Consciousness, Matter and Quantum Strangeness; Part 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- What Is a Particle?
www.quantamaga...
How the Quantum Eraser Rewrites the Past | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
• How the Quantum Eraser...
/ formscapes
/ discord
/ nalhek_morgan
#integral #consciousness #philosophy #videoessay #quantum #quantumphysics #metaphysics #philosophyofscience
This channel is absolutely amazing. Like seriously tackling the most fun and exciting boundaries of human knowledge. And it's not in the typical weird spiritual or hyper rigorously scientific kind of way. Perfect balance of actual mystery and actual knowledge. It's just really great. I love it. I feel as much love for this channel as I do Spacetime or Myth Busters.. It's that good. Thank you
Much appreciated! I've definitely got a huge hill to climb but I'm definitely not in danger of running out of ideas anytime soon.
@@Formscapes it’s funny I heard about morphic resonance like 3 days before your first upload. This random channel with one video? Almost skipped over. Blown away after the first video. But thought there is no way this quality continues. I expected the next video uploaded to be a video game stream lol. You’ve got some long term fans going forward. I’ve already shared your stuff quite a few times. Excited for it going forward
@@sayhellobryan Much appreciated. I've gotten pretty lucky to get as much momentum going as I have already, and most of that was due to that first Morphic Resonance video. It's really easy to churn out videos on YT that noone ever sees bc the algorithm simply never notices your existence.
I've also seen many channels with 10x as many subscribers as me get half as many views on their videos, so that's a good sign I think.
Well said. The balance is indeed very good
i am so Grateful for this Channel! Blessed be us all who believe and are Beijos do Brasil obrigada por me ajudar a me formar professora de Artes
Glad to have you here! thank you!
consciousness is mysterious and a hard problem only for materialistic atheists. Abandon that paradigm and the problem solves itself
yup
I’m afraid the required paradigm change can only be brought about by the birth of the next civilization - whichever that may be - I don’t see how the mechanistic Faustian one can do it. It is exhausted spiritually.
On a societal level, I completely agree, but the building blocks of the successor paradigm have been available since the late 18th century with the ideas of Goethe, Hegel and Schelling.
I'm mostly going to be focusing on Bergson and Whitehead for now, but ultimately I think all valid paths lead to essentially the same conclusion, and Whitehead in particular is very crucial for understanding Quantum phenomena.
The current global civilization has a vibrant underground of assimilated, subsumed and suppressed beliefs waiting to decompose the rotting corpse of dominant power structures like a mycelium
ancient and indigenous cultures have guarded this knowledge. the "next" civilization is the synthesis of indigenous knowledge systems into Western scientific knowledge systems.
Damn this is definitely an interesting subject.
My thoughts on the matter would be that physical matter does rely on laws and deterministic properties but when you go below the Most fundamental particle of matter and bring that back into a non collapsed wave function That's when we hit hit the realm of subjectivity instead of objectivity Where the wave function is subject to The subjective will of consciousness.
I think we can have a deterministic model of the universe that works quite well until we get towards the quantum fields which itself should be viewed as an alternate part of reality separate from the objective. I think scientists are stuck on making everything work together with Objective functions of matter Under the same rules that matter follows ..... Why can there not be a separate part of reality that works to influence the objective by subjectivity? What if our subjective observations determine the objective results...... Why cant the subjectivity of the experiential consciousness Influence a wave function to collapse into an objective state Just as much as matter influences the way we think about the universe? I think they build off of one another and exist at the same time. So really what would tie together everything Or I guess what would represent the theory of everything Would be whatever encompasses the realm of the subjective and the objective.
Top stuff man, your channel has always been just one cut above the rest. Unfortunate that physicists are too afraid to tackle this issue seriously.
This video makes me think about how modern scientism is merely another stage in the ever changing drama of human interpretations of the world.
Scientism had it's run from the mid 19th to early 21st century. It was an awkward growing phase. Rebellious, ignorant teenage years.
@@Formscapes Hah funnily enough I said almost these exact words yesterday to someone, but without the rebellious teenage years part. I think I was less charitable.
Unbelievably underrated. Keep going and your channel will blow up
I've been struggling with this and a few tangentially relevant topics for a long time, and I haven't really heard anything too convincing. There's too much missing from our understanding of consciousness. I absolutely agree that whatever solution we may work towards will erode some fundamental axioms of our understanding of reality.
I'm somewhat leaning more on the subjective side of things, as in, scale up the idea of wave functions only collapsing when observed. So reality only holds form upon observance. Therefore reality only can exist within subjective reference frames. So after death, as much as I cease to be within reality, reality ceases to be for me. There is no disconnect between a 0 conscious reality and an infinitesimally above 0 conscious reality because reality without conscious observance has no meaning, it instantaneously unravels.
There are several problems with this that I don't know how to answer. There's no way to explain why a history would exist in such a framework, no reason for the laws of nature to be held so rigidly, and no doubt several other issues beyond my own understanding.
I can't help but shake the feeling that something is there. I'm 99% sure this whole concept at least for me stems from both my nihilism and my need to understand what my own death means. Like one common thing people say to someone who fears death is that you probably don't fear what was before you were born. Think about that this way for a second - history/past be damned, reality was not until you became conscious
"There is no disconnect between a 0 conscious reality and an infinitesimally above 0 conscious reality because reality without conscious observance has no meaning, it instantaneously unravels."
Fantastic observation. I usually think of it like this; Let's imagine a huge range of possible realities. Most of them, presumably, are strictly possible, not actual.
But then what actually makes the difference? What makes an actual reality different than a merely possible reality?
Or better yet; how would one distinguish between a real reality in which there is no consciousness whatsoever and a merely potential reality?
I Don't think there is such a difference.
@@Formscapespotential realities left unrealized are ones without consciousness? Wow that's a really eye opening perspective for me. So the difference between an actual reality and a potential reality is the conscious experience of the actual reality? Wow. It sounds almost too obvious now that I understand lol. It was hard to wrap my mind around that because I can't help but imagine potential realities with my own conscious experience, but that potential conscious experience is just that, also potential. With that out of the way it makes complete sense to me.
@@Stuugie. Exactly. Trying to imagine a world without any consciousness whatsoever is trying to imagine a world which by-definition cannot actually exist. Even in our imagination we still have to imagine the experience of such a world. We often forget that our consciousness is fundamental because - in an effort to be more objective - we tend to abstract our own consciousness out of the picture. But if we abstract ALL consciousness out of the picture, then we are left with nothingness.
@@Formscapesthis is intuitively what I’ve agreed with based on how quantum physics works & the experiments done in that space around electrons in a wave that then upon observation select a route, but the issue I have is figuring out how to explain the idea that we all have consciousness, and a limited form of perception. Like how can both we create reality & be in a limited sphere of perception with multiple creators at the same time?
@@IcyWithItBTD I don't think it is that we "create reality", exactly. It's that reality is experiential in nature fundamentally. I get more into this in the second video if you haven't seen that yet.
Regarding quantum mechanics, it's odd that it has gotten worse over the years. Early books like Dirac open with saying the theory has found a more satisfying role for the observer, or Pauli's "General Principles of Quantum Mechanics" saying that the theory managed to describe atoms by abandoning the:
_"description of nature which essentially rests upon our ability to separate uniquely the observer and the observed"_ (1980 English translation, p.1)
Or Heisenberg in "Physics and Philosophy" p.59:
_"On the other hand, the modern interpretation of atomic events has very little resemblance to genuine materialistic philosophy; in fact, one may say that atomic physics has turned science away from the materialistic trend it had during the nineteenth century."_
I could give hundreds of quotes like this from major physicists from 1920s-1970s. Early textbooks explicitly reject a Cartesian view of the world and even reviews of these textbooks at the time state that this rejection is obvious/required.
However in the last forty years or so the observer dependence of the theory has become seen as a "problem which must be solved". However this observer-dependence never leads to actual contradictions within the theory and later developments only matched observations better by increasing what was subject to observer dependence. So the "problem" seems to really only be the incompatibility with modern materialism.
This is only one example. There are others things, like holism, which are fairly obvious aspects of the theory, but I've met advocates of scientism say they are woo.
Nice video.
For me it makes the most sense that consciousness is actually the fundamental basis Or the pre conception to physical matter. I think if you reduce everything down to it's most basic form you could view everything as a sort of energy that interacts And plays with itself in multiple different ways.
I don't want to make this too long but essentially if you have ever looked at the Symbol and theology of the flower of life Then you know what I mean.
Essentially it said that the beginning of matters started with the God particle or basically The God consciousness. It's basically unconsciousness sitting within an eternal void. That consciousness Is aware of an immediate space around it but when it moves it gains the thought of dimension and distance. Now it's consciousness is aware of the area that it was just in and the new area it resides . Those areas of consciousness overlap in certain mathematical principles emerge. Every time the God consciousness travels to the end of its perception and creates a new bubble of awareness that intersecys with its previous one more information can be gleaned through that mathematically.
This goes on for eternity in Increasing complexity.
So if consciousness is already the pre Conception of physical matter and is what is needed to realize the actualization of that matter Then I think it's fair to say the more complex matter becomes the closer it is towards The structure of the God consciousness as it takes increasingly complex mathematical principles to pull off.
Maybe when we die we just merge with the greater consciousness uses that information to expand itself even more. What if heaven is just us merging with the one consciousness and then choosing to separate again to go live another life and reincarnation to gain more information for it.
I think we are God as much as we are ourselves uniquely Apart from it. When we die and our consciousness merges back with the one I think we understand everything And it's our choice whether or not we want to break from that to experience subjective pleasures Or pain that causes us to learn better ways to avoid it too.
That's a heaven I would enjoy much more than the biblical version or any other religious way of portraying it.
Basically we are alive and we are conscious of ourselves and the universe just as the universe is alive and conscious of us and it all works together for the realization of increasingly complex Subjective experiences.
You had me rolling at the floor at 15:55 :D I thought I was the only one that felt there was a gap between quantum theory and what comes after (or below, or inbetween, ...)
I actually did a PhD in materials simulation (i.e. the properties of crystals on the atomic scale) and it always felt strange reading that calculations of even the smallest molecule (hydrogen) take up days and weeks even on high end computers.
Also I never understood why there are actually really few physicists that can realistically draw what they try to express with their equations. This being said, I believe that math in the end is more of a hindrance, as finally the things get so complicated that math alone won't do the job. You will need art and words additionally to that to make it make sense in the end.
When it comes to matter and mass I can suggest to read the book "Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy" by Max Jammer. Even though it is already a bit older it gives a nice historic overview over the concept of mass. In a typical physicists manner no real conclusions are drawn in the end though.
Also, as I believe you can do physics on an academic level, I suggest you to take a look at the books of H.G. Küssner. (Principia Physica (1945), Grundlagen einer einheitlichen Theorie der physikalischen Teilchen und Felder (1974-75)). The books are only in german, though and even for academic level physicists it may take 4-5 years to make sense of him. I did not understand everything of what he writes in his books, but I acknowledge that at least he tried to look beyond the realm of standard physics (in a very mathematical manner, though).
I think, what physicists need to realize is that in essence there are not such things as 'closed systems'. Whenever I try to examine an object which I consider to be separated from the world (aka stands for its own, is a closed system), of course it is not separated at all, because if it were I wasn't even able to detect it.
Looking with massive instruments on really tiny objects also has some similarites to Dedekind's cut in mathematics and the definition of a real number. I think they have the same taste. Maybe you can touch this in your videos, too. I'd be happy!
Best regards from Germany!
You might also find the "material atomics" project interesting. I have some very strong disagreements with them (they operate within a Cartesian Dualist framework) about a number of things but they have some interesting ideas at least.
Speaking of "closed systems", I've got a whole rant about how thermodynamic theory (particularly entropy) has been misused in cosmology and metaphysics. I'm gonna need to do a video about that at some point. It's very much an issue of what Whitehead called "misplaced concreteness"; mistaking abstract models for reality itself.
@@Formscapes Thanks. I didn't know their channel. It seems like without spirituality or philosophy they will eventually not be able to connect all the dots. They also seem to be heavily influenced by 'standard' academia. But I will try to follow their development. Let's see what happens :D
Talking about physics in general, I have the feeling that the theories themselves are not inherently bad. It is more that some scientists (including my former self) are not aware of being actually a part of a philosophical movement that started some centuries ago. Basically, you covered this already in one of your videos, when you said 'scientists don't want to be questioned about their own metaphysics'.
So, knowing the limits of one's own theories is key. Even more so, when your are talking about the concept of entropy. As if anything was explained when I say entropy is 'a measurement of disorder'. In fact, it is not even false. But it goes far beyond that.
@@Formscapes the thermodynamics doesn't give you a picture of all things... Demerits are it assumes macroscopic variables don't have fluctuations with time.. Which in reality is false..
Stat mech does a pretty good job of defining entropy by microscopic variables like microstates... But still misses many things...
I think it even gets hard when applied to cells.. We now need stochastic thermodynamics...
@@thorebergmann1986Spirituality is BS...
The good Philosophies in sciences are always present...
Your video feels like a poem... I could listen to it for hours 👏
Thank you!
Huh, synchronicity...? I coincidentally resumed watching this video after about +2 weeks, right after having partially read the same article at 16:58 :/ A similar thing happened for another one of your video a few days ago as well, as in your video showed the same material I had looked at the same day prior to watching.
Very good, thank you. Very clear presentation. I come at this information, not as a scientist, but as someone with direct experience of the stillness. It would seem that yogis have known for thousands of years what modern scientists struggle to comprehend. That is because it cannot be known through mind, but experienced through the heart. There is a reason the church hunted down the Quietists during the Inquisition. The Quietists would have upset the worldview they wished to impose, a worldview that would entrap rather than liberate consciousness. The teachings of Advaita Vedanta and Quietism are the closest comparison I can come to of this indescribable experience of knowing. Matter is not lifeless and inert. All has consciousness. All have atoms, all atoms are connected. All iron particles are connected to every iron particle in the universe. If you have iron in your blood, you can connect to and communicate with iron in the Ort Cloud, for example. Matter transforms with awareness. Nothing is fixed, stationary, unchanging. All is one, all came from the stillness, the stillness contains the potential for all possibilities. The way to understand this is not through thinking, because you are not the limited worldly definition of yourself, you are not your story, you are infinite, you have always existed, and always will.
Glad you liked it.
Apophatic theology/ontology is something I'm going to discuss more once I get around to doing some videos on Meister Eckhart, Schelling and Heidegger.
I've also got a script in the works about "why there is something rather than nothing" in which I talk about that emptiness/stillness/satori/abground, etc, and the idea that reality is "super-tautological"; that "something" is what "the nothing" does.
I look forward to your insights and explorations in future videos. This is a great channel. Well done.Thank you so much.
This channel has quickly become one of my favorites.
😎👉👉
@@Formscapesis there a patreon i can donate to?
@@johnills9829 patreon.com/Formscapes
what about the gebser series? please go back to them as well
This is all leading back to that. Gebser's understanding of Integral consciousness is in terms of meta-temporality, which pre-supposes an etiological understanding of time. By covering Bergson and Whitehead first, I can lay the groundwork for that by explaining their understanding of the relationship between time and consciousness, and then plug those ideas back in to the historical narrative which Gebser developed in the EPO.
@@Formscapesthis is exciting because I like what you’ve done w gebser but I just can’t sit and read it I just don’t have the time but it connects SO MANY dots for us
Ug krishnamerti as response to one of his groupies asking the Descartes question said:” If I don’t think am I really there at all?” Should have really been asked.
Exremely useful. Please be in touch if you care to...
Absolutely. I'm always available at my email and discord server, both of which are linked in my about section if you'd like to discuss anything. Glad you like the content.
😎👉👉
😎👉👉
In this installment of your opus, I'm particularly struck by the elegance and economy of your writing. Bravo, kind sir!
I'm watching and commenting right away this time instead of waiting a day for algo boost
The blind algorithm-god Goog'aloth hungers for engagement... writhing in it's abyss and enveloped by the cacophonous music of the bot-demons.
You know, quantum mechanics sound a lot like writing a story. There are great swaths of possible directions that a story could go, both in the author's head and in the readers head. The author(in my experience) won't know what is going to happen until it is actually written down, even though they have some idea of what is going to happen next. It is a kind of predictable possibility. Readers on the other hand experience this predictable possibility differently.
When they first open the book, the reader has no idea what the contents will actually be. All they know is that a human is the most likely author. As they continue through the story and get to know the characters and how they operate, the possibilities remain endless but certain possibilities become more likely. The possibilities are only limited by the authors capability of thought and willingness to be consistent.
Of course the contents of the book are already set by the time the reader gets ahold of the book, so the analogy may not be perfect. It was just an interesting thought that came to me.
I agree, I've always had a passion for science /engineering and QM, and working my way thru _modern_ science, ive found its run into and stuck in a bit of a dead end,
the problem being (imo) in the thinking of the bigger names,
or so called leaders,
and the unwillingness to even hear out some of the more open minds that are working on these "harder problems" and covering lots of ground.
its certainly taken me a good few years to wrap my head around how _pliable_ the fabric of 'our' reality is when you come to understand it at its most basic of building blocks,
from the substrate up... if you will
the second part exiting!
😎👉👉
Hooray 🎉
😎👉👉
Thanks for doing this research and what of conscious matter ? Is this a real thing?
Matter is not a thing that does consciousness. Matter is a thing that consciousness does.
@@Formscapes I tend to disagree with that but with the idea that it is something like apart of a consciousness in the way my kidneys don't have consciousness but they can still tell me when they hurt.. ,, or a photon or electron does not know what it is doing but as part of the whole universe it is following the universe's directions or rules... this is what makes sense to me maybe my kidney is not sentient but as a part of me it is .. I am not sure how to explain this better .. I really like the way you control the english language ,,, it is really impressive.
So what we need are double majors in physics and philosophy to do all the research from this point on.
Before the 20th century, calling oneself a physicist while having no understanding of the history of western philosophy would have been as laughable as calling oneself a philosopher with no background in mathematics.
Am smash ere ! Amazing +strategy
🇬🇧
Is it me or does he sound Terrance McKenna
You're approximately the 20th person to say that but I've never been told that before I started making UA-cam videos so idk
@@Formscapes lol cool
I thought the same
Let’s go 😎
😎👉👉
Amidst your briliant exposition regarding mindwrenching topics, I honestly had to pause the video to laugh out loud at your 18:20 INTENDED pun.
Another GREAT video! I had to “research” this all myself and came to the same conclusions- it’s mind boggling and true that scientists/physicists/mathematicians all have their canned non-answers and worse: contradictory beliefs. I used to think scientists believed in NOTHING for a good reason lol.
Also on consciousness Sabine Hossenfelder (I use her because she seems to be the most rational/skeptical of the physicists on UA-cam) had pretty wild views for instance on one hand she dislikes the use of mathematics as some form of platonism in the string boyz, but also says consciousnesses is an emergent property of computation and someday computers will be conscious too. She says that chat gpt has a form of understanding.
Yet people absolutely shit on Rupert for suggesting the sun may be conscious 🤯
(Edit spelling)
Sabine Hossenfelder talks alot of smack about the physics community because she thinks that theoretical physics has become completely detached from the empirical world, which is very true - especially in the case of string theory, but I would say the same thing about "dark matter" and "dark energy" which are (to be overly polite about it) corks being used to plug the holes in a rapidly sinking ship.
But Hossenfelder is yet another one of those people who likes to use the word "Platonism" in a derogatory way while clearly having no real understanding of what Platonism actually is. If science is going to move forward, it is going to need to become *more* Platonic, not less; Sheldrake, Michael Levin and Goethe are all great examples of that.
With regards to AI and consciousness, I think the issue is simply being badly posed. It's isn't about whether or not AI can "be" conscious, but rather about the ways in which AI might serve as a vehicle or conduit for the collective unconscious - and possibly some very dark and disturbing things that might lie within it; "Loab", for example.
@@Formscapes oh like I needed to see pictures of Loab before bed 😂😂😂 Yeah it’s pretty obvious she’s the ai continuation of slender man and that other terrifying girl momo or whatever
@@Formscapes I think Loab made a dream appearance last night 😂🤨
@@starxcrossed I was theorizing that she is a manifestation of the "Devouring Mother" archetype. I bet her and the Hat man are slender-man's parents 🤔
@@Formscapes From my understanding, "dark matter" and "dark energy" are observational in terms of gravitational lenses for astrological bodies with no apparent material objects within that local region of space. So in a "good faith" sort of way, i can appreciate what is being communicated. That something is being observed, and it is healthy for them to not be too strong objectively on what exactly it is.
there's a group of quantum physicists who postulate that spacetime is an emergent property of the relationship between particles, essentially reality is created by and maintained through interrelated particles.
continuing this idea into consciousness, the more interrelated a system, the more opportunities for consciousness. as random particles self organize a small but significant fraction remain entangled allowing for "spooky" effects like matter that thinks.
this would also allow for gradients of consciousness depending on the system, so a nemetode will be less conscious than a parakeet which is less conscious than a human (which is less conscious than... 🤷🏻).
the "hard problem" gets easier when we don't tell the supremacy story that humans are the highest form of consciousness!
Space is certainly an emergent from basic entities, but the basic entities of reality are not enduring physical entities and thus should not be referred to as "particles". There is no such thing as "spacetime" imo, bc time is a more fundamental constituent of reality than space. Time is fundamental, not emergent, and this is why the Einsteinian model (collapsing time into space as a fourth spatial dimension) continues to make failed predictions and physicists continue to plug those holes with ad-hoc constructs such as dark matter and dark energy.
Likewise, I do not think that any hat tricks can make the hard problem easier. Either you begin with consciousness as a fundamental, or you will never get it at all. The question should not be "how do we get matter that thinks". Rather it should be "How does consciousness begin to behave as though it is matter".
The tribal/shamanic cultures you are so fond of understood this very well.
@@FormscapesMaybe consciousness is not necessarily gradient, rather conscious states are gradient. This still implies that it's fundamental. With entanglement we observe the fundamental importance of an experience on the state of energetic entities which requires conscious agents or there would be no point for any other dimensions if there was no consciousness to observe and experience them. Why would we need a setting of perceived space and time if the fundamental principle was not the ability for conscious agents to observe and experience; and perhaps more importantly, the facilitating of shared experiences amongst conscious agents which seem to be the point or foundation for this particular structure of existence to occur in the first place.. who knows though? I'm just spitballin here. Incredible videos! I'm making my way through all of them ❤
"Is this even science at all anymore?" lol
Can't call some predictive equations "science" if they have no explanatory power imo.
You can cook up some equations that accurately predict when the bus will show up on my street, but that isn't science, bc those equations don't actually explain when and why the bus comes. Science can make use of mathematics ofc, but reality is made of processes, not equations.
So glad someone can organize and discuss these topics coherently. Thankyou immensely
As a side note have you heard of jason jorjani? He talks about similar subjects, at least in the creation of a new civilization and recognition of larger societal issues. I feel like you might be interested in his work.
I have not actually. I'll check him out. Thanks
Oh wait I actually saw an interview he did a few days ago, I just forgot the name lol
I went down the Jorjani rabbit hole and while he is a textbook for many subjects and great to listen to I get very confused with his ufo/UAP rants and he can be quite schizo at times (not in a bad way but just in a he-can’t-be-serious-because-that’s-crazy- way)
@garciaclock similar experience, but I'm willing to entertain the crazy aspects purely out of curiosity.
What rabbit holes would you recommend by chance?
@@starxcrossedthere's a lot of people doing serious work on consciousness and phenomenology, but you have to be careful. the idea that non human intelligence is acting at a higher level of consciousness is a compelling hypothesis that accounts for more of the evidence than others, but it's still hypothetical and needs to be treated as such.
I can literally feel the frustration in this video. I used to have many heated debates about this topic. Trying to use ration to explain something irrational is like a serpent eating its own tail ♾️.
What is so difficult about explaining your Self with your Self ?
The Self is a whooooole other can of worms. These videos are just about subjectivity for the most part. The Self is something much spookier. It's what Jung basically spent his entire life trying to decipher. Very fascinating topic though which I'll get around to eventually - probably when I make some videos about Aion and Liber Novus.
@@Formscapes Although German is not my favorite language, it is a lot richer than (today) English - let alone US-us. The Red Book is written in old German (and Latin) by an intellectual. Macht spass, na?
About your response, oké: What better instrument to describe something with than the instrument itself? Consciousness with C(c)onsciousness, or even the brain, which is for a great part a descriptive tool, with the brain? Language is said to be seated on the right side.
I love to see your video and your take on Red Book. It'll probably make a lot more sense than the "official" doctors and Jung-ists and at least, I hope, we don't have to watch for half an hour "thank you"s and praises to people by other people to other people and their curricula. Keep scaping !
@@Kyle_Warweave The Red Book video is probably gonna get weird bc I read it immediately after a bad breakup and I even wrote some songs about it so that one is probably gonna get a bit personal lol
“But what quantum mechanics doesn't change about the universe is, if you want to change things, you still have to do something. You can't change the world by thinking about it.”
Wait thinking literally does change the universe just limited to your mind right now.
You're really gonna like part 2 lol. Though unfortunately I've got another project I have to work on this weekend so it probably won't be until next weekend when I actually have time to finish it.
Who knows. Haha Interesting.
I'm a big fan
thank you!
Explaining consciousness is like trying to look at your own eye ball! (WITHOUT a mirror!) lol
Your consciousness IS the mirror
@Formscapes then there's meta there is no mirror
Reality = That which is/That I am.
We function consciously and unconsciously simultaneously. Therefore, consciousness is how something does something, not what something is.
The Whiteheadian/Process approach I advance in part 2 is a bit more Daoist in nature - what something "is" is how something "does".
@@Formscapes 💝
I am, therefore I think. I believe this statement would be more of a truer statement. The brain is what helps us tune into this reality.
Mental ?mental is a word to describe the lack of understanding of the physical mind or minds mind,
Dan Dennet and many other materialist philosophers have already tried that. It doesn't work unless you concede that subjectivity is already an aspect of the "physical" world, in which case calling it "physical" becomes rather misleading in itself.
@@Formscapes what are the consequences of concession? 🤔
@@CurtNovitsky That's something I'm going to be addressing in part 2 of this video, but in a sense this entire channel is about those consequences.
If you are going to give up on the division between lifeless matter and mind, then there is no choice but to begin to see that the "matter" which makes up the world simply is not lifeless, inert or mechanistic.
Ten years ago the only people who were willing to go down that path were specialists in process-philosophy and/or German idealism.
More recently - particularly with figures such as Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup, Rupert Sheldrake, Philip Goff, etc - this view is becoming significantly more mainstream.
@@Formscapes thank you for reply it is very interesting 🙂
A society that separates its philosophers and scientists will have its philosophy done by the irrational and its science by the uninquisitive.
What an incredibly stupid quote. This is just a bastardization of what Thucydides said. Philosophy and science need not be intertwined. Hell, it's for the best that they aren't.