We are spiritual beings having this human experience.

@MrJustSomeGuy87

3 жыл бұрын

I heard that from Mumu Fresh (brilliant singer, musician, artist): kzread.info/dash/bejne/m6qGm5pxoaa2mc4.html

@rohin1432

3 жыл бұрын

False

@bvshenoy7259

3 жыл бұрын

Dr.Froylan Alvarado, an French theologian and philosopher had said; We are not human beings who go through a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings who go through a human experience. Further, religion is for those who need someone to tell them what to do and want to be guided. whereas, spirituality is for those who pay attention to their inner voice. Namaste.

The fact the we humans can grapple with these fundamental questions about our consciousness is proof that we are more than our physical bodies.

The issue is really about what makes us different from other things. We are obviously different from inanimate objects such as rocks and earth. For a start we are alive and they aren't and never have been. But then so are plants and though we shared certain attributes with plants we don't consider them like us. For example, plants respire, they grow, move with the sun, catch diseases, grow old and die and yet they do all of this without thoughts so it is thoughts that distinguish higher animals from other things. The origins of thoughts and feelings is the clue. How a physical process like chemical reactions can generate something as abstract as a thought is a mystery to modern science that many are trying to unravel. We know that a nerve impulse generated in the brain travels down muscle fibres to make them twitch. We know a simple chemical exchange occurs at the neuromuscular junction to facilitate this. What we don't know is what changes similar chemical process into abstract thoughts and images. We theorise that multiple neurones firing create these thoughts, but unlike the simple structure at the neuromuscular junction we don't know how this process actually works. Saying it takes billions of neurones to fire to create a thought is like saying it takes many more neurones to fire down to the hand for a pianist to play a concerto than it does for someone to hammer a nail. The latter is obvious but how recruiting more neurones at once leads to a thought is not. We need a mechanism to link the physical process to the final outcome which in the case of the muscle contraction is a process we can see , i.e. a muscle twitch. As thought is abstract we cannot see a thought directly but only see the effects of that thought, i.e. someone running away or speaking. So linking the only thing we can detect for example neurones firing to thought generation which is invisible to us, is a difficulty. Overcoming this will ultimately help us understand what it is that makes us human and also lead the way to speeding up the development of artificial intelligence. In short for humans to understand what a thought is, can be as conceptually challenging as explaining to someone who has never had sight, what sight actually is. The fact that we struggle to understand this and may never understand this is a sign that this may originate from outside ourselves and our material world. Consider this, if we never had sight. None of us. Would anyone ever be able to invent it?

I've been following this channel for years and am getting tired of waiting for Mr. Kuhn to interview someone who follows the Vedānta philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva.

@sudarkoff

3 жыл бұрын

I'm curious, what would you like a Vedanta follower to contribute to this conversation?

@PaulHoward108

3 жыл бұрын

@@sudarkoff Vedānta means the ultimate truth and is one of six schools of the Vedas. It gives the context for all meanings. There are several schools of Vedānta, including acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, which means inconceivable oneness and difference. There have only ever been a few formal commentaries written on the Vedānta-sūtras, and my favorite teacher recently published one such book that brings together all the traditional schools and explains how to understand acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, the most complete knowledge. Most of his books are about math and science, proposing a theory of everything, the Semantic Interpretation of quantum theory. It explains how interpreting matter as symbols of meanings can solve many problems that stump materialistic scientists. ashishdalela.com/start-here/

@bvshenoy7259

3 жыл бұрын

@@sudarkoff Eastern philosophy, the Vedas teaches that we are more than physical bodies operating according to the laws of physics and chemistry. We, *the eternal conscious self (Atma),* are inherently connected to the greater whole, *universal conscious (ParamAtma),* and this eternal inherent connection is totally transcendental to matter. All living entities (Atmas), having free will, are able to ignore this connection or recognize it. The Vedas of Sanatan Dharma, teach us how to do both. When we act as scientists and look for facts and accept them and then go on to use and act according to our new realizations we can make great progress. Similarly, as living entities, we must scientifically study the great work of the evidential books of the Vedas in order to help us realize the facts of this universe and beyond, and our natural position in it. Namàste

@bajajones5093

3 жыл бұрын

Paul, add me to your column on this post. this channel is "VERY far from the truth". Same old tired retreads. I myself follow the Advaita school.

@barleycorn3384

3 жыл бұрын

@@bajajones5093 seems like everyone has their own version of what's true and maybe that is what determines where we end up?

The part about the center of narrative gravity and how it's analogous to the Earth's gravity really blew my mind.

Great summation at the end, Dr Kuhn !

You guys come up with excellent interesting questions. And good discussion, nice.

The question is: can consciousness exist without a material basis. The next question arises: what is consciousness and what is material and what is the link between material, consciousness and reality. There are a lot of questions to be answered. If you remove my body will I still be I, if I have my body and you remove my thoughts am I still I. Where am I???

What is this "material" we keep talking about? We don't understand some 70% of the "material" that make up our universe. We just call it "dark energy", but we understand so little about it we might as well call it magic.

@domboy8080

3 жыл бұрын

I agree 100%. We don’t understand the majority of our universe yet we want to impose the patterns and regulatories observed in our little bubble on the rest of the universe . That’s why philosophy of science is sooooooooo important .

@neilcreamer8207

3 жыл бұрын

I'd suggest that we don't understand material at all, let alone just the dark stuff. No-one knows what matter is.

@joymukherji2702

3 жыл бұрын

Matter ia a form of consciousness as per Nisargadatta Maharaj, a famous philosopher of Advaita Vedanta or nonduality from India. He apparently spoke from his own experience of reality. Only pure consciousness exists. He said that for even God to exist, his existence must first be confirmed by you. We owe our being to no one. The entire creation is a spontaneous happening in consciousness and we are not the persons we take ourselves to be. According to Nisargadatta, You are not the body but the immensity and infinity of consciousness. Speaking of science, they will never find consciousness as it is not a 'thing'. It's the subject and not an object to be measured. Nonduality intrigues me. Why hasn't he interviewed Sarvapriyananda of NYC Vedanta society yet on the topic of creation, consciousness, and god? Haha, there is no separate God out there. We make our plans and carry them out. As pure consciousness no suffering or sin can ever touch us. This creation is our wonderland, an adventure, a story, or maybe lessons as we explore the nature of Self and the universe. Nisargadatta dismissed reincarnation too. The body and the mind is not you. What reincarnates is the mind and not us. We simply make it all possible by giving the light of consciousness. The present moment feels so real because our consciousness imparts reality to time and space. It's not the other way around. Sarvapriyananda on KZread is a master teacher. Deepak Chopra and Sarvapriyananda had a discussion on consciousness.

@jml5926

3 жыл бұрын

Agree!

@patrickl6932

3 жыл бұрын

With your attitude we wouldn't even understand 1% of the material in our universe. STFU

Who's the brunette at 1:48 She's definitely a material girl

@FortYeah

3 жыл бұрын

Haha! I noticed her too. Definetely my type.

@Arquiteto-em-Sao-Paulo

3 жыл бұрын

oh im quite materialistic lol

I think the problem with this question of "identity", is the idea that we have "one" at all. Are you the same identity now that you were yesterday? How about last year? When you were a child? A baby? Of course you weren't. Your current "self" is constantly changing - evolving - over time, gradually. Sometimes there can be large, sudden changes in the "self", caused by trauma to the brain, body, a combination or the two, or a chemical imbalance in the brain, etc. This idea of "personhood" is just a concept - a label - that we put on ourselves. Personhood is not a material thing. WE are material things however. We are a collection of various atoms, arranged very specifically, at any given moment in time. The reason why we can "survive" exchanging all our parts over the course of our lives (as they said in the video), is because the atoms that make up those parts are fungible. In other words, you can replace a carbon atom in your body with any other carbon atom in the universe, and there is literally zero difference. If you were to exchange EVERY atom in your body with other atoms of exact type and arrangement, you'd be exactly the same. You only see a difference when many atoms are exchanged and rearranged differently than they once were - like when people grow from a baby to an adult. This process is gradual, so the person doesn't witness a sudden break in continuity of memories or physical appearance. But over time, it's easy to see the changes. I'm certainly not the same being or person I was when I was 5, compared to what I am now at 42. And I won't be the same person at 75. My father is 79 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's 2 years ago. It's very clear to me that he is not the same "person" as he once was. He doesn't even know who he is any longer. The idea of "self" is forged in a brain that has sufficient long and short-term memory capacity and recall, as well as the necessary neural connections required to weave those memories with various preferences and desires that are dependent on the physiology of the brain itself. It's a constantly changing state. The brain is only aware of these changes if it possesses memories of what it was like prior to its current state and, of course, if the brain can access those memories. Consciousness is very strange indeed!

@manusartifex3185

3 жыл бұрын

I think the subjective experience is the same regardless of the time, I don't think it has to do with the memories or body changes. I can recall always being myself and no one else.

@ryandinan

3 жыл бұрын

@@manusartifex3185 if you can recall being yourself, then that requires a collection of memories. Imagine losing your memory and waking up in a strange room... You'd have no idea of your name, what your likes/dislikes are, the time/place, etc. You'd be essentially a blank slate. There are cases where this has happened and not only that, but the individuals lost their ability for short-term memory as well. Each day was pretty much "the first time they were conscious". Strangely, language seemed to be largely unaffected, so they could talk and communicate with their doctors, but they had no context about their situation. Who you are, in your mind, is absolutely tied to memories and the ability to recall them.

@Yameen200

3 жыл бұрын

@@ryandinan You are pressuposing materialism thus assuming brain changes causing mental changes is proof of people being material objects only.

@kallianpublico7517

3 жыл бұрын

Does a baby know "who he is"? But then a baby has no linguistic ability. Your father with Alzheimers still can talk. Why hasn't he forgotten that? Or has he? Talking requires intention. Otherwise its just parroting or defensive like yelling. Intention requires a self, a subject. A purpose or goal or desire without a self is like a memory or a video or a recording without context.

@ryandinan

3 жыл бұрын

@@kallianpublico7517 my father has indeed lost most of his ability to speak, which is very frustrating for him. My main point with mentioning his condition, is that his continuity of self is being disrupted. His short term memory is practically gone. Most long term memories are distorted. His ability to communicate has been greatly diminished to the point where he has to use gestures. He is no longer the same "person" he once knew. Im convinced that "who we are" is controlled completely by the brain. When the brain changes, we change as well - so in effect, we're always changing. It's just normally very gradual, so we don't have many breaks in continuity.

Brilliant, as always - Bravo

Love this show. ❤

I've thought for a long time now that everything has some form of consciousness to a greater or lesser degree. Good to see someone who knows what they are talking about agree even if I still dont know if its true

@waldwassermann

Жыл бұрын

You are absolute correct. Not only has everything some form of consciousness but "everything is one consciousness" and it is this one consciousness (most of us call it the universe while others call it god) which has managed to veil ITSELF so not to be itself (this is also evident when studying cell division and cytokinesis). What it means is that it is all about companionship really. This nicely ties in with genesis 2:18 by the way. It is not good to be alone... We really are not as divided as it appears.

@NickManeck

Жыл бұрын

Unlike you Trel, I can accept that biological organisms have consciousness. I am not so sure how a piece of igneous rock might have consciousness. Therefore I ask you, what do you exactly mean by "everything has some form of consciousness to a greater or lesser degree ?"

@waldwassermann

Жыл бұрын

@@NickManeck Hey Nick. You are correct. They have it backwards. You are on the right track.

@sharonmarsh3728

Жыл бұрын

Job 14:14. See John 11th chapter.

@louisbullard6135

Жыл бұрын

@@NickManeckMaybe not so much that a rock has consciousness but in some way the atoms and molecules in the rock are knowing. I don’t mean that as in a biological living person knows but in something we have no grasp on yet. Maybe in some ways everything in the universe has the ability to to know at a fundamental level. I really wish I knew.

That was awesome. At the end the 5 possibilities are not exclusive. It could be a mix of all of them and more. So good.

I like to quote great people on tough subjects like this, "Cause we are living in a material world And I am a material girl You know that we are living in a material world And I am a material girl"

@TheEtAdmirer

3 жыл бұрын

Lol Jesus Christ

@cosmichappening1712

3 жыл бұрын

That's immaterial.

@georgedoyle2487

Жыл бұрын

Ha ha. But reality and existence and in particular the qualities of experience aren’t made of “matter” they are made of (what matters)!!

"narrative center of gravity" ... best remark i've heard from dennett.

You lost your consciousness when you are asleep. You aware that you have physical body and your sorounding only when you have consciousness. So consciousness to your body is liked the light to the dark space. Consciousness comes and goes. When you dream your consciousness can be anywhere implies that your Consciousness agent can be anywhere too. Consciousness agent, is thus by necessity, is an unseen element that makes the body/the physical element aware/conscious. (P.S. - In ALQURANIC consciousness element is of "NUUR" - literally and normally translates as "LIGHT-LIKED" element (not exact in real meaning)).

Dennett defines self as psychological processes the self goes beyond that, the statement " I am this body " translates too, " I am aware of this body" therefore it is consciousness that is our identity. To know that you " be " is to be "aware" that you " be " so " being " and consciousness are concomitant. It is knowing that you " be " or " being " that makes you a person.

Wish this included an interview with an idealist as one of the 5 views.

All of these episodes are very good , but I rank this one a bit higher, well more than a bit, than some others in the collection. It’s a bit more straightforward and hits the mark on some of the more key aspects of how one might want to first think about the hard problem of consciousness. .

I’ll subscribe to 4 and 5 or a combination of those. Considering the universe and indeed reality is utterly astonishing, and in ways we have yet to grasp or understand, the notion that essentially everything is conscious to a degree, or that consciousness is somehow fundamental, is most intriguing and convincing.

Anyone who has delved deep enough into a rules-based software project that attempts to tackle an intractable problem will at some point begin to acknowledge that there can exist emergent properties from complex systems. I saw this in one software project on which I spent about ten years of my software start-up career. It was a scheduling system that incorporated hundreds of rules, all interacting to determine schedule availability for complex multi-resource appointments and other multi-layer scheduling problems. We could combine rules to form new behaviors that were not expected, would have been incredibly difficult to consciously design for, and were useful to real-world situations we hadn’t anticipated but one or another customer scenario eventually presented. Complex logic systems are sometimes able to behave in ways that are not anticipated, generating new behavior that allows them to map well to the complexity of the very messy real world. A very useful emergent property of any living organism, that would find itself selected for in an evolutionary context, would be a persistent narrative of that organism’s interactions with its external world, including awareness of the boundary between itself (those material components it directly controls with its brain), and the external world it needs to interact with for survival. This persistent narrative is essentially a description of memory, and also of consciousness and self awareness, which is the extension of the entire narrative to incorporate the physical self within the external world.

I think a question about what are our thoughts seems like nothing but shows that there's more to it

In my view, minds grasp abstract objects like gardeners grasp hoe handles. Our experience of the color red, having ideas like "I'd be more comfortable sitting in the shade" ... all of this meaningful content indicates that abstract objects are an aspect of reality (whether necessary or contingent). A second aspect is that our experiences do not have to correspond to reality - our imaginations and illusions and reasoning errors - they are still experiences just the same. These two aspects provide plenty of fodder for a mind-body dualist, but are nevertheless consistent with the idea that the brain explains the mind without the need for souls. I wish CTT maintained the running question of the existence of abstract objects and how those views relate to the potential resolution of philosophical conundrums.

Ones' soul is ones' TRANSCENDENT reaction to circumstances.

I have experienced a, what you would call, spiritual phenomena -- one of image, sound/energy, meaning, expression, rhythm, symbology, numerology, coincidence and personal experience. The coincidences became to many to be just that; and in adjacent to synchronicity, symmetry -- on a micro & macro level -- corrolating with sacred text, and my own human planetary experience. My evidence in not sound, but lack of evidence is not plausible to deny there is the Spiritual. The beauty of mystical/holy/gracious text is how our inner knowing grasps such meaning on the spiritual level -- not all people can, not all people care. Understanding the revealing science translates to us is of the logical hemisphere. Why some lack this inner knowing, inuition I'm not sure. If the modern science makes you feel grounded, found, aware, purposeful, smart, sophisticated, intellectual -- right on! Those who long for God(Source) -- consciousness, divinity, light, energy, sound, creation, manifestation -- have intuition, emotion, feeling, expression, creativity, values, spirit, metaphysical connectivity(coincidence, synchronicity, symmetry), empathy, compassion, who seek to unravel the mystery(God). Those who know they're not just flesh but have conviction, agency, universal purpose to maintain mother earth(Utopia) -- you are Divine! Everything from how you reckon the sun, stars & moon, how you interact with nature, animals, people, how you implement your life in with mother earth of spirit.

Get Terrence Deacon on here!!! He has so much to contribute to these discussions, unique perspective whose works caused Dennett to say “he has me re-examining my fundamental working assumptions.”

18:35 this guy is unbelievable - show me any one scientific paper, or better - a theory, that explains consciousness. I see Kuhn going back to him again and again. This is the type of materialism that should be destroyed with fire! And I am personally a materialist in 50%.

Alvin looks at a circle, sees a line, smiles and continues on his way.

Like the stability of gravity and the strong nuclear force, as examples, the source of the stability of identity I believe is located in the same place. Where is that place? The Singularity prior to breaking symmetry that precedes us now. What makes a person a person, is the individuality of our experiences, and the universality of the stability and storage of energies inside the Singularity, through our sense of memory, over and in time.

Charmers is spot on.

I'm diggin this channel.

@MarkRuslinzski

3 жыл бұрын

Me to

Vedantha Philosophy states, it is the SOUL that goes thru all experiences & finally curls back into its own reality, Sir. MeenaC

Science only tells us what matter _does_ rather than telling us what matter _is._ All descriptions of "matter" are extrinsic, relational, and purely formal. The intrinsic nature of consciousness however is manifest to us. Given this inscrutability of matter, what reason is there to believe the "material" is anything more than consciousness? Why believe the intrinsic nature of reality is anything but consciousness?

@randomblueguy

3 жыл бұрын

Because saying that the ‘intrinsic nature of reality’ is consciousness serves zero explanatory and predictive power, and is easily discarded by Occam’s Razor. Heck, we can’t even define what consciousness is, or even measure it UNLESS we assume the materialistic nature of our universe. Also, you make an equivocation fallacy, by implying that the ‘intrinsic nature of reality’ - whatever that really means - is related to either matter or consciousness. That is not exactly true. BTW, I’m not a materialist myself (unless you include extensions of matter). I think a more accurate position that describes my views is naturalistic physicalism.

@MonisticIdealism

3 жыл бұрын

@@randomblueguy You couldn't be more wrong: holding that the intrinsic nature of reality is consciousness (i.e. idealism) explains all of reality and predicts much more than physicalism. You're claiming idealism can be discarded by Occam's Razor but you've offered absolutely no support for this. Physicalism fails to overcome the hard problem of consciousness and likewise cannot account for mental causation, while idealism can do everything physicalism can without such fundamental problems. It would appear that physicalism is the view which is shaved away by Occam's Razor in favor of idealism. And we can define consciousness just fine, they've done it on the show many times: a being is conscious just if there is “something that it is like” to be that being. In other words, there is some subjective way that the world seems or appears from the being's mental or experiential point of view. Notice how this definition has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of "materialistic nature of our universe"? You say there's an equivocation fallacy and that my statement about the intrinsic nature of reality is not exactly true but you've failed to offer any justification for any of these claims. When we're talking about the intrinsic nature we're talking about the underlying nature of something, we're talking about what that something *is* rather than merely what it *does.* If you want to claim persons are material well then you'll need to actually tell us what the material *is* but the problem is that physics won't help you with that since it only tells you what the material *does.* I've argued that there's no reason to believe the intrinsic nature of matter is anything more than consciousness and that the parsimonious view is to embrace idealism in light of this. Materialism and physicalism are synonymous, unless a particular individual wants to split hairs and make their own distinctions. Since you're a kind of physicalist how do you solve the hard problem of consciousness?

@randomblueguy

3 жыл бұрын

@@MonisticIdealism Before I respond, what type of idealist are you? Explain your set of beliefs briefly please.

@MonisticIdealism

3 жыл бұрын

@@randomblueguy Sure. I see my view as a conjunction of Priority Monism and Idealism. I will define each: *Priority Monism:* exactly one concrete entity is basic, and is equivalent to the classical doctrine that the whole is prior to its (proper) parts. *Idealism:* the mental is the ultimate foundation of all reality and is exhaustive of reality. If we combine these two then what we get is that a single conscious subject is the ultimate foundation of all reality. All other conscious subjects and entities are derivative from and are dependent on that one fundamental conscious subject for their being.

@ezbody

3 жыл бұрын

@@MonisticIdealism Where is the actual explanation, and yes -- evidence? How is this different from Religion?

I can settle this question about whether a person is all material or not. Thoughts are not physical, they can not be detected, or touched, or weighed, etc. Do thoughts come from the physical? Who knows? We think so, but have no idea how that could be happening. But, even if they come from the physical, they are not physical themselves.

Episodic memory is an electrotonograph: microtubules (and perhaps myelin) are used to allow the drving function from the hippocampus to reproduce in the space between the surface of the cortex and the Pia Mater the electrotonic wave dynamics experienced during the original event driven by visceral inputs.

@keithrelyea7997

2 жыл бұрын

There is so much babble in these comments that it leaves one dazed at the lack of coherence.

@mediocrates3416

2 жыл бұрын

@@keithrelyea7997 Thanks for sharing! Correction: cingulate cortex.

Robert, You are awesome. Thank you

Consciousness creates space and time. The universe is consciousness and so are we.

"Nothing circular about it" - did not know one can get away with simply asserting this in a rational argument.

A human being is a concatenation of four main fields namely the spirit, the soul, the mind and the body. The human being is a spiritual being, having a soul, operating with a mind and living a body. The three immaterial fields commingle to form what we call the inward-man. The spirit is the field over the heart, the soul, the field over the blood and the mind vibrates over the brain. The body is material and harbors the immaterial being called the inward-man.

Can anyone tell me the name of the soundtrack Closer to Truth episodes begin with?

I have always known that I am not my body & I am at peace with knowing that ! ! ! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

Dismiss it because he isn't 100% sure of what we are?....they always say dismiss it when they don't have an answer so lets just forget about and move on....

@euqinimodllewdlac7477

3 жыл бұрын

All inner journeys are personal, dismiss 100% what’s not your journey, though another’s journey is a path to other possibilities of thoughts that can change your inner search for closer to truth. Safe journeys to your truth(s)

@S3RAVA3LM

3 жыл бұрын

Yup. "It's nonsense, there's no evidence". Whatever happened to the expoditionist who seek answers... than a consensus nodding heads with one another

I took a philosophy of mind course in 1986. Dave Chalmes, Daniel Dennet, John Serle; my reading list. Almost forgot Patricia and Paul Churchland.

We deal with so many non material things in our reality, I have no idea why an immaterial self should cause so much trouble. Stick enough things together, and you notice gravity. Remove those things, and you no longer notice gravity. However, gravity hasn't ceased to exist. It just isn't concentrated as much in one location. That's just one example of a non material part of reality. There are many more.

The answer is "feelings" Feelings are never a physical thing ,it had nothing to do with the brain When i fall in love i well say: I love you from all my heart, not from my mind Some times when you meet someone for the first time you feel comfortable like you know him from a long time Some times the opposite This is not material

@cosmikrelic4815

3 жыл бұрын

rubbish, love is a physiological phenomena associated with mental function, nothing to do with the heart. the heart pumps blood, nothing more.

@bobs182

Жыл бұрын

There are no feelings without a brain.

I'm in two minds about schizophrenia.

@Tom_Quixote

3 жыл бұрын

So if you were a schizophrenic, you'd be in four minds?

I 💜 Chalmers!!!!

there he was talking about philosophy, with one of his arms on the spine of the bench, just like how children would chat to their friends seated behind them during class, so casually

What makes human being a person not an animals, humans built abstracts things, animals can't ...

I believe the problem here is that we forgot that the origin of the word matter is māter. But then I am sure we also forgot what the origin of the word māter is... What I am trying to say here is that labeling creates a false sense of separation. I say consciousness is fundamental and that the illusion of separation exists for companionship.

16:24---for ME, just humble me, finally a person who sees reality

None of the 5 choices nail it down, but at 24:18 #2 comes closest. Soul=body+spirit. Before a person is born he lives in the hopes and desires of parents. When doing geneology I discover notions about ancestors long gone. I can partially reconstruct their lives. I know of places and events they have been conscious of. Most of them were aware of God, as I am, and experienced religious rituals. They had faith, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. We knew and know of false gods and false beliefs.

Some persons are all sass

I think consciousness is just a pattern of information running around in a biological circuit. I don't see why it would have be more than that. But this pattern is real. Just like a drawing in the sand on the beach is real.

@francesco5581

3 жыл бұрын

because is not just "information" ? is also sentiments, ideas, emotions, beliefs, sensations, self awareness ... Those are the hard problems of Consciousness

Take all answers and collapse them into a single composite and you're gonna be pretty close.. then pop out the otherside of nothing.. or believe me. Can always go create your own universe if you dont want to live inside someone elses.. but id suggest learning what I have to teach first. Will likely be helpful if starting from scratch lol just trying to help.

“Particles could be little boys of consciousness “ I like it

@Kumurajiva

3 жыл бұрын

Evidence?

The real question is, starting from a materialist point of view, is why do I experience one life rather than another. If our conciousness are the product of our brains, then why Am I the product of THIS particular brain and not an other one ? What does THAT brain has so special to be THE brain that I make the experience of ? Actually science says nothing, there is no material specificity that would make that I was necesserally experiencing THIS particular body. There is no objectif reason for not having being my brother, my dog, an Alien or a dinosaur living millions of years ago. The only rational answers to this problem is either : - to abandon pure materialism and accept that there might be somehow something else non-material (a soul) - or to assume that this feeling of individuality is an illusion. Which leads to think that we are not individual conciousness but actually a special and specific point of view coming from a universal conciousness focussing on particular individual of some moment. In both cases, having this materialist approach leads us to adopting non-materialistic approach

@anthony7960

2 жыл бұрын

Entirely not true. The simplest answer is that our experiences are through consciousness and consciousness is created by the physical reactions between the outside world and our bodies. People want to know what are “we”. “We” are the sum of our parts, the physical body and the phenomenon or reaction that comes about from the world acting upon it. You wouldn’t say that all fire is the same and comes from one source. Fires a reaction created from multiple things coming together. Our consciousness is a constant reaction and only exists within the area it has the parameters to exist (our bodies).

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

@@anthony7960 I like the way you put this, but I would add that we are more than the sum of our parts. We are not just physical reactions either. We are living organisms, which is a very special dynamic configuration of matter, and consciousness is a feature of life. Having said all that, my view is that we are like a tornado that self assembles due to an energy imbalance, persists for a time and then dissipates. The tornado constantly pulls in warm air and expels cooler air to maintain itself, but when it finally disappears, nothing is lost since it wasn't anything more than a particular dynamic configuration in the first place.

@anthony7960

2 жыл бұрын

@@caricue I agree with the last part. That’s a good analogy. I think it is that simple. Someone may say “well the tornado isn’t conscious or self reflective”, in which I would say that’s irrelevant, as consciousness simply seems to be an evolved survival mechanism of specific organic life forms. Trees aren’t conscious in the traditional sense but they are alive and have ways of sensing the world and interacting with it, they just happened to develop different methods of reproducing and survival. And then of course it seems only organic life has survival mechanisms, as opposed to phenomena like fire or tornados. Is that a fundamental property of organic matter? I’m not sure and would actually be a pretty interesting thing to research.

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

@@anthony7960 Even the simplest single cell life has to have a minimum level of awareness. It must "know" self from non-self, food from waste, inside from outside, etc. It's easy to imagine evolution adding levels onto this basic set that would be intrinsic to any living cell. Eventually, you can end up with a very complex suite of mental processes that include self-awareness and consciousness. I do like the analogy of a fire or whirlwind to explain life, but it is difficult to reconcile the fact of existing with this idea. To ourselves, we absolutely exist, and something will be lost when we die. Not to go all solipsistic, but from an individual perspective, it makes more sense to say that the universe will stop existing when we are no longer here to observe it. Not that any of it matters since everyone dies and the world goes on like you were never even there.

Consciousness is practically living an illusion it weaves out of itself in a mind posture. Physical is an expressions of consciousness. The mind makes the difference between existence and absence of it, in consciousness. Consciousness is all that there is.

I would make a difference between the ego and the blank slate that allows the ego to emerge. 15 years ago, I realized how my conception of money was influenced by my familial and personal experience. The thing is, until I was able to see it as a construct, I was sure that money was, objectively speaking, more a negative but necessary means than a positive one. Once I was able to see how arbitrary that conception was, I was shocked because I was also realizing how this trait was defining my personality. My ego went "boom" and I had a strong mystical experience the week after, but that is another story... All this to say that if like Dennett says that any knind of behavior get printed on our an illusionary self, it doesn't disprove the immaterial aspect of the blank "I" that is to come. God would be the ocean of potentiality that allows all the "I" to form through the Logos - reason and consciousness - at his image, which would also mean on a single, personal level. Otherwise, if consciousness is material, where is it? In the brain? the neurons? electricity? When does it start or stop? It accompains every info our senses and mind capt? It doesn't make sense on a logical perspective, no matter how our progress will occur in the understanding of the brain. It is far more simple to assume consciousness is an irreductible feature of the cosmos. Energy is uncerated, why wouldn't be consciousness? Both are the result of antagonist forces. God would "just" then be the ground of being, the primordial "I" that allows every other "I" to exist, like a microcosm. And that is why on a spiritual level, the more you get rid of the ego, the more you get closer to God. Therefore meaning, intention, morals, creativity, aspects that aren't material and that are at the heart of the human condition.

disrefarding the metaphysical...spiritual. until one undergoes it 🙏🏾🙏🏾⚡✨✨✨✨🕉️

"EXCELLENT"... what a 'BEAUTY and TRUTH' in arguments of distinguishd Dr. David Chalmers .... Big bang (conscious act of PURE AWARENESS / consciousness)... one force branching to 4 fundamental forces & the force / quantium fields appear...... electrons and quarks are formed after exitation of quantium fields (conscious act) & these simple , smallest fundamental elementary particles , electrons and quarks with properties of charge , spin & mass adheres to behave in fixed physical laws , fine tuning with extreme mathematical precision & symmetry (conscious act.... so conscious agent) & undergo the designated various procedures / interactions (Q.tunneling, entanglement, decoherence etc.) to create physical world (part of existence) & which includes complex conscious human beings(conscious agents) and such consciousness to fundamental particles like electrons and quarks & subsequently to human beings can come from only singular and fundamental pure consciousness (cosmic & infinite beyond cosmos ) and that's why all human beings, like electrons and quarks (properties like spin, charge,mass) , has got similar pattern but more complex , subtle , sophisticated different high level objective and subject nature / expression like love , hate , anger , fear , feelings, thoughts , emotions empathy , compassion, forgiveness , sense perceptions etc. , same in all human beings but these get different in proportions in different human beings because of genetic , survival, social, cultural, religious , economic, political , environmental conditionings etc (which converts cosmic consciousness to individual consciousness....and which is / makes distinct / unique / self /me which is totally different from any other human being and is not similar to anyone.......Is hard problem of consciousness solved ??? , this way.).... moreover electrons & quarks in the wooden chair and human beings including brain are same (though conscious in different degrees)..... consciousness in electrons , quarks and human beings is also same...... person is not only material but fundamentally there is singular pure consciousness is proved by a simple thought experiment that in a movie hall wherein persons of all nationalities , color , cast , creed , sex , rich and poor , all religious beliefs etc. are watching a movie & we note that all such persons react in the same way to the situations.. ...they laugh when there is funny scene , become romantic during romantic scene , mourn when there is death etc. ... in nutshell , after death of person , there is no consciousness and accordingly electrons and quarks disintegrate & consciousness submerges with pure consciousness.....so it's consciousness which creates force & then force fields / Q. fields , exite force fields , creates electrons and quarks , makes them work as per fixed physical laws (laws fixed by consciousness) in time & space and after the time is over , electrons and quarks disintegrate but consciousness doesn't disintegrate but remains immortal to again create another cycle of evolve , dissolve and again evolve...in that case , Is the person material ?. or consciousness which creates this person is the real person ?. or both material and consciousness ?...... of course, surely , person is not only material (no awareness , no big bang , no creation of electrons and quarks and no further cycles of evolving dissolving and again evolving of person & even the physical world).... moreover when one sees material person through quantium lens , this material person becomes invisible as 99.9999999999999% physical body of material person is empty space....in other words material person is 00.00000000000001%...... PURE AWARENESS / consciousness is fundamental , singular , indescribable , formless , infinite , unbounded , borderless , not in time & space , dimensionless and & at the same time infinite dimensions , source of all creation in which all creation evolve & dissolve , all universal /physical laws , mathematical equations , big bangs , creation of universe / multiverses , force /quantium fields , information underneath Q. fields & other interactions , immortal , weapons can't chatters it , water can't wet it , fire can not burn it ....and this is also true nature of individual consciousness which is part of cosmic consciousness but becomes limited because of conditionings described herein above. ..... vision of Dr. David Chalmers is further refined / matured in his recent support to pansychism ( after about 20 yrs. of this interview) ...and all these views ultimately pointing to pure awareness / Consciousness (cosmic & infinite beyond comos)......his fearlessness approach , not becoming victim to clubbing , not afraid of loosing tenure at young age , worth appreciating.... this concept of fundamental & singular awareness / consciousness is supported by several Noble Laurates , great / renowned scientists ,/phyloshers , medical doctors , religious entities etc. As this is admitted position of the science that hard problem of consciousness is not solved yet & physical scientists are waiting for present time Galelelio to solve the same....then in that case arguments put forth by Distinguished Dr. Daniel D., Dr. John Searle & Dr. Peter I., though beautiful, but stands rejected outrightly at the out set.... thanks 🙏.

Watch the excellent talk by Stephan Wolfram "Stephen Wolfram on Observer Theory" at 1 hour 11 minute mark.

biocentrism theory is the opposite point of view from this. Thanks for sharing, very thought provoking

Explain past life experiences Dan

@bobs182

Жыл бұрын

What was your past life experience?

The instinctive material brain is absolute (complete.) Therefore, since a "person" is always changing, a person then is non-absolute (incomplete.) A person is then not fully material after all.

one the best science atchewent would by when we figure it out how information stored and changes in the quantum level between particles. + how information working in the quantum levels and ewen maybe information itself are the building block nr1 for any mater in the first place

No, the "person" is not all material! The fact that they occupy (displace) a place in space and the energy that is contained within them, makes them unique! The "data" that is programmed onto the "juices" makes them a "unique" person! Each only has ONE, but that one maybe "defective"!

@louiscyfer6944

2 жыл бұрын

now that is an incoherent word salad.

The simple answer is: yes they are. Is there a soul or just a personal identity built over years of being alive. Considering how a child develops I would have to go with the built over time solution. Since none of the parts will work by its self. Trying too divided it up just too meet your expectations seems like the wrong path. When your body starts acting against your decisions call me. That would be something to see. We are just intelligent enough to ask the questions of reality. But not enough to answer them. And we are running out of time if it really matters.

@cosmikrelic4815

3 жыл бұрын

another person with the simple answer. there are an awful lot of you, but they are all different simple answers.

@thomasridley8675

3 жыл бұрын

@@cosmikrelic4815 Ah, yes ! We were given a very active imagination. And boy do we stretch it as far as it will go.

The body forms by a contraction within an eternal energy field. Bodies come and go but the energy field remains constant.

If we see repeatable behavior by something before us, we're inclined to ascribe consciousness to it. This applies to other humans, animals, plants, bacteria and electrons (which at least statistically are 100% predictable.)

The non-physical is shear speculation guided by self-serving expectations.

Why should we be fixated, and adopt those classes of things (Material, immaterial) which are obvious loose in terms of their definitions and attributes? Why don’t we admit that a material thing has far more mysterious attributes and properties than just something that you can dissect in the laboratory?

Whether Chalmers is right about “consciousness “, he certainly lives in a universe in which there are no haircuts. Which automatically disqualifies him. His point of view derives from a simple mistake… the image in the mirror is NOT “conscious “… it’s an image. To be aware IS a physical event which is experienced as informative energy. That is, organized information. That’s a brain state. If we paid more attention, we wouldn’t reify processes.

it seems to humble me, that only #1 reaps any benefit--work on understanding the material world without being distracted by made up stuff//dreamlike, and we will progress better and faster into the future

An excerpt from "Why Does the World Exist?" by Jim Holt: "What happens if I undergo amnesia and lose all my memories? Or what if a fiendish neurosurgeon manages to erase all my memories and replace them with your memories? And what if he performed the reverse operation on you? Would we find ourselves waking up in each other's body? If you think that the answer to the last question is "yes", consider the following scenario. You are informed that you are going to be tortured tomorrow. Understandably, this makes you fearful. But prior to the torture, you are told, your memories will be wiped out by the fiendish neurosurgeon and replaced with my memories. Would you still have reason to fear the torture? If you did, it would mean that, despite your complete psychological makeover as me, it would still be you who endured the pain.

Dennet's point about what was called MPD hits the mark. Driving function from hippocampus calls up a particular memory set from cortex via transfer function; different driving functions make different persons.

Only ideas exist and truth is also an idea.

What we don’t know we should be honest enough to say to ourselves and others we don’t know.. what happens to the person after the physical body stops functioning we don’t know.. was there anything prior to bing bang (I.e prior to space , time, causation) we don’t know.. but it is equally true for all of us that we had experienced wakeful state, dream state and deep sleep state every day.. now there are two ways analyze these states .. looking at the brain waves and studying ( the corresponding states ) or try witness and analyze these three states by ourselves.. I think when we dream we assume a new name and form and get involved in the illusory space time and causation and in the event of any nightmare we wake up and realize all that experience was in mind and there is no relationship between wakeful and dream state .. like wise when we go to deep sleep state we don’t experience anything no space no time but when we wake up we say I slept happily which May point that there was consciousness in the deep sleep state, from this experience itself there arises a possibility that consciousness may be an underlying reality underlying all these three states of wakeful, dream and deep sleep state..

"Consciousness is just another natural property of us as organisms in a natural world." How is that claim not simply a religious and faith based belief, no different from belief that the soul exists?

@b.g.5869

3 жыл бұрын

Because even though we don't understand what exactly consciousness is or how it comes about, there's compelling evidence that it requires a living functioning brain. The brain and it's processes are considered natural phenomenon and accordingly it follows that consciousness is a natural phenomenon. Honestly, I think the only reason anyone finds the notion that consciousness is immaterial appealing is because it's seen as a necessary prerequisite for mind to survive death. If tomorrow it were scientifically demonstrated that the mind survives death and continues on blissfully via entirely natural materialist processes most of the people that desperately want mind to be immaterial would no longer be championing the notion of an immaterial and acknowledge it was a pretty lame idea. There is a legitimately interesting question about how the solid stuff in our skulls and outside our skulls exists for us only as modeled and imaged by that stuff so at some level the distinction between 'stuff' and 'non-stuff' and what if anything each means seems to dissolve under closer inspection. This is why many think the term physicalism or functionalism is preferable to materialism because the apparent 'stuffiness' of 'stuff' isn't really relevant, it's what it does.

@francesco5581

3 жыл бұрын

yes but they will never admit that ..however the latest Chalmers is even more "open" ,

@b.g.5869

3 жыл бұрын

@@francesco5581 There's no refusal to 'admit' anything. I think you need to be honest about your psychology. What I love about Robert Kuhn is that he's honest. A lot of materialists are not honest on the sense that they try to act like they're indifferent to the specter of death being final. Obviously, immaterialists are typically not honest with themselves about why they oppose materialism. It's not because they actually think it's plausible but because they want to live forever and if they see materialism as incompatible with that. Chalmers, like Kuhn, is honest about himself. He won't pretend he is indifferent about death, but he's going to champion immaterialist notions of an immortal soul just to feel better. This notion that they secretly know there's magic pixie dust but are bitterly denying it is preposterous.

@francesco5581

3 жыл бұрын

@@b.g.5869 But i somewhat agree on that ,absolutely. I was referring to the fact that they will never admit that things are a bit more complicate than what we thought 40 years ago. Even talking about "matter" after all the quantum mechanic/physic discoveries is simplistic . The thing of the "living forever" is something more deeper than an hope or a mere fact of survival. I think is also very related to "having answers" and the weight of everything around us.

@b.g.5869

3 жыл бұрын

@@tombombadil8709 On what possible basis could you conclude that consciousness isn't a natural phenomenon? What could that even possibly mean? The natural is ultimately just another word for that which exists. If you're positing that there's a wholly other category of real things that isn't natural, you need to explain exactly what that is, why it shouldn't be considered natural, and have solid compelling evidence for this. It seems pretty obvious to me that the desire to see consciousness as somehow immaterial is based on the hope that it can survive death. But we already have disturbingly compelling evidence of the dependence of consciousness on a living properly functioning brain for its existence.

Dna splicing is like the use of material used for resources we learn how to use it like a insect

I cannot be a my body or brain. There is a strong sense of "be" of "self" you cannot eliminate it at all. Thanks to robert for this

@daithiocinnsealach3173

3 жыл бұрын

Yet that is what you are. To imagine any enduring self is an illusion. The 'I' you sense is the sum of the parts. A self referential biomachine. A strange loop. A conglomeration of senses.

@joymukherji2702

3 жыл бұрын

Are you familiar with Advaita Vedanta (Nisargadatta, Ramana) ? Also check Sarvapriyananda on KZread. Hours and hours of non-dual teachings

@garychartrand7378

2 жыл бұрын

@@daithiocinnsealach3173 you are so wrong.

@bobs182

Жыл бұрын

Minds don't exist without a brain. Minds and brains are 2 aspects of what is in our heads.

There is a 100% materialist solution possible for the SOUL question. Consider this: The earth manufactures bodies of beings through a unique tiny GEOLET in its core for every being, made of particles generated by different other stars in combination with particles generated at its own center. Uniqueness of each being is guaranteed by the presence of definite number of particles of a unique star in its GEOLET, that composes the unique being, delivers it to the surface of the earth and stores the remains (particles from relevant star = its SOUL) after its demise. The sustenance in own geolet of a certain minimum number (same for all beings of a particular type, for eg. for humans, elephants, cattle,...) of particles of the earth by any being through its interaction with plants guarantees its survival on the surface. When this number falls below that threshold the being dies. This also implies that once we discover this mechanism we can retrace all the (positive, meaning GEOLET relevant) beings that ever moved on the surface of the earth. Mosquitoes, for example, are certainly NOT among "positive beings", hence won't be retraceable. This mechanism (of composing, delivering to surface and storing the remains) can be discovered by describing the mathematical model of the growth of plants as functions of particle interactions inside the core of the earth for composing geolets, delivering bodies to the surface and storing them after their demise. This possibility renders both, GOD as well as The FATALISTIC Experimental and Observational Science that only predicts various methods of disastrous end to the entire universe while completely ignoring PLANT FUNCTIONS in coming to those conclusions, superfluous.

What about the body electric. I’ve had lots of animals in my life and at a time of passing I believe to have felt something leave them . I myself have seizures from a brain operation and have had ct scans that has showed me the electricity lighting up my brain. I’ve come to. Believe in transcends,where does it go , I believe in the continuum of things and that there is something bigger than me I just don’t know what it is.

We are electrotonic pseudoparticles in the quasi2D space between the Pia Mater and the surface of the cortex. It's the wave dynamics that bind and allow us to feel coherence.

@cosmikrelic4815

3 жыл бұрын

what a load of crap. what is a pseudoparticle? what is quasi 2D space?

@mediocrates3416

3 жыл бұрын

@@cosmikrelic4815 Load of crap? Did you look up Pia Mater? Do you know what the surface of the cortex is? Ima google "pseudo" and "quasi" for you...

@mediocrates3416

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah; it's all there: add "electrotonic" and it's all good.

@cosmikrelic4815

3 жыл бұрын

@@mediocrates3416 you don't need to lok up anything for me, i know that pseudoparticle and quasi2D space are not real things at all. they're just made up words to explain something that nobody can expalin.

@cosmikrelic4815

3 жыл бұрын

@@mediocrates3416 yes, the guys been watching too much star trek. "watch out for the plasma triangulator mr sulu."

Ship of Theseus

That's not Peter von Neumann 14:28

We are rooted in "heaven"..spoken with Plato, not on earth..

I think the answer is to do with the mind and body. The body because through it, we sense the world and with the mind, we take those senses and the feelings we get from them and accept them as an ' I '. I don't think it's some mystical thing that exists when we don't. The mind, body and the feelings we get from it is ' Me ' and ' I ' am it. How do we hear the thoughts in our minds? You can hear your thinking, at least most can and it sounds like your voice, how is it that we do that? Can we see it when it happens in the brain? I think the answer to that is ' Yes! ' We take in information about the world around us, we remember but only from the last time we remembered something, not from when that memory happened. All this information, the things we have learned, we put labels on. I feel scared because my heart is racing, adrenalin is surging through my body, i'm nervous. These feelings i've had before and leaned to put labels on those too. I feel there must be an ' I ' feeling these feelings, seeing what i see. When i speak of my body, i say ' My body is feeling ' or ' i feel '. We learn to associate this feeling, the seeing, hearing etc as being something an ' I ' is doing. No one else can experience what i am feeling, only what they feel. They can sympathise because they may have some idea of that feeling but it will be different to them because of the experiences they have had in life, the things they have learned etc. You have a body and a brain, you see others with your senses and your mind and associate that with being separate from you, not being you but someone else. They have a body just like you, a mind and you associate a name to the face. When you are really young, you don't realise that you are a you until such a time that some children start to believe in imaginary friends because they have yet to understand that the voice they can hear in their mind is in fact their own. They subconsciously learn that they are a person, they have thoughts and feelings.

8:10 Speculative idea It is clear that none of these "experts" know the answer to Roberts questions

I'm trying to open myself to the materialists' position, but I just don't see how the physical neuronal connections are the source of consciousness when a brain is an object of the subjectivity it claims to create? Ordinarily and intuitively we think of the subject as the initiator of relationships and actions. Subjectivity is the fountainhead of creativity. So how can a physical object create something which is subjectivity itself?

Dave always looks high haha. Of course that was in the old days

@vladimir0700

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, he’s a strange guy, alright

Anyone got articles/videos on the implications of No Free Will and Personhood?

the 1st notre dame guy! omg! he has a soul because ... he can 'imagine it'?

9:50 lol

Matter isn't made of a material, it is made of interacting energy fields. But there is no 'soul' inside your body which is the center of self and thought-- those are functions of your body and its interaction with its environment, but which we refer to generally and informally as the 'soul," personality or mind.

In 6:10 Robert claims that the unity of the person cannot be memory because some people have suffered accidents and lost all their memories, but are the same person. Really? True that electricity and magnetism are two different things, but they unite and create a new thing called light. The material body and the mind mix and create a new thing call consciousness Another wonderful creation when two different thing merge is mathematics. The combination of being, 1 and not being, 0. Peano takes those two and generates the natural numbers.

Could be the person is all that one consciously experiences, including physical body and non-physical soul.

I know of Chalmers as a philosopher. Didn't realize he had a training in math and physics. Let's take a step back from the problem of "consciousness". Let's just look at biology. Do the laws of physics and chemistry adequately explain biology (in its fullness)? Chemistry explains some basic level of biology, in the field known as "biochemistry". But what about more complex phenomenon? Even just a bacterial cell has a lifelike autonomy of its own. It seems to be a next level "jump", going beyond some mechanical cycle of chemical reactions. Should we bring back the notion of "elan vital" ("life force")? Is there a "dualism" here? Is there are "hard problem", that doesn't quite fit the terms of math, physics, and chemistry?

@cosmikrelic4815

3 жыл бұрын

that's very similar to the "god of the gaps" type argument. no the laws of physics don't explain all the complexity of biology, but they might in the future.