Precise use of language to describe reality. I love it. Especially at the end of this clip where he says " We cannot exclude a (sort of ) cosmic consciousness." With the proviso of the limitations previously mentioned. That is human consciousness is not required.
@@softlikesilk right, he himself contradict at few moments. Anyway, the emergence of 'I-ness' separate it from you with rest and your consciousness with other's. forget the 'I' and u will be the part of universal consciousness..
Even if you try to imagine what the universe would be without you in it you are still placing your imagination at the center of the question. You are always the unacknowledged background against which everything is projected. You see the world not as it is but as you are.
Consciousness is fundamental .the brain is a filter. its main function is to restrict consciousness down to the tiny little illusion of self and non self.
Makes perfect sense if you look at our evolution as primates. Our brain evolved under so called "material" (I don't like this term) circumstances. We are driven by our vital needs. Most of our functions are not conscious. It has turned out that a consciousness as a self-reflection loop (should I or shouldn't I, what are the advantages and disadvantages of my actions, did it go wrong last time, etc.) offers enormous advantages in improving the probability of survival (at least) in the short term. In the longer term, this can go wrong. We are already aware of that too.
@@Thomas-gk42science is also a religion. Both science and religions are just philosophies. Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . Belief in some higher power is not blind faith; it is based on Reason. There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.) Science has been applying brilliant imagination to the theoretical study of cosmology, the nature of elementary particles and forces that make up the universe. Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other. .
What if a particle in a vacuum behaves as a wave because it has no way of verifying its position or state in the universe? It requires an interaction with something else to determine what it is to itself. If that was true then there may be a sort of universal consciousness where all matter is conscious to some extent (be it a very low level of consciousness). Life and humans being the most complex form of consciousness that we know of to emerge over time. Humans are similar in that if you kept a human in a dark room from birth, then the complex consciousness we experience would never emerge from them, they would have no interaction with others to reflect their place in the universe. There is no such thing as 'life' really, just things happening within the universe. From that perspective it makes sense that all matter could be on some level 'conscious'.
The notion that the material features of the universe would have any purpose or reason for existing without the co-existence of life, mind, and consciousness to see, feel, hear, smell, and taste those features, is as ridiculous as thinking that the phenomenal features of a dream would have any purpose or reason for existing without the co-existence of the dreamer of the dream.
@@Resmith18SRwhy assume it doesn’t? Surely both options are still on the table at this point, unless someone is ready to present empirical evidence that proves one or the other.
@@wmpx34 Because the physical Universe has been scientifically proven to have preceded the existence of life. By billions of years. Are you denying that?
It's interesting how the deeper they get into the conversation of consciousness and it's effects on creation the more religious and divine the discussion becomes in general.
He explains what he means in the video. Quantum mechanics shows that there are non-material information structures underlying material reality. Classically that is how we would describe mind - a theater of non-material information structures (thoughts/feelings/etc). Thus, mind-like. He is not committed to the idea that there is a cosmic mind, but he is saying there is something mind-like about deep reality, so he is not ruling it out either. To me he is suggesting that we get past the terminology of mind vs matter and look at the phenomena itself without presuppositions and baggage.
@@oldrusty6527 One can easily argue this to apply to all of Reality itself since everything one can perceive and/or know (or even think one knows) is filtered through the prism of mentality itself. Outside of simply presuming it to be, there's no way to know whether there's a world outside Mind.
A wave function describes (the probabilities of the locations of) a single thing, and a thing's environment (call it x₁'s environment) is made up of many other things (call them x₂...ₙ).
I love how on the last 2 minutes he stumbles and goes agaisnt everything he just said in the rest of the video. The background of all is consciousness. Cosmic. Interdimensional. Multidimensional. Multiversal. Beyond our understanding of time. Beyond space. The connecting trunk of the structure of all reality.
Maybe we shouldn’t say that it is wrong, the fact that my body exists, I think it has been thoroughly observed long before my conscious is conscious of itself.
in the context of cosmic consciousness, I agree that these waves are information algorithms... In the double split experiment, the character of the particles changes into waves when observed with a camera and vice versa, when the camera is off, it is as if these particles know and are aware that they are being investigated, so that Robert Lowrence Kuhn (Closer to truth) came to the hypothesis that our consciousness forms this reality
Wow, this is not true at all and totally not the experiment done. The wave collapse is quantum in nature, and anything that is quantum in nature will cause it to collapse. It is the interaction that causes the collapse. The reason why we can't get anywhere with this experiment is because any quantum interaction (which is anything) will cause this to happen. So, we have no way to see the collapse in progress to understand it. It's basically an unsolvable experiment which is why it hasn't been solved. Basically similar to what photons experience at speed of C, nothing that has matter can ever know. We can only guess at it. There is no solvable solution.
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!
He is just describing Plato’s Forms. Plato’s (invisible, non-empirical) Forms are emergent productions from the receptacle of matter-the infinite prima materia (prakriti in Sanskrit) that consisted of chaotic forces (not particles) acting against one another. This prima materia was called Substance. Substance co-existed with Essence (Plato’s Demiurge). Both comprised a polarity, the unity of which is consonant with Aristotle’s Prime or Unmoved Mover or the Atma/Brahman/Self of Sanatana Dharma, or the One of Plato and the Neoplatonists.
Platonic idealism is patently unscientific and without any evidential support. In fact it lead to many years of wrong headed ideas and religious insanity. It took the enlightenment to recover from his stories.
@@thejimmymeister you brought Platonic idealism into this not me. What he is doing, you are correct, is describing, telling a story, not presenting any evidence our convincing logic.
At 3:10 Mr Shafer says; "interaction with the environment creates empirical reality out of non-empirical form." Here's the problem with this line of reasoning; if I label quantum events as taking place in a "non-empirical" setting, it renders the possibility of understanding those events impossible because once the gauge and accepted method of investigating these bizarre and as yet inexplicable quantum events becomes the narrow methodology of empiricism it precludes the consideration of all phenomenon that doesn't fit into this investigative approach. Empiricism is based on the principle that if something can't be weighed, measured or observed in some way it has no possibility of being real. This is dogma, not science. It's like having a Frenchman asking me in his native language how to find a certain address in my hometown, and then after my inability to reply, seeing him drive by several times afterward. If my neighbor asks why the Frenchman keeps driving by and I say "I think he just likes driving his car," I've made a basic error. To extend the analogy, if the reason he needed directions was, and is to get to the hospital where his brother is recuperating from a heart attack, and I continue to see the Frenchman riding by I might say again when my neighbor asks about him that "He's just some fool wasting his time driving in circles", when in reality he is something very different. The confusion stems from the fact that we were speaking two different languages when we briefly spoke earlier. The language and methods of empiricism are simply inadequate, or to put it more accurately "inappropriate" in grappling with questions, and they are valid questions concerning a transcendent reality, and/or the possibility that such a reality exists. Empiricism is based on skepticism and reflexively sees as invalid any way of looking at reality beyond or outside of its restrictive methods. This inherent limitation is valid only when empiricism ventures into realms that can't be circumscribed by its proscribed methods. Love can't be weighed, measured or physically observed but only the cynic would deny it exists. The dry and calculating world of empiricism blinds itself to the possibility of any reality beyond the material world.
>Empiricism is based on the principle that is something can't be weighed, measured or observed in some way it has possibility of being real. I'll have to get into the weeds of the technical philosophical terminology I'm afraid, but what you just described is not empiricism, it's scientific realism. Empiricism says we have experiences, which we can describe and reason about, and that's it. It stops there. It specifically stands in contrast with realism in this sense. It says that certainty of knowledge, of the sort the realists claim, is not accessible to observers. Only observations are accessible. The best we can do is construct conceptual models of what we observe, so empiricism is an approach to knowledge about the world in general. It denies that certainty is possible, only various degrees of levels of confidence. Empiricism is based on skepticism, but it's even more skeptical than scientific realism. It's not about methods though, it's about the limitations of the nature of observation. Science is about methods. Of course the two often go together, because people who reason carefully about empirical philosophy often also reason carefully about the nature of knowledge, which leads one naturally to the problems of reliability of knowledge, repeatability, testability and such. The sorts of things we all do regularly and often in everyday life, and which is formalised and made rigorous in the scientific method.
@@simonhibbs887For clarification I just looked up the definition and the dictionary states that empiricism is "In philosophy; the theory that sensory experience is the only source of knowledge." This is in accordance with my use of the term. I don't know what you mean when you say "scientific realism." There is no such thing. There is "realism" and it's a general term that refers to ones readiness to accept facts and data that are incontrovertible but I've never heard or read the phrase "scientific realism." This is actually a linguistic bias and value judgement on the part of those employing this questionable term which infers that anything that can be described under the rubric of "scientific realism" is beyond scrutiny. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that empiricism as defined or to use your phrase the "scientific method" is adequate to describe or eventually describe the sum total of all existent reality, whether material or non=material?
@@michaelmckinney7240 I was referring to your statement that empiricism excludes phenomena from its investigative approach and makes claims about what is real. Empiricism takes all evidence from experience seriously, but is skeptical of claims about unobservables. I think you might enjoy the section on scientific realism in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. It gives a solid account of the various realist positions, and has a section on empiricism, which is the main anti-realist camp. I class myself as closest to constructive empiricism. Scientific Realism isn’t about anything being beyond scrutiny. There are a few realists that take such cartoonishly extreme positions , but they’re mostly what I’d class as online science fanboys rather than serious scientists or philosophers. In science everything is always subject to scrutiny. Every theory should be one reliable, repeatable, well attested result away from being conclusively refuted. plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism
How would you know what happens with particles and waves without conscious awareness to perceive and take inventory of the events? The assertion that “there’s no consciousness involved” in the behavior of particles and waves doesn’t withstand basic scrutiny. The real problem here is that there are two scientists trying to solve a philosophical problem and doing a very poor job of it.
ya, this is so wrong it's not even funny. The wave collapse is quantum in nature and only requires a quantum interaction. Consciousness would be one of basically any interaction that would cause this. It would never be the only one as the interaction to cause this only has to be quantum in nature. It's the reason why it's unsolvable and will remain that way. The philosophical problem is the nature of the system which is the universe and it being completely quantum in reality. There is no physics or philosophical way to solve this as the entire system and any interaction in it is entirely quantum in nature. What we would need to solve this is something deeper then quantum mechanics and we don't have that, if it's possible.
Consciousness and cosmos go together but it's not like one dominates the other. They create one another, like Yin and Yang. "Cause and effect" is a useful analogy buts its only a mental tool to assess relationships, in reality nothing pushes anything elsw around, the whole cosmos is happening together, and that is synonymous with your mind.
He's talking about decoherence. Imagine the wave function of a quantum system as it entangles with it's environment. As it does to we take the wave functions of these additional quantum systems it becomes entangled with and we put them all together, so we have a wave function with an ever increasing scope, but it's still a wave function. It's still a quantum system. However let's consider what happens to the QM description of our original system, now entangled into this broader system, so we can consider it a subset of this broader system. It's state undergoes what we call decoherence, where it's state more and more closely approximates to that of a classical system. In a 'fully decohered' state it's quantum description approximates to that of a classical description.
He first said you don't need consciousness and then admitted the visible world is created by consciousness/cosmic mind but added not human consciousness to keep his stance going. If waves are information then where is that information coming from for the particle to have interactions. If there is no new information then everything will come to a halt.
@LifesInsight the brain is more than two hemispheres and human beings use the different regions of their brain. We have our own mind/consciousness so we don't rely on a cosmic mind for everything. What would be the point in that for an autonomous intelligent being.
Information is meaningless without consciousness. Actions and interactions happen because there is an observed present to subjectively experience them, they do not happen if there is no observer. There has always been an observer in one form or another. The observer is the function from which information, particles, events, actions, and interactions take place. Information, particles, matter, actions, interactions, and events do not exist unless there is an observer. Without an observer, the state of the universe is a void of oblivion. Without subjectivity, nothing happens. We like to think that the material universe that we inhabit is the foundation from which consciousness arises. When in fact this material universe is the effect of consciousness itself. Only an observer assigns properties, calculates mass and velocity, describes actions, records time, etc. The fact that we can deduce the time of the universe and what it must have been like in the past is only possible because someone or something has done this before we started doing it. Whether it is another species on some other planet or some grand collective consciousness, is irrelevant. "Witness me, I shall ride, eternal, shiny, and chrome..."
When either, the pattern in the cosmic mind or the pattern in the human mind, in the invisible realm of forms, interact with the environment, empirical forms are actualised.
So "the universe" (as we perceive it) is just as delusional and self-centered as we are. In other words, we project ourselves onto everything. That's kind of ridiculous.
@@karlschmied6218 Anthropocentric also which assumes that the creation of the entire Universe revolves around humanity. The more we study the Universe, the more we realize that we are not the center of the universe.
Also if wave function collapse is meaninglessly random, why would you have any approximations of consistant forms..let alone the ability to ponder anything ? Inertia for one requires the prerequisites, of a form/template/id as a cohesive structure, as well as a time vector that allows for seqeuntial movement. Prior to this, the wave function has not collapsed.
Consciousness is everything and out of consciousness comes everything else. Time is not linear, time is a single moment of NOW, with infinite layers of dimensions. Space/distance is an illusion. There is a single point/location, HERE and this explains Einstein's Spooky Action at a Distance. We are HERE NOW. 💥
Amazing how they cannot accept something self evident such as this. They are prisoners of the scientific method and thus they are holding us back from progress
@@maxhagenauer24 simply because for anything to exist there must be a more elemental block to build upon. The deeper we go into the nature of reality, the more subtle and elusive it gets, but yet there seems to always be something that existed before. In the end, there is an infinite nothingness or void that simply is and in that isness there is a basic degree of consciousness that grows and expands through its own material and non-material manifestations.
@@pablograncanaria Are you talking about causation? And we try to find the first uncaused thing assuming there isn't an infinite regression? Are you saying there was nothingness before everything exists? I'm not understanding.
He's pretty stuck on the idea of the interviewer referring to human consciousness specifically, which the interviewer did not insinuate. He can agree on a universal consciousness, but then discounts the infinite intelligence we find outside of mind... which would be universal consciousness. As such, physical reality and universal consciousness are inextricably linked, and his opinion becomes a circular chicken or egg type argument. He doesn't believe human consciousness is the basis for material reality. Okay. Neat. That wasn't the question.
Where do you find this universal consciousness that you claim, we find? Do you mean, that we imagine, or make up or find in a book where someone claims it with no evidence?
I agree with him: The answer to the question is a resounding No. For one thing, our consciousness is not aware or smart enough to even comprehend the nature of the physical reality at its most fundamental level; much less to have created it. Furthermore, there are countless processes that are going on in the Universe that we’re currently not even aware of that could or would eventually manifest themselves in time. The Universe is what gave rise to our consciousness and not the other way around.
I create all kinds of universes with all sorts of rules and physics along with every single thing and person in them when I dream. These worlds have all sorts of rules and physics that I'm not even aware of until I discover them. And even then, I never figure out completely how everything works before I wake up. Doesn't mean that I didn't make them up myself. Or have my dreams and all things in them always been there?
Your observation is akin to the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre. While I might agree that existence precedes essence, if Divine Consciousness does exist, it becomes the Designer of all that is, and man becomes a reflector of the Divine Template.
@@questor5189 This sounds like a tortuously faithful argument to me. It’s essentially a circular theological assertion, dressed as a kinder gentler philosophical contention. Why prevaricate, if you’re intent on saying that God created it all?!
Physics and metaphysics explains reality, consciousness is one of the set of metaphysics that creates life and consciousness, intelligence, intuition, faith etc, all are metaphysics.
As per history of the universe, our brain is created after the creation of the universe, that means everything is there, and that saying is true "we do not need consciousness to create real things". Our senses, see, feel, hear, smell and taste are our windows to this universe, our senses allow us to observe and interact with this world, our brain with its tools (our senses) make our consciousness to this universe, and the universe already existed there and was doing and still doing all its processes consciously. Our consciousness is just a part in this universe.
But isn't the environment a wave function? So a wave function interacting with the environment reduces to a wave function interacting with a wave function... i.e. a wave function?
He needs to ask himself, what are those waves made of? I swear he contradicted himself a few times there. The Wigner-Neumann collaboration would disagree with him. Wigner once posited that the ultimate observer has to be consciousness-and not the detectors made of the same fuzzy quanta-in order for collapse to take place. Wigner eventually dropped this for fear that his academic peers would think of him as some kind of weird solipsist. There is also no mention of the quantum eraser experiments of John Wheeler where our observation appears to decide the past. And perhaps a cosmic mind sustains the empirical world! Metaphysical idealism is more parsimonious than materialism and should be the default position. Consciousness is the ground of existence and the ultimate reality. Period.
Well, you seem to know everything. But perhaps a better understanding of QM is needed to fully grasp what you said is totally wrong. The wave collapse is a QM experiment and only requires anything that is QM in nature to cause the collapse. Everything is QM in nature, so therefore it can be anything that causes the collapse. It's literally the reason why anything exists. If the collapse was not QM in nature and if what you say is correct then nothing would exist. QM is very difficult to understand and you should really take the time to learn more about it.
You need a decision to be made, to collapse the wave. So basically a phase transition from thought in a realm of dynamic time, into form that exists in our sequential time. What is the relationship between spherical surface mathematics, into a 3D path though a brane ? (ie the 2D holograph of an event horizon through inner 3D deSitter space as per Leonard Susskind) What is the relationship between the cosmic web, black holes, plasma globes, self assembling wires, the branches/roots of a tree on the earths surface, or the receptors on a cell wall ? (ie See Roger Penrose on Quantum reality, going back in time to edit our history. A history that must be part of a sequential branching process...aka tree/root system) How can time be stationary at an event horizon and exist outside of our sequential time ?
But what becomes of consciousness (human or otherwise) when it has nothing to interact with or know? And is the particle, which the wave becomes upon an interaction with the environment, the same as as we know it through our measurement or observation, i.e. is our experience of it (through whatever means) what it is independent of our knowledge of it?
There can be no consciousness when it has nothing to interact with, because consciousness needs itself to exist, but this self is not a singular particle like a lonely electron, but a multitude of atoms.
@@joha4574 I don't follow your logic, nor do I believe that consciousness is a multitude of atoms. I do however agree that there can be no consciousness without an object to be conscious of. A particle or atoms are knowable phenomena, while the ability of consciousness is what knows, the subject side of the subject/object interaction that produces an event of consciousness or knowledge. Tactile consciousness occurs when the sense instrument of the skin comes in contact with a texture or temperature (the object of knowledge). In the absence of the object there is no tactile consciousness nor is the instrument of that particular kind of consciousness discernable. The same idea applies to the other 4 sense consciousnesses, as well as the over all field of consciousness. When there is no object (and here I also mean subtle objects of knowledge like thoughts, emotions and self-sense) there is no consciousness, or conscious self, discernable. In the state of deep meditation, known as Samadhi, all these objects of consciousness are removed.
2:08 how does that happen ... maybe it is because you need counsciousness that makes something real (yes exaclty) first of all there's always something real but an invisible reality those (the 2- dimensional) forms exist secondly you don't need consciousness (depends on your definition of consciousness) all you need is an interaction of the wave with its enviroment. 2:39 ... 2:52 because all these atoms interact with each other they keep each other honors one wants to go the other one get it back (yeah and if there was no consciousness around they would still do the same thing ) exactly there is no consciousness in here that keeps them interaction with environment creates empirical reality out of a non-empirical form (okay) an importance of these forms is they are non-empirical we have to think there is a background of the world of the whole universe that is the realm of forms everything visible comes out of these actualizes out of them the forms that have wave like potentials we don't really know what they are because they're non-empirical but the idea is the whole background of the universe is a wholeness (spacetime is difined as foundamental form or stage from which all same dimensional beings are generated. ) where all these forms hang together 3:47 ... 6:00 however when you have a particle and it becomes a wave you can what kind of wave is that well the wave is a pattern of information information is normally for a mind there's a pattern of information in a cosmic dimension could that mean there is a cosmic mind and so yes in that sense you can say there is a background of the world that is a consciousness and we can only suspect in all likelihood it creates a visible world but you have to distinguish this form the view that human consciousness is needed 6:42 no it is not needed like the particles in this in all material things they stay particles they may for a short time become waves and then the others get them back because they interact (no human consciousness was involved) no human consciousness involved we do not need consciousness to create real things the particles in here they don't need consciousness they stay particles at the same time 7:14 that the background of the universe is mind like and that means it is possible that it is a consciousness that we cannot exclude and if it is then it will also appear in our mind and create the empirical world.
you must here distinguish between consciousness and human consciousness otherwise this brings only confusion to the dialog and i hate to say it: but Hegel kind of provides the needed groundwork to...
@@simonhibbs887 Exactly, this is just a dumb example that makes no sense. What if you assumed the tree next to the fallen tree was conscious. LOL! Only human stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance would think human consciousness is needed. The tree falls and it makes noise. End of discussion.
Consciousness is different from coherency. How different? Well, one must answer the question of the "creation" of the universe by Consciousness by asking; why do we agree on the existence of "things" in the universe? If the universe was there before our consciousness of it, would that explain our agreement? Maybe. I mean babies being born don't change the parents' consciousness of the universe, do they? If, supposedly, the baby's new consciousness re-creates the universe anew?
"Does Consciousness Cause the Cosmos?" We all have the hand in the creation of the Cosmos because we were once ONE WHOLE GOD before He splt Himself into free souls (us) just to have a free family to love and to be freely loved... and this would be impossible to accomplish if we are NOT even aware or conscious as ONE WHOLE GOD... ...this theory that an unconscious waves banging each other randomly without guidance can produce a well organized well fine-tuned Universe, instead of chaotic garbage, is an incoherrent idea that only a Godless erroneous conscience can concoct...
I'm always fascinated to hear these incredibly brilliant people grapple with these unanswerable metaphysical questions. (No, I don't believe we'll ever be able to answer them.) Take the submicroscopic world that the professor describes. I first heard that description from Roger Penrose but thought I'd misunderstood him. How can the concrete floor I'm standing on be made up of mere mathematical equations? How did the universe itself come to be in the first place? What is it expanding into? Are we alone? Does any of these questions even make any sense, to begin with? My real point is that whatever (or whoever) is behind the universe's existence must have rooted it in inaccessible mystery, or is the supreme master of mischief (or both). As for consciousness, I actually think I (and I alone) know what it is: it's what you experience when you wake up every morning if you've had a good night's sleep:)
I am just an interested amateur but it seems to me that nothing can be said to exist unless a consciousness observes it. Whether consciousness creates reality or not is only one way to think about the issue; I think that consciousness is at least a necessary part of reality.
Well, I think that our collective subconsciousness creates reality. If you consider Darwin's Theory Of Evolution and then advance that concept of continual struggle so that it is not just happening outside ourselves but also in our minds. A continual conflict between our conscious and subconscious which results in random thoughts manifesting themselves in a spontaneous, uncontrollable way which emanate out and create solid reality. We are all in conflict with each other at a subconscious level and that conflict makes reality. Our instincts for self preservation ensures that the subconscious mind does not destroy itself. Anyway these are some of my thoughts on the subject of a cosmic consciousness. Thank you for the video.
Do you mind if I ask a hypothetical. If half of the conscious beings in existence were wiped out by Thanos, would the universe still exist? If so it seems the existence of the universe didn't depend on them. If the other half were wiped out instead, would the universe still exist? If so, again it seems like the universe can exist without them. Therefore it seems neither group of conscious beings is necessary to the existence of the universe. If both halves, all of conscious beings were wiped out, would the universe exist then? If your answer in the last case is different from the first two, why?
IF the Universe is 14 billion years old, how come we can see through our advanced telescopes the part of the universe that is 95 Billion years old?! )))))
@@Uroki_ANGLIYSKOGO_s_Nulya_ Ok, so nothing you said is actually true. Which is why we still refer to things as being 13.something billion years ago. Nobody actually knows how big the current universe is as it's not measurable due to the speed of light which you should know these basics concepts.
Physical body is matter, ultimately ,it is reduced to subatomic particles and finally transformed into waves.When Consciousness in humans ,will it become human consciousness, in animals ,animal Consciousness ? Consciousness could be more subtler than waves which carries information .What is the medium , these waves are supposed to travel ? or are the waves simply vibrating ?
Every once in a while I come back to this channel to hear, yet again, a scientist confidently claiming things that they have no business being confident about. And I have a growing sense of confidence that such scientists are all deathly afraid of science being unable to answer questions that religion can. The Buddha explained consciousness very effectively 2500 years ago and from what I can tell, quantum mechanics is starting to sound very Buddhist.
I listen to all these expert scientists and it still baffles my mind to hear them state that something as definite, comple and orderly as creation can exist out of nothing, without any proof whatsoever. This basically equates to stating that God created everything. In my opinion each individual should be both the object and the subject of research into the nature of reality and consciousness, for consciousness is always in the observing subject and not in the observed object. Therefore the true scientist must look into the nature of his/her own consciousness and look at it with total clarity, without pre-conceived ideas, in order to discover what it truly is.
“If there was no consciousness around they would still do the same thing” you said at 3:02-3:05 of the video i think. That is the whole problem here. You know and say this only because you are “conscious”…. if you were not conscious there would never be this conversation. I think NONE of us have a clue what we are saying😂 But great interview anyway
He makes a distinction between ‘human’ & ‘cosmic’ consciousness, to assert that ‘human’ consciousness ‘“does not make reality”, then concludes “a background Mind” cannot be rejected. This is the common error in ‘language’ for rejecting ‘all there is, is consciousness’ as THE fundamental-it’s only ‘human Mind consciousness’ that confuses the question of Cosmic Mind Consciousness as fundamental.
No, it’s the fact that we have zero evidence of any universal consciousness that’s the issue. We can say and imagine it and tell stories about it all day. But where’s that evidence? This discussion could replace universal consciousness with god and sound the same, pointless.
@@ihatespam2 evidence is important. And, human evidence is a filter, essential for & by evolutionary survival purposes, but still limited to this purpose, and this is why he states “cannot reject” a Mind (not like your’s or mine or other humans) that is more fundamental than human consciousness. ua-cam.com/video/qzwC7sXyhWQ/v-deo.htmlsi=u_fD4NcDkga8D-vK
@@ihatespam2 evidence is important, and human evidence is a filtering process through our Mind suitable for survival of our species, exceedingly valuable to us…and if We ceased to exists entirely the ‘world out there’ would not, though we would have no evidence of this, just as We had no evidence prior to coming into Our existence. You may have seen this discussion already, but it if not: ua-cam.com/video/qzwC7sXyhWQ/v-deo.htmlsi=u_fD4NcDkga8D-vK
@@ihatespam2 you raised the topic of ‘evidence’ which requires examining the nature of ‘evidence’, which requires examining how evidence is gathered & interpreted…which is through the human mind, often used synonymously with ‘consciousness’, which the speaker in the video did not reconcile due to his use of the term ‘consciousness’ actually meaning to him ‘human experience’ of consciousness.
Not only did consciousness cause the cosmos; consciousness is the cosmos. Consciousness is fundamental. Mind; emerges with quantum events. Cosmic Consciousness in which we share. Mind in which we share. Very different from Darwinism in which all is supposed to arise from biology; from the elements.
This sounds precisely like Neoplatonism. What appears to be missing in his analysis is an appreciation that the emanation of Being is apprehended eternally in Consciousness. Universally by Universal consciousness. Particularly by particular conciousnesses.
I have to think consciousness is a sort of capture or conversion of energy or information of sorts. It also seems that the quantum world must be involved somehow where there is a superposition of sorts of stored info combined with the visual feed in a linear fashion. Maybe some kind of special receptors for sensing and differentiating, reminiscent of the receptors in our nose for smell. Hopefully you fine gentleman get to the bottom of this and let me know 🤞
Physical objects may not need HUMAN consciousness, but to conclude therefore that the physical universe doesn’t need consciousness at all isn’t logical given his admission that the cosmic “background” (whatever that means exactly) may very well be conscious.
Also you need consciousness to have a non material wave into a material electron. Without consciousness, means a observer it does not happen. It does not exist without consciouness. Without consciousness there not even blankness or void. Everything depends upon consciousness and everything is consciousness.
Ahhhh, but everything already is in interaction with its environment. So it seems confusing to claim that a wave state will exist only until interaction with environment occurs. How do you ever get to the former? I feel he has unjustly diminished the significance of consciousness. But I'm no expert. I sure enjoy these videos. Keep up the good work.
What if the smaller and smaller you can break the fundamental principles down, the more a force we do not understand, has a more massive effect on said fragments. That way the force coexists with us and is part of ever fragmented. The irony is, it’s as unmeasurable as spirits and angels are to measure. So here we are.🙃🤨🇦🇺🤜🏼🤛🏼🍀☮️☮️☮️
The idea that human consciousness is not a derivative of the all pervasive background consciousness seems ill conceived. We think of it as a unified field, why would the consciousness aspect of it be anything but unified?
I can't speak for him directly of course, only my interpretation of what he said. However he seems to think that the descriptions we have of the physical processes we observe in the world are accurate (or accurate enough anyway) and describe everything going on around us, including in our brains. That would mean that things like thoughts, experiences, decisions, etc are all a result of sophisticated assemblies of these observable processes for which we already have descriptions. SO if we were to look into the brain and atoms and molecules moving around, it would all conform to what we expect from physics. In that sense I think he's saying he's a physicalist, and doesn't think that any non-physical mental causation or such is moving things around and making things happen in the brain in ways we have never observed. On the other hand he seems to think that quantum fields themselves at the low level are somehow mind-like and that quantum behaviour relates somehow to a cosmic consciousness. The way he talks about it makes it seem this is independent of our own consciousness. However I'm not entirely clear how he things that works. I'm trying not to project my own opinions on to that, but it's hard because he was a bit vague about some of it. I largely write that to try and clarify my understanding of what he said, prompted by your question. I hope you don't mind.
Hold on! Particles are a temporary state of an excited field in quantum mechanics. There is nothing but the field. Everybody knows that. The field is excited and frequently for instant creates something that we conceptually call particles. Particles themselves are nothing but abstract quantities, mass spin momentum and I forgot the other thing. We attempt to conceptualize them into something that has currency in spacetime.
@LifesInsight No, consciousness is real in itself. For example, when you're in pain the pain is real without a doubt. Consciousness is subjective, but that doesn't diminish its realness. The reality of an objective universe can be disputed, however.
@LifesInsight No, correlation is not the same as causation. Consciousness can exist without a brain/body. It can be disputed that objects could exist without consciousness.
@LifesInsight No, consciousness is a reality in itself. The mind arises in consciousness, consciousness is having experiences. Human life is an experience in consciousness. No reality other than consciousness and its contents can be known to exist.
A universe without a conscious observer is a meaningless waste. The universe has a purpose and that purpose is to create consciousness. The end result of the universe is that all knowledge is gathered together. Einstein said that there is no matter there is just energy and his equation proved that. Non locality and retro-causality prove that the foundation of all creation is information. The future end result determines the past. The end result is that all knowledge will be gathered from the simulation called this universe.
(0:25) *RLK: **_"Consciousness is not a derivative of evolution and matter but rather Consciousness sits at the foundation of reality and causes all the matter and forces of the universe"_* ... I believe how we've defined "Consciousness" results in a category error. We _think_ there are many puzzle pieces (matter, energy, structure, evolution, consciousness, etc.) and then we try to assemble them all into a complete picture. ... But what if some of the puzzle pieces aren't really part of the picture? A self-aware Consciousness has only become observable at the very _tail end_ of the entire evolution of the universe. A "blink of an eye," per se. If consciousness, existence, particles, energy and everything else in the universe all started out as *"Pure Information,"* then it is reasonable to conclude that Consciousness is what you get after 13.8 billion years of information evolving. We shouldn't be thinking that Consciousness is something different than what it started out as (like a separate "puzzle piece"). Just like you are now compared to how you were back when you were born, Consciousness is just a "more advanced, highly evolved" version of its former self.
Sounds fair. I know we disagree on some of this, but I do think that consciousness is an informational process, and information has been around as long as there's been anything to have a state, or have interactions and processes. Conscious for me is interactions and processes, of a particular sophisticated form and structure, so the building blocks of that are just part of the universe. I think we are wholly part of this world, in which we live.
if consciousness is an emergent property of anything then as far as science it concerned it still doesnt exist at all ie. is not observed in any assortment of mass-energy from most basic to most complex.
@@5piles Sure it is, we're assortments of mass-energy and we observe that we have it. Also science deals in emergent properties all the time. Pressure, temperature, voltage, etc. There's a whole discipline of statistical mechanics. Also information science, the physics of computation. Loads of stuff.
@@simonhibbs887 *"I know we disagree on some of this, but I do think that consciousness is an informational process, and information has been around as long as there's been anything to have a state, or have interactions and processes. "* ... I think the main disagreement we have is if information can stand on its own as an independent structure. You believe information is substance-dependent; I don't. If it can exist void of physical structure, then it would be perceptually a more basic form of existence than substance (like a quark is more fundamental than a proton). My best argument is that the information associated with something "conceptual" that does not exist (like "God" or "Magic Elves") is likewise nonphysical. True, physical "stuff" might be processing that type of information, but what the information proposes does not physically exist. That type of information would not exist physically until whatever the information proposes becomes actuated.
So if human consciousness is a subset of a greater consciousness, maybe it is that - the collective to which we belong - that creates the physical world we see around us. Just a guess.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Precise use of language to describe reality. I love it. Especially at the end of this clip where he says " We cannot exclude a (sort of ) cosmic consciousness." With the proviso of the limitations previously mentioned. That is human consciousness is not required.
Not required. But a part of, none the less.
@@softlikesilk right, he himself contradict at few moments. Anyway, the emergence of 'I-ness' separate it from you with rest and your consciousness with other's. forget the 'I' and u will be the part of universal consciousness..
@@shwetangacharyaugh, ok Deepok.
Even if you try to imagine what the universe would be without you in it you are still placing your imagination at the center of the question. You are always the unacknowledged background against which everything is projected. You see the world not as it is but as you are.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 Yes i agree. Especially your use of the new word " Backgroynd. " As a youth i always had trouble with my back - groynd.
Consciousness is fundamental .the brain is a filter. its main function is to restrict consciousness down to the tiny little illusion of self and non self.
Oh boy.
Makes perfect sense if you look at our evolution as primates. Our brain evolved under so called "material" (I don't like this term) circumstances. We are driven by our vital needs. Most of our functions are not conscious. It has turned out that a consciousness as a self-reflection loop (should I or shouldn't I, what are the advantages and disadvantages of my actions, did it go wrong last time, etc.) offers enormous advantages in improving the probability of survival (at least) in the short term. In the longer term, this can go wrong. We are already aware of that too.
I like this explanation!
Panpsychism is religion!
@@Thomas-gk42science is also a religion. Both science and religions are just philosophies.
Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . Belief in some higher power is not blind faith; it is based on Reason.
There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.)
Science has been applying brilliant imagination to the theoretical study of cosmology, the nature of elementary particles and forces that make up the universe.
Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.
.
What if a particle in a vacuum behaves as a wave because it has no way of verifying its position or state in the universe? It requires an interaction with something else to determine what it is to itself.
If that was true then there may be a sort of universal consciousness where all matter is conscious to some extent (be it a very low level of consciousness). Life and humans being the most complex form of consciousness that we know of to emerge over time.
Humans are similar in that if you kept a human in a dark room from birth, then the complex consciousness we experience would never emerge from them, they would have no interaction with others to reflect their place in the universe.
There is no such thing as 'life' really, just things happening within the universe. From that perspective it makes sense that all matter could be on some level 'conscious'.
The notion that the material features of the universe would have any purpose or reason for existing without the co-existence of life, mind, and consciousness to see, feel, hear, smell, and taste those features, is as ridiculous as thinking that the phenomenal features of a dream would have any purpose or reason for existing without the co-existence of the dreamer of the dream.
Perfectly said. Without consciousness, how would the Universe know it existed?
Yep one look in a microscope or telescope it's easy to say "It all just Happens" but that a deception
Why would you assume the Universe has a purpose of any kind? Only individual living human beings have purpose or a reason.
@@Resmith18SRwhy assume it doesn’t? Surely both options are still on the table at this point, unless someone is ready to present empirical evidence that proves one or the other.
@@wmpx34 Because the physical Universe has been scientifically proven to have preceded the existence of life. By billions of years. Are you denying that?
It's interesting how the deeper they get into the conversation of consciousness and it's effects on creation the more religious and divine the discussion becomes in general.
Interesting in the sense that otherwise rational people can be lured into irrationality so easily.
Yes, but only in search for words for something that is undescribable.
'The background of the universe is mind-like'
What does that mean?
Sanskrit cit and Greek nous
Mind
It means "Woooooo"
He explains what he means in the video. Quantum mechanics shows that there are non-material information structures underlying material reality. Classically that is how we would describe mind - a theater of non-material information structures (thoughts/feelings/etc). Thus, mind-like. He is not committed to the idea that there is a cosmic mind, but he is saying there is something mind-like about deep reality, so he is not ruling it out either. To me he is suggesting that we get past the terminology of mind vs matter and look at the phenomena itself without presuppositions and baggage.
@@oldrusty6527 One can easily argue this to apply to all of Reality itself since everything one can perceive and/or know (or even think one knows) is filtered through the prism of mentality itself.
Outside of simply presuming it to be, there's no way to know whether there's a world outside Mind.
It means nothing at all. It is story telling, imagination.
I still don’t understand where the distinction is between the wave function and the environment.
whether there is interaction or not
@matthewa9273 Right, but isn't all of our reality fundamentally just one big wave function in some higher dimensional quantum reality ultimately?
@@PrescottValleyyea
A wave function describes (the probabilities of the locations of) a single thing, and a thing's environment (call it x₁'s environment) is made up of many other things (call them x₂...ₙ).
Very honest and trustworthy separating known and unknown. Good work, Robert!
I love how on the last 2 minutes he stumbles and goes agaisnt everything he just said in the rest of the video. The background of all is consciousness. Cosmic. Interdimensional. Multidimensional. Multiversal. Beyond our understanding of time. Beyond space. The connecting trunk of the structure of all reality.
😂yes, hilarious. He is not able to differ clearly between science and his faith.
@softlikesilk No he doesn't. Watch again. It's a bit difficult for a simpleton to grasp.
@@Thomas-gk42 You're talking out of your "ss.
@@Consrignrant ??? Insulting is more difficult?
@@Thomas-gk42 Shut up.
Maybe we shouldn’t say that it is wrong, the fact that my body exists, I think it has been thoroughly observed long before my conscious is conscious of itself.
That's the best explanation of the quantum realm I've ever heard
in the context of cosmic consciousness, I agree that these waves are information algorithms... In the double split experiment, the character of the particles changes into waves when observed with a camera and vice versa, when the camera is off, it is as if these particles know and are aware that they are being investigated, so that Robert Lowrence Kuhn (Closer to truth) came to the hypothesis that our consciousness forms this reality
Wow, this is not true at all and totally not the experiment done. The wave collapse is quantum in nature, and anything that is quantum in nature will cause it to collapse. It is the interaction that causes the collapse. The reason why we can't get anywhere with this experiment is because any quantum interaction (which is anything) will cause this to happen. So, we have no way to see the collapse in progress to understand it. It's basically an unsolvable experiment which is why it hasn't been solved. Basically similar to what photons experience at speed of C, nothing that has matter can ever know. We can only guess at it. There is no solvable solution.
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe,
think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration”
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and creates our experience-able Universe.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it interesting!
Nice stories, zero evidence.
He's 84? Wow. Stay sharp Lothar.
He’s dead my friend
@@SaltyDraws Indeed he is.
@@slowmutant They could simply state that in the description. To your point, I'd still view it.
He passed away from, of all things, Alzheimer’s.
He is just describing Plato’s Forms. Plato’s (invisible, non-empirical) Forms are emergent productions from the receptacle of matter-the infinite prima materia (prakriti in Sanskrit) that consisted of chaotic forces (not particles) acting against one another. This prima materia was called Substance. Substance co-existed with Essence (Plato’s Demiurge). Both comprised a polarity, the unity of which is consonant with Aristotle’s Prime or Unmoved Mover or the Atma/Brahman/Self of Sanatana Dharma, or the One of Plato and the Neoplatonists.
Platonic idealism is patently unscientific and without any evidential support.
In fact it lead to many years of wrong headed ideas and religious insanity.
It took the enlightenment to recover from his stories.
He is not describing Platonic Forms but neutral monism, and Platonic Forms are not emergent productions from the receptacle of matter.
@@thejimmymeister you brought Platonic idealism into this not me.
What he is doing, you are correct, is describing, telling a story, not presenting any evidence our convincing logic.
@@ihatespam2 ?
I think you're confused.
At 3:10 Mr Shafer says; "interaction with the environment creates empirical reality out of non-empirical form." Here's the problem with this line of reasoning; if I label quantum events as taking place in a "non-empirical" setting, it renders the possibility of understanding those events impossible because once the gauge and accepted method of investigating these bizarre and as yet inexplicable quantum events becomes the narrow methodology of empiricism it precludes the consideration of all phenomenon that doesn't fit into this investigative approach. Empiricism is based on the principle that if something can't be weighed, measured or observed in some way it has no possibility of being real. This is dogma, not science. It's like having a Frenchman asking me in his native language how to find a certain address in my hometown, and then after my inability to reply, seeing him drive by several times afterward. If my neighbor asks why the Frenchman keeps driving by and I say "I think he just likes driving his car," I've made a basic error. To extend the analogy, if the reason he needed directions was, and is to get to the hospital where his brother is recuperating from a heart attack, and I continue to see the Frenchman riding by I might say again when my neighbor asks about him that "He's just some fool wasting his time driving in circles", when in reality he is something very different. The confusion stems from the fact that we were speaking two different languages when we briefly spoke earlier. The language and methods of empiricism are simply inadequate, or to put it more accurately "inappropriate" in grappling with questions, and they are valid questions concerning a transcendent reality, and/or the possibility that such a reality exists.
Empiricism is based on skepticism and reflexively sees as invalid any way of looking at reality beyond or outside of its restrictive methods. This inherent limitation is valid only when empiricism ventures into realms that can't be circumscribed by its proscribed methods. Love can't be weighed, measured or physically observed but only the cynic would deny it exists. The dry and calculating world of empiricism blinds itself to the possibility of any reality beyond the material world.
>Empiricism is based on the principle that is something can't be weighed, measured or observed in some way it has possibility of being real.
I'll have to get into the weeds of the technical philosophical terminology I'm afraid, but what you just described is not empiricism, it's scientific realism. Empiricism says we have experiences, which we can describe and reason about, and that's it. It stops there. It specifically stands in contrast with realism in this sense. It says that certainty of knowledge, of the sort the realists claim, is not accessible to observers. Only observations are accessible. The best we can do is construct conceptual models of what we observe, so empiricism is an approach to knowledge about the world in general. It denies that certainty is possible, only various degrees of levels of confidence.
Empiricism is based on skepticism, but it's even more skeptical than scientific realism. It's not about methods though, it's about the limitations of the nature of observation. Science is about methods. Of course the two often go together, because people who reason carefully about empirical philosophy often also reason carefully about the nature of knowledge, which leads one naturally to the problems of reliability of knowledge, repeatability, testability and such. The sorts of things we all do regularly and often in everyday life, and which is formalised and made rigorous in the scientific method.
@@simonhibbs887For clarification I just looked up the definition and the dictionary states that empiricism is "In philosophy; the theory that sensory experience is the only source of knowledge." This is in accordance with my use of the term.
I don't know what you mean when you say "scientific realism." There is no such thing. There is "realism" and it's a general term that refers to ones readiness to accept facts and data that are incontrovertible but I've never heard or read the phrase "scientific realism." This is actually a linguistic bias and value judgement on the part of those employing this questionable term which infers that anything that can be described under the rubric of "scientific realism" is beyond scrutiny.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that empiricism as defined or to use your phrase the "scientific method" is adequate to describe or eventually describe the sum total of all existent reality, whether material or non=material?
@@michaelmckinney7240 I was referring to your statement that empiricism excludes phenomena from its investigative approach and makes claims about what is real. Empiricism takes all evidence from experience seriously, but is skeptical of claims about unobservables. I think you might enjoy the section on scientific realism in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. It gives a solid account of the various realist positions, and has a section on empiricism, which is the main anti-realist camp. I class myself as closest to constructive empiricism.
Scientific Realism isn’t about anything being beyond scrutiny. There are a few realists that take such cartoonishly extreme positions , but they’re mostly what I’d class as online science fanboys rather than serious scientists or philosophers. In science everything is always subject to scrutiny. Every theory should be one reliable, repeatable, well attested result away from being conclusively refuted.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism
How would you know what happens with particles and waves without conscious awareness to perceive and take inventory of the events? The assertion that “there’s no consciousness involved” in the behavior of particles and waves doesn’t withstand basic scrutiny.
The real problem here is that there are two scientists trying to solve a philosophical problem and doing a very poor job of it.
ya, this is so wrong it's not even funny. The wave collapse is quantum in nature and only requires a quantum interaction. Consciousness would be one of basically any interaction that would cause this. It would never be the only one as the interaction to cause this only has to be quantum in nature. It's the reason why it's unsolvable and will remain that way. The philosophical problem is the nature of the system which is the universe and it being completely quantum in reality. There is no physics or philosophical way to solve this as the entire system and any interaction in it is entirely quantum in nature. What we would need to solve this is something deeper then quantum mechanics and we don't have that, if it's possible.
from @5:16 there seems to be something strange with the audio. Two audio channels? Two mics?
Very interesting thoughts. Thank You.
This is a very interesting conversation
Consciousness and cosmos go together but it's not like one dominates the other. They create one another, like Yin and Yang. "Cause and effect" is a useful analogy buts its only a mental tool to assess relationships, in reality nothing pushes anything elsw around, the whole cosmos is happening together, and that is synonymous with your mind.
At roughly 2:30, he talks about how the wave reacts with the environment. But isn't the environment also the wave?
He's talking about decoherence. Imagine the wave function of a quantum system as it entangles with it's environment. As it does to we take the wave functions of these additional quantum systems it becomes entangled with and we put them all together, so we have a wave function with an ever increasing scope, but it's still a wave function. It's still a quantum system.
However let's consider what happens to the QM description of our original system, now entangled into this broader system, so we can consider it a subset of this broader system. It's state undergoes what we call decoherence, where it's state more and more closely approximates to that of a classical system. In a 'fully decohered' state it's quantum description approximates to that of a classical description.
The language, is the language of ancient philosophy, forms, actialities, ......extraordinary.
He first said you don't need consciousness and then admitted the visible world is created by consciousness/cosmic mind but added not human consciousness to keep his stance going. If waves are information then where is that information coming from for the particle to have interactions. If there is no new information then everything will come to a halt.
@LifesInsight the brain is more than two hemispheres and human beings use the different regions of their brain. We have our own mind/consciousness so we don't rely on a cosmic mind for everything. What would be the point in that for an autonomous intelligent being.
@@johnbowen4442 thanks maybe I will check it out.
@LifesInsight you can only observe your reality. There are different levels of consciousness which affects sight/understanding/experience/etc.
@LifesInsight I think you will observe your capacity outside the universe too.
Information is meaningless without consciousness. Actions and interactions happen because there is an observed present to subjectively experience them, they do not happen if there is no observer. There has always been an observer in one form or another. The observer is the function from which information, particles, events, actions, and interactions take place. Information, particles, matter, actions, interactions, and events do not exist unless there is an observer. Without an observer, the state of the universe is a void of oblivion. Without subjectivity, nothing happens.
We like to think that the material universe that we inhabit is the foundation from which consciousness arises. When in fact this material universe is the effect of consciousness itself. Only an observer assigns properties, calculates mass and velocity, describes actions, records time, etc. The fact that we can deduce the time of the universe and what it must have been like in the past is only possible because someone or something has done this before we started doing it. Whether it is another species on some other planet or some grand collective consciousness, is irrelevant.
"Witness me, I shall ride, eternal, shiny, and chrome..."
you said what most materialists/physicalists would ever grasp!
ya, sure ok. What you said.
When either, the pattern in the cosmic mind or the pattern in the human mind, in the invisible realm of forms, interact with the environment, empirical forms are actualised.
He even gazed before saying that is information and that is human mind like !
Life is the Universe's way of knowing itself
So "the universe" (as we perceive it) is just as delusional and self-centered as we are. In other words, we project ourselves onto everything. That's kind of ridiculous.
@@karlschmied6218 Anthropocentric also which assumes that the creation of the entire Universe revolves around humanity. The more we study the Universe, the more we realize that we are not the center of the universe.
Consciousness is observation, the Cosmos is information, they are intertwined.
This is such a simple explanation of such a complex question. Very helpful!
No surprise the wave function symbol is a PSI greek letter. PSI Means Mind! Schrodinger was a genius
Also if wave function collapse is meaninglessly random, why would you have any approximations of consistant forms..let alone the ability to ponder anything ?
Inertia for one requires the prerequisites, of a form/template/id as a cohesive structure, as well as a time vector that allows for seqeuntial movement.
Prior to this, the wave function has not collapsed.
This feels like a real step. Something solid that is as yet, a partially materialized thought about the nature of truth.
Consciousness is everything and out of consciousness comes everything else.
Time is not linear, time is a single moment of NOW, with infinite layers of dimensions.
Space/distance is an illusion.
There is a single point/location, HERE and this explains Einstein's Spooky Action at a Distance.
We are HERE NOW. 💥
Poor Scientists! they try so hard to separate Consciousness from "Hard Science"... but to no avail!
Amazing how they cannot accept something self evident such as this. They are prisoners of the scientific method and thus they are holding us back from progress
What I mean is: nothing can exist without being. It's so obvious
@@cmdrf.ravelli1405Why on earth is that?
@@maxhagenauer24 simply because for anything to exist there must be a more elemental block to build upon. The deeper we go into the nature of reality, the more subtle and elusive it gets, but yet there seems to always be something that existed before. In the end, there is an infinite nothingness or void that simply is and in that isness there is a basic degree of consciousness that grows and expands through its own material and non-material manifestations.
@@pablograncanaria Are you talking about causation? And we try to find the first uncaused thing assuming there isn't an infinite regression? Are you saying there was nothingness before everything exists? I'm not understanding.
He's pretty stuck on the idea of the interviewer referring to human consciousness specifically, which the interviewer did not insinuate. He can agree on a universal consciousness, but then discounts the infinite intelligence we find outside of mind... which would be universal consciousness. As such, physical reality and universal consciousness are inextricably linked, and his opinion becomes a circular chicken or egg type argument.
He doesn't believe human consciousness is the basis for material reality. Okay. Neat. That wasn't the question.
Where do you find this universal consciousness that you claim, we find?
Do you mean, that we imagine, or make up or find in a book where someone claims it with no evidence?
I agree with him: The answer to the question is a resounding No. For one thing, our consciousness is not aware or smart enough to even comprehend the nature of the physical reality at its most fundamental level; much less to have created it. Furthermore, there are countless processes that are going on in the Universe that we’re currently not even aware of that could or would eventually manifest themselves in time. The Universe is what gave rise to our consciousness and not the other way around.
I create all kinds of universes with all sorts of rules and physics along with every single thing and person in them when I dream.
These worlds have all sorts of rules and physics that I'm not even aware of until I discover them. And even then, I never figure out completely how everything works before I wake up.
Doesn't mean that I didn't make them up myself. Or have my dreams and all things in them always been there?
@@PrescottValley How quaint.
@@NothingMasterRight. So you have nothing. Got it.
Your observation is akin to the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre. While I might agree that existence precedes essence, if Divine Consciousness does exist, it becomes the Designer of all that is, and man becomes a reflector of the Divine Template.
@@questor5189 This sounds like a tortuously faithful argument to me. It’s essentially a circular theological assertion, dressed as a kinder gentler philosophical contention. Why prevaricate, if you’re intent on saying that God created it all?!
Yes
Sound? 💁🏻♀️
Physics and metaphysics explains reality, consciousness is one of the set of metaphysics that creates life and consciousness, intelligence, intuition, faith etc, all are metaphysics.
I love this guest
As per history of the universe, our brain is created after the creation of the universe, that means everything is there, and that saying is true "we do not need consciousness to create real things". Our senses, see, feel, hear, smell and taste are our windows to this universe, our senses allow us to observe and interact with this world, our brain with its tools (our senses) make our consciousness to this universe, and the universe already existed there and was doing and still doing all its processes consciously. Our consciousness is just a part in this universe.
But isn't the environment a wave function? So a wave function interacting with the environment reduces to a wave function interacting with a wave function... i.e. a wave function?
He needs to ask himself, what are those waves made of? I swear he contradicted himself a few times there. The Wigner-Neumann collaboration would disagree with him. Wigner once posited that the ultimate observer has to be consciousness-and not the detectors made of the same fuzzy quanta-in order for collapse to take place. Wigner eventually dropped this for fear that his academic peers would think of him as some kind of weird solipsist. There is also no mention of the quantum eraser experiments of John Wheeler where our observation appears to decide the past. And perhaps a cosmic mind sustains the empirical world! Metaphysical idealism is more parsimonious than materialism and should be the default position. Consciousness is the ground of existence and the ultimate reality. Period.
Well, you seem to know everything. But perhaps a better understanding of QM is needed to fully grasp what you said is totally wrong. The wave collapse is a QM experiment and only requires anything that is QM in nature to cause the collapse. Everything is QM in nature, so therefore it can be anything that causes the collapse. It's literally the reason why anything exists. If the collapse was not QM in nature and if what you say is correct then nothing would exist. QM is very difficult to understand and you should really take the time to learn more about it.
We need to leave behind our anthropomorphic biases regarding consciousness. Everything interacts, and so everything is conscious.
You need a decision to be made, to collapse the wave.
So basically a phase transition from thought in a realm of dynamic time, into form that exists in our sequential time.
What is the relationship between spherical surface mathematics, into a 3D path though a brane ?
(ie the 2D holograph of an event horizon through inner 3D deSitter space as per Leonard Susskind)
What is the relationship between the cosmic web, black holes, plasma globes, self assembling wires, the branches/roots of a tree on the earths surface, or the receptors on a cell wall ?
(ie See Roger Penrose on Quantum reality, going back in time to edit our history. A history that must be part of a sequential branching process...aka tree/root system)
How can time be stationary at an event horizon and exist outside of our sequential time ?
But what becomes of consciousness (human or otherwise) when it has nothing to interact with or know? And is the particle, which the wave becomes upon an interaction with the environment, the same as as we know it through our measurement or observation, i.e. is our experience of it (through whatever means) what it is independent of our knowledge of it?
There can be no consciousness when it has nothing to interact with, because consciousness needs itself to exist, but this self is not a singular particle like a lonely electron, but a multitude of atoms.
@@joha4574 I don't follow your logic, nor do I believe that consciousness is a multitude of atoms. I do however agree that there can be no consciousness without an object to be conscious of. A particle or atoms are knowable phenomena, while the ability of consciousness is what knows, the subject side of the subject/object interaction that produces an event of consciousness or knowledge.
Tactile consciousness occurs when the sense instrument of the skin comes in contact with a texture or temperature (the object of knowledge). In the absence of the object there is no tactile consciousness nor is the instrument of that particular kind of consciousness discernable. The same idea applies to the other 4 sense consciousnesses, as well as the over all field of consciousness. When there is no object (and here I also mean subtle objects of knowledge like thoughts, emotions and self-sense) there is no consciousness, or conscious self, discernable. In the state of deep meditation, known as Samadhi, all these objects of consciousness are removed.
2:08 how does that happen ... maybe it is because you need counsciousness that makes something real (yes exaclty) first of all there's always something real but an invisible reality those (the 2- dimensional) forms exist secondly you don't need consciousness (depends on your definition of consciousness) all you need is an interaction of the wave with its enviroment. 2:39 ... 2:52 because all these atoms interact with each other they keep each other honors one wants to go the other one get it back (yeah and if there was no consciousness around they would still do the same thing ) exactly there is no consciousness in here that keeps them interaction with environment creates empirical reality out of a non-empirical form (okay) an importance of these forms is they are non-empirical we have to think there is a background of the world of the whole universe that is the realm of forms everything visible comes out of these actualizes out of them the forms that have wave like potentials we don't really know what they are because they're non-empirical but the idea is the whole background of the universe is a wholeness (spacetime is difined as foundamental form or stage from which all same dimensional beings are generated. ) where all these forms hang together 3:47 ... 6:00 however when you have a particle and it becomes a wave you can what kind of wave is that well the wave is a pattern of information information is normally for a mind there's a pattern of information in a cosmic dimension could that mean there is a cosmic mind and so yes in that sense you can say there is a background of the world that is a consciousness and we can only suspect in all likelihood it creates a visible world but you have to distinguish this form the view that human consciousness is needed 6:42 no it is not needed like the particles in this in all material things they stay particles they may for a short time become waves and then the others get them back because they interact (no human consciousness was involved) no human consciousness involved we do not need consciousness to create real things the particles in here they don't need consciousness they stay particles at the same time 7:14 that the background of the universe is mind like and that means it is possible that it is a consciousness that we cannot exclude and if it is then it will also appear in our mind and create the empirical world.
With or without consciousness matter will exist. What really matters is that it all exists according to laws or rules.
you must here distinguish between consciousness and human consciousness otherwise this brings only confusion to the dialog and i hate to say it: but Hegel kind of provides the needed groundwork to...
True , both are different and part of the same.
Any evidence for non-animal consciousness? Sounds like story telling, not science.
No, we just observe a slice. That slice is our entire universe.
'Cosmic consciousness' or, the ''omnipresent efficacies called the 'fundamental fields' at every points of spacetime''?
To the eternal question "if tree falls in forest, and there is no one around, does it make a sound?" this guy's answer is a resounding "YES".
That’s because the empirical results of observing trees fall wouldn’t be possible without consciousness
@@dreduduwa That statement is ambiguous. The observation by a conscious being wouldn't be possible, but would the tree falling not have been possible?
@@simonhibbs887 Exactly, this is just a dumb example that makes no sense. What if you assumed the tree next to the fallen tree was conscious. LOL! Only human stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance would think human consciousness is needed. The tree falls and it makes noise. End of discussion.
“The background of the universe is mind-like” is a statement I agree with.
With zero rational evidence.
@@ihatespam2what are your credentials?
@@ihatespam2 perhaps you over estimate what “mind-like” would mean in this context.
@@jimjormy3575 you need credentials, to ask for evidence of a claim. That explains a lot.
@@ihatespam2 you didn’t ask for evidence, you stated unequivocally there was none.
Consciousness is different from coherency. How different? Well, one must answer the question of the "creation" of the universe by Consciousness by asking; why do we agree on the existence of "things" in the universe? If the universe was there before our consciousness of it, would that explain our agreement? Maybe. I mean babies being born don't change the parents' consciousness of the universe, do they? If, supposedly, the baby's new consciousness re-creates the universe anew?
Without consciousness, there is nothing else.
And if there is, we would never know.
"Does Consciousness Cause the Cosmos?"
We all have the hand in the creation of the Cosmos because we were once ONE WHOLE GOD before He splt Himself into free souls (us) just to have a free family to love and to be freely loved... and this would be impossible to accomplish if we are NOT even aware or conscious as ONE WHOLE GOD...
...this theory that an unconscious waves banging each other randomly without guidance can produce a well organized well fine-tuned Universe, instead of chaotic garbage, is an incoherrent idea that only a Godless erroneous conscience can concoct...
I'm always fascinated to hear these incredibly brilliant people grapple with these unanswerable metaphysical questions. (No, I don't believe we'll ever be able to answer them.)
Take the submicroscopic world that the professor describes. I first heard that description from Roger Penrose but thought I'd misunderstood him. How can the concrete floor I'm standing on be made up of mere mathematical equations? How did the universe itself come to be in the first place? What is it expanding into? Are we alone? Does any of these questions even make any sense, to begin with?
My real point is that whatever (or whoever) is behind the universe's existence must have rooted it in inaccessible mystery, or is the supreme master of mischief (or both).
As for consciousness, I actually think I (and I alone) know what it is: it's what you experience when you wake up every morning if you've had a good night's sleep:)
Hey, let's not let our egos get carried away!
And who created counsciousness?
I am just an interested amateur but it seems to me that nothing can be said to exist unless a consciousness observes it. Whether consciousness creates reality or not is only one way to think about the issue; I think that consciousness is at least a necessary part of reality.
Well, I think that our collective subconsciousness creates reality. If you consider Darwin's Theory Of Evolution and then advance that concept of continual struggle so that it is not just happening outside ourselves but also in our minds. A continual conflict between our conscious and subconscious which results in random thoughts manifesting themselves in a spontaneous, uncontrollable way which emanate out and create solid reality. We are all in conflict with each other at a subconscious level and that conflict makes reality. Our instincts for self preservation ensures that the subconscious mind does not destroy itself. Anyway these are some of my thoughts on the subject of a cosmic consciousness. Thank you for the video.
Do you mind if I ask a hypothetical. If half of the conscious beings in existence were wiped out by Thanos, would the universe still exist? If so it seems the existence of the universe didn't depend on them. If the other half were wiped out instead, would the universe still exist? If so, again it seems like the universe can exist without them. Therefore it seems neither group of conscious beings is necessary to the existence of the universe. If both halves, all of conscious beings were wiped out, would the universe exist then? If your answer in the last case is different from the first two, why?
If the universe is 14 billion years old and humans are only 2 million years old, then there is no need for a human consciousness to create Uranus.
IF the Universe is 14 billion years old, how come we can see through our advanced telescopes the part of the universe that is 95 Billion years old?! )))))
@@Uroki_ANGLIYSKOGO_s_Nulya_ Ok, so nothing you said is actually true. Which is why we still refer to things as being 13.something billion years ago. Nobody actually knows how big the current universe is as it's not measurable due to the speed of light which you should know these basics concepts.
@@SamWitney Then you shouldn't refer to things as 13 something billion years, because it's NOT true!
The universe (Multiverse) is ageless!!!
Physical body is matter, ultimately ,it is reduced to subatomic particles and finally transformed into waves.When Consciousness in humans ,will it become human consciousness, in animals ,animal Consciousness ? Consciousness could be more subtler than waves which carries information .What is the medium , these waves are supposed to travel ? or are the waves simply vibrating ?
Every once in a while I come back to this channel to hear, yet again, a scientist confidently claiming things that they have no business being confident about. And I have a growing sense of confidence that such scientists are all deathly afraid of science being unable to answer questions that religion can. The Buddha explained consciousness very effectively 2500 years ago and from what I can tell, quantum mechanics is starting to sound very Buddhist.
I listen to all these expert scientists and it still baffles my mind to hear them state that something as definite, comple and orderly as creation can exist out of nothing, without any proof whatsoever. This basically equates to stating that God created everything. In my opinion each individual should be both the object and the subject of research into the nature of reality and consciousness, for consciousness is always in the observing subject and not in the observed object. Therefore the true scientist must look into the nature of his/her own consciousness and look at it with total clarity, without pre-conceived ideas, in order to discover what it truly is.
It's a loop. But "We do not need consciousness to create real things"
“If there was no consciousness around they would still do the same thing” you said at 3:02-3:05 of the video i think. That is the whole problem here. You know and say this only because you are “conscious”…. if you were not conscious there would never be this conversation. I think NONE of us have a clue what we are saying😂 But great interview anyway
He makes a distinction between ‘human’ & ‘cosmic’ consciousness, to assert that ‘human’ consciousness ‘“does not make reality”, then concludes “a background Mind” cannot be rejected. This is the common error in ‘language’ for rejecting ‘all there is, is consciousness’ as THE fundamental-it’s only ‘human Mind consciousness’ that confuses the question of Cosmic Mind Consciousness as fundamental.
No, it’s the fact that we have zero evidence of any universal consciousness that’s the issue.
We can say and imagine it and tell stories about it all day. But where’s that evidence?
This discussion could replace universal consciousness with god and sound the same, pointless.
@@ihatespam2 evidence is important. And, human evidence is a filter, essential for & by evolutionary survival purposes, but still limited to this purpose, and this is why he states “cannot reject” a Mind (not like your’s or mine or other humans) that is more fundamental than human consciousness. ua-cam.com/video/qzwC7sXyhWQ/v-deo.htmlsi=u_fD4NcDkga8D-vK
@@ihatespam2 evidence is important, and human evidence is a filtering process through our Mind suitable for survival of our species, exceedingly valuable to us…and if We ceased to exists entirely the ‘world out there’ would not, though we would have no evidence of this, just as We had no evidence prior to coming into Our existence. You may have seen this discussion already, but it if not: ua-cam.com/video/qzwC7sXyhWQ/v-deo.htmlsi=u_fD4NcDkga8D-vK
@@Daniel-ux8tx not sure what that has to do with the incoherent concept of universal consciousness, and his use to dodge the issue.
@@ihatespam2 you raised the topic of ‘evidence’ which requires examining the nature of ‘evidence’, which requires examining how evidence is gathered & interpreted…which is through the human mind, often used synonymously with ‘consciousness’, which the speaker in the video did not reconcile due to his use of the term ‘consciousness’ actually meaning to him ‘human experience’ of consciousness.
Not only did consciousness cause the cosmos; consciousness is the cosmos. Consciousness is fundamental. Mind; emerges with quantum events. Cosmic Consciousness in which we share. Mind in which we share. Very different from Darwinism in which all is supposed to arise from biology; from the elements.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Is this the opposite view of Hoffman?
There is no consciousness and reality. There is only consciousness and consciousness.
It would be interesting to watch Lothar have a discussion with Don Hoffman or Bernardo Kastrup or Iain McGilchrist
Kastrup is unbearable.
This sounds precisely like Neoplatonism. What appears to be missing in his analysis is an appreciation that the emanation of Being is apprehended eternally in Consciousness. Universally by Universal consciousness. Particularly by particular conciousnesses.
To misquote Robert Duvall in the movie Apocalypse Now!:
"Shröedinger don't surf"
Whatever caused it we want fairness not unfairness.
thought creates form. Not the other way around. - Seth
I have to think consciousness is a sort of capture or conversion of energy or information of sorts. It also seems that the quantum world must be involved somehow where there is a superposition of sorts of stored info combined with the visual feed in a linear fashion. Maybe some kind of special receptors for sensing and differentiating, reminiscent of the receptors in our nose for smell. Hopefully you fine gentleman get to the bottom of this and let me know 🤞
You are way overdue to interview Bernardo Kastrup!
Physical objects may not need HUMAN consciousness, but to conclude therefore that the physical universe doesn’t need consciousness at all isn’t logical given his admission that the cosmic “background” (whatever that means exactly) may very well be conscious.
Also you need consciousness to have a non material wave into a material electron. Without consciousness, means a observer it does not happen. It does not exist without consciouness. Without consciousness there not even blankness or void. Everything depends upon consciousness and everything is consciousness.
Ahhhh, but everything already is in interaction with its environment. So it seems confusing to claim that a wave state will exist only until interaction with environment occurs. How do you ever get to the former? I feel he has unjustly diminished the significance of consciousness. But I'm no expert. I sure enjoy these videos. Keep up the good work.
Imagination is the cause tell me one thing around us that wasn't first only imagined
Oh yeah we render it just like a computer.
What if the smaller and smaller you can break the fundamental principles down, the more a force we do not understand, has a more massive effect on said fragments.
That way the force coexists with us and is part of ever fragmented.
The irony is, it’s as unmeasurable as spirits and angels are to measure.
So here we are.🙃🤨🇦🇺🤜🏼🤛🏼🍀☮️☮️☮️
Hello 👋🏽 Great channel
Consciousness causes not the Cosmos, but the appearance of the Cosmos
The idea that human consciousness is not a derivative of the all pervasive background consciousness seems ill conceived. We think of it as a unified field, why would the consciousness aspect of it be anything but unified?
I can't speak for him directly of course, only my interpretation of what he said. However he seems to think that the descriptions we have of the physical processes we observe in the world are accurate (or accurate enough anyway) and describe everything going on around us, including in our brains. That would mean that things like thoughts, experiences, decisions, etc are all a result of sophisticated assemblies of these observable processes for which we already have descriptions. SO if we were to look into the brain and atoms and molecules moving around, it would all conform to what we expect from physics. In that sense I think he's saying he's a physicalist, and doesn't think that any non-physical mental causation or such is moving things around and making things happen in the brain in ways we have never observed.
On the other hand he seems to think that quantum fields themselves at the low level are somehow mind-like and that quantum behaviour relates somehow to a cosmic consciousness. The way he talks about it makes it seem this is independent of our own consciousness. However I'm not entirely clear how he things that works. I'm trying not to project my own opinions on to that, but it's hard because he was a bit vague about some of it. I largely write that to try and clarify my understanding of what he said, prompted by your question. I hope you don't mind.
Love that the answer to the clip title is "no."
I think consciousness is fundamental personally.
I think Max Plank & Donald Hoffman are right.
However, that interaction of wave with its environment also needs to be OBSERVED for it to become REAL.
Hold on! Particles are a temporary state of an excited field in quantum mechanics. There is nothing but the field. Everybody knows that. The field is excited and frequently for instant creates something that we conceptually call particles. Particles themselves are nothing but abstract quantities, mass spin momentum and I forgot the other thing. We attempt to conceptualize them into something that has currency in spacetime.
Interview Bernardo Kastrup, please. It's long due!
Was the cameraman drunk? Put the camera on a tripod and keep it still.
The only relevant question is: ''what is real?'' and the answer is consciousness. Everything else, like matter, is just theoretical.
@LifesInsight No, consciousness is real in itself. For example, when you're in pain the pain is real without a doubt. Consciousness is subjective, but that doesn't diminish its realness. The reality of an objective universe can be disputed, however.
@LifesInsight No, correlation is not the same as causation. Consciousness can exist without a brain/body. It can be disputed that objects could exist without consciousness.
@LifesInsight No, consciousness is a reality in itself. The mind arises in consciousness, consciousness is having experiences. Human life is an experience in consciousness. No reality other than consciousness and its contents can be known to exist.
A universe without a conscious observer is a meaningless waste. The universe has a purpose and that purpose is to create consciousness.
The end result of the universe is that all knowledge is gathered together. Einstein said that there is no matter there is just energy and his equation proved that. Non locality and retro-causality prove that the foundation of all creation is information.
The future end result determines the past. The end result is that all knowledge will be gathered from the simulation called this universe.
(0:25) *RLK: **_"Consciousness is not a derivative of evolution and matter but rather Consciousness sits at the foundation of reality and causes all the matter and forces of the universe"_* ... I believe how we've defined "Consciousness" results in a category error. We _think_ there are many puzzle pieces (matter, energy, structure, evolution, consciousness, etc.) and then we try to assemble them all into a complete picture.
... But what if some of the puzzle pieces aren't really part of the picture?
A self-aware Consciousness has only become observable at the very _tail end_ of the entire evolution of the universe. A "blink of an eye," per se. If consciousness, existence, particles, energy and everything else in the universe all started out as *"Pure Information,"* then it is reasonable to conclude that Consciousness is what you get after 13.8 billion years of information evolving.
We shouldn't be thinking that Consciousness is something different than what it started out as (like a separate "puzzle piece"). Just like you are now compared to how you were back when you were born, Consciousness is just a "more advanced, highly evolved" version of its former self.
Sounds fair. I know we disagree on some of this, but I do think that consciousness is an informational process, and information has been around as long as there's been anything to have a state, or have interactions and processes. Conscious for me is interactions and processes, of a particular sophisticated form and structure, so the building blocks of that are just part of the universe. I think we are wholly part of this world, in which we live.
if consciousness is an emergent property of anything then as far as science it concerned it still doesnt exist at all ie. is not observed in any assortment of mass-energy from most basic to most complex.
@@5piles Sure it is, we're assortments of mass-energy and we observe that we have it. Also science deals in emergent properties all the time. Pressure, temperature, voltage, etc. There's a whole discipline of statistical mechanics. Also information science, the physics of computation. Loads of stuff.
@@simonhibbs887 *"I know we disagree on some of this, but I do think that consciousness is an informational process, and information has been around as long as there's been anything to have a state, or have interactions and processes. "*
... I think the main disagreement we have is if information can stand on its own as an independent structure. You believe information is substance-dependent; I don't. If it can exist void of physical structure, then it would be perceptually a more basic form of existence than substance (like a quark is more fundamental than a proton).
My best argument is that the information associated with something "conceptual" that does not exist (like "God" or "Magic Elves") is likewise nonphysical. True, physical "stuff" might be processing that type of information, but what the information proposes does not physically exist.
That type of information would not exist physically until whatever the information proposes becomes actuated.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Yep, it took me a while to get my head around, but I see where you’re coming from.
Human ego likes to think that existence comes from human consciousness but humans are nothing in the universe
I hear some Plato and Aristotle...he's in touch with reality and proper science
'Thought does not come before form.'
Also: Forms are information 🤔😏
So if human consciousness is a subset of a greater consciousness, maybe it is that - the collective to which we belong - that creates the physical world we see around us. Just a guess.
Good answer