His "explanation flow" is on 🔥. Feynman like in delivery.

This is the best talk about consciousness I heard from neuro-scientists/philosophers. Like emotions, consciousness is a suitcase word, from ancient world, before the neuro-revolution. He's clear, pointing our the flaws of most consciousness talk, and he doesn't need hours to explain his pov. And about emotions, when will you invite Jaak Pankseep to talk about animal ones?

@maltejohnsson8578

Ай бұрын

Jaak Panksepp is unfortunately dead.

Which came first ? The conscious reaction to a situation or the chemicals released as a consequence.

@synystera

2 ай бұрын

consciousness IS a product of chemical reactions inside the body.

"I no more wrote than read that book which is the self I am" Very confirming discussion. Confirmation bias or intelligence?

Superb analogy the need of belonging.

This is a great question ! Meaning comes only through being conscious of something. So if meaning is given by an entity having conscious awareness, does that imply that consciousness itself had meaning, or does it imply that somehow the conscious awareness is shared? If not shared, then why does it have meaning. If shared, wat entity is it shared with? The answer is one of religious/spiritual significance and can only be answered by each individual's spiritual journey.

The logical conclusion that consciousness has the highest degree of reality from the point of view of humans makes consciousness one of the most important entities to be studied or created in a human and in or not in a robot. Degree of reality is studied in fuzzy logic.

is there a way to do an experiment if conscious experience / subjectivity develops from physical matter in brain, and if not that conscious experience / subjectivity is not physical?

It was 2007 and Robert wanted to know how neuroscience would progress. Start with idealism and not dispel it but ask how the nervous system spits out physicalism? Or will they solve the deeper mystery of neurons?

@simonhibbs887

2 ай бұрын

So, what results have idealists come up with by starting that way since 2007?

@nyworker

2 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Real question was what have scientists come up with to bridge the gap? Of course, if you dispel the gap or dispel Idealism etc. we stay stuck in physicalism.

@simonhibbs887

2 ай бұрын

@@nyworker There's been a lot of work on global workspace theory, IIT, and a bunch of others. To be honest I'm not sure this question is actually answerable definitively. We may never know. That's fine unless we ever create artificial beings that we think might be conscious, or if we come across some alien species that seems to be conscious. Then we have the problem of how do we know if they are or not. Meanwhile neuroscience seems to be progressing just fine. Lots of useful and medically actionable progress in the last 16 years.

@nyworker

2 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 There is always the case of building things that BEHAVE consciously which includes AI that creates thought which is a form of behavior. Not to invoke "woo woo" but neurons are understood computationally which is why AI can mimic behavior and thought but sentience still entails something happening in neurons which science has not pinned down. An AI can use a simple temperature sensor to say "I'm warm, please lower the thermostat" which mimics sentience...

@simonhibbs887

2 ай бұрын

@@nyworkerOh sure, I don't for one moment think current AIs are sentient or conscious or any such thing. I do think consciousness is most likely some sort of information processing activity, but given privileged access issue with the nature of personal experience that may never be provable. There is one thought experiment I've come up with that might work in theory but it's probably not practicable. You have a sensory experience and I write down what it felt like to you. At the same time every physical process in your brain is recorded, and you analyse the complete precise causal physical chain of events, from the sensory signal, to the the neurological processes, to the decision to write about it, to the motor neuron activity of you writing about the experience. If we can show that every aspect of that activity was entirely physical, then we have established an identity between that physical activity and your mental activity. Your conscious experience caused you to write the note, and the physical activity caused the writing of the note. Therefore they are the same thing.

There does not have to be connections for consciousness. A single person is aware and has concepts. Connections are communications with the use of consciousness.

Explain this, a Jewish man from U.S asked God to guide him to correct religion (the man made a supplication to God only from his heart), a week later this American started to hear call-to-prayer Azan in remote part of European country, while he found a copy of the Quran and reading it. Same event reported by another U.S.A marine.

could it mean something just to ask the question about conscious experience / subjectivity?

There must be a boundary to what can be known, about "knowing".

That is nice and acceptable.

This was recorded in 2007?

Critics of consciousness. I don't think our conscious depends on there being a Culture to exist in. We are conscious, we adapt and learn customs and the language of the Culture we live in, but the "I" moves in a independant direction. If that were so, that we only act because of the input from the Culture there would never have been a Martin Luther or a Wright Brothers. Consciousness is separate from the Body, whether it carries on after the body has passed is the real question.

I was looking at my cat, wondering about it's consciousness level. It's alive and conscious, but so much that I see, it doesn't see. I wonder if there are limits to our perception. Just like a cat. 🐈

@simonhibbs887

2 ай бұрын

Cats also probably see and sense an awful lot we are completely oblivious to. Our perception is actually very limited. We only see a fairly narrow electromagnetic spectrum, there are also huge high and low ranges of the sound spectrum we can't sense, anything below about 0.05mm is too small for us to see, we can't sense magnetic fields at all but some animals can.

Some would contend that conscious does not exist "sui generis", that is, it does not exist as a "something" separate and apart and unique unto itself. Put differently, some would contend that there is no such thing as consciousness per se, there is only "consciousness of"; meaning that conscious exists as but a part of the perceptual process and is not "stand alone" anymore than, say, the sky can be considered to be a "something" separate and apart from the natural processes that sustain its gaseous composition and the gravity that prevents it from drifting off into outer space. If we agree with this contention, the "hard problem" is not to explain consciousness, but rather to explain how the primal process of perception evolved self-awareness.

Is consciousness just a 'cruel and tortuous' evolutionary tool, to inform our genetics of the next step in human progress, given Nature seems not to care about the happiness/sadness of the individual?

without it no one can plan or learn?

Consciousness does not have meaning. It is an experience. We can derive meaning from things of which we are conscious. Consciousness does not derive meaning but it can experience the derivation. How consciousness emanates and from what it emanates is another question. My guess is that it is not a thing but a physical property of a physical thing that is part of the brain, like mass is a property of an object or frequency is a property of light, albeit the thing is probably a complex physical structure. We do breast feed for milk. Touch is an accompanying requirement.

I don't know, but it is obviously beneficial for animals. I don't think my dog could walk if he was unconscious

🤔🤔🤔🤔

I'm reminded of Mickey Dora when asked; "who were the greatest surfers you've ever seen"? He replied, "I'd much rather talk about the worst ones I've ever seen".

To not be moved upon rejecting love.. The unmoved mover gives with out receiving

A person can express his consciousness but can never express anybody else’s consciousness. When I say that an object is red I’m the only one certain about how I see it red, but totally ignorant about how anyone else sees it red. That means that consciousness is something Unmeasurable and Unreferenced. Or in other words beyond physics.

@Thirdleg4sale

2 ай бұрын

I really believe this is just a limit of our language. We do not have proper terminology to describe consciousness. I believe physics will be able to describe consciousness eventually.

@iain9821

2 ай бұрын

At the same time, there is a logic that underlies sight. In other words, the color of a red rose equals the color of a red stoplight. The color of a red rose is not equal to the color of the blue sky or the green grass. This is what gives meaning to verbal expression of color. This underlying logic enables us to describe and transfer our visual experiences between ourselves, even though we cannot prove that our perceptions of color are identical. The fact that this logic exists makes it likely that there is color equivalency in visual perception between most people who are not color blind.

@ismailsteitiya8785

2 ай бұрын

@@Thirdleg4sale I think we can put as simple as this statement: “Consciousness is the ability to know that we are existing”.

@ismailsteitiya8785

2 ай бұрын

@@iain9821 I agree with you. Assume that 1 million people agree on the difference between 1 million color shades, then we have 1 trillion independent facts about human perception making the possibility of different perceptions from human to human narrower and narrower the more you increase the sight tests. But the question is: “Is the physical composition of our bodies with all its chemical and electrical reactions the cause of making us feel? Or we can say: “Is feeling internal from the physical world or external from the beyond?”

@iain9821

2 ай бұрын

@ismailsteitiya8785 It seems to me that our human consciousness has at least two basic layers. There is sensory consciousness, and there is mental consciousness. On a sensory level, we are conscious of the physical world. On a mental level, we are conscious of our physical consciousness, and we feel a drive to make sense of the content of our physical consciousness. This mental consciousness is what enables us to see a logic to our physical perceptions. I believe that our sensory consciousness arises from our physical organism, while our mental consciousness is "from the beyond."

"I" doesn't exist, just a concept in the mind.

"What's the Meaning of Consciousness?" This question has been asked for thousands of years now but never gets a truthful answer because of the following reasons : The SOURCE of our supernatural awareness is the Almighty Holy Spirit who has no beginning and no end. Knowing the essence of awareness is actually knowing the essence of God which is a forbidden knowledge or forbidden fruit... this is why it is still the biggest mystery not only to science but to all sentient worlds... ...we left our Original Home (Heaven) and ended in a cold dark emptiness (hell) because we want to be as powerful as God by finding this forbidden fruit, despite God's warning that there is only emptiness and suffering beyond Heaven... We did not heed God's warning... we lost faith in God's love... we created our hell by choice, only our free souls to blame.. ..we were sent to earth for a chance to return Home through regaining this faith.. if we fail, we will return to where we ended when we left Heaven and this is a cold dark emptiness (hell)... .. Now, the ball is in your court, and shooting to the ring is just a matter of choice...

Away from Truth.

vision is not a nde IS A LIGHT science well never know how the system no matter what your profession 🟡