Mr Kuhn is like LVL 100 of being a host... by far in the Top 3 hosts of all time. So enganged, so alert, so informed, so thoughtful and so genuine. This show will go down in history as having had discussed the foundations of Reality from all different angles and truly getting Closer to Truth, indeed. Bravo🎉

Sat here intently listening to Dr. Theise making profound sense, I thought - then Kuhn totally broke it down and exposed it for me. Love the channel.

@sneakcr3144

2 жыл бұрын

If you would've watched until the end, Dr Theise had a very good perspective wich combated the diea Kuhn challenged.

@starxcrossed

2 жыл бұрын

Kuhn doesn’t even have a belief system. He’s always playing devils advocate, which I agree with. Neil did an amazing job with it.

Really enjoyed this talk. Buddhists are the masters of introspective study of the mind, where as scientists are the masters of 3rd person analytical study of the mind. No surprises that the hard problem was not solved here, but what we got was a novel hypothesis into the mechanics of sentience.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

What makes" a Buddhist a Buddhist?

@yourlogicalnightmare1014

Жыл бұрын

Scientists don't study mind. Daniel Dennett and others claim mind doesn't exist.

One of the best articulations of consciousness from CTT so far. Clear, logical, and to the point.

@Tritamer

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, really good and frankly not too many on CTT that can really personally marry inner experience with objective, scientific observations.

@jacovawernett3077

2 жыл бұрын

I agree completely. Very Zen.

@abelincoln8885

2 жыл бұрын

Nah. This is better: Man & animals have consciousness because they both have a physical body & mind(brain). But Man is the only known INTELLIGENCE in the Universe with a brain clearly FINE TUNED to separate the ...... mind ... of Man from Animals. Only an intelligence ... has free will to think, believe, say & do ... as he/she wants, and make physical & abstract constructs. Only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) & things (of the Universe) with purpose, form, function & DESIGN. Only an intelligence ... creates the Sciences to learn the facts & truths about this Universe .. & ....then worship "the gods" that they believe created the Universe. Religions are a NATURAL PHENOMENA where the only intelligence in the Universe, knows that only an intelligence makes Laws & things with purpose, form, function & DESIGN. The sciences clearly support an UNNATURAL origin of the Universe & Life by an intelligence. Most Human Beings in the past, .... today ... and in the future believe in a supernatural existences, Man have a spirit, and in a very powerful intelligence that clearly made the Universe & everything in it. Man's mind ... is his spirit. It is man's living body & brain that gives the Spirit consciousness only of the physical existence. When the body dies ... Man's mind or spirit then becomes only conscious of the Spirit existence. Animals have a physical mind(brain) .... but do not have a spirit. Only Man has a body & a spirit. Atheism is also a religion, that has replaced a supernatural intelligence with the theories & ideologies of a "natural" intelligence. Either all the religions are wrong about who the intelligence is who made the Universe & Life ... or .... there is only One.

@sgs261

2 жыл бұрын

For me, he hasn't explained how his personal experience has given us any further insight on what consciousness is or isn't. I get he went to a happy place, but I don't get how that tells us anything.

@abelincoln8885

2 жыл бұрын

@@sgs261 There is nothing remotely complex about consciousness. Consciousness is simply a state of awareness, perception & responsiveness of a MIND to the existence that it is in. Animals & Humans are of this Universe ... and have a physical mind ( ie brain) and a consciousness of the existence their minds are in. However, Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe, with free will, and able to make abstract & physical constructs with purpose, function, form & design for an intelligence. Man's brain has clearly been FINE TUNED to separate Man's Mind from animals with a Chimp that shares 99% of DNA with Man, unable to think & do 1% of what Man has done. Clearly man's mind is more than ... the physical brain The MIND of an intelligence is more than a mind of a physical existence( ie brains of animals). Man has known for thousands of years ... that only an intelligence makes Laws ( of Natue) or things (of the Universe) with clear purpose, form, function & design. The Universe was made ..... by an intelligence .... for an intelligence. Man was made with a physical body & a non-physical body( ie spirit). The Mind of Man is both physical & spirit. But the body of Man must obey the Laws of Nature and will eventually breakdown & cease to function(die). A spirit is not physical so is eternal. Why would an "Almighty" intelligence make Man with a body that will die and a spirit that is eternal. He .... didn't. Man was originally made with an eternal physical body and spirit. The actual mind of an intelligence ... responsible for free will ... is the spirit. Man's spirit can only make abstract constructs ... and think of "eating a forbidden fruit." Man's body says & does what the mind is thinking, makes physical constructs ... and "actually eats the forbidden fruit." Man needs the body & spirit to be a creator. The "Almighty" intelligence ... is pure Spirit ... of unbelievable power. Religions are actually a natural phenomena ... where Man has always known the origin of Laws & things with purpose, function, form & design. There's a reason why the greatest & most influential man in all of history ... is a Jew ... called Yeshual(Salvation) who said he is the promised Messiah and the Son of God, sent to be a sin sacrifice to save the ETERNAL souls of anybody who believes from God's just natural to punish any who sin. There is nothing remotely complex about the meaning of Life & existence. We have always known, but we have free will ... to think, believe, say & do as we want.

Because of his experience in mediation, as well as his background in science, this guy can be a good bridge, between the traditional religious articulations, and modern western science. The ancients had a way of making sense of the experience, given what was known at the time. But is it possible to have a re-formulation, given what we know today?

@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523

2 жыл бұрын

A bridge to nowhere. Who wants to go from science and truth to myth and superstition?

@con.troller4183

2 жыл бұрын

@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 Exactly. Religion was once the great explainer of nature until science came along. If religion has a place in our future it is as art, as an interpreter and synthesizer, to assist people in understanding and incorporating actual natural truths. It's place as the arbiter of truth is over, thankfully.

@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523

2 жыл бұрын

@@con.troller4183 Why we need religion for the thinks you mention? We need to free humanity of fear and superstition. We may not have answers to many questions yet or we may not like what the answers appear to be but to find truth or accept truth as it is we do not need the supernatural.

@DALibby127

2 жыл бұрын

@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 You can have non-dogmatic spirituality

Through meditation, we can experience consciousness in its purist form. We exist only in the present moment, feeling the sum of all that our senses and mental processes deliver to our awareness. If we tune into that precise sensation at the center of awareness, we are witness to the whole symphony that animates us. Now we can join the orchestra ourselves, and make music.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

2 жыл бұрын

​@I Yam What I Yam! "Learn to think for yourself" seems to me to be an unnecessarily harsh injunction. We are what we are. Apparently no one knows what consciousness is, except for me. I am conscious. Conscious is what I am. 'Consciousness' suggests a something that is or can be owned. For that reason I eschew the word (as much as possible). My body doesn't own me. In fact the case is vice versa. (Yes, I see the silliness in that as I see the two are actually one and the same 'thing'. There is matter and there is movement but matter and movement are absolutely mutually dependent, I mean, you can't have one without the other and they are the foundation of the difference between brain and mind, between physics and metaphysics). 'Being conscious' and 'being' are identical in meaning, from the perspective of my outward looking essence which is absolutely abstract (why I cease being when my substrate is in the mode of dreamless sleeping). Words are pretty tricky. Only a handful of the words I know are words that I invented. The meanings of words depend a great deal on their context. The context is proximally a sentence then paragraph, chapter book, library and culture. I did not make me. Don't blame me, for I am what my culture manufactured. I cannot lift myself up by my bootstraps, metaphorically speaking, despite all the shouts to 'smarten up'. What I am is a process that flits about on a material substrate (DNA etc.) and the contours of the process that I am, have been defined by the culture that made me, no small part of which is language. If my self lacked a self concept how could my self 'exist' or be conscious? Everything that is not my self is mere mechanism from my self's perspective. It is only by faith that I believe you and everyone else are essentially copies of me on which culture has impressed slightly different contours. Something, something, mirror neurons. And still I have not revealed what the word 'conscious' means. Here's two words that hint: abstract and analogy. But, from your comment, I suspect you probably already have a pretty good idea .

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

I wonder if you understand that when you use the word or term "we" you are effectively using the word "I", because "we" indicates the user of the term and his immediate interlocutor, so for all practical purposes you have said "I can experience consciousness in its purest form." I only exist in the present moment." What is more interesting is why you are so afraid to use the word "I" and seek to hide behind some imaginary "we"? It is pointless for you to try to hide behind "we because we means *I*. Do you not understand that? You are of course correct, but I respectfully suppose that you have absolutely no idea of what you mean by "consciousness", and you might as easily and as practically just say stuff for all you would convey. It might help you if you understand that the word consciousness is derived from two Latin words, the first being "sciere" which is the Latin word for to know, and the second the preposition "con" which is the Latin word for with, so conscious is a compound of two words which put them together mean or come to "*With _Knowledge*", which latter I imagine you agree mains direct immediate personal experience (as direct immediate and personal as pain). Are you not saying that whatever you mean by "consciousness is whatever you experience *Now*? Unfortunately for some inexplicable reason Americans like to substitute for the simple word *Now* "this present moment", or sometimes they absurdly say "at this time", but then since Americans are a childlike people they imagine that the more words(and the longer the better) they use the more grown-up they are. When I was the going to America in an aeroplane the air hostess ask passengers to turn off their mobile phones and computers (would you believe) "at this time" and I asked her why she didn't just say switch off all your toys *Now*, but she just gave me an inane grin. So what have we got? - Consciousness means "with knowledge", and knowledge is direct immediate personal experience (as direct immediate and personal as pain), so from that it is plain that consciousness is an experience, and you quite rightly point out that all experiences are experienced "*now*" Is not your better question: "what prevents me from experiencing*"Now"*? Since you have obviously turned your attention or mind to that question, it is probably apparent to you what prevents you from experiencing Now*", and that there is some prerequisite to experiencing *Now*, and we can exchange about that if you wish.

At 8:00 Robert really cuts through the mystic talk, love it!

@simonparfitt8

2 жыл бұрын

It all got a bit vague and spiritual

@maxwellsimoes238

2 жыл бұрын

Hilarious discussion about conscieness .Without fundamental theory conscieness NEVER figuret out though guys minds.

@sneakcr3144

2 жыл бұрын

If you would've watched until the end, Dr Theise had a very good perspective wich combated the idea Kuhn challenged.

@con.troller4183

2 жыл бұрын

Quite the opposite. Kuhn devolves into deterministic navel gazing, compounded by his chronic inability to properly define determinism and free will, despite his endless videos about them.

@rajkumargupta2039

2 жыл бұрын

@@maxwellsimoes238 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I personally think consciousness is more than simply a creation from neurons within the brain. Saying that, when I think of something like anaesthesia which seems to suspend consciousness, I am left wondering whether there is indeed a biological basis for consciousness. I am not spiritual, but I have had certain experiences during my life time, namely an out of body experience, which has left me puzzled. I experienced a reality more real than my current one. Who knows, consciousness is mysterious and bizarre and possibly non-local.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

If you please, but can you discover or divine either what the word consciousness, conveys to you, or what you seek to convey when you uses that blaub(vague woolly idea/image)? What lies behind the veil of the word that is not just more words? Do you se how words obscure meaning?-How when you use a word you simple *assume* that it has some meaning? Is it *possible* to go behind the veil so discover whether or not there is*Anything* behind it or is that rather like you trying to catch- or escape from, your own shadow?

@yourlogicalnightmare1014

Жыл бұрын

The good news is, Idealism is the most likely truth based upon an avalanche of evidence of varying kind and quality. The bad news is, coming to that understanding can take years of study. If you'd like the insta-proof, take a substantial dose of 5-MEO... "the god molecule" and then you can debate with yourself upon return from the experience, how in gawds infinite hail could what you experienced NOT be the truth

Consciousness is unknowable because we are it. We can only see the effects of it, I.e. what we experience. In the same way we can’t know the wind, we only see the effects of the wind. It will always remain a mystery.

@yourlogicalnightmare1014

Жыл бұрын

Everything is knowable from the right perspective. Embodiment puts tremendous limitations on mind which can be dissolved temporarily via a near death experience or 5-MEO, and dissolved permanently at 'death'

Just because WE don't know how things will go doesn't mean they aren't deterministic at the ultimate level of reality.

@ioioiotu

2 жыл бұрын

Quantum mechanics shows we could not know even in principle. It's impossible to determine all facts at once for a certain point in time, and a future point in time is only probabilistically determined by the past anyway.

Consciousness is devided into two states. A conscious mind + a subconscious body = consciousness. A conscious mind is a thinking process so that the thought that is made can be stored in your subconscious body so that you don't have to think about what your body already knows. So that you can make new thoughts to better that what is already stored. It just takes time to gain that.

We humans have enough memories to develop a picture of ourselves - a kind of theory of "me". E.g. I'm a careful driver. I love my children very much. I get flustered in social situations. We also can imagine what the future might be like. That overall picture of our past and future is an essential part of our consciousness. In addition, we can think clearly enough that we can usually decide what combinations of instinct and knowledge will guide our decisions. That meta-thinking is also part of our consciousness. We can communicate with others well enough so that we can share their perspectives and consciousness, though we may only agree with parts of it e.g. We both love our children but Mildred gives her kids more freedom than I give to mine. Through books, I can enter the consciousness of people who lived long ago e.g. I can understand how much Charles Dickens cared about poor people. I can enhance my consciousness by discussing my points of view with others.

If love is preprogrammed. Then deception is the first displays of consciousness.

I'm speculating that conciousness might be dependent on multiple things, what things? I don't know but there's probably a physical component. Maybe the way to understand it is to dissect it further.

Human consciousness is the result of mental representations being able to be associated with other mental representations in hierarchies. Every experience of significance (nd some that are not) is memorized as a thought that is connected to one or more existing representations if the combination is "rational". that is, the combination takes less energy to maintain. Our identity is formed by the steady accumulation of all our experiences as each mental representation is associated with "what I was doing, What I felt, What I understood. We are literally defined by our experiences. The mind of clear light is our experience of our existence.

Excellent.... thanks 🙏.

It kind of sounds like he’s saying a complex deterministic system + quantum randomness = altered or evolutionary states or changes to the deterministic system = perception of consciousness. Like awareness of your own change or mental activity created between change is close to consciousness. Awareness can be a construct in theory, but if the awareness involves a quantum element that can’t be replicated (thus far) maybe that’s part of what we call consciousness.

This explanation is profoundly beautiful and just completely makes sense to the point where I'm convinced this accurately describes the underlying nature of our universe

@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523

2 жыл бұрын

@@ReverendDr.Thomas 🤦🏻‍♂️

Neil's attempt to describe consciousness is confusing. Robert made the disscussion objective again👍

@yourlogicalnightmare1014

Жыл бұрын

That's why you have to watch a 2 hour video of Neil discussing his position rather than Robert's 10 minute abbreviated cliff notes version which is entirely insufficient

Robert at 5:30 - "Absolute unmitigated BULL PUCKEY." LOL

He is clear that he is talking about sentience not consciousness, they are different. One is about awareness and feeling about our environment and the other is subjective experience. I agree with his explanation that it goes right down to the atomic level and that may be a clue to consciousness.

VERY INTERESTING !!!! THANK YOU.

I would love to see a talk with Neil and Sean Carroll

Very very interesting. Love the way he explained his thoughts. To use one word, awareness, is part of the mechanism. Awareness can be voluntary or involuntary or “automatic”. Are Sentience and Awareness separate? Can there be just pure sentience without awareness or pure awareness without sentience?

@maxwellsimoes238

2 жыл бұрын

Very asthonishing if he show up trully how definition on consciencess. In this way he Not know consistence process how conscieness Works. It is only baseless speculations. Liar.

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

Sentience is the ability to feel and respond. Matter at every level feels and interacts. Awareness is different than sentience. Awareness means being able to perceive or have knowledge. There can be pure sentience without awareness and in some philosophical thought sentience is a prerequisite for being.

@abelincoln8885

2 жыл бұрын

There is nothing complex about consciousness. Man & animals have consciousness because they both have a physical body & mind(brain). But Man is the only known INTELLIGENCE in the Universe with a brain clearly FINE TUNED to separate the ...... mind ... of Man from Animals. Only an intelligence ... has free will to think, believe, say & do ... as he/she wants, and make physical & abstract constructs. Only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) & things (of the Universe) with purpose, form, function & DESIGN. Only an intelligence ... creates the Sciences to learn the facts & truths about this Universe .. & ....then worship "the gods" that they believe created the Universe. Religions are a NATURAL PHENOMENA where the only intelligence in the Universe, knows that only an intelligence makes Laws & things with purpose, form, function & DESIGN. The sciences clearly support an UNNATURAL origin of the Universe & Life by an intelligence. Most Human Beings in the past, .... today ... and in the future believe in a supernatural existences, Man have a spirit, and in a very powerful intelligence that clearly made the Universe & everything in it. Man's mind ... is his spirit. It is man's living body & brain that gives the Spirit consciousness only of the physical existence. When the body dies ... Man's mind or spirit then becomes only conscious of the Spirit existence. Animals have a physical mind(brain) .... but do not have a spirit. Only Man has a body & a spirit.

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

Science does not support that the universe is unnatural it is the opposite. Science supports that the universe is natural. What most humans believe does not matter. Human belief has been wrong more often than right. Making it no reason to assume that man has a spirit. When man dies their body ceases to function as they fall into deep unconsciousness.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

If you recognise how you confuse yourself with words, none of which have any specific or clear meaning to you? To confuse means to mix together, and when Jesus try Christ tried to examine the very questions that you are raising, like all men (human beings that try to convey what they have in mind, he used what are called parables which are allegories or analogies, and he used the parable or analogy of a man that sowed wheat in his field, and (and this is the important bit) while he was *Asleep* an enemy sowed tares in amongst the wheat, so it was virtually impossible to tell the wheat from the tares - he was apparently trying to convey how men confuse themselves words they can't tell which words have any significance in which words have none. When his servants told him that they themselves could not tell what was wheat and what was tares, and asked him what they should do, he came up with the solution, which is extremely interesting.

"Understanding is Non-Computational" - Sir Roger Penrose, who also describes a cyclic universe which pulses time/no time, mass/no mass, and so on. Is the pulse a sign of universal consciousness, of life?

@davidaIano

2 жыл бұрын

Yes

@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523

2 жыл бұрын

No

@nuqwestr

2 жыл бұрын

@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 LOL, LMAO, thanks

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Strange how neither of you have the faintest idea what you mean by "the universe", Or perhaps it is not so very strange since you are both dreamers, And neither you capable of defining your terms Penrose may well be jolly good mathematics but that doesn't stop him being a complete fool. A dreamer is a dreamer is a dreamer regardless of whether or not his dreams are about mathematics.

Robert gets caught up in philosophical word salad. The doctor is in good company with Dr Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize for his study of DNA and subsequently studied the neural correlates of consciousness for the rest of his life. In my 200 plus pound body there is plenty of DNA, but it's in a few ounces of neuronal networks that not only form sentience but also sense of being. The engineer in me tells me that some type of synchrony occurs in those networks that unify throughout my brain.

Well, Neil, what is consciousness? Neil, I have no idea, but let me tell about some stories just to kill time.

@melgross

2 жыл бұрын

Yup, that’s about it.

@sneakcr3144

2 жыл бұрын

As if you or anyone else knows for certain what consciousness is. Until conciousness is completely explained, that's literally what you should expect from a discussion about what is consciousness. Those kind of discussions are meant to give new perspectives, make analogies and yes, tell stories that help with the understanding of the respective perspective that is put forward. No one can give you more than that at the moment. Bruh...

@georgegrubbs2966

2 жыл бұрын

@@sneakcr3144 Nothing is known "for certain" or "completely explained." Consciousness is known to emerge from brain activity. Basic consciousness is begun by the reticular activating system and the periaqueductal gray in the brain stem. From there, it quickly is "boot-strapped" up through the basal ganglia, the hippocampus, the thalamus, limbic system and then to the cortex. The details are being filled in. There is nothing mystical or mysterious about consciousness as it is a basic property of sentient beings.

@melgross

2 жыл бұрын

@@sneakcr3144 Bruh yourself. That the entire point…nobody knows. And everybody who,says they do is full of it.

@sneakcr3144

2 жыл бұрын

@@melgross Exactly my point.

👍🏻

When will Robert talk to Amit Goswami?

It’s interesting how those who take a mechanistic view of reality - what can be quantified by current mathematics/measurement and experimentation - are so quick to openly and rudely denigrate those who see a broader explanation of reality, including both hard-science and extrapolations based on personal or religious experience. George, I’m looking at you. This conversation seems to have attracted more than the usual selection of nut-bars - see below. You are conscious. You are self-aware. You yearn, laugh, get depressed and exhilarate at the achievements of your children. Some would say all of this is an illusion. Others would say they are emergent properties that arise from increasing complexity. Neil seems to be saying that your consciousness is everything’s consciousness, just to a maximized degree. As a religionist Neil would, I suspect allow for an external component to consciousness. Whether natural or supernatural. Maybe the conscious atom is to us what we are to God?

@jacovawernett3077

2 жыл бұрын

I agree with you. I feel One of God's names is Keeper of the code. Lchaim

@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523

2 жыл бұрын

Which god? Is your death grandpa conscious?

@ronhudson3730

2 жыл бұрын

@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 Yes Carlos, my DEAD grandpa is both dead and gone. Obviously he is no longer conscious. One question could be, does some aspect or result of his conscious existence still persist? Certainly in what he achieved during his life. His work, the things he built, his children, me - all a result of his conscious existence. Does he still exist in some form? Yes. At the very least in my memory of him. Possibly as religionists would say - in Heaven with God. Perhaps not. Believing is a choice. A selection of hope over despair. Not believing is also a choice. Neither can be proven. You do you. My point - and you proved it admirably - is that the instant someone on this channel even hints at religiosity, the goof-balls come out - still looking at you George - to denigrate the believer. One would think that after all the amazing and sometimes fantastic theories promulgated by contemporary science, people would be a little more open-minded to the views of others. I have no problem reconciling those theories, which are likely to ultimately be proven correct, in time - with the hope for an additional element to existence. Notice I said hope. Religious belief (except for perhaps the lucky few with direct personal experience) will always be a choice. The choice to hope something is true. Your comment is as pointless and pedestrian as it is unwelcome. Try a little harder next time.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Whose reality? Define reality, or you could give me an example of what is (for you) real. Presumably you would agree that what is "real" for you, is not necessarily "real" for anyone else. What makes reality real, and real for whom?- Is that not obvious to you

Consciousness is made up of layers in the mind and body. The more layers you have available and synchronized, the deeper your conscious experience, less layers make you less conscious.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Oras Jesus Christ said: "In my father's house there are many mansions."

I wonder if consciousness is a behavioral trait, often exercised infrequently and to a low degree. Sure would explain why I lost my keys.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Whose consciousness of what is a "behavioural trait? Of what syllogism is "consciousness is a behavioural trait" the major premise, which is a roundabout way of asking so what if consciousness is a behavioural trait?

@Data-By-Zack

2 жыл бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl Have you ever lost your keys?

If you can think about it, then that is consciousness. If you don’t have the ability to think about it. That’s not consciousness.

Consciousness is the ego that starts all sentences with itself. Sometimes it seems plural, but our egos are our unique pens to write the life to share with everyone and everything. Shortly, I guess consciousness starts with ego but finally doesn't end with it. Of course, we share sensitivity with all things at all levels but it doesn't mean it is consciousness. Eventually, to sense the whole level of the universe does need to throve the ego, but it seems impossible.

@con.troller4183

2 жыл бұрын

Or ego is an evolved artifact of consciousness, necessary for our survival. In fact ego, as we experience it, is just another elaborated version of a basic survival mechanism.

@physicstheoryofmetinaridasir

2 жыл бұрын

certainly@@con.troller4183

@physicstheoryofmetinaridasir

2 жыл бұрын

👍

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Apart from being the Latin word for "I", what *else* is what you call "the ego"? What mystery is obscured by the Latin word for I, with the meaning of which appear to be entirely unfamiliar? How to remain awake and attentive in front of the diamond question "what am*I*?" - Without killing it was more and more and more words or turning it into a dead question or answer?

"Sentience" is an instantaneous activity of the psychic active force, and not a somatic instinct; hence, unless you possess an active force, you can't posses "sentience". And as far as my Being can observe, it seems that out of all earthling species, humans solely seem to possess "sentience".

It's only random because you don't know the cause or you don't know the result. But you can't have one without the other, meaning that it isn't random at all. Just because you don't have the answer, didn't mean there isn't an answer. Nothing is random.

Consciousness is literally just _this,_ right here, right now. That's literally all it is. _This._ What else could it be? What else could anything be? I think. Maybe. Don't quote me on that.

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

Consciousness is a state of wakefulness so consciousness cannot be all there is.

@BugRib

2 жыл бұрын

Consciousness is what distinguishes a human being awake (i.e. up and running, no longer in sleep mode) from your computer being awake (i.e. up and running no longer in sleep mode). Consciousness is just experience. You're having an experience right now. Now ask yourself: "What the f**k even is this experience thingy I'm having right now? How could it *just be* identical to neurons exchanging electrochemical signals? Your experience has nothing in common with neurons firing, so how can they be the same thing? Seriously, what the f**k even is this thing we call 'experience'?"

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

@@BugRib From experience we know when people are close to dying they have periods where they have unconscious dreamless sleep and after waking they feel no time has passed. Finally their body stops functioning and they fall into permanent unconsciousness. The brain generates consciousness by interacting with the world and building an internal model. The internal model of the world that we have is our point of view. What separates us from a computer is a computer is not interacting with the world it os consuming information about the world and that is why a computer is not conscious or awake. Now if we gave an AI with self referential learning algorithms a humanoid body they would become conscious or awake to what they are processing.

@Dion_Mustard

2 жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 Quite the opposite, many people who are close to death often have death-bed visions, states of lucidity, out of body experiences and a sense they are entering another reality, such is the notion of Near Death Experiences. I've personally experienced an Out of Body state which was more real than my current waking consciousness. So I don't think it's as simple as saying we fall into unconsciousness and that's that. The end.

@Dion_Mustard

2 жыл бұрын

@@BugRib look up stuart hameroff and his study of microtubules, and expansion of consciousness after death.

We define consciousness but what causes it?

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Do you not understand that when you use the word "we", you are in practice saying "I"? Thus you have just said "I define consciousness". If you can define consciousness by all means go ahead and do so but my left pocket bets my right pocket that you cannot even begin to define consciousness, and that you will demonstrate that by signally failing to do so without circularity cognates and synonyms

Electron transfer (is there a quantum foam?)

Nothing more than our living memory

I can and have left my body before. It began at 8 years old. At 13, I surrendered to Christ and He warned me not to do this. Except for a few times when I’m agony, I’ve never done it again on purpose. I left my body when sunburned.

@yourlogicalnightmare1014

Жыл бұрын

Religion, like racism, is a debilitating thought disease. It's a shame no one was there to help you before you succumbed to ridiculous nonsense

Excellent discussion. I think worth mentioning is the requirement of energy flow, implicit in non-equilibrium thermodynamics and which drives complexity and self-organization. Somewhere along the way, external and self-awareness emerges. I think increasing empirical information will provide an explanation of consciousness sufficient to satisfy more of those who study it. There's always another why but the how will become clear enough pending future paradigm shifts.

Read "The Great Sinthesys " of Pietro Ubaldi! Book on the Amazon.

It takes an existent constant for a subsequent to derive existence from. That from which the temporary wake derive its existence from is consciousness..

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

"Consciousness" meaning what?-or knowledge of what?

Find more on this in "Matter is Not Insentient" and "Matter is Also Consciousness" at Shabda Blog.

"Where is life you have mind and where you have mind you have life" so what is mind and what is life ?

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

What is the mind but a dreaming machine or associative mechanism?

find someone who ll look at and listen to you like Robert at 6:38

I can't believe thoughts flow through electrical currents.

Energetic particles which always existed bond together to form the central nervous system which produces consciousness. No one knows why.

To undermine determinism with “randomness “ is specious. The brain is either awake, asleep, or at some point on the Glasgow coma scale. True, we saw that the comatose can regain consciousness, but we just mean it woke up. Not that it is now “in consciousness “. We should show more respect for our brain, which took 3.8 billion years to fashion. We don’t have to be epiphenomenalists (ie. awareness has no causal role in behaviour) to acknowledge that all our choices reflect the physical attributes of the universe that make us who we are. We choose deterministically. There are a lot of ingrates who call the universe bad names.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

How do you know that your brain took 3.8 billion years to fashion? Who told you that and why do you believe them? You tell us that *you* *don't know "have to be a phenomenalist. What in blue blazes is a phenomenalist"? Are you not hiding your complete inability to understand something behind expensive (or long) words? You appear to have no idea whatsoever that whenever you you word "we" you are saying *"I"* , and that is because "we" indicates the user of the term - that is *You* sunshine, and his immediate interlocutor, which in the instant circumstances is notable by its absence. Why are you so afraid use the term *I* and why do you seek to hide behind "we"?

What is consciousness? Answer: A reality that allows us to know and experience reality.

@Dion_Mustard

2 жыл бұрын

what is reality?

@williamburts5495

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dion_Mustard The subjective and the objective existences.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

How do you know? Whose reality? - Define reality? You cannot? - No surprises there.

@Dion_Mustard

2 жыл бұрын

@@williamburts5495 that doesn't help...

@williamburts5495

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dion_Mustard Being aware that you exist makes you existent and by you being existent you can realize all of that which is different from you. So the subjective and objective are just two sides of the same " coin " called reality. Reality is what we are realizing and you can't realize reality if you are not an aspect of it so the knower and the known are what make " knowledge " of reality possible.

Whose consciousness, whose "reality"?

enjoy it, it is your paradise, lucky ....

Why is it that some scientist and philosophers are so quick to do away with free will, but hang on to determinism like it's the only floatation device in the sea. Free will and determinism are two sides of the same coin, and the coin is just a construct -- a human idea or model of how things operate in reality. But like all human models and constructs they are _not_ reality -- rather, they are just two ideas that work really well most of the time... What is really going on beyond the veil of our sensory / perceiving / thinking apparatus is something we can never know -- but almost certainly neither free will _nor_ determinism capture it completely one hundred percent. Yet _both_ are clearly useful concepts and I would say each are without a doubt _true enough._ No one's trying to claim your quarks have free will physicists, so relax, but to go on from there and claim therefore human beings don't have free will is the height of folly -- falling squarely into the _so smart they're dumb_ category. The need to get rid of one and keep the other is both silly and unnecessary -- and even potentially dangerous -- when, for example, you here people who have appeared on this very channel arguing that human beings are therefore never responsible for their actions.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Is it not obvious to you why "some scientist and philosophers are so quick to do away with free will"?? A two-year-old child will tell you everything is entirely mechanistic. Apparently this great debate took place in Babylon thousands of years ago. In conditions that are entirely mechanistic, it follows as the night the day that what you call "free will" is an obvious absurdity. What makes you imagine that you have any kind of will, free or otherwise? You creatures only cling on to the dream that men(human beings) have "free will" so that and you can blame others, because it is all about justification and blame is it not? If you understood clearly that you and all your fellow creatures have no choice whatsoever you might perhaps have a little compassion for them, but you are so keen to worship your God self calming, that you cling onto the fantasy that you have any choice or what you call "free will" - which is plainly and obviously a fantasy. You are far more interested in justification and blame, then you are in discovering what *is* and cannot be different, which there is a word. So-called "free will" is entirely incompatible with logical positivism, for screamingly obvious reasons. Far more interesting is why some of you creatures are so desperate to cling onto the (obvious fantasy)that you call "free will"?

@longcastle4863

2 жыл бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl What makes you think a cause and effect "totally mechanistic" system is not capable of arriving at creatures capable of making a choice -- able to choose among several different options or paths or "effects" -- when prompted by a cause or stimuli or circumstance or situation etc instead of having to blindly follow / fall into one specific effect or pathway? I would argue in fact that Nature would Select for such skills and abilities as it would give an edge in survival to the creatures who possessed them.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Is it not obvious to you the machines have no choice and that men(human beings) are machines?

@longcastle4863

2 жыл бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl No, it's not obvious because homosapiens are not machines -- they are animals -- a different thing with different skill sets, abilities and capabilities -- one of which is problem solving, making decisions, weighing pros and cons, choosing options, makings plans and taking courses of action based on criteria, goals, beliefs and ideas that, yes, might be shared by others in their environment or culture, but which may also be wholly personal within them.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

@@longcastle4863 That which makes a machine a machine is that it has no choice. I don't know what you mean by "homo sapiens", but you are machine if I push your buttons you react exactly like any other machine reacts and you are about to demonstrate that. It is child's play to push the buttons on the machines are men (human beings, and the reason for that is that they are the abject slaves of their emotions (likes and dislikes wants and notwants). Anyone understanding that can easily push the buttons on any man and how he reacts internally as well as externally is not a matter over which he has the slightest control and is that that makes human beings machines, and you are about to demonstrate that you cannot help reacting what I have said entirely mechanically or automatically or the exact word is *choicelessly*. Don't you worry about some imaginary "homo sapiens", *You* are a machine which means *You* have *no choice,* and I can demonstrate that to you so easily that is hardly worth my bothering.

Conceive, receive, perceive. I am not the conceiver, my body is the receiver and the I that (I AM ) is the perceiver. Your friend EZ that's Me. he he

I cant be the only one that read Neil Degrasse ?

My enquiry: consciousness is Light, the presence. The soul of man I understand to be a reciprocal of consciousness or Intellect, as the soul is in intellect, body in soul. Intellect > soul > body. I dont believe the brain creates consciousness but is a reciprocal of and the functions of brain and sense preception organs are connected to brain and brain a filter for consciousness. Consciousness in a local sense is experience -- our individual experience. But I also think the universe to be conscious too, because light is omniscient( God is omnescient). Light is conscious, the very state, the presence, is not dead or dormant, but a being -- alive. I do not know much about light, but I understand that light is a sound wave in the aether and that everything is light, different degrees and modalities. I say the universe is conscious because it is alive and not dead, and because life is within it and of it. But what is light? Wherever you shine the light in darkness, becomes awareness from consciousness. If you want to argue that the brain creates consciousness I don't believe it changes much anyways -- the temple, or the mind is a very sacred thing.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

You wrote "My enquiry: consciousness is Light, the presence. " That is not a question or enquiry an assertion or proposition - you are telling rather than asking. For whom is that proposition or assertion correct? Do you not see that your proposition or assertion is entirely circular

He just got it, for a second, and then it slip out of his hands, like water when he started to talk about molecules having sensations

@ioioiotu

2 жыл бұрын

I think you can be quite sure that at least some groups of molecules are having sensations, say some molecules inside your brain.

@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523

2 жыл бұрын

@@ioioiotu nope. sensation involves more than molecules. The interviewer got it right when he told this guy that he was calling “sensing” to reacting and with that, the interviewer forced him to accept what it was already obvious: that he was talking BS.

@ioioiotu

2 жыл бұрын

@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 How do you know sensation involves more than molecules ? Occam's razor would indicate that sensation is intrinsic to molecules, it just so happens that more complex organization of molecules say your brain generate more complex sensations. But i agree there is no need to "react" for something to sense.

@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523

2 жыл бұрын

@@ioioiotu synapses, neurons intracellular signaling, protein expression, neuron-glia interactions, neural computation, etc. They may involve molecules but there is something called emerging properties that physicists sometimes forget

@ioioiotu

2 жыл бұрын

@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 Soft emergence that we have numerous examples of (ie temperature emerging out of molecular movement) only explains the easy problem of consciousness. To explain the hard problem of consciousness we would need strong emergence, something that would disprove reductionism and flies in the fact of everything science has discovered so far.

I'm really puzzled. Something evocative or seductive or somehow pleasant is not necessary true... neither making me feel more "closer to truth". That's all I was able to get form this interview. It might be just me, of course...

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Is it not in the nature of religion(any set of related*unquestioned beliefs assumptions presumptions norms an preconceptions) that infected being accepts without question or "believes" what he*Wants* to believe? Of course the passive *believe* faute de mieux, it takes far to much effort to discover for themselves by direct immediate personal experience(as direct immediate and personal as pain). *All men(human beings) are dreamers and it is in the very nature of dreaming that it is passive.

Unlike Dennet who often uses equivocation and evasion, Neil is at least clear about what he is talking about!

Still sounds like a physicalist explanation!

Breathing - Both consciouss and non-conscious.. Cat is alive both and dead until we open the box. False/True is a system depended on a outside system wich determine what is true or not true.

Pass the toke.

He concept concern conscieness not show up how conscieness process reality. It is only consciencess defines by abstract baseless evidence scientif. He hasnt honest concept Theory which defines conscieness . Confusion definitions on consciencess.

Lawrence gently destroyed his particular argument for panpsychism

Deterministic is not specific but still within the parameters, limited by the known laws, imposed by the universe.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Known" to whom? "Known" meaning what? law or laws meaning what? Behold the dangers of using blaubs.

Consider the following: We cannot in principle describe consciousness. This is because it is not a 'thing' and we can only describe things. Consciousness and it's product, the objects that make up our experience of reality, are not two, therefore there is no duality. 1:2, 3.1415:1 are ratios but 0:1 or infinity:1 are not ratios because there is no 'thing' to the left of the : The problem has come about when, as Descartes thought, that of consciousness as a 'substance'. We still today think of consciousness as some 'thing' today. 'The Tao that can be named is not the Tao'. We know from our experience that consciousness is real, but we are so attached to the thingyness of our world we try to apply it where it is not appropriate. It is real, but not objectively real. Like the absolute center of a circle or sphere it is not really 'there' and cannot be measured as it has no radius, circumference, area or volume. However, every' thing' within the circle Is what it is in relation to other 'things' within the circle or sphere that itself is not a thing. To call the circle or sphere 'itself' is an error but we have to use language to communicate which is a major part of the problem. Language is for communicating our experience of the world of things.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Do you not understand that for all practical purposes you have just said "*I*cannot in principle describe consciousness? Just because you cannot describe consciousness, does it necessarily follow that others cannot either? - Why project your impotence(inability)onto others? You certainly cannot experience what others experience and that is probably a very good thing indeed, because if it were otherwise whenever others have a headache you would have a headache, and you simply don't, do you? Do you not understand that when you use the word "we you are saying "I"? - That is because "we" means the user of the term - that is *You* sunshine, and his immediate interlocutor and in the present instance the is no interlocutor, so "we" has no application whatsoever absent an immediate interlocutor. Why are you so frightened to use the word "I"?

Science is inherently objective and outward looking-to the point of extreme exclusionary bias. Of course it can’t speak to consciousness, which is inherently subjective and self-referencing.

@Baba-fy1jc

2 жыл бұрын

What work in us ,is this the Consiousness from us, or is this a Small Part from the Consiousness or the Consiousness from the Universe. What made us to us . This what us made to us ,this is the Place and the Time and all the Information or the Information Flow about us. The Body and Brain, or the Organic Condition plays a big role here too. The Information, this can a Human or a Person made, to an other Human, but it must this not always do. Consiousness is a Part from this Room and this Room or the Universe make looks at himself. Thats made the Universe with and through us and through the Life . We have a Consiousness but not so allone how the most People this belive. We lives not allone for us ,on a other wise for the Universe ,but in this Time make we this not so good,then the Human made his self in this Time to a Super Parasite. Consiousness must we more see how a Flow and it keeps Increasing its Potential over the Time ,with all Lifeforms in this Universe. This Universe is Self Organisation his self ,and ttat make it with us and with everythings . It works with a Seense and the Order and the Order hold all things here on his Place . The Chaos, this can we Put, with the Order, on the move ,and this give us or made the Time.. The Universe has here more eyes as the most People this belive. The most People can see this Not so good,then the most People ,work to much with a harder Look of his own I . The Human works not so good with his Seense and with the Bias has the Human or all People or better to much People to much Problems. All People have a Proplem with the Bias ,but many People have more or to much Problems with the Bias. This made us all Not better or to a Perfekt life form here on the Earth. We Risk to much and there is a Real Chance that we Kill us all Self . What we all Need is more Respekt for the Life and the Nature and the Order from the Nature. The Order from us or what we Think what so Right is ,this is not Compatible, with the Order from the Nature. The Universe make his self a big Proplem here through us. We or the mass will or can this not so Right Understand. The Chaos what we bring, in to the Nature ,this comes Back to us self . The Chaos what we have Make,that is not Visible for all People here. The Human has to much Problems, with his Consiousness and with his own Seens and with a mass Bias. The Consiousness is a Important topic for us all ,then the People work very often not good enough ,with his own Consiousness and with the Logik.

@abelincoln8885

2 жыл бұрын

Science is an abstract construct from the mind of an intelligence. And intelligence ... has free will to think, believe, say & do what he/she wants with the data, evidence, sciences. Only an INTELLIGENCE ... makes Laws ( of Nature) ... & ... things (of the Universe) with purpose, form, function and DESIGN. Think about this fact very carefully with the free will you clearly possess. Religions are NATURAL PHENOMENA where the only known intelligence in the Universe, has always known that Laws & anything that has purpose, function, form & DESIGN are only made by an .... INTELLIGENCE. Animals & Humans have a brain & senses and there are conscious ... of the physical existence. But Man is the only known intelligence in the Universe with a brain clearly FINE TUNED to separate Man's .... mind ... from the animals. Man's mind is his Spirit, which the animals do not possess. Man's mind is only conscious of the physical existence, while his body still lives. When the body dies, Man's mind is only conscious of the Spirit existence. The intelligence that clearly made the Universe & Man ... is only Spirit

Another case of religion poisoning the well. I like how Robert cuts through the woo woo nonsense @8:00.

Consciousness = quantum reflection?

Who is consciousness ?

@HumanAndroid18

2 жыл бұрын

Lol

@abelincoln8885

2 жыл бұрын

Man & animals have consciousness because they both have a physical body & mind(brain). But Man is the only known INTELLIGENCE in the Universe with a brain clearly FINE TUNED to separate the ...... mind ... of Man from Animals. Only an intelligence ... has free will to think, believe, say & do ... as he/she wants, and make physical & abstract constructs. Only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) & things (of the Universe) with purpose, form, function & DESIGN. Only an intelligence ... creates the Sciences to learn the facts & truths about this Universe .. & ....then worship "the gods" that they believe created the Universe. Religions are a NATURAL PHENOMENA where the only intelligence in the Universe, knows that only an intelligence makes Laws & things with purpose, form, function & DESIGN. The sciences clearly support an UNNATURAL origin of the Universe & Life by an intelligence. Most Human Beings in the past, .... today ... and in the future believe in a supernatural existences, Man have a spirit, and in a very powerful intelligence that clearly made the Universe & everything in it. Man's mind ... is his spirit. It is man's living body & brain that gives the Spirit consciousness only of the physical existence. When the body dies ... Man's mind or spirit then becomes only conscious of the Spirit existence. Animals have a physical mind(brain) .... but do not have a spirit. Only Man has a body & a spirit.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

when?

@irri4662

2 жыл бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl how ?

@irri4662

2 жыл бұрын

@@ReverendDr.Thomas I never do.

Bring Sam Harris too

Cogito ergo sum.

I find that doctors generally are poor scientists, they memorize and believe in medicine instead, so I understand Neil's scientific shortcomings; but my understanding of the Buddha's teaching of no god, no soul, no afterlife doesn't jibe with Neil's take.

I dont like the idea of "randomness".

I think of consciousness as the soul, or that part of us (brain, heart, gut) which is separate from our body and eternal. Upon the death of the physical body, the parts of the three above-mentioned organs survive and separate from the physical body and go elsewhere.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

And when asleep?

You all are clueless, I know the truth of existence and God and consensus and I am the one the world 🌎 has been waiting for. I'm going to prove it. Time to know the truth mankind. How do I reach this man?

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

2 жыл бұрын

"consensus" is not a word

It’s when you are awake… to the reality you are a being that transcends the physical universe.

Till my consiousness manages to understand itself i will turn into fertilizer ☹️

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

True, plucky you- Pity about the asinine and infantile yellow thing. Is not suggesting that "consciousness" can understand itself", not identical to suggesting that a mirror can reflect itself? In plain language it is gibberish Perhaps it would be better rather than declaring yourself to be an imbecile by using those asinine infantile yellow things, to try and see if you can discover what you mean by "consciousness. It will be a long cold day in hell before you do that little user of asinine and infantile yellow symbols.

Is this his way of saying his wife was having an affair with her boss and he freaked out?

the interview suck, do more dmt pls

@titteryenot1136

2 жыл бұрын

fools gold

He attributes an evolved error correction mechanism in DNA as sentience. He needs to contemplate his navel a little longer.

@ioioiotu

2 жыл бұрын

Well an evolved danger avoidance mechanism known as pain you experience as sentience. There is no way to dismiss the possibility that when DNA corrects itself the DNA molecules have an internal experience.

@markstipulkoski1389

2 жыл бұрын

@@ioioiotu Ahhhhhh, a enlightened mystic. Believe in something with no evidence to support it, but it feels good to you. Intellectual laziness. BTW, pain is in my complex brain. The pain receptors are simple electro/chemical reactions.

@ioioiotu

2 жыл бұрын

@@markstipulkoski1389 There are plenty of reasons for being a panexperientialist, like noticing it's the most basic assumption compared to the strong emergence. And yes, i agree, part of your neurons experience pain. Physically they look like neurons yet they also have an inner experience directly accessible only by you: pain. Now what the pain receptors experience you have no way of knowing precisely because "you" are not your pain receptors, but "you" happen to be some dynamic neural network in the brain.

@abelincoln8885

2 жыл бұрын

Either all the religions are wrong, or there is one that has correctly identified the "Almighty" intelligence that clearly made the Universe & Life. Man & animals have consciousness because they both have a physical body & mind(brain). But Man is the only known INTELLIGENCE in the Universe with a brain clearly FINE TUNED to separate the ...... mind ... of Man from Animals. Only an intelligence ... has free will to think, believe, say & do ... as he/she wants, and make physical & abstract constructs. Only an intelligence ... makes Laws ( of Nature) & things (of the Universe) with purpose, form, function & DESIGN. Only an intelligence ... creates the Sciences to learn the facts & truths about this Universe .. & ....then worship "the gods" that they believe created the Universe. Religions are a NATURAL PHENOMENA where the only intelligence in the Universe, knows that only an intelligence makes Laws & things with purpose, form, function & DESIGN. The sciences clearly support an UNNATURAL origin of the Universe & Life by an intelligence. Most Human Beings in the past, .... today ... and in the future believe in a supernatural existences, Man have a spirit, and in a very powerful intelligence that clearly made the Universe & everything in it. Man's mind ... is his spirit. It is man's living body & brain that gives the Spirit consciousness only of the physical existence. When the body dies ... Man's mind or spirit then becomes only conscious of the Spirit existence. Animals have a physical mind(brain) .... but do not have a spirit. Only Man has a body & a spirit. btw. Atheism is also a religion, and have simply replaced a supernatural intelligence with the theories & ideologies of a "natural" intelligence.

@markstipulkoski1389

2 жыл бұрын

@@abelincoln8885 Nope.

Nonsense.

Consciousness is just being alive , to try and pinpoint a particular "something" to call consciousness is a none argument and is a total waste of time debating it. It keeps the philosophers in paid jobs though .

Nonsense

You don't know what it isn't.

You are consciouness

He has no clue he's got a good imagination though.

Mediation crap! This guy can prove what he is saying is true by solving a (simple) equation written on the wall; when he is in mediation..! If he cannot; it’s just mind playing tricks.

@superconscious.

2 жыл бұрын

tell us what you think this reality is ?

Our true Self is consciousness We live in a lower state of consciousness called mind/ego Consciousness is God

What rubbish. No human has ever once studied consciousness. All we know about is the experience of consciousness. We know nothing about what consciousness is.

Nonsense