Totally agree great series “Quantum theory provides us with a striking illustration of the fact that we can fully understand a connection though we can only speak of it in images and parables.” (Werner Heisenburg) Quarks and Bosons are invisible, unmeasurable, massless “objects”. We do not question their existence as we observe them indirectly influencing their surroundings. These quantum objects can be in two places at once (Bi locational) and can instantly influence each other over great distance. Interestingly, It has been suggested that quantum theory may provide some insite into the possibility of a “non physical” consciousness. Our previous materialistic paradigm seems to crumble under the weight of evidence from quantum theory as non physical, invisible, Bi locational abstract “objects” appear to exist. It’s hardly surprising that the agnostic and brilliant mathematician Roger Penrose made the statement “We don’t know what “material” even means anymore”. Equally, in response to the belief that life happened by chance Roger Penrose stated “I think that there is something much deeper, of which we have very little inkling at the moment” It’s the old “mind” versus “matter” argument including Subjective versus Objective morality argument. Nevertheless, the fact that doctors and nurses have sacrificed their lives caring for peoples families during this pandemic is a true symbol of the triumph of mind over matter. If the doctors and nurses principles of care and love towards the victims of the Corona virus are just a subjective illusion that can be callously explained away by brain chemicals and sociobiological reductionism then logic, science, the “self” and even explanation itself is explained away which is clearly self defeating and absurd. “You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see” (C.S. Lewis)
While Mr. Kuhn demonstrates the utility of personal humility and individual respect in the pursuit of ideas, his greatest gift is the reminder that those qualities are requirements for a civil society.
Most enjoyable journey I've had for a while. Enigmatic, almost within reach,....and like a frisson in the ether,....disappears. Childlike, we stumble forward, grasping for meaning & truth. More please.
I love this series. And PBS amazing, easily on par with BBC in my view. Refreshing to see such quality from American TV. Their version of Antiques Roadshow is brilliant also.
Dear Mr Khune and Professor Coak, Thank you for your analysis of consciousness Professor Kuhne, and thank you Mr Khune for bringing the science and mystery of consciousness to the forefront in your very interesting interviews. May I give you what I think consciousness is? I am an inventor and an artist and not trained in physics or biology or philosophy so I can only give my intuitive thinking on what I believe is a natural process. This is how I think it operates: Consciousness is what could be called a membrane like in the human cell. All the moving parts of the brain for the mind to work, for example, need to be hooked up somehow. How would nature do this? I believe Mother Nature’s way of providing the support system necessary for the brain to power the mind for its role in thinking and coming to conclusions and taking decisions is by what I call the invisible ‘membrane’ of consciousness. It is nature at its best in coming up with a wireless solution for making the thinking process work in an ulterior way encompassing the 4 dimensions. A human cell needs a membrane for all its parts to be able to function. Without a membrane, there couldn't be a cell, because all of the parts would be scattered and never be able to function together. The 'invisible' membrane of consciousness in my definition doesn't hold all the key elements together, it merely provides ‘the linking element’ so that they can all function and interact. Imagine a wireless sort of connection of any device in the home, for example. In brief: consciousness in the human mind is an invisible membrane that permits all the necessary parts of the brain to be able to link up and interact which gives an invisible hand that powers the mind. Imagine it like a hologram where suddenly all the parts can communicate with each other, with invisible wires connecting all the essential parts of the brain. I believe nature needed an invisible membrane so that each part can relay the necessary data each part needs to function for the mind to be able to think, calculate, imagine, visualize and conceptualize etc., for example. This is Mother Nature’s way of allowing the brain to be able to make the 400 decisions it must make every second for the human body to function by receiving the relevant data in real time. The invisible membrane allows all of the mental functions to be able to operate in synch under a protected umbrella so to speak, so that thinking, and emotions, and dreaming and whatever the mind does is able to work. It's a theory. I think we have to look at nature for the answer of what consciousness is. Nature doesn't make a leaf any thicker than is absolutely necessary for photosynthesis to occur. Simplicity is nature's mantra. It’s an opinion.
8:41 I hear this example all the time...saying we basically become unconcious zombies when doing things like driving. But that's such crap. Even if we are able to "zone out" and become less conciously aware of our surroundings during a fimiliar drive...we still have a rich inner experience to account for. Usually we are lost in all kinds of thoughts. Our conciousness in those moments simply turns inwards.
My answer is: Consciousness/self-consciousness is the ability to sense energy, identify the energy as being different from other energies and self. Be able to create a name for it (scientific/mental/qualia). Then this self-conscious human being is able to intentionally transmit, a scientific/mental/qualia form of this energy, which is related to the original sensed energy, to other human beings via common senses. If we have a "sense" for consciousness, there is also the possibility that we have evolved this "sense for consciousness" because the energy that is scaffolding consciousness is already there, pre-existing.
What I did to figure out "What is consciousness?" was to do the following. I first describe what does it means to be conscious. I list these out and challenge all of these. This is done until I have a set of descriptions that accurately identify what it means to be conscious. The next thing I do is develop a story(or explanation) any way I can that results in an accurate description of "What is consciousness?". The following is what I came up with. FYI: I'm a computer programmer. . In programming, consciousness would looks like this. 10 WhatToDo(WhatIsGoingOn()) 20 Goto 10 . Consciousness is an executive thread of processing that constantly seeks to resolve 2 questions. 1) What is going on? 2) What to do? To determine the answer to question#1(What is going on?), we use our senses, our memory and our reasoning. To determine the answer to question#2(What to do?) and take any needed action, we use the result from question#1, our memory, our reasoning and our body. . A big part of consciousness has to do with the feedback loop involved between our body actions and our senses. One other note: In my model of consciousness, I do not limit this processing thread to individual beings or biological beings.
24:09 What we need to find are very general properties of consciousness. And once we've got those, then we're gonna be in a better position to find the underlying theories. Charles Sanders Peirce (semiotic theory) and Jakob von Uexküll (biosemiotic theory). Peirce's semiotic theory is important because it identifies the fundamental principles of consciousness (motivation, association and habituation). And biosemiotics is important because it places them within the mind-body context... different mind-bodies will experience their ecosystems in different ways (and the human ecosystem, incidentally, is culture). I've mentioned these names before in CTT, but I appreciate Dr Kuhn's dilemma, given the huge number of leads to explore. 21:32 Why such divergence among experts? Before Isaac Newton established the axiomatic framework that we identify in the context of forces and the laws of motion, there were widely disparate interpretations making what now seem like ridiculous assumptions. For example, the assumption that cannonballs fired from a cannon always move in a trajectory because, well, just because. But when Newton established his axiomatic framework, it became clear how and why cannonballs move in trajectories. We are in an analogous situation with consciousness. So many theories, so little commonsense. Peirce and Uexküll. If we want for consciousness studies what Newton provided for physics, then these guys deserve a closer look. And they're not entirely alien... Uexküll provided the inspiration for autopoiesis and the systems theory (relates to emergence) of Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana.
Consciousness is the *essential characteristic* of the conscious personality. The "conscious personality" is the transcendental (immaterial) person--thinker, feeler and doer--who becomes connected to the body, the psycho-physical frame, through the brain (the organ of the transcendental mind). This "welding" of the conscious personality with the brain ensures two things: 1. The afferent function of the brain supplies the conscious personality with the best representation of the material world. It also means that the brain can exert a tremendous *affective influence* on the conscious personality. It can send signals which can totally overwhelm the conscious personality--make him "blank out," etc. 2. The efferent function of the brain ensures that motor commands of the conscious personality are sent to the different organs of the body (to initiate, override, etc.) In this manner, both the brain and the conscious personality work together as one, in a unique fusion of two completely different ontological entities, one representing (unconscious) matter and the other, (conscious) personality. Call it divine engineering!
The CEO doesn't micromanage. Instead, it sets the general direction for the outcome. In some experiments, it tells the lower level machinery to move the hand in a random direction, and when informed of the direction, it thinks it has willed something.
I think that the deep bedrock of reality is an abstract thing (maybe empty set developed to mathematical information pattern that follows some wave function), a non-physical thing, and what we call material reality is in essence abstract non-physical reality that we experience as material. And consciousness is connected to, and echoing this abstract non-physical reality. How can abstract reality feel so solid is a mystery, but the distinction between abstract thing, and physical materiel thing is artificial, all things (material and consciousness) are made of abstract things. There is kind of no contradiction between material and abstract, material=abstract and abstract=material, abstract thing in a specific form is solid or feels solid. If you take the view that information is physical, which kind of make sense too, then all things (material and consciousness) is physical. The point is that material and consciousness is made of the same thing even though it feels fundamentally different. they are only arranged in a different ways of pattern and some patterns can be more conscious than others or not at all.
The brain is an organic computer which helps us explore consciousness. Our legs are fantastic tools to help us explore our world, but they didn't create that world.
Robert , I don't know is this advice useful or being heard or even considered , but if you want to try everything for this grand search, why not try the meditational retreats. I was similar kind of science fanatic , wanted to explain every phenomenon by logic , inshort , I was one of the strongest "believers " of science , but after reading Youval, I have taken a giant step to just try Vipassana retreat, and I could say , it added a completely new dimension to my thinking. Yet, there is no answer ,or I am on the right path of getting answers or there might not be even what we look for, ever after that, I started perceiving it's more closed to the truth.. Note that , it's not about claiming something is superior than science , infact, science has its own role to play and science is, currently, the best possible path to explore our external world. In conclusion, it's time to explore these fields in cohesion with science..
I almost feel like "consciousness" is a suitcase word, with a lot of implications, that warrants some unbundling. I have my own parsing of the issues. Two descriptive questions. Two value questions. - On the descriptive side, are the following questions: - 1. How do reconcile two languages. One is physicalist, mechanistic, used largely by science, to explain things. The other is experiential-phenomenological. How do you bridge the two vocabularies. I can't help but feel this is related to the "easy" problem, and the "hard" problem. - 2. By "consciousness", aren't we speaking about different capabilities? This is visible through the natural world, e.g., bacteria, octopuses, trees, bats, mammals, and humans. It begins with some bare level of perception. Then there is some internal modeling of the external world, simulation, prediction. The most advance forms are "models of models", e.g., meta-cognition, "awareness of awareness", sense of "self", etc - On the "value" side, are the following issues: - 3. Does "consciousness" survive the death of the brain? In other words, do "I" survive physical death? It's a personalist question. However, implied in this question is that being "conscious" is of unqualified value. Despite what we think, this isn't necessarily the case. When we go to sleep at night, we might actually want to be "out like a light". It's kind of a "mini-death". No sense of self. No sense of person. And our body seems to love this. Another example. During surgery, most people would prefer not to be conscious. Nor is "locked in syndrome" a pleasant thing. - 4. Beyond the personalist question is the "nature of reality" question. Is the universe "conscious"? Ideally, we would like this to mean something like the NDE or Christian "God is Love". It would be something more aligned with human values. But even if the universe were conscious, there is no guarantee it would be friendly to human values. It could be an evolutionary super-organism, with all its ruthlessness of natural selection, inimical, or indifferent, to the human species. It's not the universal consciousness we would hope for.
in many circles when the term 'consciousness' comes up, people roll their eyes and think here we go again! It's been over used and abused and, has so many views, it is losing its intrinsic quality .
Quantum is observer. This creation is the creation of an element which is present everywhere/to which no Law applies. Consciousnes is not something inside the body. Consciousnes is a state of quantum particle. Consciousnes means aware of whole things, and none. __________________________________ Myself,ego,time, gender, reality, belief, pulse, pleasure, depression it all exists based on experience. Experience can only be experienced through thinking. No Law applies to thinking. That is why a person understands that I am experiencing myself. Experience does not have a collection. The observer has a collection of experiences. Our body experience exists in the whole universe. Because thinking is a state of consciousness. ________________________________ Our I'd is observer. Because without observer there is no existence of experience. According to this principle. Death is meaningless. Because experience can die/but not observer. _________________________________ Our I'd is observer. It's is to be experienced. It cannot be experienced. Our body is a form of experience. Experience is a form of thought. We are form of thought. Our dna contains information of our civilizations similarly our thoughts are also the legacy of our civilizations. Our previous connection breaks when connecting with a thought. We express our feelings through Thoughts. We understand someone's feeling through Thoughts. We understand visualization through Thoughts. Fear is a thought. Fear is a habit. The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear. Fear arises immediately through Thoughts. We think Thoughts Thoughts. If the desire of man's fear is dominating him. Then it too is fulfilled like prayer. Both is our form of think. Fear is not our thinking. Our thinking is that we came out of this fear. The relationship between you and this nightmare is only of fear. The root of depression is excessive thinking of Thoughts. ________________________________ Our thinking is universalize. Any accident/any means any accident can be prevented by advanced thinking. Because the absence of advance notice is part of an accident.
What is consciousness? ( To the best of my understanding) It is that which is asking this question. It also is applied as awareness , as perceptions ( of hearing, seeing , taste, touch and smell); it is that ability to feel that sensation in your hands or the pebble in your shoe, or the smell of a flower that is in proximity, but not being held in your hand.
The description "emergent property" for consciousness would carry more weight if we had any meaningful cases of other emergent properties that had nothing to do with consciousness. It all sounds very ad hoc.
@Stefano Portoghesi _"Our modern level of "consciousness" is simply the ultimate emergent property of the natural evolution of the physical and material brain ."_ That's belief. Not scientific fact. Can you clearly explain how brain matter became aware or how brain matter could possibly produce intelligence? matter itself is made up totally of non conscious constituent parts and the brain is just another form of matter... Other than to say "it emerged" which says nothing...you don't have a causative mechanism or natural law to support your claim, so you are operating from belief. Belief that fully deserves to be challenged, vetted and fully exposed for the absolute hilarious crap that it is.
@@glynemartin Well said. Bile emerges. Ear wax emerges. Consciousness has no scientific basis for "emerging". Consciousness may well be a primary constituent of reality, in which case good luck nailing it by materialistic means.
@@borderlands6606 The emergence (production is actually more accurate) of wax or bile can be traced to a causative mechanism and natural process or Law. There is no such thing that explains how consciousness went from total non existence to absolute existence. This is a leap of faith disguised as science. Pathetic...
Consciousness / God / Soul / Self are all identical. Here is an analogy There is only 1 moon but, we see many small reflections of it on the waves on a lake. The moon is the Self. The reflections are all living things. The waves on the lake is unsteadiness of our mind. When we still our mind by practicing Yoga, we realize the oneness of everything.
You might be right, you might be wrong... but if we were engineered by someone else, then your theory that Consciousness is the same as God, The Creator/ The Maker, would be wrong. But... until we find out more, we can say things like these.
I believe this of any and all knowledge not just about consciousness... i e an answer leads to more questions so assuming an answers "truth" shows more forks in your path than you knew of before accepting that answer ...more simply put ... the "smarter" a person becomes just reveals how much more he/she doesnt know ...in my opinion
I love that I can rewatch these programs and glean greater depth each time. In this case the role of short term memory took me to our interaction with both short and long term memory, and the use of language to deal not only with memory but hypothetical abstractions of the future (necessarily) but also of a hypothetical present and past and the interplay of those abstractions concurrent with our concrete interactions on the present. Is it possible that our species-unique brand of consciousness is a result of our equally uniques capacity to communicate these theoretical abstractions? If so, might there also be (as raised in a later discussion in this episode) a greater consciousness, and what abstraction or form of communication might that be based on?
yes indeed. Everyone must confront consciousness once in their lifetime. Don't be shy. You have to face God now, or face Him later - but not before your death.
What we call consciousness is not more than the interface code between the brain and body. Is the code of experiencing. Has different layers of subconsciousness , the one we experience is the last layer, and is functional. We are much more that this last layer but we build ourselves on that last layer which supposed to be only for functionalities... all life who interact between body and outside though senses has consciousness. We should take it seriously when killing other conscious life forms
What is it about being asleep that renders us unconscious while not dreaming? Or are we proto-conscious during this time? I've noticed that waking up after sleeping doesn't feel like it happened after the amount of time it takes to have the dreams I remember.
Brain can take it, but nervous cells can't, must regulate intensive electrical discharges, repair and adjust from time to time. We don't need to sleep actually, can only doze for few minutes every few hours and rest more often. Best is to stick with sun cycles, but body can adjust to artificial cycles also, it's just sometimes dreams and reality blend together, like when we dream we already woke up, but we are still asleep.
The Universe seems to be so interactively engaged as to be alive to its surroundings, which we call life and evolving consciousness. It shows great evidence of what the Universe is capable of creating within itself. And if the original source of the Universe (space-time singularity where this Big Bang came from) is infinite, maybe the potential for consciousness is infinite too. The less the need for energy to be complexly interactive the less this expressiveness of the Universe is conscious.
@Stefano Portoghesi "But "Consciousness" as far as we know , it's only a biological brain phenomenon which requires a physical , living and working structure to provide a medium , a vessel where "Consciousness" could emerge from..." I'm not convinced of this. Do you have an argument for this? Or could you otherwise explain how you are coming to this conclusion?
perceiver and perceived exists together in a loop, try to imagine existence without consciousness/observer and you will be left with nothing that exists.
Exactly. Existence is consciousness. Without consciuosness nothing exists. And only exist that which is perceived by a consciousness. That shoyld be the basis of everything.
@@nim314159 100% agreed, I came to this realization just an year ago and I am still astonished how mainstream science don't even talk about consciousness.
The universe exists independent of consciousness. The MEANING that we insist projecting on the universe thought language doesn't exist without our subjective experience
Consciosness is from the ether.the force that is the foundation of all things.formed forth from the primal element, base of all matter, the ether far flung.
We can't even define terms like "consciousness" or "awareness". They are illusory. That may be why we fail to bridge the gap between the physical brain and the idea of consiousness.. simply because we are working from an illusory defintion of consciousness. If we could actually nail down what consiousness is, then we could be begin to explain how it can be created. The very idea of consiousness is highly subjective.
There are, it seems, two possibilities. Either the brain is a completely self-contained "wetware" computer, or it is an interface device, much like the "computer" in your car. The latter seems much more likely to me.
Paul Weston. Your close. It is a like a graphic interface. But the brain is part of it. Not the generator of it. Check out Kuhn’s interview with Donald Hoffman.
Paul, I don't feel that your choices are quite correct, but not wrong either. The brain is not a computer, wet or dry. A human is an evolved being that consists of a body and brain in an environment of other beings. We can't be reduced any more than that (no brains in a jar yet). The analogy with computers makes sense since humans made computers to do things that humans do, just better, and while a brain does many things that seem similar to computers, there is no hardware, software or programmer, so the analogy doesn't go too far for me. It also seems kind of obvious that humans are "self-contained" barring ESP or magical souls, but we do interface with others in many other very important ways that make us something less than self-contained in practice. I understand why you would like the idea of a cosmic consciousness that we tap into, but so far, no antennas or modems have been discovered in our heads, so I'm not jumping on that horse for now.
The sense organs detect impinging environmental energies. The sense organs encode the particulars of these energies by adjusting the neural discharge frequency of their output neurons. The other end of these neurons terminate in the brain. That is how information about the outside gets inside. As a thought experiment imagine all the sense organ nerves of a baby were severed at birth. Try to imagine what it would be like to be that baby without sight or sound or taste or touch or pressure or temperature or up or down or pain or pleasure. Do you imagine that baby could ever become conscious?
Your vacillations..? That is a beautiful word. “Inability to decide” - was that the case 5 years ago? Were you any ‘closer to truth’ back then? What do you want? When will you stop vacillating? Are you sure you have asked the right question?
I really like that notion.... the 'wise' inform us it (this watcher) experiences the experiencer. It ( the watcher) is the final subject ; there is nothing more subtiler, more refined that can experience It, that is 'see' IT as an object of experience. The Upanishads say ' it is the Ear of the ear, the Eye of the eye, etc. hence IT experiences the experiencer.
I thought of another good question, why consciousness is not the only thing we can experience and sense? Would seems logical to me, we are a material object, so we should feel everything material reality is exposed to. But we can't, our perception of external reality is limited to only 5 biological senses and even those are only partially efficient, can't detect entire spectrum of external radiations. Situation is much like asking if a rock is aware of it's dimensional somehow, perhaps stone can sense only gravity and simply feel stoned all the time. Same analogy extend over all phases of body growth, molecules bond, discharge chemical energy and assemble functional parts, capable to modulate external influences. Flow of signals from many cells merge into nervous system river, pulsating charges over entire organism. Those tinny atomic flashed somehow converge in various sensations, culminating in self awareness, framed by past experiences and morals. It's all a mechanical construct, play of natural ratios, Fibonacci numbers, pi and other arcane stuff. Rules emerging from alchemy and symbols, rest of it are balance of energy potentials, infinities inside infinite, holograms reflecting many other holograms, like there's something organic in the way our thoughts and emotions are formed. Because it is organic process, a lump of anomalies entangled in space time, shaping energy potentials radiating from molecular structures. How else could we sense true nature of reality if not being a part of it, but it's not what our body is telling us, it's what we hallucinate reality should be and can be, because everything are just disturbances in quantum fields and that's precisely what consciousness is all about. We are aware of entire reality, our minds are same stuff entire universe is made of, atoms decay, light is eternal.
There is a slim line between all of reality and consciousness and death. We only have to fall asleep..when we wake up we realize we had no idea we lost consciousness. The difference between that and eternal death is..reality comes flooding back when we wake up,minus the dreams of REM. Its like a slender wall of energy that divided living with unliving.
How about this. If some one tells a thought to you through your mind and through any other means, does it mean that this some one has merged consciousness with you? I bring this up because time and again, i have caught myself thinking about thoughts that I normally would not think. Violent thoughts for example, are not my thing but when my interests are threatened, this thoughts come up and I catch myself thinking this not so good thoughts. This makes me ask, where did that thought come from? Was that coming from me, or did that impulse come from somewhere else?
Not bad, Robert, but that you didn't interview Donald Hoffman (on the science side of the consciousness issue) or Bernardo Kastrup (on the philosophy side) is disappointing.
And rising panpsychist star Philip Goff has got to be on the show. His speaking style is almost as pleasant to listen to as Sean Carroll’s! And his book, _Galileo’s Error_ is a great read! Not sure if I can get on board with his panpsychism, but I think it’s great that the “Hard Problem” is starting to be taken seriously by legit, prominent philosophers, as well as scientists, e.g. the current leading theory of consciousness among neuroscientists is Integrated Information Theory-a theory which presupposes panpsychism!) Personally, I’m a dualist, but also an atheist. I just can’t deny the “supernatural” quality of consciousness...
I think consciousness is the connected language between feelings and thoughts i think it lets you control of your own movement of time nnd you cannot see that
Are neuron signals determined unconscious activity in brain and if so, does consciousness require quantization of the neuron signals into probability waves of information (where integrated / become conscious)?
Nobody can explain where consciousness goes when under anesthesia. Been under a few times and certainly believe that it is suppressed or suspended while under. This indicates to me that is is definately physiological and brain dependant.
Consciousness doesn't disappear under anaesthesia. Consciousness takes on a different form, as it does in sleep, intoxication, psychotic episodes, etc. The term unconscious is a misnomer.
Those who are certain that consciousness extends beyond death, become very competitive, in concern with whose consciousness will be rewarded with eternal bliss, compared to whose consciousness will suffer for eternity.
You've probably heard this asked a million times. But have you tried DMT? Also, there's a ton of super interesting research about what psychedelics mean in this discussion.
Here is my theory of consciousness, which makes as much sense to me as anything said by the eggheads Mr Kuhn engages with in this video. Think of any physical system that processes inputs and responds to them with some kind of output: a single-celled organism, the neural cortex of an insect, a tree, a cow's brain or a human's, the electronics in your phone or your PC, the super-duper hypercomputer Deep Thought from The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy -- it doesn't matter what the physical bit is made of, the essential thing is that it organises inputs into some kind of understanding of its environment and reacts accordingly. I think that that understanding of the environment is somehow emergent from the functioning of the physical system, rather like how gravity is emergent from the interaction of mass and spacetime, and is what consciousness is. These systems vary enormously in complexity and organisation and purpose, of course, from the most rudimentary all the way up; and the consciousness that each experiences will vary accordingly. Feel free to reply to this comment if you're from a Nobel Prize committee and you have good news for me.
"it organises inputs into some kind of understanding of its environment and reacts accordingly" Can an organism be conscious if there is no self concept participating in the input analysis process?
Feelings are basically just qualia, or the contents of consciousness. Consciousness is where these qualia reside. It's the thing that's experiencing the qualia. It's the experiencer. It's the "I".
Ryan Clark I believe that feelings is more than just contents. Feelings is the core structure of life itself and all there really is. That’s all there ever was, still is, and ever will be. Feelings. We can’t exist without feelings, and feelings is the genesis of us that’s subject to development. Undeveloped feelings is what I believe people see as consciousness. And it is, but a lower or shadow consciousness. Not the true consciousness that is meant for us to develop.
Stefano Portoghesi Well, consciousness can’t come first bcuz nature doesn’t work that way. When a child or cub is born it’s feels without consciousness. So feelings always comes first and then consciousness develops afterward.
Unless you are willing to try psychedelics, you aren't really 'confronting consciousness'. Psychedelics perturb consciousness and produce an entirely foreign yet familiar set of experiences. Unfortunately, given the nature of consciousness, you can't test inner subjective experiment with scientific validation. At best you can compile reports from people about their subjective experience, but that is not available to rigorous 3rd person perspective. The material world that consciousness produces is maya - illusion. Science will always be confined to validating illusion - 'the dream'. That which produces the dream is outside the dream. "Life" is this cosmic consciousness entering into the dream and taking a perspective. It isn't that the 'matter' has consciousness. Consciousness dreams matter. That we are made out of matter is because the perspective uses the 'stuff' of the dream as a representation of its separation from the rest of cosmic consciousness.
It´s imoral to promote psychedelics in the middle of the worst opioid crisis of America, and the history of DUI as a cause of death to millions of innocent people who just happened to be on the way of the driver
@@kaledon6 psychedelics aren't opioids, promoting things is not a measure of morality, and some (like iboga) are possibly the solution to the opioid crisis. There are appropriate and inappropriate situations for everything. If you want lots of energy to power a city, nuclear is a good way to go. Using it in a bomb is a mistake. Likewise, drugs (like alcohol, tobacco, opioids, and psychedelics) have situations where they are beneficial, and situations where they are harmful. Using a vehicle is (almost always) a situation where you DON'T want to be on a drug. However, if you are in surgery, opioids are a good idea. Psychedelics are a good idea if you want to become aware of the spiritual side of life, or if you need assistance recovering from PTSD and other forms of trauma. They are excellent at helping with growth and healing in that way. Good / Bad thinking about the things reality presents to us is simplistic and immature.
@@brentonbrenton9964 And you pretending to have full knowledge and authority to discern the good effects of psychedelics on human consciousness sounds like the typical charlatan guru...I hope you stay away from easily impressed young adults who may be convinced to join your spiritual lessons
So I will reveal my life story ... which I believe is relevant to this episode. I was a young child, age 6 years, and I developed chronic glomerulonephritis which is a nasty kidney disease related to the autoimmune system. This was 1963 before health insurance and I needed months of hospital care. My Father was a big player, owned several businesses, and was a senior sales manager for General Motors. Long story short, my father loses everything he lived for and files for bankruptcy. He receives a 25-year garnishee against any future earnings so refuses to work from that point forward. He, my father, decided to take his life and feels the need to take mine with him. You see I am the cause his life was ruined. I spoke with my mother about this but she told me to stay silent and it would be embarrassing if shared. So, my father wants to kill me and my mother wants me to not tell anyone because it might embarrass her. looking back at all of this just shocks me ... just how mentally screwed up was my family? Long story short, my father committed suicide ... my mother died alone at 96 ... and I still struggle with the mental damage at age 63
The Eternal Living something (Being) is the most simple analysis in the Eternal Life. The Eternal something that exists, to add further only gets you away from this eternal fact. So, the Eternal Living Being, allways had its Eternal Consciousness, the Living Being, ('I') and the consciousness, is the most intime connection in Life. The analysis of the consciousness, is basicly also very simple, even it is more complex. If man is making devices as can do mental functions, man must copy the way life does. So, consciousness consist of Over-consciousness, and Under-consciousness, the Under-consciousness consist of the Day-consciousness and the Night-consciousness. The Over-consciousness contain six eternal Abilities, the effect of these is part of the Under-consciousness. These Abilities is; Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition and Memory. So, we recognize some of these eternal abilities in the technical devices, as Automatic, Gravity, Intelligence and Memory - sensors can be added, (Feeling) but Intuition, need a deeper analysis to really understand, but even without this, it might give an idea on how the consciouness 'looks' and work as a whole structure. So, if we take just one of the Eternal special Abilities away, then the consciousness would Not work. (just to keep it short)
i think the property where we "feel" there is a totality of consciousness is just emergent out of the fact we products of and evolved into this universe. and the fact that cycles of life and behavior repeat add to the perceptions of collective unconsciousness, the oneness of being and so on other philosophical and religious ways to look at it.
Some people just don't seem to notice the "Explanatory Gap". They talk about consciousness (i.e. subjective, first person experience) like it's no different in the relevant sense than any other information processing system, or they confuse it with cognition. They don't seem to notice that it's "like something" to be them in a way that it's (presumably) not "like something" to be a computer. How do we get "like something"-ness form any conceivable arrangement of matter? And how do we directly perceive purely qualitative phenomenon like the redness of red in a purely quantitative universe? What is the mathematical description of the redness of red? Seems to be a category error to try to extract the purely qualitative from the purely quantitative.
Perhaps the "qualitative" aspect as you understand it is purely illusory. In other words, not quite as special as you imagine it to be. There is no "redness" or "blueness" perse, but only quantitative differences among certain colors. It is the quantitative differences that gives emergence to our illusory sense of qualitative awareness.
Image you have eyeballs that only experience a single color - red. In this case, the qualitative aspect - "redness" - would not exist. Therefore, as I say, the qualitivate aspects you speak of is only an emergent property of quantitative differences.
Jack - Of course it’s illusory in the sense that it’s (at least partially) generated by the brain, but the _direct experience_ of it _can’t_ be an illusion. There’s no conceivable way that I’m just experiencing quantitative differences when I see different colors. It’s a category error to try get the purely qualitative from the purely quantitative. But the bigger mystery than qualia is that I have any kind of subjective, first-person experience at all. What is experience and how does it fit into a universe made of entirely non-experiential parts? Why is it “like something” to be any physical system? Scientists and don’t have the slightest inkling. There is no science of consciousness.
As in most of this channel's videos, the audio level of the voiceover narration is way too low. I wonder why an otherwise highly professional production can't get the audio right.
@Stefano Portoghesi ”The materialistic universe is everything ! Look around yourself : is there anything that is proven to actually exist besides the material and physical world of nature ? The answer is a resounding : NO ! Look around yourself : microbial cells , chemicals and free energy in the form of sunlight it's all it took to get biological , carbon based intelligent life in the past 4 billions of years of evolutionary processes , here on planet Earth without nobody being in charge of anything at all !” You got that backwards. Look around yourself is there anything that is proven to actually exist besides conscious subjective states? The answer is a resounding : NO! Anything else is a theory. A material Universe outside consciousness is a theory. Consciousness is not. It is epistemically primary, meaning it is that which is known first. This is basically Descartes famous ’Cogito ergo Sum’ or ’I think therefore I am’. As such, we do not know matter exists (as something outside consciousness) as confidently as we know that consciousness exists. Therefore, in virtue of a consciosuness-only Idealist view being favored by epistemic reliability and addtionally by parsimony in that it doesn’t postulate anything in addition to phenomenal consciousness it renders other views such as Physicalism/Materialism and Property Dualism Inflationary and unessecary all else held constant and thus untenable or indefensible.
At 10:16 'Godel, Escher, Bach' disputes the absence of a theory. If the question, 'What is consciousness?', assumes it is a something, then it will seem reasonable to use the tools of science to discover its true nature. But if the word conscious is in actual reality referring to an abstract entity then trying to measure it with such tools is necessarily doomed to failure. Even a scale so sensitive it can weigh a single atom will be completely useless if one tries to weigh a metaphor upon it.
Keith, most people see an object falls in gravity, does not mean that there can not be a physical theory that explains it. We have Einsteins general theory of relativity for that. Same is for physical theory of consciousness.
Collations of dead material substance (by nature, totally unconscious) *somehow* give rise to a conscious personality that talks Shakespeare! The materialist philosophy in a nutshell! (PS: Crash course in ontology anyone?)
Like all aspects ov life there is Hierarchical order to consciousness Divinity is the apex! All ov conscience life is the pool ov All that wich divinity will be drawn. If all ov man thought well, Consciousness as a whole can and will like it is at presant, grow!
We have a fair handle on what perception is and what it means to perceive. Consciousness is best understood as our perception of our own perceptions, higher consciousneness being the 2nd-order perception of the perception of our perceptions and so on. Simple really. Problem is that it won't fetch researchers in search of theory much funding. By the way, a couple of those academics need to learn that 'phenomena' is the plural of 'phenomenon'. Higher education ain't what it used to be.
i am aware, but is consciousness personal at all? :)example bird strange behaviour in winter time. i give them a lot of food regularly. in the mornings they wate for food around my house. i sleep. i wake up andi open my eyes birds start singing. they don't see me. birds don't sing in winter. it is not their sensory resposes, isn't it? what is it? :)
Here's a question: when does attention become intention? In babies, in animals? Is instinct all most animals know of intention? What is the difference between attention and intention? The sense of self? Which animals develop a sense of self? Are there humans without a sense of self? Are they without intention? Is eating the greatest contributor to a sense of self? Do amoeba go through puberty, viruses? Is sex an instinct of all living things, or an intention of eating of microorganisms? Is enjoyment, a corrolary of eating, important to a sense of self?
energy acquisition aka feeding does not, no. your cells feed to work and they just machines. the rest though i think you are in the ballpark for eating and feeding is not key imo.
@@scottmiller4295 Eating and feeding is not key? Howso? Without eating and feeding you die. Energy acquisition? Eating is not automatic, otherwise there would be no such thing as starving or famine. I think you need to reassess your assumptions on the importance of eating.
Could it be that people who ask many questions that are unclear, unanswerable, and contribute nothing to discussion really would prefer continued confusion as opposed to contributing new information?
does consciousness get stored in memory - so if an adult's brain were irreparably damaged, would they lose their consciousness that had been 'accumulated' ?
The whole series of CTT is wonderful, in any Detail.
Totally agree great series
“Quantum theory provides us with a striking illustration of the fact that we can fully understand a connection though we can only speak of it in images and parables.” (Werner Heisenburg)
Quarks and Bosons are invisible, unmeasurable, massless “objects”. We do not question their existence as
we observe them indirectly influencing their surroundings. These quantum objects can be in two places at once (Bi locational) and can instantly influence each other over great distance. Interestingly, It has been suggested that quantum theory may provide some insite into the possibility of a “non physical” consciousness. Our previous materialistic paradigm seems to crumble under the weight of evidence from quantum theory as non physical, invisible, Bi locational abstract “objects” appear to exist. It’s hardly surprising that the agnostic and brilliant mathematician Roger Penrose made the statement “We don’t know what “material” even means anymore”. Equally,
in response to the belief that life happened by chance Roger Penrose stated “I think that there is something much deeper, of which we have very little inkling at the moment”
It’s the old “mind” versus “matter” argument including Subjective versus Objective morality argument.
Nevertheless, the fact that doctors and nurses have sacrificed their lives caring for peoples families during this pandemic is a true symbol of the triumph of mind over matter. If the doctors and nurses principles of care and love towards the victims of the Corona virus are just a subjective illusion that can be callously explained away by brain chemicals and sociobiological reductionism then logic, science, the “self” and even explanation itself is explained away which is clearly self defeating and absurd.
“You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see” (C.S. Lewis)
Mnemonics nn me nnnnnnnmmnm
Yes, agree. It's amazing 👏 😍 🙌
Consciousness, Sentience, and Sapience. The thought of life. Great job as always Robert!
I smiled, because i really liked the opening line - "Consciousness drives me nuts".
Terrific episode. You're unique in the way you tackle the fundamentals. Thank you.
Conciousness is the very soul of each person...
"soul" meaning what?
You are about the demonstrate that you have no idea.
While Mr. Kuhn demonstrates the utility of personal humility and individual respect in the pursuit of ideas, his greatest gift is the reminder that those qualities are requirements for a civil society.
Most enjoyable journey I've had for a while. Enigmatic, almost within reach,....and like a frisson in the ether,....disappears. Childlike, we stumble forward, grasping for meaning & truth. More please.
It just boggles my mind even today how some of these renowned and well known in academia downplay consciousness
I love this series. And PBS amazing, easily on par with BBC in my view. Refreshing to see such quality from American TV.
Their version of Antiques Roadshow is brilliant also.
Dear Mr Khune and Professor Coak, Thank you for your analysis of consciousness Professor Kuhne, and thank you Mr Khune for bringing the science and mystery of consciousness to the forefront in your very interesting interviews. May I give you what I think consciousness is? I am an inventor and an artist and not trained in physics or biology or philosophy so I can only give my intuitive thinking on what I believe is a natural process. This is how I think it operates: Consciousness is what could be called a membrane like in the human cell. All the moving parts of the brain for the mind to work, for example, need to be hooked up somehow. How would nature do this? I believe Mother Nature’s way of providing the support system necessary for the brain to power the mind for its role in thinking and coming to conclusions and taking decisions is by what I call the invisible ‘membrane’ of consciousness. It is nature at its best in coming up with a wireless solution for making the thinking process work in an ulterior way encompassing the 4 dimensions. A human cell needs a membrane for all its parts to be able to function. Without a membrane, there couldn't be a cell, because all of the parts would be scattered and never be able to function together. The 'invisible' membrane of consciousness in my definition doesn't hold all the key elements together, it merely provides ‘the linking element’ so that they can all function and interact. Imagine a wireless sort of connection of any device in the home, for example. In brief: consciousness in the human mind is an invisible membrane that permits all the necessary parts of the brain to be able to link up and interact which gives an invisible hand that powers the mind. Imagine it like a hologram where suddenly all the parts can communicate with each other, with invisible wires connecting all the essential parts of the brain. I believe nature needed an invisible membrane so that each part can relay the necessary data each part needs to function for the mind to be able to think, calculate, imagine, visualize and conceptualize etc., for example. This is Mother Nature’s way of allowing the brain to be able to make the 400 decisions it must make every second for the human body to function by receiving the relevant data in real time. The invisible membrane allows all of the mental functions to be able to operate in synch under a protected umbrella so to speak, so that thinking, and emotions, and dreaming and whatever the mind does is able to work. It's a theory. I think we have to look at nature for the answer of what consciousness is. Nature doesn't make a leaf any thicker than is absolutely necessary for photosynthesis to occur. Simplicity is nature's mantra. It’s an opinion.
8:41 I hear this example all the time...saying we basically become unconcious zombies when doing things like driving. But that's such crap. Even if we are able to "zone out" and become less conciously aware of our surroundings during a fimiliar drive...we still have a rich inner experience to account for. Usually we are lost in all kinds of thoughts. Our conciousness in those moments simply turns inwards.
I love this series. Amazing masterpiece! 😍 ✨ 👏 🙌
My answer is: Consciousness/self-consciousness is the ability to sense energy, identify the energy as being different from other energies and self. Be able to create a name for it (scientific/mental/qualia). Then this self-conscious human being is able to intentionally transmit, a scientific/mental/qualia form of this energy, which is related to the original sensed energy, to other human beings via common senses.
If we have a "sense" for consciousness, there is also the possibility that we have evolved this "sense for consciousness" because the energy that is scaffolding consciousness is already there, pre-existing.
What I did to figure out "What is consciousness?" was to do the following. I first describe what does it means to be conscious. I list these out and challenge all of these. This is done until I have a set of descriptions that accurately identify what it means to be conscious. The next thing I do is develop a story(or explanation) any way I can that results in an accurate description of "What is consciousness?". The following is what I came up with. FYI: I'm a computer programmer.
.
In programming, consciousness would looks like this.
10 WhatToDo(WhatIsGoingOn())
20 Goto 10
.
Consciousness is an executive thread of processing that constantly seeks to resolve 2 questions. 1) What is going on? 2) What to do? To determine the answer to question#1(What is going on?), we use our senses, our memory and our reasoning. To determine the answer to question#2(What to do?) and take any needed action, we use the result from question#1, our memory, our reasoning and our body.
.
A big part of consciousness has to do with the feedback loop involved between our body actions and our senses.
One other note: In my model of consciousness, I do not limit this processing thread to individual beings or biological beings.
It's amazing how consciousness can be described with computer programming language.
This is so lame that it's sad.
Sure, but why does it feel like something? Who's experiencing this process? That's the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
24:09 What we need to find are very general properties of consciousness. And once we've got those, then we're gonna be in a better position to find the underlying theories.
Charles Sanders Peirce (semiotic theory) and Jakob von Uexküll (biosemiotic theory). Peirce's semiotic theory is important because it identifies the fundamental principles of consciousness (motivation, association and habituation). And biosemiotics is important because it places them within the mind-body context... different mind-bodies will experience their ecosystems in different ways (and the human ecosystem, incidentally, is culture). I've mentioned these names before in CTT, but I appreciate Dr Kuhn's dilemma, given the huge number of leads to explore.
21:32 Why such divergence among experts?
Before Isaac Newton established the axiomatic framework that we identify in the context of forces and the laws of motion, there were widely disparate interpretations making what now seem like ridiculous assumptions. For example, the assumption that cannonballs fired from a cannon always move in a trajectory because, well, just because. But when Newton established his axiomatic framework, it became clear how and why cannonballs move in trajectories.
We are in an analogous situation with consciousness. So many theories, so little commonsense. Peirce and Uexküll. If we want for consciousness studies what Newton provided for physics, then these guys deserve a closer look. And they're not entirely alien... Uexküll provided the inspiration for autopoiesis and the systems theory (relates to emergence) of Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana.
Consciousness is the *essential characteristic* of the conscious personality. The "conscious personality" is the transcendental
(immaterial) person--thinker, feeler and doer--who becomes connected to the body, the psycho-physical frame, through the brain (the organ of the transcendental mind).
This "welding" of the conscious personality with the brain ensures two things:
1. The afferent function of the brain supplies the conscious personality with the best representation of the material world. It also means that the brain can exert a tremendous *affective influence* on the conscious personality. It can send signals which can totally overwhelm the conscious personality--make him "blank out," etc.
2. The efferent function of the brain ensures that motor commands of the conscious personality are sent to the different organs of the body (to initiate, override, etc.)
In this manner, both the brain and the conscious personality work together as one, in a unique fusion of two completely different ontological entities, one representing (unconscious) matter and the other, (conscious) personality. Call it divine engineering!
that CEO analogy was dreadful
that did kind of suck..
8:30 . The CEO lacking free will is probably the better part of the analogy.
The CEO doesn't micromanage. Instead, it sets the general direction for the outcome. In some experiments, it tells the lower level machinery to move the hand in a random direction, and when informed of the direction, it thinks it has willed something.
I wish my internal CEO got paid like Citibank’s
I think that the deep bedrock of reality is an abstract thing (maybe empty set developed to mathematical information pattern that follows some wave function), a non-physical thing, and what we call material reality is in essence abstract non-physical reality that we experience as material. And consciousness is connected to, and echoing this abstract non-physical reality. How can abstract reality feel so solid is a mystery, but the distinction between abstract thing, and physical materiel thing is artificial, all things (material and consciousness) are made of abstract things. There is kind of no contradiction between material and abstract, material=abstract and abstract=material, abstract thing in a specific form is solid or feels solid. If you take the view that information is physical, which kind of make sense too, then all things (material and consciousness) is physical. The point is that material and consciousness is made of the same thing even though it feels fundamentally different. they are only arranged in a different ways of pattern and some patterns can be more conscious than others or not at all.
The best TV PROGRAM EVER
So what is the difference between awareness and consciousness?
The brain is an organic computer which helps us explore consciousness.
Our legs are fantastic tools to help us explore our world, but they didn't create that world.
Robert , I don't know is this advice useful or being heard or even considered , but if you want to try everything for this grand search, why not try the meditational retreats. I was similar kind of science fanatic , wanted to explain every phenomenon by logic , inshort , I was one of the strongest "believers " of science , but after reading Youval, I have taken a giant step to just try Vipassana retreat, and I could say , it added a completely new dimension to my thinking. Yet, there is no answer ,or I am on the right path of getting answers or there might not be even what we look for, ever after that, I started perceiving it's more closed to the truth.. Note that , it's not about claiming something is superior than science , infact, science has its own role to play and science is, currently, the best possible path to explore our external world.
In conclusion, it's time to explore these fields in cohesion with science..
I almost feel like "consciousness" is a suitcase word, with a lot of implications, that warrants some unbundling. I have my own parsing of the issues. Two descriptive questions. Two value questions.
-
On the descriptive side, are the following questions:
-
1. How do reconcile two languages. One is physicalist, mechanistic, used largely by science, to explain things. The other is experiential-phenomenological. How do you bridge the two vocabularies. I can't help but feel this is related to the "easy" problem, and the "hard" problem.
-
2. By "consciousness", aren't we speaking about different capabilities? This is visible through the natural world, e.g., bacteria, octopuses, trees, bats, mammals, and humans. It begins with some bare level of perception. Then there is some internal modeling of the external world, simulation, prediction. The most advance forms are "models of models", e.g., meta-cognition, "awareness of awareness", sense of "self", etc
-
On the "value" side, are the following issues:
-
3. Does "consciousness" survive the death of the brain? In other words, do "I" survive physical death? It's a personalist question. However, implied in this question is that being "conscious" is of unqualified value. Despite what we think, this isn't necessarily the case. When we go to sleep at night, we might actually want to be "out like a light". It's kind of a "mini-death". No sense of self. No sense of person. And our body seems to love this. Another example. During surgery, most people would prefer not to be conscious. Nor is "locked in syndrome" a pleasant thing.
-
4. Beyond the personalist question is the "nature of reality" question. Is the universe "conscious"? Ideally, we would like this to mean something like the NDE or Christian "God is Love". It would be something more aligned with human values. But even if the universe were conscious, there is no guarantee it would be friendly to human values. It could be an evolutionary super-organism, with all its ruthlessness of natural selection, inimical, or indifferent, to the human species. It's not the universal consciousness we would hope for.
This answers most of questions, I hope you will find it useful
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-enquiry_(Ramana_Maharshi)
in many circles when the term 'consciousness' comes up, people roll their eyes and think here we go again! It's been over used and abused and, has so many views, it is losing its intrinsic quality .
Quantum is observer.
This creation is the creation of an element which is present everywhere/to which no Law applies.
Consciousnes is not something inside the body.
Consciousnes is a state of quantum particle.
Consciousnes means aware of whole things, and none.
__________________________________
Myself,ego,time, gender, reality, belief, pulse, pleasure, depression it all exists based on experience.
Experience can only be experienced through thinking.
No Law applies to thinking.
That is why a person understands that I am experiencing myself.
Experience does not have a collection.
The observer has a collection of experiences.
Our body experience exists in the whole universe.
Because thinking is a state of consciousness.
________________________________
Our I'd is observer.
Because without observer there is no existence of experience.
According to this principle.
Death is meaningless.
Because experience can die/but not observer.
_________________________________
Our I'd is observer.
It's is to be experienced.
It cannot be experienced.
Our body is a form of experience.
Experience is a form of thought.
We are form of thought.
Our dna contains information of our civilizations similarly our thoughts are also the legacy of our civilizations.
Our previous connection breaks when connecting with a thought.
We express our feelings through Thoughts.
We understand someone's feeling through Thoughts.
We understand visualization through Thoughts.
Fear is a thought.
Fear is a habit.
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear.
Fear arises immediately through Thoughts.
We think Thoughts Thoughts.
If the desire of man's fear is dominating him. Then it too is fulfilled like prayer.
Both is our form of think.
Fear is not our thinking.
Our thinking is that we came out of this fear.
The relationship between you and this nightmare is only of fear.
The root of depression is excessive thinking of Thoughts.
________________________________
Our thinking is universalize.
Any accident/any means any accident can be prevented by advanced thinking.
Because the absence of advance notice is part of an accident.
Yes. I love it... you are correct
This episode is beautiful. Thank you.
from them all, i really liked David, he seems really smart and full of interesting ideas.
What is consciousness? ( To the best of my understanding) It is that which is asking this question. It also is applied as awareness , as perceptions ( of hearing, seeing , taste, touch and smell); it is that ability to feel that sensation in your hands or the pebble in your shoe, or the smell of a flower that is in proximity, but not being held in your hand.
The description "emergent property" for consciousness would carry more weight if we had any meaningful cases of other emergent properties that had nothing to do with consciousness. It all sounds very ad hoc.
Fallacious is more like it. You're being polite.
@Stefano Portoghesi _"Our modern level of "consciousness" is simply the ultimate emergent property of the natural evolution of the physical and material brain ."_
That's belief. Not scientific fact. Can you clearly explain how brain matter became aware or how brain matter could possibly produce intelligence?
matter itself is made up totally of non conscious constituent parts and the brain is just another form of matter...
Other than to say "it emerged" which says nothing...you don't have a causative mechanism or natural law to support your claim, so you are operating from belief.
Belief that fully deserves to be challenged, vetted and fully exposed for the absolute hilarious crap that it is.
@@glynemartin Well said. Bile emerges. Ear wax emerges. Consciousness has no scientific basis for "emerging". Consciousness may well be a primary constituent of reality, in which case good luck nailing it by materialistic means.
@@borderlands6606 The emergence (production is actually more accurate) of wax or bile can be traced to a causative mechanism and natural process or Law.
There is no such thing that explains how consciousness went from total non existence to absolute existence.
This is a leap of faith disguised as science.
Pathetic...
@@glynemartin I agree.
Consciousness / God / Soul / Self are all identical. Here is an analogy
There is only 1 moon but, we see many small reflections of it on the waves on a lake.
The moon is the Self. The reflections are all living things. The waves on the lake is unsteadiness of our mind.
When we still our mind by practicing Yoga, we realize the oneness of everything.
Self awareness
You might be right, you might be wrong... but if we were engineered by someone else, then your theory that Consciousness is the same as God, The Creator/ The Maker, would be wrong. But... until we find out more, we can say things like these.
I believe our character is a representation of our heart ( you know, that thing that makes you the person that you are ) not our brain.
Exploring consciousness is the only endeavour where the more you know, the less you know you know.
I believe this of any and all knowledge not just about consciousness... i e an answer leads to more questions so assuming an answers "truth" shows more forks in your path than you knew of before accepting that answer ...more simply put ... the "smarter" a person becomes just reveals how much more he/she doesnt know ...in my opinion
I love it when the experts say Conchiness, the tongue gets tired of saying consciousness 30 times per hour
Best show I've ever seen
The mind is not consciousness itself, it’s a projector of consciousness
Do you mean we are part of a meta-consciousness, like terminals connected to a mainframe?
I love that I can rewatch these programs and glean greater depth each time.
In this case the role of short term memory took me to our interaction with both short and long term memory, and the use of language to deal not only with memory but hypothetical abstractions of the future (necessarily) but also of a hypothetical present and past and the interplay of those abstractions concurrent with our concrete interactions on the present.
Is it possible that our species-unique brand of consciousness is a result of our equally uniques capacity to communicate these theoretical abstractions?
If so, might there also be (as raised in a later discussion in this episode) a greater consciousness, and what abstraction or form of communication might that be based on?
yes indeed. Everyone must confront consciousness once in their lifetime.
Don't be shy. You have to face God now, or face Him later - but not before your death.
What we call consciousness is not more than the interface code between the brain and body. Is the code of experiencing. Has different layers of subconsciousness , the one we experience is the last layer, and is functional. We are much more that this last layer but we build ourselves on that last layer which supposed to be only for functionalities... all life who interact between body and outside though senses has consciousness. We should take it seriously when killing other conscious life forms
What is it about being asleep that renders us unconscious while not dreaming? Or are we proto-conscious during this time? I've noticed that waking up after sleeping doesn't feel like it happened after the amount of time it takes to have the dreams I remember.
Brain can take it, but nervous cells can't, must regulate intensive electrical discharges, repair and adjust from time to time. We don't need to sleep actually, can only doze for few minutes every few hours and rest more often. Best is to stick with sun cycles, but body can adjust to artificial cycles also, it's just sometimes dreams and reality blend together, like when we dream we already woke up, but we are still asleep.
Outstanding quality.
The Universe seems to be so interactively engaged as to be alive to its surroundings, which we call life and evolving consciousness. It shows great evidence of what the Universe is capable of creating within itself. And if the original source of the Universe (space-time singularity where this Big Bang came from) is infinite, maybe the potential for consciousness is infinite too.
The less the need for energy to be complexly interactive the less this expressiveness of the Universe is conscious.
@Stefano Portoghesi "But "Consciousness" as far as we know , it's only a biological brain phenomenon which requires a physical , living and working structure to provide a medium , a vessel where "Consciousness" could emerge from..."
I'm not convinced of this. Do you have an argument for this? Or could you otherwise explain how you are coming to this conclusion?
perceiver and perceived exists together in a loop, try to imagine existence without consciousness/observer and you will be left with nothing that exists.
Exactly. Existence is consciousness. Without consciuosness nothing exists. And only exist that which is perceived by a consciousness. That shoyld be the basis of everything.
@@nim314159 100% agreed, I came to this realization just an year ago and I am still astonished how mainstream science don't even talk about consciousness.
Seems like a huge gap of logic to me
@@imranbug81 Mechanical materialism tends to avoid anything that points to the metaphysical.
The universe exists independent of consciousness. The MEANING that we insist projecting on the universe thought language doesn't exist without our subjective experience
You are getting more and more spiritual I see :) . Great
@Stefano Portoghesi How lifeless atoms exchanging electrons, smell and taste things?
Why are some dreams vividly remembered while others are swept away a second or two after our eyes open ?
Consciosness is from the ether.the force that is the foundation of all things.formed forth from the primal element, base of all matter, the ether far flung.
Is consciousness something like what a subject focuses on, and how a subject feels about focusing on what it focuses on?
Is time physical, or both physical and non-physical? Maybe better understanding of time lead to better understanding of consciousness?
We can't even define terms like "consciousness" or "awareness". They are illusory. That may be why we fail to bridge the gap between the physical brain and the idea of consiousness.. simply because we are working from an illusory defintion of consciousness. If we could actually nail down what consiousness is, then we could be begin to explain how it can be created. The very idea of consiousness is highly subjective.
The paradigm shift is happening right now!
Or at least we'd like to think !
There are, it seems, two possibilities. Either the brain is a completely self-contained "wetware" computer, or it is an interface device, much like the "computer" in your car. The latter seems much more likely to me.
Paul Weston. Your close. It is a like a graphic interface. But the brain is part of it. Not the generator of it. Check out Kuhn’s interview with Donald Hoffman.
Check out Kuhns interview with Donald Hoffman.
Paul, I don't feel that your choices are quite correct, but not wrong either. The brain is not a computer, wet or dry. A human is an evolved being that consists of a body and brain in an environment of other beings. We can't be reduced any more than that (no brains in a jar yet). The analogy with computers makes sense since humans made computers to do things that humans do, just better, and while a brain does many things that seem similar to computers, there is no hardware, software or programmer, so the analogy doesn't go too far for me. It also seems kind of obvious that humans are "self-contained" barring ESP or magical souls, but we do interface with others in many other very important ways that make us something less than self-contained in practice. I understand why you would like the idea of a cosmic consciousness that we tap into, but so far, no antennas or modems have been discovered in our heads, so I'm not jumping on that horse for now.
The sense organs detect impinging environmental energies. The sense organs encode the particulars of these energies by adjusting the neural discharge frequency of their output neurons. The other end of these neurons terminate in the brain. That is how information about the outside gets inside.
As a thought experiment imagine all the sense organ nerves of a baby were severed at birth.
Try to imagine what it would be like to be that baby without sight or sound or taste or touch or pressure or temperature or up or down or pain or pleasure.
Do you imagine that baby could ever become conscious?
Your vacillations..? That is a beautiful word. “Inability to decide” - was that the case 5 years ago? Were you any ‘closer to truth’ back then? What do you want? When will you stop vacillating? Are you sure you have asked the right question?
Thank you
I would love to see you interview Donald Hoffman.
Consciousness is the watcher.
I really like that notion.... the 'wise' inform us it (this watcher) experiences the experiencer. It ( the watcher) is the final subject ; there is nothing more subtiler, more refined that can experience It, that is 'see' IT as an object of experience.
The Upanishads say ' it is the Ear of the ear, the Eye of the eye, etc. hence IT experiences the experiencer.
@@frank1803 Exactly, well-said!
I thought of another good question, why consciousness is not the only thing we can experience and sense? Would seems logical to me, we are a material object, so we should feel everything material reality is exposed to. But we can't, our perception of external reality is limited to only 5 biological senses and even those are only partially efficient, can't detect entire spectrum of external radiations. Situation is much like asking if a rock is aware of it's dimensional somehow, perhaps stone can sense only gravity and simply feel stoned all the time.
Same analogy extend over all phases of body growth, molecules bond, discharge chemical energy and assemble functional parts, capable to modulate external influences. Flow of signals from many cells merge into nervous system river, pulsating charges over entire organism. Those tinny atomic flashed somehow converge in various sensations, culminating in self awareness, framed by past experiences and morals. It's all a mechanical construct, play of natural ratios, Fibonacci numbers, pi and other arcane stuff. Rules emerging from alchemy and symbols, rest of it are balance of energy potentials, infinities inside infinite, holograms reflecting many other holograms, like there's something organic in the way our thoughts and emotions are formed. Because it is organic process, a lump of anomalies entangled in space time, shaping energy potentials radiating from molecular structures. How else could we sense true nature of reality if not being a part of it, but it's not what our body is telling us, it's what we hallucinate reality should be and can be, because everything are just disturbances in quantum fields and that's precisely what consciousness is all about. We are aware of entire reality, our minds are same stuff entire universe is made of, atoms decay, light is eternal.
is consciousness one's self-realisation
Animals are conscious yet are not self aware
There is a slim line between all of reality and consciousness and death. We only have to fall asleep..when we wake up we realize we had no idea we lost consciousness. The difference between that and eternal death is..reality comes flooding back when we wake up,minus the dreams of REM. Its like a slender wall of energy that divided living with unliving.
How about this. If some one tells a thought to you through your mind and through any other means, does it mean that this some one has merged consciousness with you? I bring this up because time and again, i have caught myself thinking about thoughts that I normally would not think. Violent thoughts for example, are not my thing but when my interests are threatened, this thoughts come up and I catch myself thinking this not so good thoughts. This makes me ask, where did that thought come from? Was that coming from me, or did that impulse come from somewhere else?
Nice one.👍
He should talk to Donald Hoffman.
Thankyou!! I’m so glad somebody else is mentioning Hoffman!
ua-cam.com/video/Jv25EcaUQBo/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/m_zaMO3vdDA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/KIGcRLAYSoM/v-deo.html
and so on.
Not bad, Robert, but that you didn't interview Donald Hoffman (on the science side of the consciousness issue) or Bernardo Kastrup (on the philosophy side) is disappointing.
And rising panpsychist star Philip Goff has got to be on the show. His speaking style is almost as pleasant to listen to as Sean Carroll’s! And his book, _Galileo’s Error_ is a great read!
Not sure if I can get on board with his panpsychism, but I think it’s great that the “Hard Problem” is starting to be taken seriously by legit, prominent philosophers, as well as scientists, e.g. the current leading theory of consciousness among neuroscientists is Integrated Information Theory-a theory which presupposes panpsychism!)
Personally, I’m a dualist, but also an atheist. I just can’t deny the “supernatural” quality of consciousness...
Right on!!! That was my exact complaint with this video
I like integrated information
Does one's consciousness remain limited in the absence of new experiences
A very good program... should be on the bigger networks.. public BS
I think consciousness is the connected language between feelings and thoughts i think it lets you control of your own movement of time nnd you cannot see that
Perhaps consciousness is the basic emanation of our cosmic God ?
Are neuron signals determined unconscious activity in brain and if so, does consciousness require quantization of the neuron signals into probability waves of information (where integrated / become conscious)?
Could consciousness materialize through time interacting with information in brain?
Maybe consciousness focuses abstractions of the mind on physical information of the brain?
I agree with Christopher
Epic UA-cam channel
A person could focus on a narrow bit or piece of information; and the whole person could focus all of the information on the entire environment
Alternative theories? Based on which observations?
Non-physical? What does it even mean? I stop here
ctt isthe best
Nobody can explain where consciousness goes when under anesthesia. Been under a few times and certainly believe that it is suppressed or suspended while under. This indicates to me that is is definately physiological and brain dependant.
Consciousness doesn't disappear under anaesthesia. Consciousness takes on a different form, as it does in sleep, intoxication, psychotic episodes, etc. The term unconscious is a misnomer.
Those who are certain that consciousness extends beyond death, become very competitive, in concern with whose consciousness will be rewarded with eternal bliss, compared to whose consciousness will suffer for eternity.
Maybe time give subjective feeling / consciousness to information when integrated in probability waves quantized from neuron signals?
Starting 2:36 (time code), Robert Lawrence Khun looks like Albert Einstein
You've probably heard this asked a million times. But have you tried DMT?
Also, there's a ton of super interesting research about what psychedelics mean in this discussion.
Hey speak for youself.. I understand what consciousness is.
Here is my theory of consciousness, which makes as much sense to me as anything said by the eggheads Mr Kuhn engages with in this video. Think of any physical system that processes inputs and responds to them with some kind of output: a single-celled organism, the neural cortex of an insect, a tree, a cow's brain or a human's, the electronics in your phone or your PC, the super-duper hypercomputer Deep Thought from The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy -- it doesn't matter what the physical bit is made of, the essential thing is that it organises inputs into some kind of understanding of its environment and reacts accordingly.
I think that that understanding of the environment is somehow emergent from the functioning of the physical system, rather like how gravity is emergent from the interaction of mass and spacetime, and is what consciousness is. These systems vary enormously in complexity and organisation and purpose, of course, from the most rudimentary all the way up; and the consciousness that each experiences will vary accordingly.
Feel free to reply to this comment if you're from a Nobel Prize committee and you have good news for me.
"it organises inputs into some kind of understanding of its environment and reacts accordingly"
Can an organism be conscious if there is no self concept participating in the input analysis process?
The common misconception of consciousness I think, is feelings. People think that how they feel is consciousness.
Feelings are basically just qualia, or the contents of consciousness.
Consciousness is where these qualia reside. It's the thing that's experiencing the qualia. It's the experiencer. It's the "I".
Ryan Clark I believe that feelings is more than just contents. Feelings is the core structure of life itself and all there really is. That’s all there ever was, still is, and ever will be. Feelings. We can’t exist without feelings, and feelings is the genesis of us that’s subject to development. Undeveloped feelings is what I believe people see as consciousness. And it is, but a lower or shadow consciousness. Not the true consciousness that is meant for us to develop.
Stefano Portoghesi Well, consciousness can’t come first bcuz nature doesn’t work that way. When a child or cub is born it’s feels without consciousness. So feelings always comes first and then consciousness develops afterward.
Unless you are willing to try psychedelics, you aren't really 'confronting consciousness'. Psychedelics perturb consciousness and produce an entirely foreign yet familiar set of experiences. Unfortunately, given the nature of consciousness, you can't test inner subjective experiment with scientific validation. At best you can compile reports from people about their subjective experience, but that is not available to rigorous 3rd person perspective.
The material world that consciousness produces is maya - illusion. Science will always be confined to validating illusion - 'the dream'. That which produces the dream is outside the dream. "Life" is this cosmic consciousness entering into the dream and taking a perspective. It isn't that the 'matter' has consciousness. Consciousness dreams matter. That we are made out of matter is because the perspective uses the 'stuff' of the dream as a representation of its separation from the rest of cosmic consciousness.
It´s imoral to promote psychedelics in the middle of the worst opioid crisis of America, and the history of DUI as a cause of death to millions of innocent people who just happened to be on the way of the driver
@@kaledon6 save it for another forum..
best answer of the day! you should have been on the show. they were clueless. good answer! Cherio!
@@kaledon6 psychedelics aren't opioids, promoting things is not a measure of morality, and some (like iboga) are possibly the solution to the opioid crisis.
There are appropriate and inappropriate situations for everything. If you want lots of energy to power a city, nuclear is a good way to go. Using it in a bomb is a mistake.
Likewise, drugs (like alcohol, tobacco, opioids, and psychedelics) have situations where they are beneficial, and situations where they are harmful. Using a vehicle is (almost always) a situation where you DON'T want to be on a drug. However, if you are in surgery, opioids are a good idea.
Psychedelics are a good idea if you want to become aware of the spiritual side of life, or if you need assistance recovering from PTSD and other forms of trauma. They are excellent at helping with growth and healing in that way.
Good / Bad thinking about the things reality presents to us is simplistic and immature.
@@brentonbrenton9964 And you pretending to have full knowledge and authority to discern the good effects of psychedelics on human consciousness sounds like the typical charlatan guru...I hope you stay away from easily impressed young adults who may be convinced to join your spiritual lessons
So I will reveal my life story ... which I believe is relevant to this episode. I was a young child, age 6 years, and I developed chronic glomerulonephritis which is a nasty kidney disease related to the autoimmune system. This was 1963 before health insurance and I needed months of hospital care. My Father was a big player, owned several businesses, and was a senior sales manager for General Motors. Long story short, my father loses everything he lived for and files for bankruptcy. He receives a 25-year garnishee against any future earnings so refuses to work from that point forward. He, my father, decided to take his life and feels the need to take mine with him. You see I am the cause his life was ruined. I spoke with my mother about this but she told me to stay silent and it would be embarrassing if shared. So, my father wants to kill me and my mother wants me to not tell anyone because it might embarrass her.
looking back at all of this just shocks me ... just how mentally screwed up was my family?
Long story short, my father committed suicide ... my mother died alone at 96 ... and I still struggle with the mental damage at age 63
I think that you must think in singularity movement feeling connection
if identical twins were exposed to identical experiences, would they exhibit the same level/type of consciousness ?
The Eternal Living something (Being) is the most simple analysis in the Eternal Life.
The Eternal something that exists, to add further only gets you away from this eternal fact.
So, the Eternal Living Being, allways had its Eternal Consciousness, the Living Being, ('I') and the consciousness, is the most intime connection in Life.
The analysis of the consciousness, is basicly also very simple, even it is more complex.
If man is making devices as can do mental functions, man must copy the way life does.
So, consciousness consist of Over-consciousness, and Under-consciousness, the Under-consciousness consist of the Day-consciousness and the Night-consciousness.
The Over-consciousness contain six eternal Abilities, the effect of these is part of the Under-consciousness.
These Abilities is; Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition and Memory.
So, we recognize some of these eternal abilities in the technical devices, as Automatic, Gravity, Intelligence and Memory - sensors can be added, (Feeling) but Intuition, need a deeper analysis
to really understand, but even without this, it might give an idea on how the consciouness 'looks' and work as a whole structure.
So, if we take just one of the Eternal special Abilities away, then the consciousness would Not work. (just to keep it short)
i think the property where we "feel" there is a totality of consciousness is just emergent out of the fact we products of and evolved into this universe.
and the fact that cycles of life and behavior repeat add to the perceptions of collective unconsciousness, the oneness of being and so on other philosophical and religious ways to look at it.
Some people just don't seem to notice the "Explanatory Gap". They talk about consciousness (i.e. subjective, first person experience) like it's no different in the relevant sense than any other information processing system, or they confuse it with cognition.
They don't seem to notice that it's "like something" to be them in a way that it's (presumably) not "like something" to be a computer. How do we get "like something"-ness form any conceivable arrangement of matter? And how do we directly perceive purely qualitative phenomenon like the redness of red in a purely quantitative universe?
What is the mathematical description of the redness of red? Seems to be a category error to try to extract the purely qualitative from the purely quantitative.
Perhaps the "qualitative" aspect as you understand it is purely illusory. In other words, not quite as special as you imagine it to be. There is no "redness" or "blueness" perse, but only quantitative differences among certain colors. It is the quantitative differences that gives emergence to our illusory sense of qualitative awareness.
Image you have eyeballs that only experience a single color - red. In this case, the qualitative aspect - "redness" - would not exist. Therefore, as I say, the qualitivate aspects you speak of is only an emergent property of quantitative differences.
Jack - Of course it’s illusory in the sense that it’s (at least partially) generated by the brain, but the _direct experience_ of it _can’t_ be an illusion. There’s no conceivable way that I’m just experiencing quantitative differences when I see different colors. It’s a category error to try get the purely qualitative from the purely quantitative.
But the bigger mystery than qualia is that I have any kind of subjective, first-person experience at all. What is experience and how does it fit into a universe made of entirely non-experiential parts? Why is it “like something” to be any physical system? Scientists and don’t have the slightest inkling. There is no science of consciousness.
As in most of this channel's videos, the audio level of the voiceover narration is way too low. I wonder why an otherwise highly professional production can't get the audio right.
agree his voice audio vs the music and etc was muddled and low.
How do the theta waves of people under 7 play into the development of consciousness?
So, has he found any answers yet? Is there a deeper meaning to existence? Or do we live in nothing but a materialistic universe?
@Stefano Portoghesi ”The materialistic universe is everything ! Look around yourself : is there anything that is proven to actually exist besides the material and physical world of nature ? The answer is a resounding : NO ! Look around yourself : microbial cells , chemicals and free energy in the form of sunlight it's all it took to get biological , carbon based intelligent life in the past 4 billions of years of evolutionary processes , here on planet Earth without nobody being in charge of anything at all !”
You got that backwards. Look around yourself is there anything that is proven to actually exist besides conscious subjective states? The answer is a resounding : NO!
Anything else is a theory. A material Universe outside consciousness is a theory. Consciousness is not. It is epistemically primary, meaning it is that which is known first. This is basically Descartes famous ’Cogito ergo Sum’ or ’I think therefore I am’.
As such, we do not know matter exists (as something outside consciousness) as confidently as we know that consciousness exists. Therefore, in virtue of a consciosuness-only Idealist view being favored by epistemic reliability and addtionally by parsimony in that it doesn’t postulate anything in addition to phenomenal consciousness it renders other views such as Physicalism/Materialism and Property Dualism Inflationary and unessecary all else held constant and thus untenable or indefensible.
At 10:16 'Godel, Escher, Bach' disputes the absence of a theory.
If the question, 'What is consciousness?', assumes it is a something, then it will seem reasonable to use the tools of science to discover its true nature. But if the word conscious is in actual reality referring to an abstract entity then trying to measure it with such tools is necessarily doomed to failure. Even a scale so sensitive it can weigh a single atom will be completely useless if one tries to weigh a metaphor upon it.
Keith, most people see an object falls in gravity, does not mean that there can not be a physical theory that explains it. We have Einsteins general theory of relativity for that. Same is for physical theory of consciousness.
Collations of dead material substance (by nature, totally unconscious)
*somehow* give rise to a conscious personality that talks Shakespeare! The materialist philosophy in a nutshell!
(PS: Crash course in ontology anyone?)
they never mention the fact, that feeling and consciounes are two different things!
Like all aspects ov life there is
Hierarchical order to consciousness
Divinity is the apex!
All ov conscience life is the pool ov
All that wich divinity will be drawn.
If all ov man thought well,
Consciousness as a whole can and will like it is at presant, grow!
We have a fair handle on what perception is and what it means to perceive. Consciousness is best understood as our perception of our own perceptions, higher consciousneness being the 2nd-order perception of the perception of our perceptions and so on. Simple really. Problem is that it won't fetch researchers in search of theory much funding. By the way, a couple of those academics need to learn that 'phenomena' is the plural of 'phenomenon'. Higher education ain't what it used to be.
i am aware, but is consciousness personal at all? :)example bird strange behaviour in winter time. i give them a lot of food regularly. in the mornings they wate for food around my house. i sleep. i wake up andi open my eyes birds start singing. they don't see me. birds don't sing in winter. it is not their sensory resposes, isn't it? what is it? :)
Here's a question: when does attention become intention? In babies, in animals? Is instinct all most animals know of intention? What is the difference between attention and intention? The sense of self? Which animals develop a sense of self? Are there humans without a sense of self? Are they without intention?
Is eating the greatest contributor to a sense of self?
Do amoeba go through puberty, viruses? Is sex an instinct of all living things, or an intention of eating of microorganisms?
Is enjoyment, a corrolary of eating, important to a sense of self?
energy acquisition aka feeding does not, no. your cells feed to work and they just machines.
the rest though i think you are in the ballpark for eating and feeding is not key imo.
@@scottmiller4295 Eating and feeding is not key? Howso? Without eating and feeding you die. Energy acquisition? Eating is not automatic, otherwise there would be no such thing as starving or famine. I think you need to reassess your assumptions on the importance of eating.
Actually you had 11 questions there .
@@clearly-not-as-we-drew-this-up I counted 12 questions.
Could it be that people who ask many questions that are unclear, unanswerable, and contribute nothing to discussion really would prefer continued confusion as opposed to contributing new information?
does consciousness get stored in memory - so if an adult's brain were irreparably damaged, would they lose their consciousness that had been 'accumulated' ?
look into severe brain trauma cases, like ones where part of a persons brain was destroyed, there some famous ones.
This poor tormented guy has now taken me down his rabbit hole
Welcome to the club mate, all drinks are on the house 😂