Probably one of the most sophisticated argument and video in this series.⚡

The legit gave me chills

Fascinating discussion.

Very interesting discussion. Thanks for all the uploads!

Consciousness is knowing. You only know what you are, you only are what you know. Only the one who is the "wave breaking in the sea" could say "what a beautiful wave" via its human experiencer, who is made of the same thing. Everything exists when its known.

@kxkxkxkx

Жыл бұрын

I agree with this monadology 🎉

"...we should not be limiting any sense of consciousness" Good luck with that. The Law only permits, wakefulness, sleep, and being drunk and precludes the use of anything that anyone would consider genuinely consciousness transforming.

@kxkxkxkx

Жыл бұрын

Human laws are for groups, not individuals ☝️

Truly, I dont know why I even attempt to tackle such monumentally convoluted subjects like consciousness. These videos seem to just muddy the waters.

@Mikey-rj1lr

2 жыл бұрын

Tom Campbell doesnt

From my experience there are two aspects to consciousness . 1- pure or un manifest consciousness that is awake to itself . 2- Relative consciousness where objects including planets ,all beings and their minds and senses are appearing inside of un manifest consciousness as THAT. Essentially there is no difference as it is all consciousness but it is easier to subdue the minds questions about it by ceasing all mental activity and experiencing what remains . The experience of pure consciousness that is awake to itself is not experienced by a "you" or a "me" but by its own natural state of restful alertness . a kind of peaceful stillness that is alert to itself . After sometime one begins to feel comfortable with this seeming contradiction because the question becomes an irritant to the naturally occurring peace . here's one way to look at it - Consciousness cannot be understood but it can be experienced . To ask what it is , is to create an obstacle to its direct experience. say you have ten million dollars in the bank but this account has one stipulation and that is , each time you enquirer about the origins of this money , a substantial amount is deducted . After awhile one just enjoys and stops with the investigation .

Jaron is suck a great thinker, what ever that means :-)

A universe without consciousness has no knowledge because knowledge is conceptual and held by acting units in space.

@mikebasketball11

4 жыл бұрын

By your definitions, yes ;)

If oldman survived in true romance

Maybe there's some analogy to wave-particle duality, in that without consciousness to "measure" the universe/environment then the universe does not fold into our conscious perception? Guess we need to ask Heisenberg.

Great interview! Surely objects and "things" exist without subjectivity - because solid objects and fluids are precursors to life. There must have been objects first. As far as I can tell, the basic "significance" of objects is their relative concentration and stability.

@david8157

9 жыл бұрын

I think his point is that objects and conditions exist without consciousness... but not informationn or knowledge.

@AlmostEthical

9 жыл бұрын

David Walsh True in hindsight. (Do you like the fast reply? :). Interesting idea that particles wouldn't aggregate without the existence of consciousness, which makes me wonder about the difference between consciousness and information ...

@AustinTexas6thStreet

7 жыл бұрын

This stuff is strange and infinitely complex, so forgive my ignorance....... .... ..... ..... ...... ..... I see why you would say that but how could we really ever even know that objects and conditions predate Consciousness? The problem is that we Only know objects and conditions through Our 5 senses and they operate in a tiny range of Reality. They are a mere 5 of Who Knows how many possible senses and variations of senses and their ranges (i.g. Our Sight, Hearing, Taste etc are not the same as other life forms we know here on earth). Also, our senses basically Only provide us with "Functional Illusions" and are definitely Not very "Accurate".... In addition to all the Gaps in Sensory Input and Experience that our brains fabricate in order to provide the illusion of a seamless experience, our senses are extremely susceptible to being fooled or subscribing to Illusions. So, we would have to consider that... And, at some point, we would have to go much deeper into more clearly defining the concepts of "What ARE objects?" Obviously, we experience EVERYTHING *exclusively* from the perspective of what we Know......which is truly Nothing!! We only have our 5 senses and our infinitely restricted and subjective experiences to inform our perspective and we are completely Incapable of even Imagining what parts of Reality we can't even detect or Experience in Any way!! We "Know" the Universe and Objective Reality (it that can even be said to exist) yet we act as if ALL of this Universe and Everything in it and Beyond it absolutely MUST conform to OUR Experiences and Expectations. . . . . . *Damn* I'm sorry, I have lost myself in this crazy stuff....there is SO much to it that my brain is pulled in a million directions with this subject and I find it extremely difficult to not veer off and lose my original point entirely!! Sorry....just gonna stop here

@AlmostEthical

7 жыл бұрын

:) David, you're referring to the Kantian distinction between phenomena (our impressions of things we can perceive) and noumena (the things in themselves). Yes, we cannot quite perceive actual reality, only simplified abstracted versions that our senses perceive, and the info we receive is mostly that which is useful to keep us alive. I am inclined to believe that our senses DO perceive reality, just a limited version. I always liked the "what is an object" question because it completely depends on scale and time.

@david8157

7 жыл бұрын

I think your reflections on this complex issue are pretty deep; and I agree with pretty much all you say there. I would encourage you to keep at it and see where it leads.

what page of the bible is talking about ?

I've just realised I miss read the quote- it has nothing to do with altered states of consciousness via use of certain psychedelic compounds. And lucky for both of us psilocybin is not manufactured in a laboratory.

Consciousness is subjective. Essentially it could be the awareness of being that observes the world around them weather it be a robot or a human. AI however, can never be spiritually -conscious because that is a virtue given only to human beings.

@tosvus

2 жыл бұрын

ahem, that is your SUBJECTIVE opinion, now isn't it.... ...and likely because you are religious or at least believe in the notion of a soul and probably a creator of some sort. The give aways would be "spiritually -conscious" and "virtue GIVEN only to human beings". It's fine you believe that, but your wording attempts to make it into a fact, which it is most certainly not.

@tosvus

2 жыл бұрын

@Jules Verne You are as stupid when it comes to computers as when it comes to this I see. LOL

If consciousness exists, it definitely antedates human beings. The interesting question is if it antedates organisms.

@OwlKnight32

6 жыл бұрын

Hope not. I'd feel bad.

@bradmodd7856

4 жыл бұрын

It is the only thing that exists, everything else could be imagined, you can't imagine being conscious....you are...cogito ergo sum

@mikebasketball11

4 жыл бұрын

@@OwlKnight32 Thought it might be present in organisms, it may not be sufficiently present to be ethically salient/enough to worry about :)

Lets realise this now, we are inside a living cosmo alive ourselves.

What is consciousness that's is the question I don't even know how we can know if consciousness is even a thing. Regardless if it's real or not the universe has and will always do it's thing it is not based on if we think consciousness is real or not.

@keithgreenan1850

5 жыл бұрын

Jermaine Edwards I have not heard a clear explanation consciousness or free will.

Nobody knows

Thinking about AI and replacing parts or neurons one by one until they're all done (Boat of Theseus Paradox) is different when it comes to Life or Consciousness. I tend to think that replacing pieces of an existing Object is quite different than building a new Object from the ground up, even in cases where the end results would be identical. I feel you can replace pieces of, say, a human (such as a leg, arm, organ etc) and as long as they function as needed, there should be no problems. There's no reason to even bother with asking, "if you keep replacing pieces, at what point does it cease to be the Original? Or does it?" because, even if you get the latest fanciest artificial limb and it helps you with functionality, it is Far from being the same as your Original limb!! So, it wouldn't take long before it was no longer "You".....you would essentially be dead....of course, we currently have nowhere near the technology to emulate the human brain, nervous system, etc but that doesn't matter for this conversation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . Even just consider this: We could Never create an artificial substitute for things like Cells, Neurons, etc because, in order to be TRuLY identical, they would need to be Biological, otherwise they are simply NOT identical....they may be an "Equivalent" but not "Identical" unless it was basically just another Biological Cell. Any form of Substitute for any tiny piece of even a cell, even if the actual Function is Identical, would still just be an Artificial *Substitute* or *Approximation* unless All of its parts were also made of Biological material.....and that would essentially mean we just found an Artificial *Process* for building natural,more-existing Biological objects!! . . .. . . . . . . V. . . . . . . ... . . . .. . I also believe that even if we could build EXACT replicas of, say, a human being, it still would be missing something. If we could manage to somehow build an Exact Copy down to every single cell, neuron, or whatever, I don't think we would end up with an Actual Human Being...... I think we would just have an Extremely accurate *Model* of a human being!!! Same goes for artificially modeling things like Consciousness or Life!!!

@tosvus

2 жыл бұрын

So if scientists could take say pieces of brain from 100 people, stick it together to make a new brain, and do similar stuff to put together a new body, you'd be ok with calling it a person/actual human being, simply because it is made of biological mass? What about scientists growing stuff like ears in a lab from a few cells from a human. If they could accomplish that, would that be an actual human? It is hard to argue it is not biological.. Also, definition of biology: "the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover their morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distribution. ". While one can perhaps say that something stored as information in a computer is a model and not a biological consciousness, if you take another example, the Star Trek transporter (though not entirely clear what it does), that seems to build biological mass from energy or building it atom by atom (or smaller). Would this not be considered a biological object? It certainly isn't just a model. A model never captures the full complexity of the original, and this certainly would, unless you are sneakily hinting at believing in a soul, and trying to find a way to deny anything that would not have it, without saying as much.

Whether you're dualist or monist, it's reasonable to think that consciousness preexited animal brains and that evolution stumbled onto it at some point and has built brains ever since that make use of that feature

@tunahelpa5433

Жыл бұрын

A dualist, for instance, would say that only certain animal brains are advanced enough to have consciousness, and that it is actually somehow there worldly

@tunahelpa5433

Жыл бұрын

A monist, or materialist, would simply say that it is a natural, emergent phenomenon.

@tunahelpa5433

Жыл бұрын

Bottom line - I find the search for the nature of consciousness to be a study that can be independent of any ontological viewpoint

@tunahelpa5433

Жыл бұрын

I'm pretty sure my thoughts on consciousness have developed and changed as a direct result of these excellent, thought provoking interviews

The law can't govern the higher states of consciousnes experienced through meditative practices that transcend the limitations of personal world view, beliefs and social norms.

You are looking for meaning of something that is looking for meaning

Consciousness might be the substrate of the universe.

@kxkxkxkx

Жыл бұрын

Yes, everything is a monad 🌍including each of us

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are right. We don't. We never will. Have you not noticed that as we probe deeper and deeper into reality, we find the constituents of the macrocosm, to be constructed of ever-smaller parts themselves? This is very interesting! But also very disturbing -- based on several of Leonard Susskind's papers, it suggest, on some level, a holographic universe. Amazing!

@Mikey-rj1lr

2 жыл бұрын

Tom Campbell explains it perfectly

Truly a wonderful universe we live in where a figment of our imaginations can sacrifice himself to himself to save us all the trouble of having to live moral lives.

@tosvus

2 жыл бұрын

agree 100% though one can argue what the point of moral is as well of course. Also, one can argue whether moral or obedience was the actual main cause of the rise of religions. ..not to mention it was morally fine to stone people that sinned, according to some old scriptures, which probably goes against what most people call good morals today.

Replacing neurons with perfectly functional nano-machines would never be conscious since the machines are not alive. Only living things can be conscious. I kind of doubt that you could even replace the neurons with living cloned cells since an organism grows rather than being constructed. In any case, it will never happen. Some therapy that causes the brain to renew itself with its own stem cells is much more feasible, if health was your goal rather than proving a silly point about dualism.

@aidandm5987

3 жыл бұрын

"if health was your goal rather than proving a silly point about dualism" is the most important thing to be said about our discussion of consciousness

@tosvus

2 жыл бұрын

It's might bold to say it will never happen, though. That may be your opinion, but there is no rule that says it can't happen. I suppose, as some people believing in a soul, cannot say there is a soul (or likewise atheists shouldn't say conclusively there couldn't be a soul).

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

@@tosvus The word "never" has a different meaning to finite beings. I've got a couple decades at best remaining, so it's an easy call for me to say "never." If I am going full science fiction, then I could say that 10k years in the future, or maybe it already happened in another galaxy far, far away, but nothing like conscious machines or neuron replacement prosthesis are coming in my time horizon, or yours either, no matter how young you are. We're still working on electric cars and rockets. We're not nearly as advanced as we might imagine. In terms of souls, it is a philosophical question. The philosophy of science says that anything without evidence of existence is automatically assumed to not exist. I think it's a shame that people who call themselves scientists say that things like dark matter and quarks exist, even though they are just made-up placeholders to explain observations that defy explanation, but souls don't even meet that bizarre criteria, so it's reasonable to assign them to the category of nonexistent.

You can't remove consciousness from the universe. That's like saying that you would remove heat from the kinetic energy of molecules. Both are emergent properties describing a state of matter. In consciousness's case, the state is something like symbolic recurrent world-/self-modeling.

@feedmeeplease1

9 жыл бұрын

yea he lost me there! thinking about that is like thinking about dying and poof im gone. consciousness is infinite

@JackMyersPhotography

9 жыл бұрын

You have exactly zero proof to back up a sweeping broad statement like that. Both men in the video are merely speculating about consciousness, nothing more. Jaron is giving a thought experiment. You're offering new age pseudo pap.

@feedmeeplease1

9 жыл бұрын

your right its only speculations. im just observing that imagining the universe without consciousness is pretty hard to do

@CarlGieringerActually

9 жыл бұрын

I thought we were allowed to speculate in the comments on KZread. When I devise my proof I'll invite you to the prize ceremony.

This conversation is too subjective and not objective enough, they think they know but they are only relating what they know which is limiting. Folks you are being "Had". The universe is way more complex than that.

If you replace each neuron and its connectome with a computer with identical connections, this would now be a machine consciousness instead of a biological consciousness. Is a mechanical leg the same as a biological leg? No, but it still allows a person to walk and run. If you eliminate consciousness from the universe, the universe is of course different. In the universe's early history, there was no consciousness and that was a different universe. If you extracted consciousness from the universe, consciousness would simply grow back in a billion years or so. Lanier's descriptions of consciousness do not seem very useful.

@wildmansamurai3663

7 жыл бұрын

Better than anything you could come up with.

@steveagnew3385

7 жыл бұрын

Okay...since I did not come up with an alternative, that is a valid criticism. My view of consciousness is that it is learned just like language is learned. We are not born conscious and must learn how to be conscious by imitating other people who are conscious. When we learn how to be conscious, we learn how to feel like other people feel and that sharing of experience is why consciousness helps us better survive.

@wildmansamurai3663

7 жыл бұрын

Steve Agnew Consciousness is an unknown, even scientists admit that.

@steveagnew3385

7 жыл бұрын

Well...I am a scientist, but consciousness is not my field. Nobody seems to think that we learn consciousness just like we learn language except for me. You asked me for something better and I think that my ideas are better and have said why. Just because no one else in the world or even the universe believes what seems self evident to me is another issue entirely...

@wildmansamurai3663

7 жыл бұрын

Steve Agnew I'm a believer in more than we see. Call it a Higher Power or what you like. There was no need to be anything at all, but here it is and here you and I are talking about it.. I see that as no random mistake. I believe that we are here for a reason and science has much to learn.

"Abc antifa" youtube.. Gg "from rvssia with hate" youtube nope!

childish.

And too many pork pies judging by the size of his girth.