Daniel Dennett vs Keith Ward • Are we more than matter? Mind, consciousness and free will
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2018
- For more debates, updates and bonus content sign up at www.thebigconversation.show/
High profile atheist philosopher Daniel C Dennett goes head to head with Christian theologian Keith Ward in the 5th episode of The Big Conversation, debating whether mind, consciousness and freewill are best explained by naturalism or theism.
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
The Big Conversation series:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward - • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconversation.show/
This guy is the best moderator on earth. I've seen him many times before. He's always level, courteous, fair and timely with his interjections.
A fantastic discussion, with great speakers. I was very impressed by the host - he was even-handed, totally free of aggression, and he always kept the conversation within the audience's understanding and interest. Even though I'm an atheist, and fully convinced of Dennet's position, I felt completely welcome as a listener, and I'll definitely come back to this channel!
Yeah hes mormon.
Dennett doesn't even make a case. He just explains what can be materialistically, empirically distinguished---which has never been able to explain how being/consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems if matter. Nietzsche knew this was impossible explain, specifically how a nerve impulse equals sensation. It simply doesn't. This is teleological stupidity, and it is not that far from the religious ideology it criticizes.
@@NoahsUniverse Dennet isnt claiming anything is impossible, like you are. "Nietzsche said it" is not a good argument because it's completely irrelevant. Dennets argument is basically that everything we know about consciousness says it maps to a physical brain and we just don't have any reason to believe there is any magic involved. Your bald assertion that magic is required because its impossible otherwise is what is referred to as an "argument from ignorance". Its fine if you want to believe magic is involved but calling other people stupid just because they have standards of evidence is hypocritical when your logic is so flawed. Let us know when you have actual evidence for your magic.
@@john1425 Way to be a complete fool and assume I am referring to 'magic.' This is the problem I have with you insane materialistic empiricists. You don't do a lot of accommodating but narcissistic assimilating. You clearly have little to no understanding of what I was referring to. Let me break it down for you.
The mind-body dualism was philosophically obliterated over 50 years ago---if not over 200 years ago with Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Your clear, completely blind compartmentalization of everything that may even remotely conflict with your ideology as religious argumentum ad vericundiam is evidence profound ignorance. Daniel Dennett is a charlatan who doesn't explain anything. He is trying to explain what Nietzsche said can never be explained in the 1800s. Because you haven't read Nietzsche doesn't make you nor your philosophaster charlatan idol mr Daniel Dennett any sort of expert whatsoever. There is absolutely no causal connection between the physical and the mental/phenomenal. There is only abstraction based on representations which are fundamentally of mind. Daniel Dennett is like a child with a newfound understanding of mathematics, as if the fact that someone can infinitely represent the number one means that they have more of a knowledge of it. It doesn't mean anything. It is superfluous garbage and it says absolutely nothing.
@@DouwedeJong Daniel Dennett has shown nothing. He is a wannabe Oliver Sacks. Sacks was infinitely more understanding of the human mind than him.
The problem of investigating conscienceness is that it needs conscienceness
It's always so interesting to listen to professional philosophers and academics discuss various things because they are so civil, eloquent and knowledgeable.
Dude. Please take your education into your own hands. I know many, many, many people on UA-cam that are smarter than Dennetts opponent here; in fact, I know many highly educated people with a meagre intellect, and many uneducated people who are clearly sharp.
Education just comes on top of intellect, and you can see here that the Keith dude clearly isn't very intelligent, saying things like: well, just because it isn't determined it doesn't have to be random, I believe it is not wholly determined. - what did he go to Oxford for? to be confused by words he doesn't understand and throw them around, and people will listen to him, because he has a philosophy degree and comes from a good household.
So, please take matters in your own hand. Educate yourself, the information is free nowadays. Read Kants "What is Enlightenment?" Good luck
Sapere Aude my friend ^^
This what I imagined adults would act as a child. However, reality often tells a different story about civil discourse in our daily lives.
If something is not determined, but arranged in a specific order by someone with free will it would not be random.
buddyrichable1
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and every thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
If humans TRULY possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to switch their preferences at any point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of their own heart.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened.
The most common argument against this concept of 'non-doership', is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to CHOOSE what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) animals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way. That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent entirely upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
N. B. According to some geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate. However, that phenomenon would be included under the "conditioning" aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply impossible for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature?
To claim that one is the ultimate creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very BEING. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considers itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence.
When a person blames another person for their actions, it is akin to blaming the penultimate domino in a row of dominoes for doing what it did to fell the final domino, when in actual fact, the ultimate cause of the final domino falling was the INITIAL domino which fell. If anyone is to blame for anything, surely it is the Person who created everything. Who then, is that Supreme Creator? That thou art ("tat tvam asi", in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 08 for a succinct, yet accurate, explanation for this chain of causation, and Chapter 05 to understand the Primal Self.
Therefore, EVERY action, including seemingly-heinous deeds, is ultimately in alignment with the predestined "Story of Life" (or, for those who are attached to a theistic viewpoint, "God's Perfect Will"), since nothing could have happened differently, given the circumstances. That does not mean that a person ought to deliberately perform criminal acts and use his lack of free-will to justify his actions.
If, however, he blames his dastardly deeds on a lack of personal freedom, that blame too was destined, just as any consequences were destined. Unfortunately, very few crimes are punished in so-called "first-world" societies, which helps to explain why the "Westernized" nations are morally bankrupt. When did you last hear of an adulterous couple being put to death for their sin? Never, I would posit.
That explains why this “Wisdom Teaching” was traditionally reserved for students of high-calibre. It requires an unusually wise and intelligent person to understand that, despite everything being preordained, to blame one's lack of free-will for criminal actions and expecting NOT to be punished for them is unbeneficial to a peaceful society. Even today, with easy access to knowledge and information, few persons will come to hear this teaching, and fewer still will realize it, and integrate it into their daily lives.
Everything is permissible but not everything is BENEFICIAL. One can eat junk "food" but that is not going to benefit one’s physiology in any way (unless, of course, it enables one to temporarily survive a famine). We can murder our enemy, but we may not escape being punished by the local judicial system.
To assume that free-will suddenly and INEXPLICABLY appeared on this planet at the birth of the first Homo sapiens, is the height of presumption.
This assumption alone is sufficient cause for the notion of free-will to be critically-questioned, what to speak of the wealth of evidence provided in the preceding paragraphs. One day, humanity will come to see the obvious truth of its lack of freedom of volition.
“The Lord dwelleth in the hearts of all beings, causing all to behave as if seated on a machine, under His illusory spell.”
Lord Śri Krishna,
“Bhagavad-gītā”, 18:61.
“To be, or not to be, that is the question.”
*************
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players."
William Shakespeare,
English Playwright.
Brilliant moderator I have to say. Nice discussion.
Totally agree. It is clearly "christian radio" but he is definitely not on a side. If anything he looks less convinced by his theological guests trying to fit reality to their religious bias.
Matthew Vicendese
ALMOST every single person is biased.
Language and Programming Channel
That is rather PRESUMPTUOUS of you, wouldn’t you agree, Slave?
Presumption is evil, because when one is PRESUMPTUOUS, one makes a judgement about a matter, despite having insufficient facts to support one’s position.
@@TheWorldTeacher that is an almost meaningless statement. They are many aspects to our point of view that is informed by personal preference, but there are some things that are quantifiable or progressions of properly applied logic.
"Everyone does bad things " is equally meaningless. Just because I have raised my voice in an argument doesn't mean you can compare me to someone who turns violent.
Clarity comes from recognising what part of your world view comes from your own preferences what is factual (or most defensible explanation).
Yeah, the moderator is pretty consistently great. I definitely appreciate him (as an atheist), and he's definitely a factor (along with mostly the guests he gets) in my continuing to come back to the channel.
Dan is morphing into Darwin with every passing day 😂
Lol
my theory of darwinism is that darwin was adopted
*evolving
You know what Darwin thought of naturalism? Of course you don't. You all just THINK you know. He was NOT a naturalist. Read a freaking book TO THE END!
@@markgado8782, origin of species?
Although I sometimes get infuriated with the people debating, I must say that Justin Brierley is an absolutely fantastic host. Completely even handed, keeps the discussion flowing without interrupting, brilliantly summarises sometimes very complex arguments, he's always kind and generous to the speakers. I suspect Justin and I would disagree about a great many things, but I always enjoy listening to Justin's shows and would love to meet him in person. A fabulous host!
One of the best moderated shows I know of. Even though the moderator has a bias (I assume at least, when I see it's on "Christian Radio"), you never ever notice. Always fair, always civil, never strawmanning, always giving opportunity for rebuttal and he really seems to know his stuff too, being therefore able to summarize positions and drive the discussion towards interesting directions.
Thumbs up!
Yes, i was delighted by this.
Yes, he's one of my favorite moderators. We tipically see mods drag the debate down and get in the way more than helping but this guy is smart enough too keep up with the topic at hand, keep his biases in check and ask good questions.
Totally, the guy is excellent.
The moderator is bloody brilliant.
I'm a hard-core atheist and I am sure that with him on a number of matters - but I can not find a single fault in his presentation. Total legend
Wish he would have asked Dennett what information is, rather than him just asserting it as real. Sounds like kicking the can.
Dude on the left put every conclusion of my early college years into the perfect words that I could never find. Feels so good to hear someone articulate precisely your own perspective into the world in a way you yourself could not.
"From Bacteria to Bach and Back" What a great name for a book.
Honestly
It is honestly vomit-worthy. The butterflies are a work of art by Escher... there is a dogma book these people love called Godel, Escher, Bach... Just another iteration of the same narrow concept.
Yes! I love it, very clever.
Compared to "Why there is almost certainly a god" 🤢
The Flaming Philosopher Could you maybe elaborate on your conclusions? Seems like blind vitriol
I’m in no way a Christian or part of any religion for that matter. I have to say Ward makes his points with more nuance and no arrogance in his tone which makes me like his contribution alongside the host
Great debate - can't say I'm impressed by this Keith Ward chap.
Just discovered this channel. My new favorite. The moderator is the greatest.
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS:
CONSCIOUSNESS means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by).
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to know themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree.
HOWEVER, in recent years, the term has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalised) to refer to a far more Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept.
The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is known by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena.
The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of pointing to The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality but not Reality Itself.
The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening.
The brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to computer hardware, Universal Awareness is akin to the operating system, whilst individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, using deoxyribonucleic acid as the memory chip. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of personal consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness (here, the word “coma” is not to be taken by its etymological definition of “deep sleep”, but the medical condition of a persistent vegetative state).
An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity.
So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17).
The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head.
Three states of consciousness are experienced by humans: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth 'state' (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal 'state', which underlies the other three. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being (or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If someone were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world was real, you would respond in a similar manner.
The Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real - 'real' in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The sages of ancient India distinguished the 'real' from the 'unreal' (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the 'thing' was eternal or temporal. Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not 'real'.
Reality is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings, yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16).
“Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE
All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.”
*************
“If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state.
The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there.
Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.”
*************
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck,
German Theoretical Physicist.
@@TheWorldTeacher So do you think that we are more than matters.
This has to be the first one of these kinds of debates I've seen with a great moderator.
JB gives another master class as the host. Ask good questions, clarify as needed, but mostly get out of the way and let the guests have at it.
"You can be dead comatose into wide awake thrilled and at no point does an extra special thing called consciousness come into it." Either Dennett is being dense or I am, because the question is "What is occurring when someone is 'wide awake' or 'thrilled'?" Dennett, responds, "Nothing in particular." I would say, "These are specific observed phenomena to be accounted for." And it seems like Dennett comes back with, "These are not the droids you are looking for."
Dan is so articulate !
At 38:38: this is where Keith Ward shows his hand! This is always where the argument ends up for people who believe in idealism, free will, non-determinism, God, etc: "If this were true, it would make me feel bad." Maybe it should make you feel bad, maybe it shouldn't; regardless, that is irrelevant to the discussion. Sometimes the truth hurts.
He INSISTS that purpose is necessary for his psychological comfort. That may be true; he seems like an honest and humble guy.
But you might equally ask a dog about chocolate and get a similar answer. Dogs LOVE chocolate, even though it poisons them. Affinity for a thing is not prima facie evidence for its value.
Yeah I was pretty disappointed when I saw the argument just ended at 40 mins in😕
His arguments are based on different weighting of knowledge sources from the individual perspective. It is more on the epistemological level that things should be discussed to be more clear. But in that case we should get ride of the trap of confusing the efficiency of scientific methodology with the naturalistic world view. At least this trap is what psychologically make us believe that scientific method is perfect as it is based on the current paradigms of naturalism because it is efficient. There is matter, energy and you have to add information, but then again we have to think about what else may be added ? May be something like R. Sheldrake propose :D!
Yet Dennett denies consciousness, even though he is using Consciousness to deny its validity
Jason Aus
Exactly!
Thank you to all three of you. This was refreshing
I appear to be thrilled by this discussion. But am I really thrilled?
Doesn't matter, You had no choice in the matter XD
Are feelings matter?
Rawjugga0 hahah
It's your brains best guess to be thrilled by this discussion :D
There is no way I could scientifically prove it. Ever.
Always a privilege to hear Dan speak
Because?
@@TheWorldTeacher For me, it is because he explains his thoughts in a way that is easy to understand, while exposing the weaknesses of opposing arguments.
Beacuse he is a atheist
Brilliant and so mind bending! Thank you again Justine for getting these two amazing speakers together.
I love Philosophical conversations. I always learn so much. Thanks 😊
This discussion of consciousness is getting much sharper. Beautiful set up for this show. Thank you.
"Awareness is known by awareness alone," is the sole irreducible axiom of reality.
But awareness doesn't have to be conscious to be aware.
@@kritika.kapoor People use these words in different ways, but I think they generally have a lower standard for "awareness" than "consciousness" --- that consciousness is something like awareness of awareness --- a level above simple, direct awareness.
When a robot bumps into a wall, isn't saying that it has become aware of the wall less offensive than saying it has become conscious of the wall?
I see this comment on pretty much every video pertaining to consciousness. It just seems strange to me that awareness is absent during deep sleep, while anesthesized, etc. If awareness can be lost, it must be reducible to the brain, yes?
@@k-3402have you not heard of the condition where people are aware during anesthesia? or even dreams for that matter...
What would the experience of not being aware be contingent upon? Awareness is the only constant of all experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that?
Love this channel, the great moderating, and civil discussions between the two sides. It’s nice to see. Keep up the great work Justin. Can’t wait to see more...
wow! wonderful discussion, thank you very much for bringing such scholars in the discussion
Whilst I love Dan Dennett's work, I remember reading "Consciousness Explained" years ago and finding what I considered a fundamental flaw in his logic. On the question of simulation theory, his "brain in the vat" argument claimed it would be impossible to simulate reality, quantifying how much we are always aware of, and what the limits of computation - even with hypothetical light speed processing computers. Light speed could be a limit imposed within a simulation, that means nothing outside in the "real" world. I know it's hard for a brain to analyse it's own structure, but artificial intelligence and deep learning can already fool most people in conversation. Quantum computing claims it will someday shatter the upper limits we once set on computational power, and that's not even considering parallel processing quantum computers. All of these things only serve to point out that although it's highly improbable, and unable to be tested, it's wrong to completely exclude the possibility however untestable it may be. I think aliens visiting earth is ridiculous but I will concede its possible, and just because I have seen zero compelling evidence, seeing evidence could be something an advanced civilisation knows ways to erase 🙄 this conversation was completely uneven, in that Daniel wiped the floor with his opponent with pure logic. The only reason I am still on the fence is because we don't know what we don't know. I had a stroke and lost what looked like a quarter of my brain matter in the scans I've seen. I still feel like me inside, my inner thoughts haven't changed, but access to information and processing power noticeably feels like a problem with throughput now. Yes, that's subjective. The mind may give me the illusions of continuity as a coping mechanism. But my experience feels more like driving a vehicle that has been in a bad accident. The controls aren't responding the way they used to. It's waaay slower too. But I promise you the experience at least "feels" like I'm still the same driver inside. Perhaps I was just extremely lucky to avoid damage to the "me" part of my brain..
Your last sentence seems completely obvious to me. How is that not your immediate conclusion?
Everytime I listen to Dennett, I become more idealistic 😅
I believe that idealism is embraced by people who dislike or fear the fact that we are limited.
It is very rare for me to praise things, but here it goes - what a sublime discussion! Thank you.
Naram Sin thanks! Do let others know about the series
I'm impressed with Dennett's calamity in the face of Ward's sheer ignorance refraining to repeated attempts of "helping himself to problem-solvers by defining them as problem-solvers"....
Keith Ward's Love is His Meaning is a great read. His interpretation of the Gospels make the most sense to me. Life changing.
Nope, thanks. He is clearly a hopemongering moron
@@enlightenedturtle9507 How can you judge something you haven't read?
keith's position that consciousness is something extra boils down to 'i dont understand how the brain could produce internal experience, intentionality
an idea of the future, an idea of purpose etc... therefore it is a non physical soul'. sounds a lot like the god of the gap
Great moderator. In every way. Enjoyable amicable discussion. I could have listened for another hour quiet easily.
ive said this a lot but this so far march 2021 is the best one ive watched so far..........i think this is my favourite youtube find EVER!!!!! thank you !!
wow this is an amazing channel. just stumbled on it. thank you for these amazing discussions and debates
Wonderful debate.. Unusually polite, decent and civic, between a theist and an atheist, between an idealist and a materialist. These three people deserve sincere applause.. 👌👍
I need both of these guys in my world.
This is what intelligent debate and conversations sound like. Brilliant
I watched it several times just to grab the train of thought. Very interesting discussion
Very nice discussion. Perfectly moderated too. Dennett I already knew as a bright guy, but intelligent and honestly charming speaker was that christian philosopher too.
the last finishing argument from keith was an ad consequentiam par exellence
It's a colective conscience constant throughout all these debates that, not only the model but above all the moderator is a central part of the interest and relevance in these conversations. It's transversal to all comments in all videos. Thumbs up, Justin! Amazing work.
YES A GREAT MODERATOR and HOST!!
*J is for JUSTICE!
In my view, Dennett paints himself into a corner by (very civilly and politely) disparaging Ward's idea of a soul. But, he then reverts back to an immaterial substance which is equally difficult to describe, analyse and explain: he calls it 'information' or 'software'. I am left wondering what he has gained and how what he is saying - substantively - differs from what he rejects in Ward's position. In short, for Dennett, information and software end up as qualities not material, that are 'eternal' (he admits that or even offers that himself!), and that define identity. I get it that information is not the same thing as what Ward calls a soul, but the category as framed by Dennett shares the same objectional qualities (objectional for materialists!), the very things he says are not now needed and that can be helpfully done away with (and that *should* be done away with) by a materialist. He seems not to notice this unconscious sleight of hand (and Ward, too, seems not to notice it - or it might it be that Ward is too kind and polite to press the issue?)
We must realise, too, that these two are not arguing from a similar standpoint: Dennett is attempting to DISPROVE Ward's position, trying to show that such a view is a vestige of a bygone era no longer necessary, a way of thinking that has little to no support. For Dennett, we would all be much better off if views like Ward's were disproved and eliminated. Ward, on the other hand, also asserts his position, but he has no need to prove that Dennett's position is wrong, since his position allows for Dennett's (in fact, Ward agrees with Dennett in many ways, as far as Dennett's explanation goes); Ward simply argues that Dennett's position does not explain everything. Dennett, on the other hand, says that Ward's position is wrong and superfluous.
I was going to post a comment a lot like this. Seems I don’t need to anymore.
I agree with you very much that Dennet doesn't seem to notice the the self-refuting quality of his position, which I am really surprised. I think both Justin and Keith sofely tried to point that out 😂 yet, Dennet did not realise.
I don't think he would be okay with you calling it an "immaterial substance" (which is a bit of an oxymoron!). Information is simply the way the contents of the universe are, as opposed to the other ways that they could be. It is not some mysterious substance that science has yet to discover.
Your hard drive contains information. The information is not the atoms themselves or the electrons, because if we swapped the positions of the atoms and electrons around, there would be some other information on the drive instead. The information thus is in the arrangement of the atoms and electron spins. Your DNA contains information, in the particular way the base pairs are ordered, as opposed to other ways that the exact same base pairs could be ordered. This is in fact what makes DNA so important: it's good at maintaining the order that it's in, the order can be copied to new substrates, and the order can be interpreted and transferred to other information carrying molecules which use the original order to produce molecular machines which perform certain functions. It's shockingly similar to the original conception of a Turing machine, with an information-laden tape, read head, and state vector.
As for whether Ward or Dennett needs to justify their position: You cannot prove a physical negative (see Russell's Teapot). Ward is saying "observation Z requires that X AND Y be true", whereas Dennett is saying "X implies Z", so in fact, Y **is** superfluous. You can choose to believe in Y, but Z is not a good reason to do so.
@agentdarkboote Three problems.
I realize that Dennett would probably not like what I am saying. That is not actually the point. What IS he saying? What is he describing? In terms of connotation, it sounds very similar to what he is critiquing and rejecting as put forward by Ward. It does not appear Dennett realizes that. On what basis is he rejecting Ward's argument, then, if it is not immateriality? What you describe above is correct - I have no quibbles. But information on the hard drive or DNA codes is where, then? This is a problem if 'where' is a necessary feature of things existing or being plausible.
Second, we are forced to use material/location metaphors to describe that which we cannot describe in any other way? Thus, utilizing the existence or not of materiality in order to critique the existence of something causes us, in our own discourse, significant self-referential problems. In a word, we end up forced (often without knowing it or being aware) that we are violating the very materiality condition we are arguing for.
Third, your third paragraph assumes the very thing that is in question. 'Proving' in Western science rests on conditions of proof that themselves are the very things in question. If one proves something, then it exists. But that logically does not mean that if one cannot prove something that it does NOT exist. But, most Western science assumes this logical fallacy. It is often called 'Denying the Antecedent'.
Good
This is a very enjoyable, well-moderated discussion. I'm glad that Keith Ward has not had to experience dementia/Alzheimer's up close. If he had, he'd know there's a bit more to it than forgetting some things. That's the least of it. There's also "remembering" of elaborate scenarios that never happened. There's hiding things and then accusing loved-ones of stealing them. There's making hurtful, slanderous comments and then not being able to remember doing so a few minutes later. I'd be interested to know whether these mental characteristics survive the death of the physical body. Or is the immaterial soul a repository for true beliefs only? That would be convenient, wouldn't it?
"I'd be interested to know whether these mental characteristics survive the death of the physical body. "
There's evidence that they do. Look into terminal lucidity.
@@pandawandasit has nothing to do with surviving physical body, terminal lucidity is before death experience
Thank for the civilised debate.
I'm very impressed by how the host moderates the discussions on this channel. I'm myself an atheist, or agnostic to be more exact, and is not religious by any means, but I'm intrigued by hearing an interesting and respectful conversation between two people who don't think alike and I think this is important so that we all learn from how to behave and discuss with people which we don't agree with. In the end we all grow as human beings.
Brilliant. Lovely to see two completely polarising view points engaged in a civil debate. These are the kinds of discussions we need in all areas of today's world. Thank you
Sadly, yes, because there are still people who have these idiotic ideas in their head, and who would rather believe what makes them feel good or what they Intuit to be true.
@@enlightenedturtle9507That's your own personal opinion and assertion that their ideas are "idiotic" though. I'm sure Atheism makes Atheists feel good as well. They believe they won't have to face a Holy and Just Almighty God at the end of their life. They believe they won't have to be held accountable for their actions.
I've watched a few of these. I'm an atheist and this host is just amazing. (I'm assuming he is a theist but the way he interwieves is just .....) Marvelous job I say!
I enjoyed the conversation. Thanks!
Can we take a moment to appreciate that at this time keith was 81 and daniel 76. How sharp they both still are.
great talk, fantastic interviewer 👍
I can understand that for lots of ppl its hard to grasp that lots of new qualities and capacities can emerge from a complex system of simple individual units all connected to and dependent of each other.
Golden nugget of a comment 0the0web0. I could put parts of it on my wall as a picture. The fundation can be simple and redundant while a wast complex network of relations can grow on top of it, it really amazes me.
Agreed. The complexity of the material world emerging from simple interconnected set of experiences is really amazing.
Daniel Dennett vs Rupert Sheldrake would be a true match. 😍
Or maybe Stephen Meyer....one of the leading ID exponents .
He'd give Dan a run around the block .
Dan Dennet would mop the floor with dear Rupert.
This happened twice. Dennett was in a round table with him, and he accused sheldrake of being dishonest in person.
@@michaelbuck9945 Meyer would destroy dan
I'd like to see him try Bernardo Kastrup. BK is on a different level. Dennett would have a stroke trying to keep up with him.
Great discussion between the three.
Superb discussion. Thank you!
네 도좋아요.
If conciousness is an illusion what's there to be tricked?
Well put!
🍕
the brain!
@Viacheslav Vasiliev So, can nothing be tricked?
@Viacheslav Vasiliev Aren't we brains?
A huge thank you to the debate/discussion's facilitators. It is a joy to listen to an attentive moderator as well as to two people who are hosts to enlightening ideas, concerns, and what may be misunderstandings of what is known engaging in a respectful manner. To be transparent, I am more of a Dennettist than a Wardist. With that said, I equally value Keith's propensities which compel him to explore. Those, on their own, are priceless.
Great debate, but can't say I'm impressed with this Keith Ward chap
Fantastic discussion, very well conducted… thanks
Awesome and juicy discussion! Thx!
A conversation between truth and the desire for a different truth.
What a great conversation between people who completely disagree. Dan is a true legend
Fascinating discussion. Thanks.
wow its amazing how an academic/professors (Dr. Daniel Dennett) can bring such insight, knowledge and clarity to a discussion
You must be crazy for saying that. Lol
Yes, the moderator is great, one of the few moderators who make the thing interesting. And of course, the speakers are both great too.
Consciousness, according to the thinkers of materialistic disposition, is a phenomenon. But, who or what entity controls this phenomenon, they are unable to explain. Perhaps a very special (phenomenal!) part of this phenomenon!
Why does an entity have to control it?
@@w0t_m818 All manifestations of consciousness involve (degrees of) control, do not they? Therefore, a central controller is necessary.
@@Arunava_Gupta perhaps you need to define "control", because I see no reason to be convinced that consciousness requires a controller or "degrees of control".
@@w0t_m818 oh, but doesn't your own conscious personality exhibit the feature of control. Even in mental activities such as deliberation, ratiocination, calculation, etc., there's control. Need I mention more?
@@Arunava_Gupta why can't this come from experience? If anything the idea of "control" supports a materialist position as people with neurological differences such as ADHD struggle with control, people who suffer brain injuries often have trouble with these kinds of faculties as well. Again, I see no reason to be convinced that it comes from some transcendent source.
I loved Dr. Daniel Dennett, very sad to hear about his passing, I've would have loved to meet him, he was my absolute favorite, an intellectual giant, a legend, true sage, heard he was also very kind gentle person, huge loss to civilization, I will watch tons of his lectures in the next few days in his memory 1:20:00
Wow - I’ve seen so many of his interviews and talks and wasn’t aware that he had passed away. Whether you agreed with him or not, and often times I didn’t, I felt that listening to him always sharpened your thinking.
@@user-rv2zj8zu5b to me he was brilliant, he even went against Sam Harris, Saplowsky, and Pinker
Well done guys
Fantastic conversation! Am now a big Keith Ward fan! Interesting to hear their respective views on free will/reason follow from their views of "the self".
Only 15 minutes in but what I love is when two intellectuals can come together and have an open discourse without any reactionary elements. Also, though I myself am not a believer, I do admire that British Christians who are academically oriented are willing to accept scientific data and not twist it to some other narrative. Being an American, it’s like breathing fresh air after being locked in a suffocating, pressurized room.
Thanks for sharing this.
Why do we like music? Because we've been equipped to observe patterns as a neurological short cut to understanding the world around us, and there is a noticeable pattern in music. Not only that we can feel the music. To our detriment, we are so adept at observing patterns we often see them where they don't exist.
It would be funny if Keith called Dan “your brain” instead of “you” during the duration of this discussion
@@NickWheeler9559 Do brains talk or do they just use the mouth? hmmmmm
Veøsity But could the brain technically use the vocals with out them? A brain is useless without an agent. I also find it funny how we’re talking about the brain when it comes to sensory stimulation.
@@NickWheeler9559 So what manages the brain?
@@NickWheeler9559 No? How does it interact with abstract ideas to generate reason?
@@NickWheeler9559 I doubt that a brain could generate it's own thoughts without out external experience.
I wish that Keith Ward had asked, "How can a brain, a piece of meat, experience an illusion?" Really the question is, "How can a brain experience, that is have an inner subjective experience, at all?"
Check out Dan's book Consciousness Explained! A bit of a tough one to wrap your head around, but after a couple of read-throughs, I finally (mostly) understood what the heck he was trying to say. It's not an obvious idea, it's basically a form of bootstrapping.
Great moderator
Great conversation! Much respect for Daniel. I don't agree with him, but he was very thoughtful, respectful and interesting to listen to. I'll be keeping him on my radar.
The host is one of the best out there!
I'm confused as to why "matter in motion" is used to demean the naturalistic worldview.
The fact that an emergent property of "matter in motion" is consciousness is an astounding and beautiful fact of the universe.
'Emergent property' is a placeholder for ignorance. Sounds fancy but has no empirical basis.
Atheism plus materialism has to lead to nihilism if you’re honest. The more aesthetically pleasing hypothesis is that the brain is a tool that connects the mind to the material world. Like a damaged eye that can’t see clearly, a damaged brain fails to faithfully connect the mind to the material world. The mind or consciousness or one’s spirit is always intact , but the connection to the physical world can become distorted by a malfunctioning brain.
Yes they do lead to nihilism. But how unpleasant that conclusion is does nothing to degrade the truth of that conclusion. What is more aesthetically pleasing is not by virtue of that aestheticness any truer than something less aesthetically pleasing.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain.
Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
I loved this discussion!
I love how Daniel Dennet seems like santa claus s2
Secular Clause?
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS:
CONSCIOUSNESS means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by).
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to know themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree.
HOWEVER, in recent years, the term has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalised) to refer to a far more Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept.
The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is known by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena.
The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of pointing to The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality but not Reality Itself.
The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening.
The brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to computer hardware, Universal Awareness is akin to the operating system, whilst individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, using deoxyribonucleic acid as the memory chip. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of personal consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness (here, the word “coma” is not to be taken by its etymological definition of “deep sleep”, but the medical condition of a persistent vegetative state).
An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity.
So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17).
The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head.
Three states of consciousness are experienced by humans: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth 'state' (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal 'state', which underlies the other three. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being (or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If someone were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world was real, you would respond in a similar manner.
The Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real - 'real' in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The sages of ancient India distinguished the 'real' from the 'unreal' (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the 'thing' was eternal or temporal. Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not 'real'.
Reality is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings, yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16).
“Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE
All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.”
*************
“If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state.
The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there.
Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.”
*************
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck,
German Theoretical Physicist.
Ok cool
like this comentary pls
Very interesting!
Love this host! He should have a series on MSM!.. first class!!
Great discussion between two gentlemen.
I like this...
“Consciousness is a user-illusion that is designed by evolution and by learning and by cultural evolution to make our brains capable of getting our bodies through this complicated world.”
illusion implies consciousness
This line is absolute garbage used to act as a filler in debate.
@@mr.rachetphilanthrophist601 I am unsure if it is absolute garbage or not - I would need to delve into it more. However, I don't think of it as a 'filler' in a debate about "Mind, consciousness and free will".
@@mr.rachetphilanthrophist601 philanthrophist his alternative to dualism with his multiple drafts theory does not only showcast the problems that come with stating a central meaner/cartesian theater in the brain (like the problem of stalinesque or orwellian revision of information, or infinite regression of homunculi) but also provides for a concept of human consciousness that is inquirable in contemporary emperical science. He does not deny conscious experiences, otherwise it wouldn't be conceived as an illusion if there wouldnt be a consciouss being, but he denies the dualistic sort of consciousness that his opponent is suggestion.
Basicallly what I'm trying to say is that is it not filler since there is alot of detailed work concering his account of human consciousness that results in consciousness in the way his opponent describes as an epiphenomenon
The statement is redundant stating the same thing three different ways to emphasize biological intelligent design. The conclusion also does not follow from the premises sufficiently moreover because we can navigate the world in other ways like whales, dinosaurs, etc.
Nice , interesting and great discussion.
It's Nice to see two well educated men talking without insulting one and another. Civilized conversation
Dennett mentioned panpsychism, which can be interesting. Some prominent panpsychists in analytic philosophy are physicalists, however, wonder how conscious experience is constituted in the physical systems producing it.
You gotta hand to Keith Ward for being a religious person that can discuss these things without getting overly offensive about differing views
Actually he was all time on the defensive
@@albiboy1599nah
Dennett's Italian is awesome :-)
Brilliant debate.
The host is very good
@Heston Westmoreland well I think the hosts job is to allow free flowing conversation which he did very well. Obviously the Christian needs a little help as he doesn't have any facts to fall back on...i still enjoy watching this channel though.
An excellent discussion, thank you all! I'm with Dan on this one, though.
Very intellectual and civil discussions. Im no expert but if are all just matter and energy then we are no different than a laptop or cellphone.
I believe that man is a spirit with a soul living in a body. Science is very important part of of everyday life but it cannot answer everything.
Terrific discussion
Why would anyone ever get into a debate/argument with Dan?! He never loses... destroys his opponents with the utmost politeness until they agree with the facts he points out to them. Legend.
Daniel Dennett did a fantastic job!
Nahh. He is deluded with his atheistic religion.
Really a great and full of depth debate
Dan Denett is a super date but Keith Ward, I really like this guy. There is a lot to him.
Favorite moment of the whole debate 1:15:12