TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 - Introduction 0:50 - Definitions: Consciousness & Illusionism 4:30 - Recent IIT Controversy (Science or Pseudoscience?) 8:57 - Panpsychism & Idealism 13:50 - Is Consciousness the modern day Elan Vital? 18:56 - From Property Dualism to Illusionism 25:02 - "Illusionism" as a name 30:40 - Michael Graziano (Caricature vs Illusion) 43:55 - Daniel Dennett's impact 49:12 - Susan Blackmore's Delusionism 54:43 - Weak vs Strong Illusionism 58:07 - Moorean Argument against Illusionism 1:04:26 - Ethics Without Sentience 1:16:40 - Coherence of other Metaphysical positions (Ft Friston, Levin, Clarke) 1:27:02 - Maintaining an open mind within consciousness discourse 1:30:20 - Nicolas Humphrey's Phenomenal Surrealism 1:34:01 - Perks of Illusionism 1:37:37 - Infamous Illusionism Symposium 1:40:41 - Influencial Philosophers 1:45:38 - Other philosophical topics of interest 1:48:24 - Conclusion THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)

I gave illusionism a fair shot...but at some point, and it doesn't matter if it's Dennett/Frankish/Graziano/Churchland or this guy, the coherence just breaks down into a total coping mechanism to uphold the physical. They give you an excellent heuristic for modalities like self-conciousness, but when it comes to the thing in itself, the phenomenology, it's like "Uumm, well - so it's physical but it also isn't, because it doesn't really exist - it's a representation or story you tell yourself". I mean, without going into detailed objections (which there a ton of), it seems to me like a magic trick out of the shoehorning playbook - "This thing is difficult to deal with, therefore we declare it non-existent to rationalize a completely unnecessary ontology". Sorry Tevin for ranting again, great content as usual!

@petershelton7367

8 ай бұрын

I like your review

@dontfollowthinkforyourself

8 ай бұрын

@@petershelton7367 when is the wedding ?

@Brettthickhammer

8 ай бұрын

These guys don't understand much. They spent the entire time on semantics and confirming their bias. This was dumb.

nice work, great guest and host..hope to see more

@drtevinnaidu

8 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Warning - long comment. First a word of reprimand ! ‘Information’ - as a phenomenon in its own right & not just what any of it says, or means or does - is still missing from your analyses !! And everyone else’s. ‘Thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ (cognition, reasoning, understanding, learning, deciding; all mental/mindful phenomena) are all information-related phenomena and it is not difficult to show that one of the principal (& completely inexcusable) reasons we have not so far come to any good & proper - nor fully verifiable - understanding of these otherwise greatly sought-after yet still highly mysterious phenomena is due in great part to the simple fact that we do not presently also have a good & proper - that is, we do not presently also have a clear & fully verifiable - understanding or science of ‘information’ itself. Although I have personally had the (dubious) fortune of having been able to figure out ‘information’s’ correct (& fully verifiable) ontological identity, and although I’m not going to divulge its formalistic definition here in this KZread comment (without which formalistic definition it is not possible to establish a full & accurate science of the phenomenon, but with it it is) nevertheless I can assure you that with it in hand - that is, with ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity within one’s investigative arsenal (along with a full science of the phenomenon) - the exercise of determining the ontological identities of all of the other directly information-related phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list) becomes one of no great difficulty. In addition, no small number of other errors, misunderstandings & omissions plague this area of research also, among these being a(n equally inexcusable) technological ignorance, shall we say, that is, a failure to understand the critical differences between the kinds of machines, technologies, devices & systems on which the several different phenomena of contention - of study - run. It becomes clear that the kinds of machines, systems, gadgets & devices - either animate or inanimate - which operate on ‘information’ are mechanically/technologically distinct from those which operate on ‘digits’. It becomes clear that ‘digits’ are not ‘information’, that all directly information-related phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ are not computationally tractable; that computers cannot think - let alone do so either intelligently or consciously & even less so in a cognitively self-consciously aware manner. And that the animal brain is not a computer. Yes. It’s a machine …. a thinking machine, but not a computer. Animal brains do not just count things. Few investigators seem to recognise the wholly incommensurable distinctions between ‘counting’ & ‘thinking’, & between computers & robots. That which becomes clear is that while ‘thinking’ is that which robots do - that which robots, robovacs, automatic doors, aircraft on autopilot, climate control systems with their thermostats, cooling & heating elements attached, along with self driving cars, & all manner of other lowly, garden variety servomechanisms & other sundry cybernetic devices, do, computers turn out to be nothing more than ramped-up abacuses, lowly garden variety bead-counting contraptions - up-scaled, vastly accelerated, turbo charged, massively miniaturised, electronically automated counting/calculating devices to be sure but for all that abacuses, beads on strings, and as such can no more think, reason, learn, understand, communicate & make fitness maximising/optimising decisions than can a school child’s set of times tables, a farmer’s almanac, a mathematician’s log tables or a technician’s slide rule. And then there are machines & devices which merely ‘handle’ &/or operate on, ‘information’ - machines, system, devices which variously harvest, gather, collect, sort (process), store, retrieve from storage, transport, transduce, transmit, transform, restore back to some former or original format, etc, etc. Examples of such shenanigans are to be found in all of our own movie making & showing equipment - TVs, handheld comms devices, &, as a matter of demonstrable fact, most of the Internet too. Not a few full on fully conscious entities such as ourselves, possess, in addition to the real thinking elements inside of ourselves, a rather large number of mere ‘info-handling’ devices on board too - cameras, audio recording equipment, etc. Indeed, if one looks closely enough one can find a little movie theatre & projector in there too - not to omit the little homunculus sitting there watching the show ……. The in-house distinctions between all of the mere information-handling equipment & all of the actual active thinking elements - the latter which in turn produces all of the directly information-related, mental/mindful phenomena - become clear also, that is between any of the many & various but simple handling practices (eg, gathering, harvesting, capturing, copying, transporting, transmitting, transducing, rendering on photographic film, transforming, digitising, storing, retrieving from storage, sorting, integrating, processing, transforming, restoring to a former &/or original format, enlarging, editing, compressing, etc), & all of the bona fide mental things as thinking, intelligence, knowledge, understanding, learning, consciousness & cognitive self conscious awareness, etc. Indeed, it becomes clear that while everything - every lump of solid matter here in our universe - thinks, not everything is conscious, even fewer lumps of solid matter are cognitively self-consciously aware. It not only becomes (measurably/verifiably) clear that we live in a panpsychic universe, that is to say, in one in which each & every single, individual increment of solid matter present here has some certain - & fully measurable - kind & amount of internal sentience on board, but as far as this sentient facility is concerned, it turns out that it is the kind & amount of information any one particular increment of solid matter can first detect, then ‘harvest’, & then (not just handle, or ‘count’, but) finally utilise in an existentially efficacious manner, which is that which amounts to the exact measure of that particular material body’s degree of sentience, or consciousness. Consciousness turns out to be a measurable/quantifiable phenomenon. How much ‘information’ can you, dear reader, detect (read), gather (& not just count!), but then utilise in an existentially efficacious manner ??!!

@aliceshapirostudio

8 ай бұрын

Proust would be proud of you.

We are delusionally conscious. As fish understands the world, we are like fish in our understanding of reality.

A theory about consciousness, first of all, is a theory. If I separate myself from consciousness in order to study it, I have to approach it by means of an abstraction or model. Is not such an abstraction consciousness in action? The theory may be that consciousness is a mirage, but that will not, by definition, be consciousness. A model about climate can coexist seamlessly with consciousness; a model about consciousness collides head-on with it. Perhaps that clash is the teleology of the theory itself. "Studying" consciousness implies dismantling all the constructs it has assembled. Only in this way does consciousness see itself.

@jorgegarciapla6880

8 ай бұрын

From Kastrup (2020): 《In the philosophy of mind, inattention to phenomenology and self-reflective introspection comes at a high price. For if we turn the study of the mind into a purely abstract conceptual process -in which concepts are deliberately separated from our lived experiences, like cards on a table- we lose touch with the object of our inquiry. Attempts to inquire objectively into the mind -the most subjective of all things- cause us to fall into a fundamental contradiction that limits us epistemically. After all, is it not obvious that to study the mind in the proper way one must try to know one's own mind? Not only continental philosophy, but also analytic philosophy, whether it recognizes it or not, depends fundamentally on personal and direct experience in order to progress, because conceivability depends on the life we have lived, on the richness and depth of the experiences we have had. Philosophy, as a love of wisdom, arises, like wisdom, from lived experience, not from pure abstraction.》

Is reality real?

@drtevinnaidu

8 ай бұрын

What is real?

@TheWorldTeacher

8 ай бұрын

@@drtevinnaidu real/reality: that which is ontologically extant, that is, that which exists objectively. Unfortunately, each pundit (paṇḍita) has his or her own interpretation of what constitutes reality. For example, one person may claim that dreams are unreal, since they exist solely in the mind of a dreamer, whilst another person may assert that dreams are indeed real, since a mind and its content is a feature of the phenomenal universe. The same paradigm can be extended to fictional characters in a motion picture or in a novel. Cf. “Real”. According to the metaphysical schema espoused this Most Holy of Holy Scriptures, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, (dual- aspect Monism), the term “real”, whether it is capitalized or not, applies to ANY-THING that is found in the objectively-perceivable sphere (the phenomenal universe, including both gross and subtle objects - see Chapter 05), as well as to NO-THING (Pure Subjectivity, or the Noumenal field, of which naught can be said - see Chapter 06). Simply because gross matter is tangible and subtle matter is intangible, does not make the former more real than the latter. Nobody would adduce that water is less real than a stone, just because solids are more tactile than liquids. Similarly, it is a misunderstanding of reality to assert that thoughts and feelings are less real than gross objects. See the Glossary entry “matter”. Therefore, every object and every subject is real within its own CATEGORY. Within the waking state, the fact that you are now studying the Glossary of this book is real. Within the dreaming state, the fact that you are experiencing a dream is real within the CATEGORY of the dream state. The fact that your physical body may not be skydiving in the waking state as it is within the dreaming state, does not lessen the reality of the dream (again, within its CATEGORY). Otherwise, as alluded to above, one would be forced to consider space (that is, a three dimensional vacuum) to be less real than a rock, since one cannot experience empty space with four of the five bodily senses, whereas a rock can be experienced with all five senses. So, ultimately, there is naught but the real, and this fact has sombre ethical implications, for if this world was truly real (as opposed to being a falsity, or an illusion, as claimed in certain pseudo-spiritual doctrines), it entails that humans ought to interact with other living creatures in a far more serious manner than we normally do, especially in the way we treat non-human animals. At present, less than one percent of the population is vegan, sadly. Real/Reality: The capitalized form of the word refers to that which is unaffected by the spatio-temporal field (in other words, the metaphysical or Absolute sphere). ULTIMATE Reality is also called “Pure Subjectivity”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Supersoul”, “The Tao”, “The Undifferentiated Field”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Absolute Consciousness”, as well as a host of similar terms. Cf. “real”. Factually speaking, BOTH the eternal realm (which is Pure Subjectivity Itself) and the manifest universe/multiverse (which is matter, including any abstract thought objects produced by the mental processes of animals), are Real. The only proviso is that the material realm is temporal, or at least, it is ever-mutating, and therefore, often excluded from most definitions given of “(Ultimate) Reality”.

@a-k9161

6 ай бұрын

What is real, How do you define "real"? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then "real" is simply electrical signals intepreted by your brain... [Turns on TV] This is the world that you know. The world as it was at the end of the 20th century. Morpheus Matrix

Can Kemmer debate Kastrup please ?

@drtevinnaidu

8 ай бұрын

I've thought about organizing this...

I can hit you with a stick and ask you Is Consciousness Real? You have gone from one illusion to another or one theory to another and you say you find the truth every time. You cannot find truth by your knowledge. so wisdom is knowing you know nothing In the sense that theories can not bring about truth about reality. The question comes from the answer you already have.

When he says physicallysts does he mean physicist?

@drtevinnaidu

6 ай бұрын

A physicist is someone who studies physics. A physicalist is a philosophical concept that posits that everything is physical. It makes sense by this definition that most physicists are physicalist (most, not all).

@a-k9161

6 ай бұрын

@@drtevinnaidu usually people use the word materialist. Anyway thank you for your reply

@drtevinnaidu

6 ай бұрын

Physicalism and Materialism are closely related but also slightly different..

@drtevinnaidu

6 ай бұрын

Thanks for your comment!

As an engineer I understand all type of systems. The brain to me does all type of similar operations as human engineered systems. Just seems to me that many philosophers go off on these tangental theories because of a lack of engineering system knowledge. To me as an engineer and student of philosophy, all of these descriptions from idealism, pantheism, pansychism, physicalism, materialism etc. are trivial nonsense.

@drtevinnaidu

8 ай бұрын

As an engineer: A) Do you truly understand all type of systems? B) What description do you believe best fits consciousness? 😁👍🏽

@nyworker

8 ай бұрын

@@drtevinnaidu yes, I think I have a good understanding of them. Actually one I did not mention was IIT which best fits. To me neurons are the same as muscle cells because they are forming a type of integration. Idealism is the most objective view in the sense that the elements of our own consciousness just like the elements of our own biology is inherent in all matter.