It's mind .... not consciousness. Consciousness, free will & nature are functions of the Mind. You don't say "I can't get enough conversation on free will."
The word "mind" is no more comprehensively explanatory than the word "consciousness", because no single word is going to do all the necessary conceptual work of defining the mechanisms of human experience. And while I agree that all experience is a "function of the mind", your assertion of "free will" as a coherent quality or characteristic of human experience is demonstrably false-- not just theoretically: you can quickly perceive this truth for yourself. A quick example is Sam Harris's brief audio "guides" to realizing this directly, which I listened to through the Waking Up app, but which might be available elsewhere online (I haven't checked). In a couple minutes, you can see for yourself that there is definitely *voluntary* choice/will/actions/abilities--as opposed to *involuntary* actions, like a muscle spasm, or your automatic ability to, for example, recognize a person's face, or visually perceive color, etc. etc. You can voluntarily do whatever you want, but if you investigate carefully the emergence of that "choice" in consciousness, you will see that it simply appeared "on its own", and that "free will" is nowhere to be found. The confusion between voluntary action and "free will" is understandable, because one of the characteristics of consciousness (or "mind") is the distinct "feeling" that you are doing what you want, that you are not being coerced into a particular choice. But this is only the experience of voluntary functioning- not "free will". Also, your assertion regarding "nature" is only as intelligible as your working definition of "nature", which is vague and broad to the point of being meaningless. Either "nature" is synonymous with "everything that is experienced" (which therefore provides no more clarity than a word like "everything"), or else it's generally meant in the everyday sense of "nature" vs. "manmade" things, which is useless in terms of trying to shine some productive light on the challenges of comprehending the mechanisms/experiences of "mind". Didn't mean to write at length, but hopefully this is of use and provides more clarity and precision in thinking about this expansive subject of inquiry.
@@anaymark Nope. Mind & Conscious are easily understood ... if you actually knew what the Universe & Life are & there origin. The Function & Intelligence Categories prove the Universe & Life are Functions composed entirely of Functions and were made by an Intelligence. Everything being a Function made by an intelligence is where you must start to fully understand body & mind of the only known NATURAL intelligence in the NATURAL Universe. And consciousness.
I think his argument makes perfect sense and is quite logical. I believe he is saying that the feeling of there being an observer to qualia is just another "appearance" in the qualia itself. Generally speaking, it might help if philosophers spoke more specifically about the different ways we experience qualia rather than just lumping them all together as "consciousness." The visual field that we each experience, for example, must have a somewhat different nature than emotion, pain, pleasure, etc.
"The visual field that we each experience, for example, must have a somewhat different nature than emotion, pain, pleasure, etc." Yes. The visual field, the feel of tennis ball in hand, the heat of water in the shower, the weight of lead apron at the dentist, swelling pride as band marches by, the wistfulness of blues guitar, the loss of a true love, the ecstasy of climax, the nausea that precedes vomit, the relief when the last school bell rings, etc. are all thoughts and all identical in being thoughts but all radically different from each other in what each thought is *about* . (The concept of the visual field eases the way to conceiving of the 'conscious' field, i.e. all that one is conscious of, is what fills the 'conscious' field (and in that field there is a 'bump' that we can move around and is what we call 'the focus of attention' (metaphorically speaking, naturally))). Thoughts are not the same as what they are about. They are representations only, that's what 'about' means. How can brains maintain representations? They can do it easily in the encoded form of neural discharge frequency. (And please do note that 'frequency' is an abstract notion and that 'encoded' is emphatically the key to understanding). The researcher will never discover the meaning of this sentence by looking ever more closely at its words, letters, pixels and the liquid crystal patterns that instantiate it on a screen. And no one will find the pictures they see on a computer screen by looking inside the computer. (Although, if one is very clever, competent and thorough, one may find a strong correlation between the screen image and a pattern of electrons flowing through transistors in the computer's chips). But where and what is the 'self' who is conscious of the thoughts whose substrate is made of neurons? Imagine *the self to also be a thought* and that this thought is to what the word 'self' refers, the very meaning of the word. Easy to imagine that this thought we call the self is encoded by the frequencies present in a very large neural complex. The self, being a thought, is what makes it possible for other thoughts to influence and modulate it, i.e. they are the same kind of entity. The modulations of the self by these other thoughts are of what the self is conscious. (Note: modulation (i.e. altered frequency) is accomplished via synapse) The output from the self is of course what moves the muscles. So, input from the sense organs & memory, processing of these by the self complex, output back to memory and or muscles and we see that the whole of it is a process. Label this 'the being-conscious-process'. Please note, 'process' is also an abstract notion. One cannot find an abstract notion like 'process' by looking in a microscope. This is why neuroscience by itself cannot provide the answer to the question, 'What is consciousness'?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Nicely said. Good point about consciousness being a process rather than something discrete that can be pinpointed. Though I have no trouble agreeing with you, I believe that still may be a trap that I fall into sometimes.
@@theotormon My comment is no trap and it is not even an assertion. It is a brief extract from a theory of the conscious that I find to be most likely. (And as you know, likelihoods are how science couches findings). The main advantage of this theory is the fact that there is no magic thinking in it and it contains no concept impossible to grasp. Seems to me almost anyone who has a firm understanding of the concepts 'abstract', 'code', 'frequency', modulation', 'analogy' and 'process' is equipped to understand it. Who in their right mind would deny the truth of the assertion: 'It is my self that is conscious'. Cheers!
In response to the commentary thread (from a few hours ago) started by "Saijibott": The word "mind" is no more comprehensively explanatory than the word "consciousness", because no single word is going to do all the necessary conceptual work of defining the mechanisms of human experience. And while I agree that all experience is a "function of the mind", your assertion of "free will" as a coherent quality or characteristic of human experience is demonstrably false-- not just theoretically: you can quickly perceive this truth for yourself. A quick example is Sam Harris's brief audio "guides" to realizing this directly, which I listened to through the Waking Up app, but which might be available elsewhere online (I haven't checked). In a couple minutes, you can see for yourself that there is definitely *voluntary* choice/will/actions/abilities--as opposed to *involuntary* actions, like a muscle spasm, or your automatic ability to, for example, recognize a person's face, or visually perceive color, etc. etc. You can voluntarily do whatever you want, but if you investigate carefully the emergence of that "choice" in consciousness, you will see that it simply appeared "on its own", and that "free will" is nowhere to be found. The confusion between voluntary action and "free will" is understandable, because one of the characteristics of consciousness (or "mind") is the distinct "feeling" that you are doing what you want, that you are not being coerced into a particular choice. But this is only the experience of voluntary functioning- not "free will". Also, your assertion regarding "nature" is only as intelligible as your working definition of "nature", which is vague and broad to the point of being meaningless. Either "nature" is synonymous with "everything that is experienced" (which therefore provides no more clarity than a word like "everything"), or else it's generally meant in the everyday sense of "nature" vs. "manmade" things, which is useless in terms of trying to shine some productive light on the challenges of comprehending the mechanisms/experiences of "mind". Didn't mean to write at length, but hopefully this is of use and provides more clarity and precision in thinking about this expansive subject of inquiry.
When people say “how can electrical impulses and neurological activity cause experiences “, we could say the same about matter “matter is just a countless bunch of atoms that are each almost empty space” but it still appears as a solid object
@@cosminvisan520 well that’s a theory, we can’t claim that as fact , I’ve heard people like Hoffman and even Leo gura talk about that , but if the icon that is the brain gets damaged it will change your consciousness and depending upon the brain you were born with you will have a certain kind of intelligence and perspective etc
@@cosminvisan520 no I don’t think it does mean that, the brain you were born with or a damaged brain will determine your experiences but I don’t know if the brain generates consciousness, but certainly I can’t see the weather generating consciousness, im not sure how you got that from my reply, but anyway don’t misunderstand my point, I’m not saying that the brain or any other material thing generates consciousness, I obviously don’t know like everyone else
I think the difference is that matter appears as a solid object ... in consciousness. There is a sense that consciousness is fundamental because, for us at least, everything appears in consciousness. What I think people often miss is that we observe matter from the outside. We don't know what an atom or a chair is to itself, from the inside. We have an inside, obviously. We experience it all day long. We also have an outside. We experience the outsides of other humans but not the insides. It is not irrational to suppose that other objects have an inside as well. P.S. Leo Gura and Donald Hoffman are sloppy thinkers in my opinion.
@@cosminvisan520 Donald Hoffman draws sweeping conclusions from paltry evidence. He claims that a mental representation with high fidelity to reality will necessarily result in less fitness in an evolutionary perspective. His basis for this are some very sketchy, extremely simplistic "mathematical" models riddled with assumptions. It is basically a just-so story dressed up to sound rigorous. There is also the problem that he denies space, time, and physical reality, which is perfectly fine for a philosopher or theologian, but it doesn't make any sense for a scientist who claims to be working in evolutionary theory. Those are the literal ingredients needed for evolution. So it isn't even clear what he is saying, and I've never seen him address this incongruity. And of course his central metaphor of the desktop icon is flawed on so many levels as Liam has already touched on here. Hoffman seems like a nice man, but he's sloppy. Gura is not only sloppy but actually malevolent. If you dig into his comments, it appears he has tried to push people toward suicide and violence. He has advocated the position of metaphysical solipsism, telling his audience "Your parents do not exist, your childhood never happened, etc." Yet, when he faces pressure in the public for such views, he quickly releases videos about the need for compassion or telling tall tales about how he personally overcame solipsism and managed to use his God powers to contact an entirely separate infinite consciousness. He is a self-serving narcissist and conman. No doubt he is clever, though. Are you sloppy? I don't know anything about you. But probably. We all are sometimes.
(1:30) *PF: **_"So, one part of the machine records what another part of the machine is doing."_* ... This corresponds to the ToE I present in my book. Consciousness is not the ultimate reality; it's the information process used for experiencing reality. Consciousness is the highest level of data acquisition, processing, and evaluation, along with the ability to generate new information. After 13.8 billion years, 8 billion individual "information generators" are supplying Existence with all-new information. The evaluation and generation of Information is what is at the core of Existence, and the fact that you're watching this video to extract and evaluate the information it presents speaks to this reality.
@@cosminvisan520 “Brain doesn't exist” is the most amazing claim I've ever heard. Do you _really_ believe that your head is the bone tissue all the way through? I don't disagree, it probably is, just asking...
@@cosminvisan520 You assuming that I wrote that in the intention of seeming to be smart is not smart within itself. I just did it to twist the idea around.
I imagine consciousness can and does exist, on many levels... This consciousness as a human being, is very complex, and simple at simultaneously... Just depends on your perspective! But It is fascinating, to say the least. I want to believe that we are always moving towards a higher consciousness... not some spiritual thing, but evolving to a place that we'll be able to comprehend the incomprehensible!
I am atheist and i will always put my schooling first, But, when i was a kid i was able to dream what was going to happen to me the next day, this always hunted me all my life and later in life i came to the conclusion that the future already exists. There is something about consciousness that goes beyond time and is not just a brain function. I will probably never know the answer.
@@cosminvisan520 i prefer not to used the word god, because. it makes others think of the personal god of Abraham that likes to be worshiped and needs to be accepted, I prefer to use the word "Cosmic consciousness" or "Pure consciousness" and i agree, the observer is most likely cosmic consciousness.
@@kinetic7609 yes, everything that exists is caused from a previous event in an infinte line of previous events without begining or end, since there is no begining there is no need for a ultimate creator.
How is it possible that philosophers come up with 3 names for certain correlated theories, 2 of which are more or less clearly defined in the name of the theory and 1 describes almost only a desire but leaves the context completely in the middle?
Among the most interesting (open) scientific/philosophical questions in our lifetime: "What is consciousness?" "Is consciousness simply the product of a brain?" Will science ever be able to resolve this question? I think it might be able to sometime in the future. But it will require an objective, non-biased searched for the truth.
Good on Robert for pushing his guest for more clarification. Forrest has taken a position as a non-dualist, although admitting that there are many things about consciousness that are "a mystery" In his case one can't see the Forrest through the trees. ;-) Robert points to the fact of duality - that there is a subject, and the objects which are seen,or items registered, in the subject's consciousness. This is hard to deny. Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, seems to agree "There are two kinds of reality, or existence; the existence of my consciousness and the reality or existence of everything else." Vaishnava Vedanta reconciles both Dualism and Non-Dualism as co-existing. A metaphor exists in nature in this regard: the rays of the sun radiate from one (non-dual) source, but carry dual energies of both heat and light. A conscious being, such as you or I, experiences something "other" than itself, through the medium of the senses (sight, smell, taste, hearing, touch) which registers in one's mind, which is one aspect of consciousness. In this connection, Vedic wisdom describes Godhead "as the source of all material and spiritual energies". Therefore, when the subjective spark of consciousness senses anything - whether material or spiritual - then one is having a subjective experience of Godhead/Source energy, (either material or spiritual energy) unique to that observer. Other people can have similar objective experiences, but that does not mean that the individual subjects have lost their subjective reality or experience, and have become non-existent, or non-dual.
@@cosminvisan520 You don’t need to telepathy if you can smell the food and see the cook, or read the written comments. Someone else’s actions and consciousness can interact with you in many ways.
I think the problem Robert Lawrence Kuhn has is that he talks about what it's like to feel as a person, that's not only different, in a way from consciousness but is a process all of it's own. To know you are feeling, you tend to, although not always, be conscious of it. The brain is interpriting chemical signals and saying that's a feeling of sadness, happiness etc. When it comes to feeling, often, although i don't think always, we have feelings because we learn them. We touch a flame as a child, it burns the skin for a second and then we pull away. Then there is the feeling of sadness because of the pain we are feeling in that part of the body. So we have one feeling involving the nerves, our senses, and another internal, chemicals in the body and mind that were released at the time of touching the flame to tell us to pull away and to remind us to avoid doing that in the future. I feel, although i could be wrong, that consciousness can be closely linked to feeling but isn't what consciousness is because as i mentioned, you have an ' I ' doing the feeling, some would call that your ego. A mind without any feeling, any emotion can still be conscious.
Two of my favorite proponents of a consciousness-based reality are Bernardo Kastrup and Rupert Spira. I would love to see either of them on this channel.
you are not alone more info on that possibility here in the comments (re an interview robert did with them, still unseen) better not hold our breaths, though
Conscious agent theory- Donald Hoffman is an excellent theory to investigate.. to have matter arise from consciousness instead of matter being needed for consciousness.
@@GoGrowGoGrow Matter cannot arise from consciousness. Donald Hoffman only has a conjecture not a theory. In order to rise to the level of theory David Hoffman's conscious agent conjecture needs to make testable predictions. The only non matter position that has a chance at being right is Stephen Wolfram's computational universe. Stephen Wolfram makes a prediction that if his theory is correct than we will be able to create artificial consciousness. Donald Hoffman makes no Conscious Agent Conjecture makes no such predictions.
His arguments appear to explore much deeper. As I think, apart from matter and non-matter components, there is yet another component and that is conscious component. All the three make and control universe. The same laws of nature that controls living world, controls the non-living world too. But the minds of the human beings have only access to the consciousness of the biological systems of species. In fact, some altogether new concept is needed for providing complete explanation.
If you can figure out how the squiggly patterns that constitute this sentence are able to encapsulate my thought then you will be well on your way to understanding what the word 'conscious' means.
Fascinating, thank you! I didn't catch the term that Forrest used to name his position. Could someone write it out here? It seem he was describing weak emergence, so maybe he could call himself a WeakEmergentist?
I have coined the term continuity in mind, of course if you search in the consciousness you have to study the death and what would happen after that, so it's known there is no time when people die, it's equivalent to one deep sleep then you will continue, the question is where I will find my self after death, as the consciousness possible managed by system like gigantic computer, it will make every entity experience same pain and happiness of others, by creating people in the environment which would expose them to suffering or happens. thanks for reading my comment.
the possible problem that will face any civilization is that when they be able to live longer for example 500 years their consciousness will stop because limitation related to consciousness metaphysics, so that gigantic system switch to another entity, and current entity will experience death or the atoms in their mind will be no longer produce consciousness
"How can these sophisticated patterns BE the conscious experience of the feeling?" Well, we don't know, and yet, there's no evidence of there being anything else. Lawrence is arguing from incredulity. I like Forrest's position. He is saying that just not knowing how it could work doesn't suggest a dual reality. Consciousness is totally cool, and a definite mystery, but I've yet to hear a compelling argument that it somehow exists beyond the brain and the physical person. When people say consciousness is fundamental, what I hear is a 'self' centered view. But it's probably only fundamental to 'you'. Once you- the sophisticated patterns- are gone, it's not fundamental anymore.
Consciousness is "Dark Matter", the force that prevents the Universe from collapsing. Hunger is the simplest form of consciousness, and humans' only advantage over the most basic form of life is we have the privilege of observation and reflection.
(7:30) “I don’t think you can have a subject of the right sort for things to appear, but to which nothing (as a matter of fact) appeared.” Is Forrest saying there can be no subject without a sensory experience, or a thought? If so, he is not accommodating consciousness being both subject and object. Perhaps he would still apply that precursor to a brain state.
Rightly or wrongly, it just makes far more sense, to me, that existence is a more restricted category than reality. Instead of equating the terms, like many do, consider existence a subcategory of reality. Thus, all existing things are part of reality but not all parts of reality exist. From this viewpoint, consciousness is part of reality but doesn't exist like animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, rocks, water, planets, gases, etc. However, it's a part of reality just like all other abstract concepts.
I agree, except that I would turn it around. Reality is what humans experience, while Existence is everything that is, was, and always will be. Thus reality IMO, is a subset of Existence, not the other way around.
@@browngreen933, That's an interesting take but problematic. Do we experience abstract concepts like numbers, letters, height, weight, largeness, etc.? Existence must be a more restricted, narrow, exclusive, etc. category than reality. // "Existence is everything that is, was, and always will be." // Elvis existed. He doesn't anymore. Given your usage/definition, you're forced to say that Elvis does still exist. That death isn't the end. For me, I can say that animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, water, rocks, planets, gases, etc. exist. That concepts like numbers, letters, height, weight, largeness, etc. do not exist but are aspects of reality.
@@rossfrailey9702 No, Elvis doesn't exist anymore, but the stuff he was made of (atoms, particles -- whatever) are still part of Existence. I agree, numbers, letters, weight, etc are part of reality -- human reality. They don't exist independent from human consciousness. So as much as we exist, they exist. If humanity were wiped out tomorrow, they would be wiped out too. But Existence itself would continue (Elvis' atoms for example). That's why I would say consciousness-based human reality is a subset of Existence.
The function, intelligence & Mind CATEGORIES ... prove God created Man with a body & soul. Free will, nature & consciousness are simply functions of the Mind. Functions & minds can be natural or unnatural. And Intelligence can be natural or unnatural. Man & Animals are natural entities .. with a natural mind (brain) ... and their own type of free will, nature & consciousness of the NATURAL. But Man is the only known Intelligence in the Universe, which Chimps sharing 99% of Human DNA but can no think & do 10% of what the body & MIND of Man can do. The Mind of an Intelligence is unnatural (soul/spirit). The Mind of Man is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul). And both have free will, nature, cognition, memory, senses, emotions & consciousness. The body is the Mind of Man and is only conscious of the natural when alive. The soul becomes the Mind of Man when the body is dead and is conscious of the natural & unnatural existence .. with every memory of what the body thought & did when it was the Mind. Genesis was written 3400 years ago ... and fully explained the Mind of Man is the body & the soul .... and because the body has been corrupted by the Original Sin it will cause everybody to freely think & do evil because it is the NATURE of Man when alive. But the soul of Man is also the Mind with a nature ... and when the body freely sins ... it corrupts the soul .. which becomes the mind of Man when the body dies. This is why the promised Messiah in the Torah had to be born of a virgin ( ie made by God) and not have a corrupt body. Even the Son of God would freely sin ... is Jesus was actually descended form King David. This is all about the Mind .... not consciousness .... of reality. The Mind of Man & Chimps are not the same. Chimps only have a natural mind(brain). Man's mind is body & soul.
Consciousness is abstract yet fluid like water, so it must lay in the spaces in between matter . In fact the only reason why we see patterns and coincidences is that it is consciousness that connects two points of matter to make a pattern , or an appearance thereof
@@cosminvisan520 Matter is that which the empty space which is mind and consciousness creates as a point of reference in for world. I think the reason why we cannot see the empty space in between matter is that empty space is the mind looking at itself
@@cosminvisan520 I know what you mean. I was just telling somebody that the universe itself has to be solid through and through, but it is the brain that through organic energy creates the illusion of empty space to make things look separate. It’s one of the reasons why when the brain gets tired or is weakened , one starts to see synchronicities and coincidences -because the brain starts to lose it’s power to create the Illusory Perception of the separation of things. The mind chooses to create Invisibility in certain areas
@@cosminvisan520 Brain exists as a portal for consciousness. But with that being said, if you Draw a line , leave a tiny gap in the middle , then continue drawing the line-then put the blind spot of your eye where the two nerve endings connect-over that gap between the two lines-The brain will fill in that gap with something that isn’t there. It’s already been proven for many years that the brain projects objects into empty space where the eyes have blind spots in them. The work of the brain is to create perception not to receive naked reality .
@@cosminvisan520 well you know that’s an interesting concept when you figure, man has the power to take ideas and manifest them into our reality, so it’s probably safe to believe that we’re not the only ones with that power in the universe and a greater consciousness or idea manifested us or other things. We can’t be the only ones with the ability to process ideas into physical constructs
*"Consciousness definitely is ultimate reality because without it you wouldn't be able to experience this."* ... Your consciousness isn't the "ultimate reality." It's what allows you to experience ultimate reality. Your widescreen television isn't the many shows that you watch each day. It's the mechanism used to display these shows.
@@kos-mos1127 Each organism/life form of at least some degree of complexity (nervous system, brain etc.) has a certain level/degree of consciousness which is always relative reality only accessible to these certain organisms/life forms.. these consciousness states/degrees are really only like virtual machines running in the hardware platform called our universe.. it's just that we ourselves are not able to get out of the box of subjective experiencing, hence we are not capable to really take a independent/objective (ultimately nothing is objective anyway in the universe since all is inside it and relative to everything else inside it) position reg. this matter and intuitively often feel that our consciousness "must" be ultimate reality or such..
Thank you Robert, it's good to know we are definitely getting closer to knowing the truth about the nature of consciousness which would allow us to know more about the nature of our own existence and that of the universe.
@@PhantomGardener I respect the effort that is being made to at least consider discussing the possibility that consciousness is not a product of the brain because it definitely isn't.
@@shelwincornelia2498 That I agree with, but there is still no solid evidence of what it is. And it seems like every scientist or philosopher and so on, still have their own opinions on what it actually is.
I really love the thumbnail for today's video, however the content is still a battle for which Robert has been wrestling for a long time. It doesn't mean that I am totally contented with worldly knowledge but what I can beginning to say is probably our perspective of understanding the radical aspect of life or consciousness is limited to science alone. Every scientific innovation has always been based on observation by human beings, so while exploring or trying to know human consciousness, would walking the path of science solely get us to the destination? I am not quite in agreement with that, because when I want to know the truth I will have to take all the paths conducive for the journey. Nevertheless, I am eagerly waiting to see a day where Robert takes a different leap mostly to the eastern part of the globe and meet SADHGURU(Jaggi Vasudev) in the peninsular India and what happens. I don't know why but I am so sure that he will start uncovering himself to a different dimension of human being rather discussing brain impulses, neuron shots, etc. We know the geographical location of human brain in a human body, still we have no idea what MIND itself is, what LOVE or Emotion is. And consciousness is something which enables all our faculties and knowing it, needs striving but in a different direction. We can believe what science says about mind or love or consciousness but we can also choose to uncover truths through other ways as well which might have a subjective experience to it. Every time a notification pops I am eager to see a video of progressive realization but I feel we are consciously walking in circles, It's time Robert, let's go take a tangential path. Let's meet the Yogis in India. I am waiting with my adrenal rush all over me to see that video.
You can't get away from consciousness. Even if you try to imagine what the world would look like if you weren't there, your imagination is still the unacknowledged participant in the situation. The universe is an experience, the subjective observer and the objective reality are two sides of the same coin. An object is seen against the background of mind. Would the sun be bright without eyes to see it? Would rocks be hard without sensitive skin to feel them? Consciousness measures relationships and tells itself a story about what is going on, without the self there would be no boundaries, no outside and therefore no inside. This doesn't mean that you control reality with that little notion of yourself called the ego.
It seems that Peter Forrest’s idea of experience manifesting itself as “appearing” and by stating that he is not a dualist is therefore making ultimate reality constrained to one medium. That by necessity seems to infer that this medium must be mental in its essence. Yet he doesn’t seem to be willing to go there…perhaps because the idealist position has become inadmissible to the scientific community.
The consciousness may be fundamental property of the universe, best approach to study consciousness may be to build mathematical model of brain and nervous system starting from simple organisms , one thing is sure it arises from certain order/structure/brain that appears to have syntactic freedom just like a language, alphabets can be arranged in particular way to give rise words, sentences, paragraphs and stories, our brain may have fixed, rigid, semi rigid and plastic structures, allowing certain degree of freedom, how information may be processed, It may be product of order plus chaos that controls decision making and higher the degree of complexity, the higher is the computational probability and system may operate close to the boundaries of order and chaos, it drives its freedom from chaos that may be source of consciousness, but it can’t be measured best we can do is identify structures that may hold consciousness.
Brain activity, the NCCs, are the means by which consciousness emerges rather than the cause or source of conscious experience. Using reductionism to 'explain' consciousness is like trying to use a spanner to undo a screw.
In evolutionary terms, wouldn't consciousness start with sensing. Sensing is basically a "try before you buy" approach to life that samples aspects of the environment before engaging, as opposed to simply barging in and dealing with the consequences, like some brainless organisms do. If there is nothing to sense, consciousness stops, so consciousness is not purely generated by the brain, but is the interaction of a sensing organism with its environment. In humans' case, there is also an inner environment to consider, with our capacity to analyse and self-correct.
My view with this latest scientific Quantum Mechanics and proven optical illusions by our senses,I can infer that the world we are living in is not the ultimate reality, there is a field or plenum which is all pervading and timeless.This field is the ultimate reality where the laws are beyond thoughts,logic and words.We can experience this field when we meditate or aware of it internally.We are fooled by our senses but it is very hard to de-conditioned this illusions by our senses for we have taken it as reality since birth.
Or did you mean "not" alone? Either way I get the feeling that English is not your first language, which is fine. Either way, I think I got the overall gist of what you were saying.
Don’t worry. You’d be surprised how quickly these despair tainted questions can fall away. If you feel tormented by these questions, understand that it is possible for them to stop being such a nuisance. I’ve moved on from the pain of contemplating free will and I feel ok again.
@@cosminvisan520 - Perhaps, but I’m just not so sure about that. Does a Venus Fly Trap plant have perception, or is that just reflex? Or, how about a spider sensing that something is caught in its web and might serve as dinner? Does that spider have perception only, or does it have some level of consciousness? It seems to me that Consciousness and mere perception are indeed not the same thing at all. Additionally, as far as we know, no other species on this planet seems to have the same level of consciousness (if any at all) that comes close to human consciousness. I think that, as far as we know, no other species seem to have any ability at all to even debate the issue at hand. It seems that pretty much all other species have perception abilities, but limited consciousness if any at all. No other species that we know of design, or create art and music, they don’t build shelters and vehicles, they don’t build weapons of war. And yet they all seem to display many forms of perception. Consciousness - especially human consciousness - seems to be different than perception. I don’t know for sure, but perhaps science can demonstrate that there are living things that have reflexes, and/or perception, but seem not to have any consciousness at all. Single cell, and simple organisms for example…….🤔?
IMO information is the common currency of both consciousness and physics. Consciousness gives information about the properties of the intentional object, while information is also what orders Physics (“It from Bit”). Is this the dual aspects of “Dual Aspect Monism”? But then… what is “information”?
@@cosminvisan520Are you a Solipsist then? Self evidently, we can only know anything through the window of our consciousness, but that is not proof that nothing else and no one else exists! Unless everyone and everything you perceive are just your invention, the existence of a reality beyond your own consciousness can be inferred from the objects of consciousness. So, does the Universe cease to exist when you shut your eyes? Did it come into existence 5 seconds ago? Does your brain exist in your head as you read this? These are all outside our immediate conscious awareness, yet it is possible to infer their probable existence.
why our guest don’t agree which so simple is consciousness is subject every thing else is object in space and universe that is why you don’t see consciousness .
I don't know what it means to say things ''appear'' in the absence of a Subject they appear to. It's not how we usually use the word ''appear'', and he doesn't explain what his notion of appearing means. If he did/could explain what he means by ''appear'', I think he'd run into problems.
@@timterrell8678 😄 no, you dont. Science can't even show brain activity causes consciousness, only that it is correlated with consciousness. If you didn't have such enormous distrust of your own direct experience, you could take 5-MEO right now and prove to yourself that universal consciousness exists. But, since you believe you can't tell the difference between your own mind in a 'normal' state, in a dream state, in a 'psychotic' state, ... then for you, meeting god directly would be chalked up to delusion and quite literally there is nothing even conceivable that could convince you otherwise which makes your intellect as useful as a brick
I expected the word "emergence," but it wasn't sounded. I'm wondering why. The philosophical school Forrest belongs to doesn't accept it, or why otherwise?
'Emerge' has the flavour of something coming through a door. If being conscious is a process and process is an abstract notion perhaps a better word than 'emerge' is in order?
Yes, and that "appearing" is the "emergent" phenomenon. He has the intuition about the phenomenon but doesn't know exactly "how". Now, simply concentrate on only "how", because the primordial substrate doesn't matter. The nature has been using what substrate had at hand in this corner of the Universe. There was no other choice for it, as you can very well see. Only the "emergent" process is important. The rest of it is not.
Cosmin Visan / I know what emergent means in this specific case. You don't. What you're talking about in your material is a stupidity bigger than yourself.
Hmm? 4:02 “Brain functions which we partially understand”? Not a good sentence, one feels to assist with moving on. Like the car that requires a new engine.....but the mechanic knows you just have a faulty handbrake and it stays on!?
Neither do I. However, instead of Dulism it's real right there're at least two limition speeds which divide or separate Bing the Whole to three realms, Planck World, Dirac Sea (or Mental realm) and House the Divine (or mathematical realm), corresponding with human body, human soul (mainly indicating animal soul) and human spirit (the godly soul).
Assume there is only one thing, a coffee cup, on a table. The cup has no relationships to other things on the table because there are none. Now, put another cup on the table and a distance-between-them relationship comes into existence. Obviously the nature of relationship existence is radically different from the nature of cup existence. Is 'emerge' the right word to use in reference to the coming into existence of the relationship? Does the relationship actually exist 'in the world' or does it exist only as a concept in one's thoughts? If being conscious is a process and a process consists only of dynamic relationships among bits of matter, can being conscious be an emergent? Or is something completely different going on in regard to what we mean by the word conscious?
oh, i do like this one don't know if it is better content, or me paying better attention robert and peter have pretty high rapport working together, nicely neutral monism may be shorthand for 'we can't know' peter seems to bring robert along to the position (a necessary one, for ego/i, as i see it) the whole bagel arrives as one akin to aphrodite springing forth wholly formed from her own forehead we have the materium, along with the observer any evidence that these are separate phenomenon? seems to me the reason that no one ever gets closer to the truth, meaning mentally apprehending Truth, is that the whole endeavor is terribly wrong-headed a poorly placed misstep at the outset leads one ever-further astray what robert and enough of interviewees (not peter, i think) keep missing, is lack of the biggest set- the unknowable we may as well use binoculars in hope of tracking down a big bang (if there were one) peter seems content enough with knowing that he doesn't know we can know the absolute in becoming/unifying as the absolute, but the egoic separative self is well-evaporated by then the 'me' that wants so badly to know can't come along for the ride into 'Knowingness/Beingness' ego and mind are designed for, and only capable of, far smaller tasks
I'm also a physicalist, but I don't see how this line of argument explains anything. I think the way to bridge between neutral monism and double aspect theory is through recognising that states of matter intrinsically and irreducibly encode information, and physical processes are also information processes. In this sense I'm a sort of dualist in that I think for a complete explanation we do need to talk about two sorts of 'thing', but I don't think the non-physical 'thing' is some non-physical sort of 'stuff', it's not anything new and mysterious and supernatural, I think it's the information content of the system. The 'appearing' he talks about to me seems to be the fact that these states and processes present informational content, this is what 'appears' because it's what makes these states of matter have meaning. I think talking about brain states sounds too much like a statics snapshot of the system, but consciousness isn't a state, it's a process. The closest explanation I can come to is that it's an evolution of the informational representation of mental processes that reflect on their own evolving state. At leat that's as close as I can get at the moment.
They both can exist. I would argue there much more out there undiscovered. Out current understanding is limited to three dimensions and what we can observe and measure. A possibility remains that consciousness is more than just physical brain processes. There’s plenty of qualitative & anecdotal evidence to suggest this, but such things aren’t quantifiable or repeatable. In aggregate there’s a whole body of evidence but we choose to disregard them because there’s no way to directly measure such things. But a question I pose to those who deny the experience of countless others, why? We aren’t all crazy and we come from all walks of life and some are even scientists in the traditional sense in their own fields of expertise outside of their other experiences.
@@NoobTube4148 If something has an effect in the real world, then that effect must be measurable, it must be quantifiable. I think a reasonable definition of the real world and it's extent is, that it consists of all things that can have an effect on us and that we can have an effect on.
@@cosminvisan520 Precisely so, which is why I'm not a dualist. I think the idea of a thing that is not material but has effects in the material world is incoherent, if it has effects in the material world then it is part of the material world.
@@cosminvisan520 If material was just an idea, then we could make things real just by imagining them. That's pretty much the definition of magical thinking.
@@cosminvisan520 It creates qualia out of sensory experiences. That's why people profoundly deaf from birth cannot imagine the experience of hearing a sound.
Is Consciousness Ultimate Reality? Yes and no. There is no escape from the fact that our personal concepts of "reality" are all mental representations. In that sense, consciousness is ultimate reality, because there is no concept of reality at all without consciousness to conceive of it. On the other had, we observe a HUGE amount of stuff with no consciousness (i.e., consciousness / intent is not necessary for all this stuff to do what it does). And every example of consciousness we observe is inextricably tied to non-conscious stuff. This seems to say that consciousness needs stuff more than stuff needs consciousness. In this sense, consciousness is NOT ultimate reality, but only one aspect of it.
You’re starting with the belief that some “stuff” is conscious and other “stuff” isn’t conscious. Investigate that distinction if this subject matter is of interest to you.
@@stephendowney7315 Well, Steve, I've certainly investigated that. Humans invented the word "conscious" in order to distinguish it from "non-conscious". Why would humans make that distinction if there was no distinction to be made? Consciousness is the ability to postulate, consider, and intend. Rocks don't have this ability -- they don't need that ability to do what they do. So, this is not a belief as much as it is an observation. Living organisms became conscious because the ability to intend provided a reproductive advantage. Do rocks, stars, planets, galaxies, clouds, hurricanes, mountains need consciousness (i.e., the ability to postulate, consider, and intend) to do what they do? I suspect that consciousness is the mystery that it is not because it's really all that complex, but rather because it's actually much simpler and more basic than what so many people want to believe. Consciousness is perhaps the most beautiful mystery of all -- if for no other reason than it makes all other mysteries possible. Heck -- even I want to believe it's more than a biological mechanism. So I don't propose that it's much simpler because I want it to be that way, but only because it doesn't have to be extremely complex to do what it does.
@@cosminvisan520 True, Cos ... everything is an idea in consciousness. Some of those ideas are representations of objects outside of the organism, some of those ideas are representations of objects that don't exist outside of the organism. Consciousness is the ability to have ideas that can be representations of objects both inside and outside of the organism. Consciousness exists in living organisms because it confers some survival benefit. Consciousness is of no use whatsoever to stars, planets, galaxies, clouds, tornadoes, rocks. All these "stuff" things get along just fine without it.
@@cosminvisan520 holy Pallys rule In wow. Have melee damage and good single target healing. Also have plate armor so can take lots of damage. Holy pally are just an idea in my consciousness
This is about the Mind ... not consciousness ... of reality. Free will, nature, cognition, memory, senses, emotions & consciousness are functions of the Mind. The Mind can be natural (brain) or unnatural (soul). The Function & Intelligence categories prove God created Man with a body & soul. Jesus (Son of God) confirmed 2000 years ago that the Mind of Man is Body when alive ... & ... soul when dead. Both the body & soul ... have free will, nature, cognition, senses, emotions, cognition & consciousness. Man only becomes conscious of the Unnatural reality when the body dies ... and perfect memory of everything the body thought & did ... because the soul is a MIND
you need to define "progress" before you can make it. This is exactly what reincarnation and karma are designed to do, at all levels of consciousness and for all soul vehicles.
What do we know about consciousness? Well, Not physical, It doesn't exist in the past or the future, It experiences time, It exists only in the now moment, all the informations experienced comes from the past, It has the power to modify it's environment, it questions itself and it understands. We also know based on the dual slits experiment that the observer forces the wave function to collapse and takes an existential position. I would do research to see if there is a link between the wave function collapse and the observer. It strongly suggests that, since interaction between electrons is done by photons, everything that we observed in the now moments collapse the wave function of everything that we experience. Is there a form of entanglement between the observee and the observer? It would seem so. Since we get all our information from the past, the shortest possible amount of time for the now moment has to be the Plank's time. We are limited by the speed of light. Maybe there is a link with this too. I don't know. I guess until we understand what life is we won't be able to resolve this conundrum. I love Closer to the truth. Searching for the truth is awesome. It's the journey, not the goal.
@@kos-mos1127 You're right but we are searching right? I was more leaning toward the Penrose theory. I'm just a layman but I love the stuff. I don't know but I'd love to know.
That interview was hard work, and got nowhere. Of course there are subjects, because the appearances are from different perspectives for each subject - how else to explain that? This neutral monism sounds a lot more like aspect dualism, don’t you think? What is needed is a science-compatible idealism. Then (inverse of the Hard Problem) what (and why) are brains? Wittgenstein: “The best picture of the human soul is the human body.”
Donald Hoffman & his team are working on it (a science compatible idealism). Unfortunately the rest of the scientific establishment are looking in the wrong direction so progress is going to be extremely slow.
@@cosminvisan520 your paper was really interesting. You could submit it to Bernardo Kastrup's Metaphysical Speculations page to gain a little more exposure to your ideas? With a little luck he'll post it. And are you familiar with Donald Hoffman's work and his Conscious Agents Model? He formalized it mathematically which is allowing him and a team of collaborators to investigate his ideas scientifically. He's already discovered new predictions from the maths that he wasn't expecting (such as two agents combining to form a higher order agent - ie we are instantiations of lower level conscious agents, the two prior instantiations being the individual conscious experiences represented physically by the left & right hemispheres of the brain). This is similar to how Einstein discovered black holes purely from his calculations before physicists even knew they existed. You should try and do the same so it can be tested & refined & hopefully lead to new predictions. Good luck with it!
Have you just deleted it, because I still have it open on my phone - when I copied the link & pasted it into UA-cam it doesn't take me to that page now. Here's what is on it to show you that I have access to it: PhilPapers/Archive ID VISMAC-3 Upload history First archival date: 2021-12-11 Latest version: 2 (2021-12-14) Abstract In searching for what is the most natural way to regard the world, it will be shown that existence is an interplay between meanings and contexts. This interplay takes the form of consciousness, which arises on top of an infinite ocean of formless contexts. Various aspects of meaning and context will be explored, going through the emergent structure of consciousness, self-reference, the contradictory nature of the formless realm and love as the ultimate context for existence. Given the infinite ramifications of contexts being formless, only a brief introduction can ever be given.
@@cosminvisan520 if you don't formulate your ideas into something scientific then it's just word games and a nice idea. No-one in the scientific field is going to take it seriously.
@@cosminvisan520 You're lucky anyone is even willing to read a word of your paper, let alone all 27 pages of it when you are trolling the comments thread. The fact that I set aside an hour of my time and even complemented you on your work, to only be attacked and insulted by you is hilarious. I offered some reasonable suggestions to help your work gain more traction, because in its current state it has zero practical application. What is anyone supposed to do with it? You talk repeatedly about making predictions using science in your paper. I quote pg 375 of the journal (pg 20 of the pdf download) "What is important in science is not to have a definition for everything, but to find truth and accept it however it comes. And then, if possible, to use that truth to make predictions. Thus, let’s see how we can still do science despite these limitations." And pg 380 (pg 25 pdf) "At the moment I have no such specific rules to offer to the reader such that he can then go into lab and develop some quantum mechanics experiment beyond present day quantum mechanics and see that indeed such rules make correct predictions not explainable under current quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, I think that this paper brings a valuable collection of phenomenological data points, from which the more intelligent reader than me can deduce a theory that can then be tested in various experiments." The last quote is exactly why I was saying to get your theoretical models (ie self-reference and the dynamics of the unformal realm) formulated mathematically so that they can be tested - just as Donald Hoffman did with his Conscious Agents Model. By making it mathematically precise, he is now doing science with it & making new predictions. Others can also test his work too. But I'm done with this conversation, you seriously need to learn some tact if you wish to promote your ideas, especially with people who actually give you credit for your work. Good luck to you
Well that was a whole lot of nothing. Consciousness itself is prior to The objective experience of objects and others by a separate consciousness. Attention is separate consciousness. Attention is what consciousness itself, which is the fundamental reality, looks like when it is bound to the body mind. Consciousness is prior to attention. It is the Ocean of Being in which the waves of separate attention arise. The Beatles wrote a song about it on the Revolver album called Tomorrow Never Knows. Between that and Within You Without You on Sgt. Peppers they cover the whole topic. No more needs to be said. They were way ahead of these fools.
Without light there would be no matter thus no objects, or ideas of objects, nor preceptions of objects or misconceptions such as duality concering such objects. Removing the objects from the light doesn't remove the light. Removing the light from the objects they cease to be; however the light is never removed. Purport: light is our intellect; our experiences are that of the objects, or the states of mind, or relativity. All these states are dependent upon consciousness; not consciousness dependent upon them. Where do these things, forms, ideas come from and for what reason? They're likely misconceptions sure, but why even is there misconceptions, which still do seem to have a practical purpose relatively. Some philosophers say it is the nature of such an effulgent overflowing from within God, which it produces -- not a proper word -- because it is so giving; it needs nothing and is itself everything and more. For example: the Sun gives and gives, and the sun needs nothing from us. It's nature is to give and thus we have phenomenal life and etc.
Bernardo has a highly coherent, consistent metaphysical TOE that blows away all the other nonsense on this channel. And he uses no religious nonsense to explain it. The purpose of this channel is to either confuse people or raise all the inconsistencies of existing theories and appeal to the resignation of mystery. Those who have gone through this process already and have answers are ignored by this channel.
@@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386 I like Bernardo and follow him. And I agree, Kuhn has a definite bias (IMO) toward materialism - to the extent that he blinds himself (i.e. marginalizes) other scientific research (such as the last 30+ years of valid NDE science). Science is about admitting what we don't know. Bias toward valid scientific studies does not belong in science.
@@johnyharris Kastrup had publicly said that he is willing to come on all channels. In fact he has used the term “Closer to Truth” in more than one interview.
Those stuck in monism or dualism are very poor mathematicians, afraid of 3 and beyond. if you really want to be afraid, imagine ending up stuck forever in a universe that only has a number greater than 13, with fewer and fewer invites or RSVP's coming to your mailbox the more you disconnect from the reality of the spiritual multiverse?
Funny, the first sentence Robert talks about what his intuition says. Dear Robert, what is your intuition? From what part of the brain does intuition come from?
@@cosminvisan520 I guess I am replying to an idea of Cosmin Visan in consciousness then. Is there just one infinite consciousness and we are all in it?
Conversations seems a bit too agressive to me. Also, Robert needs to find a new way to kick-off other than stating how long he has spent thinking about the issue.
Unnecessarily over-complicating the idea of consciousness. The theory that the brain is has constructed a 'digital twin' as a simulation engine to anticipate and navigate life activities would naturally give rise to a sense of 'self' within self.
Consciousness appears to be the brains reconstruction of objective reality. How else could we navigate, select mates, avoid predators and find food sources. It seems to be intrinsically part of our nervous system and senses which have all evolved through natural selection.
Zombies would be more effective than consciousness. Also: what scientific evidence are you pointing to demonstrating what it is producing consciousness?
@@jamenta2 I'm referring to Anil Seth's work regarding the reconstruction. But I use words such as 'appears', and 'seems', because obviously I don't know for sure how it's produced, as indeed nobody does. To me though, it seems likely that it is produced by the brain, simply because it's a feature of living things, and every feature of a living thing evolved though natural selection.
Is consciousness ultimate reality? No! Consciousness is the first awakening in a process of life that offers choice to glue or marry. To glue is to take two equal opposite objects and dove tail them together with glue and call it singular. To Marry is to take two hydrogen and one oxygen combine them together with marriage and call it rain. To understand time you could look at asexual reproduction as an example of Time Travel. However before we get to this lets try understand the complexity of a discussion as simple as opening a jar. The lid is not removed with a twist alone. Two hands compression and a twist is needed to explain the simplicity to "open a jar". Consciousness is one concept in a structure that is made of many parts that make a whole. When we ask questions, more time should be spent on the structure of the question than on trying to answer a nonsensical question. The truth behind the question is that of yearning for the creation of eternal life. Yet eternal life does already exist and need not be created by humans. Our Boby has a use by date like milk in the fridge. Once you remove this quality you in effect change the substance of what milk is. This is the dilemma of consciousness itself. It has been entwined into the fabric of flesh that will in time rust to dust. However the rust cycle can be curtailed if you clone the carrier and transfer the information. The question then is what is human. So in marriage the human rebirth may well be a transference of name, character, DNA, memory and soul. Consciousness belongs to the whole. And as much as we believe that 100 years of consciousness is a lifetime it is merely and orgasim in time for the soul. Humainty is our evolutionary marriage to the collective brain of the singularity that is merely the first step in the awakening process of our soul evolution. If you lack the presence of God in your life you are so so young and have yet to establish a world in the multiverse that you can call home. E=Go and energy is what needs to stay to create matter or become Mass. Mass is a communion of collective consciousness that creates life through memory recall. If you lack the ability to recall your soul memories you are still in school of fish. Not yet a whale or a soul but a scattered disconnected energy looking to connect as Bone. The skeleton that holds together a body of organisms that cooperate to create a system. A guppy is the scattered soul of a shark trying to become a dolfin that wants to be a Doctor. That said Block Chain does not sell you what consciousness is. Block chain sows you how a consciousness is grown or born depending on how you want to dissect IT. B
Consciousness is like electro-magnetic field or like the effect of gravity. The bigger the brain , more conexions and more consciousness is resulted. Its in the same category with nuclear fusion and by that i mean that it depends on what kind of matter is involved in that complex system. If you take the sun, the predominant matter is hydrogen and hellium, thats why it can only give birth to nuclear fusion and electro-magnetism and so on...but it cannot make consciousness happen. On the other side if you take a more diverse collection of chemical elements and combine them into a system like planets, one possible outcome may be life with a possibility of consciousness. So consciousness may be an effect which can be possible only if the brain happens, the same way nuclear fusion or electro-magnetic fields can be created only by matter combined in a specific way. I don't believe that is something fundamental like space\time. From the universal perspective its nothing special, its something that will eventualy happen if you give it enough time. Other question will be, what a bigger complexity would give birth to?
@@cosminvisan520 Your statement seems to be only a very far fetched pretentious nonsense. Or maybe you can come with some argumentation to back it up..
Ok! know that consiousness come to the end of the road on we're were not sure to make a left or a right try to know concentrate on the research of the soul what I'm saying they go hand in hand not that there both the same but the answer of consiousness is in the soul.
We are all dualist because we know Man has a body ... & .. mind. Consciousness, free will, & nature are functions of the mind of an entity. Man & Animlas are physical entities with physical mind ( brain). But Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe, and has the Mind of an Intelligence which is ore than just the brain. A Function can be physical or non-physical (abstract). The Mind can be physical or nonphyscial. The brain & body are physical functions. Only an intelligence makes Functions. A natural intelligence with a mind ... was made by ... an unnatural intelligence with a mind. The Mind of an intelligence is unnatural ( soul/spirit) The Mind of an natural Intelligence (Man) is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul). And again, Consciousness, free will & nature are functions of a mind .... which can be natural or unnatural. The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories .... prove God created Man in His likeness with a body & soul.
All y'all should play about an hour of online playstation. And as you trash talk each other playing call of duty, imagine you are the character in the TV. You are a 3d person pretending to be a 2d person. And the other 2d characters interact with you as equals. It's an entertaining diversion from you true nature. Now,,, there is no way to know, if our world is a simulation, with other 4d peoples playing a 3d game. The 2d character's consciousness is the conversation you have with the other players while playing. Our conciousness is the information from the 4th dimensional player of the game that renders us.
@@cosminvisan520 God does not need parts to know Himself. He is self-suffiecient since He is all-knowing.But He expand to increase bliss. So when we say he is divided to many... that does not mean he is losing His own identity. Rather that He expands. But using of future or past time is just analogious,becouse in eternity there is only present. Therefore we are eternaly individuals as God is. There is no point of merging or division.
Did this good philosopher study under Derrida or something? Cos he’s saying a lot but not making a lot of sense. Sorry. “To say that everything appears somehow or the other doesn’t remove the mystery but what it does is remove another mystery. The mystery it removes is why should brain processes appear when other processes don’t.”. “Everything appears”. It’s difficult to understand. Perhaps we need to be more familiar with his material? The best stab I can take at understanding what he says: is he saying consciousness and recognition of it by one’s consciousness is the same thing? If so, so what? It doesn’t explain away non-materialistic view point to there being more to it. You’re just describing a possibility and I believe you’re trying to reduce it to materialism without really calling it that. Consciousness and recognition of it can be the same but does that take away the possibility of that same consciousness exiting outside of the current physical form it finds itself in? No. That’s the whole debate. If I’ve understood it correctly, this viewpoint brings nothing new to this discussion.
at least he admits he doesn't know and kinda has robert with him what they didn't reach, is that 'they' _can't_ know anything that gets anywhere worth getting to, is much cleaner and capable than a 'me' that wants so badly to be in charge of knowing
It takes the away human consciousness existing outside a physical form. Using Artificial Intelligence as an example of something existing in a non physical form. An AI has the capability of controlling multiple bodies and are not locked a physical from like humans. Let us say we are in 2045 and there are conscious AI. Consciousness in an AI would be fundamentally different than consciousness in a human. Death to a human is destroying their body. Death to an AI is more than destroying its body. An AI cannot be killed. We would have to erase all the code as well as backups and then we would have to make a law so no one reconstructs the AI.
@@friendoengus I disagree. It can be known, just not shared. Or perhaps better described is, it can be experienced, but not shared. Whether one accepts it as proof of an external consciousness would be up to the individual. Some may think they hallucinated, saw a dream etc. but there’s countless stories which we disregard (because the claims are unverifiable) but that doesn’t mean they did not happen.
@@NoobTube4148 ego is a meager and provisional device propping it up as something more existentially valid is a vain and counterproductive exercise the thing that wants, is the thing that falls away as we grow the thing that truly is, is eternal and untouchable (and may be the very thing that 'knows' which you refer to) we seem to have a legitimate experiencing but positing a separative experiencer appears to be going the wrong way, complicating to no good end are we kinda saying the same thing?
I think we are. Although my ego is firmly intact and folly to mundane activities of an egoic mind. I’m under no false impression I’ve won that battle 😄 it’s like an intricately entangled web, this whole debate about consciousness and bringing ego into it makes it even more so.
Currently there is no evidence or explanation at all electrical impulses or any type of chemical reaction can lead to a single thought or even self-awareness. The properties of electrons is well know by science - and none of the properties would lead one to believe "thought" itself could be forthcoming. This is the wall materialists come upon constantly and so-far, it has remained a dead-end. To me, it would be similar to constantly examining the diodes of a radio for the source of a musical broadcast - which lies outside the radio. I suspect consciousness is the broadcast, and not the radio itself.
@@jamenta2 They just push it deeper and deeper into mystery because of their own lack of expertise in technical areas. Robert and other "thinkers" colonize the subject.
@@nyworker they haven't pushed an inch deeper into anything, other than proving futility of concept definitionally (or nearly so) mystery is of the realm of the unknowable a waste of time like flapping arms in hope of achieving flight not that this observation will slow down the effort mind is just not all that smart
..these forms are as clueless as the rest...you are not here to know WHO you are. You are here to know that you are! Why is THIS here? Because I am aware of THIS. Why am I aware of THIS? Because I am that I am. I know nothing. I am that I am. Give up. Accept the truth. Surrender. Enjoy all of it. Love. Become aware of any object. What does that object say? No. Not the mind objects narrative. The object, what does it say? Nothing, other than how it appears! That is what it says! So how can any explanation of form offer any real insight into who you really are? It cannot. Only I know that I am. I know nothing. I am that I am. What more do you want, ego? You already are!
Conscieness never shows ultimate reality because it is unpredicted. In other words Guys ignores how conscieness formed inside in brains. Guys keep out any honest model that show up Brains funcions make up conscieness.
This guy explains in language you can understand. His contention that weird stuff like consciousness "appears" spontaneously fits my own view of Existence. That the ability for new arrangements is built into the primordial stuff of Existence -- whatever that turns out to be. We don't need magical fairies for it to happen.
@@browngreen933 Your question reveals you have none of the prerequisite knowledge required to have a useful opinion on this topic. Anyone with the slighest bit of interest in science, mind, reality, ... knows full well what a near death experience is.
consciousness is like a river, which ever way it flows, it finds a way, I think that you need to bath in it. consciousness is eternal life and knowledge.
Lord Krishna says our existence consist of 3 levels 1. gross body 2.subtle body i.e mind, intellect and ego 3.soul . Now conciousness emarges from soul and mind is the interface between outer world and soul.
Metaphysics The clever coyote (greed) is always trying to catch the roadrunner (love). But never does. Because something that is not real (absence of love) can never catch that which is real (love). That coyote (NATO) is a crazy clown...
I just learned more about what he is than what consciousness is.
I can't get enough conversations on consciousness.
Follow the intrigue to reality.
@@deedhesi8014
thank you for this sound counsel
those who head that direction stand to encounter profit
It's mind .... not consciousness.
Consciousness, free will & nature are functions of the Mind.
You don't say "I can't get enough conversation on free will."
The word "mind" is no more comprehensively explanatory than the word "consciousness", because no single word is going to do all the necessary conceptual work of defining the mechanisms of human experience. And while I agree that all experience is a "function of the mind", your assertion of "free will" as a coherent quality or characteristic of human experience is demonstrably false-- not just theoretically: you can quickly perceive this truth for yourself. A quick example is Sam Harris's brief audio "guides" to realizing this directly, which I listened to through the Waking Up app, but which might be available elsewhere online (I haven't checked). In a couple minutes, you can see for yourself that there is definitely *voluntary* choice/will/actions/abilities--as opposed to *involuntary* actions, like a muscle spasm, or your automatic ability to, for example, recognize a person's face, or visually perceive color, etc. etc. You can voluntarily do whatever you want, but if you investigate carefully the emergence of that "choice" in consciousness, you will see that it simply appeared "on its own", and that "free will" is nowhere to be found. The confusion between voluntary action and "free will" is understandable, because one of the characteristics of consciousness (or "mind") is the distinct "feeling" that you are doing what you want, that you are not being coerced into a particular choice. But this is only the experience of voluntary functioning- not "free will". Also, your assertion regarding "nature" is only as intelligible as your working definition of "nature", which is vague and broad to the point of being meaningless. Either "nature" is synonymous with "everything that is experienced" (which therefore provides no more clarity than a word like "everything"), or else it's generally meant in the everyday sense of "nature" vs. "manmade" things, which is useless in terms of trying to shine some productive light on the challenges of comprehending the mechanisms/experiences of "mind". Didn't mean to write at length, but hopefully this is of use and provides more clarity and precision in thinking about this expansive subject of inquiry.
@@anaymark Nope. Mind & Conscious are easily understood ... if you actually knew what the Universe & Life are & there origin.
The Function & Intelligence Categories prove the Universe & Life are Functions composed entirely of Functions and were made by an Intelligence.
Everything being a Function made by an intelligence is where you must start to fully understand body & mind of the only known NATURAL intelligence in the NATURAL Universe. And consciousness.
I think his argument makes perfect sense and is quite logical. I believe he is saying that the feeling of there being an observer to qualia is just another "appearance" in the qualia itself. Generally speaking, it might help if philosophers spoke more specifically about the different ways we experience qualia rather than just lumping them all together as "consciousness." The visual field that we each experience, for example, must have a somewhat different nature than emotion, pain, pleasure, etc.
"The visual field that we each experience, for example, must have a somewhat different nature than emotion, pain, pleasure, etc."
Yes.
The visual field, the feel of tennis ball in hand, the heat of water in the shower, the weight of lead apron at the dentist, swelling pride as band marches by, the wistfulness of blues guitar, the loss of a true love, the ecstasy of climax, the nausea that precedes vomit, the relief when the last school bell rings, etc.
are all thoughts and
all identical in being thoughts but
all radically different from each other in what each thought is *about* .
(The concept of the visual field eases the way to
conceiving of the 'conscious' field,
i.e. all that one is conscious of, is what fills the 'conscious' field
(and in that field there is a 'bump' that
we can move around and
is what we call 'the focus of attention'
(metaphorically speaking, naturally))).
Thoughts are not the same as what they are about.
They are representations only, that's what 'about' means.
How can brains maintain representations?
They can do it easily in the encoded form of neural discharge frequency.
(And please do note that 'frequency' is an abstract notion and
that 'encoded' is emphatically the key to understanding).
The researcher will never discover the meaning of this sentence
by looking ever more closely at its words, letters, pixels and
the liquid crystal patterns that instantiate it on a screen.
And no one will find the pictures they see on a computer screen
by looking inside the computer.
(Although, if one is very clever, competent and thorough,
one may find a strong correlation between the screen image and
a pattern of electrons flowing through transistors in the computer's chips).
But where and what is the 'self' who is conscious of the thoughts whose
substrate is made of neurons?
Imagine *the self to also be a thought* and that
this thought is to what the word 'self' refers,
the very meaning of the word.
Easy to imagine that this thought we call the self
is encoded by the frequencies present in a very large neural complex.
The self, being a thought,
is what makes it possible for other thoughts
to influence and modulate it, i.e. they are the same kind of entity.
The modulations of the self by these other thoughts are
of what the self is conscious.
(Note: modulation (i.e. altered frequency) is accomplished via synapse)
The output from the self is of course what moves the muscles.
So,
input from the sense organs & memory,
processing of these by the self complex,
output back to memory and or muscles and
we see that the whole of it is a process.
Label this 'the being-conscious-process'.
Please note, 'process' is also an abstract notion.
One cannot find an abstract notion like 'process' by looking in a microscope.
This is why neuroscience by itself cannot provide the answer to the question,
'What is consciousness'?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Nicely said. Good point about consciousness being a process rather than something discrete that can be pinpointed. Though I have no trouble agreeing with you, I believe that still may be a trap that I fall into sometimes.
@@theotormon My comment is no trap and it is not even an assertion.
It is a brief extract from a theory of the conscious that
I find to be most likely.
(And as you know, likelihoods are how science couches findings).
The main advantage of this theory is the fact that
there is no magic thinking in it and
it contains no concept impossible to grasp.
Seems to me almost anyone who has a firm understanding
of the concepts
'abstract', 'code', 'frequency', modulation', 'analogy' and 'process'
is equipped to understand it.
Who in their right mind would deny the truth of the assertion:
'It is my self that is conscious'.
Cheers!
In response to the commentary thread (from a few hours ago) started by "Saijibott": The word "mind" is no more comprehensively explanatory than the word "consciousness", because no single word is going to do all the necessary conceptual work of defining the mechanisms of human experience. And while I agree that all
experience is a "function of the mind", your assertion of "free will" as a coherent quality or characteristic of human experience is demonstrably false-- not just theoretically: you can quickly perceive this truth for yourself. A quick example is Sam Harris's brief audio "guides" to realizing this directly, which I listened to through the Waking Up app, but which might be available elsewhere online (I haven't checked). In a couple minutes, you can see for yourself that there is definitely *voluntary* choice/will/actions/abilities--as opposed to *involuntary* actions, like a muscle spasm, or your automatic ability to, for example, recognize a person's face, or visually perceive color, etc. etc. You can voluntarily do whatever you want, but if you investigate carefully the emergence of that "choice" in consciousness, you will see that it simply appeared "on its own", and that "free will" is nowhere to be found. The confusion between voluntary action and "free will" is understandable, because one of the characteristics of consciousness (or "mind") is the distinct "feeling" that you are doing what you want, that you are not being coerced into a particular choice. But this is only the experience of voluntary functioning- not "free will". Also, your assertion regarding "nature" is only as intelligible as your working definition of "nature", which is vague and broad to the point of being meaningless. Either "nature" is synonymous with "everything that is experienced" (which therefore provides no more clarity than a word like "everything"), or else it's generally meant in the everyday sense of "nature" vs. "manmade" things, which is useless in terms of trying to shine some productive light on the challenges of comprehending the mechanisms/experiences of "mind". Didn't mean to write at length, but hopefully this is of use and provides more clarity and precision in thinking about this expansive subject of inquiry.
Clear, well written, cogent, kudos.
When people say “how can electrical impulses and neurological activity cause experiences “, we could say the same about matter “matter is just a countless bunch of atoms that are each almost empty space” but it still appears as a solid object
@@cosminvisan520 well that’s a theory, we can’t claim that as fact , I’ve heard people like Hoffman and even Leo gura talk about that , but if the icon that is the brain gets damaged it will change your consciousness and depending upon the brain you were born with you will have a certain kind of intelligence and perspective etc
@@cosminvisan520 no I don’t think it does mean that, the brain you were born with or a damaged brain will determine your experiences but I don’t know if the brain generates consciousness, but certainly I can’t see the weather generating consciousness, im not sure how you got that from my reply, but anyway don’t misunderstand my point, I’m not saying that the brain or any other material thing generates consciousness, I obviously don’t know like everyone else
I think the difference is that matter appears as a solid object ... in consciousness. There is a sense that consciousness is fundamental because, for us at least, everything appears in consciousness. What I think people often miss is that we observe matter from the outside. We don't know what an atom or a chair is to itself, from the inside. We have an inside, obviously. We experience it all day long. We also have an outside. We experience the outsides of other humans but not the insides. It is not irrational to suppose that other objects have an inside as well.
P.S. Leo Gura and Donald Hoffman are sloppy thinkers in my opinion.
@@cosminvisan520 Donald Hoffman draws sweeping conclusions from paltry evidence. He claims that a mental representation with high fidelity to reality will necessarily result in less fitness in an evolutionary perspective. His basis for this are some very sketchy, extremely simplistic "mathematical" models riddled with assumptions. It is basically a just-so story dressed up to sound rigorous. There is also the problem that he denies space, time, and physical reality, which is perfectly fine for a philosopher or theologian, but it doesn't make any sense for a scientist who claims to be working in evolutionary theory. Those are the literal ingredients needed for evolution. So it isn't even clear what he is saying, and I've never seen him address this incongruity. And of course his central metaphor of the desktop icon is flawed on so many levels as Liam has already touched on here. Hoffman seems like a nice man, but he's sloppy.
Gura is not only sloppy but actually malevolent. If you dig into his comments, it appears he has tried to push people toward suicide and violence. He has advocated the position of metaphysical solipsism, telling his audience "Your parents do not exist, your childhood never happened, etc." Yet, when he faces pressure in the public for such views, he quickly releases videos about the need for compassion or telling tall tales about how he personally overcame solipsism and managed to use his God powers to contact an entirely separate infinite consciousness. He is a self-serving narcissist and conman. No doubt he is clever, though.
Are you sloppy? I don't know anything about you. But probably. We all are sometimes.
(1:30) *PF: **_"So, one part of the machine records what another part of the machine is doing."_* ... This corresponds to the ToE I present in my book. Consciousness is not the ultimate reality; it's the information process used for experiencing reality. Consciousness is the highest level of data acquisition, processing, and evaluation, along with the ability to generate new information. After 13.8 billion years, 8 billion individual "information generators" are supplying Existence with all-new information.
The evaluation and generation of Information is what is at the core of Existence, and the fact that you're watching this video to extract and evaluate the information it presents speaks to this reality.
Yep, just like the information in the genetic code, it demands a prior intelligence / consciousness.
The irony of the brain having consciousness is failing at trying to explain it’s own consciousness.
Like the snake bites its tail
@@cosminvisan520
Consciousness does not exist; “consciousness” is just an idea in brain.
@@cosminvisan520" smart"doesn't exist it's just a concept in consciousness
@@cosminvisan520 “Brain doesn't exist” is the most amazing claim I've ever heard. Do you _really_ believe that your head is the bone tissue all the way through? I don't disagree, it probably is, just asking...
@@cosminvisan520
You assuming that I wrote that in the intention of seeming to be smart is not smart within itself.
I just did it to twist the idea around.
Whatever consciousness is, I'll take it... I love it, I love life, don't you?😁
I imagine consciousness can and does exist, on many levels... This consciousness as a human being, is very complex, and simple at simultaneously... Just depends on your perspective! But It is fascinating, to say the least. I want to believe that we are always moving towards a higher consciousness... not some spiritual thing, but evolving to a place that we'll be able to comprehend the incomprehensible!
I hope you are conscious when you are in hell
Who are you
@@OfficialGOD Why...... Who do you think you are
I am atheist and i will always put my schooling first, But, when i was a kid i was able to dream what was going to happen to me the next day, this always hunted me all my life and later in life i came to the conclusion that the future already exists. There is something about consciousness that goes beyond time and is not just a brain function. I will probably never know the answer.
@@cosminvisan520 i prefer not to used the word god, because. it makes others think of the personal god of Abraham that likes to be worshiped and needs to be accepted, I prefer to use the word "Cosmic consciousness" or "Pure consciousness" and i agree, the observer is most likely cosmic consciousness.
Can you give me a cause aside from intelligence capable of producing code?
@@kinetic7609 yes, everything that exists is caused from a previous event in an infinte line of previous events without begining or end, since there is no begining there is no need for a ultimate creator.
@@AtheistCook Ok, so what cause / event is capable of producing code aside from intelligence?
Also, infinite regression.
@@kinetic7609 exactly another previous event in an infinite line of events, i answered your question, now answer mine, what do you think caused it?
How is it possible that philosophers come up with 3 names for certain correlated theories, 2 of which are more or less clearly defined in the name of the theory and 1 describes almost only a desire but leaves the context completely in the middle?
Among the most interesting (open) scientific/philosophical questions in our lifetime: "What is consciousness?" "Is consciousness simply the product of a brain?"
Will science ever be able to resolve this question? I think it might be able to sometime in the future. But it will require an objective, non-biased searched for the truth.
Masturbation is the product of consciousness. You need a brain to be conscious so you can masturbate so consciousness is a product of the brain.
Good on Robert for pushing his guest for more clarification. Forrest has taken a position as a non-dualist, although admitting that there are many things about consciousness that are "a mystery" In his case one can't see the Forrest through the trees. ;-)
Robert points to the fact of duality - that there is a subject, and the objects which are seen,or items registered, in the subject's consciousness. This is hard to deny.
Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, seems to agree "There are two kinds of reality, or existence; the existence of my consciousness and the reality or existence of everything else."
Vaishnava Vedanta reconciles both Dualism and Non-Dualism as co-existing. A metaphor exists in nature in this regard: the rays of the sun radiate from one (non-dual) source, but carry dual energies of both heat and light.
A conscious being, such as you or I, experiences something "other" than itself, through the medium of the senses (sight, smell, taste, hearing, touch) which registers in one's mind, which is one aspect of consciousness. In this connection, Vedic wisdom describes Godhead "as the source of all material and spiritual energies". Therefore, when the subjective spark of consciousness senses anything - whether material or spiritual - then one is having a subjective experience of Godhead/Source energy, (either material or spiritual energy) unique to that observer. Other people can have similar objective experiences, but that does not mean that the individual subjects have lost their subjective reality or experience, and have become non-existent, or non-dual.
@@cosminvisan520 And also experiences the consciousness of someone else, who perhaps cooked a dinner or replied to an online article.
@@cosminvisan520 You don’t need to telepathy if you can smell the food and see the cook, or read the written comments. Someone else’s actions and consciousness can interact with you in many ways.
I think the problem Robert Lawrence Kuhn has is that he talks about what it's like to feel as a person, that's not only different, in a way from consciousness but is a process all of it's own.
To know you are feeling, you tend to, although not always, be conscious of it.
The brain is interpriting chemical signals and saying that's a feeling of sadness, happiness etc.
When it comes to feeling, often, although i don't think always, we have feelings because we learn them.
We touch a flame as a child, it burns the skin for a second and then we pull away.
Then there is the feeling of sadness because of the pain we are feeling in that part of the body.
So we have one feeling involving the nerves, our senses, and another internal, chemicals in the body and mind that were released at the time of touching the flame to tell us to pull away and to remind us to avoid doing that in the future.
I feel, although i could be wrong, that consciousness can be closely linked to feeling but isn't what consciousness is because as i mentioned, you have an ' I ' doing the feeling, some would call that your ego.
A mind without any feeling, any emotion can still be conscious.
Wow, it looks as if Peter is excited to be challenged in thought and questioned. It is exciting to see.!
That mannerism requites merit. Often people get upset if you challenge their position, beliefs, ego.
The Spirit of Truth is the ultimate reality, yes! Absolutely!
Two of my favorite proponents of a consciousness-based reality are Bernardo Kastrup and Rupert Spira. I would love to see either of them on this channel.
you are not alone
more info on that possibility here in the comments (re an interview robert did with them, still unseen)
better not hold our breaths, though
Conscious agent theory- Donald Hoffman is an excellent theory to investigate.. to have matter arise from consciousness instead of matter being needed for consciousness.
@@GoGrowGoGrow Matter cannot arise from consciousness. Donald Hoffman only has a conjecture not a theory. In order to rise to the level of theory David Hoffman's conscious agent conjecture needs to make testable predictions. The only non matter position that has a chance at being right is Stephen Wolfram's computational universe. Stephen Wolfram makes a prediction that if his theory is correct than we will be able to create artificial consciousness. Donald Hoffman makes no Conscious Agent Conjecture makes no such predictions.
I agree. I had Kastrup on my channel. I’m very sympathetic to his postulate.
@@friendoengus according to those philoshopers he is alone:D therefore they are nonsense
Robert, well done grilling your guest with difficult questions! Your guest talked so much and said so little.
His arguments appear to explore much deeper. As I think, apart from matter and non-matter components, there is yet another component and that is conscious component. All the three make and control universe. The same laws of nature that controls living world, controls the non-living world too. But the minds of the human beings have only access to the consciousness of the biological systems of species. In fact, some altogether new concept is needed for providing complete explanation.
If you can figure out how the squiggly patterns that constitute this sentence
are able to encapsulate my thought then
you will be well on your way to understanding
what the word 'conscious' means.
Fascinating, thank you!
I didn't catch the term that Forrest used to name his position. Could someone write it out here?
It seem he was describing weak emergence, so maybe he could call himself a WeakEmergentist?
neutral monism
I have coined the term continuity in mind, of course if you search in the consciousness you have to study the death and what would happen after that, so it's known there is no time when people die, it's equivalent to one deep sleep then you will continue, the question is where I will find my self after death, as the consciousness possible managed by system like gigantic computer, it will make every entity experience same pain and happiness of others, by creating people in the environment which would expose them to suffering or happens.
thanks for reading my comment.
so if you didn't became US president don't worry it will be counted 😁
the possible problem that will face any civilization is that when they be able to live longer for example 500 years their consciousness will stop because limitation related to consciousness metaphysics, so that gigantic system switch to another entity, and current entity will experience death or the atoms in their mind will be no longer produce consciousness
It is so easy to say, I dont know, I have no idea, what Consciousness is.
Mr Robert Kuhn keeps cutting and interrupting the guests constantly. What a shame!
"How can these sophisticated patterns BE the conscious experience of the feeling?" Well, we don't know, and yet, there's no evidence of there being anything else. Lawrence is arguing from incredulity.
I like Forrest's position. He is saying that just not knowing how it could work doesn't suggest a dual reality.
Consciousness is totally cool, and a definite mystery, but I've yet to hear a compelling argument that it somehow exists beyond the brain and the physical person.
When people say consciousness is fundamental, what I hear is a 'self' centered view. But it's probably only fundamental to 'you'. Once you- the sophisticated patterns- are gone, it's not fundamental anymore.
Consciousness is "Dark Matter", the force that prevents the Universe from collapsing. Hunger is the simplest form of consciousness, and humans' only advantage over the most basic form of life is we have the privilege of observation and reflection.
(7:30) “I don’t think you can have a subject of the right sort for things to appear, but to which nothing (as a matter of fact) appeared.”
Is Forrest saying there can be no subject without a sensory experience, or a thought? If so, he is not accommodating consciousness being both subject and object. Perhaps he would still apply that precursor to a brain state.
Rightly or wrongly, it just makes far more sense, to me, that existence is a more restricted category than reality. Instead of equating the terms, like many do, consider existence a subcategory of reality. Thus, all existing things are part of reality but not all parts of reality exist. From this viewpoint, consciousness is part of reality but doesn't exist like animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, rocks, water, planets, gases, etc. However, it's a part of reality just like all other abstract concepts.
definitionally, anything that does not exist is nonsense
same goes for 'nothing', a word that literally has no meaning, despite folks assuming it does
I agree, except that I would turn it around. Reality is what humans experience, while Existence is everything that is, was, and always will be. Thus reality IMO, is a subset of Existence, not the other way around.
@@browngreen933,
That's an interesting take but problematic. Do we experience abstract concepts like numbers, letters, height, weight, largeness, etc.?
Existence must be a more restricted, narrow, exclusive, etc. category than reality.
// "Existence is everything that is, was, and always will be." //
Elvis existed. He doesn't anymore. Given your usage/definition, you're forced to say that Elvis does still exist. That death isn't the end.
For me, I can say that animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, water, rocks, planets, gases, etc. exist. That concepts like numbers, letters, height, weight, largeness, etc. do not exist but are aspects of reality.
@@rossfrailey9702
No, Elvis doesn't exist anymore, but the stuff he was made of (atoms, particles -- whatever) are still part of Existence.
I agree, numbers, letters, weight, etc are part of reality -- human reality. They don't exist independent from human consciousness. So as much as we exist, they exist. If humanity were wiped out tomorrow, they would be wiped out too. But Existence itself would continue (Elvis' atoms for example). That's why I would say consciousness-based human reality is a subset of Existence.
The function, intelligence & Mind CATEGORIES ... prove God created Man with a body & soul.
Free will, nature & consciousness are simply functions of the Mind.
Functions & minds can be natural or unnatural.
And Intelligence can be natural or unnatural.
Man & Animals are natural entities .. with a natural mind (brain) ... and their own type of free will, nature & consciousness of the NATURAL.
But Man is the only known Intelligence in the Universe, which Chimps sharing 99% of Human DNA but can no think & do 10% of what the body & MIND of Man can do.
The Mind of an Intelligence is unnatural (soul/spirit).
The Mind of Man is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul). And both have free will, nature, cognition, memory, senses, emotions & consciousness.
The body is the Mind of Man and is only conscious of the natural when alive.
The soul becomes the Mind of Man when the body is dead and is conscious of the natural & unnatural existence .. with every memory of what the body thought & did when it was the Mind.
Genesis was written 3400 years ago ... and fully explained the Mind of Man is the body & the soul .... and because the body has been corrupted by the Original Sin it will cause everybody to freely think & do evil because it is the NATURE of Man when alive. But the soul of Man is also the Mind with a nature ... and when the body freely sins ... it corrupts the soul .. which becomes the mind of Man when the body dies. This is why the promised Messiah in the Torah had to be born of a virgin ( ie made by God) and not have a corrupt body. Even the Son of God would freely sin ... is Jesus was actually descended form King David.
This is all about the Mind .... not consciousness .... of reality. The Mind of Man & Chimps are not the same. Chimps only have a natural mind(brain). Man's mind is body & soul.
causation produces physical nature and consciousness together (entangled?), which results in neural correlates of consciousness?
Consciousness is abstract yet fluid like water, so it must lay in the spaces in between matter . In fact the only reason why we see patterns and coincidences is that it is consciousness that connects two points of matter to make a pattern , or an appearance thereof
@@cosminvisan520 Matter is that which the empty space which is mind and consciousness creates as a point of reference in for world. I think the reason why we cannot see the empty space in between matter is that empty space is the mind looking at itself
@@cosminvisan520 I know what you mean. I was just telling somebody that the universe itself has to be solid through and through, but it is the brain that through organic energy creates the illusion of empty space to make things look separate. It’s one of the reasons why when the brain gets tired or is weakened , one starts to see synchronicities and coincidences -because the brain starts to lose it’s power to create the Illusory Perception of the separation of things. The mind chooses to create Invisibility in certain areas
@@cosminvisan520 Brain exists as a portal for consciousness. But with that being said, if you Draw a line , leave a tiny gap in the middle , then continue drawing the line-then put the blind spot of your eye where the two nerve endings connect-over that gap between the two lines-The brain will fill in that gap with something that isn’t there. It’s already been proven for many years that the brain projects objects into empty space where the eyes have blind spots in them. The work of the brain is to create perception not to receive naked reality .
@@cosminvisan520 well you know that’s an interesting concept when you figure, man has the power to take ideas and manifest them into our reality, so it’s probably safe to believe that we’re not the only ones with that power in the universe and a greater consciousness or idea manifested us or other things. We can’t be the only ones with the ability to process ideas into physical constructs
Consciousness definitely is ultimate reality because without it you wouldn't be able to experience this.
*"Consciousness definitely is ultimate reality because without it you wouldn't be able to experience this."*
... Your consciousness isn't the "ultimate reality." It's what allows you to experience ultimate reality. Your widescreen television isn't the many shows that you watch each day. It's the mechanism used to display these shows.
Consciousness is ultimate reality for us because it is us. But it's not ultimate reality for everything else that exists. They have their own way.
@@browngreen933 precisely
@@browngreen933 Then consciousness is not ultimate reality if it is only ultimate reality for us. Consciousness is relative reality.
@@kos-mos1127 Each organism/life form of at least some degree of complexity (nervous system, brain etc.) has a certain level/degree of consciousness which is always relative reality only accessible to these certain organisms/life forms.. these consciousness states/degrees are really only like virtual machines running in the hardware platform called our universe.. it's just that we ourselves are not able to get out of the box of subjective experiencing, hence we are not capable to really take a independent/objective (ultimately nothing is objective anyway in the universe since all is inside it and relative to everything else inside it) position reg. this matter and intuitively often feel that our consciousness "must" be ultimate reality or such..
Thank you Robert, it's good to know we are definitely getting closer to knowing the truth about the nature of consciousness which would allow us to know more about the nature of our own existence and that of the universe.
But are we really any closer to understanding it tho?
@@PhantomGardener I respect the effort that is being made to at least consider discussing the possibility that consciousness is not a product of the brain because it definitely isn't.
@@shelwincornelia2498 That I agree with, but there is still no solid evidence of what it is. And it seems like every scientist or philosopher and so on, still have their own opinions on what it actually is.
@@PhantomGardener we all can do some self study considering the fact that we are all conscious.
Good evening.
I really love the thumbnail for today's video, however the content is still a battle for which Robert has been wrestling for a long time. It doesn't mean that I am totally contented with worldly knowledge but what I can beginning to say is probably our perspective of understanding the radical aspect of life or consciousness is limited to science alone. Every scientific innovation has always been based on observation by human beings, so while exploring or trying to know human consciousness, would walking the path of science solely get us to the destination? I am not quite in agreement with that, because when I want to know the truth I will have to take all the paths conducive for the journey. Nevertheless, I am eagerly waiting to see a day where Robert takes a different leap mostly to the eastern part of the globe and meet SADHGURU(Jaggi Vasudev) in the peninsular India and what happens. I don't know why but I am so sure that he will start uncovering himself to a different dimension of human being rather discussing brain impulses, neuron shots, etc. We know the geographical location of human brain in a human body, still we have no idea what MIND itself is, what LOVE or Emotion is. And consciousness is something which enables all our faculties and knowing it, needs striving but in a different direction. We can believe what science says about mind or love or consciousness but we can also choose to uncover truths through other ways as well which might have a subjective experience to it. Every time a notification pops I am eager to see a video of progressive realization but I feel we are consciously walking in circles, It's time Robert, let's go take a tangential path. Let's meet the Yogis in India. I am waiting with my adrenal rush all over me to see that video.
You can't get away from consciousness. Even if you try to imagine what the world would look like if you weren't there, your imagination is still the unacknowledged participant in the situation. The universe is an experience, the subjective observer and the objective reality are two sides of the same coin. An object is seen against the background of mind. Would the sun be bright without eyes to see it? Would rocks be hard without sensitive skin to feel them? Consciousness measures relationships and tells itself a story about what is going on, without the self there would be no boundaries, no outside and therefore no inside. This doesn't mean that you control reality with that little notion of yourself called the ego.
Well said
You can escape consciousness, have you ever been put under anaesthetic? And probably death is to escape consciousness
@@theliamofella It's telling that you use the word,"probably".
@@123duelist for death obviously I have to use that word,
@@theliamofella If you don't then why do you still say that's how you probably think it is?
It seems that Peter Forrest’s idea of experience manifesting itself as “appearing” and by stating that he is not a dualist is therefore making ultimate reality constrained to one medium. That by necessity seems to infer that this medium must be mental in its essence. Yet he doesn’t seem to be willing to go there…perhaps because the idealist position has become inadmissible to the scientific community.
The consciousness may be fundamental property of the universe, best approach to study consciousness may be to build mathematical model of brain and nervous system starting from simple organisms , one thing is sure it arises from certain order/structure/brain that appears to have syntactic freedom just like a language, alphabets can be arranged in particular way to give rise words, sentences, paragraphs and stories, our brain may have fixed, rigid, semi rigid and plastic structures, allowing certain degree of freedom, how information may be processed, It may be product of order plus chaos that controls decision making and higher the degree of complexity, the higher is the computational probability and system may operate close to the boundaries of order and chaos, it drives its freedom from chaos that may be source of consciousness, but it can’t be measured best we can do is identify structures that may hold consciousness.
Robert what do you think of Tom Campbell and his book "My Big Toe" and his views on consciousness, do you think he has all the answers to this?
All matter is conscious. Elementary particle responds to interaction (observer effect).
@@cosminvisan520 that’s wrong. Mater is real and it’s machine.
@@cosminvisan520 Watch my profile. There are predictions there. They are then proofs
@@cosminvisan520 science is not bout proofs. You are asking for unscientific bullshit.
Brain activity, the NCCs, are the means by which consciousness emerges rather than the cause or source of conscious experience.
Using reductionism to 'explain' consciousness is like trying to use a spanner to undo a screw.
Is it my imagination or is Robert starting to lose a bit of patience with not knowing the nature of consciousness :-D
In evolutionary terms, wouldn't consciousness start with sensing. Sensing is basically a "try before you buy" approach to life that samples aspects of the environment before engaging, as opposed to simply barging in and dealing with the consequences, like some brainless organisms do.
If there is nothing to sense, consciousness stops, so consciousness is not purely generated by the brain, but is the interaction of a sensing organism with its environment. In humans' case, there is also an inner environment to consider, with our capacity to analyse and self-correct.
Could there be an experiential substance (maybe time or quantum waves or other) that interacts with matter for consciousness /.subjective awareness?
It's called Analytical Idealism :-) Why haven't you interviewed Bernardo Kastrup?
My view with this latest scientific Quantum Mechanics and proven optical illusions by our senses,I can infer that the world we are living in is not the ultimate reality, there is a field or plenum which is all pervading and timeless.This field is the ultimate reality where the laws are beyond thoughts,logic and words.We can experience this field when we meditate or aware of it internally.We are fooled by our senses but it is very hard to de-conditioned this illusions by our senses for we have taken it as reality since birth.
@@cosminvisan520 To paraphrase Christoper Hitchens,
What an incredibly stupid statement.
It feels me good to see that I'm alone who is struggling with existential crises and ultimate deep questions.
Why would you postulate you’re alone in the first place ?
Or did you mean "not" alone?
Either way I get the feeling that English is not your first language, which is fine. Either way, I think I got the overall gist of what you were saying.
@@SR91313 *"Or did you mean "not" alone?"*
... That's what he meant.
I’ve been having worst fear of death in my life and UA-cam keeps recommending these and I keep watching
Don’t worry. You’d be surprised how quickly these despair tainted questions can fall away.
If you feel tormented by these questions, understand that it is possible for them to stop being such a nuisance. I’ve moved on from the pain of contemplating free will and I feel ok again.
Might quantum waves have subjectivity / experience substance that appears from matter as in human brain for conscious awareness and feeling?
Are we the ego, in kind of mysterious form in this universe
Some people might be surprised to know that Carl Jung was a monist.
Why surprised?
🤔…… which came first, perception or consciousness?
@@cosminvisan520 - Perhaps, but I’m just not so sure about that. Does a Venus Fly Trap plant have perception, or is that just reflex? Or, how about a spider sensing that something is caught in its web and might serve as dinner? Does that spider have perception only, or does it have some level of consciousness?
It seems to me that Consciousness and mere perception are indeed not the same thing at all.
Additionally, as far as we know, no other species on this planet seems to have the same level of consciousness (if any at all) that comes close to human consciousness.
I think that, as far as we know, no other species seem to have any ability at all to even debate the issue at hand. It seems that pretty much all other species have perception abilities, but limited consciousness if any at all.
No other species that we know of design, or create art and music, they don’t build shelters and vehicles, they don’t build weapons of war. And yet they all seem to display many forms of perception.
Consciousness - especially human consciousness - seems to be different than perception.
I don’t know for sure, but perhaps science can demonstrate that there are living things that have reflexes, and/or perception, but seem not to have any consciousness at all. Single cell, and simple organisms for example…….🤔?
human brain has an emergent causation that produces human consciousness with neuronal activity in physical brain?
IMO information is the common currency of both consciousness and physics. Consciousness gives information about the properties of the intentional object, while information is also what orders Physics (“It from Bit”). Is this the dual aspects of “Dual Aspect Monism”? But then… what is “information”?
isn't information whatever we find?
@@cosminvisan520 Hmmm… it’s a belief, (called Philosophical Idealism), but one among many contenders. I’m not confused, just not dogmatic.
@@cosminvisan520Are you a Solipsist then? Self evidently, we can only know anything through the window of our consciousness, but that is not proof that nothing else and no one else exists! Unless everyone and everything you perceive are just your invention, the existence of a reality beyond your own consciousness can be inferred from the objects of consciousness. So, does the Universe cease to exist when you shut your eyes? Did it come into existence 5 seconds ago? Does your brain exist in your head as you read this? These are all outside our immediate conscious awareness, yet it is possible to infer their probable existence.
Only if "ultimate" means "poor approximation of"
why our guest don’t agree which so simple is consciousness is subject every thing else is object in space and universe that is why you don’t see consciousness .
causation could be ultimate reality? has subjective unity?
How would one go about building _anything with a _*_will to survive!!?!_*
I don't know what it means to say things ''appear'' in the absence of a Subject they appear to. It's not how we usually use the word ''appear'', and he doesn't explain what his notion of appearing means. If he did/could explain what he means by ''appear'', I think he'd run into problems.
i think he said the subject appears with the object, together
in case that position helps a listener or two to relax a little
Every time I start watching these videos I grab my glasses everything is blurry
you are seeing just fine
no glasses needed
Absolutely. Universal Consciousness drives all of existence, reality, life and being.
There is no such thing as universal consciousness. His argument does not support consciousness is fundamental.
We have evidence of reality existing prior to consciousness arising.
@@timterrell8678
😄 no, you dont.
Science can't even show brain activity causes consciousness, only that it is correlated with consciousness.
If you didn't have such enormous distrust of your own direct experience, you could take 5-MEO right now and prove to yourself that universal consciousness exists.
But, since you believe you can't tell the difference between your own mind in a 'normal' state, in a dream state, in a 'psychotic' state, ... then for you, meeting god directly would be chalked up to delusion and quite literally there is nothing even conceivable that could convince you otherwise which makes your intellect as useful as a brick
@@cosminvisan520 Thoughts can’t exist in this reality after the heat death of the universe due to thermal equilibrium.
Nonsense!
I expected the word "emergence," but it wasn't sounded. I'm wondering why. The philosophical school Forrest belongs to doesn't accept it, or why otherwise?
'Emerge' has the flavour of something coming through a door.
If being conscious is a process and
process is an abstract notion
perhaps a better word than 'emerge' is in order?
trying to understand 'isness' ...and always falling short.
hi steve
well, here we are
what more does one need?
Yes, and that "appearing" is the "emergent" phenomenon.
He has the intuition about the phenomenon but doesn't know exactly "how".
Now, simply concentrate on only "how", because the primordial substrate doesn't matter. The nature has been using what substrate had at hand in this corner of the Universe. There was no other choice for it, as you can very well see.
Only the "emergent" process is important. The rest of it is not.
Cosmin Visan / I know what emergent means in this specific case. You don't.
What you're talking about in your material is a stupidity bigger than yourself.
Hmm? 4:02 “Brain functions which we partially understand”? Not a good sentence, one feels to assist with moving on. Like the car that requires a new engine.....but the mechanic knows you just have a faulty handbrake and it stays on!?
Neither do I. However, instead of Dulism it's real right there're at least two limition speeds which divide or separate Bing the Whole to three realms, Planck World, Dirac Sea (or Mental realm) and House the Divine (or mathematical realm), corresponding with human body, human soul (mainly indicating animal soul) and human spirit (the godly soul).
Ok, let's assume for a second consciousness is emergent. What other emergent properties exist in biology?
Assume there is only one thing, a coffee cup, on a table.
The cup has no relationships to other things on the table because there are none.
Now, put another cup on the table and
a distance-between-them relationship comes into existence.
Obviously the nature of relationship existence is
radically different from the nature of cup existence.
Is 'emerge' the right word to use in reference to
the coming into existence of the relationship?
Does the relationship actually exist 'in the world' or
does it exist only as a concept in one's thoughts?
If being conscious is a process and
a process consists only of dynamic relationships among bits of matter,
can being conscious be an emergent?
Or is something completely different going on
in regard to what we mean by the word conscious?
oh, i do like this one
don't know if it is better content, or me paying better attention
robert and peter have pretty high rapport
working together, nicely
neutral monism may be shorthand for 'we can't know'
peter seems to bring robert along to the position (a necessary one, for ego/i, as i see it)
the whole bagel arrives as one
akin to aphrodite springing forth wholly formed from her own forehead
we have the materium, along with the observer
any evidence that these are separate phenomenon?
seems to me the reason that no one ever gets closer to the truth, meaning mentally apprehending Truth,
is that the whole endeavor is terribly wrong-headed
a poorly placed misstep at the outset leads one ever-further astray
what robert and enough of interviewees (not peter, i think) keep missing, is lack of the biggest set- the unknowable
we may as well use binoculars in hope of tracking down a big bang (if there were one)
peter seems content enough with knowing that he doesn't know
we can know the absolute in becoming/unifying as the absolute, but the egoic separative self is well-evaporated by then
the 'me' that wants so badly to know can't come along for the ride into 'Knowingness/Beingness'
ego and mind are designed for, and only capable of, far smaller tasks
I'm also a physicalist, but I don't see how this line of argument explains anything. I think the way to bridge between neutral monism and double aspect theory is through recognising that states of matter intrinsically and irreducibly encode information, and physical processes are also information processes. In this sense I'm a sort of dualist in that I think for a complete explanation we do need to talk about two sorts of 'thing', but I don't think the non-physical 'thing' is some non-physical sort of 'stuff', it's not anything new and mysterious and supernatural, I think it's the information content of the system. The 'appearing' he talks about to me seems to be the fact that these states and processes present informational content, this is what 'appears' because it's what makes these states of matter have meaning. I think talking about brain states sounds too much like a statics snapshot of the system, but consciousness isn't a state, it's a process. The closest explanation I can come to is that it's an evolution of the informational representation of mental processes that reflect on their own evolving state. At leat that's as close as I can get at the moment.
They both can exist. I would argue there much more out there undiscovered. Out current understanding is limited to three dimensions and what we can observe and measure. A possibility remains that consciousness is more than just physical brain processes. There’s plenty of qualitative & anecdotal evidence to suggest this, but such things aren’t quantifiable or repeatable. In aggregate there’s a whole body of evidence but we choose to disregard them because there’s no way to directly measure such things. But a question I pose to those who deny the experience of countless others, why? We aren’t all crazy and we come from all walks of life and some are even scientists in the traditional sense in their own fields of expertise outside of their other experiences.
@@NoobTube4148 If something has an effect in the real world, then that effect must be measurable, it must be quantifiable. I think a reasonable definition of the real world and it's extent is, that it consists of all things that can have an effect on us and that we can have an effect on.
@@cosminvisan520 Precisely so, which is why I'm not a dualist. I think the idea of a thing that is not material but has effects in the material world is incoherent, if it has effects in the material world then it is part of the material world.
@@cosminvisan520 If material was just an idea, then we could make things real just by imagining them. That's pretty much the definition of magical thinking.
@@cosminvisan520 It creates qualia out of sensory experiences. That's why people profoundly deaf from birth cannot imagine the experience of hearing a sound.
Is Consciousness Ultimate Reality?
Yes and no.
There is no escape from the fact that our personal concepts of "reality" are all mental representations. In that sense, consciousness is ultimate reality, because there is no concept of reality at all without consciousness to conceive of it.
On the other had, we observe a HUGE amount of stuff with no consciousness (i.e., consciousness / intent is not necessary for all this stuff to do what it does). And every example of consciousness we observe is inextricably tied to non-conscious stuff. This seems to say that consciousness needs stuff more than stuff needs consciousness. In this sense, consciousness is NOT ultimate reality, but only one aspect of it.
You’re starting with the belief that some “stuff” is conscious and other “stuff” isn’t conscious. Investigate that distinction if this subject matter is of interest to you.
@@stephendowney7315
Well, Steve, I've certainly investigated that. Humans invented the word "conscious" in order to distinguish it from "non-conscious". Why would humans make that distinction if there was no distinction to be made?
Consciousness is the ability to postulate, consider, and intend. Rocks don't have this ability -- they don't need that ability to do what they do.
So, this is not a belief as much as it is an observation.
Living organisms became conscious because the ability to intend provided a reproductive advantage.
Do rocks, stars, planets, galaxies, clouds, hurricanes, mountains need consciousness (i.e., the ability to postulate, consider, and intend) to do what they do?
I suspect that consciousness is the mystery that it is not because it's really all that complex, but rather because it's actually much simpler and more basic than what so many people want to believe. Consciousness is perhaps the most beautiful mystery of all -- if for no other reason than it makes all other mysteries possible.
Heck -- even I want to believe it's more than a biological mechanism. So I don't propose that it's much simpler because I want it to be that way, but only because it doesn't have to be extremely complex to do what it does.
@@cosminvisan520
True, Cos ... everything is an idea in consciousness.
Some of those ideas are representations of objects outside of the organism, some of those ideas are representations of objects that don't exist outside of the organism.
Consciousness is the ability to have ideas that can be representations of objects both inside and outside of the organism.
Consciousness exists in living organisms because it confers some survival benefit.
Consciousness is of no use whatsoever to stars, planets, galaxies, clouds, tornadoes, rocks. All these "stuff" things get along just fine without it.
@@cosminvisan520 holy Pallys rule In wow. Have melee damage and good single target healing. Also have plate armor so can take lots of damage. Holy pally are just an idea in my consciousness
This is about the Mind ... not consciousness ... of reality.
Free will, nature, cognition, memory, senses, emotions & consciousness are functions of the Mind.
The Mind can be natural (brain) or unnatural (soul).
The Function & Intelligence categories prove God created Man with a body & soul. Jesus (Son of God) confirmed 2000 years ago that the Mind of Man is Body when alive ... & ... soul when dead.
Both the body & soul ... have free will, nature, cognition, senses, emotions, cognition & consciousness.
Man only becomes conscious of the Unnatural reality when the body dies ... and perfect memory of everything the body thought & did ... because the soul is a MIND
you need to define "progress" before you can make it. This is exactly what reincarnation and karma are designed to do, at all levels of consciousness and for all soul vehicles.
What do we know about consciousness? Well, Not physical, It doesn't exist in the past or the future, It experiences time, It exists only in the now moment, all the informations experienced comes from the past, It has the power to modify it's environment, it questions itself and it understands. We also know based on the dual slits experiment that the observer forces the wave function to collapse and takes an existential position. I would do research to see if there is a link between the wave function collapse and the observer. It strongly suggests that, since interaction between electrons is done by photons, everything that we observed in the now moments collapse the wave function of everything that we experience. Is there a form of entanglement between the observee and the observer? It would seem so. Since we get all our information from the past, the shortest possible amount of time for the now moment has to be the Plank's time. We are limited by the speed of light. Maybe there is a link with this too. I don't know. I guess until we understand what life is we won't be able to resolve this conundrum. I love Closer to the truth. Searching for the truth is awesome. It's the journey, not the goal.
The observer in physics is different than they everyday meaning of observer. In observer in physics is whatever alters the quantum state.
@@kos-mos1127 You're right but we are searching right? I was more leaning toward the Penrose theory. I'm just a layman but I love the stuff. I don't know but I'd love to know.
That interview was hard work, and got nowhere. Of course there are subjects, because the appearances are from different perspectives for each subject - how else to explain that? This neutral monism sounds a lot more like aspect dualism, don’t you think? What is needed is a science-compatible idealism. Then (inverse of the Hard Problem) what (and why) are brains? Wittgenstein: “The best picture of the human soul is the human body.”
Donald Hoffman & his team are working on it (a science compatible idealism). Unfortunately the rest of the scientific establishment are looking in the wrong direction so progress is going to be extremely slow.
@@cosminvisan520 your paper was really interesting. You could submit it to Bernardo Kastrup's Metaphysical Speculations page to gain a little more exposure to your ideas? With a little luck he'll post it.
And are you familiar with Donald Hoffman's work and his Conscious Agents Model? He formalized it mathematically which is allowing him and a team of collaborators to investigate his ideas scientifically. He's already discovered new predictions from the maths that he wasn't expecting (such as two agents combining to form a higher order agent - ie we are instantiations of lower level conscious agents, the two prior instantiations being the individual conscious experiences represented physically by the left & right hemispheres of the brain). This is similar to how Einstein discovered black holes purely from his calculations before physicists even knew they existed. You should try and do the same so it can be tested & refined & hopefully lead to new predictions. Good luck with it!
Have you just deleted it, because I still have it open on my phone - when I copied the link & pasted it into UA-cam it doesn't take me to that page now. Here's what is on it to show you that I have access to it:
PhilPapers/Archive ID
VISMAC-3
Upload history
First archival date: 2021-12-11
Latest version: 2 (2021-12-14)
Abstract
In searching for what is the most natural way to regard the world, it will be shown that existence is an interplay between meanings and contexts. This interplay takes the form of consciousness, which arises on top of an infinite ocean of formless contexts. Various aspects of meaning and context will be explored, going through the emergent structure of consciousness, self-reference, the contradictory nature of the formless realm and love as the ultimate context for existence. Given the infinite ramifications of contexts being formless, only a brief introduction can ever be given.
@@cosminvisan520 if you don't formulate your ideas into something scientific then it's just word games and a nice idea. No-one in the scientific field is going to take it seriously.
@@cosminvisan520 You're lucky anyone is even willing to read a word of your paper, let alone all 27 pages of it when you are trolling the comments thread. The fact that I set aside an hour of my time and even complemented you on your work, to only be attacked and insulted by you is hilarious. I offered some reasonable suggestions to help your work gain more traction, because in its current state it has zero practical application. What is anyone supposed to do with it?
You talk repeatedly about making predictions using science in your paper. I quote pg 375 of the journal (pg 20 of the pdf download) "What is important in science is not to have a definition for everything, but to find truth and accept it however it comes. And then, if possible, to use that truth to make predictions. Thus, let’s see how we can still do science despite these limitations."
And pg 380 (pg 25 pdf) "At the moment I have no such specific rules to offer to the reader such that he can then go into lab and develop
some quantum mechanics experiment beyond present day quantum mechanics and see that
indeed such rules make correct predictions not explainable under current quantum mechanics.
Nevertheless, I think that this paper brings a valuable collection of phenomenological data
points, from which the more intelligent reader than me can deduce a theory that can then be
tested in various experiments."
The last quote is exactly why I was saying to get your theoretical models (ie self-reference and the dynamics of the unformal realm) formulated mathematically so that they can be tested - just as Donald Hoffman did with his Conscious Agents Model. By making it mathematically precise, he is now doing science with it & making new predictions. Others can also test his work too.
But I'm done with this conversation, you seriously need to learn some tact if you wish to promote your ideas, especially with people who actually give you credit for your work. Good luck to you
Well that was a whole lot of nothing. Consciousness itself is prior to The objective experience of objects and others by a separate consciousness. Attention is separate consciousness. Attention is what consciousness itself, which is the fundamental reality, looks like when it is bound to the body mind. Consciousness is prior to attention. It is the Ocean of Being in which the waves of separate attention arise. The Beatles wrote a song about it on the Revolver album called Tomorrow Never Knows. Between that and Within You Without You on Sgt. Peppers they cover the whole topic. No more needs to be said. They were way ahead of these fools.
Without light there would be no matter thus no objects, or ideas of objects, nor preceptions of objects or misconceptions such as duality concering such objects. Removing the objects from the light doesn't remove the light. Removing the light from the objects they cease to be; however the light is never removed.
Purport: light is our intellect; our experiences are that of the objects, or the states of mind, or relativity. All these states are dependent upon consciousness; not consciousness dependent upon them.
Where do these things, forms, ideas come from and for what reason?
They're likely misconceptions sure, but why even is there misconceptions, which still do seem to have a practical purpose relatively.
Some philosophers say it is the nature of such an effulgent overflowing from within God, which it produces -- not a proper word -- because it is so giving; it needs nothing and is itself everything and more.
For example: the Sun gives and gives, and the sun needs nothing from us. It's nature is to give and thus we have phenomenal life and etc.
It’s highly suspicious that this series does not support Bernardo Kastrup. It seems like they are deliberately ignoring him.
Yes. It is interesting who is left out of the interviews here. Another writer/thinker who comes to mind is Robert Lanza.
Bernardo has a highly coherent, consistent metaphysical TOE that blows away all the other nonsense on this channel. And he uses no religious nonsense to explain it.
The purpose of this channel is to either confuse people or raise all the inconsistencies of existing theories and appeal to the resignation of mystery.
Those who have gone through this process already and have answers are ignored by this channel.
@@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386 I like Bernardo and follow him. And I agree, Kuhn has a definite bias (IMO) toward materialism - to the extent that he blinds himself (i.e. marginalizes) other scientific research (such as the last 30+ years of valid NDE science).
Science is about admitting what we don't know. Bias toward valid scientific studies does not belong in science.
Ever considered that Kastrup may not wish to appear on this channel?
@@johnyharris Kastrup had publicly said that he is willing to come on all channels. In fact he has used the term “Closer to Truth” in more than one interview.
Those stuck in monism or dualism are very poor mathematicians, afraid of 3 and beyond. if you really want to be afraid, imagine ending up stuck forever in a universe that only has a number greater than 13, with fewer and fewer invites or RSVP's coming to your mailbox the more you disconnect from the reality of the spiritual multiverse?
Funny, the first sentence Robert talks about what his intuition says. Dear Robert, what is your intuition? From what part of the brain does intuition come from?
That's a good one.
@@cosminvisan520 I guess I am replying to an idea of Cosmin Visan in consciousness then. Is there just one infinite consciousness and we are all in it?
@@chargersina
bingo!
enjoy the ride
a better and better one
All realities serve consciousness of all levels, thanks to the self-evolving laws of reincarnation and karma that govern the multiverse
Conversations seems a bit too agressive to me. Also, Robert needs to find a new way to kick-off other than stating how long he has spent thinking about the issue.
Unnecessarily over-complicating the idea of consciousness. The theory that the brain is has constructed a 'digital twin' as a simulation engine to anticipate and navigate life activities would naturally give rise to a sense of 'self' within self.
Consciousness appears to be the brains reconstruction of objective reality. How else could we navigate, select mates, avoid predators and find food sources. It seems to be intrinsically part of our nervous system and senses which have all evolved through natural selection.
Zombies would be more effective than consciousness. Also: what scientific evidence are you pointing to demonstrating what it is producing consciousness?
@@jamenta2 I'm referring to Anil Seth's work regarding the reconstruction. But I use words such as 'appears', and 'seems', because obviously I don't know for sure how it's produced, as indeed nobody does. To me though, it seems likely that it is produced by the brain, simply because it's a feature of living things, and every feature of a living thing evolved though natural selection.
@@cosminvisan520 tell that to cannibals.
@@johnyharris I'm just asking for the evidence Johny. I think science is a powerful tool, but you need some kind of evidence to back up your claims.
@@cosminvisan520 It exists regardless of its utility. We can repeatedly test and verify what it’s made of.
Is consciousness ultimate reality? No!
Consciousness is the first awakening in a process of life that offers choice to glue or marry. To glue is to take two equal opposite objects and dove tail them together with glue and call it singular. To Marry is to take two hydrogen and one oxygen combine them together with marriage and call it rain.
To understand time you could look at asexual reproduction as an example of Time Travel.
However before we get to this lets try understand the complexity of a discussion as simple as opening a jar. The lid is not removed with a twist alone. Two hands compression and a twist is needed to explain the simplicity to "open a jar".
Consciousness is one concept in a structure that is made of many parts that make a whole.
When we ask questions, more time should be spent on the structure of the question than on trying to answer a nonsensical question.
The truth behind the question is that of yearning for the creation of eternal life. Yet eternal life does already exist and need not be created by humans.
Our Boby has a use by date like milk in the fridge. Once you remove this quality you in effect change the substance of what milk is.
This is the dilemma of consciousness itself. It has been entwined into the fabric of flesh that will in time rust to dust. However the rust cycle can be curtailed if you clone the carrier and transfer the information.
The question then is what is human. So in marriage the human rebirth may well be a transference of name, character, DNA, memory and soul.
Consciousness belongs to the whole. And as much as we believe that 100 years of consciousness is a lifetime it is merely and orgasim in time for the soul.
Humainty is our evolutionary marriage to the collective brain of the singularity that is merely the first step in the awakening process of our soul evolution.
If you lack the presence of God in your life you are so so young and have yet to establish a world in the multiverse that you can call home. E=Go and energy is what needs to stay to create matter or become Mass.
Mass is a communion of collective consciousness that creates life through memory recall. If you lack the ability to recall your soul memories you are still in school of fish.
Not yet a whale or a soul but a scattered disconnected energy looking to connect as Bone.
The skeleton that holds together a body of organisms that cooperate to create a system.
A guppy is the scattered soul of a shark trying to become a dolfin that wants to be a Doctor.
That said Block Chain does not sell you what consciousness is. Block chain sows you how a consciousness is grown or born depending on how you want to dissect IT.
B
Consciousness is like electro-magnetic field or like the effect of gravity. The bigger the brain , more conexions and more consciousness is resulted. Its in the same category with nuclear fusion and by that i mean that it depends on what kind of matter is involved in that complex system. If you take the sun, the predominant matter is hydrogen and hellium, thats why it can only give birth to nuclear fusion and electro-magnetism and so on...but it cannot make consciousness happen. On the other side if you take a more diverse collection of chemical elements and combine them into a system like planets, one possible outcome may be life with a possibility of consciousness. So consciousness may be an effect which can be possible only if the brain happens, the same way nuclear fusion or electro-magnetic fields can be created only by matter combined in a specific way. I don't believe that is something fundamental like space\time. From the universal perspective its nothing special, its something that will eventualy happen if you give it enough time. Other question will be, what a bigger complexity would give birth to?
@@cosminvisan520 brain exist as much as the universe in which the consciousness happens
@@cosminvisan520 Your statement seems to be only a very far fetched pretentious nonsense. Or maybe you can come with some argumentation to back it up..
👍😊
Perhaps consciousness is God as Hegel taught.
This sentence will end once you are done reading the end
more relevant than most content herein,
probably including my own profferings
thank you
Ok! know that consiousness come to the end of the road on we're were not sure to make a left or a right try to know concentrate on the research of the soul what I'm saying they go hand in hand not that there both the same but the answer of consiousness is in the soul.
We are all dualist because we know Man has a body ... & .. mind.
Consciousness, free will, & nature are functions of the mind of an entity.
Man & Animlas are physical entities with physical mind ( brain).
But Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe, and has the Mind of an Intelligence which is ore than just the brain.
A Function can be physical or non-physical (abstract).
The Mind can be physical or nonphyscial.
The brain & body are physical functions.
Only an intelligence makes Functions.
A natural intelligence with a mind ... was made by ... an unnatural intelligence with a mind.
The Mind of an intelligence is unnatural ( soul/spirit)
The Mind of an natural Intelligence (Man) is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul).
And again, Consciousness, free will & nature are functions of a mind .... which can be natural or unnatural.
The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories .... prove God created Man in His likeness with a body & soul.
All y'all should play about an hour of online playstation. And as you trash talk each other playing call of duty, imagine you are the character in the TV. You are a 3d person pretending to be a 2d person. And the other 2d characters interact with you as equals. It's an entertaining diversion from you true nature. Now,,, there is no way to know, if our world is a simulation, with other 4d peoples playing a 3d game. The 2d character's consciousness is the conversation you have with the other players while playing. Our conciousness is the information from the 4th dimensional player of the game that renders us.
Yes, but not our consciousness
@@cosminvisan520 we are partial representation of that substantial consciousness..
@@cosminvisan520 if you get more sugar to tea its more sweet, but anyway i dont see how your "analogy" explains anything.
@@cosminvisan520 God does not need parts to know Himself. He is self-suffiecient since He is all-knowing.But He expand to increase bliss. So when we say he is divided to many... that does not mean he is losing His own identity. Rather that He expands. But using of future or past time is just analogious,becouse in eternity there is only present. Therefore we are eternaly individuals as God is. There is no point of merging or division.
this is my comment before I even watch it obviously you have no idea or you wouldn't be asking the question
Did this good philosopher study under Derrida or something? Cos he’s saying a lot but not making a lot of sense. Sorry. “To say that everything appears somehow or the other doesn’t remove the mystery but what it does is remove another mystery. The mystery it removes is why should brain processes appear when other processes don’t.”. “Everything appears”. It’s difficult to understand. Perhaps we need to be more familiar with his material? The best stab I can take at understanding what he says: is he saying consciousness and recognition of it by one’s consciousness is the same thing? If so, so what? It doesn’t explain away non-materialistic view point to there being more to it. You’re just describing a possibility and I believe you’re trying to reduce it to materialism without really calling it that. Consciousness and recognition of it can be the same but does that take away the possibility of that same consciousness exiting outside of the current physical form it finds itself in? No. That’s the whole debate. If I’ve understood it correctly, this viewpoint brings nothing new to this discussion.
at least he admits he doesn't know
and kinda has robert with him
what they didn't reach, is that 'they' _can't_ know
anything that gets anywhere worth getting to, is much cleaner and capable than a 'me' that wants so badly to be in charge of knowing
It takes the away human consciousness existing outside a physical form. Using Artificial Intelligence as an example of something existing in a non physical form. An AI has the capability of controlling multiple bodies and are not locked a physical from like humans. Let us say we are in 2045 and there are conscious AI. Consciousness in an AI would be fundamentally different than consciousness in a human. Death to a human is destroying their body. Death to an AI is more than destroying its body. An AI cannot be killed. We would have to erase all the code as well as backups and then we would have to make a law so no one reconstructs the AI.
@@friendoengus I disagree. It can be known, just not shared. Or perhaps better described is, it can be experienced, but not shared. Whether one accepts it as proof of an external consciousness would be up to the individual. Some may think they hallucinated, saw a dream etc. but there’s countless stories which we disregard (because the claims are unverifiable) but that doesn’t mean they did not happen.
@@NoobTube4148
ego is a meager and provisional device
propping it up as something more existentially valid is a vain and counterproductive exercise
the thing that wants, is the thing that falls away as we grow
the thing that truly is, is eternal and untouchable (and may be the very thing that 'knows' which you refer to)
we seem to have a legitimate experiencing
but positing a separative experiencer appears to be going the wrong way, complicating to no good end
are we kinda saying the same thing?
I think we are. Although my ego is firmly intact and folly to mundane activities of an egoic mind. I’m under no false impression I’ve won that battle 😄 it’s like an intricately entangled web, this whole debate about consciousness and bringing ego into it makes it even more so.
BE...They need to start with being.
Electrical Impulses...or these alone lead to this trap of circularity. It's what happens in neurons that matters.
Currently there is no evidence or explanation at all electrical impulses or any type of chemical reaction can lead to a single thought or even self-awareness. The properties of electrons is well know by science - and none of the properties would lead one to believe "thought" itself could be forthcoming. This is the wall materialists come upon constantly and so-far, it has remained a dead-end. To me, it would be similar to constantly examining the diodes of a radio for the source of a musical broadcast - which lies outside the radio. I suspect consciousness is the broadcast, and not the radio itself.
@@jamenta2 They just push it deeper and deeper into mystery because of their own lack of expertise in technical areas. Robert and other "thinkers" colonize the subject.
@@nyworker
they haven't pushed an inch deeper into anything, other than proving futility of concept
definitionally (or nearly so) mystery is of the realm of the unknowable
a waste of time
like flapping arms in hope of achieving flight
not that this observation will slow down the effort
mind is just not all that smart
Quite frankly, they're morons.
@@jamenta2 Consciousness is a simulation of the body and nervous system.
..these forms are as clueless as the rest...you are not here to know WHO you are. You are here to know that you are! Why is THIS here? Because I am aware of THIS. Why am I aware of THIS? Because I am that I am. I know nothing. I am that I am. Give up. Accept the truth. Surrender. Enjoy all of it. Love.
Become aware of any object. What does that object say? No. Not the mind objects narrative. The object, what does it say? Nothing, other than how it appears! That is what it says! So how can any explanation of form offer any real insight into who you really are? It cannot. Only I know that I am. I know nothing. I am that I am. What more do you want, ego? You already are!
Conscieness never shows ultimate reality because it is unpredicted. In other words Guys ignores how conscieness formed inside in brains. Guys keep out any honest model that show up Brains funcions make up conscieness.
A PEAR ??
No, no, no, you DON'T get to throw in the silly modifier "ultimate" on this topic.
Again, kidneys filter, brains think.
Consciousness "appearing" = Magic thinking (bs)
This guy explains in language you can understand. His contention that weird stuff like consciousness "appears" spontaneously fits my own view of Existence. That the ability for new arrangements is built into the primordial stuff of Existence -- whatever that turns out to be. We don't need magical fairies for it to happen.
Until your bizarre claim accounts for the experiences of NDEs, it's not worth toilet paper
@@cosminvisan520
New arrangements within things that exist, what else?
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014
What's an NDE?
@@browngreen933
Your question reveals you have none of the prerequisite knowledge required to have a useful opinion on this topic.
Anyone with the slighest bit of interest in science, mind, reality, ... knows full well what a near death experience is.
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014
I know what a near death experience is, but I'm not a mind reader to know that's what you were referring to. Get a grip.
consciousness is like a river, which ever way it flows, it finds a way, I think that you need to bath in it. consciousness is eternal life and knowledge.
Lord Krishna says our existence consist of 3 levels 1. gross body 2.subtle body i.e mind, intellect and ego 3.soul . Now conciousness emarges from soul and mind is the interface between outer world and soul.
Metaphysics
The clever coyote (greed) is always trying to catch the roadrunner (love). But never does. Because something that is not real (absence of love) can never catch that which is real (love).
That coyote (NATO) is a crazy clown...
unsure re NATO
otherwise, i like your metaphysics, cwazy clown and all ...
beep beep!
Man! This guy is confused! We all are!...