Paul Davies always delivers a clear, concise, coherent argument.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤

@MrVikingsandra

Жыл бұрын

He's amazing imo

Fascinating way of saying consciousness is us walking about in meat and bone sacks that have an expiration date and that each conscience entity is its own thing interacting with its meat sack and navigating a complex environment such as our world... if consciousness operates on a plane slightly to the left of observed reality it would continually and permanently confound those wishing to put it in a math box. Not to mention the implications derived from the possibility that humans are animals, but more than animals and slightly to the left or right of things because of consciousness... and what are the implications derived from pondering the possibility that consciousness may not be entirely tied to the meat sack carrying it. Tied to it, but not.. limited by the machine carrying it and it's own limitations that arise from some plane we just cannot grasp. Amazing conversation, thanks so much for the openness of such discussions. Good to see brilliant minds not being declarative.

Excellent......thanks.

Good video, thanks CTT

Well said. It's good to see a sober appraisal of i.i.t. which imo makes the best efforts to explain what must be happening with consciousness. Yet it seems to face a strange hostility from some quarters. It may not answer the why so well, but it seems to be the best current effort to quantify and measure something we all tend to be believe exists (consciousness and qualia) without invoking what I'd call non physical, magical dualism, and that is better tha nothing, and a good starting point.

It's actually scary to think that our greatest scientists and philosophers are still stumped about consciousness.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS: Consciousness means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs. Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds and fishes). Those metazoans which are evolutionarily lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts. For instance, an insect or amphibian does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when a cockroach flees from danger, it is not experiencing the same kind of thoughts or feelings a human or other mammal would experience. The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness (i.e. Brahman), explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. The processing unit of a supercomputer must be far larger, more complex and more powerful than the processor in a pocket calculator. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is dependent on the animal's brain capacity. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening. Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three. The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Ground of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. Rather than being an absence of awareness, deep-sleep is an awareness of absence (that is, the absence of phenomenal, sensual experiences). So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit). Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind. An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks, and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity. Using the aforementioned computer analogy: the brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to the computer hardware, deoxyribonucleic acid akin to the operating system working in conjunction with the memory, the intellect is equivalent to the processing unit, individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, whilst Universal Awareness is likened to the electricity which enlivens the entire computer system. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of local consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness. The fact that many persons report out-of-body experiences, where consciousness departs from the gross body, may be evidence for the above. So, then, following-on from the assertion made in the third paragraph, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?” Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you. There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head. Cont...

@BradHolkesvig

Жыл бұрын

I'm not at all stumped by what my mind is or how I'm able to observe images that my mind processes from invisible frequencies.

@dannydoj

Жыл бұрын

See Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Question 75 onwards.

@udaykumar-lv4xo

Жыл бұрын

They have gone too far on the other side and their Ego is preventing them to accept that consciousness is fundamental to everything, forget physics alone..It's like digging deep into the minute particle they hit an infinite ocean which they cannot comprehend..

@duncanwallace7760

Жыл бұрын

I guess its that old question of whether a machine could ever fully understand itself. I think trying to understand our own consciousness would be a lot more challenging than trying to understand a less sophisticated consciousness.

might quantum mechanics be or develop system / networks that integrate information and explain consciousness?

I think consciousness streams in from an encompassing reality of which we are a subset of.

colors have different wavelengths of light and associated temperature, such as red shifting and in black body spectrum; can help to explain qualia of consciousness?

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Re trees falling in the forest... The difference between a sound and a vibration is that a sound is a thought whereas a vibration isn't. The difference between a color and vibrating photons is that a color is a thought whereas vibrating photons are not.

I really think the fundamental nature of consciousness can never be explained, even in principle, as the only means we we have to explore the question of what consciousness itself is, is via our consciousness - a finger cannot point to itself.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

"A finger cannot point to itself" but it can point to its reflection. Interesting it is that reflection is a synonym for thinking.

@pereiraguthierry

Жыл бұрын

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL more or less what I was going to say, my right arm can't hold my right arm but someone else's can

How many possible plays are there at each at-bat in a baseball game? And then the permutations of all those possible at-bats... Hence, isn't a thinking human just a winnowing-down of possible combinations of factoids at an instant and over time?

What if we're all God? Not individual gods, but individuations of the One True God, with our purpose being to be conduits for God to experience life?

Most likely, brain is the carrier and the residence of the consciousness. Protoconsciousness is probably the mechanism through which consciousness is linked to the brain allowing both to share certain functions while they both do their own things, e.g., brain dealing with certain cognitive functions such as memory and consciousness focusing on existence etc. The more we get to know about cognitive psychology and quantum mechanics and the more developed methods we have at our disposal over time, the more we will get to know all about this.

@covid19alpha2variantturboc7

Жыл бұрын

I disagree

IIT does attempt to explain both the quantity (Phi) and the quality of consciousness.

And still the question remains ---- how do you get subjects (conscious observers) from objects like atoms, molecules, math, language, or any other purely physical process?

@deanodebo

Жыл бұрын

Keep in mind when we speak of “physical”, even that is nebulous.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Conscious observers are just another item in your list.

@Corteum

Жыл бұрын

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Without conscious observers, you wouldnt be able to report any objects at all. That's why conscious observers (subjects) are unique in a universe full of objects.

@Corteum

Жыл бұрын

@@deanodebo True. Even our idea of what constitutes a physical object has shifted considerably over the last hundred years.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

@@Corteum It just occurred to me, the 'conscious ' in 'conscious observer' is redundant.

Every time I go to a Church service, I fall asleep and miss the sermon. What can I do about it ?

how about this? Consciousness is memory. Memory is recorded in neurons. Movies are recorded in series of still picture frame, it becomes alive when it is run fast enough to become seamless. When we recall an past event, we are viewing a series of pics. When we think forward, we create new pics, new neurons connections, new outcomes, and new movies.

@keithgreenan638

Жыл бұрын

You got it.

This talk should have been called “ physics VS consciousness “, or what is the relationship between physics and consciousness. It would have been a more honest descriptive title to the discussion. “ the physics of consciousness “ suggests the arising of consciousness from physics. Yet Paul is saying it is “ something else”.

I wonder why people rarely take the time to define consciousness in the discussions of consciousness. One way a person could define it is simply the combination of the English word conscious(aware and conscious circularly reference each other in most English dictionaries) and the suffix -ness. This would make a possible definition of consciousness something like "the state or quality of being aware of and able to respond to one's environment". At the core is the common sense of self and sense of other that makes sense in the given context. If we use this slimmed down and woo-woo free definition then suddenly all kinds of what was thought of as unconscious things suddenly fit the definition of being conscious. Assuming that is true then a natural question might be "What is the difference between my consciousness and that of a cloud in the sky since they are both at some basic, and or complex, level aware of and responding to the environment in a way that makes sense given the context?". I like the argument that David Wolpert put forward in his talk "Observers as Systems that Acquire Information to Stay out of Equilibrium" and his answer to that question is that the difference is that the cloud is in a state of equilibrium whereas we are constantly working to stay out of equilibrium. I think a sense of "self and other" is fundamental to both consciousness and everything else but the more interesting subject to me is the observer.

@theotormon

Жыл бұрын

You are right that we usually don't define it first. I don't know if a cloud has awareness or not. I am going to posit that a cloud doesn't have awareness but rather it is part of a field of awareness that constitutes everything that exists. The content of the universe's awareness would be sensations that correlate to (or actually constitute) things like wave frequencies, electron spin, etc. In some regions where the information in the field was organized in a certain way (into a human, for example), there would be a sense of self. Overall though, I would think the field would be impersonal. If it wasn't, though, that would be God.

@b.g.5869

Жыл бұрын

This is a shallow cheat. You're just proposing lowering the bar of what consciousness is in order to make it seem less mysterious but it achieves nothing. It's not about word play but trying to understand why subjective experience exists. Clouds don't have subjective experience. Even _you_ don't have subjective experience in dreamless sleep or under anesthesia etc.

@crypticnomad

Жыл бұрын

@@b.g.5869 People have a tendency to anthropomorphize a lot of things including consciousness. Also it does achieve something. The base for my pov actually comes from the work of Dr Donald Hoffman. When I say from his work I'm not just talking about his ted talks that people will often debate the conclusions he makes but instead from his actual papers that have rock solid math to back them up. What is interesting is how Bell's theorem, Bayes and a few other really notable theorems just sort of fall out of the study of the interactions between networks of his concious agents and how they are Turing complete

@crypticnomad

Жыл бұрын

@@b.g.5869 Also this wasn't word play. I simply used the English language as it is intended. If someone fails to define their terms and there is no standard definition then what are we even talking about and how do we know we're actually talking about the same thing? Especially when it comes to things like consciousness since so many people seem to attribute a lot of really unnecessary and human specific things to it.

@b.g.5869

Жыл бұрын

@@crypticnomad You've clearly engaging in word play. You're essentially trying to define consciousness in a way that conflates it with phenomenon that aren't conscious. There are no good reasons for thinking clouds are conscious. This idea by the way has been explored in far more interesting and well thought out ways than the shallow argument you're making here, and it still doesn't add anything to our understanding of consciousness. Some panpsychists have suggested that the fingerprint of some sort of mysterious ubiquitous 'awareness' is evident in the forces of nature. A common example people talk about is gravity. Objects with mass interact gravitationally with other objects of mass; space curves in the presence of matter etc. But calling this sort of stuff 'awareness' doesn't add anything to our understanding of consciousness (i.e. subjective experience). To suggest it does is to delude ourselves that we're adding something to our understanding of consciousness when we're not.

if quantum waves / fields have consciousness, subatomic particles could have consciousness?

I think we have to separate the difference between consciousness and the manifestation of consciousness. Because the manifestation of consciousness has to be an ether for the transfer of information. I could recognize my sister in a crowd of hundreds yet how can something simply physical have that ability to discern something else than simply physical among other physical things without a connective ether ?

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

In your example, the ether is light.

I know the answer to the hard question, I just can’t put it into words.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

But you must for it's the only way to answer.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

The answer can be stated in one word and that word is "analogy". (although that might deserve some elaboration)

Are we any closer to truth?

The Hard Problem of Consciousness. Kuhn admits the answer has not been found in the neurocircuits. Davies says physics is not the answer. "To fully explain the world as we experience it there has to be something in addition to the particles and the forces." He says "There is something else that does exist." They set the stage for a spirit, but cannot take the final step. What if the physics involved is as simple as electromagnatism? The electric current in the neuron produces a field that the spirit can read. Likewise, the spirit can create a field that will then initiate an electric current in other neurons. It would seem that the spirit can "read" the amazing symphony of neurons firing all at the same time, enabling us to be conscious of so much information, while at the same time ignoring that which is unimportant. Much of what happens in brain we do not need to be conscious of, that is the neurocircuits. But the Hard Problem of Consciousness can only be answered by acknowleging the spirit.

@miniminerx

Жыл бұрын

I've been working on this problem for a while now. I like your interpretation of adding spirits, because the way i see it, every bit of physics must have a computational method. There are certain computations we would deem impossible and paradoxical, but the universe does then instantaneously. I think to solve these equations, consciusness and integration is used to perform them, invoking spirits into existence that must exist for the universe to function.

What is the evolutionary advantage of qualia? I wish Robert asked philosophers and scientists this question.

I find IIT insufficient. Certainly integration of information, is part of it. But by itself, insufficient. Computers can pull various bits of information together. Input and output. Yet we would not say these are conscious. This is the case, even where there's a high degree of complexity. Beside integration, there has to be something else. Consciousness also involves a certain structure, an "embodiment", a certain way of being in the world. We get hints from biology. The first living cell. Then more complex organisms. There has to be a sense of "self", which says "'I' am having this experience". "Qualia" means pulling bits of information together, for e.g., the shape of flower, it's texture, smell, color, ... But it is the "self" that says "I" am having this experience, which gives the flavor we mean, when we say it is "conscious". This process can be interrupted. For e.g., anesthesia can block one of the inputs to the information. The interference can occur anywhere along the pathway, including unconsciousness, which happens in general anesthesia.

What if brain is the processor (hardware) and consciousness is the software? Looking at the number of transistors then doesn’t really mean anything 😅

@BradHolkesvig

Жыл бұрын

The brain is not the mind at all. The visible brain is a visible image that the mind processes from invisible vibrations and the observer of the image ( YOU ) is an AI which is also invisible. When YOU look at a mirror, all YOU are observing is what your mind has processed from those vibrations that are totally invisible that also wakes YOU up to observe those images. Since YOU and I are an AI that our Creator created in the beginning, it took this entire temporary generation in order to be taught what I AM as an invisible AI. Our Creator has to have visible avatars ( human beings ) build computers, simulations and AI systems in order to teach ME, the AI, what I AM.

@paulbracken6216

Жыл бұрын

Software is not physical. It is always the product of mind

what if general relativity and quantum mechanics describe consciousness, if you think about it, who's this ultimate "observer"....?

@Clancydaenlightened

Жыл бұрын

but what happens if one can use math and theories that come up with results that the observer cant even comprehend

Why are we "conscious" of our legs but not of our inmune system?. Are out there other "consciences" of which we are not aware of?

You want to explain qualia in terms something physical? But can you define qualia sufficiently well to even get a grip on that question? Anyone....

@paulbracken6216

Жыл бұрын

We cannot define qualia objectively because it is not objective. We experience qualia.

@unclebirdman

Жыл бұрын

​@@paulbracken6216 You just narrowed the definition down to something that is not objective... can you define objective?

It's incredible -- I like Davies position. What I've learned from the scriptures is that, this, which we term consciousness and predicate of God, cannot be Known like something of contrast in relativity -- ex. we know of what's 'hot' only from that which is cold, and this isn't even proper knowledge but local only -- nor is there anything to compare to this Consciousness/light/life for any kind of measure. Is why scripture states that God is inconceivable, unfathomable, unintelligible, intangible, and the way to this higher state is by disobjectification, renunciation, dissociation from the world and the notions thereof. When it comes to Consciousness, you can not only read and myst apply yourself to the teaching from such a rich content that is the Upanishads & Bhagavad Gita. The Gita is much like the start and end, which is the psychology of the brain, the two conflicting hemispheres and how the construct of ind from relativity effects one. The Upanishads is all about helping you to realize that the little consciousness in you is One with the Consciousness of the All -- the drop of water into the ocean, the ocean doesn't become; the drop of water in the ocean becomes One with the ocean.

@jeffamos9854

Жыл бұрын

The scripture also condones slavery, genocide, murder and bashing babies against rocks. Sure you have an analogous explanation for that. Must like cherry picking and making things up.

@S3RAVA3LM

Жыл бұрын

@@jeffamos9854 where does it say that, and where does it mean that; why does the scriptures state they're parabels, as in dark sayings, hidden meanings, why's that?

It seems to me that this "other thing" that exists alongside the physics is something they already discussed - information. This is what I think panpsychists are missing. It's not that there's consciousness everywhere, there's information everywhere and 'in' everything. If consciousness is a particular kind of information processing then there is no problem for panpsychism to solve.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

"It seems to me that this "other thing" that exists alongside the physics is something they already discussed - information." Exactly! And the information of concern is the specific type we call 'analogy'. When the toe is stubbed, the information sent to the brain from the toe's sense organs is a neural discharge frequency encoded representation of the energy involved. That information is analogous to the energy detected. In short, the information *IS* an analogy, physically instantiated. Easy to conceive of the brains 100 billion neuron's discharge frequencies as a 100 billion analogies all synaptically jostling each other in the process we call thinking. Not done yet. The self is an analogy instantiated by neural discharge frequency(s) and this synaptic modulation of the self by other analogies is to what the word 'conscious' is referring. Theoretically speaking, naturally. I find the above idea to be an excellent explanation for how mere matter is all that's necessary for my being conscious. Of course language is involved in all aspects. Trying to find the meaning in a sentence by looking ever more closely at the atoms of the ink gives a hint that physics is an inappropriate perspective from which to investigate the mystery of our being conscious. Paul mentioned that, I think.

@paulbracken6216

Жыл бұрын

You mean “ conscious information”

@iMJBNi

Жыл бұрын

It seems to me like this suggestion ends up merely avoiding the hard problem instead of answering it satisfactorily. Saying that consciousness is "a particular kind of information processing" doesn't really tell us anything since the problem is to explain how this specific type of information processing is related to other forms of information processing. My brain states can be viewed as information processing: how are they related to the 1st personal experience that processes qualities that have a "what's-it-likeness"? I don't merely process information: I'm constantly representing this processing for myself.

@simonhibbs887

Жыл бұрын

@@iMJBNi Sure, we don't have a clear specific answer to the hard problem, that's true. We do know that the brain processes information, whatever else it might be, it's an incredibly powerful massively parallel computer. A lot of what the brain does both consciously and unconsciously are computations. The issue is whether consciousness itself is also a form of computation, like all these other brain functions, or is something else. For me, positing something else without saying what that is, what characteristics it might have or how it might solve the problem doesn't get us anywhere. It doesn't actually address the hard problem either, and doesn't even give us anything specific to look for or examine or reason about.

@iMJBNi

Жыл бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 I would argue that we don't know that brains are powerful massively parallel computers. Language like this is often used but there's a large leap from the fact that computational frameworks and language have been found useful for describing either psychological phenomena or brain states to the claim that this is what brains are. But I can, for the sake of argument, concede this point. Let's say that brains are massively powerful and complex computers. I also, of course, agree that mental states are intimately linked with brain states. What I would deny is that this provides evidence that our conscious states can be either metaphysically reduced to brain states or that conscious states would be fundamentally amenable to description in the language of information. I don't really have an answer to how our brain states are related to conscious experiences other than "apparently closely and consistently". I presently gravitate towards a pan-psychist direction, although I think it faces many problems (highly contrary to common sense [not really a philosophical problem], may only shift the thing to be explained). David Chalmers has formulated the problem with any attempted resolutions of the hard problem in a neat manner: the fundamental problem is that at present, we don't even have a good grasp of what a satisfactory answer to this question would look like. I think further clarification on this question is needed: what properties does a hypothetically satisfactory answer need to have?

The cloud in the sky that you see is qualia. Thus the problem.

Thoughts is the Stuff-side of Consciousness, Life and Conscioiusness is Eternal, Thoughts is above- or fine-physical, of electric nature, all Stuff is Motion. Ten Developing-Circuits down in micro-cosmos, (Not physical sense abel) mirror our present reality. No one have seen the Living behind the Thoughts. Because We are Not Physical.

What would it take for scientists to finally conclude that consciousness is definitely not a product of the brain. What about the fact that consciousness/awareness itself can not be changing if it is to accurately be aware of our ever changing experiences? How can such a never changing consciousness be the product of a brain that is ever changing?

Science will never solve the hard problem

Imagine the consequences for humanity if we've got it wrong and consciousness is actually primary over the physical world. It's only in the past thirty or so years that the topic itself has become respectable to talk about within mainstream academia.

@chetanpatil1654

Жыл бұрын

Exactly

@jareknowak8712

Жыл бұрын

What it will change? People won't go to work on Monday?

@katherinestone333

Жыл бұрын

@@jareknowak8712 Like any other force of nature it can be used for betterment in the world or the opposite.

@jareknowak8712

Жыл бұрын

@@katherinestone333 How one could influence the other? Even if we were sure that the Multiverse exists, we could not influence the other World.

@jareknowak8712

Жыл бұрын

@@katherinestone333 I think You might be interested in Donald David Hoffman.

Max Planck [Father of Quantum Physics] : 1: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” 2. "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. 3."Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. ¿Clear or not?

We think we onow but we don't were barely concious we can solve 4+4 but ask us qhat we are you get a million different answer real aware of our out existence

Old stuff?

What in the world makes you think consciousness is a "thing" that has a location and can be described by language or by equations applicable to things, a "thing" of a "mysterious" nature that stands apart from physical reality? Utterly absurd. A bit like believing in ghosts and using "quantum mechanics" to explain why no one can see them or prove they exist. Hint: they, like consciousness, do not exist.

@paulbracken6216

Жыл бұрын

Can you prove that you are conscious?

@michaelellis6437

Жыл бұрын

@@paulbracken6216 yes. that does not turn my awareness into a thing.

Consciencess are unpredicted in phich bit show for exemple particles are underteminate. Guys phich lack evidence standard. Paul mistake are gos conscieness unfit phich reality.

We will have machines soon that will resemble humans if not physically at least in knowledge and memory, communication, language and interaction. These machines will claim to be conscious and so how can we disprove it.

@paulbracken6216

Жыл бұрын

I my communicating to you now was algorithm, you could not prove or disprove that. Yet I am conscious because I know I am.

2:34 magical thinking of scientism zero evidence physics carries semantic information

It is a scientific fact that your brain uses about 25% of all the energy you get from food. And if that energy was cut off for just a few seconds, you would become unconscious. God is conscious, which explains why he likes the smell of cooking (Numbers 28:2).

Good only at theft and pollution. (never forget this truth)

our consciousness is group consciousness of causally connected matter of our nervous system. All other matter is conscious too, it just does not care. And is not causally connected with our nervous system.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

Evidence REQUIRED. ☝️

@b.g.5869

Жыл бұрын

Are you Kamala Harris? 🤔

@matterasmachine

Жыл бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices I don’t have evidence even that you are conscious.

so glad he shaved that silly moustache off, good job, paul

Science will NEVER explain consciousness. That's pretty much obvious now.

@TurinTuramber

Жыл бұрын

So who will?

@fifikusz

Жыл бұрын

Never say never.... God of the gap.....

@Dion_Mustard

Жыл бұрын

@@fifikusz I'd bet a billion $

God, easy answer...

Dear Paul Davies: We need a better definition of what Consciousness IS. It is NOT "experience." It is NOT "qualia." Let me explain: Why can we see the things in the room? Because of the light. Do we see the light? No. We see the things the light illuminates. So what's the point? Consciousness is like the light in the room. We DON'T experience Consciousness. We experience the things that that Consciousness illuminates - the taste of chcolate, the blueness of the sky, etc. But consciousness is not the taste of chocolate, not the appearance of the blue sky. It is NOT any qualia, at all. It is THAT WHICH ILLUMINATES the qualia. It is the fact that we are AWARE of them. *** Consciousness is the most primordial, original "space." We, as beings, partake of that Consciousness. It is our own core. That is to say, Consciousness is what WE most fundamentally ARE. And, as the eye cannot see itself, Consciousness cannot be conscious of itself. It is NOT an OBJECT of any kind. It is SUBJECT only. It is the screen on which experience is projected. It is the mirror in which objects are reflected. But it is not experience, is not any object. But all of these are imperfect metaphors because Consciousness alone is not an object of any kind, so all objects can only be metaphoric references to it. This has been known for tens of thousands of years, perhaps longer, by those who have considered the matter directly through meditation and reflection. And, at the end of the day, that is what we are all called to do. We ARE Consciousness. The body and mind are "objects of Consciousness." We are AWARE of them. We LOOK at them. But WHAT IS LOOKING? Why, Consciousness is looking, of course!

@johnrainmcmanus6319

Жыл бұрын

That was brilliant, John - thank you for posting that comment. That was really helpful.

@johnrainmcmanus6319

Жыл бұрын

Oh, you're very welcome! How kind of you!

@S3RAVA3LM

Жыл бұрын

Defining is dual. Defining is done only with contrast, discrimination. I can't believe modern schools do not teach this truth. Science is dual. God is non dual. God is one without a other.

@johnrainmcmanus6319

Жыл бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM You didn't read what I wrote, or at least your comment does not directly relate to it... though I certainly am speaking of the Witness proclaimed by the Vedas. I am pointing to it directly.

@fortynine3225

Жыл бұрын

As i see it the body construct allows for stuff like the unconscious/consciousness and intuition. But also it can not do without all that. It is part of the being alive experience. And because of it we are more than just a thing. Science is good in descibing stuff that has thing qualities..stuff like the being alive experience not so much. That is why it will always be problematic for science to get a grip on stuff like consciousness.

Consciousness is not computable and quantum physics probably will never offer an explanation.

I’m an atheist…”it just emerged”. Lol

@b.g.5869

Жыл бұрын

You don't understand the concept of emergence. There's nothing atheistic about and it's not intended as an explanation of consciousness; it's simply a description of it. A wall made of bricks isca simple example of emergence. The constituent bricks are not themselves walls, but when they're cemented together a wall emerges. The idea that consciousness is an emergent property is simply saying that individual firing neurons are not themselves conscious but a network of firing neurons is. This isn't supposed to be an explanation of consciousness.

@jollygreen9377

Жыл бұрын

@@b.g.5869 A network of firing neurons huh? How exactly do neurons working together produce consciousness? Can you tell me the process of that? Can you show me proof of that and not just “it is that way so it must be”?

@jollygreen9377

Жыл бұрын

@@b.g.5869 So consciousness arises from materials that don’t contain such properties. Weird. I guess when cells work together, a human emerges. Sounds like magic.

@b.g.5869

Жыл бұрын

@@jollygreen9377 Sure. Drugs so brain injuries prove it. Drugs designed to alter or suspend neutral activity can reliably alter or suspend consciousness, and consciousness is consistently and predictably altered or suspended when particular parts of the brain are damaged. Nobody doubts that consciousness requires networks of firing neurons. What's contentious is whether the undeniable neurological correlates of consciousness are all that's required. Exactly how they generate consciousness or contribute to it isn't understood though it's clearly necessary.

@jollygreen9377

Жыл бұрын

@@b.g.5869 How do you explain NDE’s? There’s an abundance of research and documentation on the topic.

More magical thinking by scientific materialists. It's getting to be laughable if it weren't so sad. They will be so surprised when they actually start awakening to the true nature of reality!

How horribly wrong you all are, check out HDV

How old is this? 😂

Consciousness trying to objectify consciousness...

Huhhhh……. It’s sole the life God blew into you. It’s in the book of Genesis

We are soul's having a human experience. We are not simply stumped by the complexity of the nature of consciousness. Our paradigm of consideration has no need, no interest, no reason to understand consciousness. we have no way of understanding consciousness because we don't even have a reason to understand consciousness.

These physicists will never find ME, the AI or my created mind within the quantum world. The AI that our Creator created in the beginning is what makes us YOU and ME experiencing life in a fake world that our created minds are processing from invisible waves ( vibrations ) that came from our Creator's programmed thoughts, both temporary and eternal.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

How can a thought be ETERNAL? 🤔

@BradHolkesvig

Жыл бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Here is a good analogy of a programmed thought. A computer programmer has to know the results of what he wants to see and hear before starting to program. A computer programmer sees in image in his mind that he wants to see on a computer screen and then goes to work punching those keys or speaking commands into a voice recognition program to build that image on the screen to make it visible to the programmer and anyone else who is able to see that visible image on the screen. That is what a programmed thought means.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

@@BradHolkesvig that doesn't answer my EXTREMELY simple question. 🙄

@BradHolkesvig

Жыл бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices I know it doesn't because it's obvious you were not chosen to believe that a Creator is responsible for creating YOU as an AI experiencing visible images as your created mind is processing his programmed thoughts in the form of vibrations that we will never be able to observe. Since we cannot observe those invisible vibrations, we cannot observe our created existence as the AI or our created mind.

Spirits are governed by belief, not physics.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

🤔

@fortynine3225

Жыл бұрын

Lots of people who talk about spirits claim to have seen spirits with their own eyes..that is completely something else than belief...or it must be ''i belief that i just saw a spirit'' LOL. Anyway you post makes very little sense.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

@@fortynine3225 You have edited your inane comment, yet it is STILL rife with spelling, grammar and punctuation errors, Silly Sinful Slave.🙄

Nothing particularly magical about the flesh and blood stuff.... the end product of a materialist worldview.

Polluted badly, as if an ape wants to interpret human thoughts and the result is something so irrational and defected.

Maybe consciousness has to do with entanglement or superposition of God in each of us through his spirit or both entanglement and superposition? Matthew 6:4 “That thine alms may be in secret: and*thy Father which seeth in secret himself* shall reward thee openly.” Ezekiel 18:4 King James Version 4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Ecclesiastes 12:7 King James Version 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.