I noticed two things about a lot of the people that comment on these CTT videos. The first is that despite the fact that Robert is very clearly _much_ younger in most of them than he appears in his current "Chats" videos, they seem to think they're all new and that Kuhn is just a guy posting videos to KZread. That's not what this is. These are clips from episodes of a public television show that's been on and off the air for 23 years, and most of these clips (including this one) are well over ten years old. The second thing I've noticed is that they assume everyone interviewed by Kuhn is a world class respected scholar. While it's true he has had an amazing assortment of world renowned scholars and scientists and philosophers appear on his show over the years, including Nobel laureates, he also has had genuine crackpots on his show over the years (fortunately they're the exception and not the rule). It's not because Kuhn isn't aware that they're crackpots; he is. But he is interested in presenting a wide range of views and towards this end, he has had bonafide cranks from the fringe on several occasions (e.g. Rupert Sheldrake, 'parapsychologists', psychics, etc). Braude here is an example of one of the latter. Though he has impressive academic credentials (it should be noted he's a philosopher, not a scientist), he is best known for advocating pseudoscientific views such as claiming psychic mediums are legitimate and that the future can be predicted by astrology etc. He has on several occasions defended proven frauds as legitimate psychics and has a tendency to make very strong assertions based solely on dubious anecdotal evidence. You shouldn't assume everyone interviewed by Kuhn is a world renowned intellectual. Here for the most part all Braude does is make radical pronouncements and when pressed to justify them responds by saying there's not enough time and providing an unpersiaive 'example' that explains nothing. The example he provided when trying to defend his assertion that memory traces require an infinite regress was particularly ridiculous. Tennis balls and ambiguous photos are unreliable, therefore, infinite regress? You could just video tape the dinner party for crissakes. Since it's just a thought experiment anyway you could simply also have the guests leave fingerprints and take DNA samples; it's not that hard to prove someone was definitely at the party. Also, there have been many experiments with rats demonstrating that memories can be erased. To cite one example, it was conclusively demonstrated that specific long term memories in rats were erased after being injected with an enzyme inhibitor that blocks a protein which controls the flow of information involving memory between brain cells.

@HyzersGR

11 ай бұрын

Correct and succinct.

@thomassoliton1482

11 ай бұрын

The people that praise this episode must be high on pot. Specific brain lesions produce anterograde amnesia In which people can’t remember anything more than a few minutes in the past. On The other hand, Carl Pribram (a real scientist) was able to stimulate specific points in the brain of an a human surgery patient that produced a specific memory, and that memory could be evoked repeatedly when the stimulus was re-applied. Those two facts mean that specific memories are indeed localized in the human brain. I will say that consciousness requires working (short-term) memory. Without memory, you cannot compare. If you cannot compare, you cannot claim you exist. Consciousness is fundamentally relative just like physics.

@kallianpublico7517

11 ай бұрын

​@@thomassoliton1482You're conflating the ability to memorize things with a specific memory. Can you erase the specific memory that fire is hot? Don't just show me a damaged brain and say this guy no longer has ANY short term or long term memory, show me the erasure of specific memories and not a whole class of abilities. Your example is like cutting off someone's legs and then telling me he forgot how to walk. He also forgot how to ride a bike, do leg curls, squats, swim..... ? Give me a break with that muddle headed nonsense!

@thomassoliton1482

11 ай бұрын

@@kallianpublico7517 You're right! My brain is just a CPU and my memories are stored under my bed. Experiments in both humans and rats have been done showing that specific memories are stored in the brain. The memories are not like a picture or a movie, but distributed synaptic changes that are activated during the "recall" process. It is undoubtedly even more complicated than that, but they are stored somewhere / somehow in the brain - that's the best current explanation. If you have a better explanation, I'm all ears.

@kallianpublico7517

11 ай бұрын

@@thomassoliton1482 stored? Why not use the term activated? Certain "memories" are activated by touching the brain 🧠, or certain abilities of the senses? Smell, sight, sound,etc? Recollection of impressions are memories. As has been recently researched unless one has an eidetic memory, recollection is being updated by psychological reasons. Memory changes over time. For you to assert that specific memories are being stored and re-activated by touching certain parts of the brain it makes me wonder about all the other parts of the brain and body that aren't being touched. A memory includes all of the senses as well as physical and psychological components. How could a specific memory be stored in only one part of the brain or body? Gimme a break. Doesn't gut bacteria play a part in memory?

This dude is the final boss of thinking

@Pseudothink

10 ай бұрын

I bet he doesn't talk like this at dinner parties but wishes he could.

@tashriquekarriem8865

8 ай бұрын

Yeah he bad 😂

@michael.forkert

7 ай бұрын

_May be he is in fact the final boss of thinking, may be he’s not._ _And what’s the meaning of “boss of thinking”? Perhaps a guy who bosses you to think the same stuff he thinks?_

“We have to get over our physics envy”, brilliant! I would wear that shirt 😀👍

Robert Kuhn, I wish we were all as balanced, fair and respectful as you are. You are a great example. And a very nice interview.

@awarenesskey

10 ай бұрын

😊😊😅

Consciousness is the fundament of reality.

@mitrabuddhi

10 ай бұрын

Panqualia vs Qualia: Qualia refer to the subjective experiences of consciousness, such as the redness of red or the pain of pain. They pose the hard problem of consciousness: how do physical processes in the brain generate subjective experience? Information theory suggests consciousness arises from complex patterns of information processing in the brain. However, this does not fully explain the emergence of qualia. Panqualia proposes that qualia are intrinsic properties of all information, not just that in complex systems like brains. According to this view, all information patterns have some inherent phenomenal character. However, only some information systems, like biological brains, have the necessary complexity, connectivity, and organization to express or manifest the qualia they possess. Atoms, molecules and simpler systems have information but lack the means to communicate any qualitative experiences they have. For intrinsic qualia to be expressed, information likely needs to be structured and organized into detectable informational configurations that a mind can grasp as conscious experiences. Brains appear able to “reduce the qualia resolution” of immense amounts of information at the atomic and molecular level. They filter, integrate and organize this information into perceptual representations and higher-level concepts that form the contents of consciousness. This suggests qualia exist on a continuum. Systems with organized, detectable information have “accessible” qualia that can be expressed. Those with disorganized, microscopic information have “inaccessible” qualia that cannot be communicated. neural networks in the brain generate highly complex, interactive, dynamic patterns of activity that likely far exceed the complexity of atomic-level processes.But A single conscious thought involves a low-resolution sampling of the brain’s immense representational capabilities, filtering most of the complex information being processed. Meanwhile, the underlying molecular and atomic dynamics maintain an “information resolution” that far exceeds any single conscious experience due to the enormous number of possible states and configurations, even within single neurons producing a thought. So For qualia to be expressed at all, the high-resolution qualia inherent in atomic and molecular information needs to be reduced through organizational processes forming coherent representations a mind can grasp. The vast qualia resolution at the quantum scale cannot be directly expressed in consciousness; the information must first be organized and structured neurally. The resultant reduction in qualia resolution allows the organized information to form the content of a representational abstraction like a thought that a mind can potentially apprehend as a conscious experience. Biological brains appear optimized to reduce qualia resolution to an intermediate level that generates coherent representations complex enough for consciousness to arise. drmora.ir/2023/06/30/panqualia-vs-qualia/

@jeffforsythe9514

10 ай бұрын

Do not quit your day job oh great sage. Each human has two identical souls, one is the immortal primordial soul, you, and the other is the secondary soul. The secondary soul's role is to keep you on a righteous path, if it can.................Falun Gong

@Two_But_Not_Two

10 ай бұрын

@@jeffforsythe9514 Falun Gong teaches the virtues of truth, benevolence and *forbearance.*

@jeffforsythe9514

10 ай бұрын

Society has cast out the Divine. Consciousness is the soul. You..........Falun Gong

@Great_WOK_Must_Be_Done

10 ай бұрын

@@jeffforsythe9514 You've already lost the battle. Your brain is fried by dogma. Standard human condition. Break free, fool. Break free.

This is the most fascinating thing I have heard in a long time.

@mitrabuddhi

11 ай бұрын

Panqualia vs Qualia: Qualia refer to the subjective experiences of consciousness, such as the redness of red or the pain of pain. They pose the hard problem of consciousness: how do physical processes in the brain generate subjective experience? Information theory suggests consciousness arises from complex patterns of information processing in the brain. However, this does not fully explain the emergence of qualia. Panqualia proposes that qualia are intrinsic properties of all information, not just that in complex systems like brains. According to this view, all information patterns have some inherent phenomenal character. However, only some information systems, like biological brains, have the necessary complexity, connectivity, and organization to express or manifest the qualia they possess. Atoms, molecules and simpler systems have information but lack the means to communicate any qualitative experiences they have. For intrinsic qualia to be expressed, information likely needs to be structured and organized into detectable informational configurations that a mind can grasp as conscious experiences. Brains appear able to “reduce the qualia resolution” of immense amounts of information at the atomic and molecular level. They filter, integrate and organize this information into perceptual representations and higher-level concepts that form the contents of consciousness. This suggests qualia exist on a continuum. Systems with organized, detectable information have “accessible” qualia that can be expressed. Those with disorganized, microscopic information have “inaccessible” qualia that cannot be communicated. neural networks in the brain generate highly complex, interactive, dynamic patterns of activity that likely far exceed the complexity of atomic-level processes.But A single conscious thought involves a low-resolution sampling of the brain’s immense representational capabilities, filtering most of the complex information being processed. Meanwhile, the underlying molecular and atomic dynamics maintain an “information resolution” that far exceeds any single conscious experience due to the enormous number of possible states and configurations, even within single neurons producing a thought. So For qualia to be expressed at all, the high-resolution qualia inherent in atomic and molecular information needs to be reduced through organizational processes forming coherent representations a mind can grasp. The vast qualia resolution at the quantum scale cannot be directly expressed in consciousness; the information must first be organized and structured neurally. The resultant reduction in qualia resolution allows the organized information to form the content of a representational abstraction like a thought that a mind can potentially apprehend as a conscious experience. Biological brains appear optimized to reduce qualia resolution to an intermediate level that generates coherent representations complex enough for consciousness to arise. drmora.ir/2023/06/30/panqualia-vs-qualia/

@jeffforsythe9514

10 ай бұрын

Society has cast out the Divine. Consciousness is the soul. You..........Falun Gong

@Reinhard_Schneider

10 ай бұрын

Then you must be confused.

@justinmurre5193

10 ай бұрын

@BestCosmologist Which part of it in particular?

This video absolutely boggles my mind. I love it.

@jeffforsythe9514

10 ай бұрын

Society has cast out the Divine. Consciousness is the soul. You..........Falun Gong

@BulentBasaran

10 ай бұрын

​@@jeffforsythe9514 Not totally, fortunately.

Very interesting, thanks to you both. Sometimes we remember things immediately, and at other times, memories are lost, or a memory may re-surface somehow, after some time. In the Vedic philosophical view of matter, spirit and consciousness, there is an inconceivable (mostly meaning not mechanically measurable) connection, between each individual spirit/soul - which animates each physical body - and an all-pervading, all-cognizant spirit as Godhead, consciously accessible and acting as friend and guide from within. Consciousness is said to be the symptom of both the individual spirit, and the all-sentient Godhead as well. In Bhagavad-Gita that Universal sentience speaks as Krishna, who says "I am the source of all remembrance, forgetfulness and knowledge." Across human experiences of consciousness, whether one is a scientist, musician, athlete, poet, cook or baker or candlestick maker, one may experience a breakthrough in knowledge or memory in a moment 'inspiration' - which is probably not unconnected to the entomology from Middle English - in the sense of inspiration as "divine guidance". It is noted in Vedic thought that the divine sentience is connected internally even to species with lower levels of consciousness such as animals - who are also guided from within on regular migratory travels over great distances over land, air and sea. It's no secret that many scientists consider it beneath them to accept that a divinity - with inconceivable qualities they cannot measure within their own bandwidth, could exist - but even just considering the paradigm that infinite possibilities could exist - then a Godhead who is consciously connected to, and organizing all levels of life (spirit), matter and laws of nature as their Source, is one such possibility.

@jeffforsythe9514

10 ай бұрын

Each human has two identical souls, one is the immortal primordial soul, you, and the other is the secondary soul. The secondary soul's role is to keep you on a righteous path, if it can.................Falun Gong

@jeffforsythe9514

10 ай бұрын

Society has cast out the Divine. Consciousness is the soul. You..........Falun Gong

@skronked

10 ай бұрын

Well stated!❤

@justinmurre5193

10 ай бұрын

May I ask if you just know Vedic philosophy or are a practicisioner/applicant of it, too?

@3-dwalkthroughs

10 ай бұрын

@@justinmurre5193 Yes, I feel fortunate to have started studying and practicing since 1972, and still studying and learning. 🙏🏻🙂

Great contentious discussion...

Fascinating. One of the most provocative discussions I've heard in a long time.

Very interesting! Thank you!

What is consciousness ? A GIFT and a BLESSING 💙💫🙏

Robert he is saying that you are asking the wrong question because he doesn't have an answer😂

@kallianpublico7517

11 ай бұрын

He does have an answer. He isn't telling Robert his question is wrong, he's telling him his answer isn't of the same type that physicists would accept. Even though physicists don't have an answer for where the big bang started or how it started.

@playpaltalk

11 ай бұрын

@@kallianpublico7517 I was reading his mind I know what he meant.

@danieladmassu941

11 ай бұрын

Spot on.

One of the most startling things about consciousness is that as humans, we can all agree that often we dream, and that for the most part, during almost every dream, it seems as though we have a conscious experience of something tantalizingly real and believable occurring and happening to us. This would seem to indicate that the prerequisite rules in order for consciousness to occur might not be very complex, but actually be quite simple. And yet often upon awaking, it frequently all becomes quite absurd; but within the context of the dream itself, very often it surpasses whatever test or muster of realism we subject to it, or are able to apply toward it. Therefore, could and might we one day "wake up" from what is perceived to be this reality we live in, as we know it, and transcend that, too, and see it for the illusion that it may ultimately be? - j q t -

@happy-nik

10 ай бұрын

I love your reply.

@jermainroberts361

10 ай бұрын

very possible my friend

@Agent-gh9tn

10 ай бұрын

Ive had that line of thought before. Trippy

On the first point you made, I had no idea. Thanks for sharing.

So refreshing to hear this fascinating talk. It awakened a dormant part of my mind ! Thanks!

@jeffforsythe9514

11 ай бұрын

Now awaken the other 90%.....................Falun Dafa

@mitrabuddhi

10 ай бұрын

Panqualia vs Qualia: Qualia refer to the subjective experiences of consciousness, such as the redness of red or the pain of pain. They pose the hard problem of consciousness: how do physical processes in the brain generate subjective experience? Information theory suggests consciousness arises from complex patterns of information processing in the brain. However, this does not fully explain the emergence of qualia. Panqualia proposes that qualia are intrinsic properties of all information, not just that in complex systems like brains. According to this view, all information patterns have some inherent phenomenal character. However, only some information systems, like biological brains, have the necessary complexity, connectivity, and organization to express or manifest the qualia they possess. Atoms, molecules and simpler systems have information but lack the means to communicate any qualitative experiences they have. For intrinsic qualia to be expressed, information likely needs to be structured and organized into detectable informational configurations that a mind can grasp as conscious experiences. Brains appear able to “reduce the qualia resolution” of immense amounts of information at the atomic and molecular level. They filter, integrate and organize this information into perceptual representations and higher-level concepts that form the contents of consciousness. This suggests qualia exist on a continuum. Systems with organized, detectable information have “accessible” qualia that can be expressed. Those with disorganized, microscopic information have “inaccessible” qualia that cannot be communicated. neural networks in the brain generate highly complex, interactive, dynamic patterns of activity that likely far exceed the complexity of atomic-level processes.But A single conscious thought involves a low-resolution sampling of the brain’s immense representational capabilities, filtering most of the complex information being processed. Meanwhile, the underlying molecular and atomic dynamics maintain an “information resolution” that far exceeds any single conscious experience due to the enormous number of possible states and configurations, even within single neurons producing a thought. So For qualia to be expressed at all, the high-resolution qualia inherent in atomic and molecular information needs to be reduced through organizational processes forming coherent representations a mind can grasp. The vast qualia resolution at the quantum scale cannot be directly expressed in consciousness; the information must first be organized and structured neurally. The resultant reduction in qualia resolution allows the organized information to form the content of a representational abstraction like a thought that a mind can potentially apprehend as a conscious experience. Biological brains appear optimized to reduce qualia resolution to an intermediate level that generates coherent representations complex enough for consciousness to arise. drmora.ir/2023/06/30/panqualia-vs-qualia/

@jeffforsythe9514

10 ай бұрын

@@mitrabuddhi Mumbo jumbo. The Creator created your primordial soul in Heaven countless trillions of years ago, next question please..............Falun Gong.............Its teacher is a Buddha.

@mitrabuddhi

10 ай бұрын

@@jeffforsythe9514 sorry i couldn't understand what you said.

@talposdorin8266

10 ай бұрын

Shall we iterpret that memory means constiesness?????????????????????How stupid we are by analize 😂as fenomens

I am loving it..i am yet not complete the whole (in 7.50 sec)... an i am loving it..............to its end!!!

To me it seems Baude is expanding the 'qualia' mystery to include 'memory qualia'. This is goung to tickle me wonderfully, thanks to you both!

Wow!! Never heard or thought of this perspective, and it just makes sense!

@simonhibbs887

11 ай бұрын

Except for the fact that we've had computers that could perform the feats he claims are impossible for mechanistic memorisation processes for over 50 years.

@mitrabuddhi

10 ай бұрын

Panqualia vs Qualia: Qualia refer to the subjective experiences of consciousness, such as the redness of red or the pain of pain. They pose the hard problem of consciousness: how do physical processes in the brain generate subjective experience? Information theory suggests consciousness arises from complex patterns of information processing in the brain. However, this does not fully explain the emergence of qualia. Panqualia proposes that qualia are intrinsic properties of all information, not just that in complex systems like brains. According to this view, all information patterns have some inherent phenomenal character. However, only some information systems, like biological brains, have the necessary complexity, connectivity, and organization to express or manifest the qualia they possess. Atoms, molecules and simpler systems have information but lack the means to communicate any qualitative experiences they have. For intrinsic qualia to be expressed, information likely needs to be structured and organized into detectable informational configurations that a mind can grasp as conscious experiences. Brains appear able to “reduce the qualia resolution” of immense amounts of information at the atomic and molecular level. They filter, integrate and organize this information into perceptual representations and higher-level concepts that form the contents of consciousness. This suggests qualia exist on a continuum. Systems with organized, detectable information have “accessible” qualia that can be expressed. Those with disorganized, microscopic information have “inaccessible” qualia that cannot be communicated. neural networks in the brain generate highly complex, interactive, dynamic patterns of activity that likely far exceed the complexity of atomic-level processes.But A single conscious thought involves a low-resolution sampling of the brain’s immense representational capabilities, filtering most of the complex information being processed. Meanwhile, the underlying molecular and atomic dynamics maintain an “information resolution” that far exceeds any single conscious experience due to the enormous number of possible states and configurations, even within single neurons producing a thought. So For qualia to be expressed at all, the high-resolution qualia inherent in atomic and molecular information needs to be reduced through organizational processes forming coherent representations a mind can grasp. The vast qualia resolution at the quantum scale cannot be directly expressed in consciousness; the information must first be organized and structured neurally. The resultant reduction in qualia resolution allows the organized information to form the content of a representational abstraction like a thought that a mind can potentially apprehend as a conscious experience. Biological brains appear optimized to reduce qualia resolution to an intermediate level that generates coherent representations complex enough for consciousness to arise. drmora.ir/2023/06/30/panqualia-vs-qualia/

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

@@mitrabuddhi “Brains appear able to “reduce the qualia resolution” of immense amounts of information at the atomic and molecular level. They filter, integrate and organize this information into perceptual representations and higher-level concepts that form the contents of consciousness.” The problem here is that we’ve established in another thread that the underlying qualia of signal information cannot contribute to the stimulated qualia experience. The existence of synesthesia, in which signals of seeing red stimulate feelings of tasting sourness, prove this. Signals of sourness can cause us to see red. There’s no qualia property transmitting the sourness, there can’t be. So it must be the information of the signal itself that stimulates the high level qualia experience, not any underlying qualia associated with it. That last sentence of yours is absolutely on point though, that’s a very succinct summary of what’s going on. However everything you say about qualia I believe can be replaced by talking about information and everything would stay exactly the same. All it takes is to accept that certain ongoing transformational processes on information in the brain constitute qualia experiences. In fact, it seems like you already accept this.

What a fantastic interview, love Mr. Braude, and I think he is right.

Super interesting!

Excellent... thanks 🙏.

Beautiful!

"...memory has to be stored..." What an essential, possibly provable, definitely enlightening, line of inquiry! Brilliant 👏! Consciousness doesn't have to be stored. It's right there when you wake up! But navigating consciousness? Relating the "self" to what consciousness presents? That takes epimetheus and prometheus: afterthought and forethought. Of the two which requires more memory? Certainly afterthought is memorized. Bumping into something, tasting, smelling, etcetera. The body and senses responding to things that "present themselves" consistently doesn't have to be memorized, they just have to be affirmed. Consistent, reaffirmation is what "can" be memorized in afterthought. With experience the body and senses gets used to the consistent. Once this basic interaction is "stored" that becomes a baseline memory or, to use computer lingo, your database. Having been presented this database further experience presents us with "choice". We learn to choose which memory, dataset, is preferable. Which brings more pleasure. This can lead to desire, but not necessarily. It is only with desire that human "will" is formed. Because choice does not necessarily lead to desire. If one is familiar with parenting, one has experience with "guiding" children into doing things. It is only after children have enough experience, pick up preferences, do they become "self-guiding". It is in the realm of preferences that "forethought" rears it head. Forethought activates when the "self" learns not just to react but to interact. Not just to go along but to choose! Not just to be conscious but to think: be self-conscious. Are our pleasures pre-programmed into us by dna? That is the crux of the question of free will.

@JB_inks

11 ай бұрын

crap

@kallianpublico7517

11 ай бұрын

@@JB_inks Besides the choice of doing this or doing that, children also learn the choice of doing something or not doing something. Avoidance is also a choice and also a part of the "will".

How nice is to hear some novel approach and try to get your mind around it. Memories and mind phenomena do need "special treatment".

"We might have to change the metaphors." 😍

More like this Robert and you are getting closer to the truth

@jeffforsythe9514

10 ай бұрын

I know God and He is the Truth, the Creator of all things and human beings are His most precious creations.................Falun Dafa.

@faqtum

10 ай бұрын

@@jeffforsythe9514 I respect your coment, thank you. But maybe God is the most precious creation of the human beings.

@jeffforsythe9514

10 ай бұрын

@@faqtum No chance. I can say that because God gave me His Divine Blessing 18 years ago. You can now make up some story that maybe I imagined it but I assure you, I did not. You just need to try a remember where you lost your faith and go get it back, good luck.

Possibly, memory means recreating in our mind, not that it is physically stored. I see the huge gap between what we call physical and what we call awareness even if ultimately both may be one. The fact that we are aware is a miracle, is magic. It probably will never be deducable from analyzing the brain since the approach is wrong.

@longcastle4863

11 ай бұрын

One thing self awareness does is help animals differentiate themselves from everything else in their environments; and it also helps them identify what their needs and wants are -- so, if possible, they can go about trying to figure out how best to get those needs and wants met.

@RolandHuettmann

11 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Sure, but would machines not accomplish the same if sophisticated enough without being self-aware? Is it just survival, or is there something in nature that strives for much more?

@longcastle4863

11 ай бұрын

@@RolandHuettmann No, imo, I don't think machines would do as well as a system set up to constantly be assessing it's needs, wants, concerns and capabilities etc in an ever changing, surprising environment. I actually think it is this kind of free will decision making, in fact, that leads to the Selection for increasing intelligence in some lines of animals; including us, of course.

@elonever.2.071

11 ай бұрын

@@RolandHuettmann I think that machines will get undetectably close to mimicking awareness but will never achieve true awareness because human awareness comes from outside the physical body and uses that body to 'house' itself while on this temporary experience. I say that because I had several past life regressive hypnotic sessions and I remembered experiences during those lives even though the physical body experiencing them is long gone for hundreds and even thousands of years. I think the machine example will get as close as you ever want to get but never be true awareness. Like taking a large number and dividing it in half over and over again. You can get as close to zero as you want but you will never reach true zero. Unless there becomes technology that marries human mind and machine learning...then all bets are off.

@longcastle4863

11 ай бұрын

@@RolandHuettmann And for something a little more amazing, if you look at a lot of the research in different scientific fields, it almost seems like -- or at least a strong case can be made for -- that _what Nature "strives" for_ is _entropy._ Because what they're finding is that all systems seek to dissolve into an undifferentiated soup; but that when you have a constant energy source like the sun impinging on that system, then the most efficient way to dissipate all this energy is by forming structures like volcanos and tornados and living creatures etc that dissipate this matter and energy more quickly toward entropy than if they did not exist. And this is not a fringe theory; it has a lot of support in a lot of peer reviewed papers and journals.

Wondering about individuals that have challenges with retention. It honestly does feel more like an ability than a function of structure, similar to processing speed and other measures of IQ (as problematic as those tests can be for individuals with communication/language challenges). I think neuroplasticity is more about exercising muscles than about storage retrieval, in other words, and it makes sense given that individuals that are born with challenges in this area, that benefit from non-medical intervention and therapy both in terms of learning basic skills and in terms of PT and OT muscle coordination - often the case with developmental delays - need to exercise those brain muscles more in all, or most, areas than their neurotypical peers. And, therefore, I actually agree with Braude here, his approach in terms of practical medical and educational intervention for individuals with developmental delays just makes more sense. Good talk, thanks.

Here is my takeaway from this fascinating talk: the assumption that human memory (and maybe all other mental stuff like thoughts and feelings) is stored somewhere in the world (in a brain, e.g.) is just that: an assumption. A deep seated one. And, it can be false, like others. E.g., the earth is flat, stars don't move, etc. Mental phenomena in general may be like causality, space and time. They are in our experience (and in our scientific models of the physical world), but not necessarily a part of the physical world. Maybe, mind is fundamental.

Memory for me is triggered by a present day event that brings back the past , feelings are stored in our bodies from past events which in turn can bring up memories .

Thanks for sharing the knowledge this is a true Closer to the truth moment.

Memory is every where… no storage yet stored . Interestingly, we know how to retrieve it. When a particular area of brain is liaison /damaged, that part was responsible to retrieve the information required or related for certain tasks/area. Which we misinterpreted as memory was stored in it and any kind of damage on it has memory to wipe out.

Once again, Robert comes up with the most salient questions! The guest makes some good points but the question of memory is addressed and answered by philosopher Henri Bergson (in turn, the details are explained in the videos of Stephen E. Robbins) The key concept is the holographic model of the universe. On the question of Consciousness, yes, C. is fundamental, in an Absolute sense. (Cf. The Advaita Vedanta philosophy of Shankara - 788-820). Everything in the universe is Consciousness, or Sat-Chit-Ananda. You are That, I am That, all This is That Consciousness.

I agree with Braude that it is wrong to assume everything has a physical basis. However, I do agree with Kuhn that memory is stored somewhere -- otherwise we wouldn't be able to learn anything since knowledge requires accumulation of memories/facts. The ability to recall a memory implies it is stored somewhere.

Time is a 1-dimensional Hilbert curve or another way to put it, time is quasi-2D in that it has space-filling properties

The rat was never running the maze. It was interacting with its environment. When the rat was in the world (the maze) The world became its memory or certain queues became its memory chain, just like an athlete performs on the field.

I wish I could be alive ten thousand years from now and come back and revisit this conversion and compare it relative to what would then be modern-day understandings and philosophies of the mind. Will the needle have moved in any direction, will there be theories and ideas that today can't even be imagined?

@stevefrompolaca2403

11 ай бұрын

well they haven't so far

Dr. Braude has clearly imagined a coherent question landscape, with accounting for follow-up diversion and contingency questions. So then it's not surprising that his exploration of the answers is incredibly innovative and interesting. q For Dr. Kuhn, Braude's regard of the primary issues are all just "out of mainstream," just a radical upending of ideas that he can go no further with, even with a great intellectual scout leader at the ready. Same is true for Lex Fridman--a portfolio of obvious reckonings revealing his incapacity to think in good, nonobvious question landscapes. Both Kuhn and Fridman are television-style grandstanders.

Modern research on Near Death Experience by Raymond moody, reincarnation memories by Ian Stevenson/Jim trucker and past lives regression by Brian Weiss all independently but coincidentally show that our consciousness survive death, we live many lives and our thoughts and actions matter in the hereafter. So be kind and helpful to others, be virtuous, meditate and cultivate ourselves to higher spiritual levels. Cheers.

I watched most of the videos on this channel that cover the topic of consciousness. The sad thing is that all the self-claimed experts ultimately suggest we are not one bit closer to the understanding of consciousness and likely never will be. All the talking heads don't have the faintest clue of where to even begin the research. They just come up with fancy theories like this one, without the chance of ever getting them verified. I also read all the books by Dean Radin and while he seems to be conducting credible experiments in this field he doesn't offer any explanation either. I believe that we just need to accept the fact that consciousness is beyond our understanding and nothing will change this fact.

Stephen Braude makes a compelling argument against applying physicalist reductionism to the study of every phenomena. Got to start reading more of his work👍🏽

@caricue

11 ай бұрын

Reductionism is an excellent way for us limited humans to understand nature, but Kuhn and pretty much everyone else believes that rather than a mental construct, reductionism is an organizing principal of nature. As if he really could "reduce" a thing to its constituent parts. As soon as you break apart the whole, it stops existing and you are left with a pile of parts, you haven't reduced anything. It is only something that you can do in the abstract, besides, it's axiomatic that the whole has attributes that the parts do not.

@simonhibbs887

11 ай бұрын

Surely the existence of computer memories, that evidently work on mechanistic principles and solve the problems he cites as intractable for physical systems just fine, renders his argument kind of absurd.

@caricue

11 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 I thought he was being quite evasive and refusing to just say where the damn memories were. If a thing exists, it really needs a location. It's clear that no one knows how the brain works in detail, but it is a self-contained unit, so whatever comes out of it must have been in there somewhere.

@simonhibbs887

11 ай бұрын

@@caricue That seems obvious from a physicalist perspective, and to be clear I am a physicalist, but he isn’t so he’d dispute that claim. Which is fine, there are no free rides in philosophy, especially philosophy of mind. We just have to engage in the argument fair and square, which I think we can do just fine.

@xman933

11 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 This quote is attributed to Aristotle “It’s the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”. My comment said it’s a compelling argument, it did not say I accepted it. That being said, your response presupposes an equivalence can be drawn between a computer memory made from inanimate matter and a biological brain which is the reference framework for Stephen Braude’s argument. Personally I think, and this is where the computer memory analogy might have some merit, humans brains have evolved the structures necessary to store information on events that have occurred ie memories. So I have no problem with memories being stored in the brain however I’m not aware of any neurologist grounded in physical materialism who will state categorically that they know how the process works. On a personal level, I have experienced a traumatic emotional event in my life that left me diagnosed with major depressive disorder. I was told neurologically that leads to depletion of serotonin from neural synaptic connections in the brain (which is why SSRIs are normally prescribed) that resulted in selective memories being lost. There are shared events that my closest family members tell me about that I no longer have any memory of. That suggested to me memories are stored somewhere, somehow in the brain. Even though that is my personal experience, since the issue of what is consciousness is called the hard problem and decades of neuroscientific research has made no headway from a physicalist standpoint, I am will to entertain well reasoned, thought out and elucidated points of view that might be alternatives to consider since we fundamentally don’t know. We can only call a point of view absurd if and only if we have firm evidence to support our alternative. I’m not sure yours rises to that level. In the meantime, I willing to entertain compelling arguments like that made by Stephen Braude and read more of his work. That after all is the mark of an educated mind which is what I’ve worked in my 71+ revolutions around our Star to develop.

Our soul is where our memories are stored.

Many of my memories are stored in a cloud. I’ve no idea where. That the piano is not the music may be a good place to start. Do trees have memories?

@r2c3

11 ай бұрын

all simgle and multicellular organisms utilize dna as a memory pool, nothing unusual there for someone who wants to see it for what it is...

@gwilwilliams5831

11 ай бұрын

People can sit by a pond and watch the dragonflies. And they can learn much from them.

@r2c3

11 ай бұрын

@@gwilwilliams5831 it seems as nowadays there's been a shift from knowledge acquisition to harnessing (Genetically Modified Cyborg DragonflEye Takes Flight)

@longcastle4863

11 ай бұрын

@@gwilwilliams5831 I think trees probably have a kind of proto memory -- something on the very outskirts of beginning to move toward what we see most clearly as memory. Or else they have memories like trees have memories and it's a thing we may understand more and more over time. I actually hate Cloud, though; I wish I could get it off my phone ; D

Love this. Scientists too often assume materialism without ever proving it; in the end it’s just a circular argument.

@HyzersGR

11 ай бұрын

The alternative is much worse and provides no predictive ability like materialism has constantly provided. Not to mention dualism lacks any proof whatsoever.

@elonever.2.071

11 ай бұрын

It is a very limited circular argument. Unfortunately academia's rote learning process is to maintain the status quo and severely hinders critical thinking.

@Dion_Mustard

11 ай бұрын

@@HyzersGR i think we have to look to quantum physics to understand consciousness. personally for myself i have had out of body experiences which have confirmed what i always thought - that consciousness is a fundamental separate entity. certainly brain chemistry cannot explain consciousness.

@hckytwn3192

11 ай бұрын

@@HyzersGR Much worse than what, for what? That's like saying a hammer is much worse than a screwdriver. Science is great and it's useful, but it can't provide any truth on it's own--for itself let alone all of existence. The only thing science can do is say "this is scientific". And that's the heart of the circular argument: *using science to "prove" science and then claiming if it's not "scientific" it's not proof.* (And we haven't even touched on the fact that science itself says pure objective and detached scientific analysis is impossible (e.g. relativity, uncertainty principle, observer effect, measurement problem, entanglement, etc.)

I don't know about all of this but there is a sort of platonism required in computationalism

Ability to reproduce the same neural network firing of past experience by searching by short description in question answer feedback loop.

Perhaps an analogy of Computer Memory is applicable. The CPU being analogous to the human brain, the software when running being analogous to mental activity, a memory being stored in hardware or wetware as instructions for its recreation, and the actual recalled memory being the consequences of the instructions being "played." The location of the memory in the computer could be said to be "on the chips" but when no longer being played, only the instructions for creating the memory is "on the chips" or in storage drive or brain.

NAVOMITTO: A New Approach to the Hard Problem The "hard problem" of consciousness refers to the mystery of subjective experience: how something physical like the brain can give rise to interior, conscious qualities like the redness of red or the painfulness of pain. Philosophers have struggled for centuries to solve this puzzle. The NAVOMITTO framework offers a novel approach to solving the hard problem. At its core, NAVOMITTO sees reality as composed of illusory dimensions and perspectives that differentiate across clarions. It's this process of differentiation across clarions that gives rise to consciousness and qualia. Clarions are the key to the solution. Lower clarions contain relatively undifferentiated perspectives that likely correspond to primitive forms of awareness. As perspectives differentiate into more parallel perspectives across higher clarions, richer conscious experiences emerge. Consciousness "scales up" as clarions increase. Subclarions within each clarion also play an important role. Subclarionic dynamics contain the finely differentiated information processing that grounds our qualia. Though embedded within a given clarion of consciousness, subclarions may bridge the gap to neural processes. The vocabulary of NAVOMITTO - illusion, dimensions, perspectives, clarions, subclarions - provides new conceptual tools for understanding how consciousness arises. Traditionally, philosophers framed the problem in terms of physical substances - like neurons - that seemed fundamentally separate from subjective experience. But clarions reframe the debate in a more fertile way. While NAVOMITTO presents only a high-level solution at this point, it points to a promising new direction for tackling the hard problem. Consciousness may emerge as an inevitable byproduct of the differentiation and integration of perspectives across clarions and subclarions - a product of the illusory structure of reality itself. In this way, NAVOMITTO offers a potential answer to the hard problem: consciousness arises through the process of differentiation across clarions, grounded and textured by subclarionic dynamics, and made possible by the illusory nature of reality. With further development and refinement, NAVOMITTO's novel conceptual tools may finally help philosophers crack the mystery of consciousness. NAVOMITTO: A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Understanding Reality Nothingness and existence are two sides of the same coin Illusion 1-there is Illusion. Reality is made of Illusion. Illusion is the whole coin of nothingness-existence. Illusion is all aspects of reality from zero (nothingness) to infinity (existence at its most actualized form). Illusion is the paradox itself. Illusion can be seen in different clarion through the process of differentiation. Dimension (Universal) 2-there is Dimension. each Dimension describe a concept or property or quality or quantity or relations or changes or process or anything else‌. each Dimension is unique in its own way but it can be seen as an interaction of infinite other Dimensions. in other way each Dimension is entangled with Illusion and All Dimensions are emergent from Illusion. Dimension exists in different Clarions and different Perspective. Illusion can be seen as infinite Dimentions. Perspective (Particular) 3-There is perspective. The set of perspectives in different clarions makes the dimension. Any conscious or unconscious entity can only pass through successive perspectives in different clarions. It is not possible for an entity to pass to parallel perspectives. Each perspective contains unique information that describes the dimension in that clarion. Each perspective manifests its own unique qualia. Clarion 4-there is Clarion. Clarion determines how many Perspective exist in that particular Clarion (in a specific Dimension). Clarion can be any number from Zero to Maxima. Differentiation (enamation) 5-There is Differentiation. Differentiation is the process of enamation that involves separation of superimposed information (at previous lower clarion) into more clear information (at next higher clarion) that leads to increase in clarity, But losing of information's. Differentiation creates Reciprocal Hierarchy Structure of Dimentions. (For example: At a lower Clarion , you may have a Perspective that contains information about red and green (Particular red-green). There is no green or red in this lower Clarion Perspective but there is only red-green. Through the process of differentiation, the information in this Perspective (Perspective red-green) can be separated into 2 simpler, more clear Perspectives at next clarion (Perspective red + Perspective green). red Perspective is the parallel Perspective of green and red-green is the parent Perspective at lower Clarion. So if you move from red-green Perspective to red Perspective you will gain clarity but at the same time you lose information of green Perspective) Nothingness 6-there is Clarion 0. Clarion Zero contains no Perspective. Clarion 0 is nothingness. Clarion 0 contains all of illusion as potential. Nothingness is the result of superimposition of all Dimentions. All Dimensions are common in Clarion Zero. Clarion 0 is the only simple. Existence 7-there is Clarion 1. At Clarion one, there is one Perspective in Dimention. The information in Clarion 1 includes the superimposition of all Perspectives in Clarion 2. Clarion One contains all information found in Dimention, but in an undifferentiated form and looks simple because it is viewed from the perspective of Clarion One. Clarion One means Dimention in the most uncertain state. Inflectia 8-Between Clarion Zero and Clarion Maxima, there is an intermediate Clarion that has the largest amount of Parallel Perspectives. From clarion zero to inflectia, the number of Parallel Perspectives for each clarion increases, and from inflectia to clarion maxima, the number of Parallel Perspectives for each clarion decreases. Perspectives at Inflectia has the most complexity while Perspectives at Clarion 1 and Platonica has the minimum Complexity. Platonica 9-there is Clarion (Maxima-1). In Clarion (Maxima-1), Dimention needs another Differentiation to reach Clarion Maxima. Platonica means Dimention in the most certain state. each perspective at Platonica contains the last bit of information in that Dimention. In Platonica, with One differentiation, existence is destroyed and nothingness remains. Platonica is formed from the superimposition of Nothingness in clarion Maxima. Maxima (Infinity) 10-there is Clarion Maxima. In Clarion Maxima, there is no superimposition, and all causes have already occurred, with no change left to be made. In Clarion Maxima, there can be no further differentiation, and there is nothing left to differentiate. Therefore, paradoxically, Clarion Maxima, represent Clarion 0. Maxima can be any number from zero to infinity. Formulas: 11-The number of Parallel Perspectives in Clarion C is calculated through the binomial coefficient with the following formula: N=P!/(C!(P-C)!) In this formula: N=number of Parallel Perspectives in Clarion C P=Platonica Clarion 12-Despite the existence of multiple perspectives in the upper clarions, for a perspective in the lower clarion it is only possible to enter P-C+1 number of perspectives from the upper clarions (for 0

I have not studied Consciousness I have become Conscious. It evolved within me by my self examination.

I understand where he's headed - it is interesting 🤔

I had to listen to this twice but I understand what Braude is saying - that “memory traces” do not “exist”. Consider a car. The car is made up of many fundamental components, remove of many of which (pistons) prevent the car from “working”. However, the “function” of the car, moving, does not reside in any of those components, but in all of them working together and interacting. Likewise, a “memory” is not stored as an element anywhere in the brain, but is distributed among not only synaptic changes but depends explicitly on specific activation patterns dependent on may interconnections between e.g. thalamic nucleii, cortical pyramidal cells, inhibitory neurons, hippocampus, and so on. The information at any one locus in the brain has no resemblance to the original memory. It is not even like putting all the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together and then the picture emerges. “Memories” are dynamic entities that change with time and new associations and sleep and wake. However, the processes by which the information associated with memories are stored, such as changes in synaptic distribution and strength, and patterns of interaction between brain centers, can certainly be analyzed. It’s not that memories are stored somewhere other than the brain, but “locating” a memory in the brain would be like trying to create a real-time movie of the evolution of the earth based on present day information - it doesn’t make sense.

I don’t see how anything as abstract as a memory could be physically stored in the brain, then turned back into an abstract experience. But with that being said with the present moment being so short, the entire mental state operates 99.99% in memory- so memory probably doesn’t have to be stored anywhere because it’s constantly being exported for the sake of the present moment

@simonhibbs887

11 ай бұрын

The brain turns sensory data from the physical world into experiences, so I don’t see why sensory data stored in physical memory couldn’t do the same thing. We have physical Memories in computers and they’re known to be entirely deterministic, and all his arguments seem to apply just as well (or badly rather) to them.

@MrSanford65

11 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 But see the difference is that the physical memories in computers are deterministic in that they have a container and deterministic -set-end which would be the hard drive , representing an objective limit . But human memory doesn’t have an objective deterministic end as one would think that would be if it were like a computer. It is plastique and neurological wise- neuro-plasticity had already been proven to show that abstract memories change the physical configuration of the brain. So if you had a bowl full of Jell-O, and the Jell-O inside started changing the shape of the bowl, you really wouldn’t know what is containing what

@simonhibbs887

11 ай бұрын

@@MrSanford65 His argument isn’t to do with open ended memory limits as such, he’s saying that even trivial memories such as how to navigate a maze or remember the people at a party are in principle impossible to do mechanistically. Those are his actual examples. Yet we have robots with neural network brains that, starting from an uninitialised state, can learn to navigate mazes. They remember how just fine. Recording the people at a party is a trivial exercise in facial recognition these days. As for human memory limits, GPT-4 has 1% of the neural connections in the human brain, but knows a thousand times as many facts as any human alive. I think they’re lowballing human neural capacity as there’s more to it than connections, which actually makes GPT-4s capabilities even more startling. There’s no doubt GPT-4 encodes more info than any human could by an absurdly huge margin.

In the 1976 book Seth Speaks channelled by Jane Roberts he says consciousness is a vehicle of awareness not the origin and that consciousness is an electromagnetic energy most of which never takes form. He said there are four absolute coordinate portals intersecting all dimensions and vast numbers of infinitely small subordinate coordinate portals. Perhaps think of awareness as the light that holographically assembles conscious wave/particle vehicles via portals akin to planck memory matrixes on the surface of blackholes

The only true understanding of consciousness is only possible by being it! mystical experience is the ultimate understanding of consciousness!

@johnbani1937

10 ай бұрын

You may like the link above.

Aargh he interrupted Braude at 11:28 and we will never know what he wanted to say there

Welp I’ll need to watch that 6 more times for understanding.

Although a graduate of Philosophy, when Philosophers, in the arm chair, start dismissing science based on the infinite regress, you've got to be skeptical. His ideas are interesting, the problem is the application of Philosophy.

"we have to get over our physics envy, basically." The nullification of mechanical analysis. Whoa

Consciousness is tool to experience that which is, through constantly experiencing that which is not.

Radical to say the least. Radical and provoking but very interesting, someone wrote: mind boggling, and I agree.

That which provides the life force that animates all living things.

ja i think what he is describing here would be an invisible "cloud" of ideas surrounding us somewhere outside in the ether, a realm of ideas/possibilities/information and there it is stored ever since and forever like in Blade-Runner: to remember memories - which our brain is somehow capable of communicating with and that idea goes straight back to the old Greeks...

@elonever.2.071

11 ай бұрын

I have known people who say they can see auras around people and they are different colors indicating their current mental state. So maybe there is some truth to that.

@jeffforsythe9514

10 ай бұрын

Each human has two identical souls, one is the immortal primordial soul, you, and the other is the secondary soul. The secondary soul's role is to keep you on a righteous path, if it can.................Falun Gong

So, I ask you, what is(may be) happening to the body, or specific organ if any, when I "remember" a previously experienced phenomenon; either spontaneously or for a trigger/"reminder"?

@lerienbt

11 ай бұрын

Maybe you are listening to a set of particular notes in the ongoing music of your consciousness.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

11 ай бұрын

A memory is a thought that is recognized when one becomes conscious of it. Deja-vu is the erroneous triggering of recognition during new experience.

@isaiassolomon8465

11 ай бұрын

In the quest of consciousness, why and how do I become conscious, then what is happening to the body/organ of brain or any other part or stake of consciousness?

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

10 ай бұрын

@@isaiassolomon8465 One is a self. A self is a thought. The self thought is unique in being the only thought that is about its self. (All other thoughts are about something else). The self thought is to what the word 'self' is referring (for obvious reason). Being conscious is when the self thought is modulated by other thoughts and the process running the self thought is in the conscious mode. (It took more than nine months after your conception for your self thought and being conscious to gradually come into existence (and the process entailed a huge amount of feedback involving your sense organs and your muscles and the nerves in between them)).

@isaiassolomon8465

10 ай бұрын

as to me, "a person" self, I wonder what and where is memory? I surprise myself when I remember past events, as young as 2 to three years toddler! When I go contemplating what I can/may remember, I have the chance to explore my inwardly content to bring out some. Equally surprised when some trigger ignites me to pop out memos of past experiences (I wonder how my past things(with remarkable particularity) correlate with such triggers). More am I surprised when I spontaneously remember and am taken aback to such remote and primitive stage. Maybe memory is in all kinds of my body cells( and what is in it is chemical build ups, primarily expressed genes)? Maybe my genetic content a good memory establishment for my passed generation, and my own past years? Maybe "memory" is not the function of the small brain organ. Maybe the hearts and livers and kidneys have their roles (solely or otherwise)? A donkey remembers where it, once upon a time, had fed itself husk. A tree remembers good times, and it's seasons. SO MEMORY IS NOT RELATED TO BRAIN. Edit: mid forties, now. And I Don't think I am forgetting any of those earlier experiences, but luckily and happily I am remembering all more and more. To me, the trigger effects on memory seem to signify the contagiousness and extensiveness of the being/self(to influence and be influenced so as to moderate to a higher/wider being ). genes expressed are proteins, adaptive and build upto experiences.

Wow, excellent. Stephen Braude overturns the applecart of scientific thought and assumptions. Maybe a whole new approach is needed to understand our world and what's in it. Thanks RLK !

@mitrabuddhi

10 ай бұрын

Panqualia vs Qualia: Qualia refer to the subjective experiences of consciousness, such as the redness of red or the pain of pain. They pose the hard problem of consciousness: how do physical processes in the brain generate subjective experience? Information theory suggests consciousness arises from complex patterns of information processing in the brain. However, this does not fully explain the emergence of qualia. Panqualia proposes that qualia are intrinsic properties of all information, not just that in complex systems like brains. According to this view, all information patterns have some inherent phenomenal character. However, only some information systems, like biological brains, have the necessary complexity, connectivity, and organization to express or manifest the qualia they possess. Atoms, molecules and simpler systems have information but lack the means to communicate any qualitative experiences they have. For intrinsic qualia to be expressed, information likely needs to be structured and organized into detectable informational configurations that a mind can grasp as conscious experiences. Brains appear able to “reduce the qualia resolution” of immense amounts of information at the atomic and molecular level. They filter, integrate and organize this information into perceptual representations and higher-level concepts that form the contents of consciousness. This suggests qualia exist on a continuum. Systems with organized, detectable information have “accessible” qualia that can be expressed. Those with disorganized, microscopic information have “inaccessible” qualia that cannot be communicated. neural networks in the brain generate highly complex, interactive, dynamic patterns of activity that likely far exceed the complexity of atomic-level processes.But A single conscious thought involves a low-resolution sampling of the brain’s immense representational capabilities, filtering most of the complex information being processed. Meanwhile, the underlying molecular and atomic dynamics maintain an “information resolution” that far exceeds any single conscious experience due to the enormous number of possible states and configurations, even within single neurons producing a thought. So For qualia to be expressed at all, the high-resolution qualia inherent in atomic and molecular information needs to be reduced through organizational processes forming coherent representations a mind can grasp. The vast qualia resolution at the quantum scale cannot be directly expressed in consciousness; the information must first be organized and structured neurally. The resultant reduction in qualia resolution allows the organized information to form the content of a representational abstraction like a thought that a mind can potentially apprehend as a conscious experience. Biological brains appear optimized to reduce qualia resolution to an intermediate level that generates coherent representations complex enough for consciousness to arise. drmora.ir/2023/06/30/panqualia-vs-qualia/

@jeffforsythe9514

10 ай бұрын

Society has cast out the Divine. Consciousness is the soul. You..........Falun Gong

You don't need to invent extra stuff unless it's absolutely necessary. And if you do, you need to at least have some idea about how it interacts with anything else. What is so hard about accepting the obvious fact that the human brain and central nervous system are just very complex? I like this guy! He's saying that we could be remembering as a function of operating. Like our memories could be sustained in the sequences of information that are always running instead of having been burned into a group of neurons or something. I've wondered a lot about the type of processing that goes on in the brain. It might have some trick to condense huge amounts of data and or, parallel streams of calculations that we've never thought of. Nobody thinks that it's binary or anything like that. The input and processing seem to be mixed across the whole system. Like the organic switching and biochemical voltage transmissions are able to produce independent results from a completely combined system. Wouldn't it be weird if you have a bunch of circuts that are all purpose. Then you could use them to receive from the senses and send instructions to whatever junctions and immediately process calculations using the same ones. Just think about how many configurations you could quickly arrange and re arrange. A single sort of central neuron, that joins up idk, a pretty big number of axons and it could potentially make thousands of different patterns of circuitry. Then you think about the other zillion neurons.....woah. I wonder what kinds of ideas the neurologists contemplate? They are familiar with some number of things and they could probably imagine ramping up those ideas to guess at an overall structure. I forget the latest estimations on how many neurons, receptors, etc...are present. It's a lot! No wonder the damn thing is conscious! It's at a level of complexity that you shouldn't be able to figure out for a long time. No reason to assume there's some kind of mystical element to the conscious human. What psychological desire does that idea satisfy? I don't even see the justification for an extra term like "consciousness" when we obviously need to be aware of the environment and our internal chemistry. The brain wouldn't be much use if it wasn't able to monitor itself doing what it does and responding to the environment. Why call it "consciousness"? It's like a cat is conscious and we are just more complicated. Either you're functioning or you're not. If you're functioning adequately, you don't also suddenly "consciousness" to simply experience reality. It's already there, in the normaly functioning system.

I find the host unbearable in his dogmatic "skepticism", but this was a great discussion. Braude is a brilliant mind

When we remember a reality that history of our reality is actually created. When we use our logic to infer a truth, the inference is manifested in reality, this is what particle physics itself is even telling us that nothing is determined in this simulated reality until a conscious agent observes it with some sensory mechanism. The particles of reality are only established upon the presence of sensory information becoming conscious in an agent .

Two issues here. Firstly according to this guy computer memories would also be impossible to engineer or explain physically for the same reasons. We have robots that start with completely uninitialised neural networks and learn to navigate mazes from scratch. Alpha Zero learned to play Go from scratch. These memories are entirely analysable and reducible to physical processes. Therefore there is no reason to suppose memories in animal or human brains aren’t either. Secondly he denies memory needs to be a mechanism, but memories have causal effects. The only known causal processes are physical processes. That is mechanistic processes. Since memories have physical effects they must be physical phenomena.

Robert almost crashed with this one😅 But it was one of the most interesting chapters in this channel, Let's go back to that case of the man with hydrocephaly, only 10% of brain working around, he had an almost normal life,,, where does that brain store all the memories? Where does it process all that data? I think Robert suspects what most of us here ,,, suspect... That the brain it's an interface, it just allows fundamental consciousness to move and operate this bodies and get information back and forth... That's where the evidence leads, shy, but it does, more and more

If Giulio Tononis IIT is right and qualia are equal to specific states of expander graphs - these expander graphs are of course 3-dimensional networks. I wonder what qualia would correspond to 10-dimensional expander graphs.😊

Suggestion: speak with Rupert Sheldrake. Best regards & greetings!

Braude's reliance on strawman arguments, such as "a photo isn't proof that its subject attended the party" and "music isn't stored in a piano" and "neuronal structures don't physically resemble the objects being remembered," makes him very unpersuasive.

@shahrazade26

11 ай бұрын

I actually like those metaphors.

@brothermine2292

11 ай бұрын

@@shahrazade26 : Why do you like them?

@shahrazade26

11 ай бұрын

@@brothermine2292 Because it helps me understand his point better. We are all missing something about how memory works, and none of us knows what it is.

@brothermine2292

11 ай бұрын

@@shahrazade26 : Do they help you to understand his arguments are only against strawmen, and thus his points are invalid? For instance, although the photo doesn't prove its subject attended the party, proof isn't required and thus Braude's "infinite regress" is unnecessary, because memory too isn't proof of what actually happened. In fact, it's well known that memory is unreliable.

@kallianpublico7517

11 ай бұрын

Which piano is music stored in? Which picture of you are YOU stored in? Get it. His "memory of you" is stored in a file in his brain under "party" or in the file under "drunk at a party"?

Could memory be in consciousness, being conscious of memories, which are in consciousness, collective memory and individual memory. The physical brain is the mechanism through which these are recalled and expressed. A computer has information memory. Sentient beings have experience memory as well as information memory;

Imagination - Process of Pure Creation The process of creation starts with thought - an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone's idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought. This is true of the universe as well. Thought is the first level of creation. Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact. Words are the second level of creation. Next comes action. Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of ALL, the stuff of everything. The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating - or God experienced. Hang on. There's one thing more I have to tell you. You are always seeing what by your terms you would define as the "past," even when you are looking at what is right in front of you. I am? It is impossible to see The Present. The Present "happens," then turns into a burst of light, formed by energy dispersing, and that light reaches your receptors, your eyes, and it takes time for it to do that. All the while the light is reaching you, life is going on, moving forward. The next event is happening while the light from the last event is reaching you. The energy burst reaches your eyes, your receptors send that signal to your brain, which interprets the data and tells you what you are seeing. Yet that is not what is now in front of you at all. It is what you think you are seeing. That is, you are thinking about what you have seen, telling yourself what it is, and deciding what you are going to call it, while what is happening "now" is preceding your process, and awaiting it. To put this simply, I am always one step ahead of you. My God, this is unbelievable. Now listen. The more distance you place between your Self and the physical location of any event, the further into the "past" that event recedes. Place yourself a few light-years back, and what you are looking at happened very, very long ago, indeed. Yet it did not happen "long ago." It is merely physical distance which has created the illusion of "time," and allowed you to experience your Self as being both "here, now" all the while you are being "there, then"! One day you will see that what you call time and space are the same thing. Then you will see that everything is happening right here, right now. This is....this is....wild. I mean, I don't know what to make of all this. When you understand what I have told you, you will understand that nothing you see is real. You are seeing the image of what was once an event, yet even that image, that energy burst, is something you are interpreting. Your personal interpretation of that image is called your image-ination. And you can use your imagination to create anything. Because - and here is the greatest secret of all - your image-ination works both ways. Please? You not only interpret energy, you create it. Imagination is a function of your mind, which is one-third of your three-part being. In your mind you image something, and it begins to take physical form. The longer you image it (and the more OF you who image it), the more physical that form becomes, until the increasing energy you have given it literally bursts into light, flashing an image of itself into what you call your reality. You then "see" the image, and once again decide what it is. Thus, the cycle continues. This is what I have called The Process. This is what YOU ARE. You ARE this Process. This is what I have meant when I have said, you are both the Creator and the Created. I have now brought it all together for you. We are concluding this dialogue, and I have explained to you the mechanics of the universe, the secret of all life. Okay. Now as energy coalesced, it becomes, as I said, very concentrated. But the further one moves from the point of this concentration, the more dissipated the energy becomes. The "air becomes thinner." The aura fades. The energy never completely disappears, because it cannot. It is the stuff of which everything is made. It's All There Is. Yet it can become very, very thin, very subtle - almost "not there." Then, in another place (read that, another part of Itself) it can again coalesce, once more "clumping together" to form what you call matter, and what "looks like" a discreet unit. Now the two units appear separate from each other, and in truth there is no separation at all. This is, in very, very simple and elementary terms, the explanation behind the whole physical universe. Wow. But can it be true? How do I know I haven't just made this all up? Your scientists are already discovering that the building blocks of all of life are the same. They brought back rocks from the moon and found the same stuff they find in trees. They take apart a tree and find the same stuff they find in you. I tell you this: We are all the same stuff. (I and the Father are One Energy) We are the same energy, coalesced, compressed in different ways to create different forms and different matter. Nothing "matters" in and of itself. That is, nothing can become matter all by itself. Jesus said, "Without the Father, I am nothing." The Father of all is pure thought. This is the energy of life. This is what you have chosen to call Absolute Love. This is the God and the Goddess, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. It is the All-in-All, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Source. It is that which you have sought to understand from the beginning of time. The Great Mystery, the Endless Enigma, the Eternal Truth. There is only One of Us, and so, it is THAT WHICH YOU ARE.

Consciousness is God..... Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnidimensional, Infinite Consciousness!!! Consciousness is Spirit Unfolding As All Things!! Therefore, I Am!!!

To use a trendy example, one can probe the reasoning, with another case (by analogy), by asking the following question. Where is the "memory" stored in a Large Language Model (LLM)? How does it know how to spit out large chunks of text, on various subjects? Where is this information stored? Obviously, as a whole, one can say in the RAM (or hard disk). Same with the brain. But the question of "where is memory stored" is really a question of localization. Maybe this is the wrong question to ask, if one is dealing with "connectomes".

This is fascinating, it IS, but at 7:00 all I could think of was "That poor little lab rat!"

So it's like your brain forms memories and stores them in the "Cloud" till needed?

All of our memories are in the cloud.

"Which came first?" Easy, numbers came first, specifically the number one, that is unity. It is absolutely necessary that for anything to be, there has to be some kind of totality without which it cannot be. That totality is a unity, a number one. That is what comes first. How? by emergence from the seemingly paradoxical fact that a void, a nothingness, is factually entire, even though null.

Is digital computer memory of speech or image isomorphic?

Interesting discussion. My opinion. Memory absolutely needs storage. The same with consciousness. It needs a host. To suggest otherwise is dangerously close to fully committing to meta physics. How could disembodied memories and consciousness be floating around? I realize there is more to the story. But it seems to give strength to the argument that the brain is really the host. When brain damage occurs, memories can be lost. There is also something very powerful about memories. They are unique to each mind. To each host. Not only that, the memories define our behavior and personality. You could make the argument that our brain is a Memory machine. And when we experience pleasure, beauty and love we can use these memories to feel fulfilled. One more example. Think of a concert violinist. They can memorize huge passages of Bach. This is an extraordinary task. Average people cannot store this kind of information let alone play the pieces!! The Memory of the violinist is part of their skill. The Memory is stored in their brain and the muscle memories to perform the music. The violinist is literally a host of Bach. Giving life to a long dead human. But the art lives through memories and documents.

He seems to be saying that since neurology/brain science generally is primitive and we can't currently explain exactly how the brain works, then consciousness therefore must be magic. Not buying it.

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

When you recall a memory the brain takes it out and it may overwrite that memory slightly differently. That is why if you recall a memory many times it might end up quite distorted or even completely wrong. So I think the brain is certainly involved in the memory process but it is not necessarily where the entire memory is ultimately stored. Perhaps the brain does work like a kind of receiver from the non local memory.

quite interesting to play around with the concept that memory is not "stored" anywhere, just like the constants of the universe such as the speed of light, are not stored anywhere, yet they remain constant. It's just a brute fact. Deal with that... it's about understanding things beyond our normal mental processes and our common sense of a necessary origin and a necessary destination. By the way, how can we prove, even only to ourselves, that the memory is stored at all? False memories are a well-known fact. There's a lot to be investigated in that.

That's all sorted then!

I think the question about the "place" where memories are stored is legit. There can be two answers: 1. in the substance of the brain; 2 beyond living organism. If the second answer is proper, than where beyond? And again there are two answers: a) in the "physical world" b) beyond it. We have almost no means to research anything beyond physical world, so here we can't guess or check it out. We just don't know. Maybe concepts of Rupert Sheldrake would be of some help?

Robert is rarely so flabbergasted 😅

Why claim consciousness as fundamental when we only see it emerge with biological life; and even biological life, we know, is _not_ fundamental. So how could what emerges with it or from on it be fundamental?

@taragnor

11 ай бұрын

In many ways consciousness is the first and only truth. For instance, your senses could just be tricks, a simulation created by some computer that don't reflect any actual material world, only the illusion of such. It's unlikely that's the case, but you still can never be 100% sure. The only thing you can be certain of is that you are conscious. "I think, therefore I am." As far as it being emergent of biology, yes, this could be true. But it could also be separate, we really don't know. If you saw what a smart phone could do without knowing how it works, your first thought might be that the smart phone itself contains the entire internet inside it as opposed to accessing it. Is consciousness an emergent property of life or is life merely a physical mechanism to interact with the phenomenon of consciousness? Honestly we don't know.

@Dion_Mustard

11 ай бұрын

there is no evidence consciousness is an emergent property. none what so ever.

@NavidonYoutube

11 ай бұрын

is there any evidance that consciousness exists without body? can a body connect to another consciousness? if we don't understand something doesn't mean it is metaphysics. it just needs time to underestand how mind works.

@longcastle4863

11 ай бұрын

@Mustard Exactly. There is no evidence at all of consciousness existing anywhere, but in biologically living systems.

@longcastle4863

11 ай бұрын

@Dion If you don't like the word emerges, how about: the only consciousness scientists and philosophers have ever identified are found in or are products of living biological systems.

You see the thing is we can't experience the physical without the mental.

The reason for our becoming self-conscious, or self-aware, creatures will become apparent later on, when we begin exploring the nature of being human in greater detail. But this human self-consciousness is something quite different in nature to the reality of the Consciousness that lies behind and within everything to appear as the myriad forms in existence. Consciousness inhabits and animates creation and its creatures not unlike the power that flows through a computer to make it work in accordance with the hardware and software of the device. By this analogy, the specific physical characteristics of a creature’s body constitute the hardware, and the programming of its mind the software. These things are important to understand because if this conceptual ground is not firm, the model we build from here will not endure, and its potential value will be lost. What all this is pointing to is that what you really are―what we all are―is an eternal, unlimited energy source capable of creating and experiencing events. What you are is this creative source, this Consciousness. Who you are is how this Consciousness works through you to express as something unique in the world. Powerful creative Consciousness is your true and essential nature, but of course, you experience your life through the limitations of a human body, so it may not seem that you are an all-powerful being at times, or indeed ever. By its very nature, the body exists as some ‘thing’ and is, therefore, a limitation or restriction of ‘everything else possible’, to become something specific and useful―a human being. And then it must be remembered that these bodies we inhabit are a product of Mother Earth, and have developed for good reasons. Although today there are many philosophes, theories and just sheer guesses put forward to explain the purpose of our existence, none of them fully describe or satisfactorily explain the original intention for our emergence. Some bodies born into this world have, or will develop over time, physical or mental attributes that further alter the creative opportunities and experiences available to them in a lifetime. The influence of our national culture, the general culture of our times, and the impact of our upbringing by parents and other significant people also become major influences that can place limitations on our thinking and power. Other restrictions occur as a result of the pains we might experience in life, the emotions that often get buried in the body as a result, and the accumulating limited beliefs they then give rise to. There is also the concept of ‘karmic debt’ that will limit opportunities, and this too will be discussed later in the work. The state of your own evolved Consciousness is another factor affecting personal power. All these things limit the opportunities you have in life, and so it can be seen that although your true nature is something quite grand, you find yourself in very limiting circumstances. But it is important to keep perspective. Your essential nature is a free and unlimited Consciousness, a potential capable of eternal creation and experience. And this Consciousness was the reality before the Universe that we know emerged.

Extrapolating the same argument, I am wondering, when all molecules atoms are removed from my body, what would remain as 'me'.

I would like to hear what Stephen Braude says about Alzheimer's Disease, which clearly removes 'the ability to remember'. Alzheimer's causes observable changes to the brain. I imagine he would equate that to ripping out the strings in a piano. I agree that the music is not 'in' the piano - it is in the brain of the pianist. I find it hard to accept that memory and consciousness do not reside in the brain, but it was a fascinating discussion.

@jamesarnette1394

10 ай бұрын

Yes they reside in the brain but they are not part of the brain. That is the key difference in understanding all of this material.

@rizdekd3912

10 ай бұрын

@@jamesarnette1394 But it seemed Stephen was reluctant to say that...when asked where the memory was he said it was the wrong question. If it is indeed IN the brain, but not part of the brain does that mean it's like water in a bucket...ie the water is IN the bucket, but not part of the bucket? If so....then the collective area that is the brain is where the memory is where it is just like the collective area of the bucket is where the water is.

Well this is what my academic learning suggests to me: Let's start with music as an interaction between sound waves and a listening human. What the interaction is is a human recognizing patterns of repetition within the soundwaves and differences between pairs of similar repetitions. None of this is possible without a memory; however, if you can figure out what the initial experience of listening to a musical phrase is like (i.e., how that's implemented in the brain), memory is a snap. It's simply knowing, or having a mechanism, that tells you you have experienced before something that you are experiencing now. To logically do that, you need a representation of what you experienced before to compare to a representation (you build) of what you are experiencing now. The representation of what you experience now is thought to be like a "tuning fork" that excites the representation of what you experienced then (that is, it excites the most similar "then" to it). Ok, where's the infinite regress? And how did tennis balls enter the discussion? Further, many similar "experienced thens" become prototypical and homogenized with some level of abstraction over time (e.g., think of how fast you learn to read a new exotic font). There is also a sense in which physiological information about a stimulus (e.g. the frequency of a soundwave) is, if not isomorphic then highly correlated to the stimulus that causes the experience. For instance, your tympani/cochlear nerve in your inner ear really is sending pulses to the brain determined by soundwave frequency. But when signals get to the brain some meaning for the signals has to be "hallucinated" (aka the hard problem of consciousness) for what the sound actually sounds like; it's necessary to do this for you to distinguish the sound you are hearing now from all other sounds you may know how to hear. Do brain physiologists know everything about how to do this? No. Nevertheless they have a solid logical grounding (and empirical search heuristics/methods) for what must be going on for there to be experience and memory, and I would bet on them (and computer scientists) to get any results (aka, useful applications). BTW Platonic essentialism really does exist, but the platonic ideal is just carried by the idea that we have a nervous system capable of responding similarly to similar things happening in the world. The world is really out there (as Plato surmised) and our nervous-system simply idealizes (or ideates it).

@zbyszeks3657

10 ай бұрын

There're two kinds of "data": 1. raw data (ex. electric impulses reaching the brain carrying information which cells in the eye were "activated". 2. "representations" (ex. the tree). The question is how do we know, that "it is a tree"? It's connected to deeper question: what does it mean "to know" that this color is brown? Would it be the same if we've been just given all the possible data about light waves coming from the source of "brown"? Or... would it be different? The answer is: it would be different for us. Because brown is brown. We know it, we somehow feel it. What we don't know is how do we know and feel this "browness"? So we're "equipped" in knowledge and experience about brown, a tree, music. It is not "raw data" although we can perceive it in that way. It's brown! So the world of possible representations is given to us or shared with us. It doesn't come from our inside, our inside can "tune" to it eventually.

@heresa_notion_6831

10 ай бұрын

@@zbyszeks3657 I'm not going to win any arguments about this. My argument is more along the lines of this guy is not really arguing anything, convincing enough to overturn any conceptualizations of consciousness I may have, including physicalist ones. As to what the "physicalist" argument actually is, it's not just that the brain "does it"; it's that the brain does it, if and when it has a specific architecture for doing the things it does. For instance, the "folk" theory of consciousness doesn't get enough love in these discussions. An entity has consciousness if it has a cognitive architecture such that 1) it has a model of the world (easy problem), and 2) something which can extract "meaningful" information about the world model vis a vis the organism's goals (hard problem). As humans, the two-tier architecture fits, and is also a kind of dualism, though completely within brain. So brown is not identical to brain matter "doing brown" in the world model (i.e., enacting a physiological correlation to the wavelength of photons); it's actually other brain matter interpreting what the world model is doing (i.e., "doing brown"), relative to other possible interpretations (e.g., red, blue, green), it has learned to have. It's the interpretation of the brain-correlation that makes brown look like something distinct from other colors. We don't "see" colors we see (an interpreted) meaning of what our brains are doing, in modeling the world. It could be an act of free will that causes brown to look brown, or it could be a logical fact (like 2+3=5), given you can distinguish brown within a specific set of colors that you can see, idk. You also seem to be alluding to the "Mary leaves the room and sees #RED for the first time" thought experiment, despite knowing all the science behind redness. However, if you could create telephoto/color-receptive goggles for her to wear, which projected back to her brain world-model, thus repairing the color-correlations for her world model to the real world, perhaps the other meaning-extraction part of the brain, might learn to see #RED, as normal color-vision humans do. It's EXTREMELY dicey, because we know you can raise cats in specialized visual environments (e.g. no vertical lines), and when you put them back into the general visual environment as adults, they are selectively blind (e.g., do not see vertical lines). So what Mary doesn't know is conceivably a type of training (of the actual brain neurons) that was deprived from her from birth (given her cones are NOT deficient, which is the usually case with color blindness). That kind of knowledge of #RED may only be learnable by retraining the brain, but this is just a thought experiment, so you can inject her brain with neuro-plasticity juice, and by hypothesis she will eventually see #RED. I guess my rebuttal of the Mary argument is simply, you can know everything about the physics of riding a bike, and still not know how to ride a bike. Finally quoting you: 'It doesn't come from our inside, our inside can "tune" to it eventually.' I agree with what you say here 100%, it's just that I don't think that's an argument for physicalism being false.

@zbigniewsciubak4031

10 ай бұрын

@@heresa_notion_6831 : Actually the very idea and experience of color that we have and share seems not be representation of the "wavelength of photons" that reaches us. Why? Because there's no wavelength reflecting color "brown". You may carefully see all the frequencies, all possible wavelengths of photons and - as it goes with pink - there will be no wave length or frequency of light that is "of that color". These "colors" are entirely and only concepts of our consciousness/mind. They do not exist in the physical world. We unknowingly create color brown, pink etc. while these colors do not have adequate light length like green, red or blue have. As to the Mary sees #RED I don't fully comprehend your comment. Maybe I should read a little about it

@heresa_notion_6831

10 ай бұрын

@@zbigniewsciubak4031 Fair enough. My physical models for what "brown is" may be way off, but there are still physical models for what brown is. For instance, of the 16 million or so colors we know how to make the computer led screen produce (the same way a painter creates color), a lot of them are brown. I agree that we don't actually see light; what I'm saying is that we see (well hallucinate?) the correlation a part of our brain has to the light. I have to think of it as two tiers, because I could dream brown, which reflects the world model not being used exactly as it is while awake. The Mary example is quite famous, I think Jeffrey Kaplan (youtube philosophy lecturer) has a youtube video about it. It might blow my counter to it away or not (I haven't seen it yet). (I finally did watch it; I don't think it refutes my "bike" criticism. )

@ryanashfyre464

10 ай бұрын

@@heresa_notion_6831 "For instance, the "folk" theory of consciousness doesn't get enough love in these discussions. An entity has consciousness if it has a cognitive architecture such that 1) it has a model of the world (easy problem), and 2) something which can extract "meaningful" information about the world model vis a vis the organism's goals (hard problem). As humans, the two-tier architecture fits, and is also a kind of dualism, though completely within brain." The so-called problem here (which I don't think is even a problem at all so much as just a fundamental misunderstanding) is that it presupposes that unconscious materials in the brain, if just woven together in some tapestry of unbelievable complexity, could ever give rise to the feeling of experience or finding meaning in one's actions. When one speaks of things like "extracting "meaningful" information about the world model vis a vis the organisms's goals," this isn't actually saying anything substantive. Is there any actual thoery behind this to describe how neurochemical signals in the brain could, even in principle, give rise to one's sense of meaning or the feeling of falling in love? No. It's a well orcestrated statement bereft of any actual science behind it. "So brown is not identical to brain matter "doing brown" in the world model (i.e., enacting a physiological correlation to the wavelength of photons); it's actually other brain matter interpreting what the world model is doing (i.e., "doing brown"), relative to other possible interpretations (e.g., red, blue, green), it has learned to have. It's the interpretation of the brain-correlation that makes brown look like something distinct from other colors. We don't "see" colors we see (an interpreted) meaning of what our brains are doing, in modeling the world. It could be an act of free will that causes brown to look brown, or it could be a logical fact (like 2+3=5), given you can distinguish brown within a specific set of colors that you can see, idk." According to materialism itself though, this is completely illogical. By its own idea of the world, there is nothing about reality that cannot be reduced to mere numbers and abstractions. Everything about the world that ventures into the realm of experience and qualia (ie seeing the color brown, red, green, etc.) is, according to the materialist, entirely inside your skull for reasons that no scientist can properly explain. Saying that "it's actually other brain matter interpeting what the world model is doing" makes no sense. Why would unconscious matter in the brain interept a world made up entirely of numbers and abstractions as sensory experience when that's the polar opposite of what, according the materialist, is all that reality itself is made of? This isn't just some minor inconvenience - it's a logical inconsistency that makes the Grand Canyon look like a crack in the ground. Where is the justification for this kind of leap to say that unconscious materials contort themselves to produce their polar opposite?

You can't explan consciousness. This is because consciousness is constantly changing, the information in the brain for consciousness is distributed. Even if computing capacity were to exist, how do researchers obtain the information? It is evolutionary and differs depending on age, and geographical location. If we disregard these problematic obstacles and assume that research is ongoing, what would the engine of consciousness look like in explanatory models, i.e. the consciousness that guides the interpretation of the outside world and translates it into thoughts and spoken language.

Kinda like deja Vu. Memories encode with surrounding also.

It cant be forced. It is born and inbuilt to be powered your will, not by other people's will. Your endurance on the other hand is solely dependant on how much you are willing to be patient and kind for. Your individual collective, calm and confidence in handling your being should and must be absolute like water and the sun. Storage is absolutely important but not in the way scientist explain it. It starts from where you once started, as a newborn, the place that always exist for you to stand, run walk and lay on, the grass or root of your change.

@jeffforsythe9514

10 ай бұрын

Society has cast out the Divine. Consciousness is the soul. You..........Falun Gong

Wow, amazing points. Wonder if there could be some kind of a permutational structure that encodes happenings as memory into the quantum field combinatorically in higher dimensions by changing (shifting) some kind of properties of the distinct particles (or strings) that we can access subconsciously by comparing some vibes to each other to get a relativistic memory. Which would still be a memory but with high capacity (combinations exploding exponentially) and also maybe a collective one.

@richardmyles1301

10 ай бұрын

I totally concur with you. However, based on the writings of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hege (1775) , the human conscientious can be a perception of a situation or fact or a delusion.