1. Why are we here? The life of 'your name here' is a Divine game created by you (aka: 'God') for your entertainment. 2. The goal of the game is TO FIND CONCLUSION OF THE GAME. This is known as 'Heaven', 'Moksha', 'Nirvana', 'Tao'. 3. To find conclusion of the game, thought must be transcended. The voice in consciousness is known as 'satan', 'maya', 'ignorance', and 'yin/yang' (the appearance of duality) My channel lays out the argument for this theory. My 'Theory Of Enlightenment" reveals all that has been false that has been incorrectly assumed to be true. And that's everything thought has produced. And that's THE red pill that needs to be swallowed
@NonconceptualityАй бұрын
Two quotes from your Lex interview: "When the matter in my brain ceases to be ordered in a way that sustains the particular kind of consciousness, ah, I enjoy in waking life, then in some sense I l I will cease to be." That is materialism. "All there is really is ultimately particles and fields. It's just that the nature of those particles and fields is consciousness." That doesn't make sense. The apparent dualities appear from the 'consciousness' which should be called 'Awareness". It is clear to me that you don't really know the 'why', but you are close. If you actually try to understand my work, and accept it (the hard part), you will come to know purpose of the life of 'your name here'. I'm correct not just because the reasoning of the theory is sound, I'm correct because I no longer suffer
@matterasmachine3 ай бұрын
Reality is huge machine
@bertuspelser81404 ай бұрын
Can you explain why the physicalist approach is problematic? Can it not describe qualia as an emergent product of physical firing, driven by evolution. Consciousness as a competitive system that creates strong illusions to survive.
@mojo90216 ай бұрын
Interesting talk! But what about idealism? Everything being mental. All phenomena appearing in consciousness.
@dadsonworldwide32387 ай бұрын
This tells me we've Mapped the chaldean minds way of rationalizing the universe around us. Like long form checking division to see if its write , this shows the original assumptions made placing a hierarchical value on physicalism with a premium on carbon based life which is not a suprise. Environment is not God and math / Time is not his actual fingertips. I'm a Christian and I'm not even down with that lol Maybe inspired by, man made by grace alone fingerprints are left behind and it just don't matter how. Importance is on learning every model we can Map and the American mind of free will with probability and non locality needs mapped inside out now. We've done the whole 4% deterministic chaldean simple mind map. Its exhausted itself. New models that more advanced are needed
@dadsonworldwide32387 ай бұрын
Regurgitating darwins argument, around the astronomical odds against , given enough planets and trys a single orign is not only possible probable given enough time. Lol Well once generations are waking up in the car ride finding multiple dna genetic codes doesn't over turn theorys. Now it can be panspermia life is everywhere its infestation lol
@perarve24638 ай бұрын
Philip Goff claims that it is conceivable that one can argue against physicalism if we take that the possibility of philosophical zombies contradicts physicalism. Any such argument will inevitably fail.
@StephenPaulKing8 ай бұрын
Why does Fine Tuning have a Computational Complexity problem? Considering the number of possible universes, varying over the constants, will be at least the infinity of the Integers, there would have to be at least an exploration of that many universes sequentially or simultaneously. Are we to ignore the resource requirements for the search process?
@yifuxero97459 ай бұрын
The panpsychism argument has a major problem: the word "in".(the decoherence question: where does the "not-in" end and the "in" begin?) Absolute Monism (per Shankara 788-820) is a superior argument. Everthing IS Consciousness, not "in" something else. That's a dualist perspective. True Monism can be likened to a vast Ocean of Pure being, where the waves and ripples in the state of ignorance (Maya) are mistakenly thought to be separate from the Ocean of Pure Consciousness or Brahman. Schroedinger stated "The subject and object are One". That being the case, there can no no dualist model where one "in" essence is Consciousness and another "not-in" starts. Thus, Pantheism is correct, and Panpsychism has too many flaws.
@yifuxero97459 ай бұрын
In other words, the correct model of existence is that of Advaita Vedanta. The delusion or Maya applies to the false notion that objects are separate from each other. This is only a conventional appearance, when in reality, existence is a seamless Ocean of Consciousness, or Sat-Chit-Ananda; Truth-Consciousness-Bliss.
@danbreeden87389 ай бұрын
If god existed if he were omniscient he would have to include the world to experience it
@quantenmoi9 ай бұрын
This strikes me as astronomically off base. The only examples of conscious things that we know of are members of a small subset of biological organisms who live on a tiny rock within an unimaginably vast universe. And we don’t yet understand consciousness. So, in order to explain this gap in our understanding regarding this particular property of some organisms on our tiny planet, panpsychism posits consciousness as a fundamental property of every single particle in this vast universe. And this is supposed to be parsimonious? It sure doesn’t seem to me. Furthermore, you offer no theory that explains how these atoms of consciousness coalesce into a unified consciousness within an organism. How then is panpsychism any more explanatory than simply saying consciousness emerges from brains? At least a brain emergence hypothesis confines the present mystery of consciousness to the specific structures where we observe the phenomena. Panpsychism, on the other hand, expands the mystery to literally everything in the universe while offering no extraterrestrial examples or explanatory theory for doing so.
@kevinmcnamee6006 Жыл бұрын
I would like to meet a philosopher who really believes philosophical zombies exist, especially one who claims to be one. It would make for an interesting discussion.
@domwren Жыл бұрын
It's a very unconvincing argument. There's a massive assumption that you can have brain state without the manifestation of the causal consequence of such brain state.
@canwelook Жыл бұрын
We can conceive of zombies therefore zombies are somehow 'possible'??? AND because they are 'possible' we can draw real-life conclusions based on armchair ideation of zombies? Really? Are these the depths of ridiculousness that philosophy has now fallen to?
@philipgoff7897 Жыл бұрын
lol
@canwelook Жыл бұрын
It is hard to believe philosophers would generally accept the philosophical zombie argument as sound. Traits emerge in context, not in isolation. e.g. neither hydrogen nor oxygen atoms have wetness properties, yet combined as H2O they do. In the same way it is unreasonable & illogical to assume parts of a brain operate the same in isolation as in the context of a live, complete brain... an isolation assumption implicit in the zombie argument. Philosophers need to get out their armchairs and get into the labs.
@jonnyblamey Жыл бұрын
I wonder why you claim that no one thinks philosophical zombies exist. How do you know that they don’t exist? If philosophical zombies are possible, then there is no way of telling whether any person is a Zombie or not. The difference is by definition not verifiable in any way. Is it politeness that makes you say that “no one thinks they are real” don’t all physicalists think they are real?
@MyContext2 жыл бұрын
I don't understand how this rules out physicalism. The issue being that whatever "machinery" that drives the zombie would in fact be what I would denote as physical. The issue as to what that is is a separate matter. I find that consciousness is a product of our biology which seems to be demonstrated in a parade of different ways. Consider split brain patients, effects of drugs, and more all allowing an experience of a change of consciousness of various sorts. Granted, I am aware that narratives can be constructed which would suggest alternatives, but unless such narratives can be shown to be an aspect of reality, such are fictions (unsubstantiated).
@MyContext2 жыл бұрын
I find the idea of a "fine tuned universe" to be a misguided notion. Here are a few issues. 1. We don't know whether there could have been other states of affairs, since if there couldn't be any other state of affairs, then there is in fact no other options as suggested by the idea of fine tuning. 2. If there could have been other options, then it amounts to being a luck of the draw that we find ourselves in a universe allowing our existence. 3. It is a falsehood to claim that our universe is fine tuned for life, since it is the case that the vast state of affairs with regard to the universe kills life as we know it. 4. Believers claiming this notion are also claiming that their God notion is NOT omnipotent, but in fact has limits as entailed in the idea that a particular state of affairs is required for a particular outcome. Theological injections are the worst, since, such notions depend on the application of narratives which could be anything since such is not predicated on evidence (demonstrable cause/effect linkage), but instead explanatory power. So, consider the following. _There was a God which died and its death resulted in the Big Bang,_ Point #4 is also applicable to other narratives wherein the narrative itself is not sustained as being the case. I have no issue with the idea of testing a narrative to see if such has merit, but when a narrative is completely unsustained, I find no basis to give such narratives any merit. === I do find theology to have been (and be) valuable in the development of philosophy and the expansion of our imagination which increases the scope of what is being reviewed and considered given the desire to vindicate various theological notions even as such entails various falsehoods and misdirections.
@JohnSmith-bq6nf Жыл бұрын
On point 3 you could argue that since probability of life is basically 0. The impossible happened on planet Earth suggest that it could have only came from a designer. Our universe proves it is a worthwhile idea to explore since if we change one of constants then you don't get life at all. Since there is no evidence for a multi-verse let's say hypothetically it doesn't exist. Then this argument became far more solid.
@MyContext Жыл бұрын
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf The idea of a designer as foundational is a falsehood within the context of what we know. Why? Intelligence is a process and thus contingent, which precludes such of being foundational. Low probability is at least an option when compared to a claimed option that has no possibility of being the case.
@JohnSmith-bq6nf Жыл бұрын
@@MyContext Do you think you can get a Boeing 747 airplane out of mindless particles bouncing against each other ever? let alone 13 billion years? Does it make more sense matter is at the bottom level of reality and that mind is what gives rise to these structures? Now Phil wouldn't fully agree with me since he is a panpsychism. I find issues with his view too, but he still sees mind like qualia first before matter.
@MyContext Жыл бұрын
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Was your comment intended to highlight the possibility that the poster wouldn't understand my comment to have merit or were you serious? Why? The comment registered as grossly ignorant.
@amirkhan3552 жыл бұрын
Not a very good argument. Seems circular.
@maxmax90502 жыл бұрын
Interesting. I'm not sure I accept Russell's version of structuralism and intrinsic natures though. Yes, physics down tell us dispositions of entities, but it also tells us about _spatiality_ of those entities. Spatiality is part of a thing's intrinsic nature too. So there is no physical structuralism without some apprehension of intrinsicality.
@tomcollector95942 жыл бұрын
Never trust a philosopher who doesn't know how to use a computer. Bernardo Kastrup knows how to use (and build computers)
@petermeyer68732 жыл бұрын
Nice presentation, only 2 additions here: A - one should point out, that physicalism and the possibility of the existence of the zombie beeing presented/defined here cancel each other out. So its EITHER the zombie-argument holds and physicalism is false OR its physicalism holds and the zombie argument doesnt. B - There is different ways to define the philosophical zombie and those differences make the point: B1: "A philosophical zombie is a regular human minus consciousness" B2: "A philosophical zombie is a regular human minus consciousness, that DESPITE of this lack is indistinguishable from any regular human" I think its an easy case to make clear, that only B1 is conceivable and one could even go so far, that B1-zombies exist in the form of alzheimer/dementic patients in their very last stadium. B2 on the other hand, is not conceivable as it is a contradiction in itself. Or in other words: The zombie argument formulated after B2 holds inherent the statement, that consciousness isnt good for anything/does not have any effect on human actions. This goes along with the picture beeing painted by some, that consciousness is a mere movie one watches his own life through. Even though consciousness gives a false impression of what it is and does (just mentioning, wont digress here on that point), the assumption, that it has a fair impact on the human behaviour is still sound even though it is a question of destinction between correlation and causation. There are quite good examples that indicate, that a consciousless person (zombie) would be incapable of or at least heavily limited in certain actions and thereby very much destinguishable from a conscious person. regular persons beeing in temporal states of reduced consciousness like sleep, dizziness, drug-influenced give such examples. Such a (half-)zombie may be just as good in sports, but I doubt very much, that it would make a good chess-player e.g.. And most certainly, it would neither become an author nor a philosoph. That is simple to assume by what we all may be most sure consciousness does: It reflects our own feelings and thoughts. Since language is the expression of thoughts and feelings, any writer whilst forming his text will constantly run through it within his conscious mind to perfect it (the text). Thus, a zombie lacking that level of reflection cannot become a good writer - one may even argue, that such a zombie couldnt learn how to speak - in any way, this zombie would be a contradiction to the "DESPITE" addition of B2.
@billytheschmid2 жыл бұрын
Consciousness requires relationship (intentionality), and seems to be holographic in nature. A single particle has nothing to be conscious of. At least two particles are needed (the same holds true in a continuum theory of particles). Physics tells us ([1] and [2]) that the difference between radiation and matter is a trembling component to the momentum density of the latter but not the former. Modern physics doesn't explain what holds the electron together. Naturally, it should self-repell, but something (Poincaré stresses) keeps it together (this is an ultra-strong force stronger than the strong force which holds the nucleus together, but is unfortunately ignored in physics since about a 100 years). This seems to suggest that matter particles are consequences of the presence of other matter particles (Mach's principle) which account for the Poincaré stresses (but the Casimir force has been ruled out). Again, matter seems to be relational, just like consciousness. My speculation is that everything is "other-conscious", while "self-consciousness" is a feedback mechanism in our brains which make us think about our thought (this is the biblical fall of man, where "other-consciousness" was polluted). The issue is how memories are stored, not only in the brain, but in nature. Without memory there is no experience bank from which inputs can be compared and be grasped. Memories are ultimately associated with causal events in the past, i.e. the past light-cone. Somehow, the consciousness "here and now" depends on the entire past light-cone, in a similar way to how the electromagnetic 4-potential also depends on the electromagnetic field in the past light-cone. Memory in nature is thus intimately tied to the 4-potential, and perhaps also consciousness, albeit indirectly. [1] "Zitterbewegung" from the solution of the Dirac equation. [2] Extended Maxwell's equations by Dr. John G. Williamson.
@rorymadden23653 жыл бұрын
Hello! Do you think that the question of whether there is an ‘inverse selection effect’ depends on the metaphysics of conscious subjects? Suppose that there is only One Self, present anywhere in the multiverse where there is consciousness, massively dis-unified but peering out through the eyes of every sophisticated animal, in any universe. If that’s what I am then fine tuning in *any* universe would result in *me* existing. So there would be an inverse selection effect. This would sidestep the debate about whether individual universes have their parameters essentially. I associate with Arnold Zuboff - in conversation or in print I’m not sure - the idea that fine tuning is evidence for the conjunction of multiverse hypothesis and this kind of universalist theory of the self.
@argumentando65843 жыл бұрын
To say that X and Y are physically identical but one has consciousness and the other has not is the same as saying that two engines are physically identical but in one there is combustion and in the other not.
@argumentando65842 жыл бұрын
@@anonymouscoward2491 I think you missed my point. My point is that the Zombie Argument begs the question. By trying to support that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon, he rests on the assumption that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon. He does that by claiming that it's a metaphysical possibility that you and your zombie twin are physically identical in every aspect whereas one is conscious and the other is not. If consciousness is a neurobiological phenomenon (and I think there's a lot more reason to think it is, in fact), it's impossible for your zombie twin to be physically identical to you (even at the subatomic level) and still not have consciousness given that you have it. In the same way that, no matter the brand, the model, or any other property, if there are two engines identical in all physical aspects (to the level of the subatomic world) and in one the physical phenomenon of combustion happens, in the other it also happens.
@argumentando65842 жыл бұрын
@@anonymouscoward2491 Basically, you are wrong. It's really that simple. “1) A robot shaped like a human is not conscious 2)A human being is conscious 3) The robot therefore proves physicalism to be false”. No. Your argument begs the question pretty much as the zombie argument does. Premise (1) presupposes that <A robot can be physically identical to a human being in every aspect without being conscious>. Also, the allegation that I “assume souls do not exist” is false. I’ve never said that souls do not exist. I didn’t say that physicalism is true, either. I just said that “If consciousness is a neurobiological phenomenon (…) it's impossible for your zombie twin to be physically identical to you and still not have consciousness (…)”. My point is that the Zombie Argument does not work, is not cogent, for it begs the question. I do think that <souls do not exist>. I also think that <our conscious is just a biological phenomenon>. But my point in my comments is not to “prove” that. I’m just focusing on the Zombie Argument. Now, you’re saying that < Consciousness is NOT a physical phenomenon, because it's really a soul>. And you’re not giving any argument to support that claim.
@sgtpepper1383 жыл бұрын
this video changed my life
@prateekchaubey69333 жыл бұрын
What’s up?
@Oskar10003 жыл бұрын
Why would an identity-theorist agree that philosophical zombies possible?
@dustinellerbe41253 жыл бұрын
What are you considering a universe to be? Just curious
@nathanialblower92163 жыл бұрын
What are the options?!
@JohnSmith-bq6nf Жыл бұрын
he is a panpsychist
@nathanialblower92163 жыл бұрын
First!
@TheWorldTeacher3 жыл бұрын
🐟 05. THE PHENOMENAL UNIVERSE: As demonstrated in the previous chapter, there is insufficient evidence for the existence of a separate, objective universe, external to the perceptual faculties of a conscious being. The fact that the phenomenal universe (“prakṛti”, in Sanskrit) of mind and matter (or name and form [“nāmarūpa”, in Sanskrit/Pali]) exists (that is to say, is perceived) solely within the personal consciousness of any individual human or animal, is superlatively logical. If this material world actually existed as a SEPARATE reality, then obviously, it would have limits, because the nature of matter is that it has a measurable, three-dimensional finitude. Despite what some may claim, no perceived object can be infinite or eternal. Therefore, if one were to travel to the edge of the universe, there would need to be something WITHOUT the boundary of the universe (some other “universe”, which contains this universe). This contradicts the very concept of a universe (literally, “turned into one”). Therefore, there cannot be a so-called “multiverse”, for if it were so, the summation of all discrete universes would properly be termed “universe”. Our observable universe would then be merely a “cell” or “bubble” of the totality of material nature. The late, great Professor Dr. Alan Watts’ response to the question: “where is the universe located?” was: “nowhere and everywhere”. One of the most misunderstood aspects of this space-time universe is just that - TIME. There are various extant theories of time. However, time is a very simple concept to grasp for one who has experienced his own timeless nature. That usually occurs during meditation practices or during awakening experiences (see Chapter 17 to understand spiritual awakening). Possibly the easiest way to understand time is to use the analogy of a movie. It may take a couple hours to watch a motion picture, yet the whole film is contained within the form of a single digital file (or in the case of older mediums, a reel of photographic film). The story of this universe may take hundreds of billions of earth years to complete, but from the perspective of eternity (literally, “no time”) it is not even as long as the blink of an eyelid. Indeed, it cannot be measured at all. To use movie jargon, the story of life is already “in the can” (of film). Read Chapters 08 and 11 to learn about predestination and causality. In practical terms, time is witnessed by phenomenal changes as perceived by the faculty of memory (i.e. time corresponds to change). This material manifestation is composed of space, time (or, to be more accurate, space-time), energy, and matter, the latter of which comprises eight elemental groups - the five GROSS elements (“mahābhūta”, in Sanskrit), which are perceivable by at least one of the five senses, and the three SUBTLE elements (“tanmātra” or “atisūkṣma mātra”, in Sanskrit), which are symptomatic of localized consciousness. N.B. Dark matter and black holes are not included in this system, as cosmological science has yet to determine their structural composition. The five gross material elements and three subtle material elements are (from most palpable to most intangible): SOLIDS (AKA earth - “bhūmiḥ” or “pṛthivī”, in Sanskrit) are made of densely-packed molecules of a steady shape at room temperature. LIQUIDS (AKA water - “jala” or “āpaḥ”, in Sanskrit) are composed of moderately-dense molecules conforming to the shape of its environment or container (and in nature, often including at least some water molecules). GASES (AKA air - “vāyuḥ” or “marut”, in Sanskrit) consist of rarefied molecular particles of no fixed shape. HEAT (AKA fire - “analaḥ” or “tejas”, in Sanskrit) is made of kinetic energy (which may appear visibly as fire, or at least heat waves). ETHER (AKA space - “ākāśa” or “khaṃ”, in Sanskrit) is a vacuum consisting of three-dimensional space (length, breadth, and width). However, recent investigation has confirmed that empty space is actually filled with virtual particles (matter and antimatter). Thus, the explanation for the material universe being created from “nothing” (anti-matter) is plausible, according to quantum field theory. MIND (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is composed of sensual perceptions, instinctual thoughts, abstract images (including memories and fantasies), and emotions. Not all animal species have a mind, but function purely on base nervous reflexes, generated from their specific genetic code. INTELLECT (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit) consists of conceptual thoughts. Only the very higher species of animal life possess an intellectual capacity. PSEUDO-EGO (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit) is comprised of the “I” thought (specifically, the illusory, ephemeral self-identity). Only humans possess the self-awareness necessary to question their own existence. Read Chapter 10 for a full disquisition of egoity. Each of the FIVE perceptible material elements corresponds to one of the senses of the body. E.g. In outer space, where there is a vacuum (ether), one can detect light with the eyes, yet space is not tactile and cannot be smelled or tasted, nor can sound waves travel via space. At the opposite extreme, solid matter can be seen with the eyes, felt with the sense of touch, tasted with the tongue, smelt with the nose, and heard with the ear (when the solid matter is physically vibrated). Beyond these eight material elements is the TRUE self - which pervades the entire body, and indeed, which encompasses the entirety of existence as the Universal Self (“ayam ātmā brahma”, in Sanskrit). Ultimately speaking, the authentic self/Self (“ātmana/Paramātmana”, in Sanskrit) alone is. The following chapter deals more fully with the concept of Infinite Awareness (“brahman” or “puruṣa”, in Sanskrit). However, all eight elemental groups are, in fact, “made of”, or an APPEARANCE in, Consciousness, since, as demonstrated previously, naught but Consciousness “exists”. Consciousness is the ultimate reality (“prajñāna brahma”, in Sanskrit). Just as a wedding ring is contingent on gold for its very existence, so too does the phenomenal universe depend entirely on Beingness (or “Isness”), Consciousness, and Blissful Quietude. Although The Absolute cannot be verbally-described, (otherwise, “it” would be an OBJECT), as a concession to materialists (who often demand concrete answers from religionists), Infinite Awareness is said to exhibit three innate attributes, known as “sacchidānanda”, a compounded Sanskrit epithet, consisting of the three words “sat”, “cit” and “ānanda” - Eternal Being(ness), Existence, or Truth; Pure Consciousness, or Perfect Knowledge; and Unalloyed Peace (often translated as “bliss”. However, the term “bliss” connotes an ephemeral experience of euphoria, whereas “peace” is a steady-state, absent of any form of temporal perturbation). Because Absolutely Nothing (“brahman” or “puruṣa”, in Sanskrit) is Infinite Creative Potentiality, “it” actualizes as Absolutely Everything. Attributeless Consciousness at Rest (in Sanskrit, “Nirguna Brahman”) manifests as this phenomenal universe (Consciousness in Action, or, in Sanskrit, “Saguna Brahman”). In the verbiage of quantum physics, the enfolded implicate order appears as the unfolded explicate order.In REALITY there is no separation of anything at any time (assuming that Consciousness is a “thing”, and that time is a property of The Uncaused Absolute). That the total sum energy of the universe is zero, implies the non-existence of matter (i.e. no thing is objectively real). The phenomenal manifestation is eternally cyclical, because “coming into existence” implies “going out of existence”, just as “black” implies the existence of “white”, or as “rich” implies “poor”. Is it possible to have something without nothing? Obviously not, because the two go together, as interrelated opposites. There cannot be heat without coldness, nor tallness without shortness, nor youth without old age. Similarly, despite what most believe, the outer-world is as much the Self as the inner-world. Where is the boundary of the human body? When we look at a person, we cannot see that person UNLESS we also see the background image. The two are inseparable, just as a flower and a bee cannot exist without the other. This fact alone is ample evidence that the universe is a holistic and wholistic system or entity. You who are reading these words are that Totality of Existence, the Highest Universal Principle, the Essential Irreducible Self. In common parlance, you are God (IF you only knew it!). Most of the greatest sages in history have spoken about either or both these concepts (of the Absolute Truth being either Absolutely Everything or Absolute Nothingness), such as the concept of “form is emptiness and emptiness is form” in Buddhism, or in Avatar Meher Baba's book “The Everything and the Nothing” (which is highly-recommended, particularly Chapters 51 to 56, which poetically describe the Ineffable One-without-a-second). Even an ordinary writer, American author Kurt Vonnegut, once penned: “Everything is nothing - with a twist”. Cont...
@TheWorldTeacher3 жыл бұрын
The Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics professor, Doctor Leonard Susskind's so-called “minus-first law of physics”, states that information is INDESTRUCTIBLE. This is akin to the law of conservation of energy in classical physics, and proves that neither physical nor psychic energy is lost. Read subsequent chapters to learn more about how this law relates to the notion of reincarnation, as well as to miraculous phenomena such as savant syndrome. The planet on which we are residing consists of animate/organic life, as well as inanimate/inorganic matter. The six stages of ORGANIC life are: 1. conception/birth 2. growth/development 3. maintenance 4. reproduction 5. ageing/deterioration 6. death Therefore, all LIFE-FORMS originate from a manner of reproduction (either cell division, seeds, spores, asexual, or sexual reproduction). The organism then grows to maturity (in our case, sexual maturity in the early teens). The mature state is maintained for a certain length of time before reproduction takes place (although this potential is not always actualized). The organism grows old and deteriorates before finally dying. Some persons mistakenly believe that it may be possible for humans to one day live forever, but that can never ever happen for two reasons: because material objects are by nature impermanent and because this impermanent universe will eventually end in a “Big Crunch”. British polymath Thomas Young's famous double-slit experiment suggests that matter exists purely as potentiality or as a “possibility” until it is observed by a conscious being. This phenomenon, known as the wave-particle duality, is often discussed in advanced spiritual discourses, as it gives credence to the primacy of Consciousness. There are other aspects of the universe (e.g. the various philosophical approaches to the nature of ontological time, the accelerated expanding universe, holographic universe principle, the Golden Ratio as the fundamental constant of the natural world, quantum superposition, wave function, and quantum entanglement), as well as the possibility of life on other planets, the crop circle phenomenon, and the presence of the Fibonacci sequence in nature, which are beyond the scope of this document, and which do not directly relate to the most exigent thing in life (to find the unending peace/happiness which we humans are ULTIMATELY seeking). “Long ago Man recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, of a tenuity beyond conception and filling all space - the Akasha or luminiferous ether - which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never-ending cycles, all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.” Nikola Tesla, Serbian-American Engineer and Inventor, From “Man's Greatest Achievement”. “Who is the perceiver? Universal Consciousness alone is the perceiver. The body is merely the mechanism, through which perceiving takes place and from which the ego is inferred, as the perceiver of other objects. Strictly speaking, there is neither the perceiver nor the perceived. There is only perceiving, as the objective expression of the subjective functioning, of the one Universal Consciousness.” ************* “The whole cosmos is an implicit unity, expressed in explicit duality. The original interrelated opposites, are beingness and non-beingness. Being can only come out of non-being, precisely as sound only emanates from silence, and light from darkness. The imagined void of non-being, however, is not emptiness, but the very fullness of potential, out of which arises all that exists.” ************* “You have considered yourself to be a separate 'self', only because of having regarded a 'solid' object with a name, that is a body, as yourself. But in fact, the body itself is nothing, but an insignificant, vastly intricate complex of electrical wave-patterns, a series of rhythmic functions, a throbbing field of energy and emptiness. What you actually are, then, is what everybody else is: sentience itself. Therefore, instead of being a puny self by way of an object, you are indeed everything.” Ramesh S. Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher.
@fjolnir34313 жыл бұрын
Russell was good mathematician but a bad philosopher.
@amandagalloway12133 жыл бұрын
This was very helpful to supplement my class. I was disappointed you didn’t have many more videos!
@TheVeganVicar Жыл бұрын
Most of Phil's videos are on the Mind Chat channel that he shares with a colleague.
@EstherJoy9993 жыл бұрын
I like Consciousness. I want to be more aware of it and learn from it but so paradoxical in nature :/
@ibperson77653 жыл бұрын
Theres an argument to be made that subjective experience includes ONLY consciousness. Try long enough to find the boundary between a sight and your awareness of it. The field of vision IS colors, not objects spitting colors at me. It is made of color. Then the next step is find the difference between the color and my seeing of it and my awareness of the sight of it. There is no difference, just raw color/consciousness. Again not consciousness OF color. Just colorness/awareness. All attempts to find the boundary between the color and my awareness of it will end in a recognition that I am mentally superimposing this boundary via imagination. It’s not there. Seeing light is lightness/awareness, not awareness of seeing light, not even awareness of light. Just light. Just awareness. It is MADE of awareness. Same with thoughts and feeling (sensations) and other perceptions. It is all MADE of consciousness.
@Doctor_Subtilis3 жыл бұрын
give peirce a spin if you are the sort that wants to figure things out.
@ibperson77653 жыл бұрын
@@Doctor_Subtilis Thanks. Who exactly?
@nicktrice49213 жыл бұрын
Perhaps this is what everyone who merges with AI will become. Scary thought.
@joshmcss3 жыл бұрын
Absoloute saviour, thanks
@user2323493 жыл бұрын
How can we be convinced by the zombie argument, if a zombie would have said the exact same thing ?
@couch_philosoph33253 жыл бұрын
what i dont quite understand is why chalmers and everyone else is so obsessed with this argument. in my opinion, chalmers gives tons of excellent points to question physicalism and takes modern scientific theories and shows what they are lacking in terms of consciousness with each one. however, the zombie argument to me is not the strong point of his work. because it only works if you believe that physicalism applied to consciousness is false. if you are sure that consciousness arises from physical traits, you do not hold p-zombies to be conceivable. to make the point more clear: it all comes down to the premises you apply. we all know a pepetuum mobile is impossible because of thermodynamics. yet if i didnt know that, a pepetuum mobile is perfectly conceivable. if you can already show why conceivability is a bad example of possibility when using something that is clearly 100% phycal and logically supervenient on physical traits, then surely you can show why the zombie argument is not on strong ground
@user2323493 жыл бұрын
Even if you concede that zombies are conceivable and possible, this means that there's a possible zombie world where some particular zombie comes up with Chalmer's argument, possibly word for word. However, in that zombie world, the argument is clearly wrong. If there's a possibility of a world, identical to ours in every observable detail, where the zombie argument is wrong, then how do we know that we aren't already in that world ?
@c0ck7aiL3 жыл бұрын
great job, excellent points by both of you.
@couch_philosoph33252 жыл бұрын
@@anonymouscoward2491 i don't think you really explained to me why i am wrong. And firstly, i am not a physicalist, let's get that out of the way. As i said, i think chalmers mentioned great points throughout his work to question physicalism, i just have a hard time with this one argument. In what way am i confusing conceivability with believing? Explain it to me please. When you look at Chalmers argument, it's not like with your example that he first conceives p zombies and then he shows proof (like with your child example). We do not have concrete evidence of whether consciousness does arise from the physical or not. So your " you are confusing believing with conceiving" doesn't seem to hold up. Also: you say conception just means we have no way of disproving what has been conceived. I am not arguing against that. I am arguing on the premise of chalmers argument, on the whether or not it is even conceivable in the first place depending on what premise you apply. So we only hold p zombies to be conceivable because we accept the premise "consciousness arises not from the physical". If we instead accepted the premise "consciousness arises from the physical" than we would not hold p zombies to be conceivable. Also you did not argue on my Perpetuum mobile argument. At the moment we are like the scientists that did not yet know whether that was possible or not. We are like that in regard to consciousness. We simply don't yet know (and may never know) whether it arises from the physical or not. As i said, i gladly would like to understand your point better. Maybe i didn't understand the argument correctly. So please elaborate :)
@gedde57034 жыл бұрын
This lecturer is very talented and sets a good example. Concise, articulate and passionate. Thank you.
@friiq04 жыл бұрын
Why use confusing conceptions like Panpsychism when you have the beautiful clarity and parsimony of Russellian Monism? The beauty of RM is that it renders terms like “mental” and “material” defunct. Good riddance. Let the ontology have the unity we should have recognized from the very beginning.
@thereal8ball9754 жыл бұрын
I think the reason people endorse panpsychism specifically is because RM is largely silent on what the intrinsic nature of matter actually is(Russell himself said it was just just neutral). But the usual response is that this is to vague to be meaningful. so modern thinkers try to characterise it and when u do a first person perspective seems to be convincing for ppl like Goff. Therefore first person perspectives (conscious experience) all the way down (panpsychism).
@maxmax90503 жыл бұрын
This is one of my complaints too. A consequence of this is that you see people overemphasizing the psychic aspects of the ontology, causing people to go so far as to even think of neutral monism is a form of idealism. But of course neutral monism is about uniting the mental and material into a non-dualistic harmony.
@JohnCamacho4 жыл бұрын
As I continue to watch this video I'm seeing more problems.
@JohnCamacho4 жыл бұрын
1. While inconceivable objects are those which are logically impossible, you may have the appearance of conceivability for an object but it may also be impossible. So I disagree that if something is conceivable then it is possible. 2. I don't think philosophical zombies are possible. The human body needs nourishment, and without feelings like hunger and thirst, how would the body remember to eat? Without feelings I don't see a baby surviving for long. What am I missing?
@Trancer0064 жыл бұрын
John Camacho I’d argue that 1. In the example of the girl who has never seen a color in her entire life how can she conceive colors? 2. What if in the future we have super complex AI that replicates human mind except for consciousness?
@couch_philosoph33253 жыл бұрын
i know this comment is rather old, but i might be able to help you. philosophical zombies are aware of their surroundings. they do feel hunger and thirst. however, there is no phenomenological experience associated with all those functions. they can also talk and report about their inner life. an important destinction needs to be made: there is psychological consciousness and phenomenological consciousness. psychologocial are all those functions like "an information y is processed in x part of the brain". phenomenological experience however is that what makes us ultimately human; its the experience we have while having those more explanable functions. every science (neurobiological, psychology, etc) has the same problem: they can analyze a certain brain function or process, but they cannot explain why these functions are accompanied by phenomenological experience. i personally do not like the zombie argument, but chalmers (the guy who invented it) shows in his work a lot of very thought through critic of physicalism.
@maximusgarahan20664 жыл бұрын
The Wittgensteinian Argument against Physicalism: Suppose we allow two robots. A programmer programs said robots to collect apples. One robot hits a tree and now is suddenly collecting blueberries instead of apples. What are you appealing to physically that explains the fact that the robot is doing something wrong, if not an intention? (That is to say, the intention of the programmer.) The robot is merely following certain programs, lines of code, etc. What it is doing can't be wrong, unless you say it is amiss by virtue of not being what the programmer intended. If one attempts to appeal to something physical to say the robot who's collecting apples is now doing something wrong; it doesn't seem like you're going to be able to appeal to anything. The fact that it bumped into the tree and began collecting blueberries can't be wrong, unless one said it was out of the accord with the programmers intentions. Therefore, if you commit action X, rule Y can be made out to accord with that action. Ergo, the physical facts under determine what rule you are following. Therefore, the sole thing we are left to appeal to is something like intentionality.
@bouncycastle9553 жыл бұрын
So when the robot hits a tree, it's lines of codes were affected, or the physical processor was affected?
@widewailcorduroy7278 Жыл бұрын
Post-Malus Vaccinium ergo Propter-Vaccinium Malus
@thinkneothink30555 жыл бұрын
The most important question in regard to the idea of philosophy zombies is, why aren’t we philosophical zombies? It seems to me that we could just as easily be philosophical zombies but we’re not for some reason.
@rooruffneck5 жыл бұрын
Not including the audience's questions and reactions is very painful but probably legally necessary...
@iloverumi5 жыл бұрын
great talk. thank you!
@metaRising5 жыл бұрын
Very nicely articulated! Thanks for this!
@coltoncrain53755 жыл бұрын
So philosophical zombies are essentially a rebuttal for physicalism, hmm
Пікірлер
1. Why are we here? The life of 'your name here' is a Divine game created by you (aka: 'God') for your entertainment. 2. The goal of the game is TO FIND CONCLUSION OF THE GAME. This is known as 'Heaven', 'Moksha', 'Nirvana', 'Tao'. 3. To find conclusion of the game, thought must be transcended. The voice in consciousness is known as 'satan', 'maya', 'ignorance', and 'yin/yang' (the appearance of duality) My channel lays out the argument for this theory. My 'Theory Of Enlightenment" reveals all that has been false that has been incorrectly assumed to be true. And that's everything thought has produced. And that's THE red pill that needs to be swallowed
Two quotes from your Lex interview: "When the matter in my brain ceases to be ordered in a way that sustains the particular kind of consciousness, ah, I enjoy in waking life, then in some sense I l I will cease to be." That is materialism. "All there is really is ultimately particles and fields. It's just that the nature of those particles and fields is consciousness." That doesn't make sense. The apparent dualities appear from the 'consciousness' which should be called 'Awareness". It is clear to me that you don't really know the 'why', but you are close. If you actually try to understand my work, and accept it (the hard part), you will come to know purpose of the life of 'your name here'. I'm correct not just because the reasoning of the theory is sound, I'm correct because I no longer suffer
Reality is huge machine
Can you explain why the physicalist approach is problematic? Can it not describe qualia as an emergent product of physical firing, driven by evolution. Consciousness as a competitive system that creates strong illusions to survive.
Interesting talk! But what about idealism? Everything being mental. All phenomena appearing in consciousness.
This tells me we've Mapped the chaldean minds way of rationalizing the universe around us. Like long form checking division to see if its write , this shows the original assumptions made placing a hierarchical value on physicalism with a premium on carbon based life which is not a suprise. Environment is not God and math / Time is not his actual fingertips. I'm a Christian and I'm not even down with that lol Maybe inspired by, man made by grace alone fingerprints are left behind and it just don't matter how. Importance is on learning every model we can Map and the American mind of free will with probability and non locality needs mapped inside out now. We've done the whole 4% deterministic chaldean simple mind map. Its exhausted itself. New models that more advanced are needed
Regurgitating darwins argument, around the astronomical odds against , given enough planets and trys a single orign is not only possible probable given enough time. Lol Well once generations are waking up in the car ride finding multiple dna genetic codes doesn't over turn theorys. Now it can be panspermia life is everywhere its infestation lol
Philip Goff claims that it is conceivable that one can argue against physicalism if we take that the possibility of philosophical zombies contradicts physicalism. Any such argument will inevitably fail.
Why does Fine Tuning have a Computational Complexity problem? Considering the number of possible universes, varying over the constants, will be at least the infinity of the Integers, there would have to be at least an exploration of that many universes sequentially or simultaneously. Are we to ignore the resource requirements for the search process?
The panpsychism argument has a major problem: the word "in".(the decoherence question: where does the "not-in" end and the "in" begin?) Absolute Monism (per Shankara 788-820) is a superior argument. Everthing IS Consciousness, not "in" something else. That's a dualist perspective. True Monism can be likened to a vast Ocean of Pure being, where the waves and ripples in the state of ignorance (Maya) are mistakenly thought to be separate from the Ocean of Pure Consciousness or Brahman. Schroedinger stated "The subject and object are One". That being the case, there can no no dualist model where one "in" essence is Consciousness and another "not-in" starts. Thus, Pantheism is correct, and Panpsychism has too many flaws.
In other words, the correct model of existence is that of Advaita Vedanta. The delusion or Maya applies to the false notion that objects are separate from each other. This is only a conventional appearance, when in reality, existence is a seamless Ocean of Consciousness, or Sat-Chit-Ananda; Truth-Consciousness-Bliss.
If god existed if he were omniscient he would have to include the world to experience it
This strikes me as astronomically off base. The only examples of conscious things that we know of are members of a small subset of biological organisms who live on a tiny rock within an unimaginably vast universe. And we don’t yet understand consciousness. So, in order to explain this gap in our understanding regarding this particular property of some organisms on our tiny planet, panpsychism posits consciousness as a fundamental property of every single particle in this vast universe. And this is supposed to be parsimonious? It sure doesn’t seem to me. Furthermore, you offer no theory that explains how these atoms of consciousness coalesce into a unified consciousness within an organism. How then is panpsychism any more explanatory than simply saying consciousness emerges from brains? At least a brain emergence hypothesis confines the present mystery of consciousness to the specific structures where we observe the phenomena. Panpsychism, on the other hand, expands the mystery to literally everything in the universe while offering no extraterrestrial examples or explanatory theory for doing so.
I would like to meet a philosopher who really believes philosophical zombies exist, especially one who claims to be one. It would make for an interesting discussion.
It's a very unconvincing argument. There's a massive assumption that you can have brain state without the manifestation of the causal consequence of such brain state.
We can conceive of zombies therefore zombies are somehow 'possible'??? AND because they are 'possible' we can draw real-life conclusions based on armchair ideation of zombies? Really? Are these the depths of ridiculousness that philosophy has now fallen to?
lol
It is hard to believe philosophers would generally accept the philosophical zombie argument as sound. Traits emerge in context, not in isolation. e.g. neither hydrogen nor oxygen atoms have wetness properties, yet combined as H2O they do. In the same way it is unreasonable & illogical to assume parts of a brain operate the same in isolation as in the context of a live, complete brain... an isolation assumption implicit in the zombie argument. Philosophers need to get out their armchairs and get into the labs.
I wonder why you claim that no one thinks philosophical zombies exist. How do you know that they don’t exist? If philosophical zombies are possible, then there is no way of telling whether any person is a Zombie or not. The difference is by definition not verifiable in any way. Is it politeness that makes you say that “no one thinks they are real” don’t all physicalists think they are real?
I don't understand how this rules out physicalism. The issue being that whatever "machinery" that drives the zombie would in fact be what I would denote as physical. The issue as to what that is is a separate matter. I find that consciousness is a product of our biology which seems to be demonstrated in a parade of different ways. Consider split brain patients, effects of drugs, and more all allowing an experience of a change of consciousness of various sorts. Granted, I am aware that narratives can be constructed which would suggest alternatives, but unless such narratives can be shown to be an aspect of reality, such are fictions (unsubstantiated).
I find the idea of a "fine tuned universe" to be a misguided notion. Here are a few issues. 1. We don't know whether there could have been other states of affairs, since if there couldn't be any other state of affairs, then there is in fact no other options as suggested by the idea of fine tuning. 2. If there could have been other options, then it amounts to being a luck of the draw that we find ourselves in a universe allowing our existence. 3. It is a falsehood to claim that our universe is fine tuned for life, since it is the case that the vast state of affairs with regard to the universe kills life as we know it. 4. Believers claiming this notion are also claiming that their God notion is NOT omnipotent, but in fact has limits as entailed in the idea that a particular state of affairs is required for a particular outcome. Theological injections are the worst, since, such notions depend on the application of narratives which could be anything since such is not predicated on evidence (demonstrable cause/effect linkage), but instead explanatory power. So, consider the following. _There was a God which died and its death resulted in the Big Bang,_ Point #4 is also applicable to other narratives wherein the narrative itself is not sustained as being the case. I have no issue with the idea of testing a narrative to see if such has merit, but when a narrative is completely unsustained, I find no basis to give such narratives any merit. === I do find theology to have been (and be) valuable in the development of philosophy and the expansion of our imagination which increases the scope of what is being reviewed and considered given the desire to vindicate various theological notions even as such entails various falsehoods and misdirections.
On point 3 you could argue that since probability of life is basically 0. The impossible happened on planet Earth suggest that it could have only came from a designer. Our universe proves it is a worthwhile idea to explore since if we change one of constants then you don't get life at all. Since there is no evidence for a multi-verse let's say hypothetically it doesn't exist. Then this argument became far more solid.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf The idea of a designer as foundational is a falsehood within the context of what we know. Why? Intelligence is a process and thus contingent, which precludes such of being foundational. Low probability is at least an option when compared to a claimed option that has no possibility of being the case.
@@MyContext Do you think you can get a Boeing 747 airplane out of mindless particles bouncing against each other ever? let alone 13 billion years? Does it make more sense matter is at the bottom level of reality and that mind is what gives rise to these structures? Now Phil wouldn't fully agree with me since he is a panpsychism. I find issues with his view too, but he still sees mind like qualia first before matter.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Was your comment intended to highlight the possibility that the poster wouldn't understand my comment to have merit or were you serious? Why? The comment registered as grossly ignorant.
Not a very good argument. Seems circular.
Interesting. I'm not sure I accept Russell's version of structuralism and intrinsic natures though. Yes, physics down tell us dispositions of entities, but it also tells us about _spatiality_ of those entities. Spatiality is part of a thing's intrinsic nature too. So there is no physical structuralism without some apprehension of intrinsicality.
Never trust a philosopher who doesn't know how to use a computer. Bernardo Kastrup knows how to use (and build computers)
Nice presentation, only 2 additions here: A - one should point out, that physicalism and the possibility of the existence of the zombie beeing presented/defined here cancel each other out. So its EITHER the zombie-argument holds and physicalism is false OR its physicalism holds and the zombie argument doesnt. B - There is different ways to define the philosophical zombie and those differences make the point: B1: "A philosophical zombie is a regular human minus consciousness" B2: "A philosophical zombie is a regular human minus consciousness, that DESPITE of this lack is indistinguishable from any regular human" I think its an easy case to make clear, that only B1 is conceivable and one could even go so far, that B1-zombies exist in the form of alzheimer/dementic patients in their very last stadium. B2 on the other hand, is not conceivable as it is a contradiction in itself. Or in other words: The zombie argument formulated after B2 holds inherent the statement, that consciousness isnt good for anything/does not have any effect on human actions. This goes along with the picture beeing painted by some, that consciousness is a mere movie one watches his own life through. Even though consciousness gives a false impression of what it is and does (just mentioning, wont digress here on that point), the assumption, that it has a fair impact on the human behaviour is still sound even though it is a question of destinction between correlation and causation. There are quite good examples that indicate, that a consciousless person (zombie) would be incapable of or at least heavily limited in certain actions and thereby very much destinguishable from a conscious person. regular persons beeing in temporal states of reduced consciousness like sleep, dizziness, drug-influenced give such examples. Such a (half-)zombie may be just as good in sports, but I doubt very much, that it would make a good chess-player e.g.. And most certainly, it would neither become an author nor a philosoph. That is simple to assume by what we all may be most sure consciousness does: It reflects our own feelings and thoughts. Since language is the expression of thoughts and feelings, any writer whilst forming his text will constantly run through it within his conscious mind to perfect it (the text). Thus, a zombie lacking that level of reflection cannot become a good writer - one may even argue, that such a zombie couldnt learn how to speak - in any way, this zombie would be a contradiction to the "DESPITE" addition of B2.
Consciousness requires relationship (intentionality), and seems to be holographic in nature. A single particle has nothing to be conscious of. At least two particles are needed (the same holds true in a continuum theory of particles). Physics tells us ([1] and [2]) that the difference between radiation and matter is a trembling component to the momentum density of the latter but not the former. Modern physics doesn't explain what holds the electron together. Naturally, it should self-repell, but something (Poincaré stresses) keeps it together (this is an ultra-strong force stronger than the strong force which holds the nucleus together, but is unfortunately ignored in physics since about a 100 years). This seems to suggest that matter particles are consequences of the presence of other matter particles (Mach's principle) which account for the Poincaré stresses (but the Casimir force has been ruled out). Again, matter seems to be relational, just like consciousness. My speculation is that everything is "other-conscious", while "self-consciousness" is a feedback mechanism in our brains which make us think about our thought (this is the biblical fall of man, where "other-consciousness" was polluted). The issue is how memories are stored, not only in the brain, but in nature. Without memory there is no experience bank from which inputs can be compared and be grasped. Memories are ultimately associated with causal events in the past, i.e. the past light-cone. Somehow, the consciousness "here and now" depends on the entire past light-cone, in a similar way to how the electromagnetic 4-potential also depends on the electromagnetic field in the past light-cone. Memory in nature is thus intimately tied to the 4-potential, and perhaps also consciousness, albeit indirectly. [1] "Zitterbewegung" from the solution of the Dirac equation. [2] Extended Maxwell's equations by Dr. John G. Williamson.
Hello! Do you think that the question of whether there is an ‘inverse selection effect’ depends on the metaphysics of conscious subjects? Suppose that there is only One Self, present anywhere in the multiverse where there is consciousness, massively dis-unified but peering out through the eyes of every sophisticated animal, in any universe. If that’s what I am then fine tuning in *any* universe would result in *me* existing. So there would be an inverse selection effect. This would sidestep the debate about whether individual universes have their parameters essentially. I associate with Arnold Zuboff - in conversation or in print I’m not sure - the idea that fine tuning is evidence for the conjunction of multiverse hypothesis and this kind of universalist theory of the self.
To say that X and Y are physically identical but one has consciousness and the other has not is the same as saying that two engines are physically identical but in one there is combustion and in the other not.
@@anonymouscoward2491 I think you missed my point. My point is that the Zombie Argument begs the question. By trying to support that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon, he rests on the assumption that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon. He does that by claiming that it's a metaphysical possibility that you and your zombie twin are physically identical in every aspect whereas one is conscious and the other is not. If consciousness is a neurobiological phenomenon (and I think there's a lot more reason to think it is, in fact), it's impossible for your zombie twin to be physically identical to you (even at the subatomic level) and still not have consciousness given that you have it. In the same way that, no matter the brand, the model, or any other property, if there are two engines identical in all physical aspects (to the level of the subatomic world) and in one the physical phenomenon of combustion happens, in the other it also happens.
@@anonymouscoward2491 Basically, you are wrong. It's really that simple. “1) A robot shaped like a human is not conscious 2)A human being is conscious 3) The robot therefore proves physicalism to be false”. No. Your argument begs the question pretty much as the zombie argument does. Premise (1) presupposes that <A robot can be physically identical to a human being in every aspect without being conscious>. Also, the allegation that I “assume souls do not exist” is false. I’ve never said that souls do not exist. I didn’t say that physicalism is true, either. I just said that “If consciousness is a neurobiological phenomenon (…) it's impossible for your zombie twin to be physically identical to you and still not have consciousness (…)”. My point is that the Zombie Argument does not work, is not cogent, for it begs the question. I do think that <souls do not exist>. I also think that <our conscious is just a biological phenomenon>. But my point in my comments is not to “prove” that. I’m just focusing on the Zombie Argument. Now, you’re saying that < Consciousness is NOT a physical phenomenon, because it's really a soul>. And you’re not giving any argument to support that claim.
this video changed my life
What’s up?
Why would an identity-theorist agree that philosophical zombies possible?
What are you considering a universe to be? Just curious
What are the options?!
he is a panpsychist
First!
🐟 05. THE PHENOMENAL UNIVERSE: As demonstrated in the previous chapter, there is insufficient evidence for the existence of a separate, objective universe, external to the perceptual faculties of a conscious being. The fact that the phenomenal universe (“prakṛti”, in Sanskrit) of mind and matter (or name and form [“nāmarūpa”, in Sanskrit/Pali]) exists (that is to say, is perceived) solely within the personal consciousness of any individual human or animal, is superlatively logical. If this material world actually existed as a SEPARATE reality, then obviously, it would have limits, because the nature of matter is that it has a measurable, three-dimensional finitude. Despite what some may claim, no perceived object can be infinite or eternal. Therefore, if one were to travel to the edge of the universe, there would need to be something WITHOUT the boundary of the universe (some other “universe”, which contains this universe). This contradicts the very concept of a universe (literally, “turned into one”). Therefore, there cannot be a so-called “multiverse”, for if it were so, the summation of all discrete universes would properly be termed “universe”. Our observable universe would then be merely a “cell” or “bubble” of the totality of material nature. The late, great Professor Dr. Alan Watts’ response to the question: “where is the universe located?” was: “nowhere and everywhere”. One of the most misunderstood aspects of this space-time universe is just that - TIME. There are various extant theories of time. However, time is a very simple concept to grasp for one who has experienced his own timeless nature. That usually occurs during meditation practices or during awakening experiences (see Chapter 17 to understand spiritual awakening). Possibly the easiest way to understand time is to use the analogy of a movie. It may take a couple hours to watch a motion picture, yet the whole film is contained within the form of a single digital file (or in the case of older mediums, a reel of photographic film). The story of this universe may take hundreds of billions of earth years to complete, but from the perspective of eternity (literally, “no time”) it is not even as long as the blink of an eyelid. Indeed, it cannot be measured at all. To use movie jargon, the story of life is already “in the can” (of film). Read Chapters 08 and 11 to learn about predestination and causality. In practical terms, time is witnessed by phenomenal changes as perceived by the faculty of memory (i.e. time corresponds to change). This material manifestation is composed of space, time (or, to be more accurate, space-time), energy, and matter, the latter of which comprises eight elemental groups - the five GROSS elements (“mahābhūta”, in Sanskrit), which are perceivable by at least one of the five senses, and the three SUBTLE elements (“tanmātra” or “atisūkṣma mātra”, in Sanskrit), which are symptomatic of localized consciousness. N.B. Dark matter and black holes are not included in this system, as cosmological science has yet to determine their structural composition. The five gross material elements and three subtle material elements are (from most palpable to most intangible): SOLIDS (AKA earth - “bhūmiḥ” or “pṛthivī”, in Sanskrit) are made of densely-packed molecules of a steady shape at room temperature. LIQUIDS (AKA water - “jala” or “āpaḥ”, in Sanskrit) are composed of moderately-dense molecules conforming to the shape of its environment or container (and in nature, often including at least some water molecules). GASES (AKA air - “vāyuḥ” or “marut”, in Sanskrit) consist of rarefied molecular particles of no fixed shape. HEAT (AKA fire - “analaḥ” or “tejas”, in Sanskrit) is made of kinetic energy (which may appear visibly as fire, or at least heat waves). ETHER (AKA space - “ākāśa” or “khaṃ”, in Sanskrit) is a vacuum consisting of three-dimensional space (length, breadth, and width). However, recent investigation has confirmed that empty space is actually filled with virtual particles (matter and antimatter). Thus, the explanation for the material universe being created from “nothing” (anti-matter) is plausible, according to quantum field theory. MIND (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is composed of sensual perceptions, instinctual thoughts, abstract images (including memories and fantasies), and emotions. Not all animal species have a mind, but function purely on base nervous reflexes, generated from their specific genetic code. INTELLECT (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit) consists of conceptual thoughts. Only the very higher species of animal life possess an intellectual capacity. PSEUDO-EGO (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit) is comprised of the “I” thought (specifically, the illusory, ephemeral self-identity). Only humans possess the self-awareness necessary to question their own existence. Read Chapter 10 for a full disquisition of egoity. Each of the FIVE perceptible material elements corresponds to one of the senses of the body. E.g. In outer space, where there is a vacuum (ether), one can detect light with the eyes, yet space is not tactile and cannot be smelled or tasted, nor can sound waves travel via space. At the opposite extreme, solid matter can be seen with the eyes, felt with the sense of touch, tasted with the tongue, smelt with the nose, and heard with the ear (when the solid matter is physically vibrated). Beyond these eight material elements is the TRUE self - which pervades the entire body, and indeed, which encompasses the entirety of existence as the Universal Self (“ayam ātmā brahma”, in Sanskrit). Ultimately speaking, the authentic self/Self (“ātmana/Paramātmana”, in Sanskrit) alone is. The following chapter deals more fully with the concept of Infinite Awareness (“brahman” or “puruṣa”, in Sanskrit). However, all eight elemental groups are, in fact, “made of”, or an APPEARANCE in, Consciousness, since, as demonstrated previously, naught but Consciousness “exists”. Consciousness is the ultimate reality (“prajñāna brahma”, in Sanskrit). Just as a wedding ring is contingent on gold for its very existence, so too does the phenomenal universe depend entirely on Beingness (or “Isness”), Consciousness, and Blissful Quietude. Although The Absolute cannot be verbally-described, (otherwise, “it” would be an OBJECT), as a concession to materialists (who often demand concrete answers from religionists), Infinite Awareness is said to exhibit three innate attributes, known as “sacchidānanda”, a compounded Sanskrit epithet, consisting of the three words “sat”, “cit” and “ānanda” - Eternal Being(ness), Existence, or Truth; Pure Consciousness, or Perfect Knowledge; and Unalloyed Peace (often translated as “bliss”. However, the term “bliss” connotes an ephemeral experience of euphoria, whereas “peace” is a steady-state, absent of any form of temporal perturbation). Because Absolutely Nothing (“brahman” or “puruṣa”, in Sanskrit) is Infinite Creative Potentiality, “it” actualizes as Absolutely Everything. Attributeless Consciousness at Rest (in Sanskrit, “Nirguna Brahman”) manifests as this phenomenal universe (Consciousness in Action, or, in Sanskrit, “Saguna Brahman”). In the verbiage of quantum physics, the enfolded implicate order appears as the unfolded explicate order.In REALITY there is no separation of anything at any time (assuming that Consciousness is a “thing”, and that time is a property of The Uncaused Absolute). That the total sum energy of the universe is zero, implies the non-existence of matter (i.e. no thing is objectively real). The phenomenal manifestation is eternally cyclical, because “coming into existence” implies “going out of existence”, just as “black” implies the existence of “white”, or as “rich” implies “poor”. Is it possible to have something without nothing? Obviously not, because the two go together, as interrelated opposites. There cannot be heat without coldness, nor tallness without shortness, nor youth without old age. Similarly, despite what most believe, the outer-world is as much the Self as the inner-world. Where is the boundary of the human body? When we look at a person, we cannot see that person UNLESS we also see the background image. The two are inseparable, just as a flower and a bee cannot exist without the other. This fact alone is ample evidence that the universe is a holistic and wholistic system or entity. You who are reading these words are that Totality of Existence, the Highest Universal Principle, the Essential Irreducible Self. In common parlance, you are God (IF you only knew it!). Most of the greatest sages in history have spoken about either or both these concepts (of the Absolute Truth being either Absolutely Everything or Absolute Nothingness), such as the concept of “form is emptiness and emptiness is form” in Buddhism, or in Avatar Meher Baba's book “The Everything and the Nothing” (which is highly-recommended, particularly Chapters 51 to 56, which poetically describe the Ineffable One-without-a-second). Even an ordinary writer, American author Kurt Vonnegut, once penned: “Everything is nothing - with a twist”. Cont...
The Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics professor, Doctor Leonard Susskind's so-called “minus-first law of physics”, states that information is INDESTRUCTIBLE. This is akin to the law of conservation of energy in classical physics, and proves that neither physical nor psychic energy is lost. Read subsequent chapters to learn more about how this law relates to the notion of reincarnation, as well as to miraculous phenomena such as savant syndrome. The planet on which we are residing consists of animate/organic life, as well as inanimate/inorganic matter. The six stages of ORGANIC life are: 1. conception/birth 2. growth/development 3. maintenance 4. reproduction 5. ageing/deterioration 6. death Therefore, all LIFE-FORMS originate from a manner of reproduction (either cell division, seeds, spores, asexual, or sexual reproduction). The organism then grows to maturity (in our case, sexual maturity in the early teens). The mature state is maintained for a certain length of time before reproduction takes place (although this potential is not always actualized). The organism grows old and deteriorates before finally dying. Some persons mistakenly believe that it may be possible for humans to one day live forever, but that can never ever happen for two reasons: because material objects are by nature impermanent and because this impermanent universe will eventually end in a “Big Crunch”. British polymath Thomas Young's famous double-slit experiment suggests that matter exists purely as potentiality or as a “possibility” until it is observed by a conscious being. This phenomenon, known as the wave-particle duality, is often discussed in advanced spiritual discourses, as it gives credence to the primacy of Consciousness. There are other aspects of the universe (e.g. the various philosophical approaches to the nature of ontological time, the accelerated expanding universe, holographic universe principle, the Golden Ratio as the fundamental constant of the natural world, quantum superposition, wave function, and quantum entanglement), as well as the possibility of life on other planets, the crop circle phenomenon, and the presence of the Fibonacci sequence in nature, which are beyond the scope of this document, and which do not directly relate to the most exigent thing in life (to find the unending peace/happiness which we humans are ULTIMATELY seeking). “Long ago Man recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, of a tenuity beyond conception and filling all space - the Akasha or luminiferous ether - which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never-ending cycles, all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.” Nikola Tesla, Serbian-American Engineer and Inventor, From “Man's Greatest Achievement”. “Who is the perceiver? Universal Consciousness alone is the perceiver. The body is merely the mechanism, through which perceiving takes place and from which the ego is inferred, as the perceiver of other objects. Strictly speaking, there is neither the perceiver nor the perceived. There is only perceiving, as the objective expression of the subjective functioning, of the one Universal Consciousness.” ************* “The whole cosmos is an implicit unity, expressed in explicit duality. The original interrelated opposites, are beingness and non-beingness. Being can only come out of non-being, precisely as sound only emanates from silence, and light from darkness. The imagined void of non-being, however, is not emptiness, but the very fullness of potential, out of which arises all that exists.” ************* “You have considered yourself to be a separate 'self', only because of having regarded a 'solid' object with a name, that is a body, as yourself. But in fact, the body itself is nothing, but an insignificant, vastly intricate complex of electrical wave-patterns, a series of rhythmic functions, a throbbing field of energy and emptiness. What you actually are, then, is what everybody else is: sentience itself. Therefore, instead of being a puny self by way of an object, you are indeed everything.” Ramesh S. Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher.
Russell was good mathematician but a bad philosopher.
This was very helpful to supplement my class. I was disappointed you didn’t have many more videos!
Most of Phil's videos are on the Mind Chat channel that he shares with a colleague.
I like Consciousness. I want to be more aware of it and learn from it but so paradoxical in nature :/
Theres an argument to be made that subjective experience includes ONLY consciousness. Try long enough to find the boundary between a sight and your awareness of it. The field of vision IS colors, not objects spitting colors at me. It is made of color. Then the next step is find the difference between the color and my seeing of it and my awareness of the sight of it. There is no difference, just raw color/consciousness. Again not consciousness OF color. Just colorness/awareness. All attempts to find the boundary between the color and my awareness of it will end in a recognition that I am mentally superimposing this boundary via imagination. It’s not there. Seeing light is lightness/awareness, not awareness of seeing light, not even awareness of light. Just light. Just awareness. It is MADE of awareness. Same with thoughts and feeling (sensations) and other perceptions. It is all MADE of consciousness.
give peirce a spin if you are the sort that wants to figure things out.
@@Doctor_Subtilis Thanks. Who exactly?
Perhaps this is what everyone who merges with AI will become. Scary thought.
Absoloute saviour, thanks
How can we be convinced by the zombie argument, if a zombie would have said the exact same thing ?
what i dont quite understand is why chalmers and everyone else is so obsessed with this argument. in my opinion, chalmers gives tons of excellent points to question physicalism and takes modern scientific theories and shows what they are lacking in terms of consciousness with each one. however, the zombie argument to me is not the strong point of his work. because it only works if you believe that physicalism applied to consciousness is false. if you are sure that consciousness arises from physical traits, you do not hold p-zombies to be conceivable. to make the point more clear: it all comes down to the premises you apply. we all know a pepetuum mobile is impossible because of thermodynamics. yet if i didnt know that, a pepetuum mobile is perfectly conceivable. if you can already show why conceivability is a bad example of possibility when using something that is clearly 100% phycal and logically supervenient on physical traits, then surely you can show why the zombie argument is not on strong ground
Even if you concede that zombies are conceivable and possible, this means that there's a possible zombie world where some particular zombie comes up with Chalmer's argument, possibly word for word. However, in that zombie world, the argument is clearly wrong. If there's a possibility of a world, identical to ours in every observable detail, where the zombie argument is wrong, then how do we know that we aren't already in that world ?
great job, excellent points by both of you.
@@anonymouscoward2491 i don't think you really explained to me why i am wrong. And firstly, i am not a physicalist, let's get that out of the way. As i said, i think chalmers mentioned great points throughout his work to question physicalism, i just have a hard time with this one argument. In what way am i confusing conceivability with believing? Explain it to me please. When you look at Chalmers argument, it's not like with your example that he first conceives p zombies and then he shows proof (like with your child example). We do not have concrete evidence of whether consciousness does arise from the physical or not. So your " you are confusing believing with conceiving" doesn't seem to hold up. Also: you say conception just means we have no way of disproving what has been conceived. I am not arguing against that. I am arguing on the premise of chalmers argument, on the whether or not it is even conceivable in the first place depending on what premise you apply. So we only hold p zombies to be conceivable because we accept the premise "consciousness arises not from the physical". If we instead accepted the premise "consciousness arises from the physical" than we would not hold p zombies to be conceivable. Also you did not argue on my Perpetuum mobile argument. At the moment we are like the scientists that did not yet know whether that was possible or not. We are like that in regard to consciousness. We simply don't yet know (and may never know) whether it arises from the physical or not. As i said, i gladly would like to understand your point better. Maybe i didn't understand the argument correctly. So please elaborate :)
This lecturer is very talented and sets a good example. Concise, articulate and passionate. Thank you.
Why use confusing conceptions like Panpsychism when you have the beautiful clarity and parsimony of Russellian Monism? The beauty of RM is that it renders terms like “mental” and “material” defunct. Good riddance. Let the ontology have the unity we should have recognized from the very beginning.
I think the reason people endorse panpsychism specifically is because RM is largely silent on what the intrinsic nature of matter actually is(Russell himself said it was just just neutral). But the usual response is that this is to vague to be meaningful. so modern thinkers try to characterise it and when u do a first person perspective seems to be convincing for ppl like Goff. Therefore first person perspectives (conscious experience) all the way down (panpsychism).
This is one of my complaints too. A consequence of this is that you see people overemphasizing the psychic aspects of the ontology, causing people to go so far as to even think of neutral monism is a form of idealism. But of course neutral monism is about uniting the mental and material into a non-dualistic harmony.
As I continue to watch this video I'm seeing more problems.
1. While inconceivable objects are those which are logically impossible, you may have the appearance of conceivability for an object but it may also be impossible. So I disagree that if something is conceivable then it is possible. 2. I don't think philosophical zombies are possible. The human body needs nourishment, and without feelings like hunger and thirst, how would the body remember to eat? Without feelings I don't see a baby surviving for long. What am I missing?
John Camacho I’d argue that 1. In the example of the girl who has never seen a color in her entire life how can she conceive colors? 2. What if in the future we have super complex AI that replicates human mind except for consciousness?
i know this comment is rather old, but i might be able to help you. philosophical zombies are aware of their surroundings. they do feel hunger and thirst. however, there is no phenomenological experience associated with all those functions. they can also talk and report about their inner life. an important destinction needs to be made: there is psychological consciousness and phenomenological consciousness. psychologocial are all those functions like "an information y is processed in x part of the brain". phenomenological experience however is that what makes us ultimately human; its the experience we have while having those more explanable functions. every science (neurobiological, psychology, etc) has the same problem: they can analyze a certain brain function or process, but they cannot explain why these functions are accompanied by phenomenological experience. i personally do not like the zombie argument, but chalmers (the guy who invented it) shows in his work a lot of very thought through critic of physicalism.
The Wittgensteinian Argument against Physicalism: Suppose we allow two robots. A programmer programs said robots to collect apples. One robot hits a tree and now is suddenly collecting blueberries instead of apples. What are you appealing to physically that explains the fact that the robot is doing something wrong, if not an intention? (That is to say, the intention of the programmer.) The robot is merely following certain programs, lines of code, etc. What it is doing can't be wrong, unless you say it is amiss by virtue of not being what the programmer intended. If one attempts to appeal to something physical to say the robot who's collecting apples is now doing something wrong; it doesn't seem like you're going to be able to appeal to anything. The fact that it bumped into the tree and began collecting blueberries can't be wrong, unless one said it was out of the accord with the programmers intentions. Therefore, if you commit action X, rule Y can be made out to accord with that action. Ergo, the physical facts under determine what rule you are following. Therefore, the sole thing we are left to appeal to is something like intentionality.
So when the robot hits a tree, it's lines of codes were affected, or the physical processor was affected?
Post-Malus Vaccinium ergo Propter-Vaccinium Malus
The most important question in regard to the idea of philosophy zombies is, why aren’t we philosophical zombies? It seems to me that we could just as easily be philosophical zombies but we’re not for some reason.
Not including the audience's questions and reactions is very painful but probably legally necessary...
great talk. thank you!
Very nicely articulated! Thanks for this!
So philosophical zombies are essentially a rebuttal for physicalism, hmm