials exist ! Non-materials exist ! For example, when you buy a game on a DVD, you get both. And you need a brain in order to have a brainstorm (Eureka !)
The brain recreates the patterns through signals created by the cells and connections and those send signals to replicate the senses we perceive and how those are connected in patterns.
We have mapped the physical oneness deterministic philosophy from the inside already. The loopholes are the unaware property of a materlistic mind . With how well recorded history has been able to predict with a rich observation of the world around them then finally thousands of years later our hands on technicians and mechanics actually test and confirm such synonymous discovery it has to be taken into consideration as a stand alone ontological foundation. If we model naturally we know how we prefer to graph things out by layering feilds. This should not be ruled out. The tripartite nature of man and how it was thought to be unified gives us the historical account serves as a representation
People will fight determinism to the end because they hate it. One reason to hate it is that it nullifies our most cherished notions such as morality and individual agency. But to the scientific mind it is inescapable, the only rational conclusion we can come to. Our most inner core refuses to accept it. Even for many scientists it's an inner battle between heart and mind. There can be only one winner as the two notions are mutually exclusive. I cherish the illusion myself but I'm aware that it is after all an illusion.
I don’t think it nullifies morality. It refutes concepts of absolute morality, but that’s not the only type of moral framework. There are others such as utilitarianism.
The fact is if you lose the portion of the brain that effects the motor functions it only effects the ability to interact with the body in the material dimension , just because you lose the sight centres of you brain it doesn’t matter to consciousness, what a weak argument
Look microscopically at a vinyl phonograph record bumps along a groove of the record. Can you explain how those bumps are rendered through a stylus and into an electronic amplifier... how those bumps become the simultaneous sounds of an orchestra? The analog input to the amplifier is converted to electronic signals which are processed, and then output to speakers. The speakers vibrate and render the sounds of the orchestra almost as though you were attending a live event. The engineers who designed the amplifier did that with precision, logic, and purpose. They understand how an amplifier works. Do non-engineers have any clue how an amplifier works? No. Do they assign a supernatural component to it? No. Our consciousness is very similar. The trillion synapses of our brains, albeit more complex, are analogous to the electronics of an amplifier. If you pay attention to your own flow of awareness, it is actually an audio-visual playback. Real time is perceived with a very slight delay because the current moment is infinitely small. So we process the immediate past and simultaneously play back snippets of memory as we experience that near-instantaneous current time reality. There are neuroscientists who largely understand the systems of electromagnetic fields, the physics of neurons and glia that are activated simultaneously in different parts of the brain. The real problem with public understanding of consciousness is in its complexity.
@@SurrealMcCoy 1st came the body, then the brain. The body employs the brain so the brain really works for the body. This is why many people people also feel like they do not have free will. The ultimate will lies with the body.
To bring it up to the critical level one first needs to define what the word angel refers to. Same problem with Consciousness, Mind, Soul, Spirit or God.
Materialism is nothing but a concept of consciousness. Consciousness is 100% fact, materialism is the assumption that a model of thought is actually true, if there is such a thing as a “true model”. It’s not just materialism, but all the content of consciousness is no more than thought, the objective is always assumed, the subject is the only thing we can truly call real.
@@dr_shrinkerYour statement is total rubbish 🗑. If you couldn't control your thoughts then you wouldn't be able to work anything out. You wouldn't have been able to write your idiotic reply.
Meaning he restart too think more maybe become a genius or something maybe his words be stronger then the God himself become more like God but he restart be more like living god on earth soon when he reliaze who he really his then the juke dna come back and the he unlock the jesus christ widsom soon when he start too connnet more knowledge then he becomes greater then the god himself mr Robert ❤
What's wrong with consciousness just being a product of a living organism with a brain and nervous system? Material objects like atoms, protons, electrons, chairs, tables, don't have brains or a nervous system, so they are not or ever will be conscious.
@@Resmith18SR The problem is that all examples of emergence that we have in nature are soft emergence, conscious brains arising from non-conscious atoms is hard emergence ie something akin to magic. Panpsychism is much more likely.
Maybe I'm missing something but why does non reductionism have to be non physical to him? Emergent properties exist physically and there are many problems in biology and physics that are solved not by reducing to fundamental principles but by using statistical Mechanics to explain the emergence of new behaviors from the interactions of simpler elements that would not display that behavior by themselves. This is a purely physical picture that is not reductionist (by my understanding of the word) and I have heard neuroscientisits describe consciousness as arising from these types of emergent properties. This to me seems like a crucial point that was glossed over quickly and it'd be interesting to hear him elaborate more on this
That would explain something acting as if it had consciousness but it would be appearance only. An automata that reacts in a mechanistic way. For example, a robot. If i program a robot to react to numerous events, it would act as if sentient, but it would never be. It would simply emulate behaviour. There would be no self there. No sense of I. That is why we can achieve artificial intelligence but not artificial consciousness
Without a created mind, there wouldn't be any visible object. The mind processes invisible vibrations into the visible images that we ( created AI ) observe.
@@longcastle4863 More accurately stated... Because there’s no way we can be a product of evolution? (We don't know if other animals are conscious. They might be entirely instinctual).
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL it’s hard to think that animals with the same kind of sensory perceptual apparatuses as us and generally very similar brain structures as us, do not experience a similar kind of consciousness as us. We share a lot of genes with chimpanzees; do you really think consciousness occurred for us, but not for them?
Energy defeats materialism. And the soul/consciousness is energy. Energy and consciousness are in separable. Inanimate objects know their purpose and function in this reality, Otherwise this reality could not hold together -- The word of Goth
All of these word salad approaches come about because they have no coherent understanding or an intuition of basic brain structures and how they integrate. Classical case of care salesmen trying to solve or explain automotive engineering from the showroom brochures.
Neurosience doesnt know How figure out conscieusness so far. Important show reality in the world make up consciousness proceendings are absolutetly big problems in philosophy and phich. Unpredictable conscieusness doesnt pictures reality show philosophy and phich was always Blur theory . Guys conscieusness keep out How figure out though philosophy and phich proceendings.
Why does he not see that he is just spouting deepities? He has no understanding of the physical. One large argument from his almost unbounded ignorance.
I think once you accept that earthworms, lizards, house mice and in fact all living creatures have sone level of consciousness-depending, usually, on where they sit on the phylogenetic tree-then consciousness becomes not as “mysterious” as maybe at first it seems. Consciousness is a product of biological evolution and it grew in complexity in animals over time as it continued to be selected for by Evolution due to it survival advantages.
There have been single neuron studies that show even one individual neuron can be conscious. The mystery is how can we claim that a neuron is conscious but the atoms it's made of are not.
Robert is such a wonderful host and a brilliant mind. Dr Hart is also a joy to listen to. ❤☦️
There’s a lot talk about the hard problem of consciousness but little discussion about hardest problem of all - our seeming individuality. Why would electricity in my head create my consciousness and electricity in your head create your consciousness? Why am I, I and you, you? As well as not being able to explain any specific qualia materialist theories cannot explain this, the most important thing. Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should suddenly find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question. What is the principled explanation for why:
A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness?
Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness?
A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not even possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject.
Excellent comment. I am deep diving into a range of disciplines trying to better understand consciousness: physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology...and, in my view, the 2 greatest tools in this endeavor, mathematics and philosophy.
I am a software engineer, doing quite a bit of AI programming. Some in my profession are materialists...saying consciousness is a function of brain state driven by fundamental forces. What's more, there is no free will in their reckoning. Inferring that since action at the quantum level is deterministic, with some randomness, so too are decisions, that they cannot be free. Talk about quantum leaps of logic.
You nicely laid out the most important problem: what is transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia?
Like you, I consider topics like quantum collapse, retroactive causality, neural correlates, and so. I'm certainly no master of these area, but still see the gap you do. Speaking of which...that is another criticism and quantum leap of logic by some materialists: gods of the gaps.
They assume progress is linear and that gaps in due time will be explained deterministically. But I think more questions have been raised rather than answered. With no progress in bridging the massive gap on individuality you posted.
In addition any materialistic explanation would somehow have to be able to define and PREDICT each personal existence and when it should show up. An obvious absurdity.@@banmate6
Why do you think other hypotheses fare any better at this? How can they account for individuality other than positing a brute thinness?
Also, by my lights, if individuality is a problem at all it would not only undermine the notion that the mind is a physical process but you would have to deny that interaction between body and mind is possible, after all what makes your mind able to only control the specific atoms of your body and not any other?.
Great comment
I like David Bentley Hart and the way he writes. He's a great writer and speaker.
I agree
@@Autobotmatt428 appearance can be deceptive he's full of flannel!!!!!!
☦Because you are concerned about shallow things like his sophistry. He's not an Eastern Orthodox, he's the biggest blasphemer of our time
@@LyovaCampos how so?
best exposition in a long time of this problem- others get side tracked but David's incisive arguments are compelling- quite exhilarating to have it defined so precisely to make any counter argument effectively impotent
☦No, they are just heretical. He's the biggest blasphemer of our time, so wake up
Finally you guys post this part of the interview. Thank you. I love Hart and Khuns back and forth .
Kuhn is a corrupt shill for the Chinese Communist Party. Fact check it if you don't believe me. Bentley-Hart should've done his research on this guy before sitting down with him
☦Well, you need to wake up, because Hart is the biggest heretic of our time
One of the best interviews on this channel 👍
Agreed.
@@kenechiokoli7716 Seconded
@@kenechiokoli7716 I also agree
This is a worthwhile interview.
It's interesting how someone who is not a prominent name in the study of consciousness has a much greater clarity and deeper understanding of the problem than those who are prominent in the field.
it is because he is extremely, realy extremely, smart and erudit and have dealt with the topic for about three decades. .
He's a universalist heretic who believes in the Monad of the Greeks not in the Christian God of Moses, so you need to wake up
@@LyovaCampos Monad means One in Greek. Bible says: our God is One. So, what's the problem?
@@kitstamat9356 It means "one" literally, but in their philosophy it refers to a certain type of god, and this god is not the Christian God of Moses: YHVH the Father. The god of Aristotle is a cold emotionless involuntary machine of just 1 act who's like programed & dependant of his nature or necessities like creation & can will only 1 thing - this is contrary to Scripture & Thomists impose this Aristotlian metaphysics on the Bible, instead of the other way around - putting Scripture 1st & take it at face value. They have a false Greek presupposition which says that incorporeal things like virtues, attributes & emotions, cause distinctions within God or plurality: that is FALSE. Since there are by DEFINITION as incorporeal cannot be "parts" or compositions, that would be an oxymoron, since incorporeal things don't have forms or amount, therefore don't cause ANY distinction in God. Thomists should wake up.
@@LyovaCamposDBH has made it very clear that God is Personal within his wiritngs. DBH has always heavily emphasised the importance of Divine Simplicity and opposed the idea of introducing Plurality into God's Essence. Also, Universalism is not a Heresy. It existed prominently in Early Christianity and he'd be excommunicated by now if it were heretical. I suggest you actually read his books to understand he's merely defending the Classical Theistic notion of God.
Such a highly intellectual discussion that is not so easy for the average person (me) to wrap their head around.
Not your head, your mind lol
Hey you two this joint isn't going to smoke itself.
Awesome. The contradistinction between these arguments are equally fascinating. In my humble opinion.
Brilliant interview as-a-whole.
"soul substance" awesome still going strong, Robert. Still elevating the conversation. Thank you.
Great conversation between two great minds. At the end of the day, we are still a mystery to ourselves.
This interview was one of the most defining moments of my philosophical journey. This moment is when "the penny dropped" for me.
I hope your journey carries on. I like some of the off-the-cuff descriptions he uses about the positions of his philosophical foes: "It's the nuclear option", "It hardly rises to the level of a vicious circle", and "Well, I suppose there's some sort of consistency in total destruction". DBH cuts through the unworkable positions in post-Cartesian Philosophy of Mind. I look forward to his forthcoming book on the topic. But I'm rather afraid that it will have limited impact on the bigger philosophical traditions. He is better known for being a philosophical theologian which almost guarantees oblivion in wider circles.
@@theophilus749 Agreed, I've tried to talk to people about Hart's work on consciousness, and they just brush it away saying "oh he just thinks it's all God."
I hope they eventually realize that they have such a hard time fitting consciousness into their philosophical systems, yet traditional religious philosophy does not
@@repentantrevenant9776 I sympathise, I have suffered similarly in discussion with people about various philosophical theologians (and that includes fellow Christians). Firstly, it is, of course, a cheap and easy way of by-passing the much harder intellectual work of responding to their actual arguments. Secondly, it rests upon the mistake of seeing God as just another cause acting on events in the same playing field as nature's own causes and thus being locked into some zero-sum competition with them. Thirdly, as you acknowledge, their own minds are well insulated from the mediaeval philosophical synthesis which arguably has the far richer response - because, you've guessed it, that's 'all God', too.
So, good luck. Theo
Reading other comments, it seems like many haven’t had that “penny-drop” moment yet. They don’t fully grasp the problem (which might be the hardest part!)
Robert Kuhn's energy and passion to tackle these knotty questions from various angles is highly commendable! A theologian this time? I am listening. Maybe some insights from Buddhists and Advaitins would fit in somewhere too.
Thanks for your relentless curiosity!
Hart is also well versed in both those
@@Autobotmatt428 Well versed in both sophistry and tautology.
Consciousness and Materialism are ONE.
🤔
I think your statement would be closer to truth if stated this way...
Consciousness and Physicalism are ONE.
Why? Because Materialism does not include 'movement' whereas
Physicalism does and
being conscious is obviously a process and
process entails movement.
Nothing is obvious here. Physicalism is the same as materialism to most. Dont be too pedantic. You haven't figured it out either. We'll all know if you do.
Respect to you my brother. Appreciate the reply. Are you familiar with the term "Ekam Sat"? Thank you and best wishes. @@pjaworek6793
@@pjaworek6793
"Physicalism is the same as materialism to most".
Are they the same to you?
Materialism is about material existence.
Mind is obviously not material.
So some conclude matter and mind must be unrelated.
Physicalism is materialism with the addition of movement.
Movement is not a property of a piece of matter because
movement is relative.
Movement is not matter and not a property of any material object.
Thus movement, like mind, is immaterial.
Movement is thus a fine candidate out of which mind and being conscious may be built.
Brilliant 👏 Bravo
10:38 "It's the entirety of all experience and all of it's discernible properties." What discernible property could experience have other than experience itself?
Experiences have an experiencer. They can be of different phenomena such as sensations, memories, intellectual responses, emotional responses, etc. They are informational, in that they are about something. They are transitory. Just off the top of my head.
It’s a good question. I would offer such things as attention, agency, intentionality, and its phenomenal aspect (qualia). It might be prudent to call them ‘apparent’ properties, but they are nevertheless discernible.
@@mandelbot5318 Thanks. My point is that all candidates for the properties are merely the contents of experience. To me the nature of experience is empty, it's the medium in which all else seems to appear.
I believe by "it", David is referring to the content of a self's conscious field.
Experience is simply the word we use to refer to what is going on in that field
coupled to the recording of the field's content.
(I.e., no self can enjoy an 'educational experience'
should the content of the conscious field fail to be recorded).
@@SurrealMcCoy Mandelbrot and myself are thinking of experience as a category, in which various different things can be experiences. If it’s a container, then it’s an object or material, or a medium as you say. Thats a completely different view along the lines of dualism, so a kind of substance.
Conciousness is not what you do, its what you are. Fundamental as existence.
Paraphrasing...
You are conscious.
Not you are consciousness.
You are alive.
Not you are aliveness.
When you are conscious, you are conscious OF something.
When you are not conscious OF anything, you are not conscious.
It is my self that is conscious of something.
When my self is not conscious my self is non existent.
What proof do you have?
@@dr_shrinker The proof is self-evident. That you are consciousness itself is the most obvious thing but so many people don't take notice. It's like looking through a clear window and seeing the outside. You're ignoring the window and only focusing on the tree and birds or whatever. I come up and point out that you're looking directly at a window and you fail to see it because you're looking past it.
@Promatheos - This is a great way of explaining why many smart people just don't "see" the problem of explaining consciousness in terms of physical processes.
I didn't "see" it until I was like 35. It was just a completely out-of-the-blue, spontaneous realization. It's like I was struck by a lightning bolt!
Once you "see" it, it becomes difficult to understand why so many people don't "see" it. 🤔
@@Promatheossorry. Let me clarify my question. What proof do you have that consciousness is fundamental?
Eliminativism is an example of reductio ad absurdum.
It is the most important question of all and was debated for 1000 yrs by Hindu monks. This was 1st best described by ancient Hindu. Interview Swami Sarvapriyananda from Vedanta Society of NY.
Did the Hindu monks believe that being conscious was accomplished by the body?
10/10 best of the best of the internet
Great interview, the last minute is the best… It’s really not hard to imagine when you “see and think in Sound…
9 random unorganized sounds actually Create “Intelligent, Organized Tones… My numbers prove it, especially when I convert my numbers into musical Notes… It literally comes out of my 64-digit 3:6:9 Harmonic Matrix, from Vacuum Substance…
100% Evolved Structured Sound Torus, Radiating Pure Perfection, at least from my Theory…
Magical “108…”
Most of the time we are unconscious.
We are only conscious for a short time.
Unconsciousness wins hands down !
@@ponderingspirit
No it isn't'.
I don't remember the age of the dinosaurs.
And I suspect you don't either.
@@tedgrant2 are you suggesting that consciousness is the same as memory?
@@gfepsh
No.
Would love to hear a discussion about consciousness with Johnjoe McFadden.
Not a name I see mentioned very often. I thought ‘Quantum Evolution’ and ‘Life on the Edge’ were both great books.
@@mandelbot5318 Loved "Life on the Edge." Haven't read the other. I am intrigued by his CEMI field theory, his partial solution to the hard problem which he has written two papers about.
@@theotormon’Quantum Evolution’ is definitely worth a read. I haven’t read those papers so I’ll have to check them out. Thank you.
We can understand that 1 + 2 + 3 = 6, but that “6” is experienced as consciousness by that 6, we cannot. But neither can we know what it feels like to be that 1 or 2 or 3, nor anything at all except our own consciousness. It seems to me that as no man knows the things of anything except its own spirit, we are attempting to know Consciousness (of others and in general) in a way that we know no other thing. My idea is that all is physical, and that the only portion we know is the combination in our brain, and that the vast majority of it, which we can only see from the outside, is the physical plant to its physical bloom.
The mechanical picture of Nature doesn't remove the mental from Nature it removes choice from intention.
Instead of meaning requiring choice, it substitutes a utilitarian cause and effect guided by logical sequence: math. Instead of man being the "necessary connection" of meaning, logic plays the part of "constant conjunction" between cause and effect: causation.
In the instrumental picture of reality "described" by science, meaning is removed. By gaining the instrumental control of sequence, we lose the explanatory "connection" of mind. By insisting on material, definition we take meaning out of consciousness. We substitute what some thing is doing to what some other "concept" is. Instead of an apple falling from a tree we cite gravity. Instead of an animal obeying its urges we cite consciousness.
By naming the imperceptible we utilize meaning to give meaning to relationships.
His book on consciousness in 2024 will be titled, "All Things Are Full of Gods".
The answer is yes.
Consciousness should be understood in the context of an ever evolving universe. It's the current state of complexity, but we have no idea what form it may take in the far future, what will replace it.
Great comment. It has much deeper implications for materialism than you might think. To highlight how universal evolution has changed consciousness is a strong argument for the reducibility of consciousness. Thanks for your comment.
Consciousness does not change or evolve, it's constant and ever present.
consciousness is not a property of anything in nature. it is the fundemental reality.
Mind (thoughts, feelings, perceptions) changes and evolves and is affected by the physical world, consciousness is not.
Perhaps somebody can help me out, but I don’t really see how hart has a good answer to the eliminative physicalist. It seems like his response really comes down to saying, “well it’s all phenomenal, even the material stuff.“ But what that doesn’t give you as an explanation, which is some thing that the interviewer rightly points out. What we do have with eliminative physicalism is an explanation or at least a potential explanation.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Nonsense.
@@legron121Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irreducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to the contrary is but to concede.
Dear NATURE,
Please give the human species the serenity to accept the things they will never know, the courage and responsibility to change the things they can and ought to, and the wisdom to be able to tell the difference between the two.
This man is worth considering.
No Philosophy and Metaphysics is denying matter and physical contact, simply prespertous to assume such is principle and true reality.
What's real about a movie is the film reel; what's real about a film reel is the substance captured; what's real about the substance is its essence; what's real about essence is emanation; what's real about emanation is 'The right here right now and all of this.'
If there is dualism, it's of the mind. The mind is the enemy - you know: beliefs notions, misconceptions, conditioning.... throw it all away, disobjectify, you become closer to Truth at that moment than trying to instead make sense of all unconcentrated information that we consider empiricism.
Energy defeats materialism. And the soul/consciousness is energy. Energy and consciousness are in separable. Inanimate objects know their purpose and function in this reality, Otherwise this reality could not hold together -- The word of Goth
I think Kuhn should start to ask in the nature of reality if he wants to understand what he is talking about
materialism is property of excersise during relapse conscious is relavant to trust can't be defeated
Yes. What else do you want to know?
Consciousness is a Singularity. life is running on a function with unique behaviour.
Not sure what this means.
@@Raiddd__ Don't worry, neither does he. 😂
It's like the universe has a mind and it's trying to manifest itself through conscious life forms.
Beautiful interview in every aspect, theme, questions, scholarship. At the core is dualism versus materialism. Silly question since we are all at least dualists. We believe in a physical universe ruled by the 2nd. Law, and a non-physical universe ruled by mathematical theorems.
According to materialism, all the particles of this universe and all the neat new things, the emergent things that different arrangement of those particles create like liquid water or electromagnetic waves, must obey the second law. The high intensity photons of the beginning, reach us now as downgraded red light. That downgrading does not occur in mathematics. The ratio of circumference to diameter is the same then as today, no redshift in Pi. Over the long haul, all the water molecules will cease their cute "emergent" metamorphosis and will become gas and then photons. But even then, Pi will be Pi. We must conclude that mathematics, whatever its ontology, is not of this physical universe because it does not obey the 2nd Law.
occur
according to Adveta vedanta, only consciousness is subject in the world and everything else is objects. All objects do have life, beginning and end while subject has no beginning or end.
Can you choose to believe it’s night when staring at the sun? ☀️ Can a person choose to believe something they don’t? If not, then consciousness, and will, are determined and reducible. Freewill and consciousness are two locks with the same key.
For theists and for a lot of people in general it injures our intrinsic subconscious human exceptionalism resulting in vehement resistance to materialism or reductionism. IMO
You are merely informing us of your unproven beliefs. Consciousness is a requirement for a belief. We are capable of changing our beliefs whenever we want but we're too stubborn and attached to them to do so. Our beliefs were not pre-determined but were shaped by our life experiences that occurred as a result of our free will choices and those of others.
Determinism is only true on a broad scale. The light bulb blows causing you to replace it. But you actually chose of your own free will to replace it because it was in your best interests to do so.
On another level, what were you thinking and feeling while you were replacing it? You can't say light bulb failure caused all that.
Hard determinism is crazy because it says all human thoughts, feelings and actions that ever occurred or will occur were determined before the earth even existed. Its so ridiculous because it contradicts the way human beings behave in the real world. If it were true then blame shouldn't exist but clearly it does. Its ludicrous to say the complete works of Shakespeare were somehow pre-determined at the start of the universe. Determinists know how stupid absolute determinism is and so are careful never to mention this aspect of it.
@@ianwaltham1854 so what you’re saying is, you can convince yourself it’s nighttime while staring at the sun?
Have you ever considered the alternative that there are a finite number of determined slices of reality, and every event is not preset since the Big Bang? Like a game of billiards. Each turn is a “quantum reset” of random conditions that are played out. (Also, quantum chaos is not freewill either) Once the turn commences, there’s no changing the determined outcome until the balls reach their destined position.
Not all effects are linked to causes stretching back to the Big Bang - but causes stretching back to the beginning of localized events; events that are the result of quantum fluctuations and their effects on causality. There isn’t a single series of events back to the BB, but a zillion to the zillion power of localized events. Each event is determined until the localized conditions which caused the event is annihilated, returning the particles to the quantum field.
Shakespeare was not destined to write Titus since the Big Bang, but he was since his birth. Interesting enough, he was no longer destined to write anything after his brain turned to dust.
All people who watch these videos are probably more educated than average. Yet I am surprised by how overwhelming the comments seem to favor determinism. It shows me that education can corrupt by replacing experiences and common sense with smart sounding nonsense. Free will is obvious but denying it gives an excuse for any shortcomings.
@@firstlast9043you said,,,,”Yet I am surprised by how overwhelming the comments seem to favor determinism. It shows me that education can corrupt by replacing experiences and common sense with smart sounding nonsense.”
You totally contradicted yourself. You deny determinism, then you blame the corrupt education system for the overwhelming number of determinists! (Physicality) lol.😂 I couldn’t even stage this sort of comedy gold. I love how you tried to insult me but it backfired.-- classic. I am obligated to "like" your comment!!!!
Plus, you never answered the question. Do you think a person can convince themselves it’s night time while staring at the sun? 🤷🏻This should be a cinch for a dualist!!🕺🏻🕺🏻🕺🏻
Life has to be transformed, not avoided. if you avoid life you will remain immature. Life is a great blessing, an opportunity to grow, a challenge, a constant challenge that helps awareness, centering, grounding. Nothing has to be avoided. That is the ancient most stupidity; man has been living under its shadow for so long that it has become almost part of his blood, his bones, his very marrow.
Materialism is perfectly good in its place. If there is matter, matter has to be absorbed in a total life view. It has not to be avoided; it has to be used as a steppingstone towards spirituality. There is no contradiction between materialism and spiritualism, although it has been told again and again for thousands of years. You have been conditioned so much -- the conditioning has gone deep -- that nobody ever thinks about it again. It is one of the greatest calamities that has happened to humanity.
Matter is the outer side of spirit, spirit is the inner side of matter. They are not separate. The outside and the inside cannot be separate, they are inseparable, they are inevitably together. Hence, a right vision, a total vision of life will be a synthesis, a synchronicity between matter and consciousness.
Materialism has its own beauty, its own significance, just as spiritualism has its own beauty. But don't make "isms" out of them. Life is one -- it is spiritual and material. In fact, to use the word "and" between spiritual and the material is not right; but languages come from the past. Better will be to make one word out of the two: spiritmatter.
And they are existing together in perfect harmony. In you they are existing together -- your body, your mind, your soul, they are all existing in deep at-onement, attunement. There is a subtle rhythm. They are all part of one dance. The body is not against the soul -- it is the temple of the soul.
It is time enough that we should get rid of this whole division between matter and spirit. They are not divided anywhere. They are not divided in you -- your body and your soul are functioning totally together, in deep synchronicity. You can experience it: if your body is sick, your innermost core also becomes sad, and if your innermost core is joyous, your body also wants to dance.
I am not for any escapist attitude, I am not for any split in you. I want you to be one, I want you to be integrated. I want you to be totally natural, accepting, affirming. I teach you a materialist-spiritualist approach to life. It has never been done before -- that's why I am so much condemned. I accept it. I don't feel any trouble with it because that is natural.
: Never create any antagonism between materialism and spiritualism - they go together"
Does software defeat hardware ?
Could software exist independently of hardware.
And will I still be able to play Tomb Raider in Heaven ?
A completely new quality/phenomenon can emerge from a combination of, say, an electron and a proton, that is n o t present as such and is different from them. So, for example, the two physical entities, an electron and a proton, can be in a normally bound quantum state -- the so- called ''1s'' state -- of the resulting hydrogen atom (H). The physical state ''1s'' is a quantum probability amplitude, a kind of numerical 'information', but it is not something what a philosopher would call 'material'. Moreover, the physical atom can also be in another non-material excited quantum state where it can exhibit new qualities, not present in the 'material' entities, the electron and the proton, as such.
To wit, when the atom is present (or brought into) an excited quantum state, it would emit some thing new e.g. real 'light' or a 'photon', that was not present in the atom when it was in its lowest/ground/normal quantum state. One sees that 'light' as a new quality 'emerges' from the same material object (the H atom made of an electron and a proton) if it finds itself in (or, is brought into) a higher/excited quantum state. In principle, therefore, it seems quite possible for a 'material' living body or a brain to sustain/generate a new quality like 'consciousness', under possible excitation of its appropriate states. In other words, there seems to be nothing in principle that can hinder the appearence in material systems certain physical 'states' exhibiting a 'non-material' quality/experience/qualia, one calls 'consciousness'.
How about the opposite of eliminativism, namely idealism. It is quite coherent to explain the appearance of a material world in subjective terms. The apparent lawfulness of materialism is rather the lawfulness of appearances. Idealism has troubling implications, but it is at least logically coherent, unlike materialism, which is forced ultimately to deny that which is undoubtable, namely first person subjective experience, on which our impression of a material world is derivative.
I agree we don’t need to throw out the empirical models that have built the modern world. We just need to change the bedrock presupposition that these observables are local and real with the alternative deeper orientation that they are instead phenomena being a derivative of consciousness rather than matter.
Let me start that I can both accept the naturalist claim that the consensus picture of the Standard Model is correct while at the same time questioning whether it is actually validating a deeper truth about core reality.
I will use the term “physicalist/ naturalist” to convey the “science worldview” that encompasses the entirety of the collective broader academic schools of science and modern analytic philosophy that reigns supremely as the current consensus view and paradigm. I take it as a given that there is much diversity and nuance of ideas within this collective body of work. However this collective “body of work” is laden with certain presuppositions. These assumptions in turn determine what arguments and evidence are deemed credible and which are dismissed as unconvincing. In this respect all committed naturalists; as a consequence non-naturalistic approaches (idealism, theism, etc.) are not considered to be live options. This “body of work” is also massively persuasive due to it’s powerful success as a predictive epistemic explanatory model of almost all classical phenomena.
I am using the term “classical phenomena” very deliberately here.
Physicalists like Sean Carroll can say with genuine confidence that the “core theory” of the classical world is a completed project. Everything from QFT through the Standard Model to the periodic table and relativity gives us a precise description of the classical world that we as a species perceive and can accurately and predictively model and manipulate. This is an undeniable “given” and I won’t argue against its empirical validity and it’s powerful applicable functionality. I will however make one key and massively important observation. This “all” falls into that constrained “cone of knowing” through our “sense data” and the mathematical formalisms that model this data. Everything is perceived through this constrained prism extending from our gross body sense organs all the way to the data produced in high energy Particle colliders.
What is undeniably true today is that the classical and causally deterministic reality-the principle of cause and effect-has been replaced by Quantum indeterminacy. Instead the picture that arises with all the many odd quantum effects challenge our human-centered macroscopic worldview. The understanding of the world in terms of concrete objects, having definite properties, that are in a specific place and can jump over walls only with sufficient energy, following precise paths like pinpointed particles in a mathematical diagram and ruled by a strict principle of classical cause and effect, no longer stands. This kind of Cartesian, Galilean, Newtonian, and Laplacian mechanistic realism based on a reductionist, deterministic, local worldview made of unconscious matter following classical laws of physical causality, and that has been so tremendously successful for almost three centuries, is now under serious question. The dream of reducing reality to a completely predictable unconscious and mechanistic clockwork universe is no longer tenable.
Moreover, the consensus paradigm conflates sense data with reality or in other words how this “naive realism” is the assumed unquestioned perspective without acknowledging that perhaps it may all be an evolutionary construct- a Headset interface-that “renders” a functional classical reality but also “hides” a deeper core reality-the “thing in itself.” I will use what QM is possibly telling us to add credence to this idea.
P. F. Strawson has called “our pre-theoretic scheme, which is “realist” in character” -the way our “realist view” of the world is reflected by our ordinary perceptual judgements and should not be accorded the status of a theory-for its acceptance is the very condition for the sensory experience to be understood as what it is, viz. as what supplies the data or evidence for such a theory. This seems to be the horns of the problem or the presupposition that most physicalists are blinded too.
I don’t think we as a species that are locked in our evolutionary sensory “filter headset” can ever get to a final “truth.” The best we can do is realize how deeply erroneous our perceived reality construct and deep intuitive notions really are. Neils Bohr one of the eminent founders of QM saw this dilemma quite clearly and always maintained that we will never cross over to the point where we have access to “true reality.” This is of course Kant’s view as well.
The place to start is to understand what this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics is pointing at. At the very least we can see that our reality is non-local and that this stand alone objective reality’s very existence is dependent on observation and measurement (really the same thing.) This astounding -experimentally verified-finding was started by John Bell and then confirmed experimentally by last year’s Nobel Laureates.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle already showed us that any observation can only ever give us a half truth about reality. If we measure a particle’s momentum we cannot ascertain it’s location and vice versa. That already implied that we only have phenomenological access to one aspect of the whole reality. David Bohm’s Implicate / explicate order postulate takes this understanding further and paints a reality that is an expression of two sides-one that is open to our sensory experience and one hidden from us. But these are two sides of the same holistic coin. Kant essentially says the same things with his Noumena / Phenomena distinction.
You see that when it comes to “understanding” QM foundational science it is more philosophical speculation than empirical and verifiable research.
Part of the problem and why we may never get an answer is that we are part of the very thing we are trying to observe. That is the crux of the measurement problem and why it may be an intractable problem forever. John Wheeler’s speculation on this and his “Participatory Universe” goes along similar thinking.
The key take away here is that Bell’s inequality theorem must be taken literally which ever interpretational path you choose to endorse. It applies “in principle” as a core feature of reality. However the “world view” of a causally deterministic “realist” classical reality still holds its assuming grip on the imagination of scientists and the public at large.
You can never understand consciousness because we are it. We lack the perspective to explain it. We would have to be outside of ourselves (so to speak) to gain perspective enough to understand. Also, we have nothing to compare it to. We just have conscious and not conscious.
It's like trying to explain the universe. We are in it, so we can not even grasp the entirety of it. We have absolutely nothing to compare it to. Funny how there are two "things" we can not explain- consciousness and the universe (maybe that's a clue in of itself). All the other "mysteries" are tied to those two.
Rabbits, wolves, frogs and insects have sensory perceptual systems beginning in eyes, ears, noses, taste buds and touch sensors and ending in brain areas not dissimilar from our own-producing an awareness of sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touches, also very likely not very different from our own…. I think we can grant that other animals do not have conscious awarenesses much different than our own. Consciousness is obviously not an impossible thing to study.
## Problems Discussed in the video
The primary problem discussed in the text is the difficulty of understanding the nature of consciousness within the framework of traditional scientific and philosophical approaches. The text explores various perspectives and theories on consciousness, highlighting their limitations and inconsistencies.
**Specific problems include:**
* **Correlation vs. Causation:** While there's a clear correlation between brain activity and conscious experience, establishing a causal relationship between the two is challenging.
* **The Hard Problem of Consciousness:** The text discusses the difficulty of explaining how subjective experiences arise from objective physical processes.
* **The Limits of Materialism:** The text examines the limitations of reducing consciousness to purely physical or mechanistic explanations.
* **The Incompatibility of Consciousness with Physicalism:** The text argues that certain qualities of consciousness, such as intentionality and subjectivity, seem incompatible with a purely physicalist worldview.
* **The Difficulty of Explaining Emergence:** The text explores the challenges of explaining how consciousness could emerge from physical processes without violating the laws of physics.
* **The Incoherence of Eliminativism:** The text critiques the position of eliminativism, which denies the existence of consciousness altogether.
* **The Limitations of Panpsychism:** The text discusses the limitations of panpsychism, which proposes that consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter.
## Arguments Made in the Text
The text presents various arguments related to the nature of consciousness:
**Arguments against Materialism:**
* Consciousness is a fundamentally subjective phenomenon that cannot be fully explained by objective physical processes.
* Certain qualities of consciousness, such as intentionality and subjectivity, are incompatible with a purely physicalist worldview.
* The emergence of consciousness from physical processes is difficult to explain without violating the laws of physics.
**Arguments for Non-Reductionism:**
* Consciousness cannot be reduced to its underlying physical components.
* Consciousness is a unique phenomenon that requires a non-reductive explanation.
**Arguments against Eliminativism:**
* Eliminativism is incoherent because it denies the existence of the very phenomenon it seeks to explain.
* Eliminativism would imply that our own thoughts and experiences are illusory.
**Arguments for Panpsychism:**
* Consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter, existing in varying degrees of complexity.
* Consciousness emerges from the integration of these proto-conscious elements.
**Criticisms of Panpsychism:**
* Panpsychism does not provide a clear explanation for how consciousness emerges from physical processes.
* Panpsychism posits two fundamentally different types of reality: the physical and the conscious.
The text ultimately concludes that none of these perspectives offer a fully satisfactory explanation for the nature of consciousness, highlighting the ongoing challenges in this field of inquiry.
Taking a certain part of the brain and losing that function is analogues to destroying a chapter or a page in a book and losing the function or information in that part of the book. On the other hand, it is all too clear to everyone that the book is not the source of that information rather the information was coded in the book by consciousness. If you were to bring back the same consciousness, the conscious individual who originally created (coded) that chapter or page in the book, the person may find it practically impossible to recreat the exact content, word for word, of the missing part, eventhough that individual was the one who authored the book.
So the brain is like a book authored or coded by consciousness. The conscious mind may find it practically impossible to recreate or recode the exact content of the missing part.
However, losing a motor function of the brain is a little different. It is the same as having a damage arm or leg, they cease to function properly or so.
Books are reducible. A written paragraph is reducible. The words and writing in the book are not fundamental. They would not exist without the book.
Thoughts are reducible. A brain 🧠 divided cannot make up its mind. 😅
@peweegangloku6428- I like your comment. Some very interesting thoughts there. 🤔
Isn't *all of nature* boil down to "it's mechanical" or "we don't know if it's mechanical or not". I think that says quite a bit.
Ouch this interview hurts
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement,
Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality.
Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge,
Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge.
Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
I’ve never understood why humans could even begin to understand, let alone reason out, what is actually the Truth. Fun, but futile language games imho. We are what we are.
Functionalism doesn't get enough love, imo. Consciousness is as consciousness does. If you can build something out of material things, non-biologically (i.e., mothers don't count), for which it is a "conscious fact" that you perceive it as conscious, then you can say you've used a materialistic POV to understand consciousness. This is kind of a behaviorist POV for consciousness, but note that physical theories are like that; you have a theory for why "something physical" and it predicts some kind of behavior in addition to the "something physical". Of course, you might build Commander Data, perceive and interact with him as conscious, or even human, and then ask him if he is conscious, and he might say "no" (then after you leave the room, he might break out laughing).
Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism?
the mind is materialism then thought is too so materialism gives rise to consciousness?
It can’t be established empirically, and it is not falsifiable, but I think probably the Vedantic idea that there is one consciousness in which appears, as a kind of dream, all seeming diversity, is the, uh, closest to truth.
*"Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism?"* ... We have materialism, idealism, determinism, physicalism, dualism, panpsychism, substantialism, theism, atheism, and a new one that I had to look up: _eliminativism._ I like how all of these "ism's" are treated like contestants in a Kickboxing tournament for which only one can be left standing.
If you have one *all-encompassing ideology* that can supposedly negate the existence of an opposing *all-encompassing ideology* (i.e. "dualism vs physicalism"), then most likely neither is totally accurate. In fact, the odds are that "Existence" is a mixture of both!
"Existence" freely offers us observable pairings such as existence and nonexistence, matter and space, black and white, positive and negative, proton and electron, up and down, wrong and right, dead and alive, and a long-long list of other "oppositional pairings" that pepper the entire spectrum of reality.
... So why do we think that only one "ism" will rise to the top and completely explain reality?
Your description of "Existence" greatly resembles the ancient Chinese philosophy of Lao Tzu called Taoism. The Yin-Yang symbol represents the polar opposites of Everything unified in the Tao.
You said. “"Existence" freely offers us observable pairings such as existence and nonexistence,”
Existence offers us non-existence? Does that work with money also?! 🤪
@@dr_shrinker Yes, you either have money or you don't and are broke.
@@Resmith18SR *"Your description of "Existence" greatly resembles the ancient Chinese philosophy of Lao Tzu called Taoism."*
... Yes! Yin-Yang is an integral element in the ToE presented in my book. I deal with it in a different way, though. Not everything is harmonious.
Yeah, that's right. Perturbation modalities and modalities.
Let what comes come, let what goes go, take me to where the wind begins.
“Consciousness” defeats materialism if attention, awareness and memories are not physical. Seems odd that we cannot figure this out.
I had a thought today that maybe there are neuronal patterns that form when an organism has experiences which is when they are awake. Mechanisms happen when certain organism are sleeping so we also don’t know exactly how sleep helps with memories but we do know some things.
But the growth of neurons, neuroplasticity as well as being able to learn and form memories throughout one’s life and remember as well as forget may have something to do with more than one thing such as the chemical messengers, types of brains cells/neurons, DNA and patterns of neurons growth and connections.
Otherwise holy crap is their a cloud service that holds our memories? Literally a universal biological cloud system? That would imply simulation theory possibly right?
Seems to me the most interesting and germane aspects of neurons are
their ability to maintain discharge-timing-patterns and
their ability to allow other neurons to adjust those patterns via their synapses.
Since thoughts are representations it seems to me that
neural discharge-timing-patterns are ideal for instantiating representations in encoded form.
Most religious folks believe their bodies are mere vehicles for their 'consciousness' or soul and
this because 'consciousness' seems to be an immaterial entity.
But in light of the fact that discharge-timing-pattern representations are immaterial entities...
I once thought that my entire self was my body but
later came to the conclusion that my self is a complex thought,
a thought entirely dependent for its immaterial existence on my body as its necessary substrate
in the just explained way that a thought is.
It's late and my thoughts are getting hazy so good night.
you are thinking about the problem from a materialist point of view which is the wrong approach to begin with
Science is always empirical, or it is not science. Consciousness is the most empirically evident fact we have about the world. Any theory that seeks to deny it is unempirical.
Consciousness doesn't begin in the cerebral cortex, it ends there. It begins in the brain stem with the reticular activating system. Impulses go to the thalamus, basal ganglia, and adjoining structures (e.g., hippocampus) and finally to the cortical structures. They are "booted up" (activated to a level sufficient for consciousness).
Consciousness isn't all of what we have. We have dreams.
I think David is wrong to believe that consciousness is more than the brain ("physical causes"). Consciousness is caused by the brain using physical means, electrochemical neuronal circuits. When we are unconscious (sleeping), our neural circuits are somewhat quiescent except for those circuits needed to maintain life. We have a type of consciousness even in dreams (we know we are dreaming and can recall the dreams). Brain circuits are active in dreaming.
Regarding subjective experiences (qualia), the brain alone provides those experiences: the feeling of color, art, music, "what it is like to be", and so on. Why is that so difficult for some to accept? Pain is a subjective experience. We know how pain works in the somatosensory system and motor system. We know the mechanisms involved in "fear", "joy", and other felt emotions.
Somehow, even highly trained intellectuals cannot accept the fact that the 3-pound mass of "tofu" in their cranium produces all that they are - their sense of self, of being, of relating to others, love, hate, greed, benevolence; it all done by the brain.
What is difficult to understand is the notion of "free will." Certainly, we do not have totally "free" will. We are influence in varying strengths by genetics, childhood experience and environment, the years of maturation and experiences, and developed preferences and biases, and unseen forces that tend to "mess with our brain/mind" (e.g., advertising). So, when we are faced with a decision (choice), our subconscious brain/mind is already tending towards a specific decision (choice). The extent to which we can override the subconscious forces varies with one's genetics, past, and factors like intelligence, character, courage, etc. (but those too are influenced by genetics and experiences).
Little do we know what the brain is actually doing on "our" (its) behalf "under the hood." We ask ourselves after the fact, "Why did I say that?", "Why did I marry her/him?" "Why did I choose that car?" "Why did I cheat on that exam?" "Why did I take advantage of her;him?", and so on. There is much more going on "under the hood" than we know.
consciousness comes from 1 plus 1 equals 2 and 2 plus one equals 3 and 3 plus 2 equals 5 ect.
I'm not sure that explains the existence of consciousness.
@@BugRib just the ability for 0ne to want to combine to another one to make two displays consciousness this works from the microscopic to the macroscopic and seen in the fibonacci sequence i know im crazy lol
this video has so many words in it like what even is non-reductionism 😭 very interesting though
Basically that the mind can’t be reduced to what the sciences tell us.
@@kevinpulliam3661 cool thanks!
I think I lost consciousness listening to this….
He doesn't think there are any pure Cartesian (Dualists I assume) out there that think there is a soul substance ontologically distinct from the material that it is like an alien. Really? Isn't that pretty much the whole religious worldview...at least for the Abrahamic religions which make up a huge portion of humanity? Best I can tell, they really believe the soul/spirit/mind is a completely different kind of thing than the physical body to the extent they don't think we 'are' our bodies with a mind/spirit/soul but rather we 'are' a soul that has a body.
You're mistaken. Judeo religions believe that body and spirit make a human. You can't separate the two. Hence the doctrine of resurrection.
Pagans/heretics are usually dualists. People of Abrahamic faiths usually fall more into Plato/Aristotle
Scientists and philosophers should consult with mathematicians to get a fuller perspective. Math is the precise language of God. Philosophy is that of the spirit and science brings the third element to the table. There you have a complete meal. Peace is possible.
Consciousness is the Printer,
of Stuff-side, Material.
Materials exist ! Non-materials exist !
For example, when you buy a game on a DVD, you get both.
And you need a brain in order to have a brainstorm (Eureka !)
The brain recreates the patterns through signals created by the cells and connections and those send signals to replicate the senses we perceive and how those are connected in patterns.
From 🇪🇹🇪🇹🇪🇹🇪🇹🇪🇹
😮
The Ground State of Blue
We have mapped the physical oneness deterministic philosophy from the inside already.
The loopholes are the unaware property of a materlistic mind .
With how well recorded history has been able to predict with a rich observation of the world around them then finally thousands of years later our hands on technicians and mechanics actually test and confirm such synonymous discovery it has to be taken into consideration as a stand alone ontological foundation.
If we model naturally we know how we prefer to graph things out by layering feilds. This should not be ruled out. The tripartite nature of man and how it was thought to be unified gives us the historical account serves as a representation
I’ll save you guys 12 mins: *yes, it does*
People will fight determinism to the end because they hate it. One reason to hate it is that it nullifies our most cherished notions such as morality and individual agency. But to the scientific mind it is inescapable, the only rational conclusion we can come to. Our most inner core refuses to accept it. Even for many scientists it's an inner battle between heart and mind. There can be only one winner as the two notions are mutually exclusive. I cherish the illusion myself but I'm aware that it is after all an illusion.
If determinism is true, you have no reason to believe in it other than you were determined to.
I don’t think it nullifies morality. It refutes concepts of absolute morality, but that’s not the only type of moral framework. There are others such as utilitarianism.
*"There can be only one winner as the two notions are mutually exclusive."*
... Let the Kickboxing match begin!
You’ve refuted yourself. Determinism and reason are incompatible
@@deanodebo How is cause and effect incompatible with reason? I know you hate a clockwork universe, so do I but it is what it is.
Why does he have a guest if he fights against his theory and interrupts him constantly….
How do you learn? Asking interrupting is the best way for the one that's trying to learn or understand someone.
Reductionist... they mean boil it down to gravy!!😅
Counciousness is physical. No Language no hard problem!
The fact is if you lose the portion of the brain that effects the motor functions it only effects the ability to interact with the body in the material dimension , just because you lose the sight centres of you brain it doesn’t matter to consciousness, what a weak argument
Look microscopically at a vinyl phonograph record bumps along a groove of the record. Can you explain how those bumps are rendered through a stylus and into an electronic amplifier... how those bumps become the simultaneous sounds of an orchestra? The analog input to the amplifier is converted to electronic signals which are processed, and then output to speakers. The speakers vibrate and render the sounds of the orchestra almost as though you were attending a live event. The engineers who designed the amplifier did that with precision, logic, and purpose. They understand how an amplifier works. Do non-engineers have any clue how an amplifier works? No. Do they assign a supernatural component to it? No.
Our consciousness is very similar. The trillion synapses of our brains, albeit more complex, are analogous to the electronics of an amplifier. If you pay attention to your own flow of awareness, it is actually an audio-visual playback. Real time is perceived with a very slight delay because the current moment is infinitely small. So we process the immediate past and simultaneously play back snippets of memory as we experience that near-instantaneous current time reality.
There are neuroscientists who largely understand the systems of electromagnetic fields, the physics of neurons and glia that are activated simultaneously in different parts of the brain. The real problem with public understanding of consciousness is in its complexity.
This!!
What if Consciousness is the Physical Body itself? The physical body is fundamental after all. It sustains even the Brain.
The brain is not a part of the physical body?
@@SurrealMcCoy 1st came the body, then the brain. The body employs the brain so the brain really works for the body. This is why many people people also feel like they do not have free will. The ultimate will lies with the body.
Consciousness is non-local.
To my recollection, the critical question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin has never been answered either.
To bring it up to the critical level one first needs to define what the word angel refers to. Same problem with Consciousness, Mind, Soul, Spirit or God.
That’s because that question has always been a dumb caricature
Materialism is nothing but a concept of consciousness. Consciousness is 100% fact, materialism is the assumption that a model of thought is actually true, if there is such a thing as a “true model”. It’s not just materialism, but all the content of consciousness is no more than thought, the objective is always assumed, the subject is the only thing we can truly call real.
Sounds good except you cannot control thoughts. You are slave to them. They are slave to the universe.
And whatever you call materialism in your concept of it, it is still the ground of all other concepts, think naturalism.
@@dr_shrinkerYour statement is total rubbish 🗑. If you couldn't control your thoughts then you wouldn't be able to work anything out. You wouldn't have been able to write your idiotic reply.
Meaning he restart too think more maybe become a genius or something maybe his words be stronger then the God himself become more like God but he restart be more like living god on earth soon when he reliaze who he really his then the juke dna come back and the he unlock the jesus christ widsom soon when he start too connnet more knowledge then he becomes greater then the god himself mr Robert ❤
What's wrong with consciousness just being a product of a living organism with a brain and nervous system? Material objects like atoms, protons, electrons, chairs, tables, don't have brains or a nervous system, so they are not or ever will be conscious.
It all comes down to what you mean by “product of a living organism”
@@synaestheziac An emergent property which comes into existence when matter is structured in a certain way.
Resmith18SR • Correct.
@@Resmith18SR The problem is that all examples of emergence that we have in nature are soft emergence, conscious brains arising from non-conscious atoms is hard emergence ie something akin to magic. Panpsychism is much more likely.
Emergent is just another way of saying we can’t explain it.
These guys try 2 tell us what conscious is but they dont no what is
NO
Go Irish
Kudos from 444 Gematria!
Maybe I'm missing something but why does non reductionism have to be non physical to him? Emergent properties exist physically and there are many problems in biology and physics that are solved not by reducing to fundamental principles but by using statistical Mechanics to explain the emergence of new behaviors from the interactions of simpler elements that would not display that behavior by themselves. This is a purely physical picture that is not reductionist (by my understanding of the word) and I have heard neuroscientisits describe consciousness as arising from these types of emergent properties. This to me seems like a crucial point that was glossed over quickly and it'd be interesting to hear him elaborate more on this
That would explain something acting as if it had consciousness but it would be appearance only. An automata that reacts in a mechanistic way. For example, a robot. If i program a robot to react to numerous events, it would act as if sentient, but it would never be. It would simply emulate behaviour. There would be no self there. No sense of I. That is why we can achieve artificial intelligence but not artificial consciousness
All religious thesis are wishfull thinking. Humans have difficulties to realize that nothing is eternal.
Eternity is religious concept.
How clever, religious ideas are invalid because theyre religious
Every time I listen to this guy my IQ goes up and I do a Divine Liturgy.
Without a created mind, there wouldn't be any visible object. The mind processes invisible vibrations into the visible images that we ( created AI ) observe.
Because there’s no way we and all the other animals can be a product of biological evolution?
@@longcastle4863
More accurately stated...
Because there’s no way we can be a product of evolution?
(We don't know if other animals are conscious. They might be entirely instinctual).
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL it’s hard to think that animals with the same kind of sensory perceptual apparatuses as us and generally very similar brain structures as us, do not experience a similar kind of consciousness as us. We share a lot of genes with chimpanzees; do you really think consciousness occurred for us, but not for them?
But you still have an electrical device and an internet connection 🤔👍
Energy defeats materialism. And the soul/consciousness is energy. Energy and consciousness are in separable. Inanimate objects know their purpose and function in this reality, Otherwise this reality could not hold together -- The word of Goth
Considering all matter is condensed energy, I don’t think it defeats anything.
All of these word salad approaches come about because they have no coherent understanding or an intuition of basic brain structures and how they integrate. Classical case of care salesmen trying to solve or explain automotive engineering from the showroom brochures.
🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️
Neurosience doesnt know How figure out conscieusness so far. Important show reality in the world make up consciousness proceendings are absolutetly big problems in philosophy and phich. Unpredictable conscieusness doesnt pictures reality show philosophy and phich was always Blur theory . Guys conscieusness keep out How figure out though philosophy and phich proceendings.
Why does he not see that he is just spouting deepities? He has no understanding of the physical. One large argument from his almost unbounded ignorance.
Can't practice moral without consciousness..
I think once you accept that earthworms, lizards, house mice and in fact all living creatures have sone level of consciousness-depending, usually, on where they sit on the phylogenetic tree-then consciousness becomes not as “mysterious” as maybe at first it seems. Consciousness is a product of biological evolution and it grew in complexity in animals over time as it continued to be selected for by Evolution due to it survival advantages.
I agree with you and even a bat has some level of awareness albeit very different than that of a human being.
There have been single neuron studies that show even one individual neuron can be conscious. The mystery is how can we claim that a neuron is conscious but the atoms it's made of are not.
Keep telling yourself that....
its a false and primitive notion...
@@ioioiotu And how did they theorize that an individual neuron can be conscious?