This video is fantastic. It delivers the best philosophy and analysis, with the best arguments and examples known to date. Thank you so much for giving so much material in only a 2 hour video.
As a person diagnosed with autism (Asperger's) it seems to me that there is something happening during interaction of neurotypicals (people who don't have autism) that seems almost like a supernatural event to me. They just appear to be on a wavelength or frequency that puts them in sinc with one another. A frequency or wavelength I'm unable to tune in to. Only mentioning this as Autism and supernatural came up in close proximity during the conversation and that's how my brain works!
Actually, if you put a non-conscious brain in your head and there was no experience, then it would be like being under anesthesia and so it'd be skipped over, and so the skipping over from your consciousness back to your consciousness would tell you that there's nothing it is like to be that person.
mind: Although the meaning of “mind” has already been provided in Chapter 05 of this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, it shall prove beneficial to further clarify that definition here in the Glossary. It is NOT implied that mind is the sum of the actual thoughts, the sensations, the memories, and the abstract images that inhabit the mental element (or the “space”) that those phenomena occupy, but the faculty itself. This mental space has two phases: the potential state (traditionally referred to as the “unconscious mind”), where there are no mental objects present (such as in deep sleep or during profound meditation), and the actualized state (usually referred to as the “conscious mind”), where the aforementioned abstract objects occupy one’s cognition (such as feelings of pain). Likewise, the intellect and the pseudo-ego are the containers (or the “spaces”) that hold conceptual thoughts and the sense of self, respectively. It is important to understand that the aforementioned three subsets of consciousness (mind, intellect, and false-ego) are not gross, tangible objects. Rather, they are subtle, intangible objects, that is, objects that can be perceived solely by an observant subject. The three subsets of consciousness transpire from certain areas of the brain (a phenomenon known as “strong emergence”), yet, as stated above, are not themselves composed of gross matter. Only a handful of mammal species possess intelligence (that is, abstract, conceptual thought processes), whilst human beings alone have acquired the pseudo-ego (the I- thought, which develops in infancy, following the id stage). Cf. “matter, gross”, “matter, subtle”, “subject”, and “object”. In the ancient Indian systems of metaphysics known as “Vedānta” and “Sāṃkhya”, mind is considered the sixth sense, although the five so-called “external” senses are, nonetheless, nominally distinguished from the mind, which is called an “internal” sense. This seems to be quite logical, because, just as the five “outer” senses involve a triad of experience (the perceived, the perception, and the perceiver), so too does the mind comprise a triad of cognition (the known, the knowing, and the knower). See also Chapter 06. P.S. There is much confusion (to put it EXTREMELY mildly) in both Western philosophy and in the so-called “Eastern” philosophical traditions, between the faculty of mind (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) and the intellect (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit). Therefore, the following example of the distinction ought to help one to understand the difference between the two subtle material elements: When one observes a movie or television show on the screen of an electronic device that one is holding in one’s hands, one is cognizing auditory, textural, and visual percepts, originating from external objects, which “penetrate” the senses of the body, just as is the case with any other mammal. This is the component of consciousness known as “mind” (at least according to the philosophical terminology of this treatise, which is founded on Vedānta, according to widely-accepted English translations of the Sanskrit terms). However, due to our intelligence, it is possible for we humans (and possibly a couple of other species of mammals, although to a far less-sophisticated degree) to construct conceptual thoughts on top of the purely sensory percepts. E.g. “Hey - look at that silly guy playing in the swimming pool!”, “I wonder what will happen next?”, or “I hate that the murderer has escaped from his prison cell!”. To provide an even more organic illustration of how the faculty of mind “blends” into the faculty of the intellect, consider the following example: When the feeling of hunger (or to be more precise, appetite) appears in one’s consciousness, that feeling is in the mind. When we have the thought, “I’m hungry”, that is a conceptual idea that is a manifestation of the intellect. So, as a general rule, as animals evolve, they develop an intellectual faculty, in which there is an increasingly greater perception of, or KNOWLEDGE of, the external world (and in the case of at least one species, knowledge of the inner world). In addition to these two faculties of mind and intellect, we humans possess the false-ego (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit). See Chapter 10 regarding egoity.
Much of this conversation with McGinn tacitly assumes a framework that individual particles are basic or "ultimate" units of existence, that cognition is understood as the private experience of lone brains and ideas, and that perceptions can be abstracted from their context (e.g. "redness") without compromising their concreteness. *It's all down to this or that isolated thing viewed close up.* Merlin Donald, neuro-palaeongologist, (A Mind So Rare) makes an excellent presentation of the coevolution and mutual dependency of culture and consciousness and criticizes the idea that the mind is locked inside the skull. He also criticizes the narrow scope of typical lab experiments. This is isolating individualizing thinking is a habit of thinking that colours these types of debates. Maybe it's time to develop alternative models, for example, models that don't prioritize certain scales of examination, or models that foreground interactions rather than items in the interactions.
As far as free will and the addict go...bodily desires often overwhelm moral or intellectual desires. Especially when the bodily desire is particularly strong....and certain desires are stronger in some individuals than others. We have no control over our bodily desires obviously. This is why the body was rejected as dirty and vile in Christianity.
I really like what this guy's doing in the sense that if you want to make progress in a field you want to have a mind very well skilled, even instinctive, at separating things you actually know from statements function as public place-holders for as of yet incomplete knowledge (which unfortunately aren't always advertised as such). Sounds like he's fine-tuned that faculty quite well.
All these questions over what color is irritate me. True; how I perceive green may be different than how anyone else perceives green, but, every one of us can agree on the wavelength of green.
Just thought with colors, we evolved in an environment and our categorizing and projecting back the qualities to the frequency inputs we get might have evolved along the environment that we have to make sense of. If there was only ever greys and white, I wonder if we would ever talk about the qualities 'red' or 'green'
Fourier transforms - how things in spacetime can connect and communicate with things outside spacetime (in the dimentionless frequency domain) From the book Eidomorphism
What is meant when saying that colors don't exist? I still see them as do my cameras. Did we just miss the memo or is this so obvious as to not require explanation?
This is what happens when you're inferring a physical world outside and independent of consciousness, you create all these problems that are unsolvable.
Is it only me that has a felling that Shermer barely gets what Mr. McGinn is driving at. The former completely misses the distinction between an experience (of a bat) and a concept thereof etc. Anyway, great discussion but Shermer could be better. Still, his guests are just tremendous. Mr. McGinn is simply delightful!
Listening to all of these arguments: other minds, language, free will, consciousness all take me to Heidegger who starts with being and time or what we share with lower mammals and perhaps other beings. Without some starting point which we may prove scientifically, we float in the void.
That part of free will is absurd... For what your saying about the clash of two desieres beeing the expression of free will, entails that a computer heuristics for doing an ML (machine learning) naive bayes analisys has free will. You must understand that the question of free will is a mystery and is incompatible with our cognitive instruments. Free will is an utiliarian ethic instrument.
We apprehend what we are able to; as we can't see ultra violet, we can't apprehend or comprehend spacetime, but some greatly dumbed-down, trivialised space and time which are travesties of what is actually there
colin is incisive in his analysis elucidating what the problem is in simple down to earth terms and this to me is what can be wonderful about philosophy- catching you out on your presuppositions and pointing out the errors/inconsistencies in a particular way of thinking- he makes it accessible and fascinating
Oh my goodness, this is so hard understanding, his phylosopphy is so interesting, Whats the nature of matter, whats the nature of reality itself without indicating to Idealism or panpsychisim. Even before watching this video I had a question like: Whats the strings itself made of? Whats the photon wich is a wriple in the field is made of? We know that Space-Time is emerges from quantum physic "quantum fields, the question is we dont know if this quantum field is emerges or if theres is a something else underlying this quantum thing! Or maybe the biggest problem is the language or the human cognition itself! Or as Daniel Dannet use word "trick" is all about
Atoms don’t have colour. It’s the photons that are emitted from the exchange & displacement of electrons that have energies that are detectable as colour.
Concerning Free will, however, you guys redefine free will as : "The ability to freely act upon your will" . That's the compatibilist definition. A determinist would say, that we humans, in some respect, we can act upon what we want and this is factually true, but you cannot chose not to want what you want, or not desire what you desire, or not experience what you experience, or not feel what you feel, or not think what you think. A way to say that also would be that a subject would experience a "want" for something (lets say Bungee jumping), and that this "want" will go everywhere in the brain, activating all sorts of area in the brain, that you will feel subjectively as having the experience of thinking, visualizing, anticipating, feeling the dopamine that is emitted hypothetically. There may be even contradictions between the area, conflicting signals within the brain, but a decision will then follow from that chaos : do it or not do it. This decision is NOT something any concious being chose, it is just solving an equation in the brain between some areas that are in favor and others that do not. Some areas are rational and would tell you "This will be fun and it's safe", and others just signal danger, release some neurotransmitters, to the point you could feel paralyzed or unable to act. The decision taken will be decided on who wins the debate in the brain: it does not need to be logical or anything but the decision will be taken anyway based on the results of the chaos happening in here. But why do I feel the "chaos" in my head always lead to me being able to act upon what I want ? Guess what, something we do not even "want" to do something, we just "do it" because the brain just made that happen, and THEN the prefontal cortex solves the cognitive dissonance and say "if I did it, it is because I wanted to do it". This does happen for a lot more things than we think and that is why manipulation and marketing works so well ! It creates a want, that is one way. OR it makes you ACT first then you will rationalise that you WANTED to do it. The best example of the last example is with patients with split brain hemisphere. There is this fantastic experiment where they put a panel in the middle of a split brain patient, so that left eye only see left hand, and right eye only see right hand. What happen is we put a note that says to left eye for example "take the object that is the smallest, and give it to right hand". The right hand receives the object, then the patient is asked to answer why left hand gave to right hand the object, and the patient says "I like the color of this object". And how could it be otherwise ? the two brain do not communicate, left brain (this is inverted) cannot know the reason why right brain gave this object and not another. The problem is left brain "interpret", find a bullshit reason for why this has happened. Patient with two split brains can live a perfect normal life because the hemisphere will always try to rationalise what the other hemisphere does, and it is really weird, but this is also evidence for this theory. You realize what you wanted, after you've done it sometimes. see "Left Brain interpreter" on wikipedia or "you are two" from CGP GREY on UA-cam for more information.
Kormarg very well said. Split brains are very good examples proving there is no such thing as free will. Our brain pretty much acts on instincts and desires, that arise from them after analysing all the other external factors, that might affect the same desires and instincts and also others that are not directly related. Just as you said, 'solving an equation'. Then act out, and finally coming up with a post Hoc rationalization. Because if it was not so, then that person would be stuck in a infinite game of problem solving inside the head. I think this is also the reason why action paralysis happens to people who think too much.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical! The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a DREAM in the “Mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control. University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in regards to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established. If any particular volitional act was not caused by one’s antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation could be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true randomness is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a fundamentally deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc. True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatsoever in the making of a conscious decision or the execution of an act of will. We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic sequence) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle). Those who believe in free-will ought to be challenged with the following experiment: at five o’clock tomorrow afternoon, for one hour, think of nothing but blue butterflies. If anyone can pass such a test, then they must be one in a billion, and even so, that does not substantiate free-will, but merely evidence that they have learnt to focus their mind on a level far beyond the average person, due solely to their genes and their conditioning. When an extraneous thought appears within that hour, as will inevitably occur, from where does that thought arise? Think about it! If we are truly the authors of our own mentation, then from where does our INITIAL thought or our first dream arise whilst we are still in the womb? If we did not consciously generate our very first thought, why do we assume that any of our proceeding thoughts are freely-produced? Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and our conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being! If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds! The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of the day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism/fatalism to be the most logical alternative to indeterminacy, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated. Cont...
I have always - since i was 10 yrs old -thought that ''nothing'' is mysterious ,my mind cannot accept the concept of ''nothing ''.there is no ''nothing ''.something is the normal state there must always be something there .i cannot imagine how would ''nothing'' look or feel like .
colour is created in the brain from some aspect of reality: so is shape, extension, mass - it's all us seeing thru a glass darkly, but believing we are seeing clear
Not sure what kind of an "ist" it makes me, but I believe that we have enough freedom of will to need to be held responsible for our thoughts, pronouncements and our actions in the world. For me, in many ways, philosophy tends to have a lack of empiricism that I generally do not experience in science.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical! The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a DREAM in the “Mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control. University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in regards to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established. If any particular volitional act was not caused by one’s antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation could be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true randomness is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a fundamentally deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc. True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatsoever in the making of a conscious decision or the execution of an act of will. We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic sequence) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle). Those who believe in free-will ought to be challenged with the following experiment: at five o’clock tomorrow afternoon, for one hour, think of nothing but blue butterflies. If anyone can pass such a test, then they must be one in a billion, and even so, that does not substantiate free-will, but merely evidence that they have learnt to focus their mind on a level far beyond the average person, due solely to their genes and their conditioning. When an extraneous thought appears within that hour, as will inevitably occur, from where does that thought arise? Think about it! If we are truly the authors of our own mentation, then from where does our INITIAL thought or our first dream arise whilst we are still in the womb? If we did not consciously generate our very first thought, why do we assume that any of our proceeding thoughts are freely-produced? Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and our conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being! If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds! The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of the day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism/fatalism to be the most logical alternative to indeterminacy, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated. Cont...
@@TheWorldTeacher I completely reject this philosophy. You can't change the past, but the future is unwritten. This is why Einstein's block universe is wrong. Nothing personal, but I have an uncanny talent for discerning bullshit.
It's always bothered me how people like McGinn and Chalmers make a big deal about the "sticking point" of not being able to know how the mind generates colors or what it' s like to be a bat. What it's like to be a bat or the quality of a certain color is what it is because it's not like something else. In other words, it doesn't matter what the internal experience is as long as it generates the behavior that keeps the organism alive in evolutionary space. What it's like for a dragonfly to experience the pursuit and capture of a gnat is more "mechanical" when compared to a similar experience for an animal with more neurons is that the dragonfly's experience is more direct, i.e., more of a reflex, because its decision making process is more streamlined because other mental modules that might mediate to determine whether the dragonfly ought to capture a particular gnat or not simply do not exist.
> the quality of a certain color is what it is because it's not like something else That is not an explanation. Sure, blue is not like anything else. The question is: why is blue LIKE THAT and not something else? What gives blue THAT specific character? It can't simply be that "blue is blue because it's not like the smell of dirt or the taste of salt or the feeling of falling in love, so on and so forth", because no matter how large the list is, there are still an infinite number of ways blue COULD be while still NOT being all of the things in the list (up to infinity!). An explanation would have to reveal why blue occupies the range of qualia space that it does. > it doesn't matter what the internal experience is as long as it generates the behavior that keeps the organism alive in evolutionary space It doesn't matter for the organism's survival...sure...but that is not what the question is about, so it's an irrelevant remark.
Ken Adair It is noobies like you are so oblivious to the problem that McGinn Chalmers Nagel Searle will continue to conceptualize the problem for you the understand what the question even is.
It is patently impossible to establish the existence of anything outside of consciousness. How will one observe particles and their mechanics without the existence of consciousness? Clearly, consciousness is axiomatic for any statement of knowledge. The only fact one can know for sure is the certainty of existence, that is, the impersonal sense of an unqualified “I am” that precedes any cognitive process whatsoever. For example, if someone was to ask you "Do you exist?", you could never, in all honesty, respond in the negative, for that would be absurd! All that can be said or known about the world, is a phenomenal appearance in consciousness. Anything else is speculation that can NEVER be definitively proven or demonstrated. However, this apparent subject-object duality is illusory, since Ultimate Reality is essentially monistic. So, for example, when a person looks at a tree, he or she is not seeing the tree in any isomorphic sense, but interpreting an inverse image projected onto the retina of the eyes. Therefore, there is no real evidence (or at least, no conclusive proof) for the external world, APART from consciousness. Likewise, there are no sounds in the external world but solely within the mind, since vibrations do not produce an audible sound until they strike one’s eardrums, and the signal is conveyed to the brain. If the corresponding parts of the brain were to be artificially stimulated in the same manner, the experience of sight/sound would seem identical. That explains the Zen koan: “If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nobody present, does the falling tree produce a sound?” Refer, also, to the thought experiment known as “Schrödinger’s cat”. Apart from the fact that we are unable to DIRECTLY perceive external phenomena, our sensory and cognitive faculties are far from perfect. Even if every human on earth experienced sounds and images in precisely the same manner, that does not prove that those perceptions accurately represent the world as it is, since other animals perceive the world quite differently than do humans. Some cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that all animals, including humans, have evolved not to perceive the external world completely objectively, but rather, have evolved to see the world in a way that promotes survival of their species. This is one explanation for the widespread belief in a Personal Creator God, since religious organizations (ideally) promote social cohesion (at least those that are not ultra-fundamentalist in nature). So, if most all the individuals in any particular nation follow the same religious tradition, the chances are that such a society will endure indefinitely. As alluded to above, it is imperative to mention that there are TWO main definitions of, or forms of, consciousness: the discrete consciousness associated with the brain of many species of animals (see Chapter 05), and Universal Consciousness (explained in Chapter 06). Perhaps a good analogy for the interplay between Universal Consciousness and the discrete consciousness found within the mammalian brain is that of a radio receiver (being the tangible hardware, akin to the physical brain) and radio waves (being intangible, akin to consciousness/Consciousness). So long as the radio receiver is in good working-order, it tunes-into the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. However, if the radio set breaks down, the radio waves themselves continue to modulate in space. So too, when the human brain dies, Universal Consciousness (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) continues indefinitely. Note, however, that this analogy is imperfect, since in reality, both the brain and the radio waves are contained within Infinite Awareness (“Brahman”). This confusion of terminology is due to the fact that the English language does not include a single word for the concept of Universal Consciousness (except “[The] Monad”) due to monism being a relatively esoteric concept in the West.
Colin McGinn writes: // "The fact is that we know *that* the brain produces consciousness, we just don’t know *how* it does this" (The Mysterious Flame, 1999, p. 88, emphasis McGinn's).// I wish he would enlighten people as to how he knows this. I honestly just don't get it. But, if he is correct, this is momentous. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have believed in an afterlife. I myself regard it as probable. What am I and the vast majority of people not getting?
Nor do I understand why atheism is so obvious. In the middle ages you would have been considered insane if you said you were an atheist. What does Colin understand that the vast majority of the human race doesn't understand?
@@Existentialist946: McGinn's point is not necessarily that atheism is 'obvious' on a global scale-it's not for various very complex reasons-but rather that among well-educated ('academic' was the word he used at 2:49; those well versed in science and the humanities) groups of people, non-belief in god is seen as being a completely normal. Once you gain some understanding as to how the world works, belief in the supernatural tends to diminish. It just becomes irrelevant; hence his point that it doesn't really tell you much about a person. I have no idea why you brought up the middles ages to try and reinforce your argument; we live in much more enlightened times: The majority of the world just needs time to catch up.
@@MontyCantsin5 I don't know why you're talking about atheism. One can be an atheist but reject the brain produces consciousness. I'm well aware that amongst educated people both atheism and a rejection of an afterlife is extremely common. We don't understand how the world works. Science merely describes reality. And it doesn't matter what educated people believe. What matters is whether they can justify their beliefs. And they can't.
@@Existentialist946: You asked about the issue raised in relation to a discussion on the topic of atheism; hence my reply was about... atheism. (Re-read your second comment; a reply to your own comment quoting McGinn.) Not sure I see the immediate connection between the psychological (or perhaps even evolutionary-based) belief in the supernatural (God) and neural correlates of consciousness. 'I'm well aware that amongst educated people both atheism and a rejection of an afterlife is extremely common.' Why the apparent confusion then? That was exactly McGinn's point (from 2:27 onwards). I did not claim that science knows everything about the how the world works, but some laws of nature are understood. Scientific theories also have predictive capabilities and while this might pose problems from a purely philosophical standpoint, we just have to accept that the predictions of future events are accurate. I think that goes beyond just description, although I get what you are hinting at. Moreover, educated people very often do have access to truth (good education equips one with accurate knowledge and strong problem solving skills), and one definition of truth is justified true belief. You seem to be saying that scientists and philosophers cannot justify their claims in any way, yet you provide no evidence to support this position.
@@MontyCantsin5 Oh yes, I see now I wrote another post asking why atheism is so obvious. And I still don't know why it is, nor why it's obvious the brain produces consciousness. Science is extremely successful at describing reality. However, it's the other suppositions that people make I would question. 2 blog posts of mine on science might be of interest: ian-wardell.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-difference-between-science-and.html ian-wardell.blogspot.com/2018/03/underdetermination-of-scientific-theory.html
Just seems to me that history taught us we evolved language for social control and social accomplishment. Seems individual freedom comes later which is why issues of non conformity reign in modern life. Conservatives argue liberals are self defeating because they attempt to free themselves from conservative values and then immerse themselves in systems of self guilt.
gotta say that the interviewer is way out of his depth, and McGinn does well to make his points while travelling so often on a different track to his interlocutor. eg:,$The idea that bigger brains would get us to earlier steps preceding the big bang both fails to face the qualitative rather than quantitative failure of human understanding, and makes a parallel error re 'before' the BB
My mother confirmed the resurrection of Jesus, that is, it were my father that came back after having been dead for 5 years, asking my mother for money for gas to the car, tho it could also be that the Alzheimer's she were diagnosed with, had something to do with vivid visions!
I am surprised to hear that Colin thinks that "red" color is the property of the objects (at 49:20). The emission of light in a certain frequency range is the property of the "red" object. Sure. But "red" is not a property of the object. For example the light frequency could be transformed into a pitch of a sound using a transducer and then different colors may make sounds at different pitch. "Red" is just a label we recall if we get the same brain state - which in the past we were taught to call "red" when someone showed us a red object first time.
You're surprised that an Oxford scholar of psychology and philosophy misunderstands basic cognitive concepts? You OBVIOUSLY have very little knowledge of Western "academia". :D
1:10:00 - I think the answers to these questions will be a lot less grotesque the day we discover some form of electronic prosthesis that allows our conscious awareness to parascope out of our bodies. Wish such luck we wouldn't have to worry about swapping pieces of brain (what a great way to spread diseases!) or, in Sam Harris's example, swap out neurons with transistors.
Many thanks for another terrific interview. Philosophers just love telling people off for using metaphors they disapprove of in their language don't they? Peter Hacker gives neuroscience a sound thrashing with his mereological fallacy stick for example. Apparently only philosophers are careful enough with metaphors. Yeah, right
Great video. But because someone is an Atheist I don’t assume you’re immoral. Not sure how that news gets circulated. It’s more of argument that you reduce morality down to a person or society and you should have no right imposing your moral views on others since there is no objectivity to it.
@@christopherhamilton3621 not my side but a standard above me that I subscribe too. I try to live my life more like Jesus and little less like me. There is a moral framework that God has giving that I try to live within as moral objectivity can only come from God. For a moral system to be truly objective, moral law must stem from a source external to humanity. Otherwise, all we have is subjective human moral opinion, no matter how it is dressed up.
So disappointed when I see seemingly intelligent people define themselves like that. Atheist, progressist, libertarian, secular, cosmopolitan blah blah blah... Seems so annoying and limiting.
This video is fantastic. It delivers the best philosophy and analysis, with the best arguments and examples known to date. Thank you so much for giving so much material in only a 2 hour video.
LITERALLY fantastic. :p
Polite, smart, and engaging discussion. Thanks for hosting McGinn.
As a person diagnosed with autism (Asperger's) it seems to me that there is something happening during interaction of neurotypicals (people who don't have autism) that seems almost like a supernatural event to me. They just appear to be on a wavelength or frequency that puts them in sinc with one another. A frequency or wavelength I'm unable to tune in to.
Only mentioning this as Autism and supernatural came up in close proximity during the conversation and that's how my brain works!
I'd like to see McGinn start his own podcast, he should do his own thing
Actually, if you put a non-conscious brain in your head and there was no experience, then it would be like being under anesthesia and so it'd be skipped over, and so the skipping over from your consciousness back to your consciousness would tell you that there's nothing it is like to be that person.
Can't find the Mind article McGinn is refering to. Hobolt something? "Freedom as necessitation"? Somebody knows?
mind:
Although the meaning of “mind” has already been provided in Chapter 05 of this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, it shall prove beneficial to further clarify that definition here in the Glossary. It is NOT implied that mind is the sum of the actual thoughts, the sensations, the memories, and the abstract images that inhabit the mental element (or the “space”) that those phenomena occupy, but the faculty itself. This mental space has two phases: the potential state (traditionally referred to as the “unconscious mind”), where there are no mental objects present (such as in deep sleep or during profound meditation), and the actualized state (usually referred to as the “conscious mind”), where the aforementioned abstract objects occupy one’s cognition (such as feelings of pain).
Likewise, the intellect and the pseudo-ego are the containers (or the “spaces”) that hold conceptual thoughts and the sense of self, respectively. It is important to understand that the aforementioned three subsets of consciousness (mind, intellect, and false-ego) are not gross, tangible objects. Rather, they are subtle, intangible objects, that is, objects that can be perceived solely by an observant subject. The three subsets of consciousness transpire from certain areas of the brain (a phenomenon known as “strong emergence”), yet, as stated above, are not themselves composed of gross matter. Only a handful of mammal species possess intelligence (that is, abstract, conceptual thought processes), whilst human beings alone have acquired the pseudo-ego (the I- thought, which develops in infancy, following the id stage). Cf. “matter, gross”, “matter, subtle”, “subject”, and “object”.
In the ancient Indian systems of metaphysics known as “Vedānta” and “Sāṃkhya”, mind is considered the sixth sense, although the five so-called “external” senses are, nonetheless, nominally distinguished from the mind, which is called an “internal” sense. This seems to be quite logical, because, just as the five “outer” senses involve a triad of experience (the perceived, the perception, and the perceiver), so too does the mind comprise a triad of cognition (the known, the knowing, and the knower). See also Chapter 06.
P.S. There is much confusion (to put it EXTREMELY mildly) in both Western philosophy and in the so-called “Eastern” philosophical traditions, between the faculty of mind (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) and the intellect (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit). Therefore, the following example of the distinction ought to help one to understand the difference between the two subtle material elements:
When one observes a movie or television show on the screen of an electronic device that one is holding in one’s hands, one is cognizing auditory, textural, and visual percepts, originating from external objects, which “penetrate” the senses of the body, just as is the case with any other mammal. This is the component of consciousness known as “mind” (at least according to the philosophical terminology of this treatise, which is founded on Vedānta, according to widely-accepted English translations of the Sanskrit terms).
However, due to our intelligence, it is possible for we humans (and possibly a couple of other species of mammals, although to a far less-sophisticated degree) to construct conceptual thoughts on top of the purely sensory percepts. E.g. “Hey - look at that silly guy playing in the swimming pool!”, “I wonder what will happen next?”, or “I hate that the murderer has escaped from his prison cell!”.
To provide an even more organic illustration of how the faculty of mind “blends” into the faculty of the intellect, consider the following example: When the feeling of hunger (or to be more precise, appetite) appears in one’s consciousness, that feeling is in the mind. When we have the thought, “I’m hungry”, that is a conceptual idea that is a manifestation of the intellect.
So, as a general rule, as animals evolve, they develop an intellectual faculty, in which there is an increasingly greater perception of, or KNOWLEDGE of, the external world (and in the case of at least one species, knowledge of the inner world). In addition to these two faculties of mind and intellect, we humans possess the false-ego (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit). See Chapter 10 regarding egoity.
Thanks to Colin I discovered the philosopher in me and sent him to uni.
Thanks Colin.
Have you graduated yet?
@@TheWorldTeacher Yes thankyou.
Actually I had graduated prior to posting that comment.
I wish that when people gave a thumbs down for a video it would accompany an explanation.
I can explain my reason for giving this SILLY video a "thumbs-down".
Are you INTERESTED in reading my explanation, Niko?
Much of this conversation with McGinn tacitly assumes a framework that individual particles are basic or "ultimate" units of existence, that cognition is understood as the private experience of lone brains and ideas, and that perceptions can be abstracted from their context (e.g. "redness") without compromising their concreteness. *It's all down to this or that isolated thing viewed close up.* Merlin Donald, neuro-palaeongologist, (A Mind So Rare) makes an excellent presentation of the coevolution and mutual dependency of culture and consciousness and criticizes the idea that the mind is locked inside the skull. He also criticizes the narrow scope of typical lab experiments. This is isolating individualizing thinking is a habit of thinking that colours these types of debates. Maybe it's time to develop alternative models, for example, models that don't prioritize certain scales of examination, or models that foreground interactions rather than items in the interactions.
35:48
I'm writing this timestamp here for my own reference, so I can keep looking back on how frighteningly mysterious this actually is...
As far as free will and the addict go...bodily desires often overwhelm moral or intellectual desires. Especially when the bodily desire is particularly strong....and certain desires are stronger in some individuals than others. We have no control over our bodily desires obviously. This is why the body was rejected as dirty and vile in Christianity.
Indeed, Mind = Apollo. Body = Dionysis.
You only experience what you experience. Therefore no one can claim to know what it's like to be someone they aren't.
You, Sir, are a GENIUS! :p
I really like what this guy's doing in the sense that if you want to make progress in a field you want to have a mind very well skilled, even instinctive, at separating things you actually know from statements function as public place-holders for as of yet incomplete knowledge (which unfortunately aren't always advertised as such). Sounds like he's fine-tuned that faculty quite well.
Excellent discussion. Straight to the point and lots of philosophical ground covered.
All these questions over what color is irritate me. True; how I perceive green may be different than how anyone else perceives green, but, every one of us can agree on the wavelength of green.
Just thought with colors, we evolved in an environment and our categorizing and projecting back the qualities to the frequency inputs we get might have evolved along the environment that we have to make sense of. If there was only ever greys and white, I wonder if we would ever talk about the qualities 'red' or 'green'
Fourier transforms - how things in spacetime can connect and communicate with things outside spacetime (in the dimentionless frequency domain)
From the book Eidomorphism
What is meant when saying that colors don't exist? I still see them as do my cameras. Did we just miss the memo or is this so obvious as to not require explanation?
This is what happens when you're inferring a physical world outside and independent of consciousness, you create all these problems that are unsolvable.
Our urges control us and we don't get to pick our urges. If we did pick an urge that too was an urge being acted out.
When a person thinks they're an atheist, it tells me they've either missed a few facts, or that they are subjective idealists.
Is it only me that has a felling that Shermer barely gets what Mr. McGinn is driving at. The former completely misses the distinction between an experience (of a bat) and a concept thereof etc. Anyway, great discussion but Shermer could be better. Still, his guests are just tremendous. Mr. McGinn is simply delightful!
Listening to all of these arguments: other minds, language, free will, consciousness all take me to Heidegger who starts with being and time or what we share with lower mammals and perhaps other beings. Without some starting point which we may prove scientifically, we float in the void.
That part of free will is absurd... For what your saying about the clash of two desieres beeing the expression of free will, entails that a computer heuristics for doing an ML (machine learning) naive bayes analisys has free will. You must understand that the question of free will is a mystery and is incompatible with our cognitive instruments. Free will is an utiliarian ethic instrument.
INCORRECT.
We apprehend what we are able to; as we can't see ultra violet, we can't apprehend or comprehend spacetime, but some greatly dumbed-down, trivialised space and time which are travesties of what is actually there
colin is incisive in his analysis elucidating what the problem is in simple down to earth terms and this to me is what can be wonderful about philosophy- catching you out on your presuppositions and pointing out the errors/inconsistencies in a particular way of thinking- he makes it accessible and fascinating
Good Girl!
Incidentally, are you a VEGAN, Mrs. Booth?
As you say, whoever gets there first. Laws and treaties aren't honoured on Earth let alone orbiting gold mines.
Oh my goodness, this is so hard understanding, his phylosopphy is so interesting, Whats the nature of matter, whats the nature of reality itself without indicating to Idealism or panpsychisim. Even before watching this video I had a question like: Whats the strings itself made of? Whats the photon wich is a wriple in the field is made of? We know that Space-Time is emerges from quantum physic "quantum fields, the question is we dont know if this quantum field is emerges or if theres is a something else underlying this quantum thing! Or maybe the biggest problem is the language or the human cognition itself! Or as Daniel Dannet use word "trick" is all about
why do we see colour if atoms dont hav any, everything is made of atoms, rite, so what color is an atom ??
Atoms don’t have colour. It’s the photons that are emitted from the exchange & displacement of electrons that have energies that are detectable as colour.
Concerning Free will, however, you guys redefine free will as : "The ability to freely act upon your will" . That's the compatibilist definition.
A determinist would say, that we humans, in some respect, we can act upon what we want and this is factually true, but you cannot chose not to want what you want, or not desire what you desire, or not experience what you experience, or not feel what you feel, or not think what you think.
A way to say that also would be that a subject would experience a "want" for something (lets say Bungee jumping), and that this "want" will go everywhere in the brain, activating all sorts of area in the brain, that you will feel subjectively as having the experience of thinking, visualizing, anticipating, feeling the dopamine that is emitted hypothetically. There may be even contradictions between the area, conflicting signals within the brain, but a decision will then follow from that chaos : do it or not do it. This decision is NOT something any concious being chose, it is just solving an equation in the brain between some areas that are in favor and others that do not. Some areas are rational and would tell you "This will be fun and it's safe", and others just signal danger, release some neurotransmitters, to the point you could feel paralyzed or unable to act. The decision taken will be decided on who wins the debate in the brain: it does not need to be logical or anything but the decision will be taken anyway based on the results of the chaos happening in here.
But why do I feel the "chaos" in my head always lead to me being able to act upon what I want ? Guess what, something we do not even "want" to do something, we just "do it" because the brain just made that happen, and THEN the prefontal cortex solves the cognitive dissonance and say "if I did it, it is because I wanted to do it". This does happen for a lot more things than we think and that is why manipulation and marketing works so well ! It creates a want, that is one way. OR it makes you ACT first then you will rationalise that you WANTED to do it.
The best example of the last example is with patients with split brain hemisphere. There is this fantastic experiment where they put a panel in the middle of a split brain patient, so that left eye only see left hand, and right eye only see right hand. What happen is we put a note that says to left eye for example "take the object that is the smallest, and give it to right hand". The right hand receives the object, then the patient is asked to answer why left hand gave to right hand the object, and the patient says "I like the color of this object". And how could it be otherwise ? the two brain do not communicate, left brain (this is inverted) cannot know the reason why right brain gave this object and not another. The problem is left brain "interpret", find a bullshit reason for why this has happened.
Patient with two split brains can live a perfect normal life because the hemisphere will always try to rationalise what the other hemisphere does, and it is really weird, but this is also evidence for this theory. You realize what you wanted, after you've done it sometimes.
see "Left Brain interpreter" on wikipedia or "you are two" from CGP GREY on UA-cam for more information.
Kormarg very well said. Split brains are very good examples proving there is no such thing as free will. Our brain pretty much acts on instincts and desires, that arise from them after analysing all the other external factors, that might affect the same desires and instincts and also others that are not directly related. Just as you said, 'solving an equation'. Then act out, and finally coming up with a post Hoc rationalization.
Because if it was not so, then that person would be stuck in a infinite game of problem solving inside the head. I think this is also the reason why action paralysis happens to people who think too much.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical!
The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a DREAM in the “Mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in regards to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by one’s antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation could be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true randomness is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a fundamentally deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc.
True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatsoever in the making of a conscious decision or the execution of an act of will.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic sequence) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Those who believe in free-will ought to be challenged with the following experiment: at five o’clock tomorrow afternoon, for one hour, think of nothing but blue butterflies. If anyone can pass such a test, then they must be one in a billion, and even so, that does not substantiate free-will, but merely evidence that they have learnt to focus their mind on a level far beyond the average person, due solely to their genes and their conditioning. When an extraneous thought appears within that hour, as will inevitably occur, from where does that thought arise? Think about it! If we are truly the authors of our own mentation, then from where does our INITIAL thought or our first dream arise whilst we are still in the womb? If we did not consciously generate our very first thought, why do we assume that any of our proceeding thoughts are freely-produced?
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and our conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being! If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds!
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of the day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism/fatalism to be the most logical alternative to indeterminacy, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
Evolution demanded colour to distinguish harmful things from food types etc. It makes sense to me how it came about. Colour is a necessary illusion.
I have always - since i was 10 yrs old -thought that ''nothing'' is mysterious ,my mind cannot accept the concept of ''nothing ''.there is no ''nothing ''.something is the normal state there must always be something there .i cannot imagine how would ''nothing'' look or feel like .
Me too. And I even have this stupid belief in the possibilty of, for lack of a better word, reincarnation because of it.
@@alexanderlupi1716, what is "REINCARNATION", exactly?
"Nothing" would look or feel like: nothing. Because it's nothing. Some say the existence of nothingness is impossible. Those people are high on weed.
Great interview. Keep em coming 👍🏼
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. ;)
colour is created in the brain from some aspect of reality: so is shape, extension, mass - it's all us seeing thru a glass darkly, but believing we are seeing clear
Not sure what kind of an "ist" it makes me, but I believe that we have enough freedom of will to need to be held responsible for our thoughts, pronouncements and our actions in the world. For me, in many ways, philosophy tends to have a lack of empiricism that I generally do not experience in science.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical!
The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a DREAM in the “Mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in regards to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by one’s antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation could be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true randomness is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a fundamentally deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc.
True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatsoever in the making of a conscious decision or the execution of an act of will.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic sequence) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Those who believe in free-will ought to be challenged with the following experiment: at five o’clock tomorrow afternoon, for one hour, think of nothing but blue butterflies. If anyone can pass such a test, then they must be one in a billion, and even so, that does not substantiate free-will, but merely evidence that they have learnt to focus their mind on a level far beyond the average person, due solely to their genes and their conditioning. When an extraneous thought appears within that hour, as will inevitably occur, from where does that thought arise? Think about it! If we are truly the authors of our own mentation, then from where does our INITIAL thought or our first dream arise whilst we are still in the womb? If we did not consciously generate our very first thought, why do we assume that any of our proceeding thoughts are freely-produced?
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and our conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being! If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds!
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of the day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism/fatalism to be the most logical alternative to indeterminacy, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
@@TheWorldTeacher I completely reject this philosophy. You can't change the past, but the future is unwritten. This is why Einstein's block universe is wrong. Nothing personal, but I have an uncanny talent for discerning bullshit.
It's always bothered me how people like McGinn and Chalmers make a big deal about the "sticking point" of not being able to know how the mind generates colors or what it' s like to be a bat. What it's like to be a bat or the quality of a certain color is what it is because it's not like something else. In other words, it doesn't matter what the internal experience is as long as it generates the behavior that keeps the organism alive in evolutionary space. What it's like for a dragonfly to experience the pursuit and capture of a gnat is more "mechanical" when compared to a similar experience for an animal with more neurons is that the dragonfly's experience is more direct, i.e., more of a reflex, because its decision making process is more streamlined because other mental modules that might mediate to determine whether the dragonfly ought to capture a particular gnat or not simply do not exist.
> the quality of a certain color is what it is because it's not like something else
That is not an explanation. Sure, blue is not like anything else. The question is: why is blue LIKE THAT and not something else? What gives blue THAT specific character? It can't simply be that "blue is blue because it's not like the smell of dirt or the taste of salt or the feeling of falling in love, so on and so forth", because no matter how large the list is, there are still an infinite number of ways blue COULD be while still NOT being all of the things in the list (up to infinity!). An explanation would have to reveal why blue occupies the range of qualia space that it does.
> it doesn't matter what the internal experience is as long as it generates the behavior that keeps the organism alive in evolutionary space
It doesn't matter for the organism's survival...sure...but that is not what the question is about, so it's an irrelevant remark.
Ken Adair It is noobies like you are so oblivious to the problem that McGinn Chalmers Nagel Searle will continue to conceptualize the problem for you the understand what the question even is.
It is patently impossible to establish the existence of anything outside of consciousness. How will one observe particles and their mechanics without the existence of consciousness? Clearly, consciousness is axiomatic for any statement of knowledge. The only fact one can know for sure is the certainty of existence, that is, the impersonal sense of an unqualified “I am” that precedes any cognitive process whatsoever. For example, if someone was to ask you "Do you exist?", you could never, in all honesty, respond in the negative, for that would be absurd!
All that can be said or known about the world, is a phenomenal appearance in consciousness. Anything else is speculation that can NEVER be definitively proven or demonstrated. However, this apparent subject-object duality is illusory, since Ultimate Reality is essentially monistic.
So, for example, when a person looks at a tree, he or she is not seeing the tree in any isomorphic sense, but interpreting an inverse image projected onto the retina of the eyes. Therefore, there is no real evidence (or at least, no conclusive proof) for the external world, APART from consciousness. Likewise, there are no sounds in the external world but solely within the mind, since vibrations do not produce an audible sound until they strike one’s eardrums, and the signal is conveyed to the brain. If the corresponding parts of the brain were to be artificially stimulated in the same manner, the experience of sight/sound would seem identical. That explains the Zen koan: “If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nobody present, does the falling tree produce a sound?” Refer, also, to the thought experiment known as “Schrödinger’s cat”.
Apart from the fact that we are unable to DIRECTLY perceive external phenomena, our sensory and cognitive faculties are far from perfect. Even if every human on earth experienced sounds and images in precisely the same manner, that does not prove that those perceptions accurately represent the world as it is, since other animals perceive the world quite differently than do humans. Some cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that all animals, including humans, have evolved not to perceive the external world completely objectively, but rather, have evolved to see the world in a way that promotes survival of their species. This is one explanation for the widespread belief in a Personal Creator God, since religious organizations (ideally) promote social cohesion (at least those that are not ultra-fundamentalist in nature). So, if most all the individuals in any particular nation follow the same religious tradition, the chances are that such a society will endure indefinitely.
As alluded to above, it is imperative to mention that there are TWO main definitions of, or forms of, consciousness: the discrete consciousness associated with the brain of many species of animals (see Chapter 05), and Universal Consciousness (explained in Chapter 06). Perhaps a good analogy for the interplay between Universal Consciousness and the discrete consciousness found within the mammalian brain is that of a radio receiver (being the tangible hardware, akin to the physical brain) and radio waves (being intangible, akin to consciousness/Consciousness). So long as the radio receiver is in good working-order, it tunes-into the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. However, if the radio set breaks down, the radio waves themselves continue to modulate in space. So too, when the human brain dies, Universal Consciousness (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) continues indefinitely. Note, however, that this analogy is imperfect, since in reality, both the brain and the radio waves are contained within Infinite Awareness (“Brahman”). This confusion of terminology is due to the fact that the English language does not include a single word for the concept of Universal Consciousness (except “[The] Monad”) due to monism being a relatively esoteric concept in the West.
we are deeply ignorant: that is what we must undertand
Like SPELLING, for example? :p
Believe in Monistic Idealism as my worldview and almost of these problems melt like butter.
yes, but is melting problems what we want to do with them. Similarly, believing that Jesus loves me removes most problems from consideration
Almost all of them…
Yet, Idealism is an INCOMPLETE understanding of Ultimate Reality.
Information science is a derived science but brains are not derived from information science (or any science) that investigates nature.
Colin McGinn writes:
// "The fact is that we know *that* the brain produces consciousness, we just don’t know *how* it does this" (The Mysterious Flame, 1999, p. 88, emphasis McGinn's).//
I wish he would enlighten people as to how he knows this. I honestly just don't get it. But, if he is correct, this is momentous. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have believed in an afterlife. I myself regard it as probable. What am I and the vast majority of people not getting?
Nor do I understand why atheism is so obvious. In the middle ages you would have been considered insane if you said you were an atheist. What does Colin understand that the vast majority of the human race doesn't understand?
@@Existentialist946: McGinn's point is not necessarily that atheism is 'obvious' on a global scale-it's not for various very complex reasons-but rather that among well-educated ('academic' was the word he used at 2:49; those well versed in science and the humanities) groups of people, non-belief in god is seen as being a completely normal. Once you gain some understanding as to how the world works, belief in the supernatural tends to diminish. It just becomes irrelevant; hence his point that it doesn't really tell you much about a person. I have no idea why you brought up the middles ages to try and reinforce your argument; we live in much more enlightened times: The majority of the world just needs time to catch up.
@@MontyCantsin5 I don't know why you're talking about atheism. One can be an atheist but reject the brain produces consciousness.
I'm well aware that amongst educated people both atheism and a rejection of an afterlife is extremely common.
We don't understand how the world works. Science merely describes reality. And it doesn't matter what educated people believe. What matters is whether they can justify their beliefs. And they can't.
@@Existentialist946: You asked about the issue raised in relation to a discussion on the topic of atheism; hence my reply was about... atheism. (Re-read your second comment; a reply to your own comment quoting McGinn.) Not sure I see the immediate connection between the psychological (or perhaps even evolutionary-based) belief in the supernatural (God) and neural correlates of consciousness.
'I'm well aware that amongst educated people both atheism and a rejection of an afterlife is extremely common.'
Why the apparent confusion then? That was exactly McGinn's point (from 2:27 onwards).
I did not claim that science knows everything about the how the world works, but some laws of nature are understood. Scientific theories also have predictive capabilities and while this might pose problems from a purely philosophical standpoint, we just have to accept that the predictions of future events are accurate. I think that goes beyond just description, although I get what you are hinting at. Moreover, educated people very often do have access to truth (good education equips one with accurate knowledge and strong problem solving skills), and one definition of truth is justified true belief. You seem to be saying that scientists and philosophers cannot justify their claims in any way, yet you provide no evidence to support this position.
@@MontyCantsin5 Oh yes, I see now I wrote another post asking why atheism is so obvious. And I still don't know why it is, nor why it's obvious the brain produces consciousness.
Science is extremely successful at describing reality. However, it's the other suppositions that people make I would question.
2 blog posts of mine on science might be of interest:
ian-wardell.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-difference-between-science-and.html
ian-wardell.blogspot.com/2018/03/underdetermination-of-scientific-theory.html
Just seems to me that history taught us we evolved language for social control and social accomplishment. Seems individual freedom comes later which is why issues of non conformity reign in modern life. Conservatives argue liberals are self defeating because they attempt to free themselves from conservative values and then immerse themselves in systems of self guilt.
gotta say that the interviewer is way out of his depth, and McGinn does well to make his points while travelling so often on a different track to his interlocutor. eg:,$The idea that bigger brains would get us to earlier steps preceding the big bang both fails to face the qualitative rather than quantitative failure of human understanding, and makes a parallel error re 'before' the BB
My mother confirmed the resurrection of Jesus, that is, it were my father that came back after having been dead for 5 years, asking my mother for money for gas to the car, tho it could also be that the Alzheimer's she were diagnosed with, had something to do with vivid visions!
😂 😂
Concepts are nice but science and evidence are solid...
Colour is a good indicator of chemical properties.
It's unbelievable to me that the 97% canard is still being referenced today, even by knowledgeable people.
What might that be??
Colin Mcginn is so freaking interesting.
Not to mention so freaking DULL.
I am surprised to hear that Colin thinks that "red" color is the property of the objects (at 49:20). The emission of light in a certain frequency range is the property of the "red" object. Sure. But "red" is not a property of the object. For example the light frequency could be transformed into a pitch of a sound using a transducer and then different colors may make sounds at different pitch.
"Red" is just a label we recall if we get the same brain state - which in the past we were taught to call "red" when someone showed us a red object first time.
You're surprised that an Oxford scholar of psychology and philosophy misunderstands basic cognitive concepts? You OBVIOUSLY have very little knowledge of Western "academia". :D
@@TheWorldTeacher You OBVIOUSLY know what I know about western academia. If you are serious please address my comments content.
1:10:00 - I think the answers to these questions will be a lot less grotesque the day we discover some form of electronic prosthesis that allows our conscious awareness to parascope out of our bodies. Wish such luck we wouldn't have to worry about swapping pieces of brain (what a great way to spread diseases!) or, in Sam Harris's example, swap out neurons with transistors.
I also don't think the brain idea is valid really. That would not be evidence subject to public observation. At least not in the conventional sense.
The drug addict isn't this just conflicted caused by an artificial substance.
in short: there is a reality out there, Jim, but not as we know it
Many thanks for another terrific interview. Philosophers just love telling people off for using metaphors they disapprove of in their language don't they? Peter Hacker gives neuroscience a sound thrashing with his mereological fallacy stick for example. Apparently only philosophers are careful enough with metaphors. Yeah, right
After we die the experience of whatever organism happens to be born after you've ceased to exist will be the experience that comes after yours.
😉
Wow..the last time I saw colin on t.v was in the atheism tapes about 10/15 years back,he looks well old now!!
A sexual scandal, rather than extending youth, may accelerate aging.
His face has more wrinkles than an Elephant 's scrotum.
I claim this planet in the name of mars, isn't that lovely? - Marvin the Marsian.
excellent. thank you.
Great video. But because someone is an Atheist I don’t assume you’re immoral. Not sure how that news gets circulated. It’s more of argument that you reduce morality down to a person or society and you should have no right imposing your moral views on others since there is no objectivity to it.
Do you really think that because you believe objectivity to be ‘on your side’, that DOES give you the right to foist it on others? Surely not?
@@christopherhamilton3621 not my side but a standard above me that I subscribe too. I try to live my life more like Jesus and little less like me. There is a moral framework that God has giving that I try to live within as moral objectivity can only come from God. For a moral system to be truly objective, moral law must stem from a source external to humanity. Otherwise, all we have is subjective human moral opinion, no matter how it is dressed up.
Cognitive closure is false.
So disappointed when I see seemingly intelligent people define themselves like that. Atheist, progressist, libertarian, secular, cosmopolitan blah blah blah... Seems so annoying and limiting.
Every label is a limiter. It's a joke.
Do you mean those particular labels or labels in general?
Such speculative ideas, they have no clue in reality.
Great interview. Keep em coming 👍🏼
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. ;)