I applaud anyone who discusses this topic with a sincere desire to understand how and why.

@punkypinko2965

24 күн бұрын

While sincere, I wouldn't call it serious. Yeah, you know, you just use a different substrate ... yeah ... lol ok. Sorry this just cracks me up, like when people talk about aliens and talk about Dyson Spheres and type 1,2,3 civilizations ... as if all that science fiction they just mentioned could really be used to talk about aliens that we've never seen? It's just funny to me. And entertaining!

Oga Sir, Robert, it is you that need the workout and believe to do your part on a daily basis. We all live in consciousness. You have to actively seek it just like you ask a question requesting an answer from another.

Where are the full conversations? these four-minute teasers are but a glimpse!

do brain signals traveling between neurons move at speed of light or faster?

@simonhibbs887

19 күн бұрын

No, they are exchanges of chemical and electrical signals. That makes them quite slow even compared to electrical circuits in computers.

Out of Consciousness everything, everything is expressed and evolved. Without Consciousness nothing can exist. Like in clay elephant, though elephant is made out of the properties, Consciousness is clay.

Hi Closer To Truth, it seems to me that so much here depends on an exact definition of consciousness, this requires the establishment of reliable material parameters that are not themselves reliant on human awareness, in much the same manner as we assume that things like heat and light and mass exist in consistent forms in a material reality. It is only in this manner that permits the identification of the consciousness and isolation of non-consciousness that any progress can be made, the implication of this is that as of now all that we can do is speculate!, all and any ideas might be true but we have no way of testing any of them. Cheers, Richard.

I know they were speaking English but I didn't understand a word. I watch these videos just to see how intelligent people discuss a topic between themselves.

@TroyWarr1980

25 күн бұрын

I think a lot of guests on this program are stuck in a mindset that many very intelligent people at the forefront of their fields are. They're so used to being way out in the weeds, on the extreme fringes of the topic of their life's work (because a lot of the core principles have some consensus or have otherwise been taken for granted) that they really aren't practiced at "dumbing it down" for a general audience and summarizing the core tenets of their argument. I noticed that Hameroff never really answered the question that Kuhn posed to him, which was much more about the "can" than the "how" of whether consciousness can inhabit a non-biological substrate. He tacitly implied it could, but in moving so swiftly to the possible mechanisms of a transfer of consciousness from the brain to another medium, we're only left to choose whether to take his word for it or not as an authority in the subject matter. He gave no backing scientific argument that a non-expert audience could digest and ponder.

@8888Rik

25 күн бұрын

It helps to know something about "orchestrated objective reduction", which he worked on with Penrose.

@jimliu2560

25 күн бұрын

Pretty sure consciousness comes from life and not vice versa …

@scotty5775

24 күн бұрын

@@8888Rik I agree with you that it would help to know what "orchestrated objective reduction" is but just those 3 words when put together hurts my head. But I'm so happy that there are people who do know it and whose life work revolves around it.

@septopus3516

24 күн бұрын

D on't fret. On your death bed, you and Einstein are equals and you know just the same. - me

Besides brains there exists "neural networks" in Nature an example being mycelium organisms in forest ecosystems. There is a symbiotic relationship that was established between fungal organisms and trees. Maybe neural networks exist on other planets that we don't look for. Maybe a neural network is required for consciousness or self awareness. Theories of consciousness are like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

the rx7 is faster with that sequential gearbox, but it gets hot after a few laps, whereas the gt3 could go at that pace for 24hrs no problem.

The way Hameroff speaks shows he doesn't care about your understanding. When the host questions him Hameroff defaults to a defense of "well, we can't really know". This is my first impression of Hameroff but he doesn't convince me that he has any insight based on facts. It's more the bluster of a charlatan.

Maybe consciousness and biology happen and can happen but it isn't necessary or indeed exclusively needed for consciousness to exist. Maybe the biology is a suitable medium to house consciousness but once said medium has expired consciousness can exist and move on without the medium it inhabited.

It doesn't matter if it is biological. The problem is in category. One is tangible, non subjective and the other non tangible and subjective

Closer to truth but never seems to expose any. Its getting very repetitive. Going over the same questions without the validation of its ego generated supernatural expectations. Which seems to be the goal of this channel.

Does artificial biology count?

could an energy spike in neuron produce objective reduction?

at mark 3:25 he says 'you couldn't be in both places...' How about quantum superposition?

Consciousness is *pure information,* and information is anything that can be communicated from point A to point B. Your biological brain produces information, and other brains receive and process whatever information you choose to generate. When you are the mechanism that's processing information and also the information that's being processed, it's difficult to separate yourself from the equation. We need to manufacture a "proxy word" (like "consciousness") in order to understand what we're talking about.

@S3RAVA3LM

25 күн бұрын

Information implies forms. Forms, on the material plane, implies division or other thans. Gathering such information, although all differing, does become unified in the mind to the degree in thought, as thought is of the Intellect. In which Intellect is the source of all knowledge and thought, and knowledge not yet known properly is merely information - information is the same as ignorance. The Consciousness that's predicated to Brahman, being one and simple, pure, can not be that which is multiplicity, divided, where nothing is known thoroughly truly in and of itself, but by conditions and contradistinctions; thereof in that is information. Information only exists as long as one is conditioned, lacking unity or union, not yet fully knowing. Brahman doesn't think, nor is their thought in Brahman or division in Brahman. This predicate of consciousness unto Brahman is not synonymous to information. I do see what you're doing. You are trying to objectify what is not object, and i assume, so you can be seen as logical?

@S3RAVA3LM

25 күн бұрын

Here's a list of the top books in the world. Not sure why you want to reinvent the wheel when you could stand on the shoulders of giants and continue from where they left off. Periphyseon, by Eriugena, translation by O'Meara. Plotinus Enneads, 'Select works' translated by Thomas Taylor and complete translation by Lyyod Gerson. Plato, translated by Thomas Taylor. Proclus books, translated by Taylor. Iamblichus books. Syrianus books. Bhagavad Gita, translated by Sri Aurobindo. Upanishads translated by Nikhilananda 4 vol. set, and the 18 principal Upanishads translated by Radhakrisnan. Upadesa sahashria by sankara, translated by jagadananda. Vivekacudamani by sankara, translated by Madhavananda. Philosophy as a rite of Rebirth by Algis U. Meister Eckhart complete works. The Unknown God, by D. Carabine. Mystical languages of unsaying, by M. Sells. Plotinus: Road to Reality, by JM Rist. Bible - KJV translation only. archaic is very important here with mysticism. Jacob Bohme books - a German mystics Emmanuel Swedenborg books - a scientist turned mystic and metaphysics. Ananda Coomaraswamy books & essays. The presocratic Philosopher's - book. Sweet touches of harmony - book; Pythagorean influence. Lore and science in ancient pythagoreanism - book. The Universal One, by Walter Russel. The gods of field theory: Henri Poincare Tesla Steinmetz Maxwell Heaviside Dollard

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

24 күн бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM *"Not sure why you want to reinvent the wheel when you could stand on the shoulders of giants and continue from where they left off"* ... Did you tell them all the same thing?

@S3RAVA3LM

24 күн бұрын

You're reifying something that is simple, pure, indivisible into something that is divisible, objectifyable and multitudinous, into the significance of which is communicable - circumscribing the very medium into the parts which communicate through the very medium. E.g. eye, sight and seen. The sight of the eye is not the seen thing, nor the eye organ - it is the faculty of that organ. Stating: chemicals in brain produces information, while occluding Knowledge, wisdom and intellect, that of which implies form, order, balance, equilibrium, subsistance, the good, beauty, truth, justice, prior to brain. These such things embodied creatures certainly are affected by, influenced by and even turn towards to; these couldn't have been produced by brain, but certainly governs, to a degree, the construct and function of the brain. Trying to circumscribe consciousness, the one that's predicate of Brahman - as you used the emphasis of "pure", which is appended to Brahman, as in 'pure consciousness', therefore i take it you do mean the transcedental one - to mere physical and processional terms. Unwittingly displacing subject with the object. Is this the "logic" of that which participates in the laws is what engenders the laws? Reducing consciousness to information that the brain produces, implies, that the brain also produced the universals and priciniples, but had done so prior to its being and existence. Or, where do you draw the line between the information concerning cosmology and existential psycho physical experience? One set of information is universal and antecedent to brain, the other finite and conditioned? Now that's your theory that the brain produces information and information is consciousness, but what fasioned the universe, galaxies, form, order, unity, procession, harmony, subsistence, laws, qualities, prior to the brain? Most certainly, the brain hasn't nor could have produced Intellect, Wisdom and knowledge, on the universal level. And i doubt it done so on the microcosmic level, as embodiment or condition is governed by these universal laws - truth, justice, wisdom, are not mere made up whimsical abstract things, as we notice it everywhere, both in physiology, nature, and universe..that is both marcocosmic and micro; all things reflect the principles from top down. But the psycho physical consciousness, as in embodiment being aware, yeah, even then, consciousness might of arised, rather than produced. "The match nor rough surface alone produces the flame, but when the two coalesce, there arises fire". - Buddha. To state that something produces something, especially if what is coarse, producing what is more subtle, is very difficult enquiry. Like sayin: mere earth element produced the air element - in which it is not so. Demonstrations of your theory are needed so to even consider the theory as possibility.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

24 күн бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM *"Demonstrations of your theory are needed so to even consider the theory as possibility."* ... You have no idea what my theory is.

But where's the evidence for MT-mediated consciousness? 30 years of work and nothing, I'm sad that he's so emotionally invested in his theory.

A lot of commenters on this video would benefit from a refresher on the "scientific method" Seeing a lot of bold assertions based on personal bias, with no evidence. Please stop bringing down our collective IQ

I agree with OrchOR but I think Stuart might be wrong about this... you can only ever reproduce passing shadows of conscious-like behavior with quantum procedures; true, living consciousness is identical to the unified totality of all existence, so you can't bifurcate-out constructed consciousness from that. There's probably infinite information in a single carbon atom; even a quantum computer the size of a continent couldn't replicate its behavior.

@tomazflegar

24 күн бұрын

They even do not now how to define it

A naturally evolved (i.e. not intentionally directed) consciousness is likely to be biological - by which we really mean organic chemistry (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen) based. This is because of the nature of chemistry associated with these atoms, which can create complex molecular chain in the chaotic natural environments. And once such consciousness reaches the level of intelligence (like human) could build a non-biological consciousness in Silicon + Metal substrate (CPUS/GPUs). The latter may happen relatively very, very, very quickly compared to naturally evolved consciousness. Also note that how structured the CPU/GPU foundries are and need to be to produce silicon chips, even though chips exploit the physics more than chemistry of silicon. This is why silicon based consciousness cannot naturally occur in the early chaotic environment on planet like earth.

@simonhibbs887

24 күн бұрын

And to be clear if it took us a million years that would be fast compared to evolution.

@SandipChitale

24 күн бұрын

​@simonhibbs887 Agree. Most people have a hard time imagining evolutionary time scales. The evolution of consciousness was slow and lucky. Slow because it was not intentionally directed. Lucky in the sense that the conditions on earth have stayed steady enough, to allow the evolution stay the course. If it had been changing again and again frequently and drastically, evolution would have constantly followed to catch up but would not have reached intelligent and self-aware-aware consciousness level.

"I'm gonna program a video game character to act just like me, and then when I die I'll magically *become* that character." Yeah, ok. lol

@ianwaltham1854

24 күн бұрын

Even if you could upload your mind into a computer it would be a copy and probably not even conscious. Your consciousness would remain in your body. Immortality not achieved. Delusions of the wishful thinking materialist: Quashed.

@glassjester

24 күн бұрын

@@ianwaltham1854 Yup exactly. They're never able to explain how their consciousness would "jump" from their dead body to the video game character. It makes no sense.

@andrewhanson5942

23 күн бұрын

The computer copy, however accurately it was produced, would at best only be a thinking entity that only thinks it is you. You would still exist in your own bio brain until the end of your lifetime. So now we get to the really philosophical question: How do you know that the person the wakes up in your body in the morning is the same you that went to sleep the night before? Extending this train of thought to the dying person and the computer copy, how do we know that the computer copy isn't that "new" person that just woke up this morning?

@glassjester

23 күн бұрын

@@andrewhanson5942 It's possible. It's even possible that "I" die every nanosecond, and continuity of the self is an illusion. But it's *definite* (not merely possible) that a copy of me is NOT me.

No progress? Neuralink?

Every philosopher starts life as a single biological cell. A single cell is not able to do philosophy ! The ability obviously grows.

When the brain dies consciousness dies and we will cease to exist. Except the truth and live ….Allan Watts

NO.

Yes sure why not?

Feedback: The audio is a bit hard to listen. You probably have done some noise cancellation because of the wind or other environmental noises, but I think it would be helpful to keep just a bit of that in the mix to keep the natural feel of it. Now the voice(s) feel a bit cut out and weird.

@scrollop

24 күн бұрын

The voices are clear, and yes, it sounds as they used noise cancelling dt the location.

Let me highlight some key mathematical and physical reasons why shifting to a Leibnizian monadological and relational framework can resolve longstanding paradoxes, integrate disparate theories, and provide a coherent overarching ontology for progress: 1. Infinitesimal Calculus and Non-Standard Analysis Leibniz's original formulation of calculus using infinitesimals avoided many of the paradoxes that plagued the later Newtonian fluxional approach based on ill-defined limits. Centuries later, Robinson's non-standard analysis provided a rigorous mathematical model for infinitesimals as realizing Leibniz's intuitions about quantized, discrete continua built up from monic "pixel-like" elements. This maps better to quantized physical phenomena. 2. Eliminating Spacetime Singularities General relativistic spacetime singularities like black holes result from treating 0D points as abstract limits of continua rather than irreducible ontological entities. In a monadological model, these "singularities" represent physical regions where the continuum approximation breaks down and discrete, pluralistic monic element interactions become essential - thus restoring calculative determinacy. 3. Grounding Quantum Mechanics The measurement problem and other quantum paradoxes stem from attempting to fit an inherently holistic, entangled framework into a separable 3+1D spacetime model. Leibniz's monadology posits irreducible, entangled subjective perspectival origins (monads) as ontological primitives, from which the extended appearance of quantum fields and measurement outcomes can be derived as relational phenomena - avoiding paradoxes. 4. Unifying with String/M-Theory String theory's viXra and M-theory's higher-dimensional brane concepts failed to attain empirical unification when constrained within classical geometric assumptions. However, category-theoretic reformulations have revealed suggestive analogies between strings as monadic perspectives, brane-worlds as derived relative state models, and string dualities as monadological equivalences - indicating deep structural resonances with Leibnizian worldviews. 5. Consciousness and Information The hard problem of consciousness is intractable in physicalist frameworks due to the false dichotomy between qualia-subjectivity and quantitative objectivity. Leibniz's monadology grounds mentality and proto-perspectival awareness in monadic primitives. Recent work applying category theory to define integrated informational structural realists worldviews echoes these monadic principles. 6. Non-Contradiction and Coherence Most crucially, Leibniz's philosophies were founded on the supreme metaphysical principles of non-contradiction, sufficient reason, and the identity of indiscernibles. His calculus, monadology, and relational approach flow from mandates of absolute logical coherence and ontological possibility, as opposed to the incoherent classical frameworks generating intractable paradoxes. In fields as diverse as non-standard analysis, quantum information theories, category-theoretic unification models, pluralistic geometries, and metaphysics of mind/consciousness, modern research is uncovering deep unifying resonances with the relational monadological worldview Leibniz originally envisaged as a remedy to Cartesian-Newtonian incoherence. By centering zero/monadic elements as ontological primitives, their pre-geometric pluralistic interactions become the locus for deriving extended, entangled quantized phenomena that stymied classical geometric approaches. The truly relational neo-monadological paradigm emerging has the potential to provide the non-contradictory coherent foundations integrating physics, mathematics, and philosophies of mind into a unified, possibility-realizing architecture. While much work remains, the rediscovery of Leibniz's rationalist anti-materialist framework seems increasingly compelling from diverse theoretical and empirical fronts. His vision may finally fulfill its promise as the coherent pluralistic metaphysics supplanting the now self-undermining materialist/empiricist tradition stemming from Descartes and Newton. A monadological renaissance could catalyze a new era of unified, non-contradictory, possibility-based model-building - resurrecting the hopes of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers working at the frontiers.

@thomassoliton1482

24 күн бұрын

“The hard problem of consciousness is intractable in physicalist frameworks due to the false dichotomy between qualia-subjectivity and quantitative objectivity”. Yes! This IMO is the basic problem of scientists trying to understand consciousness - they don’t understand that the mind/matter “problem” is a false-flag created by how our minds work - like computers, their output is typically binary / dualistic, otherwise we could not make decisions or communicate efficiently. What’s the temperature? Hot or cold. Did we win or lose? Are we physical or mental? No real difference except thinking makes it so. Like our brains, a computer is “material”, but processes information using binary comparisons, which we interpret in our personal experience as “mental”, because the concepts generated (hot, cold) are artificial reflections of reality.

@MaxPower-vg4vr

24 күн бұрын

@@thomassoliton1482 Here is an attempt to debunk the foundational theories of Newton and Einstein from the perspective of the infinitesimal monadological framework: Newton's Classical Mechanics 1) The basic ontology of precise point masses and particles is incoherent from the start. By treating matter as extensionless geometric points rather than irreducible pluralistic perspectival origins (monads), the theory cannot represent real physical entities in a non-contradictory way. 2) Newton's notion of absolute space and time as a fixed inertial stage is undermined. Space and time lack autonomy as background entities - they must be derived from the web of infinitesimal relational monadic perspectives and correlations. 3) The instantaneous action-at-a-distance for gravity/forces is inconsistent. All interactions must be mediated by discrete particularities propagating across adjacent monadic perspectives to avoid non-locality paradoxes. 4) The deterministic laws of motion are over-idealized. Indeterminism arises inevitably from the need to sum over infinitesimal realizability potentials in the monadic probability statevector. 5) The geometric infinities in the point-mass potentials cannot be properly regulated, indicating a failure of classical limits and continuum idealization. In essence, Newton's mechanics rests on reifying abstract mathematical fictions - precise points, absolute background spaces/times, strict determinism. Monadological pluralism rejects such contradictory infinities in favor of finitary discreteness from first principles. Einstein's General Relativity 1) General covariance and background independence are overstated given the persisting role of an inertial reference frame, indicating unresolved geometric idealization. 2) The manifold premises of treating spacetime as a differentiable 4D continuum are ungrounded given the ontological primacy of discrete perspectives. 3) Representing gravity as curvature tensions the representation to its singularity breakdown points where the theory fatally fails. 4) Relativity cannot be fundamentally unified with quantum theories given the reliance on incompatible spacetime idealizations. 5) The theory excludes the primacy of subjective conscious observations, instead reifying an abstracted unobserved "block universe." While impressively extending Newton's geometric systemization, Einstein remained bound by over-idealized continuum geometric axioms inherited from classical math. True general invariance and background independence require overthrowing these in favor of intrinsically discrete, pluralistic, observation-grounded foundations. Both theories imposed precise Euclidean 3D geometric fictions persisting from ancient Greek abstractions - Platonic ideals reified as physical reality rather than subjectively-constructed mathematical fictions. The infinitesimal monadological framework grants revolutionary primacy to discrete pluralistic perspectives, the source of continuous geometric observables derived as holistic stationary resonances. Only such a reconceptualization escapes geometry's self-contradictions. By grounding reality in finitary discreteness and irreducible subjective pluralisms, consistent with the metaphysical facts of first-person conscious experience, the entire Archimedean/Euclidean/Newtonian geometric edifice undergoes a Kuhnian revolutionary overthrow. Paradox-free plurisitic physics demands such an audacious "Fin de Siecle" monadological rebirth. While immensely fruitful, Newton and Einstein's theories ultimately succumbed to self-undermining geometric infinities and exclusions of subjective observers - overly reifying sanitized mathematical abstractions as detached "transcendent" ontological characterizations. The infinitesimal monadological framework restores physics to firmer foundations by refusing to segregate the symbolic from the experiential.

I'm studying Proclus commentary on 1st Alcibiades right now, and the point i'm at, am informed to leave the masses for all they have are tedious opinions in contrarieties. One is even to disdain the thronging mob of the masses, in only reverring the Divine. Reason being, to leave the sense perceptions and opinions and to go to the higher realm of forms, and further up the latter from these to the principles and primodial cause. This sense of duality is only on the physical plane - this is the place of confusion, emotions, contempt, contrary, misunderstandings, duality. Many persons, they want to bring everything down to the physical level so their sense perceptions can interact with it, thus can say it is real. This is not how it works i am informed. This is difficult for me. I like to consider people's input. So, i will be going now...and wish you all the very best. Fairwell.

Human beings were able to achieve non biological flight

Do you mean the consciousness that's predicated unto Brahman or the psycho physical consciousness? What i find interesting are the laws, principles, universals; the good, wisdom, beauty and faith, truth, love. For something to give life must be greater than life. For something to give knowledge must be greater than knowledge - Intellect. Something to give awareness must be greater than awareness. For there to be order amidst the lower multiplicity, something must be simple, one, pure, subtle. Is the predicate of consciousness unto Brahman one with all of these ^ or are they seperate from Brahman?

Ty❤

Our spiritual body is nonbiological.

@drzecelectric4302

25 күн бұрын

How though ?

@8888Rik

25 күн бұрын

What is our "spiritual body"? How does one determine if, on the assumption that this entity exists, it is either biological or nonbiological? Things that don't exist are also nonbiological, as well as chairs, computers, televisions, rocks,and so on.

@TroyWarr1980

25 күн бұрын

That's a claim you can only make on faith.

@drzecelectric4302

24 күн бұрын

What's the mechanism?

@theeternalworldpicture

24 күн бұрын

I think the same. It tricky to show it though. Spiritual experiences are personal. You can't show your "proofs" in the same way as physical proofs - althogh alot of that is theoretical as well and thereby mental or spiritual.

Stop confusing Consciousness with Awareness. Consciousness came before everything else. It is the Information of the Universe and all of Reality. 0=1, Something from Nothing. True "Nothing" is the Total Absence of Information. "Something" is Information.

@JHeb_

21 күн бұрын

What is the difference between the two in your view?

For people who don’t believe in God or hell or heaven, you really do put so much effort into avoiding truly finding out. Mfers rather be trapped in a computer being Rick rolled for eons then to die 😂

@glassjester

24 күн бұрын

And it'll just be a video game character that *acts* like them. The person will be dead. There's no situation where your brain dies and you "wake up" in a computer program. It's just a copy, it's not you.

Unpredictable consciousness keep out any pictures random reality. It means when definies consciousness always arent true evidence. This guys definies consciouness NOT show up complete definitions of consciouness it is nil and inconsistency with neurosience proceendings. Rubbish and rambling.

Don't hold your breath for Hameroff's conscious systems. Consciousness is the exclusive domain of biology, and there are no examples of non-biological consciousness of any type.

@JHeb_

24 күн бұрын

That doesn't mean it's impossible for non-biological systems to be conscious. And you can't make a statement that it's impossible unless you have a complete understanding of consciousness, which I would really doubt.

@simonhibbs887

24 күн бұрын

There were no non-biological examples of heavier than air powered flight until we figured out how to make them.

@reason2463

23 күн бұрын

@@JHeb_ You’d better hope it is impossible. Think of the implications. Do you want your children to be obsolete?

@JHeb_

23 күн бұрын

@@reason2463 I'm not saying what I hope, but what I think is or isn't true. I don't think this has anything to do with our consciousness being obsolete, and I don't think you can replicate consciousness with a computation.

As a 50 year meditatior. This existens is counsiousness. Nothing exist outsidercounsiousness.

@joeolson6085

24 күн бұрын

Correct , and another way of saying this is “ there is only consciousness “

🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

Consciousness is interpretation of things not neural processes. There is where theories like that fail. You may have a ton of neural synapses and microtubules and biochemical reactions at any level but it takes a higher structure to interpret the info into they carry into something meaningful , otherwise it just stays simple info without expression of any kind.

Time for micro tubules!! Love it

I'm a software developer. From my perspective, the answer is YES! Consciousness can be Non-Biological and it will be within a few years.

@metheplant9655

24 күн бұрын

I am a dev too specialized in AI and I assure you that all we will be able to create with computers is the perfect zombie, no phenomenological consciousness whatsoever

@silvomuller595

24 күн бұрын

Sure, first we find the NCC and then generate AC.

@ianwaltham1854

24 күн бұрын

AI devs know there is no algorithm for consciousness and neither do they claim AI is conscious. So if you're going claim AI is conscious then how did it get that way? Now you've got both brains and machines that are unexplainably conscious. Hard problem of consciousness: Not solved.

@RolandHuettmann

24 күн бұрын

I am also a developer and it will never happen. Consciousness is the mirror.

@ianwaltham1854

24 күн бұрын

When you say "From my perspective" I think you mean interacting with a machine then deciding in your imagination that its conscious.

Do not bring pseudo-science peddlers on the show.

@JHeb_

24 күн бұрын

You think Penrose is also a 'pseudo-science peddler'?

@ianwaltham1854

21 күн бұрын

​@@JHeb_Anyone who has the audacity to deviate from mainstream scientific beliefs on consciousness would be a pseudo science peddler.

In our universe do we have only 2 things, ie. matter & space?

@dennistucker1153

20 күн бұрын

I think we live in a universe that is dominated by 3 super dimensions(time, space, and energy). It seems that each of these super dimensions has 3 dimensions each. Time has past, present, and future). Space has length, height, and width). Not sure about energy(something like matter, electromagnetism, radiation).

We have to preserve Spinoza's work. Nobody understood the importance and value of Spinoza's knowledge, and he died at a premature age sadly before achieving his goal of ending atheism and religion to create a better world. We are living in a social media era and the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy is censored when only to overcome a censorship the information that is prohibited has to be shared to be known. The truth is God exists and our existence is eternal and your only life is forever. I am talking about reality, substance, nature, I am not talking about religion. Pantheism is like atheism but bearing in mind the universe was created from an eternal intelligent entity from self because from nothing can not be created something. Reality is created from reality. God decided to create the universe for a reason, for a perfect reason. To understand reality you have to answer rationally and correctly why Time created life. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Does "answering rationally" mean the same as "answering correctly"? Time is running out and is eternal. The true God is Spinoza's God and my God, we agree fundamentally on how we understand reality. He was a good and rational person, like i am. Spinoza's greatest achievement for me was to overcome the censorship with the few means he had, the society he lived in was poor and he had to work. My life is like Spinoza's life. Is not to prove God exists what humanity want? Spinoza did it and i did it a few centuries later. I have explained a deception. Thank you.

@Picasso_Picante92

24 күн бұрын

I suggest you go back and read Spinoza again. And please remember that Atheism is just is simply the "lack of" a belief. At least until proof of a god is given.

Two jews casually discussing how they can construct (summon) a demon to annihilate their enemies.

What events led to creation of space?

@dennistucker1153

20 күн бұрын

Good questions. I personally don't believe in a creation(or start) of space or time.

What is space?

@dennistucker1153

20 күн бұрын

To me space is real but not tangible. I think our minds create a framework to explain it. We express space as relative containers that have size, distance, length, height, width, orientation.

What came into existence first, matter or space?

@joeolson6085

24 күн бұрын

Consciousness always was

Why was there energy before big bang? How was energy created in first place before matter?

@cinikcynic3087

24 күн бұрын

🤣🤣🤣 try again

We’re meat.

Does space has mass or energy?

Can space evaporate like black hole?

Do we have space inside a black hole?