When I first looked at the thumbnail, I saw Han Solo with a bowl cut.

@pauldugdale7106

3 ай бұрын

Lol, same here!

Came for Christoph Koch, got Rick Deckard from Blade Runner.

@sharif1306

8 ай бұрын

He uses his understanding of consciousness to hunt for Replicants. 😅

Consciousness itself is not contained within the brain, but rather operates through it.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

8 ай бұрын

Prove it.

@bharathkumar1794

8 ай бұрын

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y lets talk about matter first -what's the basic building block of matter ? lets find the very basics then we can talk abt Consciousness !

@user-mindreality

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKZ33LuuY8vZZps.html

@jstray7582

8 ай бұрын

I'm curious genuinely to know where you think it resides? (no judgement or tone with that I really do want to know what you think)

@johnswoodgadgets9819

8 ай бұрын

Yes! That is what objective observation and logic indicates.

It might be helpful to define 'consciousness' first before we ask how the brain gives rise to it.

@davidmickles5012

8 ай бұрын

@@11235but Are you sure that you are "experiencing?"

@davidmickles5012

8 ай бұрын

@@11235but 🤣 Or perhaps there is simply "annoyance" resulting from attachment. And "attachment" resulting from its causes.. ad infinitum

@davidmickles5012

7 ай бұрын

@@naomidoner9803 , I agree to a point, but Tegmark begins his view already with an "assumption" (which he himself admits). Instead of asking the primary question, he (and the vast vast majority of scientists, philosophers, mathematicians etc) begin late, with the secondary question. There are two questions to ask.. • What is THIS? and • What is THAT? The first question is primary and pertains to the non conceptual "subjective" experience. The secondary question begins after perception has already occurred and the makes the assumption that the perception was referentially correct. If you ASSUME that the content of your experience (what consciousness is conscious of) is "real" as its appearance then you will ask "What is THAT? and so you'll miss the primary question which is "What is THIS?" "What is THIS?" Is the more honest, direct and deeper question because it makes no assumption. Consciousness is mathematical ONLY if you try to resolve its mysteries **objectively** But by doing so you miss its absolute subjective nature. There is no resolution of consciousness as it *actually is* by resorting to objective measurement. Math will not give the "experience of *being*" just as a computer - no matter how advanced they become - can never "experience" its own being.

@seangilmore6695

7 ай бұрын

Consciousness is the single moment of being now.

There's always a bait and switch at the very start: the claim is *not* that science has *nothing* to say about consciousness. It can say a lot, based on the prior assumption that consciousness exists in the first place. The claim is that a scientific account cannot possibly explain how consciousness can come into existence in the first place.

@Apebek

8 ай бұрын

It's like two opposite worlds. Consciousness itself is an immaterial experience and science relies on material evidence. Science cannot prove that consciousness exists, but everybody knows 100% sure that they are conscious. At the same time nobody can know for sure that objective reality exists apart from themselves.

@user-mindreality

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKZ33LuuY8vZZps.html

@jstray7582

8 ай бұрын

​@@ApebekI agree with this. I also believe that higher levels of consciousness are achievable. I think this becomes apparent (no way to necessarily prove this but evidence suggests at least) when we look at other animals and their levels of consciousness. Do we believe that other animals in the animal Kingdom have or even can achieve the level of consciousness a human possess? I think our minds and awereness levels are still evolving!

@johnswoodgadgets9819

8 ай бұрын

That is what drives me nuts. They do not even try to look for it anywhere else. They are stuck on this preconception that it is a function of the brain, when there is no real evidence of that, and indications are it is independent of the brain.

@scienceexplains302

8 ай бұрын

Consciousness is a gradient. It starts with one chemical reacting to another. That is the start of a possible scientific explanation. I don’t know how you’d explain consciousness without using the scientific process. You’d have to guess and make assertions about things… as you did in the OP.

He’s a mixture of Harrison Ford and Jurgen Klinsmann

@user-mindreality

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKZ33LuuY8vZZps.html

Nice interview. Professor Koch approaches the correlation problem with impressive care.

@mikel5582

8 ай бұрын

Does mass cause gravity or is it only correlated? Does a baseball pitcher's arm make the ball fly or is the arm movement only correlated to the ball trajectory? While I agree that one needs to be careful to not confuse correlation with causality, at some point it seems prudent to draw a conclusion on the matter. Of course, that conclusion is not uncontestable and should be open to honest and rational scrutiny.

@jamenta2

8 ай бұрын

@@mikel5582 Yes it is prudent to draw some conclusions when there is plenty of indications to a given effect. But we know there are many transmissive phenomena in nature that we can point to - electricity is conducted through a wire, but it does not mean the wire itself is electricity - a television set displays a show - but it does not mean the television set is producing the show. A candle is displayed in a mirror - but it does not mean the mirror is the candle. Nature itself possesses numerous examples of transmissive reality. We see an automobile move across a highway - but it does not mean the automobile itself is driving. But there is also something extremely peculiar about consciousness, because you see, one can examine the properties of electrons - the plus and minus spins. One can examine the composition of chemicals - the molecular bindings and structures. One can examine energy - the magnetic flow of electromagnetic forces. These have all been scientifically studied in great detail over the last century. And no scientist yet - has been able to derive consciousness from any of the known properties of fundamental matter. One cannot derive emotions from the movement of electrons, or the flow of electricity. No scientist has succeeded in deriving conscious qualia as a computation from a computer - because the two are pretty obviously categorically different. An emotion is not quantitative. Self-awareness cannot be calculated. Consciousness is not a quantitative entity. Therefore - it is prudent in the case of consciousness to maintain that correlation indeed does not prove causation, especially given the overwhelming amount of science indicating one cannot derive any of the fundamental elements of consciousness from known physical laws or elements. It may be likely consciousness itself is something fundamental that cannot be reducible to anything else.

@5piles

8 ай бұрын

erm well yes he and crick were the ones in charge of locating the ncc. no such luck search 'the bet on consciousness' here on youtube. for those keeping score: 0 nccs located, 0 emergent properties of experience located.

As a German, i find his accent hillarious.

@sonyavincent7450

7 ай бұрын

What exactly is his accent???

@mack8488

7 ай бұрын

@@sonyavincent7450 chinese

@mack8488

7 ай бұрын

I hef hearrrdt wursse

Nice interview.

Still making the fundamental blunder of confusing mind with consciousness. He’s describing mental functioning and calling it consciousness and thus avoids the hard problem altogether.

@gavinlangley8411

8 ай бұрын

It seems likely that we're discussing evolutionary tools that help us in the world? Observation, memory, prediction and communication. We extrapolate them to be something special. The definition of the "hard problem" is very weak. We don't need the concept at all I suspect.

@dazraf

8 ай бұрын

Not really. It's perfectly possible to have an information system that has a narrative of itself. To me that's consciousness. Anything else seems like wishful thinking (another narrative) that expresses desire for a ghost in the machine.

@theceilidhboy

8 ай бұрын

@@gavinlangley8411 No that's not the point. We have a conscious first person experience. Yet our brains are only chemistry. Where is that first person experience of self-aware sentience? Which neuron or chemical reaction is self-aware?

@theceilidhboy

8 ай бұрын

@@dazrafYes but we have more than a narrative, we have a self-aware sentient experience. How can inert matter be sentient? No-one is saying it can't create a narrative of itself. But that narrative isn't aware. It can be reduced to logic and expressed mathematically. So how can a mathematical expression be aware? Which entity in the expression is self-conscious?

@gavinlangley8411

8 ай бұрын

@@theceilidhboy in the same way a heart pump blood to the body, it's a collaboration if simple structures to form complex behaviour driven by evolution.

That’s very nice, and this is why we need to be very careful about what information we consume! Information basically forms our life and some of us are not aware of it.😊🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

@S3RAVA3LM

8 ай бұрын

Yup. Science is a great tool and mode for empirical data and objective contradistiction; not a guide or way of life, certainly not like Philosophy is. Imagine living your entire life trying to objectify everything and looking through your own eyes as a microscope hoping to 'see' or Know. Just thinking this makes me realize the importance of discipline. Ya, people are very easily conditioned - in fact it's compartimentalization. You're a very blessed person to have realized this early on in life. " everything is quantum, we are quantum" "Science doesn't prove there's a God" "Them mideval philosophers like Eriugena(Periphyseon) were silly" "We come from the great ape; there is no mystery, no Soul, no Self, no Spirit". This is the stuff I have suffered from these pseudo intellectuals. There is something wrong.

@charlessoukup1111

8 ай бұрын

Jenny (my first daughter's name) I agree! But I worry about my decision to perceive that "some people" are not aware of this. What causes me to evaluate their speech or actions to conclude they are not aware of these faux-informations? And then, how do I feel about these unaware ones? Do you ever think about that?

@charlessoukup1111

8 ай бұрын

And, sometimes we don't Choose to consume an information...we can be accosted with it, deny it, but can't unthink it!

In my opinion, the question does not address what is going on.

They keep trying to figure it out how consciousness happens but the question that matters is WHY...

@tyroneallen7857

8 ай бұрын

Consciousness is an aspect of time. Time is the fabric of the universe. For example, time equals energy and energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. For example, we are our star. No Star no atmosphere. No atmosphere no oxygen. The brain needs oxygen for consciousness. Time is the fabric of the universe. No time no existence. No existence no consciousness.

@johnswoodgadgets9819

8 ай бұрын

So that after your brain dies and you find yourself still conscious and riding with thirty people on a butterfly, and having a conversation with a daughter you never knew you had, but died before you did, a little pre-knowledge of the possibility might prevent you from losing your eternal mind: Which by then you will realize was isolated by your brain for your entire life. That did happen, by the way, according to the description of a NDE of a very reputable doctor. Why is consciousness the way it is? I believe based on indications that the portion of universal consciousness we call self is deliberately isolated during life to provide the universal consciousness with multiple individual perspectives. That is the only perspective a universal consciousness would not be capable of, if it did not isolate portions of itself.

@renesoucy3444

8 ай бұрын

Asking why implies that what you think is paramount and what you sense is wrong? I do not make sense seems to be too harsh on our ego to admit…

@user-mindreality

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKZ33LuuY8vZZps.html

@jstray7582

8 ай бұрын

​@@johnswoodgadgets9819I both respect this insight and also want it made it a trippy Sci fi movie somehow lol 😂 although even a movie wouldn't do it justice.

How many times are you gonna rerelease this?

@ylvisfan390

7 ай бұрын

It is a long interview broken into parts released separately without overlaps. The content is not the same even though title is same

@Telonious_Terp

7 ай бұрын

@@ylvisfan390 ah, so an effective strategy for the uploader to work the analytics in his favor to make the channel more monetizable, to accumulate more thumbs, likes, subs, accumulate, accumulate, accumulate. This embedded growth obligation is no different than jews denying christ (not Christian, just using an analogy), in that they'll never accept a messiah because they're addicted to always waiting, always pursuing. Same with these YT channels. Why can't it be when its over it's over, close the channel, start a new, or just get off YT for something else? You can release these hour long interviews for people to see it whole, otherwise therr is yet more context being left out. Everyone with their tricks to get ahead on the internet these days. LAWRENCE, stop with the same old questions, stop working the analytics, and do EVERY thing from a place of humility and neutrality. Don't do endoresments or sell products if you're channel is successful enough that the sub base keeps it going regardless. By the time it's released for its entirety, whole schools of thought will have moved past both of these gentlemen and it will be tragic ONLY to them.

He looks like he could be Arsen Wenger's brother. Uncanny. Great conversation

@silentjellybean

8 ай бұрын

that's the tooth.

This Han Solo character makes total sense

Somehow the time length of this post of 11:11 seems appropriate...

there is individual consciousness that becomes powerful when combined with the organized and collective efforts of all humanity. while it is elusive, the real question should be what do we do with the combined efforts and direction of humanities consciousness. some combined efforts are concerned with the outcome of seasonal sports, some care about political power, and some care about the cosmos, etc, etc.. who's to say what's more important?

@user-mindreality

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKZ33LuuY8vZZps.html

@jstray7582

8 ай бұрын

This is an intriguing idea. I feel like more of us should combining our efforts to think about consciousness itself and elevating the whole of humanity to better ourselves. But...that pursuit seems far down the list for most of humanity.

@johnswoodgadgets9819

8 ай бұрын

The only way consciousness exhibits any increase at all is either through drugs that break down inhibitions to its isolation within the individual (LSD etc.), or as an aggregate of small communicable portions with other conscious beings through interaction. (such as this discussion). The question then becomes, is consciousness under those connections and circumstances expanding, combining, or re-combining?

I think that somehow we can fall on a trap of believing that there is only one kind of Consciousness, and there's no reason to think there could be a lot. Can, for example, the Cerebellum be conscious in a way that doesn't pop up in the same way that out day to day Consciousness pops up? It is a very real possibility. And so on. So we should be very careful. The fact that we don't realize something doesn't mean we're not conscious of it, it could very well be that a part of the CNS is, it just so happens that it doesn't pop up in that part that we narrowly call Consciousness. This part of the problem is neves discussed, and I think it's something to, at the very least, keep in mind.

Very interesting talk. Here are some of my debative thoughts on about it. Thought 1: He is talking about self-aware consciousness not consciousness in general. In general all intelligent systems which are actively aware of something are by definition conscious of what they are actively intelligently aware of. Thought 2: The self-aware conscious intelligence of the human brain is not just neurological swarm intelligence, but it is also using at least RNA & DNA & protein based swarm intelligence. Thought 3: The heart is in fact conscious, it is just not conscious to our human self-aware conscious mind. Thought 4: I have come to believe that intelligence/consciousness is variable in complexity ranging from just above zero to virus like swarm intelligence to microbial like swarm intelligence to to plant like swarm intelligence to animals like swarm intelligence to human like swarm intelligence to swarm intelligence vastly beyond human level. At the lowest end of this spectrum, but still above zero, I believe elementary particles which have not yet formed matter/energy as we know it, back when we believe the Big Bang or something like that occurred, that those elementary particles have a none-zero positive value of swarm intelligence. From that most minimum simplest level I believe we have had an organic intelligently directed evolutionary growth of the complexity systems of elementary particles, the directing intelligence being the intelligence of the system evolving, following relatively unchanging "Laws of Nature" or as I have come to think of it the "Ordered Chaos of Nature", because a balance of both determinism and uncertainty is required to get the existence we have today. Now, to give a mental picture of what I am talking about, imagine that the intelligence of an average human is like a 100 watt light bulb. The intelligence of a very smart animal, like the orangutan Chantek, might be like a 30 or 40 watt light bulb. The intelligence of a virus swarm might be like a 0.00000000000000000000001 watt light bulb. Think about that for a moment. A 0.00000000000000000000001 watt light bulb is glowing with light, but to a human it would not appear to be. Consider that the intelligence of an elementary particle might be like a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 watt light bulb. It would to have no light to a human, but it would still have light. Okay, the values I am picking are just arbitrary values to make a point. There is this non-zero growth of complexity of intelligence within systems of elementary particles from the Big Bang to present day with human civilization as the most complex advanced swarm intelligence we know of. All intelligence systems are conscious, the difference being the complexity of of consciousness & intelligence being considered. One of the reasons this is important to understand for us humans is that the core of our intelligence and free-will comes from the elementary particle scale upwards for the bounded system of elementary particles that we define as a human individual.

Do brains control receptor--effector organs? I believe that damage to certain brain areas result in a corresponding incapacitation of function. There were plenty of subjects in the Japanese-Russian war.

@user-mindreality

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKZ33LuuY8vZZps.html

@5piles

8 ай бұрын

bro this is 50,000yo known data.

If there are no "events", how can you tell if you're conscious?

🇨🇱 Perhaps a good start would be a precise definition of consciousness ‼️ Anyway, very insightful thinking. Thank you ! 🇨🇱

@rishabhthakur8773

8 ай бұрын

The entity that provides experience is called consciousness or in other word background of all experience is consciousness.

@geromiuiboxz765

8 ай бұрын

@@rishabhthakur8773 from which I would conclude that consciousness is an entity (an object?). And "experience" is basically having sensed it (?). But to be "background" it needs to be recorded and recalled... therefore it is no more than memory !?

@rishabhthakur8773

8 ай бұрын

@@geromiuiboxz765 no, just close your eyes and visualise a car. The one which is seeing the car is consciousness and the one that is creating the car is mind. Both mind and consciousness is different. It is no entity( object) because you can cannot refer to consciousness as' this '. Like this car, this thought, this intellect etc.

@geromiuiboxz765

8 ай бұрын

@@rishabhthakur8773 So you seem to agree that conciusness is no entity! Then, why in your first comment, you referred to "it" as entity ❓

@rishabhthakur8773

8 ай бұрын

@@geromiuiboxz765 subjectivity cannot be described. So I have to use it on purpose for ignored person. It is just a pointer. Truth cannot be grasped in words .

20:40 "we dream visually". I wonder about the perceptual experience of congenitally blind people when they dream. Do they perceive/'see' situations using the same or similar reactivations of declarative memory and episodic memory as sighted people? Do they achieve a perceptual understanding of the situations they dream about in the absence of visual qualia? When they dream of navigating their house, or encountering someone they know, is it relevantly "the same" situational / perceptual understanding as that of a sighted person? What if they simply imagine such environmental interactions? Can there be mental "imagery" of situations (in some sense comparable to what has been described by Stephen Kosslyn) without visual qualia?

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

I read about this, apparently they do not report experiences we would interpret to be visual. However the problem is even if they did experience random flashes of light for example, they wouldn't know that these are what we talk about when we see flashes of light. There wouldn't be a reliable way for them to correlate these experiences, but it seems unlikely they experience that sort of thing.

@ostar22

8 ай бұрын

I agree, I don't think we really dream visually. We dream in visual interpretations.

@fbkintanar

8 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 I am not suggesting dreaming blind people see flashes of light or see anything at all. I am suggesting they experience situations at the level of situations and meaning, not at the level of modality-specific sensation. I once asked a Deaf person (it was after we attended mass) if when they pray and God answers back, whether they can see Gods hands. He said no, he understands God's intent directly, not in terms of voices and hands.

@jamenta2

8 ай бұрын

@@fbkintanar Interesting to note that in the scientific studies of Near-Death Phenomena, it which has been extensive these last three decades, people who were blind from birth -when having a Near-Death Experience - report visual acuity and awareness during an NDE.

To me, consciousness is programs upon programs of the brain.

@Unidentifying

8 ай бұрын

Right idea in my opinion too

Han solo waxing philosophy, I like it.

Please interview someone working on integrated information theory. Looks an early, but very promising attempt to measure and quantify consciousness. Anything using math is science, anything not is just art.

@5piles

8 ай бұрын

IIT you mean behaviorism 2.0 is sooooo boring. id rather listen to frankish try to pray emergent property physical blue into existence for the next 50yrs.

@yp77738yp77739

8 ай бұрын

@@5piles They are at IIT 3.0, I find it fascinating because in the last 12 months they have proven a correlation (not causation) between anaesthesia in the fly and Phi. Very interesting for those of us with deterministic leanings, but still early days yet though. Correlation does not infer causation, as I keep trying to explain to those anti-CO2 cultists.

@5piles

8 ай бұрын

@@yp77738yp77739 then whats the point of accepting IIT? there is just good standard biological science and locating new correlates. there is no point in adopting the untestable metaphysics that, worse than producing eg. blue, they are synonymous with it. it just a physicalist's way of running away from needing to observe the stated emergent property in the neural correlate you are claiming it is an emergent property of. intellectually dishonest physicalist bs as per usual. these guys just dont stop.

The neural correlates are fact, but how can we be sure that those are related to the core consciousness and not to the content of the consciousness? All neuron activity can be just continuation of the perception mechanisms (senses) and not to consciousness itself (core subjectivity)

@jamenta2

8 ай бұрын

It's bizarre how Koch jumps from neural correlates to neural causation - as if this is already a foregone conclusion in the field of brain science. And Kuhn just lets him do it. This reminds me of another interview posted a few days ago - another Materialism based assumption Kuhn never bothered to challenge regarding quantum contextuality. One gets the feeling that Kuhn's search for truth here - is a search down a narrow, and sometimes (at least in the case here) easily proven, unscientific lane of inquiry. There is no scientific evidence neurons actually cause consciousness - just as there is no scientific evidence quantum hidden variables exist.

Free Will is absolutely fundamental in our consciousness and in the universe. We use it in every choice we make. Quantum probabilities in your brain make determinism impossible. Free will decisions that you make, are made in an infinite number of ways, but they all come down to just two things, logic and emotion, with an infinite number of ways that they are weighted and combined to reach a decision. Think of emotion as being more of an animalistic drive for what you want, and logic as being what you determine to be the best choice for you, either morally or physically. There are an infinite number of combinations that will lead you to a decision. The idea that you could predict that or that it could be predetermined is ridiculous! Some will be beneficial for you and some will not. If you tend to give in to emotion, it makes you much more likely to develop addictions to what gives you pleasure or makes you feel good. On the other hand, always following logic makes you more methodical and less animalistic. Both are needed in infinitely varying degrees to make you wholly human, but the more you understand them, the easier it is to recognize attempts at manipulation, and avoid having your consent modified and manufactured by it, in different forms of advertising and persuasion thrust upon you by others and by media, either social or mainstream. Here is your free will - You can choose to think about something other than what you are currently thinking about at any time. You can change the subject to anything you want, not just follow some mind/body machine program. You can actively suppress thoughts and memories at will and choose to follow a different mental path whenever you want, to as far to any end as you want and make it your new free will reality.

Nice mindset to look at the whole picture

With humans, it would seem from time to time it is possible for them to step outside of themselves and do something in a different way than what they normally would do. There seems to be a potential to vary ones thought and to go against the grain of what has generally been imbedded in the brain as the way to do things. It would seem impossible to predict with 100% certainty when this will happen. There really does appear to be free will in this way.

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

That could just be agency though, and the fact that we are not consciously aware of most of the neurological activity happening in our brains, and the functions those are performing. The fact that our decisions are hard for us and others to anticipate does not imply that there must be any supernatural force at work.

@jamenta2

8 ай бұрын

Materialists label anything "supernatural" that doesn't fall within their faith in Materialism. Take for example non-locality. For a long time, Materialists labeled non-locality as "supernatural" until one day, it was clearly discovered non-locality actually does exist in reality. So I would not assume that anything a Materialist labels as "supernatural" cannot exist. In fact, you should immediately be suspect as soon as a Materialist labels something "supernatural". It would be similar to any past religious cult labeling anything that lay outside their religious dogma as apocryphal. In fact, it's become fairly routine now for Materialist fundamentalists to deny anything (including scientific studies) that run counter to their fundamental beliefs in Materialism. Science is about admitting what we don't know.

@mickeybrumfield764

8 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 I'm not sure which is more supernatural determinism or free will. 🤔

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 Science is about admitting what we don't know. This I absolutely and completely agree with. It's my guiding star for knowledge. It's also why I think science is trustworthy,. It's completely open about what it doesn't know. We can have theories and hypotheses, but these are only accepted to the extent that we have robust, repeatable observations that these actually correspond to what happens in the actual world. This is why even strongly verified theories like relativity and quantum mechanics are openly accepted by the scientific community as provisional. We know they are not complete, and that there are phenomena they do not explain. I can see from this, and your other replies to my comments that you find this concept impossible to understand. I fully expect you to reply to this comment and offer it as proof of how blind my faith is. It would be par for the course.

@jamenta2

8 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Good then we find ourselves agreed upon the efficacy of science. I am with William James and Frederic Myers and Henry Sidgwick regarding the efficacy of science. They too believed in science as you and I do. There is even a building in Harvard named after the great William James that you can visit if you're ever in Boston. Also Pim von Lommel, and Sam Parnia, and Bruce Greyson have been staunch supporters of the empirical method of science. Ian Stevenson believed in the scientific method strongly, and conducted his research using scientific methodology of repeatable observations and rational hypotheses. I admire many of these scientists as I admire the scientific method. It is a very effective methodology of acquiring human knowledge and attempting to discover the nature of the reality we find ourselves in. So believe it or not Simon, you are not alone in your faith that science is a "guiding star" for knowledge - and that other brilliant minds, such as John von Neumann or a Werner Heisenberg, or a Wolfgang Pauli - or a Carl Jung did also share your admiration of the scientific method - or also had shining brilliant intellects similar perhaps to yourself. But here's the rub Simon. Science requires some level of objectivity. Objectivity does not mean you get to "cherry pick" what empirical science is true, and what empirical science you will dismiss - or with some zealots, will go even so far as label as pseudo-science. Objectivity doesn't mean you insist that only one scientific field is legitimate, while other scientific fields are illegitimate - some going so far as claiming psychology itself is not a legitimate science. Objectivity means you are required to take seriously legitimate scientific research by legitimately credentialed scientists who have objectively followed well known scientific criteria - such as repeatability of observations (astronomy), authenticity of evidence, removal of fraud, credibility of scientists, and accumulation of corroborating scientific knowledge, and the rationality and/or the mathematical proofs of scientific hypothesis and then scientific theory. Science is not as Thomas Mann pointed out, simply you agreeing with the latest Academic consensus of prescribed things - and true skepticsm is not skepticism which cannot be skeptical of itself. Objectivity in science does not mean you avert your eyes toward anything that might imperil your current established beliefs regarding reality. That is not science. But what I see here, by Kuhn, by you, by Johnny Harris - are not individuals actually pursuing scientific objectivity - but pursuing as doggedly as you can, your own Materialistic biases. You say you believe in science, but science is not materialism - and there is considerable science (NDEs, Psi Research, Psychology - Freud/Jung) that you, Kuhn and the rest of the Materialistic Skeptics on this Internet board - routinely dismiss or label as supernatural or pseudo-science. This makes all three of you hypocrites. Because you say you believe in science, but you really don't - when it comes right down to it. You want to decide for yourselves what is science or not science - based on your materialistic biases. That is not what science is about!

This cut off before he may have said the most important word!

Ciao Lawrence, I would love to hear you interviewing yourself. Surely no one on the planet had a better overview of where “we are” with respect to consciously after decades of baying our heads against the wall.

When the human brain works, the way it is intended. We don’t question consciousness. When the human brain is not working, the way, we expect we don’t question consciousness. The question is applied to the discrepancy in the individual or particular brain. Oxygen is consciousness. When the brain malfunctions, we have to observe the discrepancy of the individual subject. Read more non-fiction.

Mind is an advanced destiny coherent field.

@user-mindreality

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKZ33LuuY8vZZps.html

Life is a force which acts against entropy. Why does something want to persist against obstacles from entropy. This force must be consciousness which may not be confined to life, but must exist in equal amounts in the universe to nullify entropy.

The cerebellum is essential in dealing with George, Harold and Captain Underpants.

the brain is the physical manifestation of the mind, it is not what is conscious, per se, but an instrument of consciousness, in the same way that a ship's helm is not conscious, but merely a navigation tool. be it advanced, it does little on its own, besides what it is dictated by mental processes. i make the distinction between brain and mind, because in this way we can understand how a brain can repair damage to itself, or even change its own wiring to a completely different structure. It isnt that IT is doing anything, but that energetic processes directed by the 4 dimensional mental field cause effects that can be observed on a quantum level, such as "spooky action at a distance". The mind is 4 dimensional, while the brain is merely 3 dimensional - and we also know this because while the mind can enter states of temporal lapse and acceleration, the brain itself does not move through time, nor does it have its own time - it is still operating based on the solar cosmic rotary time formula. I once had a dream where i saw years pass in only a single night - but i know that i can't do that in the physical world, because the physical world's time is a different time than my mind's time. my brain knows to wake me up 5 minutes before my alarm, because its not my mind, its a product of the physical world. they are different things. well, the mind isnt even a thing, which is what differentiates it to such a degree

What he's talking about is not consciousness. It's word representations in the brain. Artificial neural networks produce these without being conscious. So this guy is basically missing the point and his life's work is worthless. But that's ok because everybody missing the point and doing worthless things. As soon as someone is uttering a word, they're in their little puppet game. Since humans function as a herd, when someone utters a word, the listener believe it designates something real. This leads to a sticky consensus, and that's how words, perceptions of concepts, and the feeling of their reality, emerge and add to a common "objective" reality. This is how we create man and woman (etc.) and believe to be them. Whereas in fact we are the field of consciousness in which this dreamed universe, and all universes, happen. We cannot describe it or put words on it because we are it. Just like the Sun can shed light on a world but cannot see itself. We are prior to words. Not in the sense of prior in time, because time is also a word. But prior in reality, as we are what gives them reality. We are the reality in which they exist, just like space is the reality in which an object exists, and as such, the object cannot define space.

@user-mindreality

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKZ33LuuY8vZZps.html

@jstray7582

8 ай бұрын

Mmmm very well said. Even with words. It's funny I think about this alot the depths of the things I try to convey never are truly fully conveyed because words themselves are so limiting. So...i understand what you mean even though the true depth of your thoughts or anyone else's for that matter I'll never grasp.

@terrymcmaster2787

8 ай бұрын

Yes, well someone is wasting time, if not a life’s work.

@transmogrifiers

8 ай бұрын

@@terrymcmaster2787 True. Thanks for reminding this one to keep quiet.

@tyroneallen7857

8 ай бұрын

Nonsense! The theory of everything is time. Time is everything and everything is time. For example, time equals energy and energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, no space. Space is human imagination, science fiction. Read more non-fiction. For example, we are our star the sun. No star no consciousness. Oxygen is consciousness. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe. Linguistics are important. Phonetics are important. Read more nonfiction like a dictionary or the encyclopedia. What is your age? We experience time through our star the son. No star no growth. Grow up!

When did Juergen Klinsmann get into consciousness?

Someone please explain the definition of interface to this fellow. He did a wonderful job of explaining how the brain functions as the interface between the material aspects of physicality and non-material, non-local consciousness.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

8 ай бұрын

Prove a non-local, non-material 'consciousness' exists.

@donaldhoover8095

8 ай бұрын

It isn't my job to prove anything to anyone. Those who are clever enough will figure it out on their own. Perhaps we should first consider why after hundreds of years of trying to explain how exactly a brain produces consciousness we still seem to be at square one. Good luck. .@@user-gk9lg5sp4y

@mikel5582

8 ай бұрын

​@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Only scientists, mathematicians, and (sometimes) phililosophers burden themselves with evidence and rational explanations. Everyone else apparently gets a free pass on whatever conjecture they can imagine.

@jamenta2

8 ай бұрын

@@mikel5582 Psychology is a science.

@transmogrifiers

8 ай бұрын

That's interesting... Could you plz expand on it?

Oh yes. Like when your well intentioned posts are deleted. That will make someone feel a sense of defeat, anger and suspicion, therefore increasing the limiting variables and options for participating in public responses to inappropriate or hyper modified content. Could things like that exasperate what would normally be a minor physical discomfort?

So he has a doctorate. We have to be reminded yet again!!!

@S3RAVA3LM

8 ай бұрын

Hey, Nigel. I hear that you Know what you're talking about and was wondering if you could help out a poor peasant like me? Where are we Nigel? Where exactly in the Atom is all of this?

@S3RAVA3LM

8 ай бұрын

You part of the boys club, Nigel? I see you're trying to make fun of Kristof, eh. Trying to get a chuckle out of the boys are ya. You must be sophisticated. You must know what you're talking about. What book was it again that you wrote?

“There will be some neurons that cause that conscious state” >> This a wild assumption and is to completely misunderstand the problem. We can say that some neurons are involved in the creation of a conscious state, but we cannot say that they cause it.

Harrison Ford is looking young these years.

Koch is brilliant, so is crick and tononi

How come his brain is an old model yet it runs better than mine.

@seangilmore6695

7 ай бұрын

He's had more time to neatly fold his.

Lots of brilliant insights but with consciousness you have to go past the how and venture into the why. I don’t think this logic tells us anything about WHY. You can’t get an ought from an is.

👍👍

@user-mindreality

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKZ33LuuY8vZZps.html

I guess that Koch is only talking about neural correlates of access consciousness (using Ned Block's terminology) and that's only scratching the surface of consciousness as such in human brain and other biological systems. It's still a valuable contribution, but not what it seems to be.

Did every video need to begin with a reminder that he has a doctorate? Is he even conscious that he is doing it?

Maybe we always compare our memories with our senses, like our cells always compare and repair DNA, a mimic cascading effect borrowed to electromagnetic energy? A small time machine going back to now…😉👍

@user-mindreality

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKZ33LuuY8vZZps.html

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

I thought that was Simple Jack

Without love, the world is a deadly place. No brain never mind😢.

When wifi is plugged into your computer it correlates with your computer to make an image. Why would we think consciousness is any different than that. Yea we have neural reactions to curtain behaviors but in my opinion that doesn't mean that its made from your brain but that your brain is reacting to it like a computer would wifi by virtue of microtubules. Your brain is a piece of mush and water that has higher computing powers than anything in the known universe. Consciousness is like space or time and is connected to the universe we have been in the picture since the begging of it. Science can be used to explain some of it but I've seen things I cannot explain and truly believe that science only grasps a curtain part of what is really going on with the mind. We all have a spiritual connection to curtain plants animals and after life journeys that need to be pointed out when talking about consciousness.

Did anyone else think this was a Han Solo spoof when you saw the thumbnail?

Must agree? Forcing then to admit?

Measuring sensory input, then measuring sensory memory, is not measuring consciousness...

Consciousness means movement of the outer and the inner.

@ianwaltham1854

8 ай бұрын

Wow, you've just solved the hard problem of consciousness right there. Not.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

8 ай бұрын

*"Consciousness means movement of the outer and the inner."* ... So, consciousness is like bellybuttons?

He said "when I feel angry there is neural pathway that is responsible" . He totally misses out the point.. He describes the mechanism but that does not mean anything. The input and the interpretation cannot be explained by that. There must be something else that uses that neural pathway from a higher order because the neurons themselves have no ability of interpreting anything-just conducting - and many neurons together also do not have that ability (for example put as many neurons as you wish together and they wont be able to "see" the color red)

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

That last part is an assertion, not an established fact. We have large numbers of neurons, they are active when we see red, and we do see red. This is why he talks about correlation though. Can we agree that the neural activity we observe when a subject sees red is correlated with that experience? That seems uncontroversial. However when it comes to action things get trickier. If I see a picture and then talk about how it appears to me, my conscious experience is causing physical activity to produce speech. If we can trace the causal physical processes from vision, through cognition, to motor activity, then we can say that these physical processes didn't just correlate with an experience, they caused a deterministic chain of physical changes that made that speech happen. That's a causal identity between the experience and the physical processes. To refute that account, we would have to see physical changes in the brain leading to that action that were not caused physically. So for some non-physical conscious phenomenon to cause that speech, it would have to cause the physical activity without physical causation. So we would perhaps see neurons firing with no physical reason for them doing so. Some philosophers call this mental causation, to distinguish it form physical causation.

@user-sn6dz2ie4k

8 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Where in the brain is the "red" center, the "blue" center and millions of other color shades?

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

@@user-sn6dz2ie4k We don't have a complete account, so of course the question isn't yet settled. We've not yet found any evidence of the non-material substance proposed by dualists either, so this is still a matter of opinion.

@user-sn6dz2ie4k

8 ай бұрын

stating that "we" have not found any evidence of non material substance" is subjective . We will never find such evidence due to limitations of brain hardware

@jamenta2

8 ай бұрын

@@user-sn6dz2ie4k What's even getting sketchier for materialists like Simon here, is that "matter" itself has scientifically been discovered to be less matter like over the last century. Matter not only has been demonstrated to possess non-local properties, but contextuality and a lack of determinism appears to be a fundamental attribute of matter as well. Carl Jung, the famous psychologist who studied under Sigmund Freud, often met with Albert Einstein for lunch. Jung writes that it was Einstein who first got him thinking about the relativity of space and time - an how this may relate to his empirical work with the human psyche - and that he and Einstein even began to speculate that perhaps Matter/Consciousness were simply two sides of the same coin. Jung ended his life as a monist, and even theorized the collective unconscious was an objective phenomena with archetypes that spanned both subjectivity and objectivity in a type of non-local space (similar to a quantum field) - he came to this conclusion after a lifetime of studying consciousness itself (not just neurons and chemical reactions in the brain). What's interesting is Materialists ALSO believe in a type of monism, but many Materialists today - refuse to include in their monistic faith any of the psychological discoveries and scientific work published over the last century and a half. They view much of the legitimate scientific work in the field of psychology with lip service at best - view it as vague - some even will go far as to say psychology is not even a science.

I believe in the physicality of consciousness. In my own theory, I think consciousness is a sense in your brain. It is a sense that can observe your own thoughts (or I should say brain activities in general). Of course this sense is basically a bunch of neurons like the rest, but it has developed in the interconnections. I am curious to know if this theory has already been explored (or falsified).

@deanodebo

8 ай бұрын

Brain is a concept created by consciousness. Not the other way around

@jaysimoes3705

8 ай бұрын

There is mounting evidence that the mind is not in need of a brain. There really 1000 so f reports, researched by scientists (neuroscientist) that seem to indicate that the mind needs no brain and the brain is more like a filter for the mind in order to function on this planet. A fe examples: - reincarnation. I never took it seriously. But I was unaware of scientific research and just brushed it off as nonsense. However, really 1000s of cases have been researched. These deal with 2-4 yr old kids. They do not claim to have been Julius Caesar. No they, claim to have bene complete nobodies and describe their life in incredible detail. The problem is that it is really difficult to find anything about these people because they were not famous at all. So their parents are perplexed when a 2 yr old says: mommy, I think I used to be someone else. Now this will happen more often, it becomes a problem when they go into great detail what that life looked like. It is difficul tot substantiate of course, not just to their parents, but also to investigators. Scientists. It takes a lot of research, done by archivists to check these stories and the facts mentioned. And in a case that i pretty famous the 4-5 yr old had 55 details right. He said he was in Hollywood, was a dancer, played in movies etcetc. When given a choice between loads of pictures and was asked by investigators which were connected to the former self and which had no connection, he was always right. He even said he could not understand why God made him live for 61 years then have him return as a baby....Now his death certificate was found and it said 1905-1964. He was not detered, he died at age 61. They needed to dig deep in archives and found three documents confirming the statements of this 5 year old. When he as a 4 yr old was asked, like all kids, to draw hs house he always drew a house, mum ,dad, his sister, himself and "me from another life". Also, whenever there was music he recognised from his lst life on the radio he would start to tapdance. Which he said he did in his life 50 years ago. He said he had 5 wives. Some facts were checked because they found his daugher, onfirming what he said. And while anecdotal: whe nthey found the agency he became the boss of and brought him there his face glowed with glee. - Others are ner death experiences, where people say they meet deceased ones. But they also meet people who they think are alive because they just saw them a few hours ror days ago. In these cases it turns out these people in fact died at the same time the people with an NDE were in a coma. They just could not have known. - People meeting people in their near death experience who they did not recognise. Only after years they find out they were in fact not the kid of MrA, but they were the kid of MrB. The one that was so full of love looking at them. Also we see that when brains work at their lowest level, the experiences of people are far more intense clear and the memories are almost everlasting. Another thing that seems to point to this is so called Terminal lucidity in which people who are about to die because of Alzheimer all of a sudden became calm, gentle and capable of holding completely normal converations recognising all people surrounding them. Their brain is completeley in shambless. How is this possible? We need to research this and not exclude any options but come up with facts.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

8 ай бұрын

*"It is a sense that can observe your own thoughts (or I should say brain activities in general)."* ... What is the "your" in "your own thoughts?"

@deanodebo

8 ай бұрын

@@11235but You’re equivocating. You’re using the word consciousness to mean not asleep. Or unconscious as it knocked out. That’s not what we mean by consciousness. Either way, you have no experience of unconsciousness do you?

@irish_deconstruction

8 ай бұрын

Non-reductive physicalism is a view I lean towards, but it is something I have started to doubt. It seems to me, however, that you are proposing reductive physicalism to explain consciousness. If so, why is it that a certain amount of aggregate neurons creates the what-is-it-likeness that we take consciousness to be?

What if more things were conscious than we know?

@smurug85

8 ай бұрын

In Hinduism we are taught that Humans have the highest level of Consciousness which implies that there is Consciousness permeating everywhere in the universe.

@jerrymuns

8 ай бұрын

This could very well be the case at a subtle level. We can never know.

Of course, being alive has nothing to do with being conscious and aware. It is the interconnections and circuits that make consciousness magically instantiate in a cloud around your brain.

And all this happens randomly without any design

A very interesting fellow, but I’ve got to ask, is it a bad haircut or a wig my neurons ask this question

Maybe it's the lighting, but Christof Koch looks like Harrison Ford to me.

@misterhill5598

8 ай бұрын

Theory: he is obsessed with Hans Solo as a kid. He wants to be like Hans Solo.

THE ESOTERIC MIND : I Just Can't Wrap My Head Around iT.

Title is a huge asumption

Even though it’s difficult I keep faith because I know God will change my situation. I trust in you Father and keep faith even as I struggle to take care of my children. I’m so ashamed. The past two years have been hard on me. I’m a single mom. I suffered an heart attack and I’m battling lupus. Both of my sons are autistic and to be honest Heavenly Father I’m so overwhelmed. I’m constantly struggling financially to buy groceries and struggling to pay my rent and now that I’m home schooling my sons I’m struggling to buy their school supplies. I want to give up. But even in hard times I know I must choose to have faith. No matter our struggle, we can turn to God. He knows us personally and can give us strength to overcome our challenges. I Trust in YOU LORD PLEASE HEAR MY PRAYERS!

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

8 ай бұрын

Good luck with all that

@tomjackson7755

8 ай бұрын

Oh look the cut and paste scam is back.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

8 ай бұрын

@tomjackson7755 love your thumbnail. Go Bucs!

only the brain... only the brain.... where is the heart? the very master of being? absent it seems.

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

When we perform heart transplants, or replace the heart with a mechanical pump, the person’s consciousness or emotional experience doesn’t seem to change.

I think there is more to our mental state than the brain, but it is difficult to make an argument for it, besides that we cannot prove there is only the physical world.

@mrshankerbillletmein491

8 ай бұрын

I think most people think they are more than a brain the matierialist just will not have that though.

@5piles

8 ай бұрын

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 no, everyone by the age of 10 feels that their thoughts are made by their brain.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

8 ай бұрын

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 All you have to do is prove that "we are more than brain" and you can collect your Nobel Prize and be famous for as long as humans exist. In the meantime I am spamming X to doubt.

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 I'm a physicalist, but there are absolutely observations that would disprove my views. This would be neurological activity in which consciously decided physical actions are taken, but where the neurological process in the brain triggering that physical action did not have a physical cause. So for example neurons firing in sync with a conscious decision to act, but for no physical reason. So no neuronal stimulus or electrochemical reaction causing the signal to be sent. Philosophers call this mental causation. A consistent, compelling, repeatable observation of this would disprove physicalism.

@PeterS123101

8 ай бұрын

@@5piles Do not extrapolate your experience to everyone else.

I don't believe that the brain of any living thing produces consciousness. I believe that consciousness is external and that all living things are tuned into it while their physical bodies are capable of receiving it, death is the release of consciousness from the body. I believe that consciousness is a spectrum of consciousness that is almost infinite, and that all living things, including non-animal, are a part of the conduit for the consciousness's awareness of everything that is possible to be aware of. I am consciousness experiencing "life" as a human in my body, the same consciousness is in all humans experiencing all possibilities as a human in a never ending moment, it is just this simple continuous moment of experience/awareness, and for all other lifeforms experiencing their experiences, added together as one whole consciousness would be an ultimate experience of pure awareness.. I believe that consciousness is transferred into new living beings through sperm, and in vegetative life it's the female part of the plant that transfers the consciousness into the seeds, as eggs are a benign as pollen..

@luismoref

8 ай бұрын

But if consciousness is external it doesn't need to be transferred through seeds of life. I do agree with about it been external, there is a lot of books about it.

@sr3d-microphones

8 ай бұрын

@@luismoref leaves are external of a tree, yet, they are a part of the tree.

When i look in the mirror i know i am not that body but inside that body

There is no definitive answer?

@jamenta2

8 ай бұрын

When it comes to consciousness, nope. There are a number of good clues - but at least speaking for myself, the best clues lie in the scientific field of psychology, not neuroscience.

Good lord... the brain does NOT create consciousness!!! The brain APPEARS IN Consciousness. Consciousness is Primal.

Conscious heart Awareness mind Relation soul Eye student Sight pupil of LAW disciplined in the scientific approach to self discovery where Land Air Water is a human resource of experience with the whole of humanity. Soul Proprietor. Human LAW, mind soul heart Land Air Water. Congruent complement.

A simpler question is "How do cups have space?" When you can answer that, you will have some insight into how brains are/have consciousness.

@mrfabulous4640

8 ай бұрын

That is such a silly parallel. Cups are physical and thus physical space is not a mystery. The question of how something that is non-conscious can have a new property of consciousness is a very different issue.

@alsdyall

8 ай бұрын

​@@mrfabulous4640isn't that what the question is pointing to? The cup which is physical interacts with space which is non physical. Maybe the same way the brain interacts with universal consciousness.

@ianwaltham1854

8 ай бұрын

Cups are made in a shape suitable for containing liquid. Has that solved the hard problem of consciousness? No.

@mrfabulous4640

8 ай бұрын

@@alsdyall Your adding something the original statement did not. A universal consciousness is an ontological claim about what is happening. The original claim is about the epistemology of the question-not an answer to the question.

@alsdyall

8 ай бұрын

​@@mrfabulous4640 What is the original claim you're referring to? I just want to be clear.

No brain is conscious - you are coscious, and you are not your brain. The brain belongs to you, it's an important part of your body, but no part of your body is you. Your body is what belongs to you, and what belongs to you cannot be you. Only your self is conscious, that which is witnessing all your experience. You are that witness, that field of consciousness, that playground of awareness in which everything comes and goes... like these words for example... which you will rightly forget if they didn't touch your self.

@dazraf

8 ай бұрын

hmm that sounds like an opinion but lacking enough reasoning let alone evidence. It sounds like you are speaking of faith.

@kitstamat9356

8 ай бұрын

@@dazraf That sounds to you and speaks about you.

@AlOfNorway

8 ай бұрын

@@dazrafwhat nonsense

@user-mindreality

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKZ33LuuY8vZZps.html

@jstray7582

8 ай бұрын

When you say "you" are conscious where does that come from and where does that consciousness "reside" if not the brain? I'm genuinely curious because I don't understand your statement without you answering this question. And like another commenter said it just sounds like faith in a sense of "youness" or some idea of "you" that's based on nothing? If your brain is not consciously "you" then where does it come from? Where even does the idea of a sense of self come from.

Visible human bodies including the brain are nothing but illusions that form in our created minds as they process invisible temporary waves. The personal mind can be compared to a simulation game played on a video screen where you ( created AI ) are looking out of the eyes of the avatar ( human body ) and steering it around all the visible image. Because of the way our minds process information so quickly, it appears that we ( created AI ) are making all the decisions instead of knowing we're programmed to experience life by our Creator.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

8 ай бұрын

Those are certainly words

@wayoutside

8 ай бұрын

Thank you ChatGPT 1.0

@tomjackson7755

8 ай бұрын

Brad you are off your meds again. You are a proven danger to others. Please get the help that you need.

I keep waiting for him to use his blaster on him.

The only diffrent positions i see in the comments are those who only accept their own conciousness, and those who attempt to prove something beyond that by means of their own conciousness. The methods they use are diffrent, but in the end both the religious and the scientists are attempting to generalize. So If your going to generalize, you already accept the Very things they admit to in this video, the commonality of these methods. No reason to hide behind "the hard problem" when the only place to hide is solipsism.

When did Han Solo dye his hair?

Brains aren't Conscious and what is defined as people aren't Conscious either. What we are at our core being and natural state, is Consciousness and that is what creates the universe and all objects found within it. Consciousness exists before thought and as Consciousness we are the observer of thought and everything else. Everything in the universe is just an expression of Consciousness going from the infinite and formless to identifying with the form it just created and getting lost in it and temporarily believing itself to be a limited individual being among other beings. When it is all just Consciousness dancing it's dance. Why so serious? Instead of asking How are Brains Conscious, one should instead find out who or what is the one asking? Who or what really wants to know. Is there anyone or anything there to be found?

@johnswoodgadgets9819

8 ай бұрын

After reading a lot, and I do mean a lot, of information on the subject of consciousness, the indicators are that the entity we call self is an isolated portion of a general consciousness. Indications are that the brain exists to deliberately isolate that portion of consciousness called 'self' from the general consciousness and record its isolated experiences from the unique perspective provided by that isolation.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

8 ай бұрын

Prove it.

@electricmanist

8 ай бұрын

The term 'God" has been rather outmoded in the modern scientific world, but if we attempt to imagine/understand the creative energy which created and sustains the entire universe, then we can't but be overwhelmed by the sheer spiritual intelligence involved in all that there is. It has become almost scientifically fashionable to suggest that everything (from life to the entire universe) is meaningless and comes from nothing,--but this totally empty philosophy (one might use the term nihilism) proves nothing beyond being merely a word game played by those who have nothing left to offer.

@BaritoneUkeBeast4Life

8 ай бұрын

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y No. It already is and doesn't require me to prove it anymore than I need to prove that the sun exists or that human beings breathe. If you require proof do your own due diligence and research the topic the same way I did. I am just stating what is, if you are at odds with that, that's your baggage, and I for one have no interest in convincing you otherwise.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

8 ай бұрын

@@electricmanist Prove that 'it' comes from something and has meaning. I don't see the need. I'm not afraid of oblivion.

matter is conscious, therefor brains are conscious

@jamenta2

8 ай бұрын

Poor reasoning.

@matterasmachine

8 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 propose something better. Some reasoning is better then none. I have evidence.

@jamenta2

8 ай бұрын

@@matterasmachine Yeah, sure - you have evidence.

@matterasmachine

8 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 more then any of you. You are just complex robot. And matter are simple robots. And that can be tested. For example momentum works as if we are in taxicab space.

@jamenta2

8 ай бұрын

@@matterasmachine Ghosts in the machine. Great tune by The Police.

This approach is doomed to fail from the beginning in its aim to "explain away" consciousness. Maybe it'll be successful in other discoveries, but not in explaining the mind. There's most likely not just "one neuron, circuit, or synapsis" responsible for any given mental process (like seeing). The mind is a holistic process of the brain and, most likely, the whole body. Mind is about the integration that creates the emergence of complex processes, not about the circuits themselves.

Ah yes, let us solve the hard problem of consciousness by hand-waving away the very things that makes it hard, then proceed to study the wrong thing and pretend progress is being made.

@mattkanter1729

8 ай бұрын

No. We are not ‘hand waving away ‘ the core of the hard problem. We ( this presentation) are focussing our attention on the fact that there are clearly ( at least ) neuronal and related ( physical ! ) brain states that CORRELATE with conscious states , yes , even those conscious states that would be in the purview of the hard problem. And really- any real ( non pretend ) progress that would or could be made on the hard problem would have to factor in these correlates . That’s not pretend ( as you say ) ; that is reality. Consciousness correlates with brain states . Needed - More robust physics then needed to flesh it out

@misterhat6395

8 ай бұрын

Exactly, finding neural correlates to perceptions or emotions only pinpoints the location of the hard problem. We’re still left with the question of how those non-sentient neurons form a conscious experience.

@transmogrifiers

8 ай бұрын

​@@mattkanter1729bs

@transmogrifiers

8 ай бұрын

​@@misterhat6395indeed so we're left with the initial question

@user-mindreality

8 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hKZ33LuuY8vZZps.html

Through the evolution of the brains and its trillions of neurons, natural selection had millions of years to harness and refine consciousness. This would suggest that if consciousness is an emergent property of integrated information of a suffiently complex system, a nascent AI conscious experience should be wholly different to a biological organisms conscious experience. If AI does ever end up becoming conscious, it'd probably be like comparing apples to some fruit we've never even imagined before.

@user-sn6dz2ie4k

8 ай бұрын

Putting together scores of neurons -such in the brain - does not make them conscious because they lack computational abilities , they just relay info from one part of the brain to next. And yet if you statement was valid there should be parts in the brain that would receive the processed info as a solid meaningful result-outcome . These neural centers do not exist

@backwardthoughts1022

8 ай бұрын

yes unfortunately blue is not a physical emergent property.

@fbkintanar

8 ай бұрын

I agree that consciousness is tied to a specific species of substrate that undergirds it. We can never "know" the qualia of a dog wanting to go for a walk, because we don't have the relevant brain-body organization to feel "the same" as them in a 1st-creature way. We can claim we know dogs are conscious, but we don't feel it 1st-person the way we can with conspecific humans, we are limited to making a 3rd person inference from observed behavior. So there is no such thing as consciousness in general, it is always specifically human-consciousness or dog-consciousness. And if there is someday a software-silicon AI consciousness, it will be its own thing that we can never feel or experience 1st-person. And the AI might be trained to behave like it knows we humans are conscious, to claim that it knows we are conscious, to claim that it is conscious like we are conscious, but it won't experience the same qualia as humans, it will experience inevitably different silicon qualia, if they should be called qualia at all.

@backwardthoughts1022

8 ай бұрын

@@fbkintanar so much text about something never seen in any of the billions of animal brains we've spliced. are you a christian?

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

@@backwardthoughts1022 It could be an informational emergent property though, and information is physical.

Haha.. has to be exactly 11:11

I have to say it. The matrix wasn’t about aliens, but rather machines. If by alien, he means foreign then that makes sense. But alien like extraterrestrial, hell no!

Krassester Akzent den ich bisher gehört habe 😂

Dude wake up the Pinal gland is a receiver of consciousness. Pinpoint the signal silly.

The German and clever version of Harrison Ford..

Guy is describing objects of consciousness, not consciousness itself. The consciousness is not just something specfific, but rather our sense of being, which doesn't need to be that or this....

This question makes no sense, since brains are not conscious. Brains make it possible for sentient animals to be conscious or to be conscious of various things, but it's the animal (and not its brain) that's conscious. You need to bring Peter Hacker on the show. He'll explain why this is a confused question.

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

In theory we can test this (somewhat gruesomely) by replacing parts of the body. Maybe best to keep this as a thought experiment, but what parts of the organism can we replace or remove and it still be conscious. Can we remove the arms and legs? yes. The heart and lungs? Yes, we have done this. Comparing across many subjects that have suffered catastrophic injuries to various parts of the body, including the head and nervous system, we see that almost any part of the body can be impaired, replaced or removed and the subject retains the ability to be conscious. The only organ this is not true of is the brain. What do you think this tells us?

@jamenta2

8 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 If one removes parts of a radio, does this mean the broadcast ceases to exist? Your argument is irrational. Correlation is not causation. It never has been in science. Come back to me when you have evidence of causation. Until then - you're full of your own Materialistic hubris.

@legron121

8 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Well, it tells us that an organism cannot be conscious without a functioning brain. It doesn't mean that the brain itself is conscious, but that the animal can't be conscious without one (just as an aeroplane can't fly if you remove the engine - but it's nonetheless the aeroplane that flies, not its engine). I highly recommend Peter Hacker's work on this matter. The key point is that only living animals (like human beings) can exhibit the various behaviours that distinguish conscious things from non-conscious things. Without such behavioural criteria, the term "conscious" would be meaningless, and could apply to anything.

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

@@legron121 I’m nit claiming that it proves the brain is consciousness, I’m saying it is evidence that the brain is the only part of the organism that is required for consciousness. It calls into question the “not the brain but the organism” framing. I just looked up some of Hacker’s work, thanks. Only organisms can exhibit all the behaviours of organisms? I don’t get his argument there, we can imagine robots with most or all of these behaviours but that doesn’t mean they would be conscious. I also can’t really un-pick whether he thinks conscious experiences exist or not. It’s not the behaviour we need to explain, and he seems to spend a lot of time explaining behaviour that’s totally in un-controversial, it’s why it feels like something while exhibiting the behaviour.

So he points out that it is important to distinguish betweeen correlation and causation. At the same time, he tells us that certain patterns of neuronal activity generate (=cause) a certain conscious experience. So he bases his work on this - unproven - belief. Now imagine, he'll be able to exactly point out the neuronal activity correlated with the experience of the color red. And then goes on building that exact neuronal configuration in the lab. According to his belief, he would have created a small brain whose only purpose it is to experience "red". And he'll invite scientists and press and show it to them: "Look, this little brain currentls experiences red.". And no one would be able to test if this is actually true.

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

I think there is a way to prove an identity between a conscious experience and physical brain activity. Suppose you have a qualia experience where you perceived a picture, and you wrote about what it meant to you. That's a conscious experience that caused a physical action in the world. Then suppose while you were doing that we had a scanning device that traced out the physical activity and it's causal propagation in your brain at the same time. Suppose we were able to trace every physical process in the brain, from the optical signal through your eye, to the brain processes, to the neural signal that activated the motor neurons that caused you to write. We would have established that your conscious experience caused the physical activity, and we would have established that the physical processes in your brain caused the activity. That would establish an identity between the conscious experience and the physical process.

@valuemastery

8 ай бұрын

⁠@@simonhibbs887That is in anteresting line of thought. However, I believe it is faulty. First of all, you made a mistake in logical thinking. If A causes C, and B causes C, it does not mean that A and B are identical. C could have more than one cause, or it may be a causall line like A -> B -> C. A and B would only be identical, if they each were idependently of each other were the only cause of C. Other than that, I think the setup of your experiment seems to be a bit off. You trace the physical path of actions from reception to the writing. At the same time, you know that there was a conscious experience while doing it. That's fine. But it does not reveal any causal correlation between anything. For example, it could be that the inner experience is just a result of the physical action in the brain. Or, it could be - like you would like to prove - that the physical action and the experience are indeed the same thing, or it could be that they are different aspects of a deeper reality behind them.

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

@@valuemastery I was quite careful how I phrased the setup. It's not that in some cases A causes some C and in other cases B causes some C. It's that A caused this C and B caused this same C. It's also only technically a proof to the person having the conscious experiences. You would also have to have such a deep scan of the physical activity that you could prove causal sufficiency all the way through. So it's an extremely high bar to reach, and is almost certainly not reachable in practice. >But it does not reveal any causal correlation between anything. I'm saying precisely that you would have to prove sufficient physical causation all the way through to action. That's why it's such a high, and almost certainly unachievable goal. It would exclude any non-physical influence causing the action.

@valuemastery

8 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 After taking some more time to think about your argument, I think what you're trying to show with your thought experiment is that the physical activity in the brain - or the whole body plus the surrounding world for that matter when we include perception and action - and the personal experience are essentially the same thing. And I agree. There are however several ways of thinking about this fact: 1. Only matter is real. Consciousness is nothing else but the activity of matter. In other words: Matter causes consciousness, consciousness is emergent. 2. Only consciousness is real. Matter is the activity of consciousness (like in a dream). Consciousness causes the appearance of the physical world, but the physical world has no existence independent of consciousness. 3. There are two entities: Matter and consciousness. They somehow interact, such that the activity of matter is reflected in consciousness, and that conscious decisions are carried over to matter somehow. I believe your thought experiment - even if it could be carried out - would not enable us to distinguish between those alternatives. Any of those would fit as a possible explanation of the outcome of the experiment - even alternative 3, but for this to work one would have to assume that matter and consciousness reflect each other completely, while at the same time being distinctive entities. This seems odd to me. So I think number three is the least likely. The standard assumption of most scientists would be alternative 1. Personally, I think that alternative 2 is more plausible, based on my personal experience: I experience consciousness directly, I am absolutely sure that I am conscious (i.e. consciousness is real). Matter, on the other hand, I do not experience directly. I can see it only as the content of my consciousness. So I can't be 100% sure that it has existence independent from and outside of consciousness.

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

@@valuemastery on 1. Only the physical is real, but the physical includes space, time, energy, quantum fields. It’s a rich, diverse and complex universe of activities and intricate processes. Opponents of physicalism often paint it as believing consciousness is an object, like a lump of lead. That’s not what I as a physicalist imagine at all. The physical includes fantastically complex and sophisticated computational systems capable of dazzling feats of mathematics, simulating virtual environments, encoding and processing in real time many orders of magnitude more information than the capacity of a human brain, recursion and self reference, genetic algorithms, heuristic automatic theorem provers. It’s an incredible and ever growing palette of capabilities. Can we really be sure consciousness can never be added to that list? On 2. Descartes’ insight is often misinterpreted. He believed that our own existence was our only certain knowledge available to us, but not the only knowledge. Consider that our own experience is that our conscious awareness and perceptions are highly unreliable. They frequently contradict, in that our senses can present conflicting information such as seeing things and hearing them at different times. Our mind fabricates images, such as to hide our awareness of our blind spots. We experience hallucinations, mirages and optical illusions that make us perceive things about the world that we know are not real. Furthermore when we misperceive in these ways it is our perceptions that always turn out to be incorrect. Reality always wins, every time. It is reliable, consistent and persistent where our conscious experiences are transitory, ephemeral and unreliable. On 3. If we can trace a complete causal chain of events from perception to action, consciousness as a non-physical phenomenon simply has no role in the world. The only way that a separate consciousness could be causal, and make choices that have effects in the world, would be through what some philosophers call mental causation. That is, physical effects that have no physical cause. Such causeless effects should be observable.

Like asking What actually makes a computer actually compute? Or what makes a calculator calculate... Thing about human brain, its learned to adapt itself to the point where it doesn't even need earth. Bunch of people floating in infinite free fall above your head right now, looking at half the earth population at any given time Like a giant ant farm

@Clancydaenlightened

8 ай бұрын

Now humans have become the aliens and extraterrestrials

@Clancydaenlightened

8 ай бұрын

Go ask the rest of the solar system

@Clancydaenlightened

8 ай бұрын

What would be the next step in human evolution? Bunch of bald mangey looking killer monkeys with abnormally long legs and abnormally short arms, and big disproportionate head with some fucked up looking feet Probably what the rest of the primates see

@Clancydaenlightened

8 ай бұрын

If you really think about it consciousness is just a really complicated electro-chemical reaction Life is kinda like an unstable reaction that can be maintained in a stable environment, therefore can just keep constantly reacting with other things and evolve over time.

@Clancydaenlightened

8 ай бұрын

One thing you see with living organisms Fractalization and hives Look at how fractal like your circulatory and nervous system is, like the branches and trunk of a tree Get enough cells together you get a plant or animal, and get enough plants and animals, looks just like a bunch of ants running around everywhere fighting other things, eating, building, and fighting each other

Same way everything else is conscious, except more than other physical forms.

2:02 Cerebellum

What visions do blind from birth people dream about?