Hello, UA-camrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its UA-cam translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account. Check out The Whispering Mind: The Enduring Conundrum of Consciousness to see how the process works: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_video?v=y7RL__ZgdEw&ref=share To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done. Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_cs_panel?c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A&tab=2 The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.
We don't lose consciousness actually, according to latest studies. It's more like meditation. But then again, there's plenty of evidence for Biocentrism, Simulation Theory, Donald Hoffman's case, NDEs, Dr. Albert Taylor, Dr. Eben Alexander, Pam Reynolds, Dolores Cannon, etc. Scientism. But like the lady said, the brain still goes on.
@@scientificspirituality9695 you can't use brain to attain turiya as your life will be stuck within duality that is good or bad which is developed by narratives turiya is pure awareness free from neural narratives every child has this purity of awareness till 5 that is the reason we say every child is GOD. 🙏
Yes, what is our "reality", really? I mean, they all seemed to accept the idea that the brain really exists, as opposed to a projection of our projection that we experience as "life", as our surroundings, as our senses. Life is way weirder than we can imagine, in our programmed thoughts. Consciousness may simply be a program of some sort. Free will may simply be an illusion, fostered by the projected life / thought process. Life appears in reality to be preprogrammed.
On the contrary. There are lots of ideas about what consciousness is and how it forms as a result of the brain processes. This is precisely why there's debate. The meaning of words like "mind", "intelligence" and "consciousness" must be agreed upon, and there's no universal agreement yet. Same thing with the word "planet". There's no universal agreement on a definition. Some say that Pluto is a planet and some say it's not. It's debatable. But that doesn't mean that scientists have no idea about what a planet is.
We don't lose consciousness actually, according to latest studies. It's more like meditation. But then again, there's plenty of evidence for Biocentrism, Simulation Theory, Donald Hoffman's case, NDEs, Dr. Albert Taylor, Dr. Eben Alexander, Pam Reynolds, Dolores Cannon, etc. Scientism. But like the lady said, the brain still goes on.
And over 20% of top "Atheist" (which Atheism doesn't mean not spiritual anyways) scientists polled spiritual but there's so much bullying and egoism that they keep it to themselves to keep their careers and such.
The disagreement right away at 17:45 is a perfect example of how these discussions become instantly enjoyable. It's more enlightening to see exactly where they disagree, and it pulls them away from the script toward heartfelt organic responses. I hope to see more of these discussions staged as such... To whomever chose the speakers, thank you and good work :]
That's funny because it is the exact point where I lost interest. The old guy who laid out the history of consciousness was doing fine until he was challenged, then he started defending himself instead of listening with humility and exchanging ideas. The guy in the crazy shirt was being kind of obnoxious and aggressive, but he was making a very good point that people always say a thing is impossible, right up to the point where it is done, then they move the goalpost. Saying a person can't run a mile in a second is just trying desperately to be right after someone showed you to be wrong.
I am enjoying the cast of characters in this presentation. They are holding their own in their field of study. The discussion is very interesting in understanding the mind/brain problem.
This is the best discussion of consciousness that I have seen. The ideas flow effortlessly and carry one through a delightful journey of scientific and philosophical thought. A true masterpiece. Highly thought provoking and enlightening. Remarkable.
Thanks to WSF and youtube yet again. It amazes me how much time I spend watching these panels ... and non of it wasted. This is posted in the hope that votes count.
This is one of my favorite world science festival talks. Not just because of the topic but the balance in the panel. The middle two speakers really helped to mediate and clarify the more general conversation. For example, It would have been difficult to watch Christophs reapted failed attempts to concisley convey his point to the philosopher without the relief of them interjecting to help him out with anecdotes occasionally.
Because we all experience consciousness, we imagine it must have a simple explanation. There is no reason it has to be simpler than relativity or quantum mechanics.
I can remember coming here from a long distance,or another time, one in the same, I remember, knowing where to go, I went to the house where my Dad was in the rocking chair. My mother was in the bed, and I was in the baby bed next to their bed, when I entered my body the angels were all around, and the feelings were like.I was floating , giggling in bliss.i couldn't have been more than weeks old.
Holy cow, I've said that phrase almost verbatim for years: "You can't prove anyone or anything exists outside of yourself because the world is all in your head." This is one of the most fascinating topics.
Blalack77 - Wrong! Evidently you’ve never had your ass kicked by one of those unprovable things outside of yourself. That ass kicking I just took, is no proof that something actually whipped my ass, so I think I’ll have another one. There is no proof this whiskey I’ve been drinking, gave me the courage to take a non-existent ass kicking, because the thing kicking my ass ain’t real, because it’s unprovable.
@@winsomecohall2250well what about consciousness n subconsciousnes? Who control consciousness n subconsciousnes? Brain? Is consciousness located in the brain or maybe conscious control brain? 1 thing for sure is: subconsciousnes controls consciousness, but brain/ "i" don't control my subconsciousnes. Plus surrounding realty affects subconsciousnes but we can change surrounding realty after we understand it's affect on us. However many ppl never think about it. So they can't affect their reality. Older u get less chances u have in many aspects. But u have this chance if u think about it. 😊
@@alexb6695 Yeah, consciousness and subconsciousness seem to me almost as proof of like a soul or something. Because it's like they're so arcane, metaphysical, incorporeal, etc. - like there's no way to physically get to them or, seemingly, to separate them from the physical body. It's like consciousness - and even the mind - doesn't really "exist" anywhere in the brain or body. So it just seems like consciousness is like this non-physical force that inhabits a physical body and that we essentially/literally _are_ just our consciousness and our consciousness is the primary - if not only - source of what makes us who we are. Or so it seems to me anyway..
i love doctors. It's not just about the mechanism, but the meaning. His basis in consciousness research is largely informed by watching families of vegetative people struggle and rejoice when someone is revived. Medicine is art & science.
I totally agree with you John. Matter does not exist as we think, it is a manifestation of consciousness. The philosopher is wiser and more precise in the approach to consciousness than the neurologists were.
ravenwood If you really believe that... then just stick a fork up your nose and twist it... then report back to us all on how much conscious awareness you have... assuming you're still alive obviously. I hate to break this to you... but just like you can't have taste without food of one description or another ... well you can't have consciousness without a brain. Thats just the way it is... Unless that is you can show us a disembodied consciousness? yes?
+Mick Wright what I know is that there is not a world as we see it, because our world is a manifestation of a collective intelligence. How this happen still a mystery for me. When I awaked to consciousness, I totally dissolved in light and everything was light, there was nothing else. I hope it answered your doubt.
Lucia Lazzaro No it doesn't not in the slightest... cos basically you are just pulling random ideas from your head... we can all do that... it doesn't amount to anything except fantasy.
23:30 He doesn't seem to delineate a difference between consciousness and awareness. Consciousness is more than an adrenaline-enhanced ability to react to the external world, it involves ability to perceive an analog "self" and an 'analog world (inside one's head), the ability to ask questions like "why am I me?", ability to understand representational gaming and concepts without referents like "mass" or "velocity". This comes much later than birth. I find myself more in agreement with Soviet psycholinguists of the 1930s who postulated that language learning through interactive instruction is what is responsible for the phenomenon of consciousness. Luria and Kolcova even conducted a single case study where the language instruction was delayed to demonstrate that development of consciousness in humans is impossible without early interactive language instruction. Other factor that points to consciousness not fully developing until 3-4 years of age are Dissociative Identity Disorder - current theory on it is that abused children tend to develop separate "selves" as a psychological defence against the abuse. Presumably why adults are far less likely to develop DID later in life is because the "idea of self" when it first emerges is much more neurologically vulnerable, and it's around early development phase where things can go wrong and the "self" can fracture. Another thing which DID convincingly demonstrates is that "the self" is an illusion maintained by the brain, another explanation simply doesn't satisfy Occam's Razor. Neuroanatomy and physiology of the brain also suggest, that far from a unitary organism with a "central control" brain consists of interdependent colonies of neurons, that it is deeply divided, while any unity likely consists of this illusion of "self". Another clue is Piaget's Theory of Mind which doesn't fully develop until that age. Another thing is - personally significant memories are very rare before 3 years of age. And it's very unlikely that we begin to ask truly philosophical questions like "where do we go when we die" until the age of 4. Paul Bloom's experiments (among other things) show that these aren't even dilemmas in early age. It is only after 3-4 years of age that we begin to wonder about non-being and non-experience - realizing there was a time when we did not exist, before then we assume continuity and persistence of personality automatically. This shows continual development of consciousness throughout toddler years So it is very likely that the ancient notion that "one is not born with consciousness or "soul" is correct. It is born out of interaction between oneself and others and gradually develops when we age. "The self" is thus - most likely a product of the brain. If consciousness was possessed by "every atom" as Panpsychists claim, it is strange why much simpler organisms do not appear to possess it, why they lack such phenomena as culture, and why it took billions of years for this phenomenon to develop in only the most complex organisms. Overall, in approaching this problem, Type Functionalism had replaced Eliminative Materialism since 1970s. Modern Science does not really hold the position that the Brain and The Mind are identical. But Type Functionalismis not a dualist or Cartesian philosophy. The reason why Type Functionalism is better is because Eliminative Materialism appears to deny the possibility that other matter than neuronal cells can be organized to support consciousness at least in theory. Type Functionalism does not deny the possibility of consciousness to machines, for example, or perhaps to some alien life which evolved other structures than neurons in order to support conscious thought.
TheHallucinati _"It is only after 3-4 years of age that we begin to wonder about non-being and non-experience - realizing there was a time when we did not exist, before then we assume continuity and persistence of personality automatically. This shows continual development of consciousness throughout toddler years"_ IMO, it's incredibly difficult to draw conclusions like that, because very few people would equate consciousness and ability to perform complex logical arguments and we know the latter is an ability that develops biologically far into the 20s. One reason to think the basic experience of self has to be present for most of childhood is that consciousness appears to be a necessary front end for formation of episodic memory, which clearly is present in very young children. The same is true with model based learning. You can't really do it without the main mechanisms in consciousness being in place. There's also an alternative explanation for why we don't remember early childhood and that is that when we learn to use language, we simply stop using the more primitive memory keys that would be used by a very young child, such that as adults, it simply never occurs to us to form the required non-language based keys in short term memory to recall ancient memories.(Or, stated a more cynical way, the memory of a young child may be too unsystematic to allow for reliable recall) _"The reason why Type Functionalism is better is because Eliminative Materialism appears to deny the possibility that other matter than neuronal cells can be organized to support consciousness at least in theory."_ What on earth makes you think that? A consequence of eliminative materialism is that consciousness has to be an information processing phenomenon that, in human brains, is built on a neuronal computational architecture. Of course this view accepts conscious machines - it's just that there's so much evidence that the neural networks in people's brains in fact is the right abstraction layer to understand how all human mental activities arise.(This view is of course not held dogmatically either, but it is almost inconceivable to imagine that it's wrong given how much that's understood in terms of neural computation)
TheHallucinati _"It is only after 3-4 years of age that we begin to wonder about non-being and non-experience - realizing there was a time when we did not exist, before then we assume continuity and persistence of personality automatically. This shows continual development of consciousness throughout toddler years"_ IMO, it's incredibly difficult to draw conclusions like that, because very few people would equate consciousness and ability to perform complex logical arguments and we know the latter is an ability that develops biologically far into the 20s. One reason to think the basic experience of self has to be present for most of childhood is that consciousness appears to be a necessary front end for formation of episodic memory, which clearly is present in very young children. The same is true with model based learning. You can't really do it without the main mechanisms in consciousness being in place. There's also an alternative explanation for why we don't remember early childhood and that is that when we learn to use language, we simply stop using the more primitive memory keys that would be used by a very young child, such that as adults, it simply never occurs to us to form the required non-language based keys in short term memory to recall ancient memories.(Or, stated a more cynical way, the memory of a young child may be too unsystematic to allow for reliable recall) _"The reason why Type Functionalism is better is because Eliminative Materialism appears to deny the possibility that other matter than neuronal cells can be organized to support consciousness at least in theory."_ What on earth makes you think that? A consequence of eliminative materialism is that consciousness has to be an information processing phenomenon that, in human brains, is built on a neuronal computational architecture. Of course this view accepts conscious machines - it's just that there's so much evidence that the neural networks in people's brains in fact is the right abstraction layer to understand how all human mental activities arise.(This view is of course not held dogmatically either, but it is almost inconceivable to imagine that it's wrong given how much that's understood in terms of neural computation)
@Steve G its legal in 48 states to order magic mushroom spores. Illegal only in callie and Tennessee? If someone wanted too, they could legally order them to their house and find instructions on the internet to grow them. Once you grow them its illegal. Everyone is free to make their own choices.
Best part of whole talk was Koch acknowledging that we should not cause suffering to other life forms...if you want a good talk on consciousness...listen to Amit Goswami!
OMG... so, I have finally understood what some of these people actually think about this topic. According to them... "Consciousness ceases to exist when we are asleep." Now I can clearly see the source of shortsightedness.
Fully agree! As a buddhist there can only be one explanation. You cannot from a human mind ”think, study, explain and solve” the mystery of a combined conciousness with talking about different ideas because this ideas is just a personal view from a nondeveloped scienctist mind that thinks that a human brain could logical solve this mystery... just because the conciousness generates outside the human brain, but obviously has some correlation with a body. For me it is obvious that: In the human body/mind/brain lives NO conciousness... It is IN conciousness the body/mind/brain lives. In fact ”the all way around”... A brain is like a receiver that can download this we call ”conciousness” from the great source (or God if you beleive in a God) and That’s why humans never can solve this with science. Do you, Kami, have a thought of this comment from ”me” ?... (I’m in fact not a ”me”, just a respons that generates from nothing). Namaste🙏🕉😊
@@steffehjertquist Hello Stefan, and thanks for your comment on my comment. You’ve just made me think of Rupert Sheldrake with his interesting analogy of the TV set and the TV signal, which I think is a powerful way to consider the matter at hand. In my opinion, the dreams we have in our sleep are complete expressions of our consciousness, and the various forms of conditioning that have been passed down to most of us are the greatest barrier we face in trying get a better grip of what we are, and what our role is in regard to consciousness. The problem I have with some of these guys is how casually they dismiss the subject as if it were just another “thing” - one more little detail that they are just about to solve in the lab. I’m only sharing sone thoughts, thank you.
@@kreyvegas1 Exactly, and for me this your words is a good explanation. They (scientists) thinks that we humans can solve this issue and find conciousness as ”a thing” that is in symbios with a brain. Interesting is that if there are something called matter (not what I think there is in the first place) there are too much ”space” between atoms and this space is absolute nothing. I think and beleive that all objects we call matter is just an projection so that a so called brain have something to hold on to. I think merely oneness is pure energy that appears as something to a brain, but this something is in fact ”nothing appearing as something”. In reality there are no ”things”, just a conjecture for a brain to hold on to something. Sheldrake is interesting... I often listen to Rupert Spira, just for fun, and also Ramana Maharshi, Eckhart Tolle, Alan Watts and my friend lord Buddhas teachings. But, but... all of this is also just minds (high developed maybe) that tries to solve a mystery that is beyond understanding. The question is: ”Can a brain in a biological being ever understand what understanding is?!? No, because the great secret is not ”a thing” and beyond thinking there are just no things that appears as ”a thought”... neither a thing or nor not a thing... just energy that appears as a thought! Therefore I follow the main road of Buddhas teachings: ”You become what you think, so don’t think JUST be”. An example: No one knows what water is?!? We say it is H2O in this thought of categoring things in the world of atoms... but what is water if you NOT have an idea about it? It is just an outstanding fenomena beyond understanding... the creation is already whole as it is and why try to understand that can’t be grasped at all in the first place?!? What ”makes” water appear as water in the first place. Just WHAO and WHAO again😁 THANKS for your reply to my answer. Just fun to communicate around everything (and no thing... besides that, hope you can understand my schoolenglish, I’m born swedish and just try to write thoughts in english😄). Create a nice day and just be👍🌟🇸🇪🙏🕉//Steffe
@ MyLoudawg re "We are one! So RESPECT others perspectives." My only caveat to this is that when ppl do not respect my perspective (for eg fascists) it's a thin edge to ride in respecting the person AND challenging their view that certain ppl, sorted by race, gender, political views, should be suppressed. THAT perspective deserves not respect but mindful rebuttal and healing/ dissolution.
It is nice to see a news anchor from a major network doing something like this. To me, it seems to make them more normal, more human, more regular. It shows that they are not just a sharp spoken, pretty face in front of the camera.
Consciousness begins upon conception. I had conscious experience's in the womb, speaking to my twin sister in our own language, listening to other's, while in the womb and utilizing our same language as well as recalling lesson's learned in the womb. My twin sister and I communicated to each other on our way to the womb. The physical body is the confinement, with an assignment, of the Soul. It's between individuals and our Creator. It's a "dog eat dog" Universe. Sink or swim baby!!!
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL You could simply ask a question instead of labelling it dangerous and evil. It might just be wrong, but dangerous and evil? Aren’t you overreacting?
@@christopherhamilton3621 I did not label it dangerous and evil, I asserted that it is. Wars could never start if everyone believed that death is the end (which is the truth for everyone who has avoided brainwashing by the power hungry).
@@christopherhamilton3621 I'll edit for clarity... I did not label it dangerous and evil, I asserted that it is. Wars could never start if everyone believed that death is the end (which is a truth apprehended by everyone not brainwashed by the power hungry).
Catch this one: Once I got to see how conciousness work in me, my mind keeps all perceptions and emotions from the beginning of my life and runs them at thousands times per second, adding each fraction of millisecond each time. All sounds at that velocity are just an acute constant pitch, and all images are just lights that shivers, you can hear the sound at night before you go to sleep and see these lights when you close your eyes. Yet when I was experiencing this state of conciousness, the velocity only let me feel the strongest emotions, destruction of the world and destruction of myself. So I needed to get out of my life, with great effort I managed to get out of this ever running story and find out that I, we, have another level of conciousness, where the codes does not exist, so there are no questions and no thoughts, yet it is a solid awareness state. (I know now you are wondering how I got to this state)
@@wouldntyouliketoknow230 , it was an entheogen of course as you might have guessed. When I got up from that experience I asked myself for the first time "what is life?".
What scientists don't realize is: the world is bigger than science. Scientists think science is the world, if anything doesn't confirm with science, it doesn't exist. That's remarkable arrogance.
Ended up here looking for something to help get my creative juices flowing for an English assignment. It really helped, consciousness is a very fascinating topic.
+Rawtee vonwelker (Rollie1951) From the work of Julian Jaynes (not exactly a quote but in essence): We mean different things by consciousness and reactivity.
so does your air conditioner, your automatic water pump, they response to stimuli, it's just a control system, and not all control systems are SENTIENCE
@@shannonm.townsend1232 Is it so rare? I just wrote this in another thread... "Conscious" is a word. Like "love". A way of saying 'the interface between self and society that permits the self to both construct then navigate within an extraordinarily complex society and... permits that society to condition the self. ' I do not resent being conscious - I'm grateful for it. Grateful for my wonderful wife, for my beautiful daughter. They are gifts. And so I do what I must do to honour them. If one is looking for an immaterial explanation of conscious being, one need only look at the existential nature of metaphor to find a really good answer. Metaphors exist but they are not made of matter. Thoughts are not the things they are about. Thoughts are metaphors of those things. All thoughts are metaphors thus the mind, which is nothing but thoughts, is nothing but metaphors. One of those metaphors is the self. Society enters the self via the senses and is entered by the self when self operates the muscles. It's not the matter in the brain that is conscious. It's just that neurons are perfectly evolved for encoding, maintaining and processing metaphors. The senses convert impinging environmental energies into coded representations, metaphors, which are conducted via neurons into the brain where they find themselves jostled and buffeted by whole communities of metaphors all interacting in myriad extraordinarily complex ways. When the arriving sense metaphor eventually modulates the self metaphor, if it modulates the self in a particular way(s) then I say the self metaphor is conscious, conscious of the world as translated and communicated by the senses! Jaynes and Hofstadter lie at the core of my appreciation of conscious being.
I think of the brain as a veil of consciousness something like a filter that controls how our senses perceive the physical universe. Its like how different kind of animals can perceive different frequencies or see certain frequencies of light. Thats why when people practice stillness and clearing the mind (meditation) they have an outer body experience and can perceive so much more thats separate than physical reality.
But this omits the fact that the brain, and specifically memory, is necessarily supplying the causal history to infer what a reality is at all. It’s not just filtering information, it’s mostly simulating it.
The fact that some of these experts still believe in dualism (even though science and evolution refutes that notion) leads me to believe that our understanding of the brain is still in pre-infancy.
@McGinn: It may indeed be possible that we will never be able to fully bridge the gap between the matter of the brain and the experience of the mind. But to say such an uncertain thing with such certainty is indeed the sign of a mind that has given up on the problem. A better name than mysterium is handwaveitawayium. As long as we suppose the answer might be explainable, we stand a far better chance of doing so than if we don't suppose it to be explainable. And in a period where our understanding is getting better than ever, where we can better understand the neural correlates of experience, it seems exceptionally short sighted to dismiss the endeavour as impossible for us. As an aside, by understanding our own neural correlates, and then examining how the neural activity of a bats brain works, we can understand to some degree the information flow that is occuring in the mind of the bat. e.g. If we present the bat with a predator sound and its brains surges with the neural chemical correlates of fear, we can infer that the experience of the bat is to feel fear at the sound of its predator. We can even to an extent imagine that sensation, linking the two events together in our mind. Also, Integrated Information Theory is a very promising pathway of integrating the idea of concsiousness with materialism. It is in essence an expansion upon what we understand about materiality. It's perhaps a cheeky way of making things fit into the monist view point - but this may indeed be the critical factor that Colin thinks we are missing in our inability to articulate that materialistic view point of the mind body connection.
I like how second dude from left refused to shrink himself for this “debate”. He truly approached the discussion with the pure intention of exchanging ideas.
22:49 Interesting how the first breath of a newborn is a gasp as is that of the last breath of a dying person. I wonder if consciousness is tied to it somehow? P.L.D.
The 1st breath is only the initial use of the lungs . The child previously recieved oxygen through the placenta and umbilical cord (from the mothers blood stream ) The 1st breath engages the lungs to do the work on its own but this doesnt necessarily translate as any leap or transference of consciousness. Then the brain output and awareness goes through multiple stages starting in a dreamlike state for the 1st few years before moving gradually into the more common alpha brainwave state during most of the day.
I feel like lot of different concepts are being discussed here under common terminology of consciousness. On one hand we have the awareness of self and its boundaries, and on other we have the autonomous ability to control the parts of our self. The awareness and the ability are distinct. And then there is also general mapping of cognitive functions to the mechanisms in the brain, which has very little to do consciousness at all, but however discussed a lot about in this debate. Conditions varying from tetraplegia (loss of body control), sleep/coma (loss of awareness) or schizophrenia (loss of self identity) are all issues of consciousness in this crude sense, but actually are quite different in thier manifestation.
There are data to suggest that the mind can exist outside of the brain, but it would require a new paradigm that is not in love with physicalism. Although they are talking about dualism mostly in this video, its a brand that privileges the brain as necessary for the existence of the mind at all times and even suggests that we may get to the point where we’ll be able to attribute physical attributes to consciousness. Clearly there is a strong correlation (absolute even) between the brain and the mind, but it seems to always be discussed unidirectionally in that the brain is the independent variable and the mind is the dependent one. How about when the mind affects the body or the brain itself? I guess they would assume that the brain is affecting the mind which is then affecting the physical body, but is it necessarily so? In some near death experiences people report having left the body and gone to other rooms. They can identify specific occurrences that were happening outside of the room they were in at the time of their clinical death. This is then corroborated by other evidence. There are also cases of children who claim to be reincarnated and can accurately produce specific details of the deceased person’s life that they could not have accessed other than by interviewing the family of the deceased or conducting a thorough investigation with records that are not publicly available (as the researchers do to corroborate it). Assuming that this data has been gathered faithfully, how would these folks reconcile those finding with their assertions that the brain is necessary for the mind to exist at all times? Perhaps the brain conditions the mind, but upon bodily death, it may be “set free,” so to speak.
The baby is having stimulation by sounds and light While in his mothers womb I actually did experience this when my wife was pregnant I will Shine light to me wife stomach and talk to my baby! It was responding to me with such violent movements! My wife and I would cry an awe!
Wow, this was one of the most interesting discussions I've heard in a long time. Great moderating, and its given me a lot to go and investigate further. Thanks for this video!
Some points about Consciousness from the view of Indian Spirituality (Advaita Philosophy). Every Individual is made up of 3 types of bodies + Consciousness. 1. The Physical Body 2. The Subtle Body (Mind and Intellect) 3. The Causal Body (The finer impressions lying deep within us which directs our life's next move) If you can't understand "Causal Body", this example can help. You and your friend go to restaurant to have food. The data in us which determines the food we are going to order, is coming from the Causal body. This Causal body has only the data that has deeper impressions on our minds which is Steep likes or Dislikes. Unlike in the mind, there is no junk data stored in the memory of the causal body. If you like Sweet over Spicy, this data is stored in the Causal body and hence the first immediate choice you would make is to select the category with sweets on it. The data that helps you determine which of the many sweets to have, comes from our normal memory. So understanding the difference between deeper memory impressions over our regular memory is very important in the field of Subjective science. Advaita Philosophy says ... We are Pure Consciousness who happen to have 3 states of experience everyday. 1. The experience of Waking world. 2. The experience of the Dream world. 3. The experience of the Deep sleep world. We all can confidently say that we have experiences of the Waking and Dreaming world, but not the deep-sleep world. Advaita philosophy says, you are conscious of the deep sleep as much as you are in the waking and dreaming world, but unable to have any experience because in the deep sleep, the mind is completely resting and hence there is no data for our consciousness to witness. That is why after a deep sleep, when we wake up, we don't say "I slept, I dreamt and I woke up", we just say "I had a peaceful sleep". The state of deep sleep which we experience is completely peaceful without the agitations of our mind. When there is no light in a room that has many different objects, we still don't see anything. But does it mean, our eyes has lost its vision? Similarly, when the mind is shutdown and has no objects to project to our Consciousness, we cannot conclude that we don't have consciousness at that state. The points above are all from a Subjective Perspective of Science. We Humans need to realize that, we are closer to the truth subjectively than objectively. Let Modern Science wait until the right instruments are invented, but as Conscious beings, we have the opportunity in this life to dwell deeper within and have a glimpse at our Consciousness in its pure state. The Yogis of India are all those who have experienced this subjectively and also are guiding those who have the same quest. We the people of 21st century must not engage in fist-fights between Spiritual and Materialistic views or Subjective vs Objective views. The Real advancement happens when there is harmony in our minds. Let Material Science wait, Let Material Scientists do their wonderful jobs, but for every ordinary common man, we have the area of Subjective Science, where we are the sole first hand experiencer. For those who are interested, Please checkout the Vedanta Book named "Mandukya Upanishad". Manduka means Frog. The Book deals with the 3 states of Experiences, where we Individuals keep jumping to like a Frog. Please try it out. This is a century where the next generation must explore both Spiritual and Material Science equally without being biased.
It seems to me that consciousness is only a "problem" for proponents of material explanations of consciousness. There is no hard problem of consciousness for an idealist.
+AnduinX BYM Yes, that's the advantage of making up some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to explain things. Saves a lot of time thinking, money on research (in fact it's a good way to make money), and effort to even keep your story straight.
Falcy Chead _"Yes, that's the advantage of making up some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to explain things"_ Physicalism is a metaphysics. All views of reality are founded on assumptions that can never be directly observed to be true. Given the fact that physicalism is less parsimonious than idealism, I would say that material explanations of consciousness are the real mumbo-jumbo. _"Saves a lot of time thinking, money on research (in fact it's a good way to make money),"_ This is a bit of straw man here. I am not taking an anti-science position. As an idealist I am not opposed to neuroscience or the quest to understand the obvious relationship between mind and brain. _"and effort to even keep your story straight."_ The implication here seems to be that my position is only tenable because science is incomplete. This is simply not true. The idea that consciousness is a function of material processes can never be directly observed in the same way as we can directly observe the moon as it orbits the Earth.
+AnduinX BYM This physicist and expert on mind has solved The Hard Problem of Consciousness scientifically: HonestDiscussioner seems constitutionally unable to grasp the subject object distinction. Let me try to explain it in a very clear and simple way. In every act of knowing there is a known object and a knowing subject. This polarity, the difference between the subject and the object is the subject-object distinction. In the brain we have contents which represent the objects that we know. They represent our sensations by neural impulses. Some nerves are activated others are unactivated. Patterns of activation can be detected by functional magnetic resonance imaging. In the Kamitani & Tong study (Decoding The Visual and Subjective Contents of the Human Brain by Yukiyasu Kamitani & Frank Tong) which HonestDiscussioner is so fond of this is exactly what was done. There was made a representation of what portions of the brain were activated and when subjects were looking at bar patterns lo and behold a bar pattern was activated in the brain. This activation is the contents, it's a representation of the contents which the subject was viewing. Yes the subject was aware of the contents but the observations in the Kamitani & Tong study do not show that the subject was aware. What they show is that the brain was activated in a certain way. So, here is the challenge for HonestDiscussioner, if he wants me to believe that the Kamitani & Tong study is really observing subjectivity, really observing the fact that the subject is aware of the contents represented in the brain let him give me an argument leading from the data in the Kamitani & Tong study to the conclusion that there is subjective awareness of that data. Not just that there is a correlation between subjective awareness and the observations, but that the observations themselves entail the fact of subjective awareness. If HonestDiscussioner can do that then I will agree that this is an observation of subjectivity per se, but as I suspect if HonestDiscussioner is unable to do that he must acknowledge that in fact it is not an observation of subjectivity. Awareness attends, brains process. - dfpolis R-3-1 How I Dare Part 1.
TrustInJesus111 I think I am with you here. There is no way to demonstrate that conscious experience is a function of the brain. It simply cannot be done. The idea that consciousness is a function of the brain will always be an unparsimonious assumption.
Science gives us useful things that make life better, if they are not misused. Philosophy asks questions, but it often doesn't give us anything of practical value. Though McGinn makes some excellent points here that are difficult to refute. For example, the mouse and human brains at a microscopic level look pretty much the same, yet the levels of awareness are very different, so there is something else happening. It's only a matter of time before brain transplants are real.
Independent of time is an incoherent notion, a string of words without meaning. 'Forever' is a temporal concept. In so far as 'universe' means all that exists there can be no outside.
Yes, it was indeed a very good discussion. Which part did you enjoy the most? For me, it was the exchange between Koch and the other guy (forgot his name).
There are 1,184 comments so what follows might be redundant... I was surprised none of the participants thought it important to emphasize that what the neurons are conducting is coded context dependent representations of meaning (and that the overall meaning of what's going on is ultimately expressed by the muscles). (Though happy to hear mention that the structural layout of neural complexes may play a role in meaning (perhaps fundamentally responsible for what we mean by the collective unconscious concept)). Well known: The senses encode energies in the environment, the brain processes these encodings then sends appropriate coded signals of the same type to the muscles. Thus the dynamic 'self' concept, i.e. that which is essential to being conscious, is a vast set of dynamic encodings in a vast dynamically encoded context and it's the modulation of the self concept by that context (involving dynamic input from the senses and dynamic memory subsystems and no doubt others), that is key to understanding the meaning of the word 'conscious' in a person. Approximately! They came very close during discussion of the Jennifer Aniston neuron. We know it would have been better to have had probes in hundreds or millions of related neurons to get a proper appreciation of the impact of the Jennifer Aniston complex encoding (and if there's some kind of dynamic encoded form of holography going on in brains then one probe per neuron, ultra precise timing and a super duper supercomputer would be most helpful to our ultimate understanding). Language is both the means of (a kind of) thinking and a strict limitation of it, kind of frustrating. Words (which are all metaphors) are the encoded form of meanings and every word we know is cycling in the brain somewhere in the form of neural discharge frequencies, a coded form of a coded form. No wonder the topic is so tricky. Well, there ya go. Hope that clarifies your understanding of the meaning of the word 'conscious'. lol Correction: 1,190 comments.
The central , core issue , or question here seems to be - what is consciousness - missing from this debate seems to be the great body of ancient knowledge of the self offered in the hindu tradition- specifically the science of self realization through the application of Yogic practice as propounded by Patanjali - Namaste 😌
I find this a very nice bouquet of such different quality people...Each in his own area..and I like the hypnotic shirt ,the colour he brings in and the fire with which Christof Koch speaks...very nice indeed.. Wish now ye'all find the secrets which are written for us on losethenamecom
If materialism is right, mankind is even worse off than we are now... The fact that we can lift our hand and focus attention to become better at something and even the placebo i think pretty much dumps materialism... So interesting conversation and ideas, but definitely not at fullest frontiers of phenomenal research.
9:00 If consciousness comes about merely due to tissue irritation would then the irritation or its effects have to be substantially stable, constant and autonomous?
i find it extremely comfortable to be on the fence about this issue. christof koch compared the search for the infinity small with the search for the infinity large, and really struck a chord with me when he said how beautiful that was.
I think the last point by the philosopher is important. That consciousnesses may be all present in nature, and by extension the cosmos. But our investigative capacity is limited, so we can't conclude that. And there's possibly levels of consciousness embedded in other things. A tree may not have a 'brain', but has complex cells. It could be conscious in it's own way. We see atoms behave in a matter that shows they are 'aware' of being observed. We'll learn more in time, as more experiments are conducted.
If you were to look inside of a hard drive, you wouldn't be able to SEE the files, just like if you were to look into a brain. But they're there, they just aren't processed into a form YOUR mind can understand. It's pure data, so of course you can't experience them just by looking at someone's brain - it doesn't mean that it's not there or that it is separate.
Brian Blackwell the problem is that the files store in the hard drive does not make the computer. similarly the information or the memory "stored" in the brain does not make the person!
I like that they show their names (how to spell them, [with their pictures, paradoxically]). 34:40 Newton admitted he didn't know exactly why gravity works! That's colossal! Even today scientists don't know; otherwise they'd be making their own & using it; right?! [may be edited for further content]
ism schism _"Even today scientists don't know; otherwise they'd be making their own & using it; right?!"_ It's not the job of science to know "why" nature works. The sciences attempt to discover *how* things work by building and testing predictive models. At some point you probably get to basic phenomena of nature, which if naturalism is true, have no explanation - they're simply properties of reality. Gravity might be an example of that, or it may be decomposed into separate phenomena or joined with others as investigation of nature progresses. In any case, the sciences have still done their job when they deliver the useful predictive models - like Newton did as well.
ism schism _"Even today scientists don't know; otherwise they'd be making their own & using it; right?!"_ It's not the job of science to know "why" nature works. The sciences attempt to discover *how* things work by building and testing predictive models. At some point you probably get to basic phenomena of nature, which if naturalism is true, have no explanation - they're simply properties of reality. Gravity might be an example of that, or it may be decomposed into separate phenomena or joined with others as investigation of nature progresses. In any case, the sciences have still done their job when they deliver the useful predictive models - like Newton did as well.
I wish he wouldn’t have raised his voice so it was off putting & the first guy from then on slouched & didn’t look a lot of the panel in the eyes. Always take the higher road and stand up straight be dignified. He was the only philosopher and appeared to know this would happen & was on the defensive.
That philosopher added nothing useful to the conversation, except spewing a bunch if "isms" , and taking a position of throwing his arms up and giving up.
Great episode! Unfortunately, apart from the concise intro (which mostly just situated him on a line with some very distinguished philosophers, some of which he had to make clear he knew personally), I fail to see what Colin McGinn actually contributed here. Even on the rare occasions he actively participated, e.g. when he commented about the simple/homogenous nature of the nervous building blocks, he seemed incredible uninformed. But, on the whole, a great episode, and of course I think it was both good and necessary to have at least one philosopher that panel.
I remember the 'MODERATOR' .. Terry Moran .. from way back when 'Cable T.V.' first became available here in the 'Greater NYC Area' on the 'Court T.V. Channel' .. He ( along with Greg Jarret ) .. were the two best moderators. Both are very bright and well spoken.
Never thought I'd say this, but it seems like the philosopher had a more scientific view of consciousness than that dualist neurologist. The neurologist is just pursuing a theory that he'd like to be true. It almost sounds like a religious type view of the world
+Levi Howell I think the scientists need to think that. Otherwise their job would be about dead tissues and they need to think that there is a something more to it.
Alcor is not a company but a non profit member organization. Koch should know better. The process of cryonics is also not freezing but vitrification. The neural connections are preserved very well by the process. Sebastian Seung the neuroscientist behind the connectome projects supports the idea behind cryonics.
'I am self aware' that is all i need to know and i am comfortable with that. I am 'not' a machine this too i know and am 'not' expendable. If you are comfortable in your belief that you 'are' then kudos. Keep that oil can at hand ; ) I have manifested and accomplished many things that Doctors and Scientists said were 'impossible'. I believe with 'my' own experiences and senses, not 'others' words on probabilities.
Thanks for an interesting discussion. This next bit doesn't explain consciousness, but it is a simple analogy to show correlation. Take a car as the example. If a key is turned, an electrical stimulation is given to some aspect of the engine, and the engine starts and is now capable of moving the car down the road. The starting of the engine, however, did not suddenly create the driver that will drive the car. It was, in fact, the outside element of a driver entering into interaction with the car that allowed it to gain a functional level necessary to move down the road. Consciousness in a human is the same as the driver in the above analogy. The brain, and other ancillary elements of the body, is the engine. The brain doesn't create consciousness to drive the body. Consciousness interacts with the brain/body, effectively giving it mobility and other functionality. Consciousness is the driver of the body. Too many scientists are trapped in the mechanistic truth that there is nothing possible outside the known physical elements that we can see and measure. There is no such thing as soul or spirit, or consciousness without mechanistic creation. I don't say this from a religious perspective, because I am not a religious person. I use the terms soul and spirit simply as a means to communicate the existence of personality, of Self, that is not inherent to, generated by, the physical body. I know that if I remove the gas pedal and associated functional parts, that the engine will not rev up, turn the wheels, and move the car forward. This doesn't mean that the person (conscious Self) driving the car is no longer present or no longer exists. He has just lost the ability to access that aspect of the car's functionality. In other words, the vehicle is simply a mechanical device used by the driver to accomplish a task, just as the body is a physical vehicle for consciousness to accomplish a task. In a sense, I am a materialist in that I do not believe in mind/body duality. I do not believe that is it possible for nonmaterial and material to interact. There must be a common medium through which a connection is created, or there can be no connectivity. This means that everything is physical (assume the opposite if you are an idealist as the correspondence is the same). Just because we don't have measuring devices capable of such discernment is irrelevant. With all the above said, the body is merely an interactive tool of consciousness, and we will never find consciousness in the brain, merely correlations of functionality. And on a side note, this is why we will never gain the ability to download a person into a mechanical device; the person is not the sum total of some mechanical/chemical/electrical program running in the depths of the brain that can be encapsuled and downloaded to another apparatus.
The body(including the brain) is just a medium for consciousness, Even if we're able to create a body, we're uncertain if it has consciousness Like a car(body) won't move down the road, if it has no driver(consciousness) Did I get the wrong thought of your explanation?
Or consciousness is still unknown, whether its the product of the body caused by evolution, or we're just drivers of consciousness waiting for a car ・о・
@@galacticplastic1741 You extended my rationale to say that the body is not conscious without the mind, which could very well be true, depending on the refinement of your definition of consciousness. I don't say that I am a panpsychist, as I gravitate more to animism, but I do believe that consciousness as a general term underlies everything, to include the body. But just because the body's underlying essence is consciousness, that doesn't make it a conscious and aware individual. If that makes sense. Perhaps a better way of saying it is to say that the body's essence is consciousness but without the element of awareness that defines the sense of Self.
@@colettefitzpatrick5702 Thank you. I try to break down larger ideas so I can better understand them myself. If I can't break them down, it tells me that I don't understand them sufficiently. That, of course, doesn't mean that my explanation is correct. Just understandable to me.
"What is real? How do you define real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." - Morhpeus, the Matrix
Thank you all .🙏 Everything is programmed . It’s not how complex is our brain we have to look , but the way of that specific machines ability to catch information from outside around the body from anywhere because we just don’t know human body ........the information and interpreting through already existed language to generate the actual known of interpreting things , upon all the known senses and the unknown yet senses existing in us ,but not yet studied and taught as a new mechanical upgrade in understanding ,not dividing, but seeing body (the physical body ) mind ,( the activator of the body abilities to act )spirit ,(the digital chip of information ,with specific memory information upon the knowledge and information carries that specific biological body ,that has mission to continue the information processing, giving and taking and also the actual changer of the game to understand information in more quantum way ,......Before we will acknowledge to inform information that comes ,through energy , because our cell biologically it listens in such an unbelievable way that it seems to us magic , it’s just our biology ability to be activated and they get healed because in quantum level we are all giving information each other . And the healing code of the mechanical machine organ is the brain but how it will get in touch with the outsider information energy force , and it’s nervous programs of the grey matter , that are programmed to obey only to the specific quality of biological temperature , not artificial ....and information is not in the brain it’s out of the brain 🙏🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
I had this experience When I meditated I see a fractal rainbow repeating a Fibonacci pattern and as I moved towards the fractal, I became smaller and smaller until I became a single cell floating in a fluid with many others, seeing them as cells unable to communicate ( not sure If I tried ) I knew who I was, however, it was not who I am, Then I was snapped back to who I am now. As I started meditating I picture my third eye looking inward not outward and came to the realization that. Space is space, we are space or the colored strands of energy repeating a vibrational pattern refracting in a circular or infinity pattered. We are the energy. We moved around like bubbles in a pot of boiling water only we never rose to a surface and pop like water in a pot. We just flowed in the sea of light. As the fractal moves, your mind moves, with memories, we can never die we just shed our skin or body a metamorphosis death and rebirth.
around the 23:00 mark, I don't think I agree, babies in the womb respond to hearing Mum or Dads voice. this surely means they're conscious? or am I misunderstanding?
Believe it or not, I think the panel already had the necessary perspective to tackle this. No DMT required. You can come to those conclusions without it, it may take longer though.
@@SolidSiren its like reading a book war. One could be ontologically aware of what happens during a psychedelic harmonization as intense as DMT, but one could not viscerally KNOW what it is like or what really happens. I was on the right track for 29 years. dabbled with the common shamanic remedies here and there. It was not until I did DMT (only twice) where I FELT BEYOND ALL SHADOWS OF DOUBT I was in the presence of much higher dimensional intelligence. The jester like vibe I felt were telling me hey dont take it all too seriously. we are here to learn and grow. It is our HUMOR that we must always hold on to. First things first we must learn to laugh at ourselves, to remain teachable, and to re evaluate certain convictions upon learning NEW FACTUAL INFORMATION. Many get stuck in the sunk cost fallacy. ALL WISE MEN WILL ASSURE You THEY ONLY THING THEY KNOW FOR CERTAIN IS TRULY HOW LITTLE WE KNOW IN THE TOTALITY of this omniverse. Consciousness is Awareness. Consciousness is also NON-LOCAL
We don't lose consciousness actually, according to latest studies. It's more like meditation. But then again, there's plenty of evidence for Biocentrism, Simulation Theory, Donald Hoffman's case, NDEs, Dr. Albert Taylor, Dr. Eben Alexander, Pam Reynolds, Dolores Cannon, etc. Scientism. But like the lady said, the brain still goes on.
And over 20% of top "Atheist" (which Atheism doesn't mean not spiritual anyways) scientists polled spiritual but there's so much bullying and egoism that they keep it to themselves to keep their careers and such.
I'm in the Philippines. Hehe. For over 3 years now. But I've stayed in the provinces. I am probably going to Jordan in August, once my lease is up, as long as I have no issue with this overrated, supposed virus and this delusional vaccine system doesn't interfere.
The mental goes with the visual and the entire mind: out of body. It also can come out of you and you can look at yourself doing your daily tasks from out side yourself. . And the burning bush was purple fire and cold as ice wind.
That is the awesome power of imagination which, unbidden, wells up from the dynamic patterns frolicking in the substrate. There is not much difference between regular experience and hallucinations except, in the case of the latter, you can put your hand right through them.
I don’t think we lose our consciousness when we sleep . We could be conscious while sleeping , it’s just another state of mind or brain activity is in different dementional state to gather information and even active to change the dream according the persons imagination to control and change and while sleeping still know in the dream what it means to connect the day and night mind energy experience together they are connected and they influence each other with a living feeling 🙏🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
I’m just a regular person without any degrees and I didn’t learn anything. Maybe it’s because I’m constantly watching intellectual youtube videos to expand my knowledge of myself, spirituality, consciousness, and more.
The spark of consciousness In order to understand the spark that created consciousness one must first understand what exactly it is that they are trying to understand. Because first a correct definition of consciousness in the mind (not in words) must be obtain or else trying to understand it, the mind must use and idea and without an idea the mind cannot think as it thinks ideas, so when trying to understand how consciousness arose the mind will use the most basic idea it has dealing with consciousness what would be the question of itself. The answer to the questions once learned can be seen in others but the path taken to finding the answer will always be relative to the perceiver taking that path. And as the asker of this question you would be acting in a conscious process as you are questioning reality which is creating a situation in which you are attempting to understand reality as you view it. So the mind will be asking what is it doing in reality as itself apart from the rest and that is consciousness, the rationalization that you are part of reality and as a part you have the ability to create change. But the question still remains on how it started or where it came from. So some assumptions that are used for everyday activities cannot be assumed. So one must assume that if consciousness began their must have been a time when it never was and there was only reality and nothing else. So for rationalization of this concept one must obtain and idea of what life without or before consciousness exist which still requires the person to understand consciousness as they create it.
I can remember when I was In my mother's womb I remember seeing a soft glowing light and my umbilical cord. I felt like I came into the body from somewhere else
Stopping here at 28:27 to record a thought. Thinking about how computers use computer languages. Neurotransmitters and neurons are a communication and broadcast system that speaks a language which is displayed on the screen of our consciousness. We are downloading input from our environment constantly. Another thought. Consciousness is one thing. Total awareness is another. Okay, I'm done. Back to the discussion.
Hello, UA-camrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its UA-cam translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account.
Check out The Whispering Mind: The Enduring Conundrum of Consciousness to see how the process works: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_video?v=y7RL__ZgdEw&ref=share
To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done.
Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_cs_panel?c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A&tab=2
The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.
Not gonna get many responses if you call folks potatoes.
The brain turns off all the goofyness they observed that day when the person is finally asleep.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL never gonna get
Poooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllklllllllklllmllmlllmlllllllllmllllloolooooolololololololllllllllllllllllllolllllllolllllolllllolllollollllllollllollllllolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllolllllllllllllllllllllllooooooollllllllllllllllloooollllllllllllllllllolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllpolloolllllloloo
We don't lose consciousness actually, according to latest studies. It's more like meditation. But then again, there's plenty of evidence for Biocentrism, Simulation Theory, Donald Hoffman's case, NDEs, Dr. Albert Taylor, Dr. Eben Alexander, Pam Reynolds, Dolores Cannon, etc. Scientism. But like the lady said, the brain still goes on.
I wish they included a Hindu philosopher in the mix..we are thinking about conciousness for last 5000 years..
We are beyond thinking we have reached conclusion which is the state of Turia.
That's a hell of long time , have a mercy on yourselves guys.
Conciousness is "individual" pursuit, for last 5000 years individuals are exploring the conciousness. I hope it makes sense now 🙂
Will we be able to use this machine called brain to experience turiya ?@@rightisright9410
@@scientificspirituality9695 you can't use brain to attain turiya as your life will be stuck within duality that is good or bad which is developed by narratives turiya is pure awareness free from neural narratives every child has this purity of awareness till 5 that is the reason we say every child is GOD. 🙏
After listening to them all arguing about consciousness, it confirms my belief that no one really has any idea what this life is.
yep! have you heard of 'Alan Watts'? He was my "awaking". check him out if you'd like. highly recommended if you don't know.
Yes, what is our "reality", really? I mean, they all seemed to accept the idea that the brain really exists, as opposed to a projection of our projection that we experience as "life", as our surroundings, as our senses. Life is way weirder than we can imagine, in our programmed thoughts. Consciousness may simply be a program of some sort. Free will may simply be an illusion, fostered by the projected life / thought process. Life appears in reality to be preprogrammed.
It is not necessary to know what life is to be able to explain conscious action.
On the contrary. There are lots of ideas about what consciousness is and how it forms as a result of the brain processes.
This is precisely why there's debate. The meaning of words like "mind", "intelligence" and "consciousness" must be agreed upon, and there's no universal agreement yet.
Same thing with the word "planet". There's no universal agreement on a definition. Some say that Pluto is a planet and some say it's not. It's debatable.
But that doesn't mean that scientists have no idea about what a planet is.
This life is about a soul wearing a body temporarily
"what is mind? no matter...what is matter? never mind" - homer simpson
mind over matter. if you dont mind, it doesnt matter
Love the Simpsons.!!!
We don't lose consciousness actually, according to latest studies. It's more like meditation. But then again, there's plenty of evidence for Biocentrism, Simulation Theory, Donald Hoffman's case, NDEs, Dr. Albert Taylor, Dr. Eben Alexander, Pam Reynolds, Dolores Cannon, etc. Scientism. But like the lady said, the brain still goes on.
And over 20% of top "Atheist" (which Atheism doesn't mean not spiritual anyways) scientists polled spiritual but there's so much bullying and egoism that they keep it to themselves to keep their careers and such.
I'm part Italian; so I love the pizza analogy.
The disagreement right away at 17:45 is a perfect example of how these discussions become instantly enjoyable. It's more enlightening to see exactly where they disagree, and it pulls them away from the script toward heartfelt organic responses. I hope to see more of these discussions staged as such... To whomever chose the speakers, thank you and good work :]
That's funny because it is the exact point where I lost interest. The old guy who laid out the history of consciousness was doing fine until he was challenged, then he started defending himself instead of listening with humility and exchanging ideas. The guy in the crazy shirt was being kind of obnoxious and aggressive, but he was making a very good point that people always say a thing is impossible, right up to the point where it is done, then they move the goalpost. Saying a person can't run a mile in a second is just trying desperately to be right after someone showed you to be wrong.
LOL...yep!
brain is the instrument, mind is the product of that instrument, consciousness is the observer of both and realising the existence of all...
I am enjoying the cast of characters in this presentation. They are holding their own in their field of study. The discussion is very interesting in understanding the mind/brain problem.
This is the best discussion of consciousness that I have seen. The ideas flow effortlessly and carry one through a delightful journey of scientific and philosophical thought. A true masterpiece. Highly thought provoking and enlightening. Remarkable.
i suggest you search for alan wallace on youtube instead of this dull nonsense.
@@5piles I agree, i felt this was mostly the panelist shouting out facts/ theories of others but I saw little if any original thought.
@@5piles
*_"alan wallace... instead of this dull nonsense"_*
You mean that tedious charlatan spouting garbage about Tibetan Buddhism?
{:o:O:}
Throughout my life the one thing I miss the most is my peace of MIND..PERIOD
I think we're just too young a species to know what consciousness really is just yet. It'd be interesting to look back on this in a thousand years
They're all brilliant but have to say I really warm to Nicolas Schiff and his approach to debating and reconciling ideas.
Thanks to WSF and youtube yet again. It amazes me how much time I spend watching these panels ... and non of it wasted. This is posted in the hope that votes count.
Please check out Robert Sapolsky on utube about free will and other lectures.. very eye opener
This is one of my favorite world science festival talks. Not just because of the topic but the balance in the panel. The middle two speakers really helped to mediate and clarify the more general conversation. For example, It would have been difficult to watch Christophs reapted failed attempts to concisley convey his point to the philosopher without the relief of them interjecting to help him out with anecdotes occasionally.
Because we all experience consciousness, we imagine it must have a simple explanation. There is no reason it has to be simpler than relativity or quantum mechanics.
I can remember coming here from a long distance,or another time, one in the same, I remember, knowing where to go, I went to the house where my Dad was in the rocking chair. My mother was in the bed, and I was in the baby bed next to their bed, when I entered my body the angels were all around, and the feelings were like.I was floating , giggling in bliss.i couldn't have been more than weeks old.
Holy cow, I've said that phrase almost verbatim for years: "You can't prove anyone or anything exists outside of yourself because the world is all in your head." This is one of the most fascinating topics.
Blalack77 - Wrong! Evidently you’ve never had your ass kicked by one of those unprovable things outside of yourself. That ass kicking I just took, is no proof that something actually whipped my ass, so I think I’ll have another one. There is no proof this whiskey I’ve been drinking, gave me the courage to take a non-existent ass kicking, because the thing kicking my ass ain’t real, because it’s unprovable.
The BRAIN controls all no free will
I wish hard-core atheist n fanatic believers would hear it too.
@@winsomecohall2250well what about consciousness n subconsciousnes? Who control consciousness n subconsciousnes? Brain? Is consciousness located in the brain or maybe conscious control brain? 1 thing for sure is: subconsciousnes controls consciousness, but brain/ "i" don't control my subconsciousnes. Plus surrounding realty affects subconsciousnes but we can change surrounding realty after we understand it's affect on us. However many ppl never think about it. So they can't affect their reality. Older u get less chances u have in many aspects. But u have this chance if u think about it. 😊
@@alexb6695 Yeah, consciousness and subconsciousness seem to me almost as proof of like a soul or something. Because it's like they're so arcane, metaphysical, incorporeal, etc. - like there's no way to physically get to them or, seemingly, to separate them from the physical body. It's like consciousness - and even the mind - doesn't really "exist" anywhere in the brain or body. So it just seems like consciousness is like this non-physical force that inhabits a physical body and that we essentially/literally _are_ just our consciousness and our consciousness is the primary - if not only - source of what makes us who we are. Or so it seems to me anyway..
i love doctors. It's not just about the mechanism, but the meaning. His basis in consciousness research is largely informed by watching families of vegetative people struggle and rejoice when someone is revived. Medicine is art & science.
Consciousness emerged and evolved from awareness to consciousness projecting further and further to the universe and back.
I totally agree with you John. Matter does not exist as we think, it is a manifestation of consciousness. The philosopher is wiser and more precise in the approach to consciousness than the neurologists were.
+Lucia Lazzaro You relise there was a universe with matter before there was machinery to create consciousness yes?
ravenwood If you really believe that... then just stick a fork up your nose and twist it... then report back to us all on how much conscious awareness you have... assuming you're still alive obviously.
I hate to break this to you... but just like you can't have taste without food of one description or another ... well you can't have consciousness without a brain. Thats just the way it is...
Unless that is you can show us a disembodied consciousness? yes?
+Mick Wright what I know is that there is not a world as we see it, because our world is a manifestation of a collective intelligence. How this happen still a mystery for me. When I awaked to consciousness, I totally dissolved in light and everything was light, there was nothing else. I hope it answered your doubt.
Lucia Lazzaro No it doesn't not in the slightest... cos basically you are just pulling random ideas from your head... we can all do that... it doesn't amount to anything except fantasy.
+Mick Wright I guess you haven't heard of the double slit experiment
23:30 He doesn't seem to delineate a difference between consciousness and awareness. Consciousness is more than an adrenaline-enhanced ability to react to the external world, it involves ability to perceive an analog "self" and an 'analog world (inside one's head), the ability to ask questions like "why am I me?", ability to understand representational gaming and concepts without referents like "mass" or "velocity". This comes much later than birth.
I find myself more in agreement with Soviet psycholinguists of the 1930s who postulated that language learning through interactive instruction is what is responsible for the phenomenon of consciousness. Luria and Kolcova even conducted a single case study where the language instruction was delayed to demonstrate that development of consciousness in humans is impossible without early interactive language instruction.
Other factor that points to consciousness not fully developing until 3-4 years of age are Dissociative Identity Disorder - current theory on it is that abused children tend to develop separate "selves" as a psychological defence against the abuse. Presumably why adults are far less likely to develop DID later in life is because the "idea of self" when it first emerges is much more neurologically vulnerable, and it's around early development phase where things can go wrong and the "self" can fracture. Another thing which DID convincingly demonstrates is that "the self" is an illusion maintained by the brain, another explanation simply doesn't satisfy Occam's Razor. Neuroanatomy and physiology of the brain also suggest, that far from a unitary organism with a "central control" brain consists of interdependent colonies of neurons, that it is deeply divided, while any unity likely consists of this illusion of "self".
Another clue is Piaget's Theory of Mind which doesn't fully develop until that age. Another thing is - personally significant memories are very rare before 3 years of age. And it's very unlikely that we begin to ask truly philosophical questions like "where do we go when we die" until the age of 4. Paul Bloom's experiments (among other things) show that these aren't even dilemmas in early age. It is only after 3-4 years of age that we begin to wonder about non-being and non-experience - realizing there was a time when we did not exist, before then we assume continuity and persistence of personality automatically. This shows continual development of consciousness throughout toddler years
So it is very likely that the ancient notion that "one is not born with consciousness or "soul" is correct. It is born out of interaction between oneself and others and gradually develops when we age. "The self" is thus - most likely a product of the brain. If consciousness was possessed by "every atom" as Panpsychists claim, it is strange why much simpler organisms do not appear to possess it, why they lack such phenomena as culture, and why it took billions of years for this phenomenon to develop in only the most complex organisms.
Overall, in approaching this problem, Type Functionalism had replaced Eliminative Materialism since 1970s. Modern Science does not really hold the position that the Brain and The Mind are identical. But Type Functionalismis not a dualist or Cartesian philosophy. The reason why Type Functionalism is better is because Eliminative Materialism appears to deny the possibility that other matter than neuronal cells can be organized to support consciousness at least in theory. Type Functionalism does not deny the possibility of consciousness to machines, for example, or perhaps to some alien life which evolved other structures than neurons in order to support conscious thought.
TheHallucinati
_"It is only after 3-4 years of age that we begin to wonder about non-being and non-experience - realizing there was a time when we did not exist, before then we assume continuity and persistence of personality automatically. This shows continual development of consciousness throughout toddler years"_
IMO, it's incredibly difficult to draw conclusions like that, because very few people would equate consciousness and ability to perform complex logical arguments and we know the latter is an ability that develops biologically far into the 20s.
One reason to think the basic experience of self has to be present for most of childhood is that consciousness appears to be a necessary front end for formation of episodic memory, which clearly is present in very young children. The same is true with model based learning. You can't really do it without the main mechanisms in consciousness being in place.
There's also an alternative explanation for why we don't remember early childhood and that is that when we learn to use language, we simply stop using the more primitive memory keys that would be used by a very young child, such that as adults, it simply never occurs to us to form the required non-language based keys in short term memory to recall ancient memories.(Or, stated a more cynical way, the memory of a young child may be too unsystematic to allow for reliable recall)
_"The reason why Type Functionalism is better is because Eliminative Materialism appears to deny the possibility that other matter than neuronal cells can be organized to support consciousness at least in theory."_
What on earth makes you think that? A consequence of eliminative materialism is that consciousness has to be an information processing phenomenon that, in human brains, is built on a neuronal computational architecture. Of course this view accepts conscious machines - it's just that there's so much evidence that the neural networks in people's brains in fact is the right abstraction layer to understand how all human mental activities arise.(This view is of course not held dogmatically either, but it is almost inconceivable to imagine that it's wrong given how much that's understood in terms of neural computation)
TheHallucinati
_"It is only after 3-4 years of age that we begin to wonder about non-being and non-experience - realizing there was a time when we did not exist, before then we assume continuity and persistence of personality automatically. This shows continual development of consciousness throughout toddler years"_
IMO, it's incredibly difficult to draw conclusions like that, because very few people would equate consciousness and ability to perform complex logical arguments and we know the latter is an ability that develops biologically far into the 20s.
One reason to think the basic experience of self has to be present for most of childhood is that consciousness appears to be a necessary front end for formation of episodic memory, which clearly is present in very young children. The same is true with model based learning. You can't really do it without the main mechanisms in consciousness being in place.
There's also an alternative explanation for why we don't remember early childhood and that is that when we learn to use language, we simply stop using the more primitive memory keys that would be used by a very young child, such that as adults, it simply never occurs to us to form the required non-language based keys in short term memory to recall ancient memories.(Or, stated a more cynical way, the memory of a young child may be too unsystematic to allow for reliable recall)
_"The reason why Type Functionalism is better is because Eliminative Materialism appears to deny the possibility that other matter than neuronal cells can be organized to support consciousness at least in theory."_
What on earth makes you think that? A consequence of eliminative materialism is that consciousness has to be an information processing phenomenon that, in human brains, is built on a neuronal computational architecture. Of course this view accepts conscious machines - it's just that there's so much evidence that the neural networks in people's brains in fact is the right abstraction layer to understand how all human mental activities arise.(This view is of course not held dogmatically either, but it is almost inconceivable to imagine that it's wrong given how much that's understood in terms of neural computation)
Gnomefro i did
There is nothing like a little mescaline for raising the level of consciousness, including spirituality.
DMT FTW
@Steve G its legal in 48 states to order magic mushroom spores. Illegal only in callie and Tennessee? If someone wanted too, they could legally order them to their house and find instructions on the internet to grow them. Once you grow them its illegal. Everyone is free to make their own choices.
@Steve G Go to the UA-cam channel GordoTek to learn how to grow. Go to Reddit to buy a variety of spores for cheap
@Steve G can you explain what kind of bs? Please
drugs aren't cool
Best part of whole talk was Koch acknowledging that we should not cause suffering to other life forms...if you want a good talk on consciousness...listen to Amit Goswami!
the well-chosen panel enlivens the debate. Thoughtful and respected discussion that feeds our mind
OMG... so, I have finally understood what some of these people actually think about this topic. According to them... "Consciousness ceases to exist when we are asleep." Now I can clearly see the source of shortsightedness.
Fully agree! As a buddhist there can only be one explanation. You cannot from a human mind ”think, study, explain and solve” the mystery of a combined conciousness with talking about different ideas because this ideas is just a personal view from a nondeveloped scienctist mind that thinks that a human brain could logical solve this mystery... just because the conciousness generates outside the human brain, but obviously has some correlation with a body. For me it is obvious that: In the human body/mind/brain lives NO conciousness... It is IN conciousness the body/mind/brain lives. In fact ”the all way around”... A brain is like a receiver that can download this we call ”conciousness” from the great source (or God if you beleive in a God) and That’s why humans never can solve this with science. Do you, Kami, have a thought of this comment from ”me”
?... (I’m in fact not a ”me”, just a respons that generates from nothing). Namaste🙏🕉😊
@@steffehjertquist Hello Stefan, and thanks for your comment on my comment. You’ve just made me think of Rupert Sheldrake with his interesting analogy of the TV set and the TV signal, which I think is a powerful way to consider the matter at hand. In my opinion, the dreams we have in our sleep are complete expressions of our consciousness, and the various forms of conditioning that have been passed down to most of us are the greatest barrier we face in trying get a better grip of what we are, and what our role is in regard to consciousness. The problem I have with some of these guys is how casually they dismiss the subject as if it were just another “thing” - one more little detail that they are just about to solve in the lab. I’m only sharing sone thoughts, thank you.
@@kreyvegas1 Exactly, and for me this your words is a good explanation. They (scientists) thinks that we humans can solve this issue and find conciousness as ”a thing” that is in symbios with a brain. Interesting is that if there are something called matter (not what I think there is in the first place) there are too much ”space” between atoms and this space is absolute nothing. I think and beleive that all objects we call matter is just an projection so that a so called brain have something to hold on to. I think merely oneness is pure energy that appears as something to a brain, but this something is in fact ”nothing appearing as something”. In reality there are no ”things”, just a conjecture for a brain to hold on to something. Sheldrake is interesting... I often listen to Rupert Spira, just for fun, and also Ramana Maharshi, Eckhart Tolle, Alan Watts and my friend lord Buddhas teachings. But, but... all of this is also just minds (high developed maybe) that tries to solve a mystery that is beyond understanding. The question is: ”Can a brain in a biological being ever understand what understanding is?!? No, because the great secret is not ”a thing” and beyond thinking there are just no things that appears as ”a thought”... neither a thing or nor not a thing... just energy that appears as a thought! Therefore I follow the main road of Buddhas teachings: ”You become what you think, so don’t think JUST be”.
An example: No one knows what water is?!? We say it is H2O in this thought of categoring things in the world of atoms... but what is water if you NOT have an idea about it? It is just an outstanding fenomena beyond understanding... the creation is already whole as it is and why try to understand that can’t be grasped at all in the first place?!? What ”makes” water appear as water in the first place. Just WHAO and WHAO again😁
THANKS for your reply to my answer. Just fun to communicate around everything (and no thing... besides that, hope you can understand my schoolenglish, I’m born swedish and just try to write thoughts in english😄). Create a nice day and just be👍🌟🇸🇪🙏🕉//Steffe
Excellent discussion. Thank you so much!
We are one! So RESPECT others perspectives.
Love this! A TShirt comes to Mind to make🤗
Overflowing in Common Sense beyond the senses⛄⛄⛄
@
MyLoudawg re "We are one! So RESPECT others perspectives." My only caveat to this is that when ppl do not respect my perspective (for eg fascists) it's a thin edge to ride in respecting the person AND challenging their view that certain ppl, sorted by race, gender, political views, should be suppressed. THAT perspective deserves not respect but mindful rebuttal and healing/ dissolution.
Reality is an infinite field of consciousness.
Yup!
Your statement removes all meaning from the word 'conscious'.
It is nice to see a news anchor from a major network doing something like this. To me, it seems to make them more normal, more human, more regular. It shows that they are not just a sharp spoken, pretty face in front of the camera.
We are the universe's way of experiencing itself!
So trippy 🤣👊
Or better... We are the universe experiencing itself!
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL - ?? That's the same thing, dude.
@@HardRockMiner Yes but my version is more succinct.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL - You should try being more original.
Consciousness begins upon conception. I had conscious experience's in the womb, speaking to my twin sister in our own language, listening to other's, while in the womb and utilizing our same language as well as recalling lesson's learned in the womb. My twin sister and I communicated to each other on our way to the womb. The physical body is the confinement, with an assignment, of the Soul. It's between individuals and our Creator. It's a "dog eat dog" Universe. Sink or swim baby!!!
Dangerous evil untrue nonsense.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL You could simply ask a question instead of labelling it dangerous and evil. It might just be wrong, but dangerous and evil? Aren’t you overreacting?
@@christopherhamilton3621 I did not label it dangerous and evil, I asserted that it is.
Wars could never start if everyone believed that death is the end (which is the truth for everyone who has avoided brainwashing by the power hungry).
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL And for those who have not? Surely it’s true regardless? Be consistent man!
@@christopherhamilton3621 I'll edit for clarity...
I did not label it dangerous and evil,
I asserted that it is.
Wars could never start if everyone believed that death is the end (which is a truth apprehended by everyone not brainwashed by the power hungry).
Catch this one: Once I got to see how conciousness work in me, my mind keeps all perceptions and emotions from the beginning of my life and runs them at thousands times per second, adding each fraction of millisecond each time. All sounds at that velocity are just an acute constant pitch, and all images are just lights that shivers, you can hear the sound at night before you go to sleep and see these lights when you close your eyes. Yet when I was experiencing this state of conciousness, the velocity only let me feel the strongest emotions, destruction of the world and destruction of myself. So I needed to get out of my life, with great effort I managed to get out of this ever running story and find out that I, we, have another level of conciousness, where the codes does not exist, so there are no questions and no thoughts, yet it is a solid awareness state. (I know now you are wondering how I got to this state)
How did you get to this state
@@wouldntyouliketoknow230 , it was an entheogen of course as you might have guessed. When I got up from that experience I asked myself for the first time "what is life?".
@@waoweMan I do it whith meditation.
Unexpectedly hillarious! That was fun to listen to! ❤
What scientists don't realize is: the world is bigger than science. Scientists think science is the world, if anything doesn't confirm with science, it doesn't exist. That's remarkable arrogance.
@@seanleith5312 agreed! Even if your statement is broad lol
Ended up here looking for something to help get my creative juices flowing for an English assignment. It really helped, consciousness is a very fascinating topic.
Came for the same man, a very intriguing topic indeed.
plants do react to stimuli FYI
check it out
+Rawtee vonwelker (Rollie1951) From the work of Julian Jaynes (not exactly a quote but in essence): We mean different things by consciousness and reactivity.
So does dr komotos rice experiment
FUCKIN HATERS🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕
so does your air conditioner, your automatic water pump, they response to stimuli, it's just a control system, and not all control systems are SENTIENCE
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL finally someone mentions Jaynes!
@@shannonm.townsend1232 Is it so rare? I just wrote this in another thread...
"Conscious" is a word. Like "love". A way of saying 'the interface between self and society that permits the self to both construct then navigate within an extraordinarily complex society and... permits that society to condition the self. ' I do not resent being conscious - I'm grateful for it. Grateful for my wonderful wife, for my beautiful daughter. They are gifts. And so I do what I must do to honour them.
If one is looking for an immaterial explanation of conscious being, one need only look at the existential nature of metaphor to find a really good answer. Metaphors exist but they are not made of matter. Thoughts are not the things they are about. Thoughts are metaphors of those things. All thoughts are metaphors thus the mind, which is nothing but thoughts, is nothing but metaphors. One of those metaphors is the self. Society enters the self via the senses and is entered by the self when self operates the muscles. It's not the matter in the brain that is conscious. It's just that neurons are perfectly evolved for encoding, maintaining and processing metaphors. The senses convert impinging environmental energies into coded representations, metaphors, which are conducted via neurons into the brain where they find themselves jostled and buffeted by whole communities of metaphors all interacting in myriad extraordinarily complex ways. When the arriving sense metaphor eventually modulates the self metaphor, if it modulates the self in a particular way(s) then I say the self metaphor is conscious, conscious of the world as translated and communicated by the senses!
Jaynes and Hofstadter lie at the core of my appreciation of conscious being.
I think of the brain as a veil of consciousness something like a filter that controls how our senses perceive the physical universe. Its like how different kind of animals can perceive different frequencies or see certain frequencies of light. Thats why when people practice stillness and clearing the mind (meditation) they have an outer body experience and can perceive so much more thats separate than physical reality.
But this omits the fact that the brain, and specifically memory, is necessarily supplying the causal history to infer what a reality is at all. It’s not just filtering information, it’s mostly simulating it.
The fact that some of these experts still believe in dualism (even though science and evolution refutes that notion) leads me to believe that our understanding of the brain is still in pre-infancy.
@McGinn: It may indeed be possible that we will never be able to fully bridge the gap between the matter of the brain and the experience of the mind. But to say such an uncertain thing with such certainty is indeed the sign of a mind that has given up on the problem.
A better name than mysterium is handwaveitawayium.
As long as we suppose the answer might be explainable, we stand a far better chance of doing so than if we don't suppose it to be explainable.
And in a period where our understanding is getting better than ever, where we can better understand the neural correlates of experience, it seems exceptionally short sighted to dismiss the endeavour as impossible for us.
As an aside, by understanding our own neural correlates, and then examining how the neural activity of a bats brain works, we can understand to some degree the information flow that is occuring in the mind of the bat.
e.g. If we present the bat with a predator sound and its brains surges with the neural chemical correlates of fear, we can infer that the experience of the bat is to feel fear at the sound of its predator. We can even to an extent imagine that sensation, linking the two events together in our mind.
Also, Integrated Information Theory is a very promising pathway of integrating the idea of concsiousness with materialism. It is in essence an expansion upon what we understand about materiality. It's perhaps a cheeky way of making things fit into the monist view point - but this may indeed be the critical factor that Colin thinks we are missing in our inability to articulate that materialistic view point of the mind body connection.
The brain is the vessel that allows consciousness to become aware of itself.
A handshake as he receives each speaker will be great
Duality is not the normal multidimensional experience of humans, you are a spiritual being , experiencing a duality existance💜
Kim Torpy please check out Robert Sapolsky on utube amazing lectures
I like how second dude from left refused to shrink himself for this “debate”. He truly approached the discussion with the pure intention of exchanging ideas.
22:49 Interesting how the first breath of a newborn is a gasp as is that of the last breath of a dying person. I wonder if consciousness is tied to it somehow?
P.L.D.
Interesting
The 1st breath is only the initial use of the lungs . The child previously recieved oxygen through the placenta and umbilical cord (from the mothers blood stream )
The 1st breath engages the lungs to do the work on its own but this doesnt necessarily translate as any leap or transference of consciousness.
Then the brain output and awareness goes through multiple stages starting in a dreamlike state for the 1st few years before moving gradually into the more common alpha brainwave state during most of the day.
Belleza Fudd you are on top of your game right on point !! Amazing explanation
I feel like lot of different concepts are being discussed here under common terminology of consciousness. On one hand we have the awareness of self and its boundaries, and on other we have the autonomous ability to control the parts of our self. The awareness and the ability are distinct. And then there is also general mapping of cognitive functions to the mechanisms in the brain, which has very little to do consciousness at all, but however discussed a lot about in this debate. Conditions varying from tetraplegia (loss of body control), sleep/coma (loss of awareness) or schizophrenia (loss of self identity) are all issues of consciousness in this crude sense, but actually are quite different in thier manifestation.
There are data to suggest that the mind can exist outside of the brain, but it would require a new paradigm that is not in love with physicalism. Although they are talking about dualism mostly in this video, its a brand that privileges the brain as necessary for the existence of the mind at all times and even suggests that we may get to the point where we’ll be able to attribute physical attributes to consciousness. Clearly there is a strong correlation (absolute even) between the brain and the mind, but it seems to always be discussed unidirectionally in that the brain is the independent variable and the mind is the dependent one. How about when the mind affects the body or the brain itself? I guess they would assume that the brain is affecting the mind which is then affecting the physical body, but is it necessarily so?
In some near death experiences people report having left the body and gone to other rooms. They can identify specific occurrences that were happening outside of the room they were in at the time of their clinical death. This is then corroborated by other evidence. There are also cases of children who claim to be reincarnated and can accurately produce specific details of the deceased person’s life that they could not have accessed other than by interviewing the family of the deceased or conducting a thorough investigation with records that are not publicly available (as the researchers do to corroborate it). Assuming that this data has been gathered faithfully, how would these folks reconcile those finding with their assertions that the brain is necessary for the mind to exist at all times? Perhaps the brain conditions the mind, but upon bodily death, it may be “set free,” so to speak.
The baby is having stimulation by sounds and light While in his mothers womb I actually did experience this when my wife was pregnant I will Shine light to me wife stomach and talk to my baby! It was responding to me with such violent movements! My wife and I would cry an awe!
Wow, this was one of the most interesting discussions I've heard in a long time. Great moderating, and its given me a lot to go and investigate further. Thanks for this video!
😁
Some points about Consciousness from the view of Indian Spirituality (Advaita Philosophy).
Every Individual is made up of 3 types of bodies + Consciousness.
1. The Physical Body
2. The Subtle Body (Mind and Intellect)
3. The Causal Body (The finer impressions lying deep within us which directs our life's next move)
If you can't understand "Causal Body", this example can help. You and your friend go to restaurant to have food. The data in us which determines the food we are going to order, is coming from the Causal body. This Causal body has only the data that has deeper impressions on our minds which is Steep likes or Dislikes. Unlike in the mind, there is no junk data stored in the memory of the causal body. If you like Sweet over Spicy, this data is stored in the Causal body and hence the first immediate choice you would make is to select the category with sweets on it. The data that helps you determine which of the many sweets to have, comes from our normal memory. So understanding the difference between deeper memory impressions over our regular memory is very important in the field of Subjective science.
Advaita Philosophy says ... We are Pure Consciousness who happen to have 3 states of experience everyday.
1. The experience of Waking world.
2. The experience of the Dream world.
3. The experience of the Deep sleep world.
We all can confidently say that we have experiences of the Waking and Dreaming world, but not the deep-sleep world. Advaita philosophy says, you are conscious of the deep sleep as much as you are in the waking and dreaming world, but unable to have any experience because in the deep sleep, the mind is completely resting and hence there is no data for our consciousness to witness. That is why after a deep sleep, when we wake up, we don't say "I slept, I dreamt and I woke up", we just say "I had a peaceful sleep". The state of deep sleep which we experience is completely peaceful without the agitations of our mind.
When there is no light in a room that has many different objects, we still don't see anything. But does it mean, our eyes has lost its vision?
Similarly, when the mind is shutdown and has no objects to project to our Consciousness, we cannot conclude that we don't have consciousness at that state.
The points above are all from a Subjective Perspective of Science. We Humans need to realize that, we are closer to the truth subjectively than objectively. Let Modern Science wait until the right instruments are invented, but as Conscious beings, we have the opportunity in this life to dwell deeper within and have a glimpse at our Consciousness in its pure state. The Yogis of India are all those who have experienced this subjectively and also are guiding those who have the same quest.
We the people of 21st century must not engage in fist-fights between Spiritual and Materialistic views or Subjective vs Objective views. The Real advancement happens when there is harmony in our minds. Let Material Science wait, Let Material Scientists do their wonderful jobs, but for every ordinary common man, we have the area of Subjective Science, where we are the sole first hand experiencer.
For those who are interested, Please checkout the Vedanta Book named "Mandukya Upanishad". Manduka means Frog. The Book deals with the 3 states of Experiences, where we Individuals keep jumping to like a Frog. Please try it out. This is a century where the next generation must explore both Spiritual and Material Science equally without being biased.
It seems to me that consciousness is only a "problem" for proponents of material explanations of consciousness. There is no hard problem of consciousness for an idealist.
+AnduinX BYM Yes, that's the advantage of making up some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to explain things. Saves a lot of time thinking, money on research (in fact it's a good way to make money), and effort to even keep your story straight.
Falcy Chead
_"Yes, that's the advantage of making up some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to explain things"_
Physicalism is a metaphysics. All views of reality are founded on assumptions that can never be directly observed to be true. Given the fact that physicalism is less parsimonious than idealism, I would say that material explanations of consciousness are the real mumbo-jumbo.
_"Saves a lot of time thinking, money on research (in fact it's a good way to make money),"_
This is a bit of straw man here. I am not taking an anti-science position. As an idealist I am not opposed to neuroscience or the quest to understand the obvious relationship between mind and brain.
_"and effort to even keep your story straight."_
The implication here seems to be that my position is only tenable because science is incomplete. This is simply not true. The idea that consciousness is a function of material processes can never be directly observed in the same way as we can directly observe the moon as it orbits the Earth.
AnduinX BYM He thinks the moon orbits the earth. That's adorable.
+AnduinX BYM This physicist and expert on mind has solved The Hard Problem of Consciousness scientifically: HonestDiscussioner seems constitutionally unable to grasp the subject object distinction. Let me try to explain it in a very clear and simple way. In every act of knowing there is a known object and a knowing subject. This polarity, the difference between the subject and the object is the subject-object distinction. In the brain we have contents which represent the objects that we know. They represent our sensations by neural impulses. Some nerves are activated others are unactivated. Patterns of activation can be detected by functional magnetic resonance imaging. In the Kamitani & Tong study (Decoding The Visual and Subjective Contents of the Human Brain by Yukiyasu Kamitani & Frank Tong) which HonestDiscussioner is so fond of this is exactly what was done. There was made a representation of what portions of the brain were activated and when subjects were looking at bar patterns lo and behold a bar pattern was activated in the brain. This activation is the contents, it's a representation of the contents which the subject was viewing. Yes the subject was aware of the contents but the observations in the Kamitani & Tong study do not show that the subject was aware. What they show is that the brain was activated in a certain way. So, here is the challenge for HonestDiscussioner, if he wants me to believe that the Kamitani & Tong study is really observing subjectivity, really observing the fact that the subject is aware of the contents represented in the brain let him give me an argument leading from the data in the Kamitani & Tong study to the conclusion that there is subjective awareness of that data. Not just that there is a correlation between subjective awareness and the observations, but that the observations themselves entail the fact of subjective awareness. If HonestDiscussioner can do that then I will agree that this is an observation of subjectivity per se, but as I suspect if HonestDiscussioner is unable to do that he must acknowledge that in fact it is not an observation of subjectivity. Awareness attends, brains process. - dfpolis R-3-1 How I Dare Part 1.
TrustInJesus111 I think I am with you here. There is no way to demonstrate that conscious experience is a function of the brain. It simply cannot be done. The idea that consciousness is a function of the brain will always be an unparsimonious assumption.
Science gives us useful things that make life better, if they are not misused. Philosophy asks questions, but it often doesn't give us anything of practical value. Though McGinn makes some excellent points here that are difficult to refute. For example, the mouse and human brains at a microscopic level look pretty much the same, yet the levels of awareness are very different, so there is something else happening. It's only a matter of time before brain transplants are real.
Pan-consciousness is independent of time, so our life stories exist forever, and can even evolve outside of this physical universe.
Is there an inside or outside?
Independent of time is an incoherent notion, a string of words without meaning. 'Forever' is a temporal concept. In so far as 'universe' means all that exists there can be no outside.
interesting discussion, thankyou for the programme.
Yes, it was indeed a very good discussion. Which part did you enjoy the most? For me, it was the exchange between Koch and the other guy (forgot his name).
Bravo for Christof Koch and his comment on eating conscious animals! :)
There are 1,184 comments so what follows might be redundant...
I was surprised none of the participants thought it important to emphasize that what the neurons are conducting is coded context dependent representations of meaning (and that the overall meaning of what's going on is ultimately expressed by the muscles). (Though happy to hear mention that the structural layout of neural complexes may play a role in meaning (perhaps fundamentally responsible for what we mean by the collective unconscious concept)).
Well known: The senses encode energies in the environment, the brain processes these encodings then sends appropriate coded signals of the same type to the muscles. Thus the dynamic 'self' concept, i.e. that which is essential to being conscious, is a vast set of dynamic encodings in a vast dynamically encoded context and it's the modulation of the self concept by that context (involving dynamic input from the senses and dynamic memory subsystems and no doubt others), that is key to understanding the meaning of the word 'conscious' in a person. Approximately!
They came very close during discussion of the Jennifer Aniston neuron. We know it would have been better to have had probes in hundreds or millions of related neurons to get a proper appreciation of the impact of the Jennifer Aniston complex encoding (and if there's some kind of dynamic encoded form of holography going on in brains then one probe per neuron, ultra precise timing and a super duper supercomputer would be most helpful to our ultimate understanding).
Language is both the means of (a kind of) thinking and a strict limitation of it, kind of frustrating. Words (which are all metaphors) are the encoded form of meanings and every word we know is cycling in the brain somewhere in the form of neural discharge frequencies, a coded form of a coded form. No wonder the topic is so tricky.
Well, there ya go. Hope that clarifies your understanding of the meaning of the word 'conscious'. lol
Correction: 1,190 comments.
The central , core issue , or question here seems to be - what is consciousness - missing from this debate seems to be the great body of ancient knowledge of the self offered in the hindu tradition- specifically the science of self realization through the application of Yogic practice as propounded by Patanjali - Namaste 😌
I find this a very nice bouquet of such different quality people...Each in his own area..and I like the hypnotic shirt ,the colour he brings in and the fire with which Christof Koch speaks...very nice indeed..
Wish now ye'all find the secrets which are written for us on losethenamecom
If materialism is right, mankind is even worse off than we are now...
The fact that we can lift our hand and focus attention to become better at something and even the placebo i think pretty much dumps materialism...
So interesting conversation and ideas, but definitely not at fullest frontiers of phenomenal research.
9:00 If consciousness comes about merely due to tissue irritation would then the irritation or its effects have to be substantially stable, constant and autonomous?
The Mind is the Whole Body and all of its parts. The Brain is the Chief, the Heart is the E-motion, & The 🎶 Pelvis is the Elvis of The Passions.
I became fully Conscious several years after a brain aneurysm.
Brilliant discussion! Bravo!
I have already proven (to myself) Through experiments What consciousness really consists of And what it is !!! 🙂🙂🙂
i find it extremely comfortable to be on the fence about this issue. christof koch compared the search for the infinity small with the search for the infinity large, and really struck a chord with me when he said how beautiful that was.
Nicholas Schiff and Melanie Boly really shine through McGinn and Kochs squabbling here... :)
I think the last point by the philosopher is important. That consciousnesses may be all present in nature, and by extension the cosmos. But our investigative capacity is limited, so we can't conclude that. And there's possibly levels of consciousness embedded in other things. A tree may not have a 'brain', but has complex cells. It could be conscious in it's own way. We see atoms behave in a matter that shows they are 'aware' of being observed. We'll learn more in time, as more experiments are conducted.
I believe it is important to not confuse the meaning of the word 'reactive' with what we mean by 'conscious'.
Very interesting session indeed !
Consciousness is the interaction between the environment and the physical brain. You can't physically grasp it but you know it exists.
Animals interact with our souls too. They talk too.💚
If you were to look inside of a hard drive, you wouldn't be able to SEE the files, just like if you were to look into a brain. But they're there, they just aren't processed into a form YOUR mind can understand. It's pure data, so of course you can't experience them just by looking at someone's brain - it doesn't mean that it's not there or that it is separate.
this is such an awesome comment, I had to tell you
***** Glad someone else sees it the way I do.
What is the physical nature of files in a hard drive? What are they, and how they stored? I'm not familiar.
Brian Blackwell the problem is that the files store in the hard drive does not make the computer. similarly the information or the memory "stored" in the brain does not make the person!
elena Esp Yes, you can argue that, but what is the computer without the software written in it? A plastic box.
Supremely well done! Great panel and conductor, thanks so much to all involved
I like that they show their names (how to spell them, [with their pictures, paradoxically]).
34:40 Newton admitted he didn't know exactly why gravity works! That's colossal! Even today scientists don't know; otherwise they'd be making their own & using it; right?!
[may be edited for further content]
ism schism _"Even today scientists don't know; otherwise they'd be making their own & using it; right?!"_
It's not the job of science to know "why" nature works. The sciences attempt to discover *how* things work by building and testing predictive models. At some point you probably get to basic phenomena of nature, which if naturalism is true, have no explanation - they're simply properties of reality. Gravity might be an example of that, or it may be decomposed into separate phenomena or joined with others as investigation of nature progresses. In any case, the sciences have still done their job when they deliver the useful predictive models - like Newton did as well.
ism schism _"Even today scientists don't know; otherwise they'd be making their own & using it; right?!"_
It's not the job of science to know "why" nature works. The sciences attempt to discover *how* things work by building and testing predictive models. At some point you probably get to basic phenomena of nature, which if naturalism is true, have no explanation - they're simply properties of reality. Gravity might be an example of that, or it may be decomposed into separate phenomena or joined with others as investigation of nature progresses. In any case, the sciences have still done their job when they deliver the useful predictive models - like Newton did as well.
Wow, right out the gate that German guy just flat out attacks philosophers.
most philosophers were jewish
Not philosophers just mysterianism
I wish he wouldn’t have raised his voice so it was off putting & the first guy from then on slouched & didn’t look a lot of the panel in the eyes. Always take the higher road and stand up straight be dignified. He was the only philosopher and appeared to know this would happen & was on the defensive.
That philosopher added nothing useful to the conversation, except spewing a bunch if "isms" , and taking a position of throwing his arms up and giving up.
Great episode! Unfortunately, apart from the concise intro (which mostly just situated him on a line with some very distinguished philosophers, some of which he had to make clear he knew personally), I fail to see what Colin McGinn actually contributed here. Even on the rare occasions he actively participated, e.g. when he commented about the simple/homogenous nature of the nervous building blocks, he seemed incredible uninformed. But, on the whole, a great episode, and of course I think it was both good and necessary to have at least one philosopher that panel.
Consciousness is just an advanced part of the One Universal Process of Spherical symmetry forming +1=0 now -1 breaking.. . .
Thank you Christof Koch on sharing your insights with us
the enduring sound of tinnitus try to deal with that everyday haha!
Try some psychedelics; they may help clear that up.
Ears also ring when conscious frequency rises to quantum levels
Seems I read about that having a cure".
I remember the 'MODERATOR' .. Terry Moran .. from way back when 'Cable T.V.' first became available here in the 'Greater NYC Area' on the 'Court T.V. Channel' .. He ( along with Greg Jarret ) .. were the two best moderators. Both are very bright and well spoken.
Never thought I'd say this, but it seems like the philosopher had a more scientific view of consciousness than that dualist neurologist. The neurologist is just pursuing a theory that he'd like to be true. It almost sounds like a religious type view of the world
+Levi Howell you are seeing the truth!!
+ravenwood that's what Christians been trying to tell people. Scientism is a real religion.....
+Alexis Massey No he isn't. Eeryone is nothing more than a manifestation of a nightmare I am having and when i awaken you will all disappear.
+Alexis Massey No he isn't. Eeryone is nothing more than a manifestation of a nightmare I am having and when i awaken you will all disappear.
+Levi Howell I think the scientists need to think that. Otherwise their job would be about dead tissues and they need to think that there is a something more to it.
Alcor is not a company but a non profit member organization. Koch should know better. The process of cryonics is also not freezing but vitrification. The neural connections are preserved very well by the process. Sebastian Seung the neuroscientist behind the connectome projects supports the idea behind cryonics.
'I am self aware' that is all i need to know and i am comfortable with that. I am 'not' a machine this too i know and am 'not' expendable. If you are comfortable in your belief that you 'are' then kudos. Keep that oil can at hand ; ) I have manifested and accomplished many things that Doctors and Scientists said were 'impossible'. I believe with 'my' own experiences and senses, not 'others' words on probabilities.
NightFireXD That's all you have
Thanks for an interesting discussion.
This next bit doesn't explain consciousness, but it is a simple analogy to show correlation. Take a car as the example. If a key is turned, an electrical stimulation is given to some aspect of the engine, and the engine starts and is now capable of moving the car down the road. The starting of the engine, however, did not suddenly create the driver that will drive the car. It was, in fact, the outside element of a driver entering into interaction with the car that allowed it to gain a functional level necessary to move down the road.
Consciousness in a human is the same as the driver in the above analogy. The brain, and other ancillary elements of the body, is the engine. The brain doesn't create consciousness to drive the body. Consciousness interacts with the brain/body, effectively giving it mobility and other functionality. Consciousness is the driver of the body.
Too many scientists are trapped in the mechanistic truth that there is nothing possible outside the known physical elements that we can see and measure. There is no such thing as soul or spirit, or consciousness without mechanistic creation. I don't say this from a religious perspective, because I am not a religious person. I use the terms soul and spirit simply as a means to communicate the existence of personality, of Self, that is not inherent to, generated by, the physical body.
I know that if I remove the gas pedal and associated functional parts, that the engine will not rev up, turn the wheels, and move the car forward. This doesn't mean that the person (conscious Self) driving the car is no longer present or no longer exists. He has just lost the ability to access that aspect of the car's functionality. In other words, the vehicle is simply a mechanical device used by the driver to accomplish a task, just as the body is a physical vehicle for consciousness to accomplish a task.
In a sense, I am a materialist in that I do not believe in mind/body duality. I do not believe that is it possible for nonmaterial and material to interact. There must be a common medium through which a connection is created, or there can be no connectivity. This means that everything is physical (assume the opposite if you are an idealist as the correspondence is the same). Just because we don't have measuring devices capable of such discernment is irrelevant.
With all the above said, the body is merely an interactive tool of consciousness, and we will never find consciousness in the brain, merely correlations of functionality. And on a side note, this is why we will never gain the ability to download a person into a mechanical device; the person is not the sum total of some mechanical/chemical/electrical program running in the depths of the brain that can be encapsuled and downloaded to another apparatus.
mad magus.very clever how u explained this matter through yr story.
The body(including the brain) is just a medium for consciousness,
Even if we're able to create a body, we're uncertain if it has consciousness
Like a car(body) won't move down the road, if it has no driver(consciousness)
Did I get the wrong thought of your explanation?
Or consciousness is still unknown, whether its the product of the body caused by evolution,
or we're just drivers of consciousness waiting for a car ・о・
@@galacticplastic1741 You extended my rationale to say that the body is not conscious without the mind, which could very well be true, depending on the refinement of your definition of consciousness. I don't say that I am a panpsychist, as I gravitate more to animism, but I do believe that consciousness as a general term underlies everything, to include the body. But just because the body's underlying essence is consciousness, that doesn't make it a conscious and aware individual. If that makes sense. Perhaps a better way of saying it is to say that the body's essence is consciousness but without the element of awareness that defines the sense of Self.
@@colettefitzpatrick5702 Thank you. I try to break down larger ideas so I can better understand them myself. If I can't break them down, it tells me that I don't understand them sufficiently. That, of course, doesn't mean that my explanation is correct. Just understandable to me.
"What is real? How do you define real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." - Morhpeus, the Matrix
Yes, we kno
Thank you all .🙏 Everything is programmed . It’s not how complex is our brain we have to look , but the way of that specific machines ability to catch information from outside around the body from anywhere because we just don’t know human body ........the information and interpreting through already existed language to generate the actual known of interpreting things , upon all the known senses and the unknown yet senses existing in us ,but not yet studied and taught as a new mechanical upgrade in understanding ,not dividing, but seeing body (the physical body ) mind ,( the activator of the body abilities to act )spirit ,(the digital chip of information ,with specific memory information upon the knowledge and information carries that specific biological body ,that has mission to continue the information processing, giving and taking and also the actual changer of the game to understand information in more quantum way ,......Before we will acknowledge to inform information that comes ,through energy , because our cell biologically it listens in such an unbelievable way that it seems to us magic , it’s just our biology ability to be activated and they get healed because in quantum level we are all giving information each other . And the healing code of the mechanical machine organ is the brain but how it will get in touch with the outsider information energy force , and it’s nervous programs of the grey matter , that are programmed to obey only to the specific quality of biological temperature , not artificial ....and information is not in the brain it’s out of the brain 🙏🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
Information is an abstract concept so is materially non-existent. Inside and outside simply don't apply to abstractions.
I had this experience When I meditated
I see a fractal rainbow repeating a Fibonacci pattern and as I moved towards the fractal, I became smaller and smaller until I became a single cell floating in a fluid with many others, seeing them as cells unable to communicate ( not sure If I tried ) I knew who I was, however, it was not who I am,
Then I was snapped back to who I am now.
As I started meditating I picture my third eye looking inward not outward and came to the realization that.
Space is space, we are space or the colored strands of energy repeating a vibrational pattern refracting in a circular or infinity pattered. We are the energy.
We moved around like bubbles in a pot of boiling water only we never rose to a surface and pop like water in a pot. We just flowed in the sea of light.
As the fractal moves, your mind moves, with memories, we can never die we just shed our skin or body a metamorphosis death and rebirth.
around the 23:00 mark, I don't think I agree, babies in the womb respond to hearing Mum or Dads voice. this surely means they're conscious? or am I misunderstanding?
Questions like this are really about deciding what you mean by "conscious".
I'm no closer to understanding consciousness after listening to this than before.
These folks should smoke some DMT together and then do the whole show all over again. :>)
That would give it a new dimension LOL
Believe it or not, I think the panel already had the necessary perspective to tackle this. No DMT required. You can come to those conclusions without it, it may take longer though.
@@SolidSiren
6 years on think they totally missed the point!
@@SolidSiren its like reading a book war. One could be ontologically aware of what happens during a psychedelic harmonization as intense as DMT, but one could not viscerally KNOW what it is like or what really happens.
I was on the right track for 29 years. dabbled with the common shamanic remedies here and there. It was not until I did DMT (only twice) where I FELT BEYOND ALL SHADOWS OF DOUBT I was in the presence of much higher dimensional intelligence.
The jester like vibe I felt were telling me hey dont take it all too seriously. we are here to learn and grow. It is our HUMOR that we must always hold on to. First things first we must learn to laugh at ourselves, to remain teachable, and to re evaluate certain convictions upon learning NEW FACTUAL INFORMATION.
Many get stuck in the sunk cost fallacy. ALL WISE MEN WILL ASSURE You THEY ONLY THING THEY KNOW FOR CERTAIN IS TRULY HOW LITTLE WE KNOW IN THE TOTALITY of this omniverse.
Consciousness is Awareness. Consciousness is also NON-LOCAL
@@VoidSec3 imagine having to take drugs to realize this
@@tavze1623 Then you have no idea.
Long story short... In Him We Live! MIND over Matter...Glory Be to God. God is Love. Love Lifted Me. Even Me!⛄⛄⛄
When they start talking about what an explanation is and then the host stops them, I was like "No! This is important! Set them free!"
Unexpectedly hillarious! That was fun to listen to! ❤
We don't lose consciousness actually, according to latest studies. It's more like meditation. But then again, there's plenty of evidence for Biocentrism, Simulation Theory, Donald Hoffman's case, NDEs, Dr. Albert Taylor, Dr. Eben Alexander, Pam Reynolds, Dolores Cannon, etc. Scientism. But like the lady said, the brain still goes on.
And over 20% of top "Atheist" (which Atheism doesn't mean not spiritual anyways) scientists polled spiritual but there's so much bullying and egoism that they keep it to themselves to keep their careers and such.
I'm part Italian; so I love the pizza analogy.
I'm in the Philippines. Hehe. For over 3 years now. But I've stayed in the provinces. I am probably going to Jordan in August, once my lease is up, as long as I have no issue with this overrated, supposed virus and this delusional vaccine system doesn't interfere.
‘If men’s minds were simple enough for men to understand them, they would be to simple to understand them” Deep thoughts by Jack Handy
What Dennet's kid called a 'deepity'.
Different ways of saying we don't know sh**!
Or shit we dont know
yep, The pro way of saying I don't know shit! and that's because I am a graduated Ph.D. (Permanent Head. Damage.)
There is the body, the mind, then subject matter, and emotions. Or do emotions make the subject matter possible or vise versa?
Having a Yogi as a panel guest would of added an interesting angle.
Necessary i would argue haha
Not very much if the yogi was merely posing.
The mental goes with the visual and the entire mind: out of body. It also can come out of you and you can look at yourself doing your daily tasks from out side yourself. . And the burning bush was purple fire and cold as ice wind.
That is the awesome power of imagination which, unbidden, wells up from the dynamic patterns frolicking in the substrate. There is not much difference between regular experience and hallucinations except, in the case of the latter, you can put your hand right through them.
My favorite consciousness smack down so far. 😳😝🤔
I don’t think we lose our consciousness when we sleep . We could be conscious while sleeping , it’s just another state of mind or brain activity is in different dementional state to gather information and even active to change the dream according the persons imagination to control and change and while sleeping still know in the dream what it means to connect the day and night mind energy experience together they are connected and they influence each other with a living feeling 🙏🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
It’s more like switching off rather than ‘losing’ it.
I’m just a regular person without any degrees and I didn’t learn anything. Maybe it’s because I’m constantly watching intellectual youtube videos to expand my knowledge of myself, spirituality, consciousness, and more.
The spark of consciousness
In order to understand the spark that created consciousness one must first understand what exactly it is that they are trying to understand. Because first a correct definition of consciousness in the mind (not in words) must be obtain or else trying to understand it, the mind must use and idea and without an idea the mind cannot think as it thinks ideas, so when trying to understand how consciousness arose the mind will use the most basic idea it has dealing with consciousness what would be the question of itself. The answer to the questions once learned can be seen in others but the path taken to finding the answer will always be relative to the perceiver taking that path. And as the asker of this question you would be acting in a conscious process as you are questioning reality which is creating a situation in which you are attempting to understand reality as you view it. So the mind will be asking what is it doing in reality as itself apart from the rest and that is consciousness, the rationalization that you are part of reality and as a part you have the ability to create change. But the question still remains on how it started or where it came from. So some assumptions that are used for everyday activities cannot be assumed. So one must assume that if consciousness began their must have been a time when it never was and there was only reality and nothing else. So for rationalization of this concept one must obtain and idea of what life without or before consciousness exist which still requires the person to understand consciousness as they create it.
I'm in love with everyone on this stage. Studying peano axioms now.
I can remember when I was In my mother's womb I remember seeing a soft glowing light and my umbilical cord. I felt like I came into the body from somewhere else
Have you heard of the idea of false memory?
Stopping here at 28:27 to record a thought. Thinking about how computers use computer languages. Neurotransmitters and neurons are a communication and broadcast system that speaks a language which is displayed on the screen of our consciousness. We are downloading input from our environment constantly. Another thought. Consciousness is one thing. Total awareness is another. Okay, I'm done. Back to the discussion.