Way to go Julia ! You are the first person I’ve seen on this channel that truly not only understands but knows consciousness has to be numero uno. And the way I look at this “problem “ is There is only Consciousness. How can there be anything such as a thought unless consciousness is there. Anytime Robert is talking to anyone about consciousness he just can’t see this thru his scientific glasses. Hooray for Julia.

@razony

2 жыл бұрын

I think atoms has something to say in all this.

@bobblacka918

2 жыл бұрын

Atoms are an illusion. Only fields exist. Atoms are vibrations within Quantum Fields.

@razony

2 жыл бұрын

@@bobblacka918 WOW! 😶

@gooddaysahead1

Жыл бұрын

This is the most narcissistic argument I have ever heard in my life. Nothing exists outside human consciousness. Nuts.

@Cr0uch1ng71g3r

Жыл бұрын

What is consciousness?

Refreshing academic honesty. The only thing we experience directly is consciousness.

@Cr0uch1ng71g3r

Жыл бұрын

What is consciousness?

@ALavin-en1kr

4 ай бұрын

@@Cr0uch1ng71g3r Consciousness is all that exists. Nothing exists without it or outside of it. It can be referred to by an atheist as just consciousness or referred to by a believer as God. It is omnipresent and with us all the time. We cannot hide from it nor can we exist without it.

To the point and indisputable! I like this lady! She knows what she says, and will not budge.

@GungaLaGunga

Жыл бұрын

So you're saying she is NOT a scientist, who if proven right or wrong, should be delighted either way.

Can't help but feel Robert was missing the point. The word "science" is sometimes used to mean "excluding subjective experience." Julia is rightly pointing out that all we can possibly know empirically begins at subjective experience. We cannot have a truly rigorous scientific understanding of reality outside ourselves if it doesn't begin axiomatically at the inside reality.

@richmeister1960

2 жыл бұрын

Reality?

@TactileTherapy

2 жыл бұрын

Robert understands her but he also understands there are things that can be explained with the absence of consciousness. Math is a tool used to execute such a task. She's saying nothing can be more fundamental than consciousness because it is truly the only thing that can be true. He's saying that's not true. They're both right in some sense but she leans more on philosophical solipsism while he's invoking all the physical science that shows this not to be the case. The universe exists whether we do or not because there are ways to irrefutably prove this to be the case.

@chargersina

Жыл бұрын

Consciousness cannot be experienced by talking about it. I can only feel conscious.

@patrickirwin3662

Жыл бұрын

@@TactileTherapy What experiment proves this? Every experiment implies a conscious being. Any hypothesis excluding it is the creation of a conscious being. Without such a being the very words you use are meaningless.

@TactileTherapy

Жыл бұрын

@@patrickirwin3662 because math isn’t a tool by which consciousness is required to function. Consciousness is required to interpret the math, yes. Do the math, yes. But the math itself exists irrespective of consciousness. In other words, every single conscious being can instantly vanish in the next second, but the universe will still remain because the math shows the two aren’t required to be linked in order for that axiom to exist. You would have to somehow show that the universe cease to exist on some scale when consciousness does. This isn’t possible because what you experience is only what you know to be truer than anything. However, that experience is subjective by virtue of me having my own experience and knowing the universe is still here even when people die. So the only acceptable conclusion is that it must exist outside of consciousness and not because of it. If not, I can just as easily state that the memories I woke up with today were just given to me the moment I opened my eyes and my past isn’t real.

Sagan once said "if you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". Well if you wish to wish, or invent anything at all you need a consciousness.

Max Planck said “You can’t get behind consciousness” Nothing in our experience can be there without our awareness of it

@WilliamBrownGuitar

Жыл бұрын

Planck was a devout Christian for good reason.

Thank you to JULIA M. for her clarity. AGREE 100%….It seems, some still understand It backwards

Julie's take is right on. Finally.

She has got something there. It makes sense. Why is he trying to complicate it? Julia stayed strong. Way to go Julia!

i totally agree with her. in a nutshell, neuroscience can explain correlations between the brain and consciousness, but it cant tell us what consciousness is.

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

You cannot know what the universe is but cosmologists are able ti explain it.

@jimmybrice6360

2 жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 how does your statement have anything to do with what i said ? i would also tell you to start learning to think for yourself, instead of taking what others say to be absolute truth. cosmologists can tell us some things that are probably true. but explain the universe ? you gotta be kidding me. no one can do that, until and unless we find out what consciousness is - and i have very little hope that we can do that. we dont even know what space and time is. we treat them as fundamentals, and can make various conclusions, based upon that. cosmologists used to tell us that space was empty. now, they tell us that it is teeming with all sorts of particles, etc. one of those stories that cosmologists have told us IS CERTAINLY NOT TRUE. the "experts" are generally incorrect. their "theories" keep evolving.

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

@@jimmybrice6360 You should take your own advice instead of parroting what other people say. The Cosmos was there long long before consciousness arose and will be there after consciousness dissolved. Consciousness cannot be primary because their are concrete objects that are transparent to consciousness. Physical vs non physical and material vs immaterial are false dichotomies. Physical means concrete, real and capable of interacting. Put simply physics. Reality means relation to thing. Physical reality means physics in relation to things. Cosmos means the entire physical universes. The Cosmos encompasses quantum physics and macro physics. What cosmology does is create models of physics on the micro and macro scale in order to predict the behavior of the Cosmos. It works to explain what we experience but cannot be used to explain the origin because we have to use the framework Cosmos to explain the origin of the Cosmos. Same thing with consciousness one cannot use the framework of consciousness to explain consciousness.

@jimmybrice6360

2 жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 i never parrot people - that is your thing. you have no idea when consciousness arose. dont confuse consciousness with a human's awareness. many think that consciousness is fundamental, perhaps the only fundamental. i dont know, but i keep coming back to just whose consciousness is it ? my only 2 answers are god, or a being from the 4th dimension (a higher reality than us). everything that any of us know is completely structured within consciousness. none of us knows the first thing about what consciousness is. and i dont think it is possible to discover it. but like i said in another thread, it is potentially possible that we could objectively prove that the brain does not create consciousness.

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

@@jimmybrice6360 Once again consciousness being fundamental does not answer anything it explains away. Just as consciousness no one can say what a the universe is. People are able to describe the universe and come up with explanations on how the universe behaves but no one knows what the universe is. Claiming a higher reality where god resides does not solve anything it just complicates the problem. The higher reality is still within the universe now their has to be an explanation for that part of the universe. All you did was push the question back without adding anything.

Julia, you hit the nail on the head. Well done, and keep going!

This is one of my favorites so far. These two great, disciplined minds with such depth of understanding, respectfully and fearlessly disagreeing, yet also pulling out from each other what they mean. A model for our current times, where people infuse disagreements with anger.

@Ascendlocal

2 жыл бұрын

How about she lacks any logical argument? She offers nothing to discuss but please, tell me where I am off base.

@andromeda3542

2 жыл бұрын

Somehow, the lady's claim reminds me of the argument that you can't disprove that there are pink unicorns in the universe... ... and somehow you end up very quickly in solipsism...

@mrbwatson8081

2 жыл бұрын

The lady did not make any claim the lady stated facts. If you want to know wtf is going on, first things first... all we KNOW, is that we experience. that's the only brute FACT. that's nature's given something you can not escape from. That's not a claim that's taking into account your own predicament before making any assumptions. It's a more parsimonious and empirical approach. She did not postulate the existence of anything other then what we already know. Materialism is less empirical and less parsimonious and fails to explain consciousness. 🤔

@Ascendlocal

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrbwatson8081 sorry, but you’re dead wrong. Just as Deepak Chopra is dead wrong. You say she is factual? No, she is not. In “fact”, She has no basis whatsoever for her “consciousness first” postulate. When Robert asked her, “Can you have a content of consciousness without a Brain”? . What was her answer? She had none and then abruptly changed the subject. That single question from Robert proves my point. That question to her sums it up right there. She’s simply one more “way out there” author trying to sell books. Of course if she’s right, then the money from her book sells was already in her bank account before she even sold a book.

@mrbwatson8081

2 жыл бұрын

@B. B. all we have is raw subjectivity. Without which there can be no knowledge. All we can KNOW is that subjective experience/mind / consciousness EXISTS. First you need to acknowledge understand and realise that. We know mind exists that's nature's given. She says this mind/consciousness/raw subjectivity IS all there is. She claims it as her ontological primitive (something that can not be explained in terms of anything else but all else can be explained in terms of it). Her positon is the most parsimonious empirical skeptical logical position you can take in this enquiry. That's why it's called idealism. Materialism postulates the existence of non mind "matter" and says matter and its menu of subatomic particles are its ontological primitive. Physicalists say quantum fields and their activiy are their ontological primitives. The problem with this is not just having to postulate the existence of an entity or entities of which no one has seen or experienced because according to materialism this matter is void of qualities such as colours taste smells and concretness. The problem is materialism fails to explain mind only in terms of physical parameters. In fact the problem materialism faces is well known the hard problem. It is impossible in principle and by definition to deduce or reduce mind to matter. So the interviewer's question let's just assume materialism can explain consciousness to her is non sensicle non empirical and non productive.

Thank you Julia. I clicked on this title expecting to roll my eyes at the usual neuro-psycho BS, but you stood your ground against it

Thank you, Julia Mossbridge.

The fact that this channel does not have millions of subscribers keeps me up at night.

It's so awesome to see a woman who can handle profound philosophical questions such as consciousness. Because you just don't see many of them. And she handled that quite well. Her insights and perspective on the topic were very enlightening.

Finally someone from the world of science who recognizes the primacy of what we call consciousness before what we call matter. The intelligence expressed with very accurate answers by this lady is a nice addition. The moment of realization of being the consciousness is the moment of birth of responsibility.

@jtbigbear3158

2 жыл бұрын

Is matter not consciousness in itself? Possibly just vibrating at a different frequency? If Energy is infinite, could that mean it is conscious also? What if humans are aware that they are aware because consciousness wanted to experience itself in a physical way.

@zsoltszabo6482

2 жыл бұрын

I love these brain teaser type conversations, but I also view them as somewhat useless. Because I have no other options, I choose to believe that I am physically typing on a keyboard and learning amazing things about the world around me from my senses and other people around me that exist. Until it is proven not to be my world, it is my world. There really is nothing else to be examined.

@dawidwenderski9097

2 жыл бұрын

@@zsoltszabo6482 The topic may seem useless as long as you navigate it theoretically. However, when you see it as an obvious fact that what you are is beyond definition, that you are a living aspect of what exists, it will affect your entire life. As long as we identify with the false ideas our mind has created about ourselves, we are prone to being selfish individuals who do harm to one another in the name of their own sick motives. When the false identification disappears, it becomes obvious that deep down we are one and the same, something that is complete and doesn't have to prove anything to anyone or acquire anything to prove itself. This is necessary for there to be harmony on the outside, which will be the manifestation of what will be on the inside. Right now, people are behaving like an organism with an autoimmune disease. If you want to explore the subject further, I recommend searching on youtube for "Jiddu Krishnamurti" - the man was a walking wisdom.

@gooddaysahead1

Жыл бұрын

​@@dawidwenderski9097Such a long and rambling exposition on pantheism. Pantheism. It's as old as the Upanishads.

@gooddaysahead1

Жыл бұрын

​@@jtbigbear3158Everything you say is true... If you ate mushrooms two hours ago.

Even if we humans are able to explain, or prove, that consciousness is entirely physical, we still don't know that the physical is real - that's what Dr. Julia is saying. All we know is consciousness is real, but we don't know whether the physical is real.

@valentinmalinov8424

2 жыл бұрын

My friend, she is very close to the truth! The Universe is constructed from Physical and non-physical elements. Consciousness, the Law of Physics, and the Information are non-physical elements of the Universe. - Consciousness is not a product of our brain! - Details of the fundamental elements of the Universe and their interaction you can find in my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

@dominationsalpha1978

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, that's right, you are not real, she created you with her consciousness.

@saiapupua72

Жыл бұрын

@@dominationsalpha1978 it’s really just the question “what is real?” And her point is, by limiting ourselves to our perception of what is real only limits us. We understand how things work but we really don’t know what “it” is

@dominationsalpha1978

Жыл бұрын

@@saiapupua72 there are many things that we don't understand but also there are some that we do. Some people just can't get over it. So, if you think that you are special and that your consciousness created the universe, including me and you, it's ok, you have a right into believing whatever you want. Also if you believe that you created another universe just because you observed something, again, that's also ok lol.

Thank you for posting such mind stretching content, it always makes me think and as we know, once the mind is stretched it cannot go back to the same size.

@pnf197

2 жыл бұрын

@That Guy There -- loved that line ..."it cannot go back to the same size." Thanks, going to use it..

@Gringohuevon

2 жыл бұрын

thinking is an illusion

@andromeda3542

2 жыл бұрын

Somehow, the lady's claim reminds me of the argument that you can't disprove that there are pink unicorns in the universe... ... and somehow you end up very quickly in solipsism...

@sneakcr3144

2 жыл бұрын

@@andromeda3542 Not really..her argument is really factual and easy to understand. You first are conscious .If you are not conscious, then there wouldnt be any matter for you to see or explain. Science explains the world through consciousness.;..and any explanation of pysical processes would be through consciousness. You have to logically asume that consciousness is first, and everything else is a result of us being conscious.

@juniper6760

2 жыл бұрын

@@sneakcr3144 Not really, you can also assume that a mutation in our first ancestors DNA made them conscious and all is a result of biochemical process. So far we know there is no consciousness without a brain but opposite is not proved at all. But I’m ready to accept if I see a scientific fact not just wordplay enveloped in a highly philosophical looking package.

She is brilliant

At 3:00 she answered this perfectly. "I don't know". Because the observer can only ever experience their own first person experience. A brain surgeon who is working on a patient appearing in his own consciousness has no idea if the there is really a consciousness assigned to the person who's brain he is working on. After all, in dreams we are presented with characters with apparent other minds as well, but these other minds are simulated other minds created and presented to us in a virtual reality (dream) by our own mind. And so this could also be the case in the waking reality as well. And so she is being rigorous with what she can epistemically justify. But beyond that, the question is not about correlation between brains and their states and purported conscious qualia of the consciousness associated with the particular brain. The question should also not be if all consciousnesses have a physical brain assigned to them which, if measured, will display correlative activity with regards to brain activity and qualities of consciousness, or, if obliterated, will end the consciousnesses' time of interfacing with this particular physical reality (game over). The question is about causation. Causation can be APPARENT or simulated causation such as in a video game, where the activity of the screen has no causal power. The causation is done by processing/calculations and it is initiated by willed agent causation by the player, not just deterministic matter based event causation. There is a basic rule set, which in this case would be genetics influencing and constraining the player's/observers/consciousnesses preferences/tendencies, but there would still be an element of volition/free will.

@mrbwatson8081

2 жыл бұрын

I have come out of dmt trips convinced I am in some kind of computer game:)

@life_of_liam

2 жыл бұрын

ok i understand this idea of “i can only know for sure what i experience through my own consciousness” BUT i also realized by the time i was 6 fucking years old that i was not the only human being with a conscious mind… if we want to get stuck at that one stupid question then we might as well not talk to other humans at all or whatever. it is easy to say that we can’t know for sure that every other person is not just a figment of our own imagination and sure i guess you can’t know with 100% certainty. BUT if you have half a fucking brain it is pretty obvious that each person has their own conscious experience that is quite similar to your own. now certainly it is interesting to think about how our experiences may differ from one another and in what ways- such as how some people don’t have an internal monologue and some do, that is interesting but i hate to burst your bubble bro you are not the only thinking feeling human and that should be pretty obvious

@aenimalis8079

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrbwatson8081 exactly this. thats what lead me to the question of consciousness and mind in the first place. Research Rupert Spira for more consciousness-related stuff. This all was an eye-opener.

@araponga.revolucionaria

Жыл бұрын

I am personally not satisfied with the idea of our reality being a simulation just as I am not satisfied by the idea of a conscious creator of reality, because in either case you just push the problem back further and the question remains unanswered. That is, if THIS reality is a simulation, there must be another "real" one, which isn't simulated and gives rise to this one. And then the question remains: what is, then, the nature of that other reality? Similarly, is a conscious creator begets reality, what begets it?

@enriquea.fonolla4495

Ай бұрын

Yes, but the brain surgeon can also change the persons state of consciousness simply by stimulating certain regions of his brain. He can trigger emotions, he can remove emotions, he can trigger OBE, he can trigger hallucinations, he can trigger NDE like experiences, etc. BUt the surgeon HAS to ask the person to tell him what he experienced, because, at least so far, consciousness is the only truly subjective experience anyone can have.

Always fun to have Julia on the show!

Kudos for Julia !! To talk about anything, you start with consciousness, so to say it is physical is a contradiction in terms!!

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

If only you could define consciousness, but you are about to demonstrate that you cannot by signally failing to define it. Why do you suggest or assert that it is a contradiction in terms (and which turns?) To assert that consciousness is physical. What you mean by "physical"? My left pocket is now betting my right pocket that you cannot even begin to define physical" and that you will demonstrate that by signally failing to define "physical"

@xenomyr

2 жыл бұрын

How do you know the people you talk with are conscious ?

@Virtues162

2 жыл бұрын

@@xenomyr Because you responded to me !!

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

@@xenomyr If they are contemporary human beings, it is a racing certainty certainty that they are semiconscious at best. My chance of encountering a human being that is conscious in the true sense of the word are about the same as my chance of winning the lottery three times in a row. I can list a number of people I have met in my life that would qualify for the term conscious on the head of a pin, the reality of the matter is that most human beings spent their entire lives semiconscious or what we experts call asleep - for they are dreaming - and obviously dreaming and therefore must be asleep, but what they call their dreams can be all sorts of things but they are generally yesterday tomorrow or what they mistakenly imagine to be thinking - although they could not think in 1 million years

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

@@xenomyr I know they are not because it is not possible for dreamers to *know*

I agree with Julia. Consciousness is our portal to the world. Reductionistic materialism is a dead end. The physical world appears to be energy, which could also be conscious, but we will never know unless will can know it all, which we cannot. We will always know X/Infinity because of our limited perspective and small brains.

@petergreen5337

2 жыл бұрын

Precisely.

@commodoor6549

2 жыл бұрын

It appears that Robert Lawrence Kuhn has not fully considered consciousness, as Dr Mossbridge has, i.e., he seems to be behind the current thinking of neuroscience in terms of consciousness. And as a consequence he's does not seem to be grasping what she's saying. As a further consequence, he's asking the wrong questions, or rather, he's doing a poor job of framing his questions. He's curious, but at the same time he's focusing on his resistance to the concept of the concept rather than what Mosbridge is suggesting. I typically enjoy Kuhn's interviews, but he failed to give Mossbridge the benefit of his open mind. It's disappointing. With all the novel ideas being floated about the nature and origin of all of creation, nothing should shock anyone's understanding of reality. _Cogito ergo sum_ ... and in the end, this might be all we have.

@peweegangloku6428

2 жыл бұрын

"Reductionistic materialism is a dead end. " I totally agree. That is a very succinct statement.

@marcoliberamente

2 жыл бұрын

How consolatory is to think that all the energy could be conscious rather than to accept that the ubiquity of consciousness is a useless quality for the universe. Cosmopsychism and neo-spinozian theories are about faith more than science.

@HodsBroo

2 жыл бұрын

100% agree

The brain is a material thing.....You can explain and correlate EVERY aspect of the brain to the CONSCIOUSNESS we KNOW and FEEL, does not mean consciousness comes from the brain or any physicality. We can study a brain pattern of a sleeping person and know that AT THIS POINT, hes/he is having an intense dream. Then, we have to ask, who or what is dreaming ? Let alone the contents of the dream.....

@johnhausmann2391

5 ай бұрын

The brain is dreaming, and taking content from memory and mixing it up in various combinations.

Finally someone who realizes the importance for us to know the nature of our own consciousness, before we can pretend to know how the universe has originated.

@valentinmalinov8424

2 жыл бұрын

Consciousness is not a product of our brain. All living organisms possess consciousness even without having a brain and nervous system! Consciousness is awareness of the environment! - The egg and the sperm of your parents will not find each other if they do not have the awareness of the surroundings = consciousness on a low level! The capacity of the brain determines the size of our personal package of consciousness. - Details of the fundamental elements of the Universe and their interaction you can find in my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

No consciousness is not important it just focuses are attention on a small spectrum of reality.

@shelwincornelia2498

2 жыл бұрын

@@valentinmalinov8424 thank you very much, I would be spending a couple of days reading your book.

@jackarmstrong5645

2 жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 Consciousness is the thing of highest value that we know about. The entire universe and beyond is totally meaningless without consciousness.

@Ascendlocal

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackarmstrong5645meaning no. ..I purpose

You and Mishlove been helping me get through whatever I'm going through. Thank you.

@sergio1991M

2 жыл бұрын

Just an existential crisis most likely, hand on there, dont do anything drastic, it will eventually clear up :)

I'm aware I've watched this video for the first time more times than I can count. Each time looking forward to how my opinion has changed (if any) as I internalize the ideas discussed and apply all the value I can into my life.

Julia makes a great point. Robert is stuck in the mainstream paradigm.

As Bertrand Russell said, all you can know is that you exist in the present moment. You can’t assert the existence of consciousness, except for a given (present) moment. Remembering you were conscious before won’t help, all of your memories could have been implanted in your brain exactly in that moment. Sure you know you’re conscious, but what help would it be to study illusory memories in order to understand consciousness?

@sergio1991M

2 жыл бұрын

Thats the exact point.... this presentness, the qualia is whats at stake.... not the impression of personhood and memories. So even if the memories are implantes, I'm aware of them. Meaning qualia is still present no matter how illusory the contents of its contemplation are.

You can only really understand consciousness when you have an out of body experience...I think Julia has it right when she says everything is backward.The physical body is a vehicle and your consciousness is a signal that drives that vehicle..

@alittax

2 жыл бұрын

Did you ever have an OoBE? If yes, can you please describe it?

@Corteum

Жыл бұрын

You dont need to have an OOBE to know or understand consciousness. You just have to be conscious. That's the basic requirement.

@gooddaysahead1

Жыл бұрын

​@Corteum Oh my, What imaginative creatures humans are. I'm glad i'm not human and can view things objectively. I know Earth existed before humans did. I was there.

I believe through consciousness and understanding spiritual love and light we as a social complex can create physical reality through thought forms on a higher density level through the learning process through many incarnations.

I'm with Julia on this one. I'd like it to be physical but I think she makes good sense.

@PhantomGardener

2 жыл бұрын

Why would you like it to be physical?

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

@@PhantomGardener I think her argument falls apart.

@gt0703

2 жыл бұрын

Hunger and sexual desire enter consciousness and are physical needs. Have you ever drunk alcohol and seen the effect it has on you consciousness? It is clear the alcohol affects your consciousness.

@PeterS123101

2 жыл бұрын

@@gt0703 It affects the content of your senses. Not conciousness itself.

@gt0703

2 жыл бұрын

@@PeterS123101 it affects your judgement and other personality traits too. What I'm saying has no impact on my belief in the existence of God, I'm a believer and see that the human condition is a physical one where what we may consider free will is actually driven by a physical need. You can not choose not to be hungry etc.

I agree that Robert is old school, insisting that, like digestion, consciousness is emergent from the brain. I think of the brain as a mega sophisticated two-way "antenna" (transducer) that takes consciousness and effects physicality (or viceversa). Remember the old "rabbit ears" antennas in the b+w tv sets? If the antenna wasn't set up properly (the brain), the tv didn't function right, perhaps there was no sound (the tumor in the brain). And if we disconnected it altogether, the tv was "dead". But, nobody would think that Johnny Carson was in the tv set or that it appeared because of the antenna! Consciousness, or rather its precursor, awareness, is fundamental, as Julia and others (Dean Radin, Don Hoffman,...) have been saying. Sir Roger Penrose implies that it is the result of gravity forcing the collapse of the wave function, what he calls "proto consciousness", although I think it is the other way around: awareness produces the collapse using what we call gravity - this is, needless to say, highly speculative and somewhat rooted in metaphysics. Either way, I agree that we will only fully understand the brain when we study it as a tool subservient to consciousness, not the producer of it.

@enriquea.fonolla4495

Ай бұрын

We can think whatever we want but that doesnt mean we are right. We need to prove we are right. The emergence of consciousness is the most believed idea up to now. We can throw all the metaphysicis we want, but there is no evidence of none of that, no magical EM waves that our brains sync up to, etc. But we see how the brain's electric activity lights up when it is stimulated in a controlled environment. As for consciousness being fundamental, how do you explain a universe existing for 13 billions years before the emergence of the only species we know has a consciousness evolved enough as to ask these questions??

Please bring Julia back.

This is my favorite video on this channel

All things are perceived through the conscious. Nothing you see feel or think can be proven to be material. Is a dream real? Or is reality just the most convincing dream? I think what she is saying is that nothing you can perceive as real can be proven therefore no matter how convinced you are that it is real it is still just a perception. Perception alone proves only that you are conscious.

@markmatsusaka

2 жыл бұрын

You have touched on a very good point. However, I believe that her position is that we have to be able to first rigorously differentiate what is “real” and what is “generated by our consciousness” through rigorous investigation. Only from after we’ve completed those investigations and made the distinction between reality and our own observation’s conscious bias can we truly start to address the question of the “physiology of consciousness”. This is because, just as you say, all things are perceived through consciousness.

@yodaman4674

2 жыл бұрын

@@markmatsusaka But with this definition of consciousness can anything actually be proven with certainty?

@davietnamese

2 жыл бұрын

I see your point… I agree that at a personal level, all things are perceived through our consciousness, but does it mean things can’t be proven to be real in terms of being made of actual material? Well, technically, I can’t tell, but from a purely logical perspective, I would disagree with you. See, unlike a dream, we know things exist in reality because more than one person can experience the same environment and the same things within this environment. In dreams, only the dreamer gets to experience its environment. In other words, in reality, there are a lot of consistencies, that’s why more than one person can experience similar things and have the exact same result. Also, unlike dreams, reality is always coherent, and because reality is coherent and consistent, you can talk about laws. Consistency is a quality of laws. Now, because there are laws and consistencies where everyone gets to experience the same reality, or the same "dream", we can say that what we see exists because we all see it. And of course, for something to exist, it has to be made of actual substance, or material if you like. And for everyone to be able to go to the same location, there has to be an actual framework of some kind as well. You said, "Perception alone proves only that you are conscious". I don’t know what you are implying (English isn’t my language), but like I said, if more than one person perceives the same thing, in regard to consistency, it has to be real and not just a perception, which can be potentially imaginary. Besides, we have other sensory operators that reinforce that reality we all experience. That being said, consciousness isn’t just about what we perceive, feel or smell through our operators, it’s also about growing ourselves in love, morally and spiritually. Without consciousness, we wouldn’t be able to use reasoning, process information and so on. And none of that is a passive perception but an active exercise of our will. Free will also goes hand in hand with consciousness. Now, I’m not saying that matter actually looks like they appear to our eyes, because our eyes perceive things through a specific spectrum that the laws dictate. There might be animals that don't see the same color as humans do by exemple. In other words, the fundamental material is there, but how we perceive it depends on the laws.

@Gringohuevon

2 жыл бұрын

It's an illusion..you are a meat machine.

@valentinmalinov8424

2 жыл бұрын

Your view is based on logic. You are very close to the truth! Consciousness is not a product of our brain! Most of them don't understand that the Universe is constructed of material and non-material substances - Space, Time and Energy are the material components; The Law of Physics, the Information, and the Universal Consciousness are the non-material components of the Universe. - Details of the fundamental elements of the Universe and their interaction you can find in my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

Agree with her, very well explained!

glad I played this. Julia is right on here. good info.

Love this, The first intelligent remarks I have heard on consciousness. It is what we experience first, everything else is secondary.

Fascinating interview. We humans tend to cling to our past conditioning when confronted with events which run counter to it; and we are often either unaware of our conditioned biases or we tend to ignore/reject them. Our Western approach to scientific empiricism has been long conditioned by Cartesian dualism making it difficult to get our arms around any notion that mind can proceed matter. I find it interesting to look toward Buddhist empiricism which holds that observation through bare attention (i.e., meditation to observe awareness before perception takes hold), one observes that (1) mind and matter are in constantly changing and (2) anything that arises (mind or matter), ceases and is impermanent. Mind and matter are each in a constant state of flux, conditioning each other's arising and ceasing and inexorably linked.

@maheshmalhotra2662

2 жыл бұрын

Concious ness is not easy to that it is physical it can only be solve in light of Quantum mechanics .....

"Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious." --Jerry Fodor

@Arcadianx98

2 жыл бұрын

People do have the slightest idea. It’s called a miracle and done by God. Who else?

@Corteum

Жыл бұрын

If it were a material object, they wouldn't have called it a subject. lol

Good discussion.

She’s on the button. If consciousness is essentially ‘understanding’ or ‘awareness’ or ‘conception’ or ‘concept’ then we must understand it as merely a set of abstract relations that exist as such. If an idea is not a physical thing.

Great episode!

Not sure in what discussion he tries to lure her but after decades of thinking we still have no proper definition of the ontological and epistemological position of consciousness. And so what we experience through our 'sensors' is what we call reality and empirical evidence ('Wiener Kreis'). For sure we can agree that if we had a different 'infrastructure' (than our body) through which we perceive/experience things our understanding of nature/reality/cosmos would be different. So, as long as we have no proper understanding of the nature of consciousness we can make no 'final' claims about reality or the final validity of truth relative to our experiences. We are rangebound by our infrastructure through which consciousness emerges. Probably nature thought there was a good reason for that to be built in.

@xenphoton5833

2 жыл бұрын

"nature"doesn't appear to "think"or"build things". Those seem to be attributes of intent. Intent is specific to a sentient conscious entity. What we perceive as nature may very well be a product of intent

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

@@xenphoton5833 Nature built us. Nature thinks but not in the same way we do.

I think she is utterly right Mr Robert. Cheers.

I love that woman. What she says is straight to the point the exact absolute truth.

I'm more in the camp that consciousness is a label we give to patterns of information processing done by our neurons, and that the "qualia" phenomenon associated with sensory input is not the result of some external entity watching the movie our brain compiles, but is a natural extension of the thing causing the input itself. When you "see" a flower, the light bouncing off of the petals causes a cascade of cause-and-effect information flow that becomes intensely interconnected with other patterns of information that are ongoing from past experiences. The emergent web of neurological patterns and how the spindles of that web interact is an example of the correlated actions of smaller parts forming a larger, more abstract structure that we call "conscious experience"

“We know it’s physical “ hum 🤨... Last time I checked we don’t even know want consciousness is. Also, he seems to be oblivious of the fact that all of his doubts and questions arise from consciousness. Consciousness always comes first in every occasion. In any equation. It gives birth to occasions and equations. It’s so obvious but science overlooks that evidence all the time. Materialism is a product of a belief: matter is fundamental to reality. That can’t actually be proven because without consciousness you can’t even investigate matter. Witch begs the question: what’s actually fundamental in our experience?

@jakecostanza802

2 жыл бұрын

Consciousness is not the same throughout life. It is never the same, so it is a little difficult to try to grasp it. As B. Russell said, the only thing you could know is that you exist in the present moment. All content of consciousness can be an illusion, just like exiting physically. So, we’re conscious for a second or so, which doesn’t impress much.

@andromeda3542

2 жыл бұрын

Somehow, the lady's claim reminds me of the argument that you can't disprove that there are pink unicorns in the universe... ... and somehow you end up very quickly in solipsism...

@medhurstt

3 ай бұрын

@@andromeda3542 What people dont seem to be able to understand in her argument is the she, and she alone is the entirety of the universe. Your consciousness and my consciousness simply cant exist because hers is the fundamental one. She is the ultimate narcissist. But then she doesn't realise that the moment she lets our consciousnesses into her world, she lets in our physical presences too. And our physical brains that can be manipulated to alter our consciousnesses...and her argument falls apart.

Best video of this channel. Thanks Julia

Ohh, I like this lady, very good point of view, thought provoking for sure.

The observer gives the world the power to come into being, through the very act of giving meaning to that world; in brief, No consciousness; no communicating community to establish meaning? Then no world!" - Physicist John Wheeler

@garywelch3864

2 жыл бұрын

That is because light is intelligent.

@BulentBasaran

2 жыл бұрын

​@@garywelch3864 Light helps us use our intellect, our mind. No body, no mind. No mind, pure Oneness. Seemingly many minds and many bodies, and we have an infinite universe full of fun.

Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.”

@chrisdiver6224

2 жыл бұрын

Sir, agreed. An effective meditative process makes the empirical, replicatable (scientific) discovery that there is a Lucidity that is the basis of and vivifies all phenomena and a Good Will that causes all phenomena to blossom, both of these include ourselves, our physiology, personality, consciousness. By analogy, in the deeper scientific discoveries, discoverers have been struck by beauty and simplicity and have seen the discoveries material elements FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, "with God's eyes", as Shakespeare put it, -- but have then discounted that awareness because they are swallowed up again by their professional, materialist conditioning.

@JoseGarcia-dw9tt

2 жыл бұрын

Spiritual? Explain, where’s the proof? What part of the universe is spiritual to you? What would make that true for everyone else?

@sanjosemike3137

2 жыл бұрын

@@JoseGarcia-dw9tt Yes, it is spiritual, because an exogenous measurement must be made before the indeterminate wave functions of reality become perceptible. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

Great sparring session!!

Tentatively I accept Dr Mossbridge's explanation that consciousness exists independent of physicality. Now, the blue chair in front of me comes to my awareness and/or consciousness, Can we explain how that communication between the chair and my brain come about ?

I’m not sure why he’s having a difficult problem in understanding her argument. There are some who want to say that there is a real world, and then consciousness which perceives it. But their “real world” is only being perceived through consciousness. There is no other way for it to happen. Link up a newborn baby into a VR, and that baby will, throughout its life, think that that VR is the “real world”. Everyone on the outside will know better, however. Yet if that baby, and other babies all linked up to the VR, decide one day that they’ve figured out the real world, us on the outside will know the flaw in their ultimate deduction. We will never know reality through any other prism except our consciousness. But to say that we know the “real world” is just to come to decision that we’ve reached the limits of our perception. It says absolutely nothing about actual reality, of which we can never know except through our consciousness.

@sergio1991M

2 жыл бұрын

exactly... what he is sugesting is that we can describe the babies consciousness from the vr projection. I think he missed the point.

@juniper6760

2 жыл бұрын

Will that baby get hurt when he/she falls? Will he/she die if get shot in the VR environment? Our consciousness needs sensory input to function and guess what, all sensors are physical, except 6th sense, wait that was a movie. I’m really looking forward to see 21 gram theory resurfaces in the comments soon.

@ToddSullivanacrowsflying

2 жыл бұрын

@@juniper6760 Humans suffer physical pain as a result of mental stress all the time. Heart attacks, strokes, nervous breakdowns.Phantom pain is known in people who have lost limbs. Everyday people will feel physically sick and when they go to the doctor, nothing is found wrong. Yet the pain persists. Sometimes my eyes will hurt. I’ve been to the doctor, they said there’s nothing wrong. Yet sometimes my eyes hurt. Why this is, I may never know, but unexplainable aches and pains are not an uncommon phenomenon amongst humans. So yes, in the VR environment, mental pain would probably manifest itself as physical pain, and the child will try to make sense of it with what it knows about reality. We on the outside will know the child is missing a large piece of the puzzle, but the child itself may feel that at one point it has figured out the “God Equation” of its virtual reality. That in its virtual reality, it has seen to the furthest reaches of the universe. And ultimately,it will only be seeing as far as the extent of the VR reality, and no further. Our reality is bound by our perception, which is generated by our consciousness. There is no reason to believe that we’ve ever glimpsed “true, objective” reality.

"A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. AS observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a "mental" construction. - R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University , “The Mental Universe” ; (Nature 436:29,2005)

I like the analogy that compares the brain to a filter, transceiver etc….

@Dion_Mustard

2 жыл бұрын

yes i like this analogy too.

She's basically a form of idealist. Something like Berkley. we start with conscious experience as a fundamental truth and then we work out the rest of reality from our unique position. Always being aware that our conscious experience shapes whatever truth we are seeking.

@pedrova8058

2 жыл бұрын

that´s the point. But cartesianism and "the objectivity of the real" are deeply rooted in society and in the work of science (that is why there is such a scandal every time CERN or another lab puts "doubts" on platonic maths and its subsequent theoretical bodies xD)

@adriancioroianu1704

2 жыл бұрын

Computer scientists be like: if we make a big enough calculator it will eventually become conscious and if it doesn't we'll call it conscious anyway because we'll make it so you can't tell the difference. Zombie culture inc.

@MerhlinsPlace

2 жыл бұрын

I would like to see him debate Bernado Kastrup.

@mintakan003

2 жыл бұрын

I would not say she's an Idealist. An Idealist would say God (or some version of Big Mind) is conscious. But individuals within God, are not always conscious, do not know everything. There are things outside our experience. She's closer to a Solipsist.

@delq

2 жыл бұрын

@@mintakan003 these days being called a solipsist is an insult but infact is the most honest position you can take.

She is correct. The only thing we know for certain is that we exist. The contents of consciousness change, consciousness does not.

@Corteum

Жыл бұрын

BAM! on the nail

Amazing debate! All our math/pyshics models come from consciousness therefore what we think is real could be a consciousness by-product, that could explain why quantum physics results depend on observers. 😲

@johnhausmann2391

5 ай бұрын

The results of quantum physics don't prove anything about an observer.Quantum physics is a method for generating predictions about what an observer will observe. It is a great tool for prediction. If you try to claim it reflects reality, you get some crazy conclusions like many worlds.

Well said!

To answer Robert's question about whether we should be convinced that consciousness is entirely physical if we can explain everything from the brain, we can use the television analogy. We can study how a tv works by taking it apart and testing all the functions and buttons. We will eventually be able to explain the correlation between all the buttons, electrical components of the tv and the picture that it displays. But we will never be able to understand or explain the electromagnetic wave, i.e. what makes the tv displays the tv show.

This was a good one. I honestly feel sometimes that Robert - for all his depth of thought - gets a bit mechanical and set in his approach on occasion. She really did seem to come from left field for him, and I actually agree with her view. I think consciousness is a simply a sense of existence, a blank slate, and all the things we experience - emotions, physical perceptions etc are fed to that consciousness by our interface with this particular reality, our brain. You can still have all the things missing that happens in brain injury or illness, as Robert describes, and still have a discreet consciousness. You're still there. We seem to be attached to this idea of individualism in consciousness, whereas that might not be the case. Individual consciousness might not be any more individual than any particular subatomic particle. Of course, this is all just speculation, but I feel that Julia is on to something,

@georgegrubbs2966

2 жыл бұрын

An interesting position, but I believe her argument is flawed. I’ll think on it a bit and get back to you.

@andromeda3542

2 жыл бұрын

Somehow, the lady's claim reminds me of the argument that you can't disprove that there are pink unicorns in the universe... ... and somehow you end up very quickly in solipsism...

@georgegrubbs2966

2 жыл бұрын

See my post above. Consciousness is not fundamental; it is emergence from the complexity of brain activity. When we are asleep, we are unconscious - not conscious. We have physical mechanisms in the brain stem, for example, the reticular activating system, the periaqueductal gray, and cholinergic pathways that enliven the thalamus, basal ganglia, and other structures that "wake up" memory structures like the hippocampus, the limbic system, and sensory and motor cortex areas and finally the entire cortex and cerebellum. Actually, many brain structures are somewhat active when we sleep. We become awake, alert, and aware - and it usually take some seconds or even minutes (in some cases, hours) to feel fully conscious. Mossbridge's claim that consciousness is not physical/material does not stand up to evidence. It does not follow that we can only discern consciousness if we are conscious implies that consciousness is not emergent from a physical, electrochemical, substrate, namely, the brain. Since you must be conscious to discern the physical world does not mean that the physical world does not exist. It means that each conscious organism filters physical reality through the lens of their senses and memory. Humans with a normal brain (say, without color blindness) "see" the physical world approximately the same - we see a physical oak tree closely the same. The "meaning" of the oak tree, the subjective experience, typical differs among people, based on their unique make-up and memories. Mossbridge is incorrect; Kuhn is correct -- consciousness is not fundamental - it is an emergence state of brain activity.

@valentinmalinov8424

2 жыл бұрын

You are absolutely right! Consciousness is not a product of our brain! Most of them don't understand that the Universe is constructed of material and non-material substances - Space, Time and Energy are the material components; The Law of Physics, the Information, and the Universal Consciousness are the non-material components of the Universe. - Details of the fundamental elements of the Universe and their interaction you can find in my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

@georgegrubbs2966

2 жыл бұрын

@@valentinmalinov8424 Looks like you didn't pay attention to my post. Consciousness is ENTIRELY produced by the brain.

Dr. Kuhn, I admire your patience. As Dr. Mossbridge appears to be caught in a logical fallacy, rooted in a desire for the universe to follow some pre-conceived and strongly-favored notion. And, as we well know, this approach favors a deficit of the detachment needed for a balanced, Occam's-razor-type, analysis. She claims that: Because X is the only tool by which I can experience reality then X must be the primary thing in all of reality. And, also asserts that: Even if we figured out how to build demonstrably conscious machines from demonstrably unconscious (by any accepted definition) constituents, it would make no difference to her position. Presumably because she already "knows" the answer, and chooses to reframe all new information to fit the favored model. Of course, since there is no way to absolutely prove her wrong, then she must be right! Right? Also consider that: In any physical measurement, we don't assert that the measuring device is any more real the thing being measured. Moreover: Is it not only possible, but common, to have a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts? Clearly, we have examples of how a "group intelligence" (needed to create complex hives and mounds) can be emergent from the collective actions of "dumb" bees, termites, and ants. So, what is to prevent a subjective sense of being in the world from emerging from: a constant feedback flow of sophisticated "measurements" of that world; the maintenance of an internal record (aka memories); and the ability to compare ongoing measurements to memories (learning) to predict the results of future measurements? After all, to NOT YET KNOW how the process works represents a DEFICIT in our rapidly-growing understanding - and does NOT justify the claim that the process CANNOT work. Beyond this, we have the more direct experiences of having our perceptions significantly altered by "dumb" chemicals (drugs), and we can be easily rendered "unconscious" by a physical blow to the head or by inhaling an anesthetic. So, here we have what we would call "physical things", somehow altering and even shutting down an "unphysical" and "more fundamental" thing. As in all things scientific, we are wise to go with the most likely explanation. In this regard, the "physicalist" assumption (so often attacked in such debates) is, by far, the less speculative claim. After all, we generally see what we understand to be consciousness associated only with extremely complex objects (brains): and, the more complex the brain, the greater range of abilities. Clearly this cannot prove, but does strongly support, a bottom-up rather than a top-down model: whereby consciousness is emergent from a complex arrangement of simpler objects (atoms and their associated fields). And, if you are now going to demand that basic electromagnetic interactions, even within inanimate objects, are a more "basic form of consciousness", then you have merely moved the goalposts - and are choosing to play a semantic game: which is most likely to lead absolutely nowhere. But perhaps this kind of woo woo is just a handy way to come off as clever and "spiritual" at dinner parties. And I don't think that there is any amount of evidence or debate that can compete with that.

@ruairidhmcmillan2484

2 жыл бұрын

Her argument was completely cyclical. I would love to be able to say I don't understand why people lap this stuff up and default to statements about reductionism and materialism, but I think it's simply to be perceived as more imaginative and open by their peers. It's a socio-cognitive strategy for better cocktail parties. She never parses consciousness from the evidence of neuro-physiology, she just obfuscated until the conversation closed.

There are many different levels of consciousness in thought as we evolve into higher densitys through spiritual love as a social complex.

She makes some good points.

'Conscious of'...suggests there is an entity, separate, observing and assimilating phenomena...one question is; Is it limited? The empiricist tends to refute any talk of manifestations outside of the physical, assuming knowledge of the consciousness of others by doing so -which is actually impossible! Another would then be; by what means did consciousness come to be so independent -of its source?

When Julia says that consciousness is primary I can cope with that, although I would use the word pristine. When I think about my soul which is also pristine this is where my conscious reality resides. It is also for me where I can come face to face with ultimate reality. copiousness also relates to thought which has no physical attributes. every thing that has ever been thought resides, in my opinion, in, what Jung called, the collective unconscious. Because thoughts are not physical they cannot be destroyed. They remain and can be accessed by consciousness or sometimes through the subconscious. The three realities Subjective, Objective and ultimate are important, in my opinion to the whole debate about consciousness. Also, for me, there is a spiritual dimension to consciousness that must be considered in order for us to understand and explore it.

@london9842

Жыл бұрын

Maybe physics calls consciousness what spirituality calls soul; different terminology. I don’t see a clear distinction between the two. Consciousness is feelings, thoughts, intuition, desires, etc. The ghost in the machine operating the body. Without consciousness/soul, we would be nothing more than computation, algorithms and probabilities identical to AI.

I have to agree with the point Julia is making. Robert, I love what you do and I have watched more than half of your content because it's awesome. I guess I just wish that with this specific interview you were a little more playful and maybe joyous in entertaining her point of view. She may have just answered every question you ever asked and maybe this answer just doesn't satisfy the accumulation of information that is your current perception. I have joked with friends over a possible similar answer to this seeming eternal question "Why?". The answer may simply be the ability to ask the question at all.

Kudos to Robert for interviewing someone whom he disagrees with. His visceral emotions in response to any theory that might lead to theism shows his unrelenting commitment to materialism. Here in the Christian community we would say that his heart has been hardened by God.

@houghton841

2 жыл бұрын

Lovely, what a wonderful God you worship!

@GerberdingFamily217

2 жыл бұрын

@@houghton841 some people will fuck up no matter how many chances you give them. This is a concept that you may lack the intellect to grasp. Just like kuhn.

I've never seen Kuhn so genuinely confused, and I've watched dozens of these episodes.

@BulentBasaran

2 жыл бұрын

Being confused is a great first step towards waking up. He has been under heavy propaganda by pretentious materialists. Here he got a second chance.

@philcarter2362

2 жыл бұрын

Indeed, I concur. Kuhn was thrown off balance.

@shaynelee487

Жыл бұрын

He was thrown off guard by her copout position. If the material world doesn't exist and consciousness does then everything is a simulation ala The Matrix. So those of us who don't believe we live in a simulation feel free to prioritize the physical world and to explain how consciousness is an emergent property of neural processes.

@danielarista1352

Жыл бұрын

@@shaynelee487 Reductionism can be 'local' (eg. epiphenomenalism) but when taken to it's logical conclusion either leads to 'some thing' being irreducible (which could be consciousness, ala panpsychism, of which I don't agree) or , of course, circularity or infinite regress. But *any* position lies on the Enlightenment ideal that it's only happening at all, the 'having a position', b/c we are conscious. This is her position, *anything* you think is *real* can only be taken seriously *after* you accept consciousness to be real...and it may ala Kant , be the only only thing we can *really* be sure exists. Any claims about the 'world' (empirical, rational, etc.) are b/c of consciousness. Kuhn had apparently not understood this, essentially Cartesian, position.

@danielarista1352

Жыл бұрын

@@shaynelee487 btw, I'm both a realist, actualist, and pragmatist about the "brain in a vat" or "matrix" problem. This doesn't entail that I believe consciousness miraculously emerges from matter. It, by my lights, in fact seems less likely.

Thank you for the most profound "Ah-ha !" moment. Excellent content, a bold step towards mainstream higher consciousness. Your content is the pointy end of human evolution.

_We should keep an open mind about conciousness_

I believe that consciousness creates reality and the physical world we live in.i believe we all belong to a social complex.it might help to read the book of ra the law of one.

Why start with our personal consciousness? The better argument has always been if the universe and physical world came from the non-physical? Our human consciousness is the last thing or icing on the cosmic cake.

@madmax2976

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bringadingus She appeared to be saying that without consciousness, we wouldn't know anything. Why would that be an example of "brain dead new age spiritualism" given that it does take a consciousness to know something?

@nyworker

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bringadingus I didn't mean it as a total negation but you're looking at the skeptical side of the argument. True that science can't look at a single neuron under a microscope and see experience or consciousness, but science also can't look at a single water molecule and see a lake.

@abelincoln8885

2 жыл бұрын

Only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of nature ) and things (of the Universe) with clear & obvious purpose, form, design & FUNCTION. Man has always known the origin of Life & the Universe but has free will to think, believe, imagine, say & do whatever he/she wants. This is why 5 of 7 billion people believe in a soul/spirit and a supernatural intelligence( like Man) that made everything. And the remaining 2 billion have replaced "the gods" with the teachings, theories, ideologies, & secular rhetoric of "puny Humans." C'mon. Everything in the Universe .. has clear & obvious purpose, form, design & FUNCTION and obey a set of Laws ... which only an intelligence can make. Law & the scientific method are abstract Functions from the mind of an intelligence. A machine & any life ... are physical Functions composed entirely of Funcitons. Only an intelligence makes abstract or physical functions. Nature & natural processes can never make an operate a simple mechanical machine like a wheel, wedge, lever, spring, hammer, nail, screw, driver, nut, bolt. A machine is a Function .. processes inputs into outputs ... has purpose, properties, form & design .. requires "specific" matter, energy, sapce time Laws of nature to exist & to Function. Everything is a function ... made by an intelligence ... for an intelligence . Law was made for energy & matter to obey. Law was made for Man to obey. And all Law is enforced otherwise there will be chaos, disorder, dire consequences. Man has a body & Soul. The mind of man part body & soul. God the Son, created Man with a body & soul. God the Son, said "To Love God with all you mind, body(heart) & soul." The body obviously makes physical things. The soul obviously makes non-physical things. And the mind is the Command Center. You should always start with the physical mind & body, knowing Man can make physical or non-physical things.

@andromeda3542

2 жыл бұрын

Somehow, the lady's claim reminds me of the argument that you can't disprove that there are pink unicorns in the universe... ... and somehow you end up very quickly in solipsism...

@madmax2976

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bringadingus Okay, but you not finding any philosophical usefulness in the observation - an observation you agree with - hardly equates to brain dead new age spiritualism.

Physicality being equal to reality is not materialism, it is recognizing emergent properties as inherently physical.

@mrbwatson8081

2 жыл бұрын

Since when is raw subjective phenomenal experience a “property “?

What a wonderful lady. This conversation is beautiful. I agree, there is no way explain away the primacy of consciousness. Perhaps it's a narrow assumption, but I don't think so. The more I study consciousness directly (meditation) the more profound it becomes, the point I am struggling to see how it could ever arise from material. On the other hand if it creates this reality from material I suppose it could also create anything weird and wonderful too (potentially), but I still lean into conscious primacy.

Very good

Each of us, supposedly, has consciousness. When does it begin for each of us? When it that moment? Pre-birth? Birth? Sometime afterward? Is it like a light switch, suddenly on, of does it emerge over time? And what are we before that moment? Unconscious? Preconscious? Is it a a sudden understanding or does consciousness build to that moment of personal awakening? Or like walking or speaking it is baked in? Is consciousness just self-awareness? Can humans exist without consciousness, like someone born without eyes, or limbs? Can I only consider myself to have been conscious from my earliest memory or did I have it prior to that?

@jimmybrice6360

2 жыл бұрын

i think we need to distinguish between 3 different concepts - consciousness, our consciousness, and contents of our consciousness. let me first say that i no longer think that our brain creates our consciousness. with that as a springboard, consciousness is some sort of fundamental aspect of the universe. our consciousness is that part of total consciousness that we have access to. the contents of consciousness is a bit simpler. that is what evolves within us, as we have new experiences. from your question, it seems that you are thinking about consciousness totally along the lines of the contents of consciousness.

@AlanAJRoberts

2 жыл бұрын

A very good point. A newborn is surely conscious but has no references to measure their current experiences against. A dog is also surely conscious but doesn't have our level of reasoning.

@valentinmalinov8424

2 жыл бұрын

These are very important questions! Consciousness is not a product of our brain! Most of them don't understand that the Universe is constructed of material and non-material substances - Space, Time and Energy are the material components; The Law of Physics, the Information, and the Universal Consciousness are the non-material components of the Universe. - Details of the fundamental elements of the Universe and their interaction you can find in my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

@hephaestusfortarier249

2 жыл бұрын

@@valentinmalinov8424 You are saying space-time is material correct? How is either time or space material?

@shelwincornelia2498

2 жыл бұрын

@@hephaestusfortarier249this is what I understand from reading @Valentin Malinov's comment. Space, Time, and Energy are the components that constitute the material aspect of the Universe.

Such a fun set of questions to ponder. Can physical constituents generate consciousness? Are they dynamics of physical constituents the only way to generate consciousness?

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

Yes

@S.G.Wallner

2 жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 you sure? Haha

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

@@S.G.Wallner I am sure.

@S.G.Wallner

2 жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 that must be comforting.

Very interesting

She. Is. Amazing. Reminded me of Deepak! Thank you!

"Consciousness isn't physical. It's dependent on physical processes but isn't physical." "Ok, if you didn't have a brain could you be conscious?" "idk" Amazing.

@flolou8496

Жыл бұрын

The answer I think lies somewhere in my 'two minds'' explanation, I could give a long description here, but I think it's obvious from 5000 years of supernatural recorded history we posses our identity and memory's outside our ''earthly'' brain consciousness, as we transition into our ''eternal brain/mind'' identity.

@Corteum

Жыл бұрын

Maybe you have problems hearing what she said. But that's not how the dialogue went. How it went was her having to explain to Kuun again that correlation doesn't equal causation. 😆😂

@elliottcovert3796

Жыл бұрын

She's right, though. Consciousness itself is not physical, even if you assume it's completely derivative of physical processes. She's kind of making an inverted version of David Chalmers' P-zombie argument. If a zombie (a create that's physically identical to a human being but with no consciousness) is logically possible (not naturally possible, just logically possible), then consciousness can't be categorized as a physical phenomenon. Why? Because the P-zombie is physically identical to a human but has no consciousness. So whatever consciousness is and whatever it may depend on, it's not a physical phenomenon. Where she might not be right is her apparent assumption that consciousness is the ontological primitive. Maybe it derives completely from physical processes in a manner that we don't understand. Of course the opposite could be true as well. If you're strict about needing evidence for every proposition or claim, however, then she's right that all evidence is observation-based and therefore requires consciousness.

@cabellocorto5586

Жыл бұрын

@@elliottcovert3796 Conscious itself is not physical, no. Consciousness is also not 'stuff' either, it is a process. I believe consciousness is a stream of water moving, not the water in the stream. But it is dependent on physical processes in the brain. So consciousness itself doesn't disprove a physical view on life.

@elliottcovert3796

Жыл бұрын

@@cabellocorto5586 I think this is a specious argument based on equivocation. The existence of a thing that is not physical (consciousness) means that physicalism is false. Labeling consciousness a "process" (whatever that is supposed to mean) does not effect this line of reasoning. If subjective, qualitative experience exists then physicalism is false unless you want to expand the definition of the physical to include consciousness thus rendering the entire viewpoint meaningless.

Loved the conversation! Makes me wonder if Julia Mossbridge must be a Buddhist, meditator, or at least referencing Buddhist Ch’an teachings. She is absolutely right and Robert’s earnest questions were great… see how there was divergence of assumptions or context at the very root of observation? She was right in that all we ever know, or rather experience, is consciousness or awareness itself and all other appearances are simply secondary artifacts. This is not accepted in mainstream science because usually that ilk of philosopher has made assumptions, just a mistake at the outset, and also, generally speaking as a whole, have not made the rigorous investigation into their own first-hand experience of mind. Doing that with correct approach would reveal a lot. For example, we hold provable truth so dear, but when you spontaneously behold the nature of your own mind outside of concepts and views… it is a kind of certainty to which comparing “objective truth” cannot hold a candle: The depth of experience of the non-dual nature of mind also reveals the nature of everything as part and parcel of the same mind.

@kabasakalis

2 жыл бұрын

Well according to Buddhism, she's wrong. She's glorifying consciousness and Buddhism does not consider consciousness as fundamental. As a matter of fact, consciousness is one of the great obstacles in "understanding" Absolute Reality. Absolute Reality is BEYOND consciousness. "Understanding" is in quotes because Absolute Reality cannot be understood by the mind, it's revealed (for lack of better words) when the illusions of consciousness are seen through.

@matthewclauss4500

2 жыл бұрын

I think you're confused. She's claiming that consciousness somehow manufactures physical reality. Or in other words that the shared objective reality we all agree on is only explainable as a part of conscious experience. There is no evidence for this, but there is ample evidence that the physical universe existed prior to any conscious experience being able to "generate" it. There is also good evidence that consciousness emerges from that physical reality. Now it is true that we can only ever experience this through our conscious perception, but that doesn't mean the universe couldn't or didn't exist without us... "I think, therefor I am" not "I think, therfore that's all there is"

@Tritamer

2 жыл бұрын

@@kabasakalis Well, there are different schools of Buddhism. The Ekayana or Ch'an Buddhism (and I'm referencing the patriarchs, i.e., Bodhidharma to Hui Neng and explicitly the teaching of Huang Po), definitely holds awareness as fundamental. No doubt other schools of Buddhism hold many other positions, nuanced or otherwise. Just to clarify: I'm using Awareness as the 'container of thought and all experience, either alone or with the 10,000 things,' and not to be misconstrued as changing, developing, or diminishing states of consciousness.

@Tritamer

2 жыл бұрын

@@matthewclauss4500 I don't think that she is offering the final statement about the truth of everything. :-) But she is doing a very respectable job of representing the point. "Objective reality..." "evidence..." I think the point is that these are words that have different meaning and context if we take another look at the starting point of the discussion (you can see that interaction in the video). The point is that if mind or awareness is the only thing we truly know and experience, all other things being secondary appearances within it yet of the same substance, then words like 'objective,' 'subjective,' 'evidence,' and 'truth' lose their meaning. It's not so much an oppositional view point to that of conventional thinking, arguable in the same manner as other topics, but an entirely different frame of reference--entirely different.

@matthewclauss4500

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tritamer well stated. I don't disagree that she is speaking to the frame of reference of which to try to understand reality. What I don't agree with is it being at all new or novel, or even interesting. Yes, we have to agree that everything will be viewed through the lens of our own conscious experience. Also, water is wet. As most Buddhists would contend, everything and nothing are the same thing and that makes up all of reality. In other words, the further down the rabbit hole you go it all breaks down due to having to describe our experience with concepts, which are a level of abstraction above whatever is fundamental. We are built on top of the "base layers" of reality. So what? Unless you are of the opinion that there is no objective, shared reality, then you do what you can with the tools that you have to try to make sense of things. The notion that because we can't prove unequivocally that there is a reality outside of our experience doesn't preclude the possibility of that being true, or likely true. As with all things, it's a matter of probability. What's more likely, that all of the efforts of thousands of years of shared effort and research and scientific discovery are all wrong, or that we just don't yet have a perfect understanding of how our experience could emerge from all of the physical phenomenon we are able to observe and agree on? There is, in my opinion, much evidence to support the idea that consciousness emerges from strictly physical/material phenomenon. To try to say that none of that is relevant because we are stuck working from our own subjective perspective is just an argument that we will never know anything for sure, which is a well understood principle in most sciences. But I repeat, not knowing something for 100% certainty is not an argument against, it's just evidence of a falsifiable position. Any theory which is not falsifiable, e.g. this lady's notion that consciousness is all there is and that we can never prove anything for sure, is not worth exploring. It's like an argument for God, she hasn't defined anything. At bottom, she's not really arguing anything at all, just making noise.

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.” - Max Planck

@elliottcovert3796

Жыл бұрын

Another great Planck quote: "science proceeds one funeral at a time."

Good information

I sometimes think that the entire universe is quantum, and consciousness makes us an observer, and that’s how the quanta becomes physical.

@ak2n218

2 жыл бұрын

What do you mean by quantum and quanta? I see these terms quantum and quanta thrown around as a buzz word with some metaphysical meaning but no real definition.

@northvu9923

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe everything is quantum. Reason were so far away from the small particles. Were looking through microscopes at really small things they are a vast distance and range we could never get to. Same as outer space. Like were in this loop from inner and outer space. And in this loop is our consciousness.

@wekpomsbenin6830

2 жыл бұрын

This would mean there are two states of consciousness, right? The one that can bring into being and the other which observes...

@firstaidsack

2 жыл бұрын

I kind of understand why many laymen get the impression that quantum states are opposed to physical reality. But they aren't. Quanta are always physical, all the time. Take any atom, its electrons are in a quantum state and they don't have a defined position. There is only a wavefunction describing the probability of their positions if you would observe them individually. But this wavefunction in its uncollapsed state gives atoms all their chemical properties. Constantly observing all quanta and making their wavefunctions collapse would actually change physical reality dramatically. Similarly, collapsing quantum states doesn't stop them from being "quantum". You just change their quantum state. So physical reality is always "quantum" and quanta are always physical. And all of this is separate from the question of whether consciousness makes quantum states collapse.

@mycount64

2 жыл бұрын

of course everything is quantum... that is a fact. So, what? By observer you mean the measurement problem. It has nothing to do with consciousness it is the decoherence of a quantum object by interacting with another object.

Mr Kuhn, I think what this lady is telling you is clear and simple. Even if all the neuroscientists were to decipher the brain and see the relationship between consciousness and the chemical, electrical and whatever of the brain, you will have to work to make a physical material conscious, then you can be sure that you have found the relationship. Even then, the story does not end there, you will agree that at that point, it will have taken very brilliant, CONSCIOUS neuroscientists to make that happen. You were there as a conscious being to begin with. Therefore consciousness is fundamental, not the other way around. And in conclusion, it is highly improbable that you may be able to impose consciousness on physical objects.

@jareknowak8712

2 жыл бұрын

"Even if all the neuroscientists were to decipher the brain and see the relationship between consciousness and the chemical, electrical and whatever of the brain, you will have to work to make a physical material conscious" Where do You get that confidence? Isnt the brain a physical material? Why do You search for "magic" in it? Where, in the development of the brain, molecular biology talks about the emergence of some miraculous external factors?

@chetanpatil1654

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bringadingus you dont make sense, too.

@chetanpatil1654

2 жыл бұрын

@B. B. i dont take seriously to little kids like you who play games all the time.

@andromeda3542

2 жыл бұрын

Somehow, the lady's claim reminds me of the argument that you can't disprove that there are pink unicorns in the universe... ... and somehow you end up very quickly in solipsism...

@peweegangloku6428

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bringadingus I doesn't make sense to you because you have not come to grasp that consciousness is an intrinsic part of the first cause which gave rise to everything including you as a conscious being. You agree that you are conscious but you refuse to accept that the first cause could be much more conscious than you are, just as you are more conscious than worm, snail, cat etc.

All explanation is produced through the act of conscious reflection and using information processed via a conscious experience of what we call the universe. All material is defined by its relationship to conscious experience. Brains are seemingly definite things we perceive as being connected with reports given by what we perceive as separate conscious entities presumed conscious experience. In the end all we know for sure is consiousness exists. Everything else will always be a derivative description of the one fact we know.

@valentinmalinov8424

2 жыл бұрын

This is a wise statement! Probably I can recommend to you my book - Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" - There you can find the details of the fundamental elements of the Universe, Consciousness and their interactions.

I agree with her.

I like what she's saying, especially in opposition to the ridiculous idea that consciousness is "physical". She's on the right track; the next step is Alan Watts.

This interview didn't advance us one iota.

best yet- youre getting closer!

"How much of the physical world can be explained as a mechanism produced by consciousness?" That's her question. "That's to me the most scientifically, empirically motivated question." "The only evidence we have is that consciousness exists. [ ... ] Everything is extrapolated from that." "[The assumption is] Physicality is primary; we have to get consciousness out of it, because that's backwards. The only thing we can be sure of to understand the physical world is that consciousness exists." And how can we be sure of that? "I would agree with the statement [that the content of consciousness is material] only after assuming that we acknowledge materiality is a product of consciousness." From the consciousness (immaterial) perspective, matter is the product of consciousness. From the materialist perspective, consciousness is the product of matter. How does consciousness know it's not dreaming that it comes first?

The "materialist" account of the Universe and everything in it has been a busted flush since Einstein - and he knew it. 🌈🦉

@xenomyr

2 жыл бұрын

to be replaced by ?

Yes! Saved you 10mins.

The common consensus in neurology is that consciousness is physical whenever brain death occurs your consciousness ceases to exist and theirs nothing after death no heaven, hell, reincarnation etc.

The physical content from our mind is only what we choose to do by way of actual actions.