How could I even formulate an argument against consciousness without being conscious?

@BugRib

4 ай бұрын

You could (in principle) be a non-conscious human who nonetheless formulates all kinds of arguments, including ones that say consciousness, as such, doesn't _really_ exist. Kind of like being a really good chatbot (assuming chatbots aren't conscious...which is _literally_ NOTHING but an assumption, BTW). I can't help but wonder, somewhat seriously, whether Illusionists somehow lack phenomenal consciousness/qualia--i.e. whether there's "anything it's like" to be an Illusionist/eliminativist about consciousness. I mean, I'm not totally serious...but...I am a bit serious.

@shostycellist

4 ай бұрын

@BugRib That's a good point. Though a chat box at this point still depends upon conscious humans and basically plagiarizes their content. But maybe someday. Now, technically,... in an attempt to salvage my argument haha... I asked, how could "I" formulate an argument against consciousness. I personally couldn't formulate an argument against consciousness without falling into contradiction. But you couldn't be sure i had fallen into contradiction because you can't be sure i am conscious! Anyway, yeah, you know, maybe they do lack qualia. Makes one wonder! I mean, if one can't be sure of their own consciousness, I would think the result would be a devastating and complete skepticism.

@mirceatim3274

4 ай бұрын

there, you just did it (joke?)

@shostycellist

4 ай бұрын

@mirceatim3274 Yeah, not feeling so conscious right now!

@user-zc4yd9ss7h

Ай бұрын

Exactly...

I thoroughly enjoy Robert's abilities to conduct these discussions so gracefully and informatively . I admire Galens suggestion to keep the consciencenes topic simple . Seemingly unwilling to define it and rightly so . Bravo gentlemen.

basically an illusion would not ponder about being an illusion ...

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

4 ай бұрын

illusion: a thing that is, or is likely to be, wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses. Probably the most well-known example of an illusion is that of a mirage in a desert, in which a thirsty traveller sees what appears to be a body of refreshing water, but in actual fact, is seeing the effect of intense heat reflecting against the sand dunes, resembling the gentle waves of a lake of water. Cf. “māyā”. According to some schools of metaphysics, especially Idealism, the universe in which we are located, including our very own body- mind constructs, is naught but an ILLUSORY appearance (“māyā”, in Sanskrit) in the “mind” of a Universal Field of Awareness, known as Monistic Idealism, or at least the notion that the phenomenal world is merely an illusory appearance in the minds of conscious life forms such as we human beings, sometimes called subjective idealism. Cf. “Idealism”, “Nirguna Brahman” and “Saguna Brahman”. However, on the far more plausible metaphysical schema promulgated in this book, called Advaita Vedānta (dual-aspect monism), the physical universe of mind and matter is not and can not be an illusion, since everything, without exception, is “Brahman” (The Absolute). Rather, it is the individual human person who PERCEIVES the world in an illusory manner, thinking that it is something that it is not. That is to say, when one believes that the phenomenal universe is separate from the noumenal sphere, or that the subject who is experiencing phenomena is fundamentally distinct from the objects of perception, that person situated in a state of delusion. An illusion is distinguished from an HALLUCINATION, in that an hallucination is the apparent perception of a sense object that is objectively non-existent, whereas an ILLUSION is a cognitive misapprehension of life or of something existent in the physical world. As a child of about the age of seven, I was smitten by a mildly-serious disease (and most probably, prescribed some kind of medicinal drug, or else, I possibly experienced a fever). Upon waking in the middle of the night, I walked into the bedroom of my parents and saw that the room was full of colourful tropical fish swimming all over the place. Obviously, this episode was an HALLUCINATION, and unfortunately, at no time following the incident, did I think of asking my folks what they witnessed in my own behaviour. An ILLUSION, on the other hand, is considering something to be factual, when truthfully, it is not the case, such as thinking that a person with inordinate beauty and wealth to be automatically better, higher, or happier than any other person, simply for possessing such beauty and wealth. In more than one chapter of this book, it is stated that this material existence is illusory. It ought to be emphasized that this does not mean that the world is an hallucination, but that it is a process taking place within spatio-temporality and which we believe to be a real, enduring phenomenon, and that our multifarious emotional, psychological, and social problems are far grimmer and far more insurmountable than they are in actuality, despite the fact that everything expanded from a singularity.

An illusion is still a subjective experience. Consciousness is the only thing that we know for certain exists. You can't prove that there exists a physical world independently of consciousness.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

4 ай бұрын

illusion: a thing that is, or is likely to be, wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses. Probably the most well-known example of an illusion is that of a mirage in a desert, in which a thirsty traveller sees what appears to be a body of refreshing water, but in actual fact, is seeing the effect of intense heat reflecting against the sand dunes, resembling the gentle waves of a lake of water. Cf. “māyā”. According to some schools of metaphysics, especially Idealism, the universe in which we are located, including our very own body- mind constructs, is naught but an ILLUSORY appearance (“māyā”, in Sanskrit) in the “mind” of a Universal Field of Awareness, known as Monistic Idealism, or at least the notion that the phenomenal world is merely an illusory appearance in the minds of conscious life forms such as we human beings, sometimes called subjective idealism. Cf. “Idealism”, “Nirguna Brahman” and “Saguna Brahman”. However, on the far more plausible metaphysical schema promulgated in this book, called Advaita Vedānta (dual-aspect monism), the physical universe of mind and matter is not and can not be an illusion, since everything, without exception, is “Brahman” (The Absolute). Rather, it is the individual human person who PERCEIVES the world in an illusory manner, thinking that it is something that it is not. That is to say, when one believes that the phenomenal universe is separate from the noumenal sphere, or that the subject who is experiencing phenomena is fundamentally distinct from the objects of perception, that person situated in a state of delusion. An illusion is distinguished from an HALLUCINATION, in that an hallucination is the apparent perception of a sense object that is objectively non-existent, whereas an ILLUSION is a cognitive misapprehension of life or of something existent in the physical world. As a child of about the age of seven, I was smitten by a mildly-serious disease (and most probably, prescribed some kind of medicinal drug, or else, I possibly experienced a fever). Upon waking in the middle of the night, I walked into the bedroom of my parents and saw that the room was full of colourful tropical fish swimming all over the place. Obviously, this episode was an HALLUCINATION, and unfortunately, at no time following the incident, did I think of asking my folks what they witnessed in my own behaviour. An ILLUSION, on the other hand, is considering something to be factual, when truthfully, it is not the case, such as thinking that a person with inordinate beauty and wealth to be automatically better, higher, or happier than any other person, simply for possessing such beauty and wealth. In more than one chapter of this book, it is stated that this material existence is illusory. It ought to be emphasized that this does not mean that the world is an hallucination, but that it is a process taking place within spatio-temporality and which we believe to be a real, enduring phenomenon, and that our multifarious emotional, psychological, and social problems are far grimmer and far more insurmountable than they are in actuality, despite the fact that everything expanded from a singularity.

@richardharvey1732

4 ай бұрын

Hi Cyro,3204, You do indeed pick on the principle paradox of all humanity!, that without our consciousness we have no window onto the physical universe and so without that awareness have no proof of existence, what that does however is beg the question!, on what grounds do you suppose that reality is subject to our awareness?, in what ways is the universe sensitive to us!. For me I find that I have to make at least some basic assumptions, among them that there actually is a real physical universe in which we do exist, that this universe is in no material way subject to our perceptions, we might describe it even quite accurately but in no way does that confer any influence or control. This allows me to adopt an attitude of indulgence, I am free to think in all and any way I see fit, I might even be able to communicate some of it with others, I can sometimes apply what little knowledge and understanding that I have acquired to manipulate materials and tools to accomplish a variety of chosen physical tasks, I can sometimes do such things with the help and collaboration of others, at no time in any place do I assume any certainty, always I am if satisfied with the outcome I am always relieved and thankful, I never need to claim any truth or rightness. My consciousness and imagination serve to play a major part in all such games but they are still always only games, it is the whole environment in which I exist that actually controls and regulates all my thoughts and actions and does so far beyond my understanding. Cheers, Richard.

@RevingTanks

4 ай бұрын

Then is an illusion fake??

@Resmith18SR

4 ай бұрын

So are you a solipsist? Don't you believe that other people also exist besides you? Do you believe that you are the only one that exists because you cannot prove that other people exist besides you? The physical Universe exists independently of life, human life, and consciousness. The Universe is scientifically proven to have existed for billions of years and life and human life much later.

@cyro3204

4 ай бұрын

@@Resmith18SR All I know is that there is subjective experience. I can't know for sure that other people are conscious, but I have to act like they are. And no, science hasn't proven anything. If anything, science shown that the physical world is an illusion.

I find it hard to understand how one can respect anyone who claims that "consciousness is an illusion". The utter failure of such a person to grasp the question at hand is a major red flag.

I must take my awareness of my surroundings as a brute fact. Any other position is a bit of a stretch.

Have two people describe something that they see by writing it down and not letting the other see what they wrote down. If one can do this with anything at all and come up with essentially the same description, one would have to assume that not only is it an illusion; but it is an illusion affecting two people. Wouldn't it be easier to assume that it is not an illusion? In fact, we don't even have to do this experiment. Most likely, everyone can come up with some experiences that show the same thing.

This sort of discussion really does have immediate application to the clarification of some of the most important social and political conflicts - just because some of the sharpest and most destructive social conflicts really are to a very great extent - and in some cases wholly - misunderstandings - what we often refer to as arguing ‘at cross purposes’ - So that even those ideologues who deliberately misrepresent their aims may be rendered harmless - their support base may be split-up or re-directed - provided the public is given repeated, daily rehearsal of these ideas - and sees these ideas repeatedly applied IN VERY GREAT DETAIL to a wide variety of social conflicts.

Consciousness is the only thing we have to examine consciousness. The question cannot be answered

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Can a self examine a self?

@patrickcullen5598

4 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 it's quite difficult to step outside consciousness and have a look at how it works. All the information we have we're looking at through our consciousness. I'm all in favour of good guesses, but that's the best we can expect.

@theotormon

4 ай бұрын

@@patrickcullen5598Consciousness might not even be one thing. It might be many things. Perhaps the process that produces sight qualia is entirely different than the one that produces smell qualia.

The answer was provided in Bhagvad Gita as "Absolute Truth". The knowledge was shared approx. 5,000 years ago. In Rig-Veda (10,000 years old approx.) it was mentioned as "Nirgun tattva". Additionally, scripture book of Mandukya Upanishad also mentioned it as "Turiya", "which was translated in English as Conciousness".

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Saying “consciousness is absolute truth” is a senseless and meaningless statement unless you can explain how consciousness is absolute truth. Probably would also help to define “absolute truth” first.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

@@halcyon2864 No, not confused. Let’s just say, not convinced ; _)_ But I’m interested in knowing what value or benefit proponents of this belief system believe are brought about, either to the individual or the species, by taking such a religious perspective.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

@@LifesInsight Agreed that life and existence are likely to always remain mysterious. That is why I think a question we should always ask is, what are the pros and cons, both to the individual and, especially, to the species of believing in any one particular belief system. I personally believe that science and the scientific method are the best “belief system” we have right now, in that they produces real beneficial tangible results for both the individual and the species. So much so, that I’m sure I don’t even have to name the benefits they are so pervasive and obvious.

@S3RAVA3LM

4 ай бұрын

Very nice statement, good sir. It all makes since now.

@user-jk8vc5zr9z

4 ай бұрын

​​​@@longcastle4863Thank you for your reply. Absolute truth means that "A self-realisation of that we are the Universe", in general (we are not separate from this universe). You, me and others, all celestial bodies (innumerable superclusters and all galaxies, all stars, all planets, all moons, etc.; within it), and rest all the remaining 95% of it, are 100% in totality. At human scale, we are made of this 100% in totality, out of which 5% is matter (excitation in known quantum fields) and rest is Formless (or nirguan). So, in principle there is no difference between your conciousness or mine conciousness or conciousness of any extra terrestial life in the universe. This difference is created by human beings due to their ego. At the fundamental level we & the universe are all same, unified and connected. One who self-realized this truth understand this absolute reality. Addition to this, Creation of matter happens from this formless, Preserved within the formless and dissolution into the formless. So, there is no further point of any argument required. Hence, it is already concluded that the absolute truth is the conciousness or turiya. 🙏

I'd like to suggest talking with Graziano about his Attention Schema Theory. That's a theory which has been quite satisfying for me, at least. Among the may things I like about his theory, is that he does not wish to use the provocative term 'illusion'. Rather, he uses the word 'model' or 'representation'. For those who are curious, briefly put: Attention Schema Theory assumes the brain is the controller of a dynamic system (namely, itself and the rest of the body), and in order for it to be an effective controller, it requires a good model of its own workings. That is the function of consciousness: to control attention. The fact consciousness relies on a representative model to detect its own state makes sense, if we notice how we cannot concentrate our awareness to such an extent that we can sense the input of single sense receptors, such as a light receptor in our retina. A minimum level of activity is required before it passes the threshold of consciousness. Furthermore, that is also why we do not have an innate sense of which neuron did what at which moment. Rather, we are only aware of some sensation, which happens to be brought to us via an array of neuronal activities (which consciousness will not know about, unless it is provided feedback via some *external* sensory measurement data, such as from an fMRI scanner)

Consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain and functional nervous system. Without the brain and nervous system there would be no consciousness.

@MrTee3three

4 ай бұрын

There’s no way to prove this as you can’t go outside of consciousness. It may well turn out that the opposite is true (matter including the brain depend on consciousness)

@highvalence7649

4 ай бұрын

There still is not a good argument for this, at least not one that i have seen. The evidence commonly appealed to doesnt establish that without any brain there would be no consciousness.

Consciousness is objective. A group of tourists looking at the Golden Gate Bridge at the same time are not having illusions.

@krzemyslav

4 ай бұрын

You confuse consciousness with perception. Consciousness is private and subjective. And subjective is not what is meant by illusion in this argument. By saying that consciousness is an illusion Daniel Dennet does not mean that what you perceive doesn't exist, he means that the experiencer and the experience doesn't exist.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@krzemyslav Well he seems wrong about that because situations can be imagined and actually take place in which two experiencers perceive each other. Meaning that in one and the same moment they are real and an illusion. Exist and don’t exist.

As Bernardo Kastrup states: either illusionism is incoherent, or it’s irrelevant. If illusionism is stating that consciousness doesn’t actually exist - it’s incoherent. If illusionism is saying consciousness isn’t what it seems to be - it’s irrelevant to the topic, and doesn’t contradict consciousness actually existing.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

4 ай бұрын

Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed. If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness"). He also believes in (limited) freedom of will, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life. In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my KZread homepage. However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism. In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱 After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed? Furthermore, Bernado has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics). Peace!

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

That being said, consciousness in no way resembles what Kastrup says it is-some all pervasive thing imbued in all reality. Consciousness clearly arose as a component of biological life to aid living creatures in adapting to and surviving in the various environments they find themselves in. We have found consciousness nowhere else in the Universe. But despite consciousness clearly being a latecomer on the universal scene, only as a component of biological life, thinkers like Kastrup try to claim it is primary, based, imo, on nothing more than wishful thinking.

@backwardthoughts1022

4 ай бұрын

kastrup is a proto-physicalist with no self admittedly no comprehension of awareness.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

4 ай бұрын

@@backwardthoughts1022, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

@backwardthoughts1022

4 ай бұрын

​@@longcastle4863there are ppl who can do science on the mind and those who cannot. meaning there are those who can rigorously observe the phenomenon they are seeking to understand and there are those you cannot. in that regard your position is as silly as listening to for example deepak chopra, modern christians, or 10yos who assert they are their brain. your assertion that mind is a biological component is on equal footing to them, since you equally cannot conduct scientific inquiry into the phenomenon you are seeking to understand. know your place correctly.

Consciousness is the only thing we know CANNOT be an illusion. To even entertain the question reveals a gross misunderstanding of what consciousness is.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Consciousness can experience an illusion, a delusion, a hallucination, but it cannot be any of these.

And just like any other discussion on consciousness, this left me even more confused. Nice video btw

Conciousness is an objective phenomenon which truly appears unreality or illusion in subjective world for image and imagery is not deeply rooted in physical or natural world।

@jackarmstrong5645

4 ай бұрын

It's a subjective phenomena. Objective to only one person.

For something to be an illusion, it needs "someone" to be illusionated.

I really enjoyed his action scenes in Taken

@BugRib

4 ай бұрын

I thought his Qui-Gon Jinn was one of the only good things about _George Lucas's Disney's Lucasfilm's Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace._

@BugRib

4 ай бұрын

...Didn't know he was also a philosopher! It's no surprise that he thinks phenomenal consciousness exists, because how could the Cosmic and/or Living Force be real if phenomenal consciousness wasn't real? 🤔

@kokits

4 ай бұрын

@@BugRib he’s using philosophy to control his anger

It's not whether it "seems" to be an illusion or not, it's more about to "whom" (or to "what") this qualia "seems" to be an experience. That is, *what* is experiencing in the first place? Is that *what* an illusion or not? (Eff it I got lost there ... )

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Good question. What is having the illusion? Can an illusion experience an illusion?

@james6401

4 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 better put, thank you! And possibly a more valid question might be WHY is something having that illusion? How preprogrammed and automatic are we already? How often do people who go about their daily lives routinely suddenly stop and think "I am a lump of conscious matter suddenly conscious that I'm driving this city bus around the place. Very interesting." It's quite often the province of philosophy and philosopers only, largely. In the past you might have been referred to a head shrink for thinking about thinking ...

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

@@james6401 I personally don’t buy the illusion idea. Why, through the process of biological evolution, would Nature “select” for us the _illusion_ of consciousness and free will, when _actually_ selecting these things for us is so clearly beneficial for adaptation and survival? Why would evolution show and increasing complexity in consciousness-or at least in brain size and structural complexity-over time, just to provide deeper and more complex illusions of consciousness and free will in animals higher up along the phylogenetic tree? What are the proposed benefits of these illusions that they have not already been weeded out by Natural Selection?

@james6401

4 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 How related are consciousness and awareness? I'm mainly taking a Devil's Advocate stance when I think of consciousness as "illusion" - which would mean what if it were correct? We are meat machines rarely acting truly consciously and almost always acting instinctively and in a mechanical, behavioural way, programmed by nature. How likely is it that we are just very complicated meat machines at the mercy of genetics and evolution, simply doing our best to survive and protect our families? A lot of us are actually just like that and "consciousness" is just a fancy word anaesthetists and paramedics use

Thank you for the food of the soul you are providing! Are we discussing consciousness or awareness? I have the impression that although they are two different concepts, when we are talking about consciousness we mean awareness! One of the "Large Language Models" of AI helped me to realise this!

Sensory qualia are the understanding of *hallucinated* symbols representing what another part of the brain is doing, that other part of the brain is just the part that correlates with the outer world, mechanically through sensory channels. If we are all brains in vats, then the only thing a brain-part can experience is what another brain part is doing. So one part of the brain covaries with the world (so it must be connected to the outer world, but needn't have the "experience" of the outer world), and another brain-part experiences (i.e., computes, or whatever) "the meaning of" those brain states in the first brain part. This may not demystify consciousness a whole lot, but it does put qualia closer to understanding 2+3=5, as experiencing the quale of #RED and correctness of 2+3=5 are both symbolic processes. It seems derogatory to call the understanding of a physiological symbol (e.g., the quale red) an "illusion", in the same sense that calling the understanding of 2+3=5 an illusion would be. Calling it a "hallucination", might be more accurate, given it's a "special" hallucination, namely one that the world (reliably) causes, and therefore, it can be shared by other mind/brains (and reflected upon through language). That's sort of the whole point of consciousness. Note that if qualia are experiences of the meanings of things, but not the things themselves, there shouldn't be a problem dreaming about them. We dream (and think) separated from the external world, about the meaning of things in the external world, all the time. The dream angle is why I have a two-module approach, which is kind of like dualism, but nevertheless completely within brain. Another reason is that "modularity" is usually a good idea in systems design, and mind is probably a system (although Minsky, and possibly Dennett, are more sympathetic to thinking of mind as a "society").

@backwardthoughts1022

4 ай бұрын

configurations of water electricity fat and protein ie. the brain don't produce or arise with any function or property of 'representing'. its equivalent to saying youre casting color spray when you play dnd. its magical thinking. mass-energy does not possess colors etc outside the skull or inside the skull.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

I agree with you about the derogatory bit. And I think sometimes deliberately provocative or negative words are used for whatever the equivalent of clicks is in the academic world is. Also, interesting theory.

Is not "an illusion" something that is a temporary experience that changes our consciousness that is something other than our consciousness of what we recognise with a clear mind. Even with mind changing substances it does not change consciousness only the perceptions within it, even if consciousness is a illusion, it's still conscious ✨💙🙏

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

4 ай бұрын

illusion: a thing that is, or is likely to be, wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses. Probably the most well-known example of an illusion is that of a mirage in a desert, in which a thirsty traveller sees what appears to be a body of refreshing water, but in actual fact, is seeing the effect of intense heat reflecting against the sand dunes, resembling the gentle waves of a lake of water. Cf. “māyā”. According to some schools of metaphysics, especially Idealism, the universe in which we are located, including our very own body- mind constructs, is naught but an ILLUSORY appearance (“māyā”, in Sanskrit) in the “mind” of a Universal Field of Awareness, known as Monistic Idealism, or at least the notion that the phenomenal world is merely an illusory appearance in the minds of conscious life forms such as we human beings, sometimes called subjective idealism. Cf. “Idealism”, “Nirguna Brahman” and “Saguna Brahman”. However, on the far more plausible metaphysical schema promulgated in this book, called Advaita Vedānta (dual-aspect monism), the physical universe of mind and matter is not and can not be an illusion, since everything, without exception, is “Brahman” (The Absolute). Rather, it is the individual human person who PERCEIVES the world in an illusory manner, thinking that it is something that it is not. That is to say, when one believes that the phenomenal universe is separate from the noumenal sphere, or that the subject who is experiencing phenomena is fundamentally distinct from the objects of perception, that person situated in a state of delusion. An illusion is distinguished from an HALLUCINATION, in that an hallucination is the apparent perception of a sense object that is objectively non-existent, whereas an ILLUSION is a cognitive misapprehension of life or of something existent in the physical world. As a child of about the age of seven, I was smitten by a mildly-serious disease (and most probably, prescribed some kind of medicinal drug, or else, I possibly experienced a fever). Upon waking in the middle of the night, I walked into the bedroom of my parents and saw that the room was full of colourful tropical fish swimming all over the place. Obviously, this episode was an HALLUCINATION, and unfortunately, at no time following the incident, did I think of asking my folks what they witnessed in my own behaviour. An ILLUSION, on the other hand, is considering something to be factual, when truthfully, it is not the case, such as thinking that a person with inordinate beauty and wealth to be automatically better, higher, or happier than any other person, simply for possessing such beauty and wealth. In more than one chapter of this book, it is stated that this material existence is illusory. It ought to be emphasized that this does not mean that the world is an hallucination, but that it is a process taking place within spatio-temporality and which we believe to be a real, enduring phenomenon, and that our multifarious emotional, psychological, and social problems are far grimmer and far more insurmountable than they are in actuality, despite the fact that everything expanded from a singularity.

I love Reese’s Cups and that’s not an illusion 🎉

There is no deep problem without language. Language is the deep problem!

@offtheradarsomewhere.

4 ай бұрын

There is no problem, only solutions - John Lennon

@Krod4321

4 ай бұрын

@offtheradarsomewhere. Absolutely no problems at all without Language!!!

@offtheradarsomewhere.

4 ай бұрын

@@Krod4321If i am in need of water desperately, maybe my life depends on it, I don't need language to solve the problem, I'm splitting hairs here, depending on the topic, there's infinite answers to even one statement so never a problem ,language is an amazing tool to communicate, however there are no problems only confusion of what we think we can control or cannot control, every situation has a choice but never a problem. That's my opinion and I value yours✨💙🙏

@offtheradarsomewhere.

4 ай бұрын

@@Krod4321 A tooth ache could be considered a problem aswell as other things, but they are not, most things can be fixed, a problem is not the problem only the perception of the situation what you call the problem.

@Krod4321

4 ай бұрын

@@offtheradarsomewhere. All conceptual! Brought to you by language.

We already have labeled various human experiences like dreams, hallucinations, physical mirages, reflections&refractions, phantom limbs, pareidolia&rorschach processes, and everyday human interactions, yet some of us still maintain that reality and consciousness is very individualized. Consciousness, especially qualia, are very testable. If two expert chefs agree upon a gradation of taste, it would be very ludicrous for one chef to say a soup is 15 in umami, and for the other chef to say it's 85.

I'm completely with Strawson on this one. No matter how many times I have it explained to me, I just can't seem to even make sense of illusionism or what it's arguing for. Is the claim that consciousness and qualia aren't real? Because if so, I think it's pretty self-evidently false: consciousness and qualia are obviously real, "cogito ergo sum" etc. etc. On the other hand, if the claim is that consciousness and qualia ARE real, but that many of our common beliefs about them are inaccurate or mistaken, then I think it doesn't really address the question it pretends to answer: the question isn't whether our common beliefs about consciousness and qualia are accurate reflections of these phenomena, the question is how and why these phenomena arise in the first place. At best, illusionism is just kicking the can down the road.

Who is this interviewee. Cant find his name. He makes a lot of sense.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Galen Strawson, philosophy.

consciousness is awareness of time and abstraction?

@bearcb

4 ай бұрын

Anyone has proposed it, that you know of?

@marioboido2519

4 ай бұрын

In a general sense, yes 😊

No matter how sophisticated it may be, an idea is never the thing in itself. A highly complex idea about a bird neither sings nor flies. Therefore, knowledge is and will always be incomplete. It is impossible to measure what consciousness is. It is immeasurable and therefore infinite and timeless. There are no two infinities. Consciousness is one, and the instruments of consciousness reflect it to varying degrees. When all ideas become still, through the understanding that they are limited, there is pure awareness, which is our true nature. Only consciousness is true happiness, because it is complete.

@todrichards1105

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, a bit of a stretch

Consciousness is awareness. Awareness is real. Where does awareness reside? I cannot say, but that it exists is a no brainer.

It's literally impossible for consciousness to be an illusion. An illusion can only belong to a person. If personhood is a fiction, and we are just determined electro-chemical robots, then we cannot have illusions. Just like a tree or a robot cannot have an illusion.

"My best guess is that they think it is incompatible with physics so it must be an illusion. But they haven't got an argument." Your guess is indisputably an educational guess.

@dongshengdi773

4 ай бұрын

We cannot deny the existence of so many immaterial things like emotions , Love , dreams , consciousness , beauty, art, mathematics, spiritual experiences, etc. They are as real as physical things.

@peweegangloku6428

4 ай бұрын

@@dongshengdi773 I agree.

Love this subject. Consciousness is NOT an illusion. It is real, just is not tangible. I think consciousness can be proven.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

4 ай бұрын

In your own words, define “REAL”. ☝️🤔☝️

@johnbowen4442

4 ай бұрын

It has been with quantum physics with over a hundred years of successful experiements its been proven how a scientist thinks can change the course of a experiement .

@dr_shrinker

4 ай бұрын

@@johnbowen4442no it is not. There are other interpretations besides the Copenhagen interpretation

@dennistucker1153

4 ай бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Real is something that has sufficient support that indicates it is present. Sufficient as in enough. Support as in good reason like supported by evidence or other.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

@@johnbowen4442 The idea that consciousness collapses the wave function, is mostly recognized now as a unproductive tangent the early discoverers of quantum mechanics went on, due to some careless language use in describing their original ideas and experimental results. Just the kind of thing Wittgenstein warned philosophers about.

Is it Closer or Further to Truth?😅

@haros2868

2 ай бұрын

What are you talking about? Haven't you heard about the illusion of illusion? Haven't you heard about the illusion of mathematics? Haven't you heard about the illusion of atoms? The illusion of existence?. Really, nothing exists at all. Its an empty void that sometimes believes it exists. That text you read is itself an illusion, it doesn't exists, so you didn't really read it. Because also seeing is an illusion too of course, a meat robot can't have qualias. Sarcasm* There will always be someone, or even a group that ends with "ism" that believes something is an illusion, that something can be truly anything. They just want to create problems where they do not exist. Further from the truth. Oh wait, truth itself is an illusion so you can't really go closer or further

Phenomenology of the role of the brain. There is no illusion, there is lack of explanation of the type of phenomenology.

A product or molecular entanglement maybe. But it’s definitely an intelligence layer sitting adjacent to the physical.

@ManiBalajiC

4 ай бұрын

Evolving to understand the surroundings for survival lead to understanding that there is a concept of self which evolved further, just an evolution.. everything has an understanding of the environment it is in , we are just steps ahead.

@backwardthoughts1022

4 ай бұрын

"definitely" you sound like a christian 😂

@ThexBorg

4 ай бұрын

There is some great research being done by Mike Levin. Animals demonstrate intelligence and memory without any physical brain.@@ManiBalajiC

I think the problem is that at some level it is and at some level it is not. It is likely a illusion that the brain creates, which is something going on under the hood, but also a fact of life for us humans to help us deal with our struggles..

ConsciousnesS is the Ultimate & Almighty Reality , You & I is Illusion in Existence, This & That is all ConsciousnesS Miracle Running all Around the Show Always , You Understand Fundamental Reality O Dear Sweet Ray ,Now Say With Full Mind "I Love You ConsciousnesS The GOD"

It is VERY disappointing to see people talking past each other. Dennett does not mean that consciousness does not exist when he says it's an illusion. Instead he means that it is not what it seems. To understand this, one only needs to refer to CTT videos where Robert Kuhn directly askes Dennett this and Dennett directly answers the question. Please, please, please get some new content rather than recycling these very old clips.

@halleuz1550

4 ай бұрын

Fair enough, but Strawson maintained, too, that conscious experiences cannot be different from how they seem.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

It’s always interesting to me that when I read Dennett I mostly agree with or at least understand most of what he is trying say. But then when I hear other people talk about Dennett’s views, I hardly recognize them at all.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Btw, CTT is putting out excellent new content that is actually more thorough and complete than the former episodes, but necessarily, therefore, farther and further in between. You can recognize them in the playlist because they are often composed of several separate hour long (or longer) videos with the same guest and because they’re on a split screen with Kuhn and his guest in separate locations, instead of in person like the original PBS episodes. Really excellent stuff imo. That being said, I wish CTT would put the date of the original broadcast in the description of previous episodes, if just to be fair to the guests, who are often speaking from a knowledge base of a decade or two ago-when thing we know now in science were not then yet known.

@rumidude

4 ай бұрын

@@halleuz1550 Well the experience is what it is in the sense that it feels that way. What Dan Dennett points out is that what it seems like to us, i.e. what we experience, is in fact not what is happening, it only seems like that. For instance, our field of vision seems full of color and all equally sharp. Yet we know that what our eye takes in is not all in color and only the central five degrees of our vision is in sharp focus, the rest being unfocused. And of course there is our natural blind spot that we don't ever see or experience as it is. And certainly what Dennett describes as "fame in the brain" is truly analogous to what we consciously experience. One can get a cut on a part of the body and yet never feel it because the "fame in the brain" made us experience something else. Even though we know that the nerves signaled the injury to the brain, we did not feel the pain because there was another experience that had gained the attention or focus of the brain. Anil Seth even describes it as the brain hallucinates our conscious reality. Anyway, that is what people such as Dan Dennett and Anil Seth, and most other scientists and philosophers mean when they say that consciousness is an illusion/hallucination.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

@@rumidude From what you describe, it sounds as if they’re just saying what Kant already said a couple centuries ago. Would Dennett deny consciousness has adaptive and survival benefits for the creatures who have it?

We are all philosophical zombies without Language!

@stellarwind1946

4 ай бұрын

Wow, so people with aphasia are unconscious.

@Krod4321

4 ай бұрын

@stellarwind1946 Never said that. I don't know enough about the condition, but they may not be aware they are councious.

aaand what is perceiving the illusion ? what is asking the question ?

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Your other consciousness. 😁

@p0indexter624

3 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 aah

ConsciousnesS Is The Ultimate & Almighty Reality , You & I Is Illusion In Existence, This & That Is All ConsciousnesS Miracle Running All Around The Show Always, You Understand Fundamental Reality O Dear Sweet Ray, Now Say With Full Mind "I Love You ConsciousnesS The GOD Ray"

Are illusions an illusion?

It may not be an illusion, but what is the object of our consciousness? What is it that we think we are conscious of; besides the very obvious and the questionable?

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

In broad strokes, the object or objects of consciousness is first and foremost, imo, the product of our five sensory perceptual apparatuses (related to sight, sound, touch, taste & smell), which give us perceptions of the world around us and which are then responded to or operated on by other aspects of our brain, such as having emotions, planning, organizing, choosing, thinking, making goals, weighing pros and cons, coming up with solutions, imagining, wishing, hoping, caring etc.

We only come to the third by way of the first

Consciousness is self awareness, and self awareness is real.

@BugRib

4 ай бұрын

I think consciousness is just awareness of absolutely anything, but it doesn't have to be awareness of self. Like, there could be an experience that's nothing but the redness of red, and absolutely nothing besides that. No thoughts, to wondering what the redness is, no awareness even of being aware. Just raw awareness. That's my take, anyway. And, yes, it's real! I have no idea what the Illusionists/eliminativists are thinking. It _seems_ like they must be trolling us...or maybe they have no conscious experiences? But I think it's more likely that they're just failing to grasp the Hard Problem of Consciousness for some reason. Some sort of "qualia blindness" or something. IMHO.

The phenomenology is just the shifting attention like Robert summarized. Illusionism is not a claim that consciousness does not exist.

Is Illusion an illusion?

in fact, consciousness is the only thing that is not an illusion

Clearly self evident that its not a illusion just look at the world ? People now in the middle east engaing in horrific acts of violence ? What Russian troops are doing in Ukraine , Jan 6 rioters in D.C people with a clearly very low awareness " consciouness " could only do these things ?

Where is the brain, that very 'place', this location brain resides, if you posit brain as proprietor of mind and princple of truth? How are you in my head and i in your head? Especially considering that we both have this " I ". How does such a relation occur? If others were simply mindless NPC's, it'd make since. There is like a super mind, that houses all other minds - Paramatman. How do different hardwares with their softwares acknowledge and relate with other softwares and hardwares outside of their own?

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

I am in your mind and you are in my mind because of language, a system of signs, which are the way living things communicate with one another. That is how “such a relation occurs”. A sign is also you seeing a friend and now he is in your head. Deep important stuff I think and fun too. And due for a renaissance. You should check out Saussure and Pierce. Semiotics.

Consciousness is Real, Consciousness is Eternal, the Life-Performance is a Real Illusion, rooted in the Consciousness.

Solipsism is a disturbing idea. Yet I have seen people preach it as something spiritual. Personally I agree with Strawson; it is a possibility not worth dwelling on.

Consciousness is Real Existence is an illusion

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Does consciousness exist?

Why can't anyone really explain what consciousness is!

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Consciousness is an accompaniment or a product of biological evolution. It aids species in adaptation and survival. It grows in complexity as we move up the phylogenetic tree. Consciousness has never been found in nonliving matter-only in living matter.

Is software an illusion ? I mean, is there software in my computer ? Or is it just all hardware ?

Materialists want to claim consciousness is an illusion because they can't find it....... You can't even make this stuff up! You can't find consciousness because the universe = consciousness, so it's everywhere! (Not nowhere) Just not in the way you think because words and concepts fail when trying to describe something as vast as consciousness and you are trying to relate consciousness to them. It will always fall short. (Words and concepts are human things, consciousness is beyond that- sorry you can't catch it!)

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

So you are saying consciousness pervades all existence, which somehow makes consciousness unprovable, which somehow also therefore means an all pervasive consciousness is real. Which basically seems to be saying, we must accept “all is consciousness” just on faith. But why should we? What benefits do we reap by believing by faith that all is consciousness?

You must be conscious to be fooled while you're awake.

Consciousness in an illusion of consciousness. Great questions get great answers

Neurosience shows conscieusness How figure It out so Far is nil. Guys believes conscieusness arent fallacies keep out neurosience principles proceendings is wortheless neurosience.Guys proceendings neurosience honestly rethink conscieusness . Before show up if conscieusness is fallacies is necessary definies what is conscieusness. Guys keep out How definies conscieusness and what is It ilusion.

Totally right. The only thing humans can know for certain is that which they experience is that which they experience. No room for any delusions.

There is no free will and of course consciousness is an illusion

@backwardthoughts1022

4 ай бұрын

congrats youre logically equivalent to a christian saying god exists

Feeling would be the foundamental mechanism which makes reality possible? Subjectivity would overtake science to reach the finishing line?

For consciousness to be an illusion, wouldn’t there have to be some other conscious part of us having the illusion? Because can an illusion have an illusion?

I believe we are suffering from the lack of a. Clear definition. Obviously there is a phenomenon of consciousness. I think the debate is about its “thinghood” not whether we have experiences. Consciousness is a label of a process, a process in the brain. Not a different substance or some abstract information floating in a morphogenetic field or a soul or whatever.

Is life normal?

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Define “normal”.

@notanemoprog

4 ай бұрын

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

It exists, no doubt, but most of our ideas about it are fiction.

Nope.

I am totally on Strawson's side. Dennett needs to realize that he is making a mistake 🙂

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Would love to see them debate.

Still it's not

YES! Consciousness exists and it isnt physical! That is the definition of an illusion!

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

So mathematics is an illusion?

@brianabbott3280

4 ай бұрын

If you take an eliminative materialist stance than yes, math is an illusion, in that it doesn't exist. I, however, am not an eliminative materialist. @@longcastle4863

@halleuz1550

4 ай бұрын

No! The definition of an illusion of x is: x is not real but it seems that x is real.

@backwardthoughts1022

4 ай бұрын

you're staring at a shell with no pattern on it but insist on saying 'there is an emergent property of a pattern in the shell' at that point youre not operating with an illusion, but an outright psychosis.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

4 ай бұрын

Immaterial existents are abstractions, not illusions. The self-being-conscious-process happens in the realm of the abstract because process is an abstract notion, as are thoughts, as is the self which is a thought.

To an electron it seems to be attracted to a proton

@backwardthoughts1022

4 ай бұрын

and dust iron filings just can't keep their hands off this one magnet near my house. maybe they should get married. and thats still more likely to happen than it is for you to ever see colors arise as properties of any configuration of infinite mass-energy.... so remain remaining befuddled by how the immaterial and material could interact. this way you would at least succeed in maintaining intellectual honesty you see. also read up on chomsky explaining how newton dismantled the notion of the machine, not the mind, which remained untouched since his trying and failing.

Is consciousness an illusion? Answer: a very big NO. Consciousness is very real , and it's the only thing that can be definitely proven to exist. Cogito ergo sum

You only know counciousness is real and undeniable because of language. No language, no knowing. Simple

Consciousness is a name for a set phenomena of human experience not wholly understood. It may one day be replaced, like the aether and phlogiston models.

@backwardthoughts1022

4 ай бұрын

not understood by who. the mind-body problem was resolved a long long time ago by..... developing methods of rigorously observing it. thats called science. and physicalist religious metaphysics and its institutions actively obstruct it.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Consciousness is understood quite well as a component of biological life that was selected for and improved upon throughout the course of biological evolution on this planet, because of its aid in helping the creatures who have it to adapt to and survive in the environments they find themselves in.

@backwardthoughts1022

4 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 no there are zero observed properties of consciousness in assortment of mass-energy let alone in any skull, let alone in any fully mapped out neural correlate in even the simplest fully understood mapped out brains, let alone in artificially grown synapse structures that produce behavior. im... sorry.... to deprive you of your precious religious belief.

@backwardthoughts1022

4 ай бұрын

@Phoneix-vq8iv words/concepts are objects of the mind, not the mind itself which is cognition itself and functions with urges, intentions, etc, the way any other natural objects functions with its environment.

So it has been proved that physics has accepted the consciousness theory and cannot prove it. 😅

@johnbowen4442

4 ай бұрын

After over hundred years of succesfull experiements by scientists in the field of quantum physics yes .

@sujok-acupuncture9246

4 ай бұрын

​@@johnbowen4442 Yes. I Agree with full consciousness . Quantum physics has proved consciousness. My earlier statement was just a sort of poetic metaphor. Quantum physics has become the fundamental of physics and science as such. Soon quantum physics will become holy grail for birth of a new religions phenomenon. A religious phenomenon not based on stories but on practical aspects of life. The future war will be between old religions and new age religions movement.

Retroduction - an ancient old lost art, following the logic of via negativa, and how to come to terms with this anatta or atman. People by default, because of the minds construct and mode of functioning, think that to know of something that it must be defined, categorized, contrasted with 'other thans', and this isn't wrong, and it's absolutely not right, when one seeks to Know nature, the cosmos, the Divine and how things really work. The absolute Truth, the Divine, is simple, so simple in fact that the mind is inable to comprehend, as having nothing to grasp, nothing to define, therefore no delimitation or displacing. The mind is fragmented, and collects information which is Spiritual ignorance, for one can not come to the Truth by a collection of information from the multiplicity level - such information arises from and ends there. Such information, if properly thought over, should allude one to the higher of teleology. The psycho physical self or ego consciousness is delimited. The great predicate of Consciousness unto Brahman is good because Consciousness is simply, pure, undivided, without parts, before life and remains after death, is what all existence depends upon. However, the materialists do not like what i mention here ^ they do not seek the Divine, Truth or Beauty. They seek to reduce everything to a mere particle of physicality - this is antithesis to the Divine.

A more appropriate term is "ephemeral" -- temporary and brief, bounded by umbo and death. 😮

Hi Closer to Truth, this appears to be yet another of those contentious topics where in the absence of any physical evidence all we have is the unlimited speculations of all and sundry, as far as I am concerned until some real physical evidence of chemical, biological or electrical activity is presented I have no choice but to treat it as an illusion!. I make absolutely no claims as to the veracity of that statement, I only make it for reasons of practical utility, without any real facts there is nothing for me to work with. Cheers, Richard.

@halleuz1550

4 ай бұрын

As Strawson showed, it's a result of simple logic. If you don't accept logic, then good luck doing physics, chemistry and biology.

@backwardthoughts1022

4 ай бұрын

its non-existent because you cant observe it physically? pls study logic 101?

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

Well, all the evidence you claim you need, will be presented to you in your very own consciousness. If one doesn’t believe their own conscious experiences, how will they ever believe evidence presented to them within their own conscious experiences?

@richardharvey1732

4 ай бұрын

@@backwardthoughts1022 Hi Backward thoughts, I understand that you seek to earn you own title, but what is the point of such backward thought?. Does it allow you some access to higher understanding or status?. I did not say that consciousness does not exist, only that without existential material evidence to work with is is an empty vessel, without any reliable description of the properties of the contents what can we do with our ideas, can we use them to peel potatoes?. Cheers, Richard.

@richardharvey1732

4 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Hi Longcastle 4863, thank you for this, I am puzzled, what is it with the believe thing?, why do any of us have to believe anything?. Most of what is going on in and around me, only some of which I am ever actually aware of is happening regardless of my faith!, I do not need to believe it will get light tomorrow morning, if it does as it usually does I will get up, get dressed and have my breakfast and if it does not I will probably think about it for bit, if it turns out that actually something else was going on the whole time and it was never really happening that too will be interesting and stimulating, the one thing that will not trouble me is having to renounce any beliefs!. All I am trying to do here is manage my expectations as reasonably an sensibly as I can, just like everybody else I get a bit cross with myself when I get anything wrong, being right matters not a bit. Cheers, Richard.

Good lord😂

What an absurd question! We know that whatever it is we "see" in our heads is at best time delayed and remotely connected with our physical surroundings. We know our senses are flawed and easily fooled. We know that everything around us is primarily empty space regardless of what we "see" in our heads. YES, our "conscious" is an illusion.

@notanemoprog

4 ай бұрын

You did not understand the argument.

@backwardthoughts1022

4 ай бұрын

the answer to folk astronomy is not to assert the nonexistence of actual rigorous astronomy, as you are doing. you're so conditioned you don't even know youre doing it.

@glenncurry3041

4 ай бұрын

@@notanemoprog Explain how something we can not explain, or even agree on how it exists or what it is, is anything else.

Counciousness isn't an illusion, the self experiencing Counciousness is an illusion. Self awareness is the illusion and it comes from language. Without languages there would be no Self awareness.

@dr_shrinker

4 ай бұрын

Actually, language isn’t a requirement for self awareness. There are many people who are unable to communicate but are self aware.

@Krod4321

4 ай бұрын

@@dr_shrinker How do you know this?

@Krod4321

4 ай бұрын

@dr_shrinker Did these people have language before loosing their ability to communicate?

@Krod4321

4 ай бұрын

@dr_shrinker Please explain how you would know you were aware without Language. I'll wait.

@Element-oe8hn

4 ай бұрын

Because that would be your experience. No language, no ability to communicate it to others, but your awareness would be entirely unaffected by this 'disability'.@@Krod4321

I can't understand how Galen Strawson hasn't fully comprehended the Wittgensteinian philosophy that made his father famous - the problem is with his reference to what he calls 'what it is like' and how it is supposedly incompatible with science (there just is no evidence or reason that remains to support this claim). Furthermore, of course 'seems' and 'is' are different things because these words mean different things, if everything in conscious experience 'seems' how do we ever get to know what 'is'? I could go on but I got work to do - anyone triggered or intrigued can respond

The fundamental problem in the modern perspective on consciousness has it's root in the 'emergent bias'. We insist on characterizing conscipusness as an 'emergent' phenomenon, when in fact it is an intrinsic property. Overcoming the emergent bias is the *only* way to properly comprehend consciousness. Protoconsciousness is a property shared by every form of matter and energy and probably spacetime as well (which itself is just another form of energy). Protoconsciousness is like a field - it is diffuse, everywhere, and weak at large scales. But locally it can evolve to become much more complex, which is what the conscipusness of higher lifeforms is. This complexity directly results in richer sensory experiences, the more complex the lifeform, the richer it's experiences are. But everywhere in reality has at least the most rudimentary property of protoconsciousness.

Protoconsciousness is a fundamental property of physical reality. Consider this: The claim that reality, or any part thereof, exists independently of any or all awareness, is unfalsifiable, and therefore an unscientific claim.

@notanemoprog

4 ай бұрын

No.

First!

@gavaniacono

4 ай бұрын

The first at second?

No free will. Sabine proves this faster than you can say "Hossenfelder"

@backwardthoughts1022

4 ай бұрын

shes ok there are many better explainers eg. Frankish, Harris, even Seth. however no they have demonstrated not even mildly that is the case. see Sean carroll vs Alan Wallace for an education.

Imagine you didn't know language, would you have counciousness? Yes, but you wouldn't be aware of it. You would have no idea what it feels like to be conscious. What's it like to be a bat? It's not like anything without language to describe what it's like. The bat has no idea ot even exists. How could it without language?

@gldnsun-001

4 ай бұрын

@1218skills- Agreed, not many people understand the full implications of this! Have you taken a look at Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and made that correlation yet?

@ianwaltham1854

4 ай бұрын

Assuming bats are conscious: A bat experiences what its like to be a bat without language.

@Krod4321

4 ай бұрын

@ianwaltham1854 A bat doesn't experience anything without Language. Please explain any experience you could have without Language. I'll wait.

@Krod4321

4 ай бұрын

@gldnsun-001 Not familiar, but mathematics is a form of language and is conceptual as well. So yes same problem.

@Krod4321

4 ай бұрын

There is no experience without language, none that you would be aware of.

*Second Attempt:* According to a few pedantic radicals, our free willed decisions, consciousness, purpose, meaning, and the "self" are all just "illusions," and we're really just purposeless sock puppets haplessly dancing around at the whim of Newtonian physics. However, these dynamic _"characteristics of life"_ are the way reality is clearly presented to us *by default.* Reality states that I know that I am "me," I freely decide between chocolate and vanilla, I subjectively experience my own consciousness, and I exude _purpose and meaning_ in everything I do. Unfortunately for the "reality deniers," the onus is on the ones making the claim to PROVE that what we all experience each and every day is just an _illusion._

@SamoaVsEverybody814

4 ай бұрын

Causes occur in the brain before your consciousness is aware of them. You cannot will what you will, even if you can do what you will. Wherein the illusion lies. Trace your "decision" to prefer either chocolate or vanilla back far enough and you'll eventually come to a point where your will was predetermined. You can do this hypothetically any cause all the way back to the Big Bang. Purpose, meaning, and the self also have no grounding in brute truth. It's all illusory at this current juncture. OUR reality, as human beings, is confined to our pitifully limited set of senses, hence the persistent illusion that things like free will are true. It "feels" true. Plus free will works for us. Doesn't make it fundamentally true AT ALL.

@notanemoprog

4 ай бұрын

"I freely decide between chocolate and vanilla" No you do not. You actually can't produce a single fact to prove this claim of yours. All you have is tales about "well you know once I was in this terrible predicament where I had to choose between this & that and I freely chose this" &tc. But the actuality here is that you "chose" one way, not the other. You can't prove that there actually existed a possibility of you choosing otherwise: all you have is the word "chose" and a story about "freedom" that you invented and attached it to your action as a supposed context. No free will.

@SamoaVsEverybody814

4 ай бұрын

Your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are utterly false. You cannot will what you will. Every cause within your mind occurs before you are aware of it. Trace your decision to prefer chocolate or vanilla back far enough and you'll eventually come to a point of predeterminism. You can do this with any cause hypothetically all the way back to the Big Bang. Concepts like Purpose, Meaning, Self also have zero grounding in brute truth. Something being persistently illusory, is still illusory. We are confined to a pitifully limited set of senses, which means there are things that are true or untrue that we cannot ever know so. Even if we can conceive of them as relevant to our specific nature as human beings.

@notanemoprog

4 ай бұрын

You do not understand the argument. @@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

4 ай бұрын

*"Your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are utterly false"* ... You've presented such a convincing counter argument that I must concede.

Consciousness is real and not an illusion in the same sense the United States is real and not an illusion.