Sue: "It would be stupid think otherwise... that would be incomprehensible for science..." Sounds like some very strong metaphysical assumptions, that something which is at the present moment is incomprehensible to science cannot be. Just a notion:) With all due respect, Sue confuses some concepts in the field of her expertise: consciousness-as-subjective-experience is not a synonym for mindful-consciousness. So, yes, You are there already before you pop the question "Am i conscious?" Some more zazen might reveal that, I hope:) And us having illusions doesn´t mean - cannot mean - that the sense of existence, of being aware, the feeling of I AM is an illusion: I am aware, therefore I am. But, yes, I cannot be sure about anything "out there" - is it really real?. Sue: "It´s all a big illusion... This sorta like feeling that I´m in here... This feeling I am having a stream of conscious experiences? I am controlling the world! It´s all not true!" Here´s another grand confusion with concepts and phenomenons - those are not all equivalent: I´m in here as a personality is an illusion, BUT I am this awareness is not. When we say "I" or "I am" we fundamentally refer to our most intimate sense of existence, which cannot be denied, BUT what it´s nature is, is a different question, like say, am I in here in this body? So, we usually are deluded, thinking we are a certain personality. "This feeling I am having a stream of conscious experiences" is synonomous to THE ever present awareness, that cannot be denied. I am aware moment to moment - even in sleep. But, no, it does´t mean that you control the world, that´s a whole other "ball game"; even controlling your own experience of the world. BUT, make no mistake, you are "the one" that is aware of any experience you have - illusory or not. Conclusion: Plato, with his cave-metaphor was more "on the ball", than most of the present day western philosophers, psychologists and neuroscientists. (Even if they have practiced zen, apparently.)
I see no reason to believe the physicalist idea that consciousness is a magically emergent property of non-conscious "stuff". By Occam's Razor, the idea that mind is fundamental is the more parsimonious position.
For folks with an open mind, there is a really good channel on UA-cam for an alternative look at this material. It's called Afterlife Topics And Metaphysics 😁😁
Consciousness is the intrinsic knowledge of what it happens. For example, a plant, a thermostat a young baby have no consciousness, because they simply react to the environment or act instinctively. Humans or even rats have the ability to expect / have conscience of what is happening. This could also be applied by conscious A.I and unconscious A.I. The only possible way to gain consciousness is having experience/knowledge(information) about the physical world(outer environment)
There is NON duality! NOT duality. There is no seperation. This is dillusion. The world is a dream from within. There is no physical world out their. Use all the math, you like. You'll never find it - because your doing your math, from within a dream.
Consciousness is the intrinsic knowledge of what it happens. For example, a plant, a thermostat a young baby have no consciousness, because they simply react to the environment or act instinctively. Humans or even rats have the ability to expect / have conscience of what is happening. This could also be applied by conscious A.I and unconscious A.I. The only possible way to gain consciousness is having experience/knowledge(information) about the physical world(outer environment)
it is _theoretically possible_ to open a fridge door quickly enough, _if_ the mechanism that controls the light is spring loaded. However, the door would need to be accelerated so violently it would most certainly just snap in half.
Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question. What is the principled explanation for why: A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness? Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness? Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness? Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness? A clump of conscious atoms over here would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness? Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could even make any coherent statements about the subject.
the difference between us is only the meat. you and i are the same, as we share the same reality, the same existence. if we connected our brains and forced them to communicate, we'd _be_ one for as long as this connection existed. They've done it with rats and frankly it just makes sense: reality, existence, just _is_ and whatever mechanism is complex enough (a brain) to function with enough feedback loops and inputs/outputs _will_ "wake up", in the sense that existence (which always is and _only_ is) will function "through" it.
The best definition of consciousness I've found is that it's an individual that has a model/representation of reality inside itself. The more complex (multidimensional) the model an individual is capable of making of reality, the more conscious it is. We start with simple matter, with only the ability to model it's own state, right now (a 0D model). (Most wouldn't call that consciousness, but it's more useful to say it's the most minimal level of conscious possible. There are things that do NOT even have that level of consciousness, and those are things that we call "imaginary", or "fictional", or "concepts"). By the time we get up to us animals, especially the primates (and whales, and some birds), we get a complex ability to model reality in 3 or even 4 dimensions at once. For example, in one moment, in my brain, I can be aware of (model) my own state and my own goal state, (1D), as well as YOUR current and goal states (2D), and the current and goal state of some other individual/group (such as "UA-cam") (3D), AND, if I'm lucky, I can even be aware of how all of these things might change over time (4D). (But all this takes a huge amount of energy to process in the brain, so most of the time us humans are only thinking in 1D, 2D or maybe 3D.)
I should add that this easily explains the "hard problem of consciousness" which is that once we get a second person perspective (2D or "your" state/goal), we get what we call "self awareness" which allows us to be aware of what we're aware of. In other words, we can model "what it's like to be" us, in the form of being able to think about our own physical state/goals as seen by another, and in this case that "other" is ourselves at another point in time.
@@nicktanner8231 the advantage would be making actions that have consequences much further in the future with more variables taken into account. Of course there is no guarantee that they will be successful but it increases the probability.
Quantum Axe why can’t a robot do this future analysis?? Define what you mean by consciousness. All consciousness is is the experience of the five senses. It is literally experience. Capturing data is what robots do, that is not experience. They can see smell hear etc but there’s no experience. If capturing data of knee stress tells you to stop walking and sit down, a human would be able to survive and act same way without experiencing the stress. There’s no benefit of the experience. We dont need to experience it to adapt to our environment just as a robot would
@@nicktanner8231 there is nothing physical stopping a robot from becoming conscious and as far I know there is no evidence for anything other than physical.
many indigenous people in the world will tell you that there is a thing what is like to be a rock, a tree, a spoon, a bottle of water, you name it... so westernized this whole debate
I realy Like her but she Talks Most of the time about perseption and Not about concesnes. It is still intersting but she missed the target, i would say.
I'm appalled and astonished at what gets people some attention. Chalmers' 'hard problem' is a joke. There is no virtue in coming up with such an obvious label. Nevertheless it has been vigorously promoted as if it were some sort of super-insightful flash of terminological enlightenment. Dan Dennett is equally eager to point out that several years before this HE came up with 'the hard question'. Who cares? Most of us are interested in the philosophy.
@@opinion3742 Not to my knowledge. I was saying that crediting Chalmers with labeling it 'the hard problem' was overdone, as it is the problem, not the label, that is of genuine importance.
Theofilos. Yes, this is one of the most popular views in neuroscience. The scientific model of reality is getting stranger and more intriguing by the minute ;) *Experience and perception according to the current state of consensus in the scientific community* 1. You do not experience and perceive the external world (matter). You experience and perceive a virtual model of the world produced in and by the brain. 2. You do not experience and perceive the internal world (mind). You experience and perceive a virtual model of the world produced in and by the brain. 3. That what you call "I" --- that which experience and perceive the virtual model of the internal and external world (Consciousness) --- is also a part of the virtual model produced in and by the brain. What this means for us: Conclusion 1: Reality (that-which-is-external-to-perception-and-experience) is never perceived and experienced. Conclusion 2: Because of C1 we can not know or learn about reality. What this means for science: Conclusion 3: Because of C1 and C2 the scientific method; investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge, is only taking place within the domain of the brain produced virtual reality model. Conclusion 4: Because of C1, C2 and C3 science can not know or learn about reality, only the brain produced model of reality.
Just by the way, Science is not a place, or a person, or a thing, it's a process. The methods of Science are an attempt to predict the next most probable. This "process" uses extensional devices (example: microscope) to give us a closer look at reality. Is it the best system, no, but it's better than any other system today. How do I know this: I can't say it better than this ua-cam.com/video/rj3rAJUVrGQ/v-deo.html
Theofilos. I totally agree. Science is the best system for building reliable models of the conceptual world. I just think it is really funny that first science started believing that we are not perceving and measuring the external world, but a virtual model of the world in the head. And now science is starting to believe that the same is true in regards to internal reality. Strange times in science indeed ;)
wha the f...ck is she talking about
Sue: "It would be stupid think otherwise... that would be incomprehensible for science..."
Sounds like some very strong metaphysical assumptions, that something which is at the present moment is incomprehensible to science cannot be. Just a notion:)
With all due respect, Sue confuses some concepts in the field of her expertise: consciousness-as-subjective-experience is not a synonym for mindful-consciousness. So, yes, You are there already before you pop the question "Am i conscious?" Some more zazen might reveal that, I hope:)
And us having illusions doesn´t mean - cannot mean - that the sense of existence, of being aware, the feeling of I AM is an illusion: I am aware, therefore I am.
But, yes, I cannot be sure about anything "out there" - is it really real?.
Sue: "It´s all a big illusion... This sorta like feeling that I´m in here... This feeling I am having a stream of conscious experiences? I am controlling the world! It´s all not true!"
Here´s another grand confusion with concepts and phenomenons - those are not all equivalent:
I´m in here as a personality is an illusion, BUT I am this awareness is not. When we say "I" or "I am" we fundamentally refer to our most intimate sense of existence, which cannot be denied, BUT what it´s nature is, is a different question, like say, am I in here in this body? So, we usually are deluded, thinking we are a certain personality.
"This feeling I am having a stream of conscious experiences" is synonomous to THE ever present awareness, that cannot be denied. I am aware moment to moment - even in sleep.
But, no, it does´t mean that you control the world, that´s a whole other "ball game"; even controlling your own experience of the world. BUT, make no mistake, you are "the one" that is aware of any experience you have - illusory or not.
Conclusion: Plato, with his cave-metaphor was more "on the ball", than most of the present day western philosophers, psychologists and neuroscientists. (Even if they have practiced zen, apparently.)
I see no reason to believe the physicalist idea that consciousness is a magically emergent property of non-conscious "stuff". By Occam's Razor, the idea that mind is fundamental is the more parsimonious position.
the 'illusion' cube illustration would be improved by adding the missing cube edges.
OK. I'm missing her point. What's her point?
I'm aware of the problem.
For folks with an open mind, there is a really good channel on UA-cam for an alternative look at this material. It's called Afterlife Topics And Metaphysics 😁😁
Consciousness is the intrinsic knowledge of what it happens. For example, a plant, a thermostat a young baby have no consciousness, because they simply react to the environment or act instinctively. Humans or even rats have the ability to expect / have conscience of what is happening. This could also be applied by conscious A.I and unconscious A.I.
The only possible way to gain consciousness is having experience/knowledge(information) about the physical world(outer environment)
Your argument is totally flawed
@@Dion_Mustard Not only is it flawed it is even a complete thought. Which maybe why it doesn't end with a full stop.
There is NON duality! NOT duality. There is no seperation. This is dillusion. The world is a dream from within. There is no physical world out their. Use all the math, you like. You'll never find it - because your doing your math, from within a dream.
Wut?
SUSAN YOU CAN'T POSE LIKE THAT!!!
THAT THUMBNAIL THOUGH
Consciousness is the intrinsic knowledge of what it happens. For example, a plant, a thermostat a young baby have no consciousness, because they simply react to the environment or act instinctively. Humans or even rats have the ability to expect / have conscience of what is happening. This could also be applied by conscious A.I and unconscious A.I.
The only possible way to gain consciousness is having experience/knowledge(information) about the physical world(outer environment)
it is _theoretically possible_ to open a fridge door quickly enough, _if_ the mechanism that controls the light is spring loaded. However, the door would need to be accelerated so violently it would most certainly just snap in half.
John Lennox: How Math and Science Point to God / Kirk Cameron on TBN
Really Beautiful and Excellent in all aspects... thanks 🙏 Dr. Sharma, Mumbai India
Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question.
What is the principled explanation for why:
A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness?
Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness?
A clump of conscious atoms over here would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could even make any coherent statements about the subject.
the difference between us is only the meat. you and i are the same, as we share the same reality, the same existence. if we connected our brains and forced them to communicate, we'd _be_ one for as long as this connection existed. They've done it with rats and frankly it just makes sense: reality, existence, just _is_ and whatever mechanism is complex enough (a brain) to function with enough feedback loops and inputs/outputs _will_ "wake up", in the sense that existence (which always is and _only_ is) will function "through" it.
The best definition of consciousness I've found is that it's an individual that has a model/representation of reality inside itself.
The more complex (multidimensional) the model an individual is capable of making of reality, the more conscious it is.
We start with simple matter, with only the ability to model it's own state, right now (a 0D model). (Most wouldn't call that consciousness, but it's more useful to say it's the most minimal level of conscious possible. There are things that do NOT even have that level of consciousness, and those are things that we call "imaginary", or "fictional", or "concepts").
By the time we get up to us animals, especially the primates (and whales, and some birds), we get a complex ability to model reality in 3 or even 4 dimensions at once. For example, in one moment, in my brain, I can be aware of (model) my own state and my own goal state, (1D), as well as YOUR current and goal states (2D), and the current and goal state of some other individual/group (such as "UA-cam") (3D), AND, if I'm lucky, I can even be aware of how all of these things might change over time (4D). (But all this takes a huge amount of energy to process in the brain, so most of the time us humans are only thinking in 1D, 2D or maybe 3D.)
I should add that this easily explains the "hard problem of consciousness" which is that once we get a second person perspective (2D or "your" state/goal), we get what we call "self awareness" which allows us to be aware of what we're aware of. In other words, we can model "what it's like to be" us, in the form of being able to think about our own physical state/goals as seen by another, and in this case that "other" is ourselves at another point in time.
what evolutionary advantage does consciousness give to a species? a functional unconscious human robot will behave identical as a conscious human.
@@nicktanner8231 the advantage would be making actions that have consequences much further in the future with more variables taken into account. Of course there is no guarantee that they will be successful but it increases the probability.
Quantum Axe why can’t a robot do this future analysis?? Define what you mean by consciousness. All consciousness is is the experience of the five senses. It is literally experience. Capturing data is what robots do, that is not experience. They can see smell hear etc but there’s no experience. If capturing data of knee stress tells you to stop walking and sit down, a human would be able to survive and act same way without experiencing the stress. There’s no benefit of the experience. We dont need to experience it to adapt to our environment just as a robot would
@@nicktanner8231 there is nothing physical stopping a robot from becoming conscious and as far I know there is no evidence for anything other than physical.
I'm pretty sure that she could have resisted that hair. I'm certain that there is no reason to listen to this robot.
many indigenous people in the world will tell you that there is a thing what is like to be a rock, a tree, a spoon, a bottle of water, you name it... so westernized this whole debate
Well the thumbnail could be better
I realy Like her but she Talks Most of the time about perseption and Not about concesnes. It is still intersting but she missed the target, i would say.
this thumbnail lol
who is inside the man in the cartesian chair?
nobody is inside a metaphor
She cannot see her audience - but she knows they are pre-schoolers.
I think the definition of conscienness needs be defined before you can ask such a question.
Victor J. Cano You can’t define Conciousness.
Naive realists want to dispense with philosophy, preferring to pretend that consciousness is all too obvious and does not need defining.
I'm appalled and astonished at what gets people some attention. Chalmers' 'hard problem' is a joke. There is no virtue in coming up with such an obvious label. Nevertheless it has been vigorously promoted as if it were some sort of super-insightful flash of terminological enlightenment. Dan Dennett is equally eager to point out that several years before this HE came up with 'the hard question'. Who cares? Most of us are interested in the philosophy.
explain how brain gives you consciousness
How is the hard problem of consciousness a joke? Is there a sufficient answer to it that I am not aware of?
@@opinion3742 Not to my knowledge. I was saying that crediting Chalmers with labeling it 'the hard problem' was overdone, as it is the problem, not the label, that is of genuine importance.
@@Brian.001 I guess I must have misread you. My bad.
@@opinion3742 No problem. You are forgiven!
But I like bacon.
This is mostly silly.
Everybody have it’s way of making easy money. The beauty of capitalism.
Lol
Ok KIDS.. I will define the consciousness and explain it's purpose. IS ANYONE CURIOUS??
Can you promise it won't be the naive realist view?
@Opinion37 I don't understand your question. Science and scripture is my basis.
Frequency resonance.
@@knightsofempathy6768 That is fair enough. As for naive realism:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
Awareness or consciousnesses is an illusion created by a system's ability to sense and react to multiple stimuli in its environment.
Theofilos. Yes, this is one of the most popular views in neuroscience. The scientific model of reality is getting stranger and more intriguing by the minute ;)
*Experience and perception according to the current state of consensus in the scientific community*
1. You do not experience and perceive the external world (matter). You experience and perceive a virtual model of the world produced in and by the brain.
2. You do not experience and perceive the internal world (mind). You experience and perceive a virtual model of the world produced in and by the brain.
3. That what you call "I" --- that which experience and perceive the virtual model of the internal and external world (Consciousness) --- is also a part of the virtual model produced in and by the brain.
What this means for us:
Conclusion 1: Reality (that-which-is-external-to-perception-and-experience) is never perceived and experienced.
Conclusion 2: Because of C1 we can not know or learn about reality.
What this means for science:
Conclusion 3: Because of C1 and C2 the scientific method; investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge, is only taking place within the domain of the brain produced virtual reality model.
Conclusion 4: Because of C1, C2 and C3 science can not know or learn about reality, only the brain produced model of reality.
Just by the way, Science is not a place, or a person, or a thing, it's a process. The methods of Science are an attempt to predict the next most probable. This "process" uses extensional devices (example: microscope) to give us a closer look at reality. Is it the best system, no, but it's better than any other system today. How do I know this: I can't say it better than this ua-cam.com/video/rj3rAJUVrGQ/v-deo.html
Theofilos. I totally agree. Science is the best system for building reliable models of the conceptual world. I just think it is really funny that first science started believing that we are not perceving and measuring the external world, but a virtual model of the world in the head. And now science is starting to believe that the same is true in regards to internal reality. Strange times in science indeed ;)
@@MidiwaveProductions I am now using this point in my essay thankyou