The Three Questions About Consciousness, Dr. John Vervaeke
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2024
- Dr. John Vervaeke discusses the Three Questions About Consciousness at the Consciousness & Conscience conference in Thunder Bay. This presentation provides the foundation for his future conversations later in the conference with Rev. Paul Vanderklay, Jonathan Pageau, and Dr. Richard Maundrell.
If you appreciate this video and would like to support Urban Abbey in offering content like this, please consider donating at urbanabbey.ca/give-1
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Our culture needs more of this. Thank you!
What a privilege to listen to this man speak. Thank you John and thank you to everyone who organized this event 🙏
And so it begins.
That Theoden quote never gets old
@@the300XM8 I am taking Father Stephen's course on Christ and Tolkien later this month.
Been watching Vervaeke and company (PVK, Pageau et al) for years and this one really resonated with me. Tumblers are starting to fall into place, finally. Thank you.
One of your most succinct and well structured talks yet, John. This was deeply helpful for my understanding, thank you 🙏❣️
Damn it now I have to watch 5 hours of videos total
Let's go, can't wait for these! Wish I could have made it.
Really appreciated the talk!
1:22 😂🤣😂🤣 consciousness go brrrr
so delightful
Very good. But where does the experiential aspect come from in a physical universe... and around we go again
29:18 ill-defined problems
29:49 "one of the best jobs to have for the AI revolution is being a philosopher."
5' 07" - How do you know it's unconscious? How do you even know that you're conscious? And if so, conscious of what? You leave consciousness undefined but then use the word in many sentences which seem to assume it's already been defined.
I prefer to talk about 'subjective' and 'objective' rather than 'conscious' and 'unconscious'. To me every event is both subjective and objective. These are just two sides of the same coin. This avoids that extreme posited by Donald Hoffman: that mind is all there is. As well as that opposite extreme posited by others, where matter is all that exists. And seems more consistent with what actually takes place. A unity of subjectivity is achieved whenever an entity is an example of naturally emergent order. As opposed to being an example of artificially imposed order. That unity of subjectivity is sometimes described as consciousness. I think if you adopt this approach a lot of difficulties will be removed. Just as Jonathan Pageau skirts round a lot of difficulties by talking about 'the good' rather than about 'morality' or 'ethics'.
____________________________________________________________________
NOTES
____________________________________________________________________
Precise pointing (bottom up approach to complex words)
5 Things that point to Consciousness
Awakeness
Awareness
Aspectuality
Access
Authorship
Two Questions of Consciousness:
Nature - how does consciousness exist and interact with unconscious materials?
Function - what does consciousness do?
Philosophic zombie - why we not zombies? why isn't all behavior unconscious?
Evidence of Sophisticated Zombie Behavior:
Highway hypnotism - driving unconscious
Blindsight - see without consciousness
Meta question - what is the relationship between nature and function? Are they dependence or independent?
Epi-phenominalism - the nature of consciousness is seperate from it's function, it can exist without a function
Epi-phenominalism is incoherent because nothing observed is like this.
Functionalism - popular view that the fuction should first, and we can worry about nature later.
Functionalism is incoherent because function comes from nature.
J.V. advocates an integrated approach to simultaneously address function and nature.
Things Consciousness is useful for:
Novelty
Complexity
Ill-defined problems
Qualia of hereness, nowness, togetherness is more primordial than more complex qualia of color, taste, etc.
When you push consciousness to the limit with multiple object tracking, complex qualia disappear from consciousness, but the hereness, nowness, togetherness maintains.
When someone enters a "pure consciousness" event, they lose access to complex qualia but retain a semblance of "what it was like" to feel the hereness, nowness, and togetherness.
Adjectival qualia = complex qualia.
Adverbial qualia = hereness, nowness, togetherness
Adjectival qualia are not sufficient nor necessary for consciousness.
Adverbial qualia are sufficient
Adverb - describes a verb
BEING = TO BE
Adverb describes what it "is like" to be
Awake = track the world
Aware = make categorization/recognition possible
Access= working memory (relevance filter)
Authoring = recursive relevance (centering)
qualia = salience tagging
Perspective = here & now; holding things together, doesn't need content to be a perspective, defined by adverbial qualia, not adjectival qualia
Function
Recursive relevance realization (R.R.R) affords perspectival knowing which brings adverbial qualia, explains 5 pointers, and explains phenomenology.
People correlate consciousness with intelligence (=R.R.R.)
First!
+
Very nice synopsis.
What’d you say?
Blahaha.
Now to explain NDEs and the mathematical structure of the brain.. and why they are the same fractal.
Does the brain have two hemispheres because it is attended in two ways? If yes then why does a walnut have two hemispheres? Too what is it attending.
Why is it important to be awake? Sounds like modernist stuff to me. Because if that's the case then consciousness is seeing itself as conscious, self-awareness, which is not really a question but rather a repetition of the modern ideas of the self. But identity is not found in consciousness, it's not exclusive to consciousness, and consciousness has no inherent power over conscience. Consciousness is not the master of the conscience, but rather it's a slave to either itself and the body recursively or to conscience.
were you conscious while writing this? consciousness in no way implies freedom, in fact John said consciousness selects information by restricting awareness of irrelevant information. if consciousness would imply freedom then we would be overtime by combinatorial explosion.
@@michealwalli7324 Did I use the word freedom? You should learn to read before you attempt to write. Consciousness is not what selects information lol. You modernists get dumber by the second.