Видео

Please provide practical examples of how adopting this model would affect, say, mental health treatments.

One of the most significant theologians in the Orthodox world.

Humanism can be problematic, especially if it leads to a deification of the human. We have consciousness, we are not consciousness. Seeing the physical brain as the origin of consciousness, leads to all manner of dangerous misconceptions. Instead the brain should be seen as a conduit for consciousness, much as a lamp is a conduit for light, nothing more. Seeing Consciousness as fundamental is necessary to escape the worm’s eye view of reality that is materialism. It is imperative that ‘the hard problem’ of consciousness’ be solved, seeing it accurately as fundamental, not derivative. This, of course, is problematic for atheism, as consciousness being fundamental posits an Entity that embodies it as its origin, an embodiment in which we share as entities.

Too difficult to hear.

Smart enough to write 30 books but NOT speak steadily into the microphone???

Adam and Eve are transhumans.

17:45 Creation is eschatological not protological

06:15 Nicholas Cabasilas, Life in Christ 6.91-4

Thank you for helding this lecture!!! Awesome exposition by Dr Wales🙌

Hard to listen listen to lectures that are just read

Does this explain the evolution of man from animal?

About presentation and representation, perhaps the right brain sees but the left brain elbows it out of the way before it can appreciate and be in awe of what it see. It (the left brain) doesn't pay attention to the whole, to beauty, truth etc.. It breaks it down / reduces it to usable bits. Never seeing the beauty, transcendent wisdom that the whole can bring. Just like we sometimes see the crescent but other times see the whole of the moon? We sometimes see the stars but other times we look up in awe and see the heavens, the awesomeness. We perhaps need to structure life so we have time to appreciate the awesomeness.

The physical brain seems to me, to somehow limit consciousness. It perhaps does this so that we can cope and not suffer from the combinatorial explosive effect of having complete awareness / knowledge of everything. We wouldn't be able to focus if we had this or to make decisions. We would blow a fuse. When we die perhaps we / our consciousness is released from the limitations of our physical brain and of the limitations of the physical world. Maybe we becomes part of a universal consciousness? That consciousness perhaps becomes marked by each of our lived experience and changes as a result. Consciousness touching consciousness somehow changes the whole. Ian Mcgilchrist says that attention is a moral act. I agree with this. What we look at comes into focus and everything else fades out. This is important to know. If we believe that our existence matters and that we make a difference we must be careful what we pay attention to. Ian Mcgilchrist also looks at what damage to each hemisphere does. So he is not just looking at things as a third hemisphere. He also seems to advocate deliberately trying to cultivated / awaken the right brain so that it's insight /wisdom is released. The way the world has evolved has forced the suppression of the right brain but perhaps we have the powers to release its wisdom. He passionaty seems to believe that this is worth doing and that it will make a difference in improving our lot in this world. It will give us greater insight and wisdom. Wisdom is so much more than knowledge after all. Worth doing I think. We know the expressions use it or lose it. Ian seems to be saying that we need to cultivate the right brain because the more pushy, primitive, animalistic, and selfish left brain ( needed for survival) requires tutoring to do a good job.

Nothing here ‘advances’ beyond Stirner’s “ creative nothing “ and embodiment. The expanding electron has replaced QM,SR, GR and indeed all of Standard Theory/ Model including Herr Newton, Einstein, Penrose and all modern ‘physicists.’ Nor will these elites even read “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon. Who has the gumption to “eat crow”? Almost none. Too painful to accept the pathetic and profound ignorance that prevails in the human brain. 3 exemplary right here.

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon. “The Unique and Its Property “, Max Stirner/Landstreicher. “The Bible Came from Arabia “, Kamal Salibi,1985 plus his 3 other bible study books. Without such this floundering will continue. Tallis and most folks can’t “ handle the truth.” Good luck.

Excellent dialogue. I've always admired the common sense metaphysical clarity Tallis discusses issues with

🛸

Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: Isaiah 14:9 ruclips.net/video/UkkHDEQXxnA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/q16pGD167O0/видео.html ruclips.net/video/LGIsm5EUH4k/видео.html ruclips.net/video/RBn9P7grmRU/видео.html ruclips.net/video/WN4cn6jmMh8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/_B0K7TZabmo/видео.html ruclips.net/video/gzChuZNQ_60/видео.html

Very interesting and hugely relevant to our predicament now.

I love the lispiness of the audio--it really enhances the content.

The problem is, you can’t circumvent the classifications of “male” and “female” in the name of “becoming human,” without negating them. This is why the traditional Christian doctrine of sexuality is very nearly indistinguishable from that of the gnostics. For in both domains, identity finds its fulfillment in its cessation.

Lacanian psychoanalysis and Hegelian phenomenology hit home here

The “Plan A vs. Plan B” ideology admits its need for Apokatastasis!

6:30

I wonder what her views are on transgenderism, and how she would reconcile that with her emphasis on ontological limits.

Did anyone else find themselves deeply moved by the timing of the sounds of a child in the background within the context of the lecture?? It literally brought tears to my eyes. Beautiful connections made here thanks very much for this.

A masterful study, Fr. John. Thanks for this!

how can i find more videos of professor thomas fuchs?

A long-needed critique of reductive accounts of body and the computational theory of mind.