"Either you know everything or you organize your ignorance in some intelligent and honest manner". Choice words, words to live by.

@spiralsun1

2 жыл бұрын

This is real wisdom, maybe the highest wisdom about what life is. But it’s important to understand that, like with human development, we do this also as children. Then with a lot of living, or therapy, 😊 we overcome those earlier patterns we cling to like pieces of an invisible egg shell that used to serve us but now is in the way. All of reality may be this kind of conceptual egg. This to me is the spirit of creation behind everything. This is a very key 🔑 piece of wisdom. Thanks for highlighting this ❤️‍🔥🚀

We know absolutely nothing about Consciousness and I don’t think we ever will, it’s so refreshing to hear someone say “ I don’t know” rather than pretending they do

Another idea to contemplate: The brain doesn't create consciousness, the consciousness creates the brain. Inside consciousness, everything unfolds. It is the primal, most foundational aspect, and anything that we can perceive through our senses (objects/forms) is happening within and against this background of consciousness/formlessness. Consciousness is like a massive infinite, unlimited and absolutely creative mind that "thinks up" all of reality, and you are a coordinate of that consciousness, having your unique perspective of the reality as it manifested within your field.

@youtubehatesfreespeech2555

Жыл бұрын

Well, we have to pity that unlimited consciousness... imagine how much suffering it has to endure!

@youtubehatesfreespeech2555

Жыл бұрын

​@temet nosce No

Jaron has such a nice character.

@Dion_Mustard

2 жыл бұрын

he's like a gentle cuddly teddybear

@kwamecharles6037

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dion_Mustard lol

@ModernGentleman

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah he's a character all right 😄

Wonderful interview. I can't help but wonder if Jaron's target audience for this interview was PhD scientists instead of the majority of us laymans longing to learn from his professional experience. Although his honesty was striking, I wished he had shared his deeper personal "leanings" on the topic as they would be very credible from someone with his experience and achievements. Thank you for the videos.

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

i kinda think he hit his target audience---he is doing nothing more than philosophising which is incapable of ever understanding consciousness. We need hard science and he//they can talk 'dualisms' and tightropes, but this discussion kinda went NOwhere

@mikestewart505

2 жыл бұрын

I do thinking "leanings" are interesting and worthy of discussion, but I think he sets an excellent basis for such discussion. It does seem unsatisfying to simply end with, "I don't know." But I think there's ample room for, "I don't know, but..." And I don't think it would be an effective way to launch a crusade. The world is full of people only too willing to tell us "how it is." Hooray for the ones content to reflect on how it might be.

At the 3 minute mark "It is precious to hold on to an honest acknowledgement of one's own ignorance ... ", ok this is actually a very deep insight for many reasons. Because if we formalize the act of "not knowing", then we can devise things like Theory of Relativity ... where we have formalized the fact that we cannot possibly choose one inertial frame over another ... because speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. There is no standard, canonical inertial frame in the universe, against which all others can be compared. Nor is there a standardized geometric center. So the question becomes ... can we formalize our ignorance in such a way that this formalization will help us to understand consciousness. I believe the answer is yes. The way to do this is by assuming that the discrete set {0,1} and continuous open interval (0,1) are Equivalent in the sense of Relativity. Then we can deduce that the topology is truth itself is inherently, profoundly ambiguous. That truth has no standardized canonical topology. It can be binary valued, or continuous valued. Both are fundamentally correct. You also get to deduce ideas such as the following: "A hard deterministic universe and a hard stochastic universe are Equivalent", which means that both models are fundamentally valid, just like the situation with Relativity. This idea has some direct bearing on the whole debate surrounding consciousness, and many useful answers are readily obtained. So I bid you good luck -

Visualizing Jaron on a tightrope.......priceless. 😳😂❤️🙏🏼

I really need the description for every video about who are you interviewing

"ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat" In other words, it's perfectly fine and acceptable to say, "we don't know."

@SandipChitale

2 жыл бұрын

Which is the default position for science. Somethings we don't know, we will work on it to find out. Build the best model based on data and logic so far. Revise if contrary data is presented. Keep being fascinated and curios and continue to work on it. IMO the humble approach. Opposite of we-know-it-all-and-here-it-is-and-this-is-the-only-way attitude of religions.

I really liked this. Einstein said that the most important decision a person can make is to decide if we live in a benevolent or hostile world. Or something like that (paraphrasing). The more I live the more I realize that. Here’s an example from my new book: A squirrel runs to a tree when I walk by. We think “wow it’s a hostile world, where small animals run to trees because death lurks around every corner.” But there’s another way to view it. A squirrel is an aspect of me, of my own mind. It runs to a tree in the presence of a human, not a bird, not a bug, because they cannot learn from that action. They cannot remember something by it. What does the tree symbolize? What does the squirrel? Is the universe talking to me using the mechanism of life? And then I go on to explain what the mechanism of evolution is constructed to say, how the mind of reality is a SETI program which can only speak through forms over vast expanses of time. So yeah the point here is that what he says is true. We cannot close off the universe to the new. To close off the explanation at the functional level is to miss the message and the meaning. To miss the journey for a chimerical goal which isn’t even the point. I want to be the fuel of the human rocket 🚀 for humanity to reach the next level. And they will have to keep moving and growing to do so. That means keeping the loop of thought open. To allow higher patterns to the weave. To use what we have learned to emerge into new realms. An egg was never meant to stay in the loop of a nest, but to develop there for a time, only to emerge into the sky. 🕊🌈

There is a mysterious aura that I guess isn't detectable by our instruments yet, but I was alone with my dying mother at night in hospice when I felt a stillness come over the room. Curious I checked mom's pulse and she had just passed. That unusual atmosphere lasted a couple minutes and was sorta reassuring.

@syriouskash537

2 жыл бұрын

I once had a precognition. The WEIRDEST thing that ever happened to me. I did some research on it later and bumped into a forum where others were claiming they had one also. Most of the stories sounded SILLY to me. But this ONE PERSON out of all them explained their story and the DETAILS they gave about their experience were EXACTLY like what I went through. Even what they thought what triggered their precognition was the exact same thing as mine. I put my arm through my shirt sleeve and WHAM. It hit me. The person in the forum said "It felt like my sitting on that chair is what triggered it". And I was like YEAH!!! LIKE MY HAND THROUGH MY SLEEVE! Felt like that is what triggered mine also. Long story short??? That event let me know there is something else BEYOND this. And psychic abilities are REAL. At least precognitions are. NO SCIENTIST CANT TELL ME OTHERWISE. PERIOD!!! I know what I experienced. There is something bigger than what we perceive. So when you say you felt the stillness of your mother's spirit passing into the spiritual realm? I BELIEVE YOU! Your mother may no longer be with us........ BUT SHE ISN'T GONE. THERE IS .... SOMETHING BEYOND THIS PLACE. I BELIEVE YOU.

@verily360

2 жыл бұрын

Just like the double slit experiment it won't let us see (know)

@bogtrotter5110

2 жыл бұрын

@@syriouskash537 Sure you experienced something, but to say you know what is not honest.

@syriouskash537

2 жыл бұрын

@@bogtrotter5110 You cant tell me that I am being dishonest until you know exactly what I experienced. Your disbelief doesn't mean I'm being dishonest. When YOU have a precognition? THEN you tell me if I know what I'm talking about or not.

@bogtrotter5110

2 жыл бұрын

@@syriouskash537 It does not matter what you experienced. I am sure your experience was real. It is your interpretation of it that is not honest.

Have you interviewed Michael S. Gazzaniga on the consciousness issue? If yes, please send me the link to this episode. If no, It would be really great to document Gazzaniga's view on consciousness

I am glad that was cleared up

@jroc2201

2 жыл бұрын

Haha, that's a good one

Frequent recent opinions in the discussion about the essence of consciousness refer to phenomena occurring outside (above) the brain. Usually an unresolved so-called “hard problem” is mentioned. It is true that the experience of qualia is difficult to explain by processes of the described neural networks. So I believe that an effective theory of consciousness should be based on the integration of several known theories of consciousness. In particular, the theory of neural circuits realizing imagery should be integrated with the "conscious electromagnetic information field theory (cemi)". One of the theories included in an effective explanation of the essence of consciousness should also be one of the theories linking the experience of qualia with the physics (fine structure) of the Universe. We published recently an article [ Neural Circuits, Microtubule Processing, Brain's Electromagnetic Field - Components of Self-Awareness. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 984. ] which shows how to integrate the explanations of the essential components of consciousness.

In the observation of conscious experience there is no dualistic division. Division occurs from analysis/thought and categoriezes consciousness different from empirical evidence because of incomplete knowledge but it doesn't mean there is an actual division. Division only comes about as a result of concluded thought. The observer is the observed -J Krishnamurti

"It isn't easy . . . " Talk about the understatement of all of human history.

I feel like the Universe takes pleasure in the growth of our consciousness! Our understanding of all that is around us and our need to sustain within it, feeds the universe! As if, our existence and interaction with it is the purpose of our consciousness!

@PrestonPittman

2 жыл бұрын

@Jarhead Amen!

@beingnonbeingincludesexistence

2 жыл бұрын

@Jarhead that does put a smile on my face you discovered it :)

Find your own truth, stop relying on anyone or anything. Your answers are in your heart.

Many times in history we thought we knew everything. Newtonian Mechanics seemed to explain it all until Einstein's Relativity. Then Quantum Theory messed it up again. Surely, physics is now mature enough to know that there are always things that we do not know. That's what makes it so exciting.

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

always there is more--my simple studio apt always yields more even if nothing from the outside--time yields change even with no input---the beauty of science is the understanding of the change--even directing Change.

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

@Sky Gardener it is all physics---otherwise, let us google or wik the ghosts or gods that drive humanity and learn from that.

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

@Sky Gardener your original statement about "swarms" ----i would think physics is the only way to investigate 'swarm' action//behavior---all aspects of science are needed to understand any of this, and the base of all of that is physics imho---what else? (even basic chemistry, is based or driven by physics>>>"the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, distinguished from that of chemistry and biology, includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms."

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

@Sky Gardener i get the feeling you are way 'smarter' than me----but i am also thinking you are overthinking this question of consciousness---of course there are many sub factors---math, chem, etc---but only the understanding of mass//energy and the forces can explain what consciousness//awareness is. The brain is flesh and blood---nerves and their workings is mostly chemistry, but the chem is based in physics (The math guy Roger Penrose, proposes that nerve structure has micro tubules and within the tubules structure there is quantum potential that allows for biological computing---the study of all that comes under the main heading of physics)---right?

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

@Sky Gardener you say " When you have such a rich structure with billions of neurons you don't need any magic to happen with individual neurons. " ahhhh, but you see, you do need that in order to understand where consciousness resides and how it is manifested----some animals have dense neuronal structure, yet they don't even recognize themselves in a mirror------know that each neuron contains the full compliment of genetic material---on//off gene mechanisms is part of the workings of neuron cells---the dynamics of that is hugely complicated and how that works can only be thoroughly investigated by using physics. Even the coiling of the genetic material so that it fits inside the cell, is based on physical forces (put a rubber band between 2 index fingers and stretch it out and spin index fingers and then bring the fingers closer together---the rubbe band folds and coils upon itself---that is PHYSICS----and just as the rubber band looks and acts differently, so do genes because of the physical dynamics of each gene being in different proximity to each other than if in a straight line

I love this honesty, no one does know!

@emo-sup-sock

2 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/qaFsr8GxgdXNc84.html

The difference between non-organic matter and organic matter is awareness. Awareness being a part of the universe. So awareness is part of the universe. It exists that is an undeniable fact. Why have awareness or where awareness came from is another matter. Though saying exactly what awareness has done in the past is not another matter. In fact awareness is matter. That is sensing its environment in some way. Where the line gets drawn between where that sensing starts is unknown. NOT the fact that it's sensing its environment. This includes the environment of time in SpaceTime. With that said. Awareness had to adapt not only to the environment of earth. Rather the environment of Spacetime relative to one awareness. I can go a long time on this. I shall end it here though. I hope whoever reads this enjoys it.

The man is a legend ! Thank you both for this interview !

What I am absorbing from your conversations is that existence is considerably stranger than we think it is. I just am not buying that there is a theory of "everything". The word everything shows our ignorance. Its arm waving. What is everything in a bottomless pit? I hope we can learn a bit more about our existence, but I don't think we fill "figure it out".

@kraxmalism

2 жыл бұрын

I would suggest you to read David Deutsch's Fabric of Reality to at least to see that 'figuring it out ' may be theoretically possible, even if that won't change your mind.

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

we would like to figure it all out and i agree that even if possible, it is out of reach by our current brain state of evolution. But, that does not mean we should not work bit by tiny bit to uncover things---sad that time is limmited for all of us and we will only see a tiny bit of this revealing in our lifetime---nature will continue, and hopefully our seed will spread off earth and give our human consciousness time to continue trying to figure it all out.

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

Every thing is a set of boundary conditions in a mind. Some of those things also have an external correlation.

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

@@havenbastion can you fully expand on what you say? what is MIND to you and what boundaries are you talking about---what is EXTERNAL mean?

@charlesford157

2 жыл бұрын

WE probably won't figure it out. But at some point in time perhaps we will, because we don't know.

Been listening to Kastrup a lot recently and he makes a very strong argument for consciousness and it being the source of everything. From a very layman perspective, it looks like there is a lot of tiptoeing around the subject . Almost as if people recognize the phenomenon exists without wanting to admit its existence.

@coopdevillian77

2 жыл бұрын

I notice this too. I feel like they're afraid of the potential implications.

I agree that the reality of consciousness must be acknowledged by science, and cannot be explained by materialistic reductionism. However, I don't see how dualism can be a better answer. Dualism solves the "hard problem of consciousness" by proclaiming that consciousness cannot be an emergent property of the brain since there is a categorical difference between the two phenomenon. But dualism cannot explain how the two interact. In other words, we know that there are at least brain correlates associated with conscious states. No one denies this; i.e. if you get kicked in the head by a horse or have a stroke, the resultant brain damage will affect the function of your conscious mind. So just like the materialist cannot explain how the mind emerges from the brain, the dualist likewise cannot explain how the brain/mind interface with each other. To my way of thinking, the problems are one and the same.

@seminolwind4307

2 жыл бұрын

But I'm certain we will never know in this life time. I think the ultimate goal is to just live. Stop trying to figure everything out. The fact that life in the 1800's and prior was simple because of just living and knowing that things happen weather by design or by choice and so you deal with it or you give up.

@nietztsuki

2 жыл бұрын

@You are correct But My (totally unscientific) speculation is that mental phenomena represents an aspect of reality that will never be explained in terms of modern physics in its current model. In other words, I think there will someday be a significant restructure of our scientific understanding of the world which leans more towards philosophical idealism and less towards materialistic reductionism.

@seminolwind4307

2 жыл бұрын

@You are correct But I never said it wasn't interesting but if you live your life trying to figure everything out then you are taking your life and throwing it away because you aren't actually living, you are just existing in a world that will never be sorted out.

@seminolwind4307

2 жыл бұрын

@You are correct But I agree with that.

@Yzjoshuwave

2 жыл бұрын

I think the problem of explaining how consciousness and the brain interact is made more difficult by subtly assuming consciousness must be orchestrated by the brain, because consciousness is only ever considered as a total function. If there is a deeper relationship between consciousness and physical reality, we should consider consciousness at the level of a brain to be an emergence that reflects the way more foundational “modalities” of consciousness assemble themselves into higher forms of it. I’ve come to like the notion that consciousness is a vector space through which entities become encounterable to one another. Vector bundles compose a primordial orientation between “entities” like atoms and coordinate them into complexes of dynamic correspondence. We wouldn’t consider consciousness an emergence from the brain as a physical entity, but an emergence from the network of more basic consciousness-vectors that correspond to the brain. This wouldn’t ostensibly remove consciousness from the domain of physics, but it would meaningfully recognize the difference between discussing consciousness as an objective fact and being unavoidably immersed in a subjective experience, which includes consciousness in every facet of its function.

There’s a valid sense in which the empirical world can also be thought of as derivative, since we never actually get down to a reality, which has been cleared of all the obfuscation that comes from interpretation - from the direct experience we have of our own immediate consciousness…. We impute the modes of our own computation into everything we observe - including the notion we have of an embedded physical reality that is performing the computation. I’m not saying that physical reality doesn’t exist, but it’s disingenuous to make the empirical leap of assumption that reduces consciousness to the physical when consciousness is the only means we have for identifying or considering the physical at all. In that sense, consciousness is an unavoidable fact. We make a critical abstraction of both consciousness and physical reality when we artificially peel them out of our native situation to contemplate them in isolation… That’s not to say we shouldn’t, or that it isn’t an approach that will shed light on it, but we need to be honest about how this step potentially modifies the questions we ask about it. We shouldn’t fail to examine the way our assumptions are imputed into the phenomenon we’re attempting to interpret.

@markcounseling

2 жыл бұрын

Nicely stated. I never fail to be amazed that quite brilliant people believe that our experience is a brain-based simulation, full stop, AND therefore that somehow that very brain simulates itself, as itself, as the source of itself in the simulation. Me no comprehendo.

The question is about fact. Is there a fact that is universal? Is there a fact that is universally corroborateable? In other words is corroboration universally possible or does there exist a non-corroborateable realm that cannot even be inferred? We can state what is and from that infer what is not. Is our inferentiability of what is not controlled and limited by what is; or is our inferentiability controlled by what is not corroborateable?

Thank you very much for the information.According to the basic neuroscience the source of conciousness resides in thereicular activating system and there are feeling systems in the brain. Even for time brain runs a separate program by means of hippocampus. The Joys , the sorrows , the feelings all emanate from the material brain. There is no free will .Our thoughts are the result of activity of ensembles of neurons and the networks. They all disappear with the death of the material brain .

@philipose66

2 жыл бұрын

yes! we need to continue studying the brain with theory leading to experiment---it is there in real life and dead life---we are getting so good at it and the with the help of modern tech and computers, we shall learn more and more. Knowledge always moves foreward and only time is an obstacle. We will learn as learning allows us. All good as the youth know

Done ? Which pocket universe do we live in and can we tunnel over to a different universe and what the Laws of Physics will be there for if it is even so it would be unlikely many universes would support having even material but slightly different enough for you to no longer exist once there..... If.....it is more likely just a mathematical equation for this and that on a kinda mother nature self created computer program or what is the word self evident... creates itself ...

I understand why Lanier holds the mental to be irreducible, but I'm not seeing why the physical must also be irreducible. One can believe the physical is real without holding it is of a different substance or property than the mental.

@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt

2 жыл бұрын

I love the words: "I understand why Lanier holds the mental". I'm going to go and write a poem called this. Thank you.

@MonisticIdealism

2 жыл бұрын

@@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt You're welcome, I'm glad I could help. If you ever feel like sharing your poem after it's written I'd love to read it.

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

The mental is not reducible - yet. We've only had neuroscience for about 50 years and we haven't even defined consciousness sufficiently to talk about yet. He's wrong.

@MonisticIdealism

2 жыл бұрын

​@@havenbastion That's inaccurate: the scientific study of the nervous system increased significantly during the second half of the twentieth century, but that doesn't mean it's only been around since the second half of the twentieth century. The earliest study of the nervous system dates to ancient Egypt around 1700 BC and this study continued through the scientific revolution. So physicalists trying to reduce mental states to brain states have had more than enough time and ultimately time is irrelevant when it comes to resolving a contradiction. No amount of time is going to make a married bachelor coherent, and likewise no amount of time will make a reduction of mental states to brain states coherent either. A common definition for consciousness comes from Thomas Nagel, though it originated with Timothy Sprigge: "a being is conscious just if there is “something that it is like” to be that creature, i.e., some subjective way the world seems or appears from the creature's mental or experiential point of view. In Nagel's example, bats are conscious because there is something that it is like for a bat to experience its world through its echo-locatory senses, even though we humans from our human point of view can not emphatically understand what such a mode of consciousness is like from the bat's own point of view." Source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#CreCon

Isn’t that the observable and measurable things can cause only observable and measurable things? On every level? There’s no thing in a “material” world that on every level, no matter how small and detailed, that the other thing from the same “material” world cannot observed (although we might not yet discover the tool or the way to do that). Conscience can’t be observed or measured therefore I don’t know how can it be reduced to the observable and measurable causation.

The knowing presence of awareness is what we are. That is beyond the body And the mind. One has to take in a lot of learning to realize, we don't know anything.

I think it's a huge leap to go from accepting our ignorance to accepting dualism. Dualism doesn't help to explain anything. Either we're asking "How does consciousness arise from material reality?" or "How does material reality interact with this other thing that's separate from it?" I think introducing a whole other reality into the question is less simple and less honest.

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. There's nothing else meaningful to say about dualism.

Awareness of internal and external existence, awareness of awareness but I think that`s the first of four states of consciousness, I think the other three are, dream filled sleep, deep sleep and beyond deep sleep, but I usually have a cup of mushroom tea before thinking about consciousness

Exactly! How absurd to think we know everything about science. Never lose your ⚡️ and fascination

@ezbody

2 жыл бұрын

Not for a second would anyone assume that you know everything about science. 😋

@user-vy8jn9mc6g

2 жыл бұрын

Don't let hormones be more meaningful then they are already. This feeling come and go. Consciousness is not about being high on "Eureka" drug.

What an absolutely refreshing and honest view: (paraphrasing) “The world *seems* dualistic, consciousness and matter *seem* of a fundamentally different nature, and *I don’t know* how to put them together *nor do I see* that anyone else has done it either.” Fantastic, I wish more of us could be so honest. Notice how the honesty is almost too much for the interviewer: (paraphrasing) “But I want to accept it if reality is terrible.” Ha, it’s okay brother! But your priors are showing!

@kayakeb

2 жыл бұрын

When he started his answer with “I’m in a bind” My ears perked up and I was primed for some thing deep and probably true.

@markcounseling

2 жыл бұрын

@@kayakeb I really liked when he said that too. Hardly anyone does that, everybody feels like they have to take this or that position, and he just said what he sees, not what he'd like to think.

My hunch is that a great many questions will be answered if we take seriously the possibility of DNA entanglement (nonlocality). Has implications for mind-body problem, entropy, etc. Everybody, including Hameroff/Penrose, writes it off because of decoherence in "warm, wet environments". But what if decoherence is actually REcoherence. This needs to be unpacked. But we're missing vital clues by writing off DNA entanglement. Hameroff/Penrose (ORCH-OR) inserts microtubules in its place, but what if this is a mistake?

@Dion_Mustard

2 жыл бұрын

according to hameroff microtubules are fact..they have been proven to exist by science and exist within the brain therefore his theory is quite possible..

@TheTroofSayer

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dion_Mustard of course microtubules are fact and they exist. They are part of the cytoskeleton of every eukaryotic cell. Indeed, Hameroff/Penrose's conjecture is not unreasonable, on the face of it. What I have a problem with is their dismissal of the possibility of DNA entanglement because of decoherence. There's the question of recoherence, and I believe we're missing a possible golden opportunity by not exploring it further.

How can you not experience wonder at the process of evolution?

The only honest answer to questions such as these is, "I don't know", so far at least.

Why do we start with either.. we must set the hypothesises and as much as we might have fate in on or the other.. we must acknowledge that we don’t have the fate position confirmed by the hypothesis yet. My fate position is when I look around and examine my feelings I honestly can’t except it from my physical being so I have no reason to believe that traditional dualism is true.

@svendtang5432

2 жыл бұрын

Does it matter no in fact not .. my feeling of wonder and being conscious will not change because the fact show that there is no real dualism or the opposite.. why should it.. but it will influence my opinion on other matters but the subjective feeling of me will still be there.

If anyone believe in dualism and at same time consciousness can be reduced to materialism (or only an emergence from the physical matter) then he/she should start to derive a new physics equation (s) that includes the consciousness parameter because consciousness is absent in today's physics equation(or current physics is fundamentally invalid/wrong).

@Dion_Mustard

2 жыл бұрын

there is ZERO evidence consciousness is a product of matter.

@matishakabdullah5874

2 жыл бұрын

Because the existence of consciousness in nature is ontologically undeniable ... effectively whether one believes in monism( - physicalism or metaphysicalism) or dualism... the consciousness parameter in one way or another should appear in a complete physics equation to represent the universal reality. ( Although it is working the current physics equation obviously is either fundamentally either insufficient or inadequate)..

Who's the knower of the knowing?Who's the feeler of feelings?Where is the thinker of thoughts?

Time and space are functions of ones conceptual scheme, consciousness is the fundamental reality

There is the world we experience. There is the world that is. Never the twain shall meet.

@koolzjackz8401

2 жыл бұрын

So sayeth Thor reincarnate👍🏼. Dost thou truly believeth thine own words? 😎

@thereligionofrationality8257

2 жыл бұрын

@@koolzjackz8401 Insofar as words are worthy of belief

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

@@thereligionofrationality8257 That was a good comeback to KJ my friend. I would quibble with your original point however. We are middle sized creatures evolved to live in middle sized world. We perceive our level of reality intuitively. When you get to the very big or the very small, then I agree that we are not seeing what we think we are seeing at all.

@markcounseling

2 жыл бұрын

If they don’t meet, there is no relationship between them.

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

The world we experience is a filtered version of reality, not a separate thing. Specifically, we have biological, cultural/subconscious, and psychology/personality filters. The fact that we understand a limited version of Actuality does not indicate it's an illusion or a distinct reality.

How can anyone say that we don't know if there is dualism? Dualism means that there is a difference between the external and the internal. If somebody were to ask you, " tell me something about yourself "? If you in turn were to take a syringe and extract some chemicals from your body and say " study these chemicals under a microscope and that will tell you what I am like as a person" the person asking you to tell him or her something about yourself would probably think you are crazy for thinking that examing chemicals from your body would give them information about you as a person.

i am always amazed. cause and effect . everything has to fit that singular relationship, a very narrow path for truth seeking. imho truth is what is, even if a truth has no causal dependency. currently we just limit our understanding because the need for causal dependency..otherwise we have no idea how to understand thigs. replicability is hard under computational irreducibility. so why the heck is causal dependency even contemplated as under limit for our understanding of things? sort of how i think about it.

@ledgermanager

2 жыл бұрын

in short, if computational irreducibility is a truth then causality is just a cosmic fluke

awesome

Consciousness is not only Ultimate, Consciousness is Eternal, Life and Consciousness is two sides of the same nameless 'Eternal something that exists' life and consciousness cant be created, consciousness, can 'only' be re-newed and developed. The Basic-Structure of Consciousness, is very simple, mirror'ed in the Rainbow and our Body-structure, and partly in the devices as can do mental functions.

Why would a toothbrush need to be conscious of anything? If it doesn't need to be conscious of anything, then why would it be? I think Occam's razor would say, it isn't conscious.

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

All "what is the nature of?" questions are semantic; how do we use the word? The nature of consciousness is that it refers to our experience. The kind of thing consciousness would be if it were a universal attribute or possible in a non-biological substrate, is entirely different and unrelated to our experience and would require it's own word.

@FGP_Pro

2 жыл бұрын

@@havenbastion I agree, metaphysics are all BS. "The kind of thing consciousness would be... would require it's own word." I made that very same point the other day. I seem to be having this discussion a lot lately. Cheers!

In my opinion, our universes naturally are operated by all possibilities of things. We just can’t use the Math and materials to find the the possibilities, unless we must be in consciousness with them first, then Math and materials will help to create and understand barriers between possibilities (statistics, measuring, limit….) and have more consciousness about things. Albert Einstein would not be able to create his theories without his consciousness. The consciousness is really most important thing, but where is coming from (brain, heart, free will…)? Two gator hunters just got a big gator. One of them said: “ The gator at least is 14 ft”. Other one replied it must be 15 ft. They use a scale for measuring the gator. It is 14.1 ft. The hunter guessed with number 14 yelled joyfully: “Math is beautiful and my consciousness is correct”😁

Since the existence of consciousness as much the material thing in nature are ontologically accepted by both monism( - physicalism or metaphysicalism) and dualism believers without(philosophical and scientific) proof and both are effectively recognized to have existed in information state in human living mind only (which of course can be only ideas or imaginations or illusions or hellucinations) the consciousness parameter, in one way or another, should appear in a complete physics equation if it is to represent the universal reality. (Although the current physics equation is working it is obviously either insufficient or inadequate if it is not valid to explain universal reality).

By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out-Richard Dawkins.

@MikeGalosi

2 жыл бұрын

Dawkins is the antithesis of open-minded.

@Dion_Mustard

2 жыл бұрын

Dawkins is just annoying.

i heart Jaron Happy for his commentary

Very refreshing. Saw him on Lex Fridman. Agree with him on his views on consciousness for sure.

That's sort of how I feel, good on you Jaron.

Everything is consciousness It's our mind that identifies with body and gets into an illusion that "I am independent"

@pentosmelmac8679

2 жыл бұрын

If you don't mind, how do you justify your statement?

@asuka_the_void_witch

2 жыл бұрын

@@pentosmelmac8679 i mean try being alive without eating any nourishment. couple weeks and you're dead. that's how independent we are from nature.

Adjusting to the darkness of reality isn't easy: you got that 100% right! 😉. The confusion is deep and the pain fierce. We live in a confusing and painful world of experiences and it's seems as if we're the pawns in a cosmic waterboarding game: sometimes we can breathe, sometimes we can't. I'm tired of it.

@selihter

2 жыл бұрын

When you know that our planet earth is a dot, you'd try to find out which God created all of the universe 🤷‍♀️and why...you will have a different perspective on all things, all beings and all gods:)

Wow. This brings me back...I saw this person speak at MIT in 1998ish. He's still on top of his game.

yh conciousness exsists on many vibrations... it exsists outside of the 3d construct..

Dude's hands are hypmotizing me !

Marvellous!

"I'm very insistent in not having anything else put in my mouth." Not so sure about that.

Guillermo del Toro with dreadlocks... i dig it..

When did Rob Zombie switch to philosophy?

@moriyokiri3229

2 жыл бұрын

What does Rob Zombie have to do with this?

@guillermobustamante3486

2 жыл бұрын

@@moriyokiri3229 It's a joke.

Maybe consciousness flows with the water along the various channels of each entity.

Quite simply...Brilliant!

Materialism says nothing exist but matter but that is an observational statement, but is the observer ( self ) who makes that observational statement something material by nature? By observation science has determined that the atom is 99% empty space and they can make that determination because the atom is within the realm of objectivity, but how the observer becomes something that fits within the realm of objectivity? By it's own self-effusive nature and since truth can be defined as " that which is realized to be true " knowledge of the self's nature is exclusive to it's own self which makes " self " a reality that is self-exclusive and self-reliant. Since the self can only know it's own nature of being an eternal " in the now " reality of " stillness " by studying matter alone we can never know the nature of self. Your subjective reality is beyond anything matter can reveal so duality obviously exist.

Immensely interesting (and likeable) fellow.

Yeah that conversation made a lot of sense!

Being a duelist means that you believe in the soul or “the mind” being separate from the brain/body. I don’t see why he is calling himself a duelist.

@onefishtwofish2771

2 жыл бұрын

Dualists are the humans who acquires the shadow self as a body.

@onefishtwofish2771

2 жыл бұрын

Soul is in itself wholesome. Human body is designed with supremem intelligence. The shadow self which is also a matter influences and finally takes over the body. These particular phenomenon can make a person very unhappy as it's soul enslaving itself as it is cnvinced to be weaker and powerless. It is e separate entity that can overshadow the human consciousness which is directly connected always to supreme intelligence.

@Boomer22z

2 жыл бұрын

@@onefishtwofish2771 there is zero evidence for the soul.

@onefishtwofish2771

2 жыл бұрын

@@Boomer22z , not true

@smilingipad3044

2 жыл бұрын

@@Boomer22z Not everything needs evidence.

in short stay humble my friends! take your time like the tree to grow, the forest around you will give you nurture and comfort... of consousnes

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

No. Humility is exactly as bad as egoism - an inaccurate understanding of your actual worth.

If you say you don't know then you know you don't know that you know.

“Dualism is the most honest manner of organizing your ignorance” How so exactly? Seems to me that this is just asserted out of thin air. We have the material/physical world and all the things we can explain are explained within this scope. And then we have some things that we have so far failed to explain. So is the most honest manner of organizing my ignorance to invent another realm of existence to fit this mold. It seems to me a bit like inventing sock eating goblins to explain where you missing socks went.

@ChristopherSisk

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. If he's saying, "I don't know," then the more honest position would be to assume that there is nothing beyond the physical until presented with evidence to the contrary. Occam's Razor in full effect. This is a perfect example of Dawkin's Belief Scale properly applied to other domains of knowledge or belief. I don't know for sure so I live under the assumption that consciousness is not something "other" from my physical brain.

@markcounseling

2 жыл бұрын

The sock eating goblins would be a part of the physical world. Inventing such hidden variables is exactly what he is not doing by remaining a dualist. He’s not inventing a false explanation, he’s just sticking to the facts he experiences: material world, and awareness of it. More, he doesn’t know. Nor do you!

@itsjustameme

2 жыл бұрын

@@markcounseling on the other hand I feel like pointing out that the sock eating goblins are more likely as an explanation for missing socks that a soul is for our consciousness since sock eating goblins are at least allowed withing the framework of understanding we call the physical world. Or to put it differently - if sock eating goblins were discovered tomorrow science would be more or less unchanged and after analyising a few DNA samples modern scientists would probably be able to account for how such creatires could have evolved. But if a metaphysical realmin which souls existed was discovered tomorrow we would more or less have to start physics over from scratch.

@markcounseling

2 жыл бұрын

@@itsjustameme I agree, this is exactly why Descartes separated res cogitans from res extensa, which Galileo followed, because they needed a *simplified* framework in order to begin physical science. The problem is that that simplified framework does not, and never has begun, to explore much less explain res cogitans. It can only explain NCCs. Which is great, though strictly limited. That said, I don’t think that Jaron is positing the metaphysical realm assumed by Descartes. He’s trying to stay on the thin line between materialism and idealism, which is what impressed me. He’s not demanding that the world accord with a materialist belief system, nor is he specifying a spirit or soul realm. The only way to read what he said in that way is to hold the belief that it HAS to be materialism or fantasy/souls. That’s just materialist dogma. One thing is clear, the sharpest physicists we have working today don’t believe that space and time are fundamental. Physics is definitely going to change and we may be privileged to see it. But presently, Reality is a totally unsolved problem and all bets are off, best to stick to observables, which Jaron states clearly is what he is doing.

@markcounseling

2 жыл бұрын

@Sky Gardener Perhaps we see it the same way. He seems to just present our naive or native view of the appearance of two very different realities, mind and matter. He doesn't make a case for it, he just points out that that this appearance is, as of yet, unexplained. Which is true.

How can someone doubt the existence of consciousness? Just asking the question presupposes consciousness. It's just silly.

@Dion_Mustard

2 жыл бұрын

consciousness exists..but it cannot be explained and probably never will.

I do believe that Eastern TEACHINGS may be able to bring at something more to the table as our Buddhist scholar brought to ur attention with better focus at least for my uneducated but heart desire for great understanding for what I witnessed each moment of Life ,for it blow my mind ,so to speak

"People who follow fashion are silly, who has time for that"? Jaron

Does one want that truth even if it leads them to the God of the Bible? I would love to see more human hearts approach God with the same humility. I have been a Christian for 30 years and God continues to reveal layers about Himself which can only be revealed as I learn foundational truths about him. In our superficial attempts, it would seem that God is unfair and often extremely angry while extremely caring and other chapters. Many answers to these questions come over many many years of walking with God in humility. Unfortunately we are all rebels at heart and it’s difficult to lay down our arms.

Hiding your ignorance in a honest fashionable manner is a great option. I agree with the idea of wonder though.

"The Lawnmover Man" (1992)

Such an honest opinion I like the way he looks at the world.

He was wrong about VR, perhaps ultimately.

Maybe consciousness has a little of everything?

I think one is complicating things with no gain by straying from the fact that we consist of energy and information to 100%. This means that everything that goes on in us and the whole universe is the result of some physical law and that must include all thought processes in our brains. At its core there is no difference between a machine and a biological system and people think there is since they confuse the huge difference in complexity with one having exotic properties thet other would not have if they had the same level of complexity.

So many episodes on conscience and free will and yet Einstein was already proven right several times on the relativity of time/space, it follows that an observer far away can be moving slowly and change direction and be in its present on our future or past so since events can't be contradicting to all observers there can't be an agent anywhere with free will to change a future far from it in time and yet already present to another observer.... end of story to free will and also to conscience is special.... this block universe can't change or events won't be shared alike at any time in space... i hope i was clear in trying to explain my point...people like Prof. Brian Greene explain well the facts about special/general relativity and yet seem to not accept it when it comes to loss of free will the facts they so well explain.

I feel those were a lot of words...to say nothing. Thank you anyway🤏

@jareknowak8712

2 жыл бұрын

...well, in my opinion He said something very important. This channel is not meant to give final answers.

@carobresler2767

2 жыл бұрын

@@jareknowak8712 ...it's just my opinion...doesnt make it true🙏

The problem with exploring theology, is that truth is never a fact. You can explore on and on regarding topics that relate to things, but never conclude in a fact. So ultimately, what are you trying to prove? It's equitable to understanding how the universe is infinite. Our puny human minds are simply unable to grasp the concept.

@asuka_the_void_witch

2 жыл бұрын

yep.

I do find it staggering that people wonder if animals are conscious, they surely pretty much all must be

True liberation is knowing we know nothing now all doors open are seen

If the existence of consciousness is debatable to you, you can debate with other insane aliens because it's absolutely real to me.

Most of these thing don't even start with a definition of what they mean by "consciousness". They usually mean something to do with mind and thought but they still don't define anything

After listening to this and contentplating, I keep coming back to the realization that I only have one bowl left and that makes me sad...

@GH-wy9mo

2 жыл бұрын

Try your options.... Islam being one from which I can guarantee your contentment. But that's a choice entirely in your hands

@notoverlyacerbic9574

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-wy9mo I really don't have a preference when it comes to the invisible floating sky gods...

@GH-wy9mo

2 жыл бұрын

@@notoverlyacerbic9574 you can rationalise a one supreme being that fashioned you and answers the question of where you came from and with a bit more thought and open mindedness, where you are going. The fact that your life is then out into s perspective that involves recognising a creator becomes an uncomfortable reality because let's face it, you want to worship your desires and live a hedonistic life where you can do whatever you want. Simple.

@notoverlyacerbic9574

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-wy9mo you are not arguing for deism..deism is simply saying there is a God...you appear to be arguing for Islam..which is not simply saying that there is a God..islam, like every other religion gives a long list statements that must be proven.. Look my friend,I was just making a funny..i am all for debating a deist however I don't debate fundamentalists.

@GH-wy9mo

2 жыл бұрын

@@notoverlyacerbic9574 a long list of statements? I would be interested to know what has to be proven before palming it off? Are you not a seeker of truth? I don't think you have a grounded understanding of what we believe. If belief is the very problem, then the issue Is an internal one of cognitive dissonance I would argue

There are no facts without consciousness.

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

There are no things except in a mind. Actuality is undifferentiated stuff doing stuff.

Brain ferret attacks again! Battlefield Earth fends Kuhn off with a measure of respectful efficacy.

Consciousness is seen as everything including you and me and exists without everything including you and me just as clay is seen as all pots and exists without them.

Why are these guys on eachothers lap

@bmxst1182

2 жыл бұрын

Lmaooo🤣

@asuka_the_void_witch

2 жыл бұрын

lol

Just listened to him on the Lex Fridman podcast

It's more sad though when it has to be mentioned at the beginning that it's not objectively thoroughly recognized that it is true that consciousness exists. lol Like - there you go, be scared of those which do not take it as an objective fact. And... aka, the Hard Problem is already solved. He will be scared by the zombies. But some of these comments are pretty funny they make.

Tom Campbell, anyone?

Consciousness isn't more than the sum of the parts. We just don't fully understand the nature of the parts...

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain (there is no mind/body problem). The conscious mind is clearly a sub-set of mind, and consciousness is clearly a momentary instance of awareness within that space.

Check out the recent work of professor Mark Solms.