@SRBPS आकाश ਆਕਾਸ਼ AAKASH your second post is as bad as the first one mate. No that is not an indian version of English. I have spoke to many indians and their English sentences make sense. That's your personal version of "englishberish".
I enjoy this channel, and this episode in particular because my best friend in first grade school is interviewed. I wasn't expecting that, although I knew he was a recognized expert in his field. That was a special treat to see and hear him again. It's only been 60 years since my friend moved away. Thank you!
CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point. YOUR WELCOME -SAM ELS
Recognised by *who* not whom. Whom is the *object* the one recognised while who is the subject - the one doing the recognising, so who recognises him as an expert, not not not whom recognises him as an expert. It is a common enough mistake and you have made a common enough mistake. You won't make that mistake again, with you? If you're not sure ask a grown up. Confusing the pronouns who and whom is a common mistake. When speaking, people rarely use whom because it sounds awkward, and often, this informal tendency carries over to writing. However, since academic writing is more formal than everyday speech, learning how to correctly use who and whom is important. The Rule: Who functions as a subject, while whom functions as an object
Huge congratulations for your 'Closer to Truth'! I am a photographer profoundly interested on consciousness/creativity, therefore the worth I personally credit to your show. Thanks!
The way I have understood consciousness is as follows :- Consciousness is the fabric of reality. Reality is made up of consciousness. It exists in spite of me. It also exists in me.
Makes total sense. Without man, there's consciousness but without consciousness, nothing can exist. It is the infinite intelligence that can be liken to the central heartbeat of life
Why not just say that consciousness can be bluish on Wednesdays? It would be equally coherent, but what the hell, if you cannot mumbo you might as well jumbo.
I love these videos! I must admit that a lot of this is way above my head, but I am beginning to understand some of it. I enjoy your interviewing style. I just subscribed.
Your attitude stimulates us all to think and explore, thanks. Conciousness includes immages and pictures, often more inclusive than words in how we recapture experience, confession from a former Art Therapist of children and adults.
really great point.! We observe advanced properties emerge only from complex structures. i.e. in the fundamental scale of matter (QM) we only observe kinetic properties by what we call particles. In order to observe advanced properties we need to look in molecular structures. There the properties displayed are far more diverse and sophisticated. We observe chemical and structural properties giving rise to different qualities of physical structures. And to able to observe mind properties we have to reach the biological scale and really complex biological structures. WE DON"T observe advanced properties in simple fundamental elements of matter. Claims that are in conflict with these observations are by definition supernatural ...thus irrational (not wrong because we can not exclude or include anything as impossible or possible )
The word absurd in the atheistic subconscious is related to the word faith in God and not because of the objectivity of the question of why? It was repeated incorrectly, because it is related to equivalent hormones. It appeared as a justification of value.
I love this program and I have followed almost all of the episodes, all the thanks and gratitude to Mr. Cohen for this enlightening project, just a thought, if we replace consciousness with correlation in quantum entanglement the obsession about conciseness and the mystery of entanglement might just disappear.
I always thought conciousnes was a property of the universe and our brains and other brains were instruments to understand and appreciate it and survive.
So it's like the universe is able to be conscious of its own existence by using human brains to self-reflect. And possibly other brains exist on faraway planets that can serve a similar purpose. Is that what you mean?
I also have similar thoughts, although I still can’t figure out how it works and maybe I’ll never do it. I suspect this is a property of the universe and all living creatures would take part on it with humans being on the top of the pyramid of conciusness
You might as well ask "What Is Thinking?" or "What are thoughts?" Consciousness is *perception* that's feeding the thinking process. It's *awareness* . It's active, ongoing, wordless *thinking* about what is perceived, remembered or predicted.
When the question first arose for me, I assumed we already knew what consciousness is... the answer to the following would better define what it is we consider consciousness to be: if engineers successfully 3D print an exact copy of us, its easy to assume that your consciousness will remain singular, it won't branch off and suddenly you have two seperate experiences... this tells me that consciousness is helped to be made real with our brain and its mechanics and chemistry etc, but the larger part of what it is we call consciousness, is beyond our physical selves in a big way. I think that as long as we constrict ourselves to answering the physical questions, understanding consciousness will remain out of reach by definition. Let's talk this through and branch the scope of the questions involved in order to start answering the important aspects systematically, naturally 😀
Thats just using another word, awareness, to avoid a definition. Some plants can be 'aware' there is a fly on their leaf. And making sense is too abstract. Would you consider a foetus aware, or someone with severe brain damage? And make sense also aims towards intelligence, as making sense indicates understanding, and not being able to understand something does not make you less consciousness, I would argue.
Consciousness is the spirit that resides in you from birth to death. An example is an automobile a person enters the car and it becomes alive gets out and its dead. We are a means to an end that is far beyond our understanding.
Bruce Hood has the right theory about consciousness. As an adaptation (to manipulate) and as the unity of apperception and value: the giver of meaning. Quite right.
Here is my bit of speculation: The hard problem of consciousness is actually the same problem as "Why is there something rather than nothing", it's all nothing else than the mystery of existence itself being. There are actually 3 "levels" to this: 1st: The existence of the principles of physics upon which nature is based. We could already ask, why are these principles existing at all? There could not have been any principles at all, and of course you don't get much from there. 2nd: The existence of the material world. The material world seems to be nothing else than the materialization of those principles of nature - they take existence in physical form. Again, you can ask the same question: Why does this materialization have to take place, to give rise to physical existence? The principles could have sort of "been there" without any physical instance of them being enacted. 3rd: Of course, the last one is the hard problem of consciousness. Based on the 2 first ones, I think you should see now why I think this problem is very much similar to the others. Just like from principles of nature, mysterious material existence takes place, now from material existence, a mysterious subjective experience arises. Based on this, my feeling is that we wil no sooner solve the hard problem of consciousness than we will solve the one of material existence, because it is the same sort of thing. Perhaps, it simply is inevitable that whatever form of existence can emerge, emerges. There can't NOT be principles of nature, those are most probably non-contingent in the sense that it couldn't NOT be that if A implies B and B implies C, than A implies C. The absense of those principles is an impossibility, and hence their existence a necessity. Why those principles can't simply "be" without taking a mateiral form, and the material form be without a subjective form, seems harder to see as necessary, but I suspect that in a similar way as for the principles of nature, they are necessary because their absence is somehow an impossibility.
Relating existence with consciousness, how about assuming that: If existence is expressed in its most abstracted form, as a dot on a blank level board, then consciousness is the coordinate axes defining its position (x,y). In this way the coordinates validate and give a meaning to the dots presence, which otherwise would have no meaning being there and not somewhere else... Therefore I'm suspecting that the essence of consciousness might have to do something with "dimensionality" and reflection giving a meaning to existence.
The problem of consciousness and why’s there something rather than nothing is similar, but not the same, in the sense that non-experience is a 0 second instance on the experience clock, regardless of an eternity of nothingness
@Ruby Badilla All physicians / naturalists / materialists are laughing at us that we're feeling that there's something more and deeper in consciousness. In your analysis I think I found the speculation to answer them in their language: In the same way that all particles and forces of nature have been found to be 'popups' from their respective quantum fields occupying the whole spacetime, why not to assume that consciousness may be also a background field prevailing everywhere like an ocean underneath, and we are temporary drops of it...
@@thoel1 I would never ridicule someone for buying into the illusion of self. I completely understand why they do, it's a very convincing illusion. I'm not a physicist, so I don't know exactly how this relates to your analogy, but I would not consider having a strong experience of consciousness enough to warrant a theory of how it exists (in terms of a "field of consciousness" or anything like that), the way that the measurable existence of quantum particles merits theories about how they exist, when it might as well be an illusion emerging from physical processes. To me, consciousness seems to not just arise from, but fundamentally be various processes in the brain interacting with each other in complicated ways. I don't think it warrants further explanation just because we can't map out each process yet. Again, the feeling of being conscious is not evidence of this feeling being anything more than a cumulative property of having signals in the brain.
Nollhypotes No offence intended but I think you might be buying into the illusion that the “self” is an illusion. It’s a circular and self defeating hypothesis because if consciousness is just an illusion “emerging from physical processes” that occurred by chance and is not real then by the same token the physical processes that you perceive with consciousness are also an illusion. This includes the reliability of the rational processes you utilised to come to the conclusion that consciousness does not “warrant further explanation” as it is “nothing more than a cumulative property of having signals in the brain” caused by chance. This illusion of an illusion of chance that undermines logic, all knowledge and even science itself is often vociferously defended in the scramble to defend (philosophical naturalism) due to its proponents inability to accept that philosophical naturalism is unable to explain everything. “It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure” (Albert Einstein). The eminent atheist philosopher Mary Midgeley also addresses these issues in her books (Are you an Illusion) and (Science as Salvation). Midgley was famous for puncturing the scientific presumption of militant atheists and argued powerfully and intelligently that the rich variety of our imaginative life cannot be contained in the narrow bounds of a highly puritanical materialism that equates brain and self. If we are just illusions, whose illusion are we? Midgeleys books are not an attack on science or on what science does very well. However, Midgley questions what she calls the “omnicompetence" of science. Like Einstein before her she argues that science can't answer every question, least of all those of personal meaning including experience as these things reflect an actual real person. Midgley recognises this view of scientific enquiry as a myth, a narrative of meaning that is not scientific. She brilliantly highlights the mistake that our sense of self is an illusion created by a complex combination of atoms: Who is being deluded? There is no illusion if there is no one to be fooled by it. The assertion that we are being deluded assumes we exist separately from the illusion. This is basic philosophy. Midgeleys common sense approach leaves the reader to ponder the value of altruism, love, agency, meaning, purpose and what it means to be human and an actual real person. Interestingly, Midgeley was also a staunch advocate of religion. “The trouble with human beings is not really that they love themselves too much; they ought to love themselves more. The trouble is simply that they don’t love others enough” (Mary Midgeley).
It was mentioned that consciousness might depend on culture and language. I wonder if there has been studies of feral children - children raised in the wild by wolves or other animals, and later discovered and brought in by humans. It would be interesting to see if they lacked any consciousness - although I guess the cases would be very few
@@vhawk1951kl Yours is a fair critique -- so I'd invite the reader to look into the matter for themselves. I can only remind you that recorded instances of inter-species altruism are so numerous as to make the phenomenon a noncontroversial matter of fact. Why would we be so skeptical just because one of the species involved is human?
In the simplest possible terms "consciousness is a word which can sometimes be attached to particular experiences and it may be that different beings attach different words to the same or different experiences, for example if you ask a ground link what associations are evoked in his associative apparatus by the word bread he will tell you that he has associations of that filth sliced white bread, because that is what groundlings eat and therefore those are the associations that the word bread evokes in him.If you use the word grassto a tippy you will immediately think of cannabis, and by contrast if you use the word 'think' to people are many of them will assume that the random associating and talking to themselves that goes on in their heads is thinking because they don't understand that thinking is linear-goes from A to B and not circular and can only take place in complete inner silence, but few understand that and what many suppose to be'thinkig' is in fact little more than dreaming or random associating and inner talking, which is little if nothing more than dreaming, and mny will take them selves to doing that'consciously' or knowingly, but if they actually paty attention to what is going on it is plainly semi-conscious dreming a or a vague awareness of something. Now is that 'consciousness?Self evidently men (human beings can be more or less conscious and more or less asleep, and if you awaken them they will say that they were miles away or drieaming, little realising that those that dream are asleep, and some call coming back to themselves awakening or becoming conscious or experiencing the state of "with-knowledge". Quite which of those variations in state will attract the epithet conscious is a matter of some debate and disagreement.However it is utterly pointless to speak of consciousness unless you speak of consciousness of what or of something in particular which is why this particular exchange about consciousness goes nowhere but round and round in circles because the relevant beings are not speaking about the same thing or the same experience. If you say world to different people it will evoke different associations in them. To a biologist the word world will evoke associations of the biological world, and to an astronomer he will think of the starry world all the world of planets and stars but if you speak to a Native American in the jungles of the Amazon his world will be is village and the Amazon so one of the same word will evoke completely different associations in different beings and I will will have identical associations. So it is with consciousness or any other word for that matter
I would differentiate between awareness of the environment on one hand, and on the otter hand the phenomenon of consciousness experienced as a perpetual sensation of now indicating the relation between the biophysiological systems we are, and the environment we interact with. That is to say, when you watch tv, or listen to a narrative (either from someone else or your own), you’re still being conscious, only in a different operating mode, much like hypnosis. There are differences in levels of consciousness that correspond to neurological correlates: brainwave functions. Depending in which frequency band the neural activity is operating, the qualitative experience will be different, correlating to that quantitative difference of neural activity.
@@stevoofd CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point. YOUR WELCOME -SAM ELS
look at the etymology and you will discover that the word 'conscious' is compounded of two Latin words meaning with knowledge, which demands both a knower and that which is known be specified, thus consciousness of what?
A man can observe his own thoughts!! So, the man becomes an observer and an observed too!! That is called awareness of consciousness!! More there are spaces between the two thoughts more the man becomes aware about the consciousness!!!!
@@reenaverma8576 I am not a dolphin expert, but doing PhD in evo-devo Biology, i saw a documentary referencing some dolphins study, when they watch in a mirror they know and did some reactions which was proofing they know its in mirror they are looking at themselves i do not remember the action but that was not reaction. and scholar was damn sure about that it is due to that signal. so i think when they are observer and they are observing that observation and aware of that then we can call that consciousness. by defination above then what would you call that its really amazing, and in a documantary women teaches word and dolphin learned that. very basic but you should see that
I pretend to believe,... in a moment, that I'm in a pitch black cave, floating in a gel that's the same temperature as my body,.. that I might escape Consciousness,... yet I'm still aware of the cave, the gel, and not being able to see anything! 🤪
I wish this enjoyable video explored the simulation hypothesis. Why do we assume (and I'm very much including Advaita here too) that consciousness is so fundamental? Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to understand itself." I'm profoundly interested in the possibility of a kind of "demiurgic universe", i.e., "All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players." Yet, what if our consciousness is no more than an advanced digital construct that utilizes consciousness as just another game element?
What I know now is that consciousness can not be understood using logic or philosophy. It cannot be read about, it can only be felt. Also it is not necessarily a problem to solve but an unbelievably mysterious phenomenon that is best experienced, as the experience of being is actually a miracle in its own right and through experience only will come closer to the deeper understanding of this mysterious existence. If you're close to dying from thirst, You can read about all types of water and your thirst will never quench.I believe that meditation and awareness and joy of life is the water we've thirst for - society and the education system has played a grand role in taking our souls and freedom, we need to take it back at any cost.
I havegiven that a thumbs up save for the use of the word "soul", which you do not even attempt to define. If you seek to convey in general that the experience of consciousness is a mystery and an alive question that does not need to be killed with some answer and that is that, then I am wholly with you, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "soul", and I have a shrewd idea that neither do you and that you are about to demonstrate that by signally failing to set out what you mean by soul.By the same token I have no idea why it is that some beings suppose themselves to come with a soul, so to say "ready-made" rather than something as to be acquired, and I have a shrewd idea that you have no idea why they do that either, but then you are about to demonstrate that you have no idea what a soul is, or my left pocket owes my right pocket £20.
If you find consciousness intriguing.....here is a taste on how we investigate consciousness and other mind properties. We have the technology to create "mini brains" in the lab. neurosciencenews.com/petri-dish-mini-brain-6342/ We can quantify the function of those mini brains and we find out brainwaves resembling baby brain's activity. www.sciencealert.com/brain-tissue-grown-in-the-lab-produces-brainwaves-resemblings-pre-term-babies We have identify the responsible smallest area for conscious states since 2013 (and we keep challenging our hypothesis) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/ and we constantly refine the model.We even have a definition that those "philosophical" videos always fail to give. We can use those findings and explain how comas work. science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/coma1.htm We have mapped the area of the brains that enable consious states. thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_12/d_12_cr/d_12_cr_con/d_12_cr_con.html and we no longer are excluded from other peoples subjective conscious thoughts! We can observe them as they form and decode them. www.cmu.edu/dietrich/news/news-stories/2017/june/brain-decoding-complex-thoughts.html We can read complex conscious thoughts by looking at brain scans with 85% accuracy. We also have developed technology to enforce our Strong correlations between brain patterns and the content of conscious decisions neurosciencenews.com/freely-behaving-brain-16426/ ( on mice). We identify the mechanisms responsible for consciousness modulation pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32053769/ We construct theories on observable mechanisms responsible for generating and ceasing conscious states neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-brain-generation-loss-13009/ We have applications that predicts recovery or conscious states (up to 92% accuracy) by observing the reaction of responsible areas of the brain . neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-sniff-test-16445/ We have answers FOR REAL HARD PROBLEMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (what connects awareness - the state of consciousness - with its contents, i.e. thoughts and experiences.) neurosciencenews.com/l5p-neuron-conscious-awareness-14997/ We are refining our techniques so that we can detect Hidden conscious states.....previously used as an excuse for the promotion of magical explanations. neurosciencenews.com/eeg-hidden-consciousness-tbi-14354/ neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-brain-patterns-10698/ We develop theories that we can test. That is not true for idealistic and new age ideas. They are mostly expression of arguments from ignorance .(feeding on the unknown). neurosciencenews.com/brain-organization-consciousness-15132/ neurosciencenews.com/math-subliminal-perception-consciousness-14540/ We have healthy challenges within our studies by publishing results for peer reviewing! Those results are testable and reproducible...not magical assumptions. neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-pathway-10276/ We identify the mechanisms responsible for the changes our memories experience when we recall them. neurosciencenews.com/updating-mechanism-false-memory-16438/ We identify the brain structure that controls our behavior neurosciencenews.com/behavior-brain-structure-16422/ We identify centers of the brain responsible for shutting down pain and specific outside world stimuli neurosciencenews.com/shut-down-pain-16412/
CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point. YOUR WELCOME -SAM ELS
It makes sense that having an “I” to take care of would make our ancestors take care of “themselves” would be selected for evolutionarily. I like your thinking
12:01 props to the camera crew for the way they set up the interview, somehow framing Koch in a metaphorical shot where the red glowing triangle above huis head represents an alien light bulb epiphany he had about approaching consciousness.
CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point. YOUR WELCOME -SAM ELS
@@urbancentral5576 God is an unscientific theoretical construct. Everything that god can do, nature can do too. Why do you choose the hidden proposition instead of the one before you?
The crew don't set up the interview old boy, that is a function of the director or producer. The crew don't have time to set things up; they have better things to do and doing them, not organising setting things up.
Henry David Thoreau's description of consciousness: “I only know myself as a human entity; the scene, so to speak, of thoughts and affections; and I'm sensible of a certain doubleness by which I can stand as remote from myself as another. However intense my experience, I am conscious of the presence and criticism of a part of me, which, as it were, is not a part of me, but spectator, sharing no experience, but taking note of it; and that is no more I than it is you. When the play, it may be the tragedy, of life is over, the spectator goes his way. It was a kind of fiction, a work of the imagination only.”
What do you suppose is knowing or experiencing itself? Anyone that can come up with "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life, " cannot be a complete fool.
I love how you're able to gather the most intelligent thinkers to give their differing opinions on a subject without trying to guide us to a conclusion. really, your show is special and valuable. so if you can step outside of the one real everything, give it form and define it, then you might be able to define consciousness. I don't think it's possible to do that because there is no outside the one everything, and therefore no inside; yet rationally, you know there is just one everything. you need an inside and an outside for time to be relevant, so time is only relevant to finite particulars like us who have relationship to other particulars.... which is really cool, because I like distinction, relationship and "things" that "move" from "my" point of view because this dynamic co creates the story. by the way that lady's answer is perfect...if she gave evidence, what would you expect her to show you? it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that consciousness is emergent from brain functions; the hardware of the brain might be like transceiver hardware that receives and transmits something more fundamental. or if you want to take it another step further, "matter" might be emergent from "Mind". what seems to emerge, in my opinion, is "identity."
@@nickolasgaspar9660 If "we(which I take to be imaginary) can have knowledge, can " we" also have an headache? What exactly is your knowledge-of what? in this field?
Consciousness is the translation of the brain how much it is informed and capable as knowledge and then what kind of chemicals it will produce upon brains decoding 🙏🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
Consciousness is everything from quarks through to the universe. Our brains do not create consciousness, they create our individuality giving us a singular and unique view of consciousness.
"us" being you and who else?-Your imaginary friend? Conscious*Of what*?If you say "I know" without more, you say nothing, but apparently struggle to grasp that.
Our brains set up patterns of reactions to various experiences. We are attracted to or interested in some things we come across and we avoid others. When we reflect upon those experiences, we become more aware of our own choices and that, to me, is consciousness. So I agree with you that your individual preferences and choices build up your picture of yourself and of the reality around you and it is that cumulative picture which is your consciousness of life. You may notice that your version of consciousness matches with that of quite a few other people, and you may have a rather different kind of consciousness than others have.
So many point to the fact that consciousness is fundamental and what our experiences arise within. To that end, some point out, the brain is what receives, processes and filters information *from* consciousness. It is hard to define a non physical experience using math, concepts and language built to work with the physical. That is what some mean when they say, 'you can't get there from here'. It is rather surprising there is little here representing the science of non local consciousness, meaning consciousness outside the brain. REF University of VA - Bruce Greyson, MD
Consciousness is based on nothing more than what we find interesting. If I want i can rewind my day and relive my day step by step . Reliving two days ago may be a bit harder but in time I can relive it As well. The many things my Consciousness will remember more vividly will be the experiences i found intriguing.
As well as learning from the experiences that we find interesting, I think that we also learn from experiences that we find meaningful, frightening, attractive, puzzling, nourishing and comforting, and also those which seem to fit into a picture that we already have of reality. I think your consciousness has been expanded by the recording above and by the discussions of some of the people on this internet page. As a result of that experience, you will either seek out more similar experiences or will move away to other experiences.
That might be described as psychological algebra: x-y=x, where x and y have no value, or simply substituting one unknow(spirit)for another(conscious); it defines nothing and tells you no more than x=y=x. consciousness is spirit is consciousness, tells me absolutely nothing. It is no kind of definition, and begs the question: What is spirit? - But doubtless you will reveal it to be consciousness and round and round we go. x=y=x. What do you call (whatever might be)'the spirit living in the human body'? Why consciousness of course and we are back to square one; x=y=x. You see your problem?
How refreshing: no looking for truth in the wrong places (i.e. "consciousness is primary"). Stay within what science KNOWS and maybe I will continue to watch.
Exactly the wrong channel for you to watch Tom Rafferty. Here the scientist is pondering phenomena that do not lend themselves to strict scientific inquiry. There are plenty of websites for you out there dealing with directly observable and measurable ...
Vlado H , the man is a PhD in science and should know better than to waste time talking to philosophers, theologians, and pseudo scientists and expecting answers to questions regarding objective reality.
@@86645ut Fair enough. But where do you go for fresh ideas/ inspiration when you hit the wall? You quit rather than continue exploring outside exhausted sources? BTW, I am not aware of him interviewing pseudo scientists.
Vlado H , I only look to science to understand objective reality. I otherwise enjoy sports, history, and my family to name just a few of my activities . Oh, Deepak Chopra is one pseudo scientist.
1. Consciousness is holding the same place in the universe what it holds in my dream. 2. My dream (Including me and others, who were living in my dream) was imagined, seen and known by consciousness, which was independent of my dream. 3. The universe(Including me and others who are living in the universe) is imagined, seen and known by consciousness, which is independent of the universe.
Rupert Sheldrake's beautifully explained quality of a consiousness thus...our brain..the source of seeing, is inside our head. When we see a bird fly or a tree it is not inside our head..it is in our conciosness!! Thus it has its own quality , independent, outside of us..!! Absolutely fascinating!! The world around us is perceived by our conciousness!
Interesting theory so that indicates in the future we humans may evolve into conscious gods and we may become telepathic even though there already is proof humans can be telepathic. Good stuff.
@@Micscience Even better, there will be time when all subconscious becomes conscious and man will have total illustration and answers for everything. Or he can now tap into universal network to navigate among true and false directions with the compass of not-to-do inherited from Heaven. Man is a free cause from all causalities and can create.
CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point. YOUR WELCOME -SAM ELS
@@mohammadsareh4732 CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point. YOUR WELCOME -SAM ELS
Our conscious experience though private is not absolutely private and unknown and mysterious to others. For example, after I've listened to a piece of music played from a HiFi set I move away and let my friend take my seat and replay the CD. I'm confident he'll share more or less the same subjective experience as mine, though maybe different emotional overtones.
"the hard problem is we have to get rid of the hard problem".. I might say absolutely. "What is conciousness?." is not a question about anything but a symptom of the intellects conceptual relationship to itself. It can lead to mental illness and isn't healthy yet it's a necessity to ask at the same time.
CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point. YOUR WELCOME -SAM ELS
Consciousness and it's non dual and connected nature was first discussed in the Vedas and Upanishads(believed to be written around 3000 BC), the ancient texts of Hinduism in ancient India...1000s of years before David Chalmers ever thought about the hard problem..
@@vhawk1951kl Hey man, its written in English and the 11 people who liked it understood what it meant. So instead of questioning everybody why don't you explain what you understood it meant? (By the way what was written there s true.. Just some reading will let you figure that out.. unless you are some kind of christian nut who wanna deny credit to other cultures or religions)
@@sweetchinmusic801 And you are telling me that you have not the faintest idea what it means. Consider this: "Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect, whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided,once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too. A question, perhaps, does sometimes arise in him when he hears an entirely unfamiliar word the first time; but in this case he is content merely to substitute for the unfamiliar word another suitable word of familiar consonance and then to imagine that he has understood it. To bring home what has just been said, an excellent example is provided by the word so often used by every contemporary man “consciousness.” If people knew how to grasp for themselves what passes in their thoughts when they hear or use the word ”world,” then most of them would have to admit-if of course they intended to be sincere-that the word carries no exact notion whatever for them. Catching by ear simply the accustomed consonance, the meaning of which they assume that they know, it is as if they say to themselves “Ah, consciousness, I know what this is,” and serenely go on thinking. Should one deliberately arrest their attention on this word and know how to probe them to find just what they understand by it, they will at first be plainly as is said “embarrassed,” but quickly pulling themselves together, that is to say, quickly deceiving themselves, and recalling the first definition of the word that comes to mind, they will then offer it as their own, although, in fact, they hadn’t thought of it before. If one has the requisite power and could compel a group of contemporary people, even from among those who have received so to say “a good education,” to state exactly how they each understand the word cons piousness,” they would all so “beat about the bush” that involuntarily one would recall even castor oil with a certain tenderness. Let me guess, you are an American. If so of course you imagine that you have some command of English; it is a common misapprehension amongst such creatures.
@@vhawk1951kl Hey Man.. whatever you have stated, you are not the first person to come up with all this.. people have been pondering these for 1000s of years.. As mentioned read the Vedas and Upanishads, the ancient Hindu scriptures.. the books with oldest discussion on consciousness..
@@sweetchinmusic801 Absolutely fascinating; to what is that relevant?-Where and what is your syllogism? If it helps I refer you to the definition of relevance as set out by one professor Cross is as follows:" a piece of information or evidence is " relevant" if it is capable of forming the major premise of a syllogism" Hence where and what is your syllogism? So(or there fore) what if"I am not the first person to come up with all this.. people have been pondering these for 1000s of years.. As mentioned read the Vedas and Upanishads, the ancient Hindu scriptures.. the books with oldest discussion on consciousness.." I repeat: Where and what is you syllogism? Who told you that" people have been pondering these for 1000s of years.. As mentioned read the Vedas and Upanishads, the ancient Hindu scriptures.. the books with oldest discussion on consciousness", and why do you believe them or do you suggest that your experience is that of "000s of years"? You will forgive me if I dismiss that as a rational possibility. In which Veda and Upanishad does the term " consciousness" appear, chapter and verse? yeah, right.
Everything that is not your brain is just as important to consciousness as your brain. There must be something to be conscious of to have consciousness. In order to be yourself you need everyone who is not yourself to differentiate.
This episode starts with a beautiful piece of classical music. I am curious about the composer and whether it is part of a larger work. Or is it a melody written by an unknown composer especially for this series?
Mr. Kuhn, I would humbly request you to kindly also take the perspective of the "Vedanta Society of NY" on this topic of "What is Consciousness". You could meet Swami Sarvapriyananda.
what you think the source of their conversation.....they are already learning form Vedanta etc....but don't give them any credit.....as they are still on starting phase.
If a dogs sees a stranger, it may growl or bark. Its reactions are instinctive, based on valuable survival mechanisms. It doesn't then evaluate its own reactions. If I snap angrily at someone I don't Iike, that's also instinctive. However I have a longer range of memory than a dog I may remember that people at the office are reacting negatively to my bad temper. I also have the brain power necessary to anticipate how life at work could become very uncomfortable if people stop liking me. That memory and that anticipatory image are a form of consciousness which may enable me to choose to avoid my instinctive behaviour next time I meet this person. I may choose a level of politeness which enables us to work cooperatively together even though we may not enjoy each others' personalities. I may make this choice partly from an instinctive need to fit in with the group and partly as a more conscious response to a difficult situation. I can also talk over these choices with a psychologist, thus making my choices even more conscious. Unlike animals, we humans can think about the interplay between our instincts and the other goals we choose to have. We can lift our thinking to a more abstract level at any moment e.g. before biting into an apple, we can pause and marvel at the complex patterns between the little dashes of red and green on the apple skin. We can glance at the sky to decide if we need a raincoat and also enjoy the greys, purples and mistiness that we see there. Like animals we have useful instinctive reactions and we have increased our likelihood of survival by being able to evaluate our reactions consciously and even to then think about the topic of consciousness. We can exercise and thus increase our consciousness through humour and creativity. The large number of humans on the planet is evidence of how useful consciousness is for survival. We are currently using data going back over centuries to predict the dangers presented by global warming and using the enhancement of shared consciousness available via social media to encourage a coordinated response to this change. With our shared consciousness, we can decide if global warming will enable a creative response which could improve life for everyone - especially the animals whose survival relies on our ability to make conscious choices.
All the things that you name are just part of the human intellect. Consciousness is something deeper and probably simpler. Both humans and dogs have consciousness, but the first ones move through the intellect and instincts and the second ones mainly through instinct. Both are able to observe the happiness or the panic of a determined moment.
@@andrest75 It seems like you regard instinctive reactions as consciousness. I agree that whenever a dog is awake, we say that it is conscious. However, I think of "consciousness" as a kind of awareness of one's self that uses memory and also the ability to think about the future as a way of bringing much more reflection to bear upon life than an animal can. I think most animals just rely on instinctive reactions so they have fewer choices in what they can do.
Consciousness is awareness and perception . The level of awareness and perception one is on. The default consciousness and perception is lowest, and more aware of feelings than anything else.
Prayers are retrospection... and yet people who pray, really think they are communicating with a supernatural being, outside of their mind. It is far easier to fool oneself than to learn truth. Awareness and perception are apparent in mice and men in equal proportion. Consciousness is not what makes the human mind special.
Consciousness is all that exists for eternity - represented in our world as 'the eternal now which we inhabit'. It is the dreamer of reality, and the only thing experiencing anything - which is 'itself'. It is also a fractal... which is why we can dream new worlds at night. Brains don't generate consciousness, rather consciousness generates brains as a 2nd person perspective of another fractal node. The brains job is consciousness reducer... making the infinite experience finiteness. I'd love to see an episode on psychedelics, given the profound effects they have on ones consciousness. Whatever your worldview, given that those things (and those experiences) exists, they need to be explored. Otherwise, you will only get to the limits of truth available in consensus reality. drive.google.com/open?id=1V73IO7Hbj6KHEhZGgJsp3QSz5X8tcV1-TIc8tvz49Kg
Agreed, but spiritual, holistic observations regarding the true nature of Mind are considered forbidden territory to even mention in Western academia because of what they imply.
@@platonicforms562 The older close-minded generation is dying off. Psychedelics are on the verge of becoming mainstream. Humanity is on the verge of coming to a consensus on metaphysics. That will be the equivalent to a 2nd coming of Christ... at which point the entire game changes. Not just a technical singularity, but a consciousness singularity... and most people can't see it coming.
@UCJdNomhpprdzxYzUrFJdsHQ Mathematics is necessarily confined to the 'dream' of consensus reality. In that dream, consciousness (God, unified, whole, eternal, alone) imagines itself to be more than 1 thing, then takes perspectives in the dream to interact with itself. Math is the language of the dream. It all points to the dreamer. However, from the perspective of 'dreamer' there is only 1 thing - awareness without content. Math exists only in-so-far as this awareness chooses to be aware of it. It, just like other thoughts, sensations, emotions, etc. appear in consciousness as content. They are dependent on consciousness, just like everything else. Time is a similar construct - the ordering / remembering of these various qualia / sensations - but it too always happens in the 'eternal now'. It is purely concept - but it works from the relativistic finite perspective of the dream. I understand all this sounds... unorthodox - but these are various states of consciousness that can be experienced and verified... for yourself. It is not something we can verify with science. It is like trying to use science to learn about your sleeping body while still involved in the dream. It is the wrong domain entirely. It isn't until you 'awaken' that the illusion of the dream is revealed - and science can't awaken people. Psychedelics can :)
@@Takeitinnblood The metaphysics I'm trying to explain works something like this. God / consciousness / pure awareness dreams universes, and takes all the perspectives in them (human, plant, animal, even matter not yet wrapped around a conscious perspective). Math (as a phenomena) is a concept of this singular consciousness. It manifests somewhere in the creative process of 'the dream' as a representation of the structure on which the dream is built. As a perspective in the dream, it is then 'discovered' - but every discovery is God (in perspective form) discovering something about the makeup of the dream (in physical universe form). Math also reflects something about the dreamer. For example, I don't believe God can 'lie' to us about himself - so math must be consistent. This is because we are manifestations of God, so it would be God lying to himself. That said, math is dependent on this God dreaming and 'splitting' into various dualities (God as 1 is nondual). God / consciousness / pure awareness can 'not' dream, at which point the concept 'math' disappears with the rest of the universe... which is all a concept in God's mind. At that point, there isn't perspectives in 'the dream' to discover math... all having been drawn back (for lack of a better word) to 'source'. I do appreciate the disagreement, iron sharpening iron and all that.
@@Takeitinnblood Thank you for the ongoing discussion - I'm enjoying it from my end. Let me see if I can address your criticisms. If you haven't read it yet, you may like the little ~25 pg booklet I wrote and linked in the first email. It covers many of the topics we are discussing. To your first point, about using the word 'dream' to describe consensus reality, there are a 3 ways I'd like to address this. 1. Consciousness does one thing, generates (to avoid both 'dream' and 'create') worlds and simultaneously enters into them. We know this from our own dreams - a world full of content appears, and "I" appear in it - and 100% of it has its existence in my sleeping consciousness. From the perspective of 'in the dream', my sleeping consciousness is the 'ground of being'. 2. What is 'real'? This is what consciousness does, then 'all things experienced by consciousness are real'. In that view, dreams are 'real' of a sort - they aren't 'consensus reality'... but neither are thoughts, emotions, or sensations - yet we don't write them off as 'unreal'. In my booklet, I call this error 'reality discounting' because we do it so often. 3. That said, we do try to discern what is 'real' in a comparative fashion. This is why many of us discount dreams, because compared to consensus reality they are illusory. Psychedelics have the capacity to cause us to 'wake up' from consensus reality and experience consciousness without the dream. This experience feels 'more real' than consensus reality... indeed, this universe is shown to be illusion in comparison... just like this reality shows your dream to be an illusion (even if you can't tell while in the dream). 4. As a bonus point, this is also why hallucinating can be so hard for people and can make them 'crazy'. Their conscious experience has extra entities in it - but epistemologically there is no reason to tag them as 'illusion'. If you can't trust your conscious experience to be 'real' - what can you trust? That doesn't mean you can't be mistaken (everyone knows that) - but determining the basic fact of "Is there a pink elephant in the corner of my room" is only secondarily a question of consensus. If it is appearing in my consciousness, and my senses are activating and I experience associated qualia, then it must have the same quality of 'realness' as everything else. In fact, many hallucinations are 'hyper real' as in their reality is unquestionable, more so than consensus reality. It is extra confusing because it seems like it SHOULD also appear in yours, but it doesn't. Let me see if I can address your 2nd point about the word 'takes', this time in 1 bullet. 1. Typing this particular sentence is a unique experience in the history of the cosmos. There is a unique combination of qualia, pressure on my fingers, the thoughts occurring at the same time being typed out. It is a 100% unique event in the history of this universe in every way. Our position in the galaxy is brand new in this moment, birds / animals / etc. are all in a 100% unique position - each moment is a unique reality unto itself. God must be the one experiencing all these qualia from all these entities, because they are in every way unique... even as they are 'similar' from our finite point of view. We could use words like God 'adorns' himself with our perspectives for a while (lifetime) - but the point is that from the finite side God creates a fractal 'bend' in cosmic consciousness, then wraps it in some of the contents of the dream we call flesh, causing a brand new perspective in the dream for God to enjoy. In order for God to be fully Omniscient, God must (by definition) experience all experiences. The word 'takes' is a nod to the finiteness that is me as a created being - but from the perspective of the infinite I exist as eternity. Perhaps the word 'incarnation' might be better than 'manifestation'. Use whatever word you would use to describe the process of dreaming a universe and entering into it. Is that 'entering into it' a manifestation of your sleeping consciousness or an incarnation? Now do that for every human, animal, plant, bacteria, etc. - anything that can experience qualia in whatever form. To your last point about Math, that depends on what awareness we are talking about - what position in the fractal hierarchy. If we are talking about our incarnate / finite awareness then math is transcendent to that. If we are talking about God as unified consciousness, then Math is a concept in the mind of God from that perspective... a concept consistent with the never-changing nature of God, but ultimately a dependent concept that God (as awareness) transcends. If we are contemplating God as a no-thing or as One, then the concept of Math doesn't even apply as there is nothing else in existence and God is undivided. It is only from within the universe, where we exist in a realm of apparent divisions and dualities that Math even makes sense. Think about it this way - God dreams a Universe, and the language God uses to dream that universe is Math. From within the universe, we discover that language and learn about the dream (and God by extension). God > God Dreams > | Math > physical universe (consensus reality) > your perspective > your dream | slightly wonky math > dream universe > your perspective > etc. (false awakenings are a thing, so nested dreams are a thing too). The upright bars indicate a shift in identity, where one reality folds into the next. If you have an 'awakening', you shift through those bars and the dream fades away and you experience the reality transcendent to it. In the case of moving from your dream to consensus reality, that happens every morning. To go from consensus reality to 'God' you need to either die or have some other 'mystical experience'. There isn't another physical reality waiting on the other side - pure spirit. They also represent 'memory blocks', which is why mystical experiences are described as 'ineffable' and why remembering dreams can be so difficult. Memory is dependent on this universe, and is part of the illusion of turning the experience of 'eternity' into 'finite reality'.
Book suggestion: ''The Stairway to Consciousness: The Birth of Self-Awareness from Unconscious Archetypes'' by Dr. Thomas Stark (E-book available at Amazon)
Consciousness brings together all reality everywhere. Consciousness manifests in human persons as inner awareness. Consciousness interacts with human minds through language.
i think consciousness can be explained in a small phrase, to me, consciousness is a combinaison of three things, the experiences you lived, your brain and you heart, you can choose either to turn it off and become a devil or turn it on and become an angel.
Conscious of what? Conscious ness having to do with being conscious or conscious of something specific, because it is an English word compounded of two lain words to give with_knowledge.I you say " I know" without more, you say nothing, exactly if you say" I see" without more, you say nothing. it is meaningless to speak of consciousness without specifying consciousness *of what*, but what the hell, if you can't mumbo, you might as well jumbo.
How is that paradox, point one, and point two, how do you know that what you are(whatever you mean by)" feeling" is (whatever you mean by) " consciousness, which means with_ knowledge, because it contains 'sci' which comes from the Latin infinitive sciere- to know, or its first person singular scio-I know, so all words with sci in them, science, conscience, conscious, all relate to knowledge, thus conscious ness is a form of knowing, and what is that? In my respectful submission I know when I experience directly personally immediately as direct immediate and personal as pin , which you may agree sets the bar rather high , but can you better it? The difficulty with " feel" is that it embraces so many experiences and is rather vague and generalised. If what-is-called" consciousness" is knowledge or knowing, then the question is forced(not begged) knowing what? Surly consciousness or knowledge or knowing is transitive and demands a something that is known, or it is meaningless? I saw(simpliciter and without what I saw, is meaningless or just so vague and generalised as to be meaningless. Yo follow? it is the same with I know, or I experienced, or (if you will) I " felt". Thus consciousness in a vacuum and without an object or context is equally meaningless, or unfinished, vague, general,or just good old-fashioned dreamy, but when I experience consciousness or I AM_ness, it is anything but vague, general or dreamy, but as direct and immediate as pain, you agree?
@@vhawk1951kl hahaha it's a way of talking, relax. I see you are one of these people who would kill for the religion of what's correct and what's not, what's scientifically proven and what's not, what's logical and what's "dreamy". I find extremely interesting how you used dreamy as a peyorative term. I won't even answer to what you wrote, I will just encourage you to view language as something rich and extremely profound, way more than the world of facts. Don't get lost in the words, in meanings, in definitions; life feels like a dream if you snap out of the lustful desire of labelling everything. Wisdom comes from whithin.
The word 'consciousness' is a pet peeve of mine. 'Con' means 'against' and 'scious' means 'know/knowing', so, 'consciousness' technically means 'against knowing'. I prefer the terms 'self-awareness' and/or 'inner-knowing'.
Tho Paine In Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Almost all of its uses are in the negative. In particular, see the entries under: Noun, Entry 5 of 12, and Adverb, entry 6 of 12. They are quite specific, but those aside, almost all of the rest have negative 'con'notations. Check all of the meanings and you'll see what I mean. The English language is filled with inverted meanings. It is form of 'spell-casting' meant to subconsciously 'con'volute and 'con'fuse...Black Magic without it even being known by the speakers or spellers, including when they write in 'curs'ive.
Yes, friend, as a noun, verb or adverb, the term “con” has a negative connotation; but as a prefix or bound morpheme, i.e., how it’s used in the term “consciousness”, it doesn’t have that connotation, as it simply means “with”, “together” or “joint.” Just check etymology online - www.etymonline.com/word/con-
@@Takeitinnblood What sense does 'together-knowing' or 'joint-knowing' even mean, and why use them as opposed to simply 'knowing'? It doesn't make any sense. As to your source, so what about that? This is FAR from the only word of a long and growing list of words that have been inverted and perverted. It's all about the power of the written and spoken word, and how they are used to get people to use them against themselves. Look into the Great Vowel Shift in English, and perhaps stop blindly questioning the sources handed to you... friend.
@@spectrepar2458 I notice this same thing in terms of free will. Some people seem to have very little leeway to act. They just do the same thing over and over like a scripted character or NPC. It makes you wonder.
@@spectrepar2458 What kills me is that some people can get new information that what they are doing is not helpful, and they will ignore the new information, or just poo-poo it away so that they can continue to do the wrong thing. It's like they can't grasp that any action is a means to an end. If the action does not move you toward your goal, then you should change your actions, but many people are attached to the action rather than the goal. For example, they want to buy a house, but they enjoy spending money too much to save a down payment or improve their credit score. Or if someone tells you that your kidney stones are caused by not drinking enough water, but you don't want to drink more. It is not logical.
@@spectrepar2458 If you look at humans as a hive instead of individuals, this uncritical conformist behavior is very adaptive. It doesn't matter what happens to any individual as long as the group moves forward. It has taken us this far, so there must be something to it.
@@spectrepar2458 Sure, all that stuff is true, but my point is that if 10,000 individuals start businesses tomorrow, the fact that 9000 of them will be out of business, and maybe bankrupt and ruined, does not take away from the fact that society will benefit from the success of the few. 10K may bet a stock is going up tomorrow, and 10K bet that it goes down. The fact is that 10K will be losers and the other 10K will think themselves geniuses doesn't seem to matter in the least. In many ways we are a hive or a collective, or maybe a super-organism.
Consciousness, is the "stuff" all matter is made of. No Consciousness, no matter. No spirit, no life. Consciousness, is immeasurable. Attempting to measure, or define a source of consciousness within matter, is a misdirected notion. First principle? Consciousness can be neither measured nor contained. Indeed, all matter is a representation and an expression of Consciousness. The brain does not "generate" consciousness.
@@richardfinlayson1524 The brain is akin in function to a power transformer used to reduce higher voltages for powering homes etc to a lower 115 volts. Just as a word is a reduction & an expression of a thought, so too is the body a reduction and expression of Consciousness.
The first guy is totally off base. I know..."Who are you to challenge an expert in the field?" No one, but in all of what he said not one thing could help in any way to understand consciousness. He sounded more like someone making up riddles and trying to appear superior while only confusing those listening.
I thought the first guy had good points. Why do we presume that our experience of consciousness is even valid, and not just an illusion manufactured from the fact that we don't have complete access to our own minds?
Funny you should say that. Although I don't share his views I think that Simon Blackburn is one of the best of the speakers at maintaining a sceptical position and not falling into assumption.
The first guy is the only one who understands that there isn't such a thing as " a hard problem of consciousness". "why" questions are not scientific questions or even serious ones. Why something appears the way it does is not a serious question. ITs like asking why a discharging electron emits light or something...there isn't a why, it just does. We can study how comes and it emits photons by not neutrinos but searching teleology and meaning in nature is a fallacy.(begging the question). The same debate with life concluded with science solving the whole mechanism of the phenomenon, and magical thinkers and pseudo philosophers insisting that "matter alone can not explain why is life".....so we can't explain why there can be life from material processes, but there is and we should stop asking useless why questions. We did what we are justified to do and we ....answer the how questions and we should limit our selves to these type of questions.
I was in a terrible accident , I almost died,the experience was so amazing, that I’m actually glad I got to experience it, I had absolutely no idea of what my brain was capable of
I think it is. There seem to be some impressions which are embedded in the feeling of subjectivity: experience seems to be happening to me, here, now. All of those ideas could be challenged. As Simon Blackburn said, we cannot know whether we were conscious a moment ago and all seeming evidence to that effect would be a content of current experience so time is at best an inference from experience which is always only immediate. Likewise, regarding space, where does here end and there begin? The screen you are looking at now seems to be a certain distance from the point of experience but where is the experience occurring? Is there anything to the existence of the screen apart from the experience of it? The space in between the presumed screen and the presumed experiencer is just an inference. Finally, if we agree that we cannot find a place where the experience is occurring other than 'here' how can we be sure that there is an experiencER, a me? All we know is that there is experiencING and it is known. By what, we just don't know.
There is either something wherever or there is not - as in space between your ears.How exactly does "we" "perceived space? - Apart from looking between your ears.
"The smell of cheese" is an object of consciousness, Not consciousness itself. Objects of consciousness depend on consciousness. Consciousness does not depend on any of its objects.
abhishek shukla check every wise tradition in every period of human history. only NOT western thought (in general) from descartes until now. ego cogito, ergo sum (the ego as subject) and reality (world, reality [everything else] becomes object). and so materialism en separation became the leading paradigm.
You all think in terms of "objects" and substances when you should thing in terms of "processes". The smell of cheese is a stimuli caused by the cheese "airborne" molecules locking to our nose receptors and creating a unique electro-chemical input that our brain compares it to our previous input and classifies it as cheese. If you like cheese then the unconscious system of your brain induces an array of emotions and functions that prepares you to taste it (saliva, dopamine anticipation mechanism etc). COnsciousness is not responsible for the content of a conscious thought. Our conscious state just help us to direct our attention at specific stimuli. The content is created by the connectivity that emerges during those states between our memory brain modules, our reasoning and meaning module, our experience(previous input), our pattern recognition modules, our basic emotions triggered by endorphins and other rewarding mechanisms and so on. There isn't such a magical thing as a "monolithic" conscious mind property. Its an emergent result of a really complex brain function of many specialized areas of the brain.
@@bennyskim "you keep saying consciousness isn't responsible for & doesn't create the content, but use the word "emerge" in its place." -Emergence is the mechanism responsible for all advanced properties caused by physical structures beyond the basic quantum scale of matter. Consciousness is the state that allows our brain to focus on an environmental or organic stimuli and process it by connecting the rest of our brain modules responsible for reason, pattern recognition, previous experiences, memory etc. Consciousness is just a state..nothing is "created" as an entity or a substance...it just allows through complex connections between different brain parts to process the stimuli and produce meaningful content. -" whether you think consciousness is "created", "emerged", "hosted" etc. etc. is irrelevant " -No it isn't. This is what we are investigating in science, how a brain is aroused by stimuli and put in this conscious state and how it can process it, thus produce a meaning full content about it. -" it's undeniable that you are experiencing reality in this moment, and the hard problem gets at the question/problem of what that is you're right that eyes are not much different than cameras - but a hard problem arises in why i'm able to see but a camera isn't" -Why questions are pseudo philosophical questions. Why a discharging electron produces light(photons)...this is what it does. We can reflect and process the info provided by our eyes because we have a brain that interprets those photons and tries to find meaning and predict the scenario we are going to experience. There isn't an answer to this "WHY" question of yours. As you said we are conscious...undeniably and we are searching to find out the mechanisms responsible for that. So the correct question should be How on earth our brain takes those stimuli and manages to construct meaning and causal relations. What are the responsible causal mechanisms for those representations and thoughts.
We are developing a way to literally read minds, there are already positive results but from what I can recall I heard that no matter how accurate we can read a mind there will always be inaccuracies.
@@neilcreamer8207 I wish I could remember what program I heard about this on, but I do remember Mishou Kaku talking about it on 'Big Think', he was saying that in about 25 to 30 years we won't have to type in what we want to say on social media, people will be able to communicate by reading words in your mind and feeling your feelings. Don't quote me on the exact words he used. Also it may have been on a different science show. It was more recently ( last couple of months) that I heard on a reputable science program that we have actually read minds although not accurately.
It seems to me that trying to find consciousness through the brain is like trying to discover the creation of music inside of a Radio set when we have no knowledge of sound waves. We just cannot find the musicians inside of the box. Perhaps when we realise consciousness exists outside of our bodies and that our brain acts is a receiver, an enabler, then we might also realise that consciousness is fundamental and we exist outside of a physical body.
I believe that consciousnes is as present in us as it is in a single cell, it's just at different levels of perception, awareness and manifestation. There's a noun wich is deeply linked to it and I believe is needed to define consciousness... I define it as "The ability for an entity to percieve, to store, to process, to decide upon and transmit INFORMATION by non deterministic means" which leaves me with another and more important question: ¿What came first, Consciousness or Information?
Please don't stop doing these wonderful interviews!!! Best UA-cam-Channel😊
faranakhedayat
These videos are an absolute treasure!!
@@MyCatFooed only if you ignore the science of the field....
@SRBPS आकाश ਆਕਾਸ਼ AAKASH your post makes no sense. Do you have an English version?
@SRBPS आकाश ਆਕਾਸ਼ AAKASH your second post is as bad as the first one mate.
No that is not an indian version of English. I have spoke to many indians and their English sentences make sense. That's your personal version of "englishberish".
I enjoy this channel, and this episode in particular because my best friend in first grade school is interviewed. I wasn't expecting that, although I knew he was a recognized expert in his field. That was a special treat to see and hear him again. It's only been 60 years since my friend moved away. Thank you!
CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point.
YOUR WELCOME
-SAM ELS
@@urbancentral5576 "You're"
@@tosvus hahaha
recognised by who?
Recognised by *who* not whom.
Whom is the *object* the one recognised while who is the subject - the one doing the recognising, so who recognises him as an expert, not not not whom recognises him as an expert.
It is a common enough mistake and you have made a common enough mistake.
You won't make that mistake again, with you?
If you're not sure ask a grown up.
Confusing the pronouns who and whom is a common mistake. When speaking, people rarely use whom
because it sounds awkward, and often, this informal tendency carries over to writing. However,
since academic writing is more formal than everyday speech, learning how to correctly use who and
whom is important.
The Rule: Who functions as a subject, while whom functions as an object
Huge congratulations for your 'Closer to Truth'!
I am a photographer profoundly interested on consciousness/creativity, therefore the worth I personally credit to your show.
Thanks!
The way I have understood consciousness is as follows :- Consciousness is the fabric of reality. Reality is made up of consciousness. It exists in spite of me. It also exists in me.
Makes total sense. Without man, there's consciousness but without consciousness, nothing can exist. It is the infinite intelligence that can be liken to the central heartbeat of life
To say that is no different from saying that Wednesdays are bluish and equally meaningless.
How is that different from saying that it is blue on Wednesdays? - No more than a vague description rather than a definition.
Ho hum, I suppose if you cannot mumbo, you might as well jumbo.
Why not just say that consciousness can be bluish on Wednesdays? It would be equally coherent, but what the hell, if you cannot mumbo you might as well jumbo.
I love these videos! I must admit that a lot of this is way above my head, but I am beginning to understand some of it. I enjoy your interviewing style. I just subscribed.
I'm sorry he's above your head. Just get a ladder. Thanks
Your attitude stimulates us all to think and explore, thanks. Conciousness includes immages and pictures, often more inclusive than words in how we recapture experience, confession from a former Art Therapist of children and adults.
''if the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldnt''
really great point.! We observe advanced properties emerge only from complex structures.
i.e. in the fundamental scale of matter (QM) we only observe kinetic properties by what we call particles.
In order to observe advanced properties we need to look in molecular structures. There the properties displayed are far more diverse and sophisticated. We observe chemical and structural properties giving rise to different qualities of physical structures.
And to able to observe mind properties we have to reach the biological scale and really complex biological structures.
WE DON"T observe advanced properties in simple fundamental elements of matter.
Claims that are in conflict with these observations are by definition supernatural ...thus irrational (not wrong because we can not exclude or include anything as impossible or possible )
good point !
Consciousness is flow of energy
@@johnyoutube6746 Consciousness is stuff that does stuff things.
@@andreasplosky8516
Consciousness is a product of body and brain
The body and brain will not work without energy
Consciousness is flow of energy
Thank you so much Robert! These conversations create new pathways in the brain and create dimensional thinking, at least fo me.
Great series, excellent interviews, i love the interview you had with Dennett on the subject.
The word absurd in the atheistic subconscious is related to the word faith in God and not because of the objectivity of the question of why? It was repeated incorrectly, because it is related to equivalent hormones. It appeared as a justification of value.
@@mustafaelbahi7979 No the the idea of faith in god is irrational. the arguments are absurd.
Consciousness explained: "I am The Self and YOU are The Self. Since we are BOTH The Self, there is only One."
This makes no sense
I love this program and I have followed almost all of the episodes, all the thanks and gratitude to Mr. Cohen for this enlightening project, just a thought, if we replace consciousness with correlation in quantum entanglement the obsession about conciseness and the mystery of entanglement
might just disappear.
I always thought conciousnes was a property of the universe and our brains and other brains were instruments to understand and appreciate it and survive.
That's deep and wildly interesting.
So it's like the universe is able to be conscious of its own existence by using human brains to self-reflect. And possibly other brains exist on faraway planets that can serve a similar purpose. Is that what you mean?
I also have similar thoughts, although I still can’t figure out how it works and maybe I’ll never do it. I suspect this is a property of the universe and all living creatures would take part on it with humans being on the top of the pyramid of conciusness
You might as well ask "What Is Thinking?" or "What are thoughts?" Consciousness is *perception* that's feeding the thinking process. It's *awareness* . It's active, ongoing, wordless *thinking* about what is perceived, remembered or predicted.
When the question first arose for me, I assumed we already knew what consciousness is... the answer to the following would better define what it is we consider consciousness to be: if engineers successfully 3D print an exact copy of us, its easy to assume that your consciousness will remain singular, it won't branch off and suddenly you have two seperate experiences... this tells me that consciousness is helped to be made real with our brain and its mechanics and chemistry etc, but the larger part of what it is we call consciousness, is beyond our physical selves in a big way. I think that as long as we constrict ourselves to answering the physical questions, understanding consciousness will remain out of reach by definition. Let's talk this through and branch the scope of the questions involved in order to start answering the important aspects systematically, naturally 😀
Being aware of and making sense of the environment that we live in.
Thats just using another word, awareness, to avoid a definition. Some plants can be 'aware' there is a fly on their leaf. And making sense is too abstract. Would you consider a foetus aware, or someone with severe brain damage? And make sense also aims towards intelligence, as making sense indicates understanding, and not being able to understand something does not make you less consciousness, I would argue.
Consciousness is the spirit that resides in you from birth to death. An example is an automobile a person enters the car and it becomes alive gets out and its dead. We are a means to an end that is far beyond our understanding.
Bruce Hood has the right theory about consciousness.
As an adaptation (to manipulate) and as the unity of
apperception and value: the giver of meaning. Quite right.
Here is my bit of speculation: The hard problem of consciousness is actually the same problem as "Why is there something rather than nothing", it's all nothing else than the mystery of existence itself being. There are actually 3 "levels" to this:
1st: The existence of the principles of physics upon which nature is based. We could already ask, why are these principles existing at all? There could not have been any principles at all, and of course you don't get much from there.
2nd: The existence of the material world. The material world seems to be nothing else than the materialization of those principles of nature - they take existence in physical form. Again, you can ask the same question: Why does this materialization have to take place, to give rise to physical existence? The principles could have sort of "been there" without any physical instance of them being enacted.
3rd: Of course, the last one is the hard problem of consciousness. Based on the 2 first ones, I think you should see now why I think this problem is very much similar to the others. Just like from principles of nature, mysterious material existence takes place, now from material existence, a mysterious subjective experience arises.
Based on this, my feeling is that we wil no sooner solve the hard problem of consciousness than we will solve the one of material existence, because it is the same sort of thing. Perhaps, it simply is inevitable that whatever form of existence can emerge, emerges. There can't NOT be principles of nature, those are most probably non-contingent in the sense that it couldn't NOT be that if A implies B and B implies C, than A implies C. The absense of those principles is an impossibility, and hence their existence a necessity. Why those principles can't simply "be" without taking a mateiral form, and the material form be without a subjective form, seems harder to see as necessary, but I suspect that in a similar way as for the principles of nature, they are necessary because their absence is somehow an impossibility.
Relating existence with consciousness, how about assuming that: If existence is expressed in its most abstracted form, as a dot on a blank level board, then consciousness is the coordinate axes defining its position (x,y). In this way the coordinates validate and give a meaning to the dots presence, which otherwise would have no meaning being there and not somewhere else... Therefore I'm suspecting that the essence of consciousness might have to do something with "dimensionality" and reflection giving a meaning to existence.
The problem of consciousness and why’s there something rather than nothing is similar, but not the same, in the sense that non-experience is a 0 second instance on the experience clock, regardless of an eternity of nothingness
@Ruby Badilla All physicians / naturalists / materialists are laughing at us that we're feeling that there's something more and deeper in consciousness. In your analysis I think I found the speculation to answer them in their language: In the same way that all particles and forces of nature have been found to be 'popups' from their respective quantum fields occupying the whole spacetime, why not to assume that consciousness may be also a background field prevailing everywhere like an ocean underneath, and we are temporary drops of it...
@@thoel1 I would never ridicule someone for buying into the illusion of self. I completely understand why they do, it's a very convincing illusion.
I'm not a physicist, so I don't know exactly how this relates to your analogy, but I would not consider having a strong experience of consciousness enough to warrant a theory of how it exists (in terms of a "field of consciousness" or anything like that), the way that the measurable existence of quantum particles merits theories about how they exist, when it might as well be an illusion emerging from physical processes. To me, consciousness seems to not just arise from, but fundamentally be various processes in the brain interacting with each other in complicated ways. I don't think it warrants further explanation just because we can't map out each process yet.
Again, the feeling of being conscious is not evidence of this feeling being anything more than a cumulative property of having signals in the brain.
Nollhypotes
No offence intended but I think you might be buying into the illusion that the “self” is an illusion. It’s a circular and self defeating hypothesis because if consciousness is just an illusion “emerging from physical processes” that occurred by chance and is not real then by the same token the physical processes that you perceive with consciousness are also an illusion. This includes the reliability of the rational processes you utilised to come to the conclusion that consciousness does not “warrant further explanation” as it is “nothing more than a cumulative property of having signals in the brain” caused by chance. This illusion of an illusion of chance that undermines logic, all knowledge and even science itself is often vociferously defended in the scramble to defend (philosophical naturalism) due to its proponents inability to accept that philosophical naturalism is unable to explain everything. “It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure” (Albert Einstein). The eminent atheist philosopher Mary Midgeley also addresses these issues in her books (Are you an Illusion) and (Science as Salvation). Midgley was famous for puncturing the scientific presumption of militant atheists and argued powerfully and intelligently that the rich variety of our imaginative life cannot be contained in the narrow bounds of a highly puritanical materialism that equates brain and self. If we are just illusions, whose illusion are we? Midgeleys books are not an attack on science or on what science does very well. However, Midgley questions what she calls the “omnicompetence" of science. Like Einstein before her she argues that science can't answer every question, least of all those of personal meaning including experience as these things reflect an actual real person. Midgley recognises this view of scientific enquiry as a myth, a narrative of meaning that is not scientific.
She brilliantly highlights the mistake that our sense of self is an illusion created by a complex combination of atoms: Who is being deluded?
There is no illusion if there is no one to be fooled by it. The assertion that we are being deluded assumes we exist separately from the illusion. This is basic philosophy.
Midgeleys common sense approach leaves the reader to ponder the value of altruism, love, agency, meaning, purpose and what it means to be human and an actual real person. Interestingly, Midgeley was also a staunch advocate of religion.
“The trouble with human beings is not really that they love themselves too much; they ought to love themselves more. The trouble is simply that they don’t love others enough”
(Mary Midgeley).
How does this channel not have more subscribers???
It's been around at least 10 years right???
Geez...
It was mentioned that consciousness might depend on culture and language. I wonder if there has been studies of feral children - children raised in the wild by wolves or other animals, and later discovered and brought in by humans. It would be interesting to see if they lacked any consciousness - although I guess the cases would be very few
There _are_ such cases. Marina Chapman, for example.
It was a stupid comment...animals are conscious...without language or culture.
@@DS-hy6ld Who told you that and why do you believe them? Are there no warnings against hearsay in your context?
@@vhawk1951kl Yours is a fair critique -- so I'd invite the reader to look into the matter for themselves. I can only remind you that recorded instances of inter-species altruism are so numerous as to make the phenomenon a noncontroversial matter of fact. Why would we be so skeptical just because one of the species involved is human?
In the simplest possible terms "consciousness is a word which can sometimes be attached to particular experiences and it may be that different beings attach different words to the same or different experiences, for example if you ask a ground link what associations are evoked in his associative apparatus by the word bread he will tell you that he has associations of that filth sliced white bread, because that is what groundlings eat and therefore those are the associations that the word bread evokes in him.If you use the word grassto a tippy you will immediately think of cannabis, and by contrast if you use the word 'think' to people are many of them will assume that the random associating and talking to themselves that goes on in their heads is thinking because they don't understand that thinking is linear-goes from A to B and not circular and can only take place in complete inner silence, but few understand that and what many suppose to be'thinkig' is in fact little more than dreaming or random associating and inner talking, which is little if nothing more than dreaming, and mny will take them selves to doing that'consciously' or knowingly, but if they actually paty attention to what is going on it is plainly semi-conscious dreming a or a vague awareness of something. Now is that 'consciousness?Self evidently men (human beings can be more or less conscious and more or less asleep, and if you awaken them they will say that they were miles away or drieaming, little realising that those that dream are asleep, and some call coming back to themselves awakening or becoming conscious or experiencing the state of "with-knowledge". Quite which of those variations in state will attract the epithet conscious is a matter of some debate and disagreement.However it is utterly pointless to speak of consciousness unless you speak of consciousness of what or of something in particular which is why this particular exchange about consciousness goes nowhere but round and round in circles because the relevant beings are not speaking about the same thing or the same experience. If you say world to different people it will evoke different associations in them. To a biologist the word world will evoke associations of the biological world, and to an astronomer he will think of the starry world all the world of planets and stars but if you speak to a Native American in the jungles of the Amazon his world will be is village and the Amazon so one of the same word will evoke completely different associations in different beings and I will will have identical associations. So it is with consciousness or any other word for that matter
The genesis of consciousness is when the idea of "self" arises.
"Is this reality? Or is it the Philosophy that is making the problem worse!" That was awesome!
You're mistaken. It's scientism that has made the "problem" of consciousness indecipherable. Without philosophy, we're lost.
Thanks for your journey, "closer to truth"!
Consciousness is the thing that gets smaller when you watch television.
I would differentiate between awareness of the environment on one hand, and on the otter hand the phenomenon of consciousness experienced as a perpetual sensation of now indicating the relation between the biophysiological systems we are, and the environment we interact with. That is to say, when you watch tv, or listen to a narrative (either from someone else or your own), you’re still being conscious, only in a different operating mode, much like hypnosis. There are differences in levels of consciousness that correspond to neurological correlates: brainwave functions. Depending in which frequency band the neural activity is operating, the qualitative experience will be different, correlating to that quantitative difference of neural activity.
@@stevoofd CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point.
YOUR WELCOME
-SAM ELS
@@urbancentral5576 Those that abuse capital letters emphasis nothing but the hysteria of the abuser.
One day you must try to understand the difference between a definition and a description.
You have plainly been watching a great deal of television
Consciousness is a STATE of being?
Wild shot out there.
look at the etymology and you will discover that the word 'conscious' is compounded of two Latin words meaning with knowledge, which demands both a knower and that which is known be specified, thus consciousness of what?
When a person becomes an observer and observed too, both at the same time, he is called to have become aware of his consciousness!!
Perfect defination. Closest to the truth. Wow
Dolphins can Do that are they councious ?
A man can observe his own thoughts!! So, the man becomes an observer and an observed too!! That is called awareness of consciousness!! More there are spaces between the two thoughts more the man becomes aware about the consciousness!!!!
@@evo-devo3100 how do you know know dolphins can do that...Pls share the reference....study on dolphins...
@@reenaverma8576 I am not a dolphin expert, but doing PhD in evo-devo Biology, i saw a documentary referencing some dolphins study, when they watch in a mirror they know and did some reactions which was proofing they know its in mirror they are looking at themselves i do not remember the action but that was not reaction. and scholar was damn sure about that it is due to that signal. so i think when they are observer and they are observing that observation and aware of that then we can call that consciousness. by defination above then what would you call that its really amazing, and in a documantary women teaches word and dolphin learned that. very basic but you should see that
Consciousness = To Be. And Know It. It's not that difficult people. Thanks.
I pretend to believe,... in a moment, that I'm in a pitch black cave, floating in a gel that's the same temperature as my body,.. that I might escape Consciousness,... yet I'm still aware of the cave, the gel, and not being able to see anything! 🤪
I wish this enjoyable video explored the simulation hypothesis. Why do we assume (and I'm very much including Advaita here too) that consciousness is so fundamental? Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to understand itself." I'm profoundly interested in the possibility of a kind of "demiurgic universe", i.e., "All the world’s a stage,
and all the men and women merely players." Yet, what if our consciousness is no more than an advanced digital construct that utilizes consciousness as just another game element?
Simulation of what?
What I know now is that consciousness can not be understood using logic or philosophy. It cannot be read about, it can only be felt. Also it is not necessarily a problem to solve but an unbelievably mysterious phenomenon that is best experienced, as the experience of being is actually a miracle in its own right and through experience only will come closer to the deeper understanding of this mysterious existence. If you're close to dying from thirst, You can read about all types of water and your thirst will never quench.I believe that meditation and awareness and joy of life is the water we've thirst for - society and the education system has played a grand role in taking our souls and freedom, we need to take it back at any cost.
Wow, This needs more likes.
@@juanj.martinez8226 thnks brother
I havegiven that a thumbs up save for the use of the word "soul", which you do not even attempt to define.
If you seek to convey in general that the experience of consciousness is a mystery and an alive question that does not need to be killed with some answer and that is that, then I am wholly with you, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "soul", and I have a shrewd idea that neither do you and that you are about to demonstrate that by signally failing to set out what you mean by soul.By the same token I have no idea why it is that some beings suppose themselves to come with a soul, so to say "ready-made" rather than something as to be acquired, and I have a shrewd idea that you have no idea why they do that either, but then you are about to demonstrate that you have no idea what a soul is, or my left pocket owes my right pocket £20.
consciousness is intriguing, nice programme
If you find consciousness intriguing.....here is a taste on how we investigate consciousness and other mind properties.
We have the technology to create "mini brains" in the lab.
neurosciencenews.com/petri-dish-mini-brain-6342/
We can quantify the function of those mini brains and we find out brainwaves resembling baby brain's activity.
www.sciencealert.com/brain-tissue-grown-in-the-lab-produces-brainwaves-resemblings-pre-term-babies
We have identify the responsible smallest area for conscious states since 2013 (and we keep challenging our hypothesis)
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/
and we constantly refine the model.We even have a definition that those "philosophical" videos always fail to give.
We can use those findings and explain how comas work.
science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/coma1.htm
We have mapped the area of the brains that enable consious states.
thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_12/d_12_cr/d_12_cr_con/d_12_cr_con.html
and we no longer are excluded from other peoples subjective conscious thoughts! We can observe them as they form and decode them.
www.cmu.edu/dietrich/news/news-stories/2017/june/brain-decoding-complex-thoughts.html
We can read complex conscious thoughts by looking at brain scans with 85% accuracy.
We also have developed technology to enforce our Strong correlations between brain patterns and the content of conscious decisions
neurosciencenews.com/freely-behaving-brain-16426/ ( on mice).
We identify the mechanisms responsible for consciousness modulation
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32053769/
We construct theories on observable mechanisms responsible for generating and ceasing conscious states
neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-brain-generation-loss-13009/
We have applications that predicts recovery or conscious states (up to 92% accuracy) by observing the reaction of responsible areas of the brain .
neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-sniff-test-16445/
We have answers FOR REAL HARD PROBLEMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (what connects awareness - the state of consciousness - with its contents, i.e. thoughts and experiences.)
neurosciencenews.com/l5p-neuron-conscious-awareness-14997/
We are refining our techniques so that we can detect Hidden conscious states.....previously used as an excuse for the promotion of magical explanations.
neurosciencenews.com/eeg-hidden-consciousness-tbi-14354/
neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-brain-patterns-10698/
We develop theories that we can test. That is not true for idealistic and new age ideas. They are mostly expression of arguments from ignorance .(feeding on the unknown).
neurosciencenews.com/brain-organization-consciousness-15132/
neurosciencenews.com/math-subliminal-perception-consciousness-14540/
We have healthy challenges within our studies by publishing results for peer reviewing! Those results are testable and reproducible...not magical assumptions.
neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-pathway-10276/
We identify the mechanisms responsible for the changes our memories experience when we recall them.
neurosciencenews.com/updating-mechanism-false-memory-16438/
We identify the brain structure that controls our behavior
neurosciencenews.com/behavior-brain-structure-16422/
We identify centers of the brain responsible for shutting down pain and specific outside world stimuli
neurosciencenews.com/shut-down-pain-16412/
Sometimes you need perfect articulation to spark ⚡️ the transcendence and cement a place in chronological events. 😁
Indeed
CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point.
YOUR WELCOME
-SAM ELS
@@urbancentral5576 Those that abuse capital letters emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser or their caps lock is stuck
@@vhawk1951kl I caN Tell CapS MaTTer to you. keEp a BeTter LOOk at yoUr finaNcial sTamenT..🤣🤣😭
1:17 “Here is what I do not know. What is consciousness? ” . The answer is YOU are consciousness!
Could it be that consciousness is the manifestation of an evolved form of survival instinct?
It makes sense that having an “I” to take care of would make our ancestors take care of “themselves” would be selected for evolutionarily. I like your thinking
No. How could any form of knowledge unroll?-evolve means unroll.
Consciousness of what?
@@Pat_11131 What is " an I"?
What could " take care of " an I"? Can a mirror reflect itself?
@@vhawk1951kl god is taking care of itself.
12:01 props to the camera crew for the way they set up the interview, somehow framing Koch in a metaphorical shot where the red glowing triangle above huis head represents an alien light bulb epiphany he had about approaching consciousness.
CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point.
YOUR WELCOME
-SAM ELS
@@urbancentral5576 God is an unscientific theoretical construct.
Everything that god can do, nature can do too.
Why do you choose the hidden proposition
instead of the one before you?
To what in particular is that relevant?
The crew don't set up the interview old boy, that is a function of the director or producer.
The crew don't have time to set things up; they have better things to do and doing them, not organising setting things up.
I wonder why Robert never interviews those who study OBE's and NDE's
Henry David Thoreau's description of consciousness: “I only know myself as a human entity; the scene, so to speak, of thoughts and affections; and I'm sensible of a certain doubleness by which I can stand as remote from myself as another. However intense my experience, I am conscious of the presence and criticism of a part of me, which, as it were, is not a part of me, but spectator, sharing no experience, but taking note of it; and that is no more I than it is you. When the play, it may be the tragedy, of life is over, the spectator goes his way. It was a kind of fiction, a work of the imagination only.”
What do you suppose is knowing or experiencing itself?
Anyone that can come up with "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life, " cannot be a complete fool.
I love how you're able to gather the most intelligent thinkers to give their differing opinions on a subject without trying to guide us to a conclusion. really, your show is special and valuable.
so if you can step outside of the one real everything, give it form and define it, then you might be able to define consciousness. I don't think it's possible to do that because there is no outside the one everything, and therefore no inside; yet rationally, you know there is just one everything. you need an inside and an outside for time to be relevant, so time is only relevant to finite particulars like us who have relationship to other particulars.... which is really cool, because I like distinction, relationship and "things" that "move" from "my" point of view because this dynamic co creates the story.
by the way that lady's answer is perfect...if she gave evidence, what would you expect her to show you?
it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion that consciousness is emergent from brain functions; the hardware of the brain might be like transceiver hardware that receives and transmits something more fundamental. or if you want to take it another step further, "matter" might be emergent from "Mind". what seems to emerge, in my opinion, is "identity."
the problem is that most of those intelligent thinkers don't have a clue about our latest (~10 years) knowledge on this field.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 If "we(which I take to be imaginary) can have knowledge, can " we" also have an headache? What exactly is your knowledge-of what? in this field?
Consciousness is the translation of the brain how much it is informed and capable as knowledge and then what kind of chemicals it will produce upon brains decoding 🙏🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
oh please someone take those asinine infantile symbols away from the children that abuse them
Consciousness is everything from quarks through to the universe. Our brains do not create consciousness, they create our individuality giving us a singular and unique view of consciousness.
"us" being you and who else?-Your imaginary friend?
Conscious*Of what*?If you say "I know" without more, you say nothing, but apparently struggle to grasp that.
True.
Our brains set up patterns of reactions to various experiences. We are attracted to or interested in some things we come across and we avoid others. When we reflect upon those experiences, we become more aware of our own choices and that, to me, is consciousness. So I agree with you that your individual preferences and choices build up your picture of yourself and of the reality around you and it is that cumulative picture which is your consciousness of life. You may notice that your version of consciousness matches with that of quite a few other people, and you may have a rather different kind of consciousness than others have.
So many point to the fact that consciousness is fundamental and what our experiences arise within.
To that end, some point out, the brain is what receives, processes and filters information *from* consciousness.
It is hard to define a non physical experience using math, concepts and language built to work with the physical. That is what some mean when they say, 'you can't get there from here'. It is rather surprising there is little here representing the science of non local consciousness, meaning consciousness outside the brain. REF University of VA - Bruce Greyson, MD
Consciousness is based on nothing more than what we find interesting. If I want i can rewind my day and relive my day step by step . Reliving two days ago may be a bit harder but in time I can relive it As well. The many things my Consciousness will remember more vividly will be the experiences i found intriguing.
"we" being you and who else*specifically?- your imaginary friend?
"we" is imaginary- can*only* be imaginary, since you are strictly on-you-own.
I don't know if the bookmarks that dangle out of any given day are a good example of consciousness.
As well as learning from the experiences that we find interesting, I think that we also learn from experiences that we find meaningful, frightening, attractive, puzzling, nourishing and comforting, and also those which seem to fit into a picture that we already have of reality. I think your consciousness has been expanded by the recording above and by the discussions of some of the people on this internet page. As a result of that experience, you will either seek out more similar experiences or will move away to other experiences.
Consciousness is the mind of the soul. Problem solved. Next question?
Also your gonna have to do a video about what is the soul. ;-)
nice...so he needs to define what is "consciousness", what is a soul and then prove their existence... piece of cake...
Conscienceness is the spirit living in the human body
That might be described as psychological algebra: x-y=x, where x and y have no value, or simply substituting one unknow(spirit)for another(conscious); it defines nothing and tells you no more than x=y=x. consciousness is spirit is consciousness, tells me absolutely nothing. It is no kind of definition, and begs the question: What is spirit? - But doubtless you will reveal it to be consciousness and round and round we go. x=y=x. What do you call (whatever might be)'the spirit living in the human body'? Why consciousness of course and we are back to square one; x=y=x.
You see your problem?
How refreshing: no looking for truth in the wrong places (i.e. "consciousness is primary"). Stay within what science KNOWS and maybe I will continue to watch.
Exactly the wrong channel for you to watch Tom Rafferty. Here the scientist is pondering phenomena that do not lend themselves to strict scientific inquiry. There are plenty of websites for you out there dealing with directly observable and measurable ...
Vlado H , the man is a PhD in science and should know better than to waste time talking to philosophers, theologians, and pseudo scientists and expecting answers to questions regarding objective reality.
@@86645ut Fair enough. But where do you go for fresh ideas/ inspiration when you hit the wall? You quit rather than continue exploring outside exhausted sources? BTW, I am not aware of him interviewing pseudo scientists.
Vlado H , I only look to science to understand objective reality. I otherwise enjoy sports, history, and my family to name just a few of my activities . Oh, Deepak Chopra is one pseudo scientist.
Whose science and of what?
The music in this documentary at 11:18 makes the narrator seem like he's triggered by the statement, and having an existential crisis
He wouldn't know an existential crisis if it came knocking at his door.
1. Consciousness is holding the same place in the universe what it holds in my dream.
2. My dream (Including me and others, who were living in my dream) was imagined, seen and known by consciousness, which was independent of my dream.
3. The universe(Including me and others who are living in the universe) is imagined, seen and known by consciousness, which is independent of the universe.
Rupert Sheldrake's beautifully explained quality of a consiousness thus...our brain..the source of seeing, is inside our head. When we see a bird fly or a tree it is not inside our head..it is in our conciosness!!
Thus it has its own quality , independent, outside of us..!!
Absolutely fascinating!! The world around us is perceived by our conciousness!
@@murielgertharris2305 Rupert is great, i really like him.
@D. Engelbrecht "we" being you and who else?We can only be imaginary until " we" has an headache.
Consciousness is observing past and future, its natures time machine!
Consciousness grew out of subconsciousness where thoughts were able to be saved instead of falling back into subconsciousness.
Interesting theory so that indicates in the future we humans may evolve into conscious gods and we may become telepathic even though there already is proof humans can be telepathic. Good stuff.
@@Micscience Even better, there will be time when all subconscious becomes conscious and man will have total illustration and answers for everything. Or he can now tap into universal network to navigate among true and false directions with the compass of not-to-do inherited from Heaven. Man is a free cause from all causalities and can create.
CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point.
YOUR WELCOME
-SAM ELS
@@mohammadsareh4732 CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point.
YOUR WELCOME
-SAM ELS
What in blue blazes is subconsciousness?
You have no idea? - No surprises there, but if you can't mumbo you might as well jumbo
We are all part of one infinite consciousness that goes on exploring forever and ever! You are infinite consciousness!
Our conscious experience though private is not absolutely private and unknown and mysterious to others. For example, after I've listened to a piece of music played from a HiFi set I move away and let my friend take my seat and replay the CD. I'm confident he'll share more or less the same subjective experience as mine, though maybe different emotional overtones.
"the hard problem is we have to get rid of the hard problem"..
I might say absolutely.
"What is conciousness?." is not a question about anything but a symptom of the intellects conceptual relationship to itself. It can lead to mental illness and isn't healthy yet it's a necessity to ask at the same time.
CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN US AND GOD(creator/what ever you'd like to name the source) THIS IS WHAT HE USES TO ENABLE IDEAS AND OR "THOUGHTS". It's why when you look around everything was just an idea at some point.
YOUR WELCOME
-SAM ELS
which is no different from saying it is blue on Wednesdays.
What exactly is the problem and why is it a problem?
Shalom...
I have subscribed this channel. I will be watching this channel. Thanks friends..
Consciousness and it's non dual and connected nature was first discussed in the Vedas and Upanishads(believed to be written around 3000 BC), the ancient texts of Hinduism in ancient India...1000s of years before David Chalmers ever thought about the hard problem..
What exactly does that mean?
You have not the faintest idea? - No surprises there
@@vhawk1951kl Hey man, its written in English and the 11 people who liked it understood what it meant. So instead of questioning everybody why don't you explain what you understood it meant? (By the way what was written there s true.. Just some reading will let you figure that out.. unless you are some kind of christian nut who wanna deny credit to other cultures or religions)
@@sweetchinmusic801 And you are telling me that you have not the faintest idea what it means.
Consider this:
"Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect,
whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided,once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too.
A question, perhaps, does sometimes arise in him when
he hears an entirely unfamiliar word the first time; but in this case he is content merely to substitute for the unfamiliar word another suitable word of familiar consonance and then to imagine that he has understood it.
To bring home what has just been said, an excellent
example is provided by the word so often used by every
contemporary man “consciousness.”
If people knew how to grasp for themselves what
passes in their thoughts when they hear or use the word
”world,” then most of them would have to admit-if of
course they intended to be sincere-that the word carries no exact notion whatever for them. Catching by ear simply the accustomed consonance, the meaning of which they assume that they know, it is as if they say to themselves “Ah, consciousness, I know what this is,” and serenely go on thinking.
Should one deliberately arrest their attention on this
word and know how to probe them to find just what they
understand by it, they will at first be plainly as is said
“embarrassed,” but quickly pulling themselves together,
that is to say, quickly deceiving themselves, and recalling the first definition of the word that comes to mind, they will then offer it as their own, although, in fact, they hadn’t thought of it before.
If one has the requisite power and could compel a
group of contemporary people, even from among those
who have received so to say “a good education,” to state exactly how they each understand the word cons piousness,” they would all so “beat about the bush” that involuntarily one
would recall even castor oil with a certain tenderness.
Let me guess, you are an American.
If so of course you imagine that you have some command of English; it is a common misapprehension amongst such creatures.
@@vhawk1951kl Hey Man.. whatever you have stated, you are not the first person to come up with all this.. people have been pondering these for 1000s of years.. As mentioned read the Vedas and Upanishads, the ancient Hindu scriptures.. the books with oldest discussion on consciousness..
@@sweetchinmusic801 Absolutely fascinating; to what is that relevant?-Where and what is your syllogism?
If it helps I refer you to the definition of relevance as set out by one professor Cross is as follows:" a piece of information or evidence is " relevant" if it is capable of forming the major premise of a syllogism"
Hence where and what is your syllogism?
So(or there fore) what if"I am not the first person to come up with all this.. people have been pondering these for 1000s of years.. As mentioned read the Vedas and Upanishads, the ancient Hindu scriptures.. the books with oldest discussion on consciousness.."
I repeat: Where and what is you syllogism?
Who told you that" people have been pondering these for 1000s of years.. As mentioned read the Vedas and Upanishads, the ancient Hindu scriptures.. the books with oldest discussion on consciousness", and why do you believe them or do you suggest that your experience is that of "000s of years"?
You will forgive me if I dismiss that as a rational possibility.
In which Veda and Upanishad does the term " consciousness" appear, chapter and verse?
yeah, right.
Everything that is not your brain is just as important to consciousness as your brain. There must be something to be conscious of to have consciousness. In order to be yourself you need everyone who is not yourself to differentiate.
True consciousness is being aware we exist in the mind of the universe.
This episode starts with a beautiful piece of classical music. I am curious about the composer and whether it is part of a larger work. Or is it a melody written by an unknown composer especially for this series?
Mr. Kuhn, I would humbly request you to kindly also take the perspective of the "Vedanta Society of NY" on this topic of "What is Consciousness". You could meet Swami Sarvapriyananda.
what you think the source of their conversation.....they are already learning form Vedanta etc....but don't give them any credit.....as they are still on starting phase.
Absolutely. I would totally agree. Sawmi Sarvapriyananda, provides a great clarity and original ideas from Vedanta, on this subject.
Could consciousness be about the direction of energy, which can be remembered and used for learning?
You would have to specify conscious of what, for if you do not, the term is meaningless , or you could just use stuff instead.
How do you experience whatever it is that you call consciousness and how do you know that it is consciousness?
If a dogs sees a stranger, it may growl or bark. Its reactions are instinctive, based on valuable survival mechanisms. It doesn't then evaluate its own reactions. If I snap angrily at someone I don't Iike, that's also instinctive. However I have a longer range of memory than a dog I may remember that people at the office are reacting negatively to my bad temper. I also have the brain power necessary to anticipate how life at work could become very uncomfortable if people stop liking me. That memory and that anticipatory image are a form of consciousness which may enable me to choose to avoid my instinctive behaviour next time I meet this person. I may choose a level of politeness which enables us to work cooperatively together even though we may not enjoy each others' personalities. I may make this choice partly from an instinctive need to fit in with the group and partly as a more conscious response to a difficult situation. I can also talk over these choices with a psychologist, thus making my choices even more conscious. Unlike animals, we humans can think about the interplay between our instincts and the other goals we choose to have. We can lift our thinking to a more abstract level at any moment e.g. before biting into an apple, we can pause and marvel at the complex patterns between the little dashes of red and green on the apple skin. We can glance at the sky to decide if we need a raincoat and also enjoy the greys, purples and mistiness that we see there. Like animals we have useful instinctive reactions and we have increased our likelihood of survival by being able to evaluate our reactions consciously and even to then think about the topic of consciousness. We can exercise and thus increase our consciousness through humour and creativity. The large number of humans on the planet is evidence of how useful consciousness is for survival. We are currently using data going back over centuries to predict the dangers presented by global warming and using the enhancement of shared consciousness available via social media to encourage a coordinated response to this change. With our shared consciousness, we can decide if global warming will enable a creative response which could improve life for everyone - especially the animals whose survival relies on our ability to make conscious choices.
All the things that you name are just part of the human intellect. Consciousness is something deeper and probably simpler. Both humans and dogs have consciousness, but the first ones move through the intellect and instincts and the second ones mainly through instinct. Both are able to observe the happiness or the panic of a determined moment.
@@andrest75 It seems like you regard instinctive reactions as consciousness. I agree that whenever a dog is awake, we say that it is conscious. However, I think of "consciousness" as a kind of awareness of one's self that uses memory and also the ability to think about the future as a way of bringing much more reflection to bear upon life than an animal can. I think most animals just rely on instinctive reactions so they have fewer choices in what they can do.
Consciousness is awareness and perception . The level of awareness and perception one is on. The default consciousness and perception is lowest, and more aware of feelings than anything else.
Prayers are retrospection... and yet people who pray, really think they are communicating with a supernatural being, outside of their mind. It is far easier to fool oneself than to learn truth. Awareness and perception are apparent in mice and men in equal proportion. Consciousness is not what makes the human mind special.
Tim Hallas So if consciousness doesn’t make the mind special, then what do you think does?
@@bc1248 empathy. desire. ambition. imagination. a large cerebral cortex.
Tim Hallas That’s the netherworld you described. Which is a prison of the mind.
@@bc1248 "netherworld" that is mythology.. I thought we were discussing reality.
Consciousness is all that exists for eternity - represented in our world as 'the eternal now which we inhabit'. It is the dreamer of reality, and the only thing experiencing anything - which is 'itself'. It is also a fractal... which is why we can dream new worlds at night. Brains don't generate consciousness, rather consciousness generates brains as a 2nd person perspective of another fractal node. The brains job is consciousness reducer... making the infinite experience finiteness.
I'd love to see an episode on psychedelics, given the profound effects they have on ones consciousness. Whatever your worldview, given that those things (and those experiences) exists, they need to be explored. Otherwise, you will only get to the limits of truth available in consensus reality.
drive.google.com/open?id=1V73IO7Hbj6KHEhZGgJsp3QSz5X8tcV1-TIc8tvz49Kg
Agreed, but spiritual, holistic observations regarding the true nature of Mind are considered forbidden territory to even mention in Western academia because of what they imply.
@@platonicforms562 The older close-minded generation is dying off. Psychedelics are on the verge of becoming mainstream.
Humanity is on the verge of coming to a consensus on metaphysics. That will be the equivalent to a 2nd coming of Christ... at which point the entire game changes. Not just a technical singularity, but a consciousness singularity... and most people can't see it coming.
@UCJdNomhpprdzxYzUrFJdsHQ Mathematics is necessarily confined to the 'dream' of consensus reality. In that dream, consciousness (God, unified, whole, eternal, alone) imagines itself to be more than 1 thing, then takes perspectives in the dream to interact with itself.
Math is the language of the dream. It all points to the dreamer. However, from the perspective of 'dreamer' there is only 1 thing - awareness without content. Math exists only in-so-far as this awareness chooses to be aware of it. It, just like other thoughts, sensations, emotions, etc. appear in consciousness as content. They are dependent on consciousness, just like everything else.
Time is a similar construct - the ordering / remembering of these various qualia / sensations - but it too always happens in the 'eternal now'. It is purely concept - but it works from the relativistic finite perspective of the dream.
I understand all this sounds... unorthodox - but these are various states of consciousness that can be experienced and verified... for yourself. It is not something we can verify with science. It is like trying to use science to learn about your sleeping body while still involved in the dream. It is the wrong domain entirely. It isn't until you 'awaken' that the illusion of the dream is revealed - and science can't awaken people.
Psychedelics can :)
@@Takeitinnblood The metaphysics I'm trying to explain works something like this. God / consciousness / pure awareness dreams universes, and takes all the perspectives in them (human, plant, animal, even matter not yet wrapped around a conscious perspective). Math (as a phenomena) is a concept of this singular consciousness. It manifests somewhere in the creative process of 'the dream' as a representation of the structure on which the dream is built. As a perspective in the dream, it is then 'discovered' - but every discovery is God (in perspective form) discovering something about the makeup of the dream (in physical universe form).
Math also reflects something about the dreamer. For example, I don't believe God can 'lie' to us about himself - so math must be consistent. This is because we are manifestations of God, so it would be God lying to himself. That said, math is dependent on this God dreaming and 'splitting' into various dualities (God as 1 is nondual). God / consciousness / pure awareness can 'not' dream, at which point the concept 'math' disappears with the rest of the universe... which is all a concept in God's mind. At that point, there isn't perspectives in 'the dream' to discover math... all having been drawn back (for lack of a better word) to 'source'.
I do appreciate the disagreement, iron sharpening iron and all that.
@@Takeitinnblood Thank you for the ongoing discussion - I'm enjoying it from my end. Let me see if I can address your criticisms. If you haven't read it yet, you may like the little ~25 pg booklet I wrote and linked in the first email. It covers many of the topics we are discussing.
To your first point, about using the word 'dream' to describe consensus reality, there are a 3 ways I'd like to address this.
1. Consciousness does one thing, generates (to avoid both 'dream' and 'create') worlds and simultaneously enters into them. We know this from our own dreams - a world full of content appears, and "I" appear in it - and 100% of it has its existence in my sleeping consciousness. From the perspective of 'in the dream', my sleeping consciousness is the 'ground of being'.
2. What is 'real'? This is what consciousness does, then 'all things experienced by consciousness are real'. In that view, dreams are 'real' of a sort - they aren't 'consensus reality'... but neither are thoughts, emotions, or sensations - yet we don't write them off as 'unreal'. In my booklet, I call this error 'reality discounting' because we do it so often.
3. That said, we do try to discern what is 'real' in a comparative fashion. This is why many of us discount dreams, because compared to consensus reality they are illusory. Psychedelics have the capacity to cause us to 'wake up' from consensus reality and experience consciousness without the dream. This experience feels 'more real' than consensus reality... indeed, this universe is shown to be illusion in comparison... just like this reality shows your dream to be an illusion (even if you can't tell while in the dream).
4. As a bonus point, this is also why hallucinating can be so hard for people and can make them 'crazy'. Their conscious experience has extra entities in it - but epistemologically there is no reason to tag them as 'illusion'. If you can't trust your conscious experience to be 'real' - what can you trust? That doesn't mean you can't be mistaken (everyone knows that) - but determining the basic fact of "Is there a pink elephant in the corner of my room" is only secondarily a question of consensus. If it is appearing in my consciousness, and my senses are activating and I experience associated qualia, then it must have the same quality of 'realness' as everything else. In fact, many hallucinations are 'hyper real' as in their reality is unquestionable, more so than consensus reality. It is extra confusing because it seems like it SHOULD also appear in yours, but it doesn't.
Let me see if I can address your 2nd point about the word 'takes', this time in 1 bullet.
1. Typing this particular sentence is a unique experience in the history of the cosmos. There is a unique combination of qualia, pressure on my fingers, the thoughts occurring at the same time being typed out. It is a 100% unique event in the history of this universe in every way. Our position in the galaxy is brand new in this moment, birds / animals / etc. are all in a 100% unique position - each moment is a unique reality unto itself. God must be the one experiencing all these qualia from all these entities, because they are in every way unique... even as they are 'similar' from our finite point of view. We could use words like God 'adorns' himself with our perspectives for a while (lifetime) - but the point is that from the finite side God creates a fractal 'bend' in cosmic consciousness, then wraps it in some of the contents of the dream we call flesh, causing a brand new perspective in the dream for God to enjoy. In order for God to be fully Omniscient, God must (by definition) experience all experiences. The word 'takes' is a nod to the finiteness that is me as a created being - but from the perspective of the infinite I exist as eternity.
Perhaps the word 'incarnation' might be better than 'manifestation'. Use whatever word you would use to describe the process of dreaming a universe and entering into it. Is that 'entering into it' a manifestation of your sleeping consciousness or an incarnation? Now do that for every human, animal, plant, bacteria, etc. - anything that can experience qualia in whatever form.
To your last point about Math, that depends on what awareness we are talking about - what position in the fractal hierarchy. If we are talking about our incarnate / finite awareness then math is transcendent to that. If we are talking about God as unified consciousness, then Math is a concept in the mind of God from that perspective... a concept consistent with the never-changing nature of God, but ultimately a dependent concept that God (as awareness) transcends. If we are contemplating God as a no-thing or as One, then the concept of Math doesn't even apply as there is nothing else in existence and God is undivided. It is only from within the universe, where we exist in a realm of apparent divisions and dualities that Math even makes sense.
Think about it this way - God dreams a Universe, and the language God uses to dream that universe is Math. From within the universe, we discover that language and learn about the dream (and God by extension).
God > God Dreams > | Math > physical universe (consensus reality) > your perspective > your dream | slightly wonky math > dream universe > your perspective > etc. (false awakenings are a thing, so nested dreams are a thing too).
The upright bars indicate a shift in identity, where one reality folds into the next. If you have an 'awakening', you shift through those bars and the dream fades away and you experience the reality transcendent to it. In the case of moving from your dream to consensus reality, that happens every morning. To go from consensus reality to 'God' you need to either die or have some other 'mystical experience'. There isn't another physical reality waiting on the other side - pure spirit. They also represent 'memory blocks', which is why mystical experiences are described as 'ineffable' and why remembering dreams can be so difficult. Memory is dependent on this universe, and is part of the illusion of turning the experience of 'eternity' into 'finite reality'.
Consciousness is a gift from God after he gradually shared some of his knowledge with us for us to be awake and aware.
God is manifested as consiousness. So consiousness is God
Yes, Krishna Consciousness.
Which is identical to saying X = Y = X where both X and Y have no value whatsoever.
In short it is saying nothing at all
Might an external consciousness (to physical brain) affect subjective awareness?
Consciousness is a mental experience of integrated mental abilities (activities). Any question?
Yes who told you that and why do you believe them
Great video - Subbed - ...... Prof. Allright
Book suggestion: ''The Stairway to Consciousness: The Birth of Self-Awareness from Unconscious Archetypes'' by Dr. Thomas Stark (E-book available at Amazon)
Consciousness brings together all reality everywhere. Consciousness manifests in human persons as inner awareness. Consciousness interacts with human minds through language.
Consciousness of what?
Consciousness is surely transitive, and is thus meaningless without specifying consciousness of what.
i think consciousness can be explained in a small phrase, to me, consciousness is a combinaison of three things, the experiences you lived, your brain and you heart, you can choose either to turn it off and become a devil or turn it on and become an angel.
Conscious of what? Conscious ness having to do with being conscious or conscious of something specific, because it is an English word compounded of two lain words to give with_knowledge.I you say " I know" without more, you say nothing, exactly if you say" I see" without more, you say nothing. it is meaningless to speak of consciousness without specifying consciousness *of what*, but what the hell, if you can't mumbo, you might as well jumbo.
I found myself in this paradox: wanting to know what consciousness is instead of just sitting still and feeling it.
For me - best way to look at it of all those ways!
How is that paradox, point one, and point two, how do you know that what you are(whatever you mean by)" feeling" is (whatever you mean by) " consciousness, which means with_ knowledge, because it contains 'sci' which comes from the Latin infinitive sciere- to know, or its first person singular scio-I know, so all words with sci in them, science, conscience, conscious, all relate to knowledge, thus conscious ness is a form of knowing, and what is that?
In my respectful submission I know when I experience directly personally immediately as direct immediate and personal as pin , which you may agree sets the bar rather high , but can you better it? The difficulty with " feel" is that it embraces so many experiences and is rather vague and generalised.
If what-is-called" consciousness" is knowledge or knowing, then the question is forced(not begged) knowing what? Surly consciousness or knowledge or knowing is transitive and demands a something that is known, or it is meaningless?
I saw(simpliciter and without what I saw, is meaningless or just so vague and generalised as to be meaningless. Yo follow? it is the same with I know, or I experienced, or (if you will) I " felt". Thus consciousness in a vacuum and without an object or context is equally meaningless, or unfinished, vague, general,or just good old-fashioned dreamy, but when I experience consciousness or I AM_ness, it is anything but vague, general or dreamy, but as direct and immediate as pain, you agree?
by what abuse of language is it a" paradox"?
How is that a "paradox"? Have you any idea what a paradox is?
@@vhawk1951kl hahaha it's a way of talking, relax. I see you are one of these people who would kill for the religion of what's correct and what's not, what's scientifically proven and what's not, what's logical and what's "dreamy". I find extremely interesting how you used dreamy as a peyorative term. I won't even answer to what you wrote, I will just encourage you to view language as something rich and extremely profound, way more than the world of facts. Don't get lost in the words, in meanings, in definitions; life feels like a dream if you snap out of the lustful desire of labelling everything. Wisdom comes from whithin.
The word 'consciousness' is a pet peeve of mine. 'Con' means 'against' and 'scious' means 'know/knowing', so, 'consciousness' technically means 'against knowing'. I prefer the terms 'self-awareness' and/or 'inner-knowing'.
The prefix “con” actually means “with”, “joined” or “together.” Where’d you hear that it means “against”?
Tho Paine In Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Almost all of its uses are in the negative. In particular, see the entries under: Noun, Entry 5 of 12, and Adverb, entry 6 of 12. They are quite specific, but those aside, almost all of the rest have negative 'con'notations. Check all of the meanings and you'll see what I mean.
The English language is filled with inverted meanings. It is form of 'spell-casting' meant to subconsciously 'con'volute and 'con'fuse...Black Magic without it even being known by the speakers or spellers, including when they write in 'curs'ive.
Yes, friend, as a noun, verb or adverb, the term “con” has a negative connotation; but as a prefix or bound morpheme, i.e., how it’s used in the term “consciousness”, it doesn’t have that connotation, as it simply means “with”, “together” or “joint.” Just check etymology online - www.etymonline.com/word/con-
@@Takeitinnblood What sense does 'together-knowing' or 'joint-knowing' even mean, and why use them as opposed to simply 'knowing'? It doesn't make any sense. As to your source, so what about that? This is FAR from the only word of a long and growing list of words that have been inverted and perverted. It's all about the power of the written and spoken word, and how they are used to get people to use them against themselves. Look into the Great Vowel Shift in English, and perhaps stop blindly questioning the sources handed to you... friend.
Interesting man. I would love to have friends who are interested in such!
Does everyone have it? I mean a lot of people act like NPCs
What is npc
@@spectrepar2458 I notice this same thing in terms of free will. Some people seem to have very little leeway to act. They just do the same thing over and over like a scripted character or NPC. It makes you wonder.
@@spectrepar2458 What kills me is that some people can get new information that what they are doing is not helpful, and they will ignore the new information, or just poo-poo it away so that they can continue to do the wrong thing. It's like they can't grasp that any action is a means to an end. If the action does not move you toward your goal, then you should change your actions, but many people are attached to the action rather than the goal. For example, they want to buy a house, but they enjoy spending money too much to save a down payment or improve their credit score. Or if someone tells you that your kidney stones are caused by not drinking enough water, but you don't want to drink more. It is not logical.
@@spectrepar2458 If you look at humans as a hive instead of individuals, this uncritical conformist behavior is very adaptive. It doesn't matter what happens to any individual as long as the group moves forward. It has taken us this far, so there must be something to it.
@@spectrepar2458 Sure, all that stuff is true, but my point is that if 10,000 individuals start businesses tomorrow, the fact that 9000 of them will be out of business, and maybe bankrupt and ruined, does not take away from the fact that society will benefit from the success of the few. 10K may bet a stock is going up tomorrow, and 10K bet that it goes down. The fact is that 10K will be losers and the other 10K will think themselves geniuses doesn't seem to matter in the least. In many ways we are a hive or a collective, or maybe a super-organism.
I absolutely know people that are not aware that they are conscious.
which people? Conscious of what? you suppose some not be aware that they are aware do you? Aware or not aware of what, or of what else?
Consciousness, is the "stuff" all matter is made of. No Consciousness, no matter. No spirit, no life. Consciousness, is immeasurable. Attempting to measure, or define a source of consciousness within matter, is a misdirected notion. First principle? Consciousness can be neither measured nor contained. Indeed, all matter is a representation and an expression of Consciousness. The brain does not "generate" consciousness.
yeah...i agree with you, the brain mediates consciousness but does not create it.
@@richardfinlayson1524 The brain is akin in function to a power transformer used to reduce higher voltages for powering homes etc to a lower 115 volts. Just as a word is a reduction & an expression of a thought, so too is the body a reduction and expression of Consciousness.
In the Dualism consciousness theory what role does Law of Polarity play if any? They seem to be connected to me.
The first guy is totally off base. I know..."Who are you to challenge an expert in the field?" No one, but in all of what he said not one thing could help in any way to understand consciousness. He sounded more like someone making up riddles and trying to appear superior while only confusing those listening.
I thought the first guy had good points. Why do we presume that our experience of consciousness is even valid, and not just an illusion manufactured from the fact that we don't have complete access to our own minds?
Funny you should say that. Although I don't share his views I think that Simon Blackburn is one of the best of the speakers at maintaining a sceptical position and not falling into assumption.
The first guy is the only one who understands that there isn't such a thing as " a hard problem of consciousness". "why" questions are not scientific questions or even serious ones.
Why something appears the way it does is not a serious question.
ITs like asking why a discharging electron emits light or something...there isn't a why, it just does. We can study how comes and it emits photons by not neutrinos but searching teleology and meaning in nature is a fallacy.(begging the question).
The same debate with life concluded with science solving the whole mechanism of the phenomenon, and magical thinkers and pseudo philosophers insisting that "matter alone can not explain why is life".....so we can't explain why there can be life from material processes, but there is and we should stop asking useless why questions.
We did what we are justified to do and we ....answer the how questions and we should limit our selves to these type of questions.
I was in a terrible accident , I almost died,the experience was so amazing, that I’m actually glad I got to experience it, I had absolutely no idea of what my brain was capable of
I give up. I've never seen so many ads on a video, averaging every 3 minutes.
What ads? Use Brave browser.
My thoughts exactly..Such greed.
UA-cam vanced
use ad blocker --- no commericals
If time is an illusion then why can’t space as we perceive it be an illusion? I like Donald Hoffman’s ideas .
I think it is. There seem to be some impressions which are embedded in the feeling of subjectivity: experience seems to be happening to me, here, now. All of those ideas could be challenged. As Simon Blackburn said, we cannot know whether we were conscious a moment ago and all seeming evidence to that effect would be a content of current experience so time is at best an inference from experience which is always only immediate. Likewise, regarding space, where does here end and there begin? The screen you are looking at now seems to be a certain distance from the point of experience but where is the experience occurring? Is there anything to the existence of the screen apart from the experience of it? The space in between the presumed screen and the presumed experiencer is just an inference. Finally, if we agree that we cannot find a place where the experience is occurring other than 'here' how can we be sure that there is an experiencER, a me? All we know is that there is experiencING and it is known. By what, we just don't know.
An illusion of what?
There is either something wherever or there is not - as in space between your ears.How exactly does "we" "perceived space? - Apart from looking between your ears.
Quite a disappointing episode, wasn’t expecting an answer to what consciousness is but literally none of the guests had anything interesting to say.
apparently you were expecting a definition to simplify science for you. Maybe the Christian version would suit you better..
@@timhallas4275 I think there's a lot of projecting going on there buddy.
@@emanuelpetre5491 Nope.Just a simple observation. tell me I'm wrong.
I thought Simon Blackburn gave the best answer. It wasn't all mysticism, enigma and woo woo, but then good answers are often the simple ones.
@@emanuelpetre5491 Nope.Just a simple observation. tell me I'm wrong.
Kudos -- 444 Evolution -- 🗽
Sometimes I cant help but lmao when he cuts in for a monologue
*Yet another phenomenal video!!!*
Thank You!!
Domari Nolo
*III*
Did you enjoy the 12+ commercials as well..I did not.
"The smell of cheese" is an object of consciousness, Not consciousness itself.
Objects of consciousness depend on consciousness.
Consciousness does not depend on any of its objects.
Correct. Advaita vedanta or nonduality says the same thing. We are always the subject. Check out nisargadatta and swami sarvapriyananda
abhishek shukla check every wise tradition in every period of human history. only NOT western thought (in general) from descartes until now. ego cogito, ergo sum (the ego as subject) and
reality (world, reality [everything else] becomes object). and so materialism en separation became the leading paradigm.
the leading paradigm. but we are awakening!
You all think in terms of "objects" and substances when you should thing in terms of "processes".
The smell of cheese is a stimuli caused by the cheese "airborne" molecules locking to our nose receptors and creating a unique electro-chemical input that our brain compares it to our previous input and classifies it as cheese. If you like cheese then the unconscious system of your brain induces an array of emotions and functions that prepares you to taste it (saliva, dopamine anticipation mechanism etc).
COnsciousness is not responsible for the content of a conscious thought. Our conscious state just help us to direct our attention at specific stimuli. The content is created by the connectivity that emerges during those states between our memory brain modules, our reasoning and meaning module, our experience(previous input), our pattern recognition modules, our basic emotions triggered by endorphins and other rewarding mechanisms and so on.
There isn't such a magical thing as a "monolithic" conscious mind property.
Its an emergent result of a really complex brain function of many specialized areas of the brain.
@@bennyskim
"you keep saying consciousness isn't responsible for & doesn't create the content, but use the word "emerge" in its place."
-Emergence is the mechanism responsible for all advanced properties caused by physical structures beyond the basic quantum scale of matter. Consciousness is the state that allows our brain to focus on an environmental or organic stimuli and process it by connecting the rest of our brain modules responsible for reason, pattern recognition, previous experiences, memory etc.
Consciousness is just a state..nothing is "created" as an entity or a substance...it just allows through complex connections between different brain parts to process the stimuli and produce meaningful content.
-" whether you think consciousness is "created", "emerged", "hosted" etc. etc. is irrelevant "
-No it isn't. This is what we are investigating in science, how a brain is aroused by stimuli and put in this conscious state and how it can process it, thus produce a meaning full content about it.
-" it's undeniable that you are experiencing reality in this moment, and the hard problem gets at the question/problem of what that is
you're right that eyes are not much different than cameras - but a hard problem arises in why i'm able to see but a camera isn't"
-Why questions are pseudo philosophical questions. Why a discharging electron produces light(photons)...this is what it does.
We can reflect and process the info provided by our eyes because we have a brain that interprets those photons and tries to find meaning and predict the scenario we are going to experience.
There isn't an answer to this "WHY" question of yours. As you said we are conscious...undeniably and we are searching to find out the mechanisms responsible for that.
So the correct question should be How on earth our brain takes those stimuli and manages to construct meaning and causal relations. What are the responsible causal mechanisms for those representations and thoughts.
We are developing a way to literally read minds, there are already positive results but from what I can recall I heard that no matter how accurate we can read a mind there will always be inaccuracies.
We can monitor what's happening in brains. The brain-mind connection remains speculative.
@@neilcreamer8207 I wish I could remember what program I heard about this on, but I do remember Mishou Kaku talking about it on 'Big Think', he was saying that in about 25 to 30 years we won't have to type in what we want to say on social media, people will be able to communicate by reading words in your mind and feeling your feelings.
Don't quote me on the exact words he used. Also it may have been on a different science show. It was more recently ( last couple of months) that I heard on a reputable science program that we have actually read minds although not accurately.
Are you indeed, do you read many minds often?
"We" being exactly you - and who else? Whose mind have you read lately and what exactly did you read?
Consciousness, sentience, awareness - the problems arise from the desire for unnecessary definitions. Just be.
I've observed brains without consciousness but never consciousness without a brain.
Why not talk to an enlightened person? Sadhguru, Moji...
on the money Max!
he is not enlightened if someone is enlightened he or she has no more desires to anything
@@tesstess7005 Like you presumably which is why you didn't write that.
Does asking question about whether conscious in the past indicate anything about consciousness / subjective awareness?
no mystics? what's the point?
This channel is a goldmine
consciousness is a collection of senses
Very deep question. I like this very much.
You and you videos are a treasure for mankind.
Could neural correlates provide subjective awareness to fundamental consciousness, maybe from quantum fields with probabilities?
Consciousness is the isness of what is.
Consciousness is the presence of the moment.
Consciousness is the substance and context of everything.
Ho hum ,I suppose that if you cannot mumbo you might as well jumbo.
It seems to me that trying to find consciousness through the brain is like trying to discover the creation of music inside of a Radio set when we have no knowledge of sound waves. We just cannot find the musicians inside of the box.
Perhaps when we realise consciousness exists outside of our bodies and that our brain acts is a receiver, an enabler, then we might also realise that consciousness is fundamental and we exist outside of a physical body.
I think you’re right
I believe that consciousnes is as present in us as it is in a single cell, it's just at different levels of perception, awareness and manifestation. There's a noun wich is deeply linked to it and I believe is needed to define consciousness...
I define it as "The ability for an entity to percieve, to store, to process, to decide upon and transmit INFORMATION by non deterministic means" which leaves me with another and more important question:
¿What came first, Consciousness or Information?
"Believe" based on what evidence?