I like it when Robert's in a feisty mood.

@justinsavatdy

6 ай бұрын

@@chester-chickfunt900 or a fencing 🤺 duel

@technicaldifficultysupport

6 ай бұрын

He's definitely got more cocky as the show as gone on.

@stringX90

6 ай бұрын

​@@technicaldifficultysupportYeah, think so?

@thomasridley8675

6 ай бұрын

Yes, he is a bit frustrated that he couldn't draw out the response he is looking for. Which is obviously the possibility of a soul. Which we will never find. Since it doesn't exist. Like everything we once credited to the gods. We will find that this is just the product of evolution and not supernatural. I keep asking one very important question. When in our evolutionary history did we pick up this "soul" ? And if we have this "soul" connection. Who is really in charge of our actions ? Apparently the only people who need a soul to exist are the religious. They need something to hold over your head. A non-material soul does fit their needs. Since you can't prove it doesn't exist. Just like you can't prove a god exists. Hmmm ! You have given your soul to (insert counter diety here). Only (insert favorite god construct here) can save your immortal soul. 🙄

@adammobile7149

6 ай бұрын

​@thomasridley8675 I think you oversimplified everything.

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

One of the best interviews Robert conducted.

As others have said, I love the pressing by Robert on the issue and trying to extract an answer. Wish we saw more of this sort of thing.

Ultimate reality is metaphysical in nature, so not only consciousness is the deepest reality, but life, soul etc are the deepest reality.

@FukUrToS

5 ай бұрын

Souls aren’t real you quack

@FukUrToS

5 ай бұрын

@@youssefalaoui4286what you feel and what is are not the same

@FukUrToS

5 ай бұрын

@@youssefalaoui4286 There is no spirit world, there has never been any evidence for it so I can’t say it’s a real place but certainly it wouldn’t be a 1:1 copy of real space; every single atom gets reused in some way so there wouldn’t be a form to copy (when you die what makes up your body gets reused so how could there be a copy? Those atoms are currently being used so to copy it would be to copy what it currently is and not what it once was).

@johncombo

5 ай бұрын

Nah this is just lazy thinking. Same as god of the gaps. You dont understand something therefore its mysterious in a magical world.......Until someone else figure it out and use it for better tv screens.

Consciousness the way we understand it is far more complex due to rhyme and reason we can't fathom the ideas like togetherness

All we know is that we must communicate in absolute terms to be understood. Kant is the game changer.

The tension between the objective and subjective, the physical and the experiential. It’s like two sides of a coin, inseparable yet facing in opposite directions. The conversation beautifully encapsulates the struggle of science in grappling with the subjective realm of ‘qualia’. It’s akin to trying to capture a melody using a series of notes. While the notes can describe the melody, they can’t convey the experience of hearing it.

@BugRib

6 ай бұрын

"It’s like two sides of a coin, inseparable yet facing in opposite directions." That's a great way of putting it!

Great interview, thanks.

I agree with Leonard, you can’t simply speculate and then call it science.

Roberts definitely no ones fool,thats for sure...he's very easy to listen to😊

A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.

The brain predicts a model of what we call reality, the senses fine tune this model with error correction signals. As a homeostatic system we are simply registering our environment, this registering yields a qualitative and valanced (good/bad for the system) value that we experience as a feeling. It is an inherently subjective value and only experienced by the system.

@thomash.sheriff9449

6 ай бұрын

Circular argument. You are defining “feeling” as “a qualitative, subjective value” but the definition of “qualitative and subjective” is just “its feeling”. Also, a view of qualia as simply a valuation system does not account for more nuanced qualia. How does green feel compared to red? What does confusion feel like? How does embarrassment compare to anger? How does dull pain differ from sharp pain? If qualia were simply a way of ordering stimuli by positive and negative effects then these questions would not make sense.

@johnyharris

6 ай бұрын

@@thomash.sheriff9449 Whilst there is circularity to this argument, it's because the value can only be experienced from the viewpoint of the system. I'm not claiming to describe the phenomena of a feeling, just the mechanism. The brain, in predicting this model is trying to reduce uncertainty. The qualia you refer to are compartmentalised values which aid the brain in further reducing uncertainty.

@Bill..N

6 ай бұрын

@johnyharris I think you are VERY close, but not quite aligned with our best current description of awareness from the perspective of naturalism, friend..

Ultimately, the question seems to be "if we can understand how every pattern in the brain arises to give you a particular feeling, then have we solved the issue of why we feel that way?" I personally like Leonard's answer, which I take as "I don't know until they have solved it" (although I think Leonard was implying that he doesn't think that fully solving the physical problem translates to solving the consciousness problem in 4:15. And then the conversation kinda went off course.) There seems to be merit in figuring out why living things have consciousness and water doesn't. In other words, what is fundamentally different about a structure that gives rise to consciousness? I think the solution to the original problem depends heavily on what it is that makes something conscious, which we haven't figured out yet. And until we figure it out, this conversation isn't going to get anywhere.

That was a very polite argument.

@smurug85

6 ай бұрын

No Robert was trying to extract confession 😅

Oh my Qualia, what an interview!

At 6:20 Leonard Mlodinow - "... not until you tell me what qualia are." Perhaps the question might be better reframed not in terms of consciousness as ultimate reality, but in terms of the *processes* of consciousness. To this end, the semiotics of Charles Sanders Peirce, with particular emphasis on association. Association as fundamental. Consider Gestalt psychology, "the whole is more than the sum of the parts", with *association* providing the foundation for gestalt formation. *Qualia* as gestalt. Even the Feynman diagrams seem to suggest something of this associational Peircean dynamic. For example, a water molecule as a gestalt, as the association of oxygen & hydrogen atoms. Taking this route, it's not too much of a leap to conclude that yes, even insects are conscious. Rocks and spoons? Not so much. But insects, neurons and paramecia? Absolutely. Recent research has established associative learning even in cells and neurons (eg, Eric Kandel's work on Aplysia). Appreciating Robert's bulldog tenacity. I thought he was "just" a philosopher. Just goes to show, science without philosophy can only ever be scientism.

I feel the Augustinian quote on the inability to explain what time is is very appropriate here for qualia

@BugRib

6 ай бұрын

So true! That's why I think consciousness is just as fundamental as time or space. In a sense, we know _exactly_ what these things are, yet we can't define them in words or equations, even in principle. I think that's the mark of something that is fundamental, because fundamental things can't be defined in terms of anything else. (Hope that made sense!)

IMPORTANT! Solution!: Counsciousness is NOT ultimate reality. It is just It is an EVENT, not an object. When two cars collide science can study the objects, the stuff, mass and energy included, BUT science can not study the collision itself since It is NOT a physical "being". Counsciousness is also an EVENT, that is simply why we said science can not achieve It. Science can study the stuff: neurons, chemicals and electricity BUT can not study the event called counsciousness.

Obviously, no one knows what consciousness is. I could explain it, but I can not give this information away for free on KZread. Until the end of the year, you can find out what consciousness is for 40% off the regular price, that is, for only $11.99, but act now, this information will only be available at this price for a limited time.

It's pretty easy to explain all of this if you're an Idealist: mind is the fundamental ontology - that's what exists. What you measure in an experiment is still mental - it's how mind appears. When you see a brain you see the extrinsic appearance of a metacognitive mental entity. When you're measuring electrons or chair or whatever physical object, that's still made "of mind", it's just that it's not structured in a way that allows for meta-cognition to occur. So the brain doesn't cause consciousness, consciousness doesn't "emerge" out of brain activity. The brain and the brain activity is the image of a conscious process - it's how a conscious process looks like when investigated, when observed from a 2nd or 3rd person perspective. That image doesn't carry with it the contents of the mind, only correlations with those contents.

@youssefalaoui4286

6 ай бұрын

Very clever, very clever indeed. I pondered the question of what things are for decades but only recently I started realizing that things ultimately are “mind stuff”.

@Raptorel

6 ай бұрын

@@youssefalaoui4286 that's right. The crazy thing is that we all have access to the ontology as direct experience. My only question is how many qualia there are? A finite set? Infinite? I'm also speculating that the brain geometry has something to do with what that mind is capable of experiencing. You can imagine the brain like a holographic musical instrument, but instead of music it's capable of representing experiences. It doesn't cause the experiences, but it's the image of those experiences, the interface of those experiences with "the mind at large", the rest of reality. It's a representation of that meta cognitive mental content in spacetime, through which the minds can interact. Basically, the world is a dream in "God's mind", if you will. We are isolated pockets of cognition, like multiple personalities of God in the dream interacting with each other.

@youssefalaoui4286

6 ай бұрын

You should look up “Rupert Spira”, a spiritual teacher. He has the same kind of understanding that he explains as “localized consciousness”. The latter would be a person and unlocalized consciousness would than be God.

@Raptorel

6 ай бұрын

@@youssefalaoui4286 right, I know about him. I think Bernardo Kastrup and Rupert Spira are the Closest to Truth, if you will. Robert should interview them.

@youssefalaoui4286

6 ай бұрын

@@Raptorel Never heard of Bernardo Kastrup. Thanks for the tip👍

It likely would be a good thing if we make a map of things we know are there and also know we will likely never be able to explain it scientifically. I think we have a problem accepting that the world is way more complex than we pretend it is.

Right. Right. Right.

We are all TV ❤

Environment and Genetics (DNA) also constitute function of consciousness ..

consciousness might generate time and energy that develop quantum wave function / fields?

Consciousness is eternal and our body & mind is the product of consciousness to conserve and generate consciousness , like Energy generator need some energy from outside to start generating energy Understand Fundamental Reality

Consciousness is like an auto correcting, autonomous network. Spontaneous molecular rearrangement, is an example... This can be measured. Most of the universe can be said to have some amount of proto consciousness. Energy tends towards the lowest possible state no matter what. But, as is pointed out, self aware consciousness, which is not the same thing, cannot be measured. Which means, the pathway can be mapped, yes, but nothing can be _said_ about being the driver inside of a feeling "self." The other minds problem... This will always be yours alone. Possibly the root of existential thoughts, possibly what gives us self awareness in the first place. The constant dissonance between grasping meaning and understanding others, and the same can be said about reproducing and death. Legacy and power... Without long term rapor building with other self aware consciousnesses, how can we have a representation of our own "self?" Especially one based on a shared language? Dialectics, question answer dichotomy. (This reminds me of the video of two cheetahs being confused by the SPOT robot because it didn't have eyes to engage with... How can they be cheetahs, which evolved to read eyes, without that?) Early childhood development of language is fundamentally important to the outcome and expression of the "self." The social aspect is obviously a prerequisite, but are feelings and oxytocin driven... feel good events (hugs, and kisses), which came before language, enough to create a person who's "self" is actualized in a way as to share ideas in a complex modern society? Are they able to become more than just an auto correcting network? Can they become a true "self..." (My example for this thought is the girl who lived with dogs. Was she a human "self" when found? No. Did she have the ability to undo _some_ of that with rigorous human exposure? Yes. Was there fundamental aspects of her psyche that where _"damaged"_ relative to modern societal norms? Yes. Can we ever know what she went through...? Never, not even if she explained it better than anyone ever has. On the other hand, was it a lack of empathy driven, oxytocin events that caused these latter problems? Humans need both. You can't be a "self," without language and a super ego, and that language must be taught early to children, with care and compassion, to be useful...) Meaning, learning is fundamentally a willingness to update information, _after_ becoming self aware and ego driven, what we generally call adulthood. Otherwise, it's just your imprinting...An auto correcting autonomous network. Learning in this manner, before becoming an adult, is a form of consciousness. It's just not self awareness yet. I think most people conflate consciousness with self awareness. Children are conscious well before they become self aware... The imprinting process is fundamental to that self awareness emerging. Our selves are impressions we build, for our selves, based on input imprinted on us by our nuclear family/societal setting/ genetic predisposition. We can only ever broadcast good ideas and conventions, through shared and constructed language associations, and answer questions. The rest has to happen before we can put meaning to it.

Welcome to Robert's wailing wall. Are there any other examples in nature where we can't explain the behavior's of the whole from the parts? Synergy. We clearly need a new explanatory system. “You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.” Albert

@caricue

6 ай бұрын

Isn't that why they coined the term "emergence" to explain properties that seemed to come out of nowhere?

in contrast to water molecules making waves in ocean; time and energy make quantum waves inside neuron particles?

John 13:34-35

I don't get what kuhn is pushing for, when there is no way to detect conscious awareness. No one can answer that question.

I'm not so sure there is such a "thing" as qualia. I know this is the umbrella term we use to categorize the subjective contents of consciousness, but it's possible that 'qualia' is really just a set of brain states - that when brought together in the brain, gives rise to these sensations - love, hot, cold, tired, hungry - all the things we 'feel'. There must be some evolutionary advantages for brains to do these things - and I think it's simply a method to translate the physical inputs into models that living creatures can use to help survive. When we start asking why it feels a certain way to be hungry - or why does cold feel the way it does - or why we see 'red' as this sensation of color - we are really asking, "How are these various inputs processed and re-mapped to corresponding sensations?" And then we have the bigger question of how all these multiple sensations are brought together into this composite experience we call consciousness.

@Bill..N

6 ай бұрын

An excellent response, friend.. Of course, awareness emerges from the survival imperative of an animal to accurately perceive the environment and be alert to possible dangers.. So-called Qualia, such as a pleasant smell, the delicious taste of ice cream, the appreciation of the fractals and symmetries of art, ALL have survival values.. Given that humans are not composed of a hivemind, these experiences are logically felt and experienced individually as something unique.. It is all about the very PHYSICAL processes of information processing within the brain.. Peace.

@maverick1972

6 ай бұрын

There absolutely really is qualia. There are physical differences between red and blue as represented by their wavelengths. Certain brains possibly can switch these colors, or asign ochre to red and aubergine to blue, but ultimately red wavelength can never be blue wavelength. Similarly the cozyness we feel disappears below 5 degrees Celsius and above 50 degrees Celsius. Music can never be found in ultrasound or very low frequency. Food objects have certain tastes, and we might possibly discover the math/physical/chemical underpinnings of artificial sweeteners, or through calculations discover a 6th and 7th taste after umami. So qualia definitely exists.

@ryandinan

6 ай бұрын

​@@maverick1972 The idea of "qualia" isn't the physical properties of the inputs (the wavelengths of red and blue); it's the rendering or representation of those inputs in our subjective experience. Hence, qualia only 'exists' in a conscious mind - which is why I said I'm not sure qualia actually 'exists' as a thing. Yes, the visible spectrum of light has various wavelengths that correspond to the colors we "see". But there is no "red" - it's just a specific wavelength. The "qualia" in this case, would be described as the sensation of red in our conscious experience; red is only experienced in a conscious brain. What we don't yet fully understand about this 'qualia', is how the mind conjures these colors; why is red, red? Could another form of intelligent life have a different qualia for red light? Or is there some fundamental property of red light that always generates the same qualia of red in any conscious mind that can perceive it? Color-blind people have a different qualia because they cannot detect, say, red/green. So again, the term "qualia" really refers to a set of sensations/feelings that really aren't 'things' in the physical universe that we can directly pick up or look at. Instead, they are more like overlays in our consciousness that help inform us of our environment. And the thing is, we have no idea why these qualia are they way they are, to us. It feels a certain way to be hungry. It feels a certain way to be cold. Why? Why does it feel THAT way and not some other way?

@maverick1972

6 ай бұрын

Qualia is like math, it's just out there as an infinite universal set from which various minds pluck their own subsets of representations.

@MS-pz9wd

6 ай бұрын

​@@maverick1972wavelength is not a qualia

Neuroscience, or science in general, has no explanation for a unified subjective experience. Even the concept of it is incompatible with any conceivable scientific explanation based on our current understanding of matter or physical law.

@simonhibbs887

6 ай бұрын

I think physics is the wrong level of analysis to apply. It’s better to think in terms of information processing. That’s an entirely physical process, but allows us to think in terms of processes, transformations and meaning in a rigorous way. Conscious experiences can be physically causal in that we can write and talk about them. This indicate that they must have a physical manifestation. They are about things, they are informational, and information exists as physical representations. Consciousness is self referential, which is also a phenomenon of information systems which can be self referential, self modifying and recursive. Conscious experiences are transient phenomena, so they don’t seem to be a substance or fundamental in nature. All of this seems consistent with consciousness being an informational process, an activity, performed by a dynamic physical system.

human brain / neurons have and aware of quantum waves with consciousness?

❤

human brain aware of quantum consciousness / mind through time and energy?

Did you do this just to constantly interrupt him and argue with him?

Consciousness is the Planck frequency of superfluid quantum space.

I have been dying for someone to do what the guy at the end did and ask Robert to define this "qualia" that he demands must be included in any real theory of consciousness. He can't do it- all he can say is "Well, you know, you experience it." and that's true- we all experience it- but that doesn't mean there is one universal experience we all have when we experience some certain stimuli like seeing a color. I think this "qualia" Robert keeps referring to is really just the synaptic patterns each brain has formed over the years- which is totally unique to that brain and no other. For instance, because I grew up in the west, driving- the color red immediately makes me think "stop"- but it also makes me think of murder- because I've read tons of books and seen tons of movies that have associated that color- red- to murder, to evil, to violence, to extremity, etc. If I see green- I immediately think "go"- but I also think of spring and growing things- because once again, I've read books and seen movies and so forth that associate that color to living, growing, things and the spring season. But if you show those same colors to some tribesman from the jungle- he's going to have a completely different experience and associate those colors to completely different concepts. I think it's foolish to think we will ever define like some kind of universal experience that all human brains have when they experience some certain external stimuli. What we can do though is to try and understand how our experiences create these synaptic patterns, how or why we associate them to some certain stimuli like seeing a certain color, etc.- that's not defining what it means to see red though- that's a fool's errand imo. And frankly, the way you guys try and force it into the conversation and demand it be explained or the theory in question isn't valid- is a little childish. You can't even define what it is you're demanding be explained.

@Stegosaurus12345

6 ай бұрын

You are talking about mental associations that the colors provoke. That is not generally what people mean by qualia. Qualia refers to the immediate experience of the sensation itself: the redness of red, the greenness of green, distinct from any thoughts or associations that arise along with these experiences. (Of course, if looking at a red apple conjures an image of a red stop sign in your imagination, you are then arguably experiencing a second quale of red. But this is a separate quale, not an aspect of the quale of red you experienced when looking at the apple.)

@stoneysdead689

6 ай бұрын

@@Stegosaurus12345 That makes even less sense- you guys are talking to hear yourself speak- to sound like you're saying something- when you're not. "The redness of red.." that's laughable- think about what you're saying there- actually think about what you're not saying- which is anything of value or anything that makes any real sense. That's like saying "Look at the sphericalness of that sphere..." you haven't added anything of value, you haven't described anything, there is nothing there that demands explanation- it's a nonsensical statement. The sphere has no choice but to exhibit sphere like qualities-- it's a sphere after all. Red has no choice but to exhibit red-like qualities- this is trivially true and tells us nothing new nor does it demand an explanation- it's trivially true. You guys want it to be deep and complex- so you're piling on the b.s. And still, I would argue it's very likely completely subjective and unique to each brain. The chance that we all see red the same way is probably pretty small- but as long as we each see our version of red and that remains self-consistent throughout our life- it doesn't matter. You still see red and know it is red- even if your red looks nothing like mine. Ppl try and figure this out by asking what two colors added together would make up the orange you see- if you say red and yellow- they think that hints that we must all see colors the same way. But that doesn't have to be the case- perhaps no matter how you see orange- it will be a combination of your yellow and your red. In other words- the primary colors are all that really exist as discreet colors on their own- and the other colors we detect are just mixtures of the primaries. This would mean no matter what your version of the primary colors looks like- they would still add up the same way because the wave lengths are the same for everyone- no matter how our brain interprets them to look. They're objective reality- the only thing consistent about this whole experience- the rest is in our head and therefore subjective.

@Stegosaurus12345

6 ай бұрын

@@stoneysdead689 But your own description here assumes that there IS something that is the redness of red (whether it is the same from one person to another or not). We just differ on whether that fact is worth pondering. Myself, I believe that the red one person experiences is very likely the same red that another person experiences. Why? Because our brains are more physically similar than they are different, and because I DON'T believe there is anything mystical about qualia. I think it is just the inevitable output of a physical process that we don't have insight into yet. Giving the phenomenon a name like qualia is a way to begin to develop a common language for studying consciousness. There may be some hand waving along the way, but it is a path, in the long view, to demystifying consciousness. It is just that we aren't there yet. Now I do have a problem with Chalmers saying that the Hard Problem is forever intractable. To me, that is unscientific. But it is also unscientific to deny that the Hard Problem is hard or worth pondering. In my opinion, the idea of subjective reality will eventually give way to an objective, physical understanding, though it could take many, many years. So from my view your belief that subjective reality is not worth discussing is actually the anti-scientific position.

@stoneysdead689

6 ай бұрын

@@Stegosaurus12345 Sorry- completely disagree with you- nice try though. Next.

@stoneysdead689

6 ай бұрын

@@Stegosaurus12345 What you keep assuming is that there is some unique, universal quality of red that we all experience- what about color blind ppl? What makes you think there is anything universal about the color red? Other than it being a color- that's about as descriptive as your nonsense gets- wow, you've really moved us forward. Thank you- we've discovered red is a color- not sure if the world would've survived had you not deduced that junior.

Those who constantly complain about Robert promoting physicalism or determinism when interviewing dualists and theists need to watch this interview. To be clear it was a fantastic interview. I dint at all agree with those here complaining about how Robert conducted it. This was a master class into how to conduct a fascinating, engaging, challenging but also respectful and highly productive interview. This approach might not be appropriate in every interview, but it was here and Robert brought his ‘A’ game.

Léonard says, at one point, that he cannot answer such a question because he's not God. The assumption, therefore, is that we will never know everything we need to know in order to answer that question.

The host makes so much noise while the guest is talking lol

Of course, the non-physical, including qualia, cannot be described in terms of the physical, and vice versa. Matter and soul are different primary (not definable in a non-circular way) concepts, and, therefore, one cannot be described in terms of the other. Matter and soul have only being in common.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

6 ай бұрын

I don't see any evidence that 'souls' exist

@user-xn4wq4sv3r

6 ай бұрын

@user-gk9lg5sp4y The "evidence" is only in you - the qualia, not reducible to the physical, empirical, testable to the public, however, and this leads to the scepticism on the existence of soul.

@neffetSnnamremmiZ

6 ай бұрын

The real living entity is like invisible, yes. Mind comes to itself to the same extent that it recognizes what in principal can never appear neither in empirical world nor in any theory.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

6 ай бұрын

@@neffetSnnamremmiZ Those are certainly words

@evaadam3635

6 ай бұрын

Leonard Mleodinow has a good point, "that only God knows the answer to Robert's question".... ..and this is because God the Holy Spirit did not create this Physical Universe to experience itself, but was created for His lost children (us, free conscious souls) to experience so to find life's meaning to hopefully find faith in a loving God for their souls' salvation... ...in other words, we are the non-physical free observing SUBJECT capable of freely observing or experiencing this Physical World which serves as the unconscious OBJECT... ...this is why narrow-minded Godless Science Materialists can NEVER recreate, copy, explain, nor understand the supernatural qualities of consciousness using its discovered physical laws because CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT EVEN PHYSICAL in the first place... They can keep trying until their temporary life's chance ends where their lost souls return to a cold dark empty state (hell) in the fullfillment of their wish of living a life without God's grace... We can only hope and pray that they'll make a change...

Robert was testing Leonard's gangsta

you guys are going in circles. you are both right at the same time too. but more understanding is needed

BASICaly he says u can have the answer for question of how but you will never know the answer of questions of what

It's very interesting how scientists usually don't understand a very simple thing: that there is no better way to know what something is than to directly experience it, and that consciousness is the only thing we can directly experience and know.

@simonhibbs887

6 ай бұрын

The role of the observer, and the nature of the act of observation, and fundamental to the founding structure of science. These are the very foundations it’s built on. Science is nothing more than disciplined, careful observation of reality, and testing of observed reality through action. If you rigorously observe and test your experiences very precisely, you’re doing science. The problem is that the rigour demanded by science is extremely demanding. In particular the physical sciences have the most precise standards of evidence. This means most of our experiential evidence just isn’t admissible scientifically. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong or not valuable, it’s just not scientific.

my boy BOBBY KUHN went “HAM” … 💀💀💀 … 🤭 🐒💨

Just remember, if you ever get into a losing discussion with a Physicist, Neuroscientist, or anyone but a Philosopher just mention the word QUALIA and watch them Squirm! 😀

@simonhibbs887

6 ай бұрын

Ok, you explain qualia.

How many times is this interviewer going to ask this question despite him saying he doesn’t know?! Jfc

The answer is love, guys. That's the quality they're trying to measure, and it can't be defined, because it is infinite. Cheesy, I know, but through exploring my own self and my own consciousness, that's what I've found 🙏🥰🌟🌎🌷

Can’t they already elicit feelings by stimulating areas of the brain? If so, unsatisfyingly done. Qualia in my thinking is not the thing but rather our description or interpretation of senses experience.

I've been trying to follow you on your quest to understand consciousness and I do not see how this "second point of view" can even be thought as a valid scientific question. For me, it is a non question. Science cannot explain my inner self, feelings, etc, because by definition they are subjective and only I can have the experience of being me. I can share this experience through words, art, music, etc, but nobody can feel what I feel or explain what I feel deep inside. You cannot even know if the "redness" of red I see is the same "redness" you see. And even if someone, someday will be able to hack into my entire brain to see what I see, this "I" will not be "me" anymore. So the only question as Anil Seth said is the real question: How a brain can produce a comprehension of the world, what are the processes? And that is enough. After seeing house of your videos, in the end, I think your are searching for the existence of a soul. And a scientific explanation to it. This is wishful thinking.

@browngreen933

6 ай бұрын

Channel should be called, "Closer to God."

@deanodebo

6 ай бұрын

Do you think science makes truth claims or proves anything?

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

6 ай бұрын

@@deanodebo *"Do you think science makes truth claims or proves anything?"* ... What truth and proof did science reveal about planet Earth being round or flat?

@deanodebo

6 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician were riding on a train through France In a field next to the train track, they were able to see a cow The engineer observed “the cows in France are black” The physicist said, “to the contrary, at least one cow in France is black The mathematician declared, “incorrect. At least one half of one cow in France is black.” Dude, honestly, don’t waste anyone’s time with naive truth claims. If you believe science proves theories to be true then you misunderstand science. You’re lucky if you’re the engineer in this story best case

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

The science of Psychology studies the things you say cannot be studied, quite well, actually.

Just saying we need to learn more functional processes in the brain to understand a very real metaphysical issue is not enough. Just be honest with yourself: you are only studying correlations NOT how current physical allows consciousness to exist in the first place. Scientists (which I highly respect and value) get extremely uncomfortable when asked to explain consciousness. The question and evidence we rely on is so utterly absurd that it leads highly trained analytical philosophers to produce positions like Russellian Constitutional Panpsychism in an attempt to produce a non-dualist hypothesis for the mind-body problem trying to stay coherent with the dominant body of work that philosophically known as physicalism. Philosophers like David Chalmers are fundamentally materialists at heart confronting the hard problem of conscious experience. You can find all the correlations with the brain as you like, but why does consciousness experience happen in a reality we understand through current accepted views in general relativity and quantum mechanics? This is a FAR deeper problem than just studying the brain.

Trying to explain consciousness is like trying to explain why gravity exists.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

Not sure how they’re related, but okay.

@amadeusbojiuc2613

6 ай бұрын

I’m saying they’re both fundamental

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

@@amadeusbojiuc2613. Has gravity changed since you were born? Probably not because it is fundamental. Has your consciousness changed since you were born? Probably so, because it’s emergent from your ever-changing brain.

@amadeusbojiuc2613

6 ай бұрын

@@dr_shrinker What I'm saying is that eventually you reach a point where you can no longer find an explanation and I believe consciousness is that point. Look at Godel's incompleteness theorem. You can have true statements without a proof.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

@@amadeusbojiuc2613 yes. I agree, but the mind is provable. The first thing to do is define consciousness. Once you define it, it’s much easier to dissect. Consciousness - is the sum of a living thing’s experience since that thing’s birth, and the ability to remember the experiences. PLUS -sensory awareness of the present moment. Everything that constitutes qualia and the mind can be explained in physical terms. Please give me any example of an idea or experience and I will explain how it is material.

Fair enough, the guest does not know the answer. However, he will be proven wrong if he is insinuating that consciousness is entirely physical.

@ryandinan

6 ай бұрын

He wasn't insinuating a non-physical explanation or component of consciousness - he said he was agnostic on whether or not we'd be able to actually explain 'qualia' by fully understanding all the physical processes in the brain. That's NOT to infer that there is some supernatural layer in there. It just may mean that a thorough understanding of the brain may not actually answer why 'cold' feels the way it does - or maybe it might. We may understand how the feeling of cold manifests and what structures in the brain are responsible for processing this feeling. But all that understanding may not be enough to illuminate what is going on inside the brain in order to give these inputs their unique feelings. We all seem to describe cold the same way - and I imagine most other animals, since we all evolved together on this planet, share the same sensations. Why brains evolved to imbue the conscious mind of these sensations is most likely a survival advantage. If we can sense and uniquely identify various inputs, we become better at navigating our environment. We know that avoiding extreme cold and heat is necessary for our survival. So a brain would have to be able to differentiate between those inputs in a way that we can respond accordingly. How the brain evolved to assign various sensations to various inputs is a question that will hopefully lead us to understand what consciousness actually is. There may come a time where we can effectively use nero implants to fundamentally change the feeling of 'cold' or 'hot' or 'pain'. Imagine making it so that cold feels like hot, and vice versa. Or being able to detune the pain response to be less intense. Or imagine remapping the sensation of seeing 'red' to blue. Assuming that these feelings can be explained by physical processes in the brain, this possibility seems intriguing.

@peweegangloku6428

6 ай бұрын

​​@@ryandinan Let me.remind you that I used the conditional expression "if." And Though you stated that the guest is not insinuating either of the two, your backup argument leaves no room for doubt that your full intend and purpose is to use such argument to promote absolute physicalism. However, the argument you just presented in support of physicalism is porous. To begin with, the feeling referred to in the video has little to do with pain, cold or heat. These are feelings that one can readily isolate the physical causes for them. The feelings that defy physical correlations are love, justice, anger, hatred and the like. For different individuals, there are different things that excite love, hatred or anger in them unlike cold or heat for which the physical cause is simply a change in body temperature. The effect of temperature can easily be traced, tracked or accounted for within the body. So the example you are using does not capture the scope of emotions, which are daily realities. It is also worth noting that referring to something as non-physical does put that something beyond the range of science. It simply means that we have to take a different approach in order to understand it. All physical stuffs fall within the range of matter and energy which can be broken down into the presently four known forces. To claim that that's all there can ever be is scientifically unsound and ignorant considering how many new discoveries and inventions had been totally unanticipated. Even as we speak, there are things exerting forces that are impossible to explain using just matters and the four known forces. An example is the embedded meaning of language. The power of language can not be overemphasised. It can heal, it can destroy, it can enlighten, it can make you happy or make you sad, it can promote peace and it could also start a war... Yet the meaning of language is neither matter nor a physical force or energy. So physicality alone cannot explain the mystery of existence.

I want more of this brain food!

Robert was ready to scrap

The very name of physics for whole knowledge is just incorrect.. before there humans used the word metaphysics witch integrates both worlds: non alive and alive.. what separates or actually connects both? Consciousness

ultimate reality is the way the brain produces blood is the motion of outside movement redust change figurement

@craigpage2638

6 ай бұрын

Are you on drugs?

He doesn't know. Nobody knows. I'm so frustrated with it all!

Jeez Robert, getting a little aggressive are we? lol Anyway, I've read a grip of Leonard Mlodinow's books and I loved every one of them - great mind on that one.

How can you ‘explain’ a feeling? By definition you can’t. Explaining is intellectual, not a sensation. It’s not even a question. Also why the so called hard problem is bunk.

@youssefalaoui4286

6 ай бұрын

I agree. I feel like we are often looking for answers to imaginary questions.

The Cosmos is ultimate reality because it is reality in itself aka Absolute Reality aka The God beyond God. Conscious is the experience of reality aka reality as it appears aka Phenomenal Reality.

I wonder if the heart has a role in feeling something? It certainly feels like there is a connection to the chest when you are heartbroken for example.

This was slightly annoying to listen to because of all the interruptions going on.

No, consciousness is not final reality. In fact, it is just an approximation of reality, and sometimes the approximation of way off. Reality exists whether there are life forms with consciousness or not.

@deanodebo

6 ай бұрын

Can you explain how you know about reality absent consciousness, or why you believe that claim?

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

6 ай бұрын

​@deanodebo If all life on Earth were to become unalive, would the sun still appear in the east after a period of darkness?

@deanodebo

6 ай бұрын

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y No.

@Resmith18SR

6 ай бұрын

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Of course it would. Do you seriously believe that the Universe and Nature exists only because we perceive it? The Universe existed about 10 billion years prior to the origin of any life, human life and consciousness.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

6 ай бұрын

@@Resmith18SR That's my point exactly. People want to say that somehow consciousness is the ultimate reality. I don't believe that consciousness exists, at all, without some kind of nervous system. The Universe, on the other hand, demonstrably exists.

In my view, the mere fact that there's a probability we may fail as a species makes it hard to award consciouness a special status in the cosmos. There are many other candidates in the cosmos far better equipped to qualify for deep reality status. Black holes are one of them.

roughing the philosopher

Great interview. I admire Leonard’s stance and his strength of conviction against Robert’s insistence. As long as you’re being truthful, I think it’s a very difficult dilemma, like the chicken and the egg. But, I think Leonard is on a good path to discovery. I too think it’s too early to throw in the towel. Quantum processes in the brain may keep the question as unanswerable about how to define qualia, but so much needs to be learned about neural correlates and what aspects are quantum before we hit that wall.

What's wrong with the SIMPLE idea that subjective feelings/qualia are emergent as well and for important reasons.. Shaped by natural selection, this advantage enhances an animals perceptual resolution of the environment...?

@ryandinan

6 ай бұрын

I agree that subjective reality aids us in survival and perceiving the environment - but simple ideas are often the hardest to actually explain in detail. JUST SAYING that feelings/qualia are emergent properties does nothing to actually explain how feelings/qualia are imbued with their various characteristics. For example, "Describe how a brain takes inputs of heat radiation, and remaps it and creates the sensation of 'heat'. in your conscious experience" HOW does a brain create the sensation of heat? What is actually going on inside the brain to do this? Just saying, "It's emergent" is akin to saying, "god is responsible." Instead, the type of explanation we want to get to is (and this is just a wild guess), "The feeling of 'heat' is created when the nervous system delivers a specific pattern of impulses, that when processed by X structure in the brain, creates a particular set of 'frequencies' that are interpreted as 'hot'. And this frequency interpretation of heat is universal to all brains like ours. Now - WHY these particular frequencies makes it FEEL like 'hot' and not something entirely different is what we have to drill into. If we can fully understand this process, then it isn't inconceivable that we could create and predict novel sensations that don't currently exist.

@Bill..N

6 ай бұрын

@ryandinan A very well written response, which I appreciate, friend.. There were a couple of areas of agreement, as you explained.. In the spirit of debate, however, I'm having trouble seeing the merit in your objections.. I will surely respond, but first a question... In my view, there are two paths the discussion can go.. Either one believes that only natural physical mechanisms account for awareness, OR some nuanced form of philosophical dualism is also involved.. Does that last one generally describe your position? Then, I will address your questions friend..Peace..

@Bill..N

6 ай бұрын

@@ryandinan Liked your response..

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

@@ryandinan I think there are only a few types of touch signals we can feel. Everything is on a scale of pain to pleasure. I could look it up, but I am too lazy ATM to find out what nerve receptors and brain parts are responsible for pain, but I know pain relievers work to numb those parts. As for creating novel/ phantom sensations?, IDK. Perhaps.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

@@Bill..N liked your comment. 👍🏻 Well, I would admit I am a hard determinist. I used to be a naturalist/dualist but after 40 years of contemplation, I have reached the conclusion that it does not fit into my world view. It all boils down to one simple reason. -- ironically, it is the entire premise of the show CTT. -- One man's quest to find someone to convince him that god exists. I know the duality and naturalism ideas front and back. People assume because I am a materialist, I am unable to grasp that consciousness "could" be external to the brain. I think a lot of folks fear the implications if the brain was all there was to explain the mind. They fear the prospect of eternal oblivion. It is very understandable. But.... I have begged, pleaded, bargained, my entire life to believe in god, and no matter how hard I try, I cannot will myself to believe. It was never my fault that I cannot bring myself to believe in god, just as it was never my fault I had an interest in science and philosophy -- obviously at odds with the Old Testament. Church bored me and when they said the planet flooded with water for 40 days, I asked "where did all that water go when it receded?" Learning that my will is not my own has made me understand one truth above all else. Freewill does not exist. The rest falls in line with hard determinism. Perhaps it is conformational bias, but once I accepted the notion that my will is determined by my life's history, it all made sense. I cannot choose my preferences. I cannot choose to be something I despise. I cannot choose to like celery. 🤮 There's an old saying and I know you have heard it before. "we can have what we want, but we cannot want what we want." Determinism has many implications when dealing with the afterlife and mortality. I do believe in eternal life, but that is a product of quantum physics, infinity, and nothingness....basically, it is a different topic for another time. It is a realization I came to on my own, but I hear RLK talk about on occasion.

Calm down Robert, don't miss the opportunity

Not a fan of this interviewer. Here at least.

Leonard Mleodinow has a good point, "that only God knows the answer to Robert's question".... ..and this is because God the Holy Spirit did not create this Physical Universe to experience itself, but was created for His lost children (us, free conscious souls) to experience so to find life's meaning to hopefully find faith in a loving God for their souls' salvation... ...in other words, we are the non-physical free observing SUBJECT capable of freely observing or experiencing this Physical World which serves as the unconscious OBJECT... ...this is why narrow-minded Godless Science Materialists can NEVER recreate, copy, explain, nor understand the supernatural qualities of consciousness using its discovered physical laws because CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT EVEN PHYSICAL in the first place... They can keep trying until their temporary life's chance ends where their lost souls return to a cold dark empty state (hell) in the fullfillment of their wish of living a life without God's grace... We can only hope and pray that they'll make a change... In answer to Robert's question, the Ultimate Reality is God the Holy Spirit who has no beginning and no end, and Consciousness is just the very important part of Him that we all have because our aware immortal souls are His free splits.

@ryandinan

6 ай бұрын

That's a lot of assertions without ANY evidence. But saying 'god' is the answer must feel good and easy - but just know that believing that doesn't actually help explain any of it any more than we do now. It's merely throwing the question into a bin and saying, "god did it... somehow... and not trying to understand it is fine by me." Your 'explanation' really gives you less than nothing - because now you won't even bother looking at the question deeper for real understanding. Imagine that we did this for all the hard questions? We wouldn't understand lightning or rainbows or even what disease is. Claiming a god is responsible for a particular thing is really just sticking your head in the sand and saying you have it all figured out. But, in reality, you don't know any more than you did.

@evaadam3635

6 ай бұрын

@@ryandinan The downfull of America, Europe, etc., is one of the ugly consequences of schools telling generations that BIG BANG is the origin that has given rise to Darwin's Evolution of Apes to humans, trashing faith in the Creator.... ...and now, we have Godless wild apes running this world with no fear of doing evil for greedy selfish ends because of people like you who stare at Darwin's IGUANA as your Original Mama.. Gone are the good old days when science was guided with faith in God were people care for each other applying science for the well being of God's children that made America the greatest nation on earth..

It's not consciousness, it is Life, the living entity is uncatchable. This living entity can never appear in science. And that mind that will be in the end, the "God", is the same who was in the beginning. It is always the same one!

Robert was using coercive tactic to extract confession but Leonard dodged the bullet. Yes scientists should not speculate or atleast talk loud about their speculation unless they are going to commit to verify their speculation.

everything is technology, including the universe and what it produces

What a poor argument it is to say "if I were God then so and so... ." When we don't know what to say or have no explanation, we just invoke God. How convenient!

This guy doesn't seem to realize that you start with theories then do experiments. He wants to start with the experiment which will tell him the theory? Come on, guy

Don't interrupt your guest in conversation. in the back-and-forth between you two, you might consider it a robust exchange. For us, it's a cacaphony, all due to poor manners on your part.

Dang rude

Rambling gibberich. Guys doesnt know nothing about conscieusness when he show about conscieusness his comments are wortheless neurosience.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

6 ай бұрын

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

@BugRib

6 ай бұрын

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices - What?

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

6 ай бұрын

And you know less

@tomjackson7755

6 ай бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices How many accounts are you trolling with today? 3?

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

6 ай бұрын

@@tomjackson7755, Good Girl! 👌 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

(5:00) *RLK: **_"Do you think there's any chance whatsoever the water could really feel something."_* ... This type of heated exchange is what you get whenever consciousness is on the table. A self-aware consciousness isn't like Lego bricks that you can disassemble and reassemble into the same consciousness you started with. There comes a point where once something has evolved into a higher structure, ... _there's not turning back!_ ... The answer to whether "Consciousness" is reducible is both *YES* and *NO.* *YES,* consciousness is reducible on paper in that it's what you get after 13.8 billion years of the evolution of pure information. *NO,* consciousness is not reducible in that whatever the information has evolved into cannot return to its original state of information. *Example:* When I paint an oil painting, the *information* that the painting presents can be reduced back to my original design concept before I ever opened a single tube of paint. However, after it's finished, I can't scrape off all the paint and force it back into their respective tubes.

@nightspore4850

6 ай бұрын

How do you know that consciousness is what you get after X years of evolution? Nothing in science remotely warrants that conclusion. It is more likely that differentiated access to consciousness is what you get. Moreover, if, as you say, what evolves is information, then you are explicitly assuming the logical priority of consciousness. Yes, you can define “information” in a reductionist way, but then it becomes simply irrelevant since at that point the “form” in “in-form-ation” signifies merely an extrinsic structure, and consciousness cannot in principle be derived in that manner. So you either assume consciousness or foreclose on it.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

6 ай бұрын

@@nightspore4850 *"How do you know that consciousness is what you get after X years of evolution? Nothing in science remotely warrants that conclusion."* ... 13.8 billion years ago, nothing existed that can have the exchange we are having today nor comprehend what we are discussing. Now, we can. You don't need science to figure that out.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

“When I paint an oil painting, the information that the painting presents can be reduced back to my original design concept before I ever opened a single tube of paint. However, after it's finished, I can't scrape off all the paint and force it back into their respective tubes.’ You almost had me thinking, but then you said this example. Why couldn’t you put the paint back into their tubes? In theory, you could scrape/sift/separate the lead and cadmium pigments and put them back into their tubes. Maybe it wouldn’t be easy, but chemists do much more than that when refining chemicals. I believe what you could have said was, “once an idea is realized, it can’t be unrealized, only re-realized into something else ….on and on. Ad infinitum . - I’d buy that.

@dr_shrinker

6 ай бұрын

@@nightspore4850 you said “How do you know that consciousness is what you get after X years of evolution? Nothing in science remotely warrants that conclusion. It is more likely that differentiated access to consciousness is what you get.” You’re assuming consciousness is a universal constant or fundamental property? That somehow brains evolve into better transducers, yet information is constant and never evolves? I’m just looking for clarification here.

@nightspore4850

6 ай бұрын

@@dr_shrinker What I am actually assuming is that no assumption regarding consciousness can be warranted by science. That is because science is explicitly devoted to objective observation, but, to put it in Kantian terms, consciousness is a transcendental condition of the possibility of observation as such, and therefore not itself observable. It is in principle beyond scientific soundings. So my point was that from the same scientific premises, say regarding material evolution, you can argue equally validly to logically diverse conclusions. That means either the premises are overtly contradictory or that consciousness is at least logically independent of physical determinism. I could probably have phrased my point more clearly when I said that one conclusion is “more likely” rather than equally likely. I do happen to think that one is more likely, and that consciousness is primordial, but to put it the way I did might seem to suggest that it is more likely on scientific grounds alone, whereas on scientific grounds alone either is equally likely because neither lies within the provenance of science. Your point about informational evolution also falls within this distinction insofar as “information”, as I said, may be defined either to include or exclude questions of consciousness. The same Kantian phrase applies to the former in that consciousness would then be a transcendental condition of the possibility of information. For instance, I personally do not believe that computers hold any information whatsoever because I do not identify information with particular, purely deterministic, configurations of mutually extrinsic elements. A metaphor (no more than that) is with what I am given to understand as the “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum mechanics, or at least von Neumann’s variation. I recall reading once that von Neumann regarded the problem of the so-called “collapse” of the deterministic wave function as necessarily involving something qualitatively beyond the system and regarded consciousness as the only viable option. In any case, assuming my recollection is correct, I regard consciousness similarly as being required to collapse purely extrinsic relations, such as mere computer states, or for that matter brain states, into actual information. A computer will never be conscious because the objective, deterministic states cannot give rise to or immanentize consciousness. Thus the signal difference between brains and computers is not that either can generate consciousness, but that computers are intentionally constructed whereas brains grow spontaneously out of primal matter, therefore the relation of computers to consciousness is secondary and virtual (conceptually mediated), but to brains it is primary and real (unmediated). It is the difference between a sculpture and a person. The ancient Greeks knew this better than most scientists these days, namely that no matter how perfectly you contrive and execute the sculpture, only animistic fantasy will expect it to spring to life. It makes for an entertaining story precisely because it can never be a serious expectation. There are very good philosophical, not scientific, reasons for all these things, having to do with the relation between universals and particulars, but that’s another issue. Hope this helps.

Water feels a constatnt "OOOOHHHHHMMMMM"

Qualia is nothing more than language. No language no Qualia, only sensing. Counciousness is nothing special. Give a dog language and it will be self aware and have Qualia.

Robert is not suffering his foolishness today...😂😂

Consciousness is not some magical superpower. It's just a product of evolution. Why is it such a big deal to experience the world? My cat experiences the world. How else would you expect a creature to navigate?

@Strelnikov10

6 ай бұрын

1. You can't back that statement up scientifically. 2. Even if you can find support that it is an evolutionary product, that doesn't tell us what it is. I'm not saying that it IS a 'magical superpower', but at least back up your statements.

@CandidaProut-hr4uk

6 ай бұрын

Exactly, we are monkeys with iPhones, a meat covered skeleton driven by a ghost. Once it's over, it's over.

@keithmetcalf5548

6 ай бұрын

Be tvat as I may, that consciousness is a evolutionary entity, it still begs the question what are the physics of said consciousness...

@CandidaProut-hr4uk

6 ай бұрын

@@keithmetcalf5548 A few trillion cells, carrying 1.4 volts.

@browngreen933

6 ай бұрын

He's actually on a quest for God, or wants us to be.

Dr or Mr Leonard, you are too heavy laden to have the right innerstanding to grasp what it means to feel let alone feel it grow in you. It is as if your on this earth, not understanding what it feels to go from one destination to another all day on shoes.

Could feelings be sets of triadic rules overlaying the basic structure of awareness and could that mean they would gradually shift back and forth over time?

I don't believe in quailia...

@tomjackson7755

6 ай бұрын

@@Jun_kid Kind of like the nonsense you troll with all of your different accounts.

@tomjackson7755

6 ай бұрын

@@Jun_kid Sure you do. That is what you said with your other account. It is also said that nuts don't know that they are nuts.

People who are afraid to have an opinion are boring.

@Clem62

6 ай бұрын

And over opinionated people are obnoxious.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

6 ай бұрын

@@Clem62 *"And over opinionated people are obnoxious."* ... And people with ADHD have trouble completing their ...

@glennpaquette2228

6 ай бұрын

@@Clem62 Is that an opinion?

@Clem62

6 ай бұрын

Touche@@glennpaquette2228

Consciousness is working at the level of singularity and infinity. When you hit singularity, you hit infinity as well. it's an experience that can never be explained.

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

When an earthworm detects / becomes conscious of / becomes aware of moisture is some layer of the soil that is its environment (by means of its sensory perceptual apparatuses) is it “working at the level of singularity and infinity”? Or has it just evolved the kind of sensory perceptual systems that aid in in adapting to and surviving in it’s environment?

@ryandinan

6 ай бұрын

Assertions without evidence.

@udaykumar-lv4xo

6 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 consciousness is just not a waking state of awareness working through the sensory perception. Consciousness at its lowest ego identity state is singularity and is still working when it's moving from waking state, dream state, sleep state and the state when it interacts within itself, the infinity state and then jumps back into it's waking state dumping all the data onto its infinity self . Scientists assume just one waking state of consciousness as consciousness.. It's a constantly moving state... If we forcibly try to be in a waking state all the time, we end up being in the mental hospital.

This discussion comes finally to the truth that Leonard Mlodinov doesn't know anything at all about the subject. 😏 He is still agnostic about the true fact that full Artificial Consciousness can be created by a bad computer programmer in maximum one day with an ordinary laptop and a couple other minor gadgets. One day? 🤔 Yes. I'm talking here about a bad computer programmer. 🙄😯

What is a fact: had it not been for the Sun, we would not be here. We come from the light. And, if consciousness is only of the human experience, then God is beyond consciousness and is something greater, obviously. It is taught that we are the principle - what dies isn't the Self - your personality may die, opinions too, and thoughts, opinions, bias etc. but these are not the Self. . There is something principle that is not susceptible to death - if it were, none of this would be. There's no doubt about it. There's a Principle that is beyond time, space, and death - the very center of all this and of all things. And that life, that sense of "I", is the Self. Everything existential, including science, is worthless to or compared to the Self. There is no physically touching this, or measuring this, or testing this. It's acknowledged by way of Apophasis, via negativa, retroduction. There is no modern science that can reach it. And if you're waiting for science to "prove" to you that God really is Absolute, before seeking God, than I'm afraid you went the wrong way and should have sought to 'Know thy Self' first and foremost!

@tomjackson7755

6 ай бұрын

All aboard the woo woo train of nonsense. Did you make up all that nonsense by yourself or did you string together conflicting sources in to one giant jambalaya of steaming nonsense?