A Hidden Reality Beyond Mathematics? | Prof. Dr. Erik Verlinde PhD
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2024
- Prof. dr. Erik Verlinde, well-known for his ground-breaking theory of entropic gravity, talks about emergence in mind and nature, as well as the Platonic realm physicists tap into to describe the world.
More information:
www.essentiafoundation.org
The 'Science of consciousness' conference, 2021:
www.essentiafoundation.org/de...
Copyright © 2021 by Essentia Foundation. All rights reserved.
www.essentiafoundation.org
Thank you for posting!
Read something interesting today: Zen-master Dogen said firewood is firewood, and ash is ash. Firewood can turn into ash, but not the other way around: similarly we can die but we cannot be born. That's the underlying argument for reincarnation according to him: consciousness cannot be created (through emergence), instead what is there must be kept: hence reincarnation.
When we cannot explain the mind through emergence, according to him this argument must be valid. I was pretty impressed, this was written about 1237 AD..
There is certainly a realization throughout history by way human's ability to reason that the material body is distinct from mind, spirit, soul...pick your flavor. One is obviously temporary and the other? Perhaps reincarnation has plausibility...
📍21:49
The problem is what do we actually mean by "emergence". Is emergence something that can be outside of a mind? And if that's not the case, how could consciousness be emergent?
I can only see existence as conscious existence, not necessarily conscious about what it is in itself (and not necessarily conscious in the sense of "a knowing"), but still conscious of what it is about (it's activity, I understand and feel consciousness as just activity).
Then the activity of consciousness could get reflected in-between (as the activity of our inner world gets reflected as a brain), and here we have what I understand by "emergence".
So, emergence is just how we refer to abstractions, what else could it actually be about? I'm pretty frustrated because I can't even understand what people are talking about when they say "emergence" and then say consciousness is something that "emerges" from innert matter... It makes no sense! That's not emergence, that's another completely different thing what they're talking about, and it is sort of magical by the way.
I am reading your comment for the second time now but where do you base your ideas in. Seems like all you say is just speculation. Even your definition of emergence
@@Carlos-fl6ch Try to define an emergent property without it being just an abstraction of something else.
Consciousness is what it is, it's an abstraction when you conceptualize it but essentially it is a fact by itself (the fact of existing mental qualities), like the proper fact of existence.
So, ontologically, qualities are equal to matter, and consciousness is equal to existence.
@@MeRetroGamer
I still don't understand. Why would an emergent property only be just an abstraction. Can you elaborate?
@@Carlos-fl6ch Can you list at least one emergent property (demonstrated emergent) which is not an arbitrary selected and encapsulated abstraction of its components?
Can you tell me at least about one emergent thing which is ontologically different from its components?
Emergence doesn't actually exist, it's either a sum of lower-level processess (which by themselves can explain the "big thing" and they doesn't actually need it) or a substraction of a higher-level process (meaning that it's some kind of abstract simplification used for testing and engineering).
@@MeRetroGamer
I want to. But I truly think it would be better to start with a definition. It would be a waste of time to waste a lot of effort in Something only to find out that we just have a problem with definition. Could you give me your definition please.
This Prof does not understand Plato's Allegory of the Cave. He seems to be applying a strictly materialist (quantitative) interpretation of the allegory. He seems to think Plato would associate reality with the microscopic world of material stuff. Plato's theory describes a divided line to reality between the visible world and the intellectual world. The first level beyond the line is mathematics which could be described as the archetype or "ideal form" of order which lead to understanding. Beyond this level is pure abstraction which is purely mind or intellectual which lead to reason. This is what science can tell us...how nature behaves....reduction, deduction....cause and effect. Science cannot tell us what reality actually is in itself. Plato was an Idealist.
Can you explain why you think he doesn't understand the allegory?
Enlighten us on your view.
This Canis doesn't understand what an arguement is.
@@gastronic I think he's just a troll.
@@neil6477 Could be, him wanting us to just watch his shadow, believing him to be real. ;-)
Or simply more shy than brave.
His physics was correct and entertaining. But I don’t see any valid connection between gravity, quantum mechanics, and Consciousness.