If you have any questions for John, reply to this comment and I'll do my best to ask him as many as possible in our next podcast together. Also, if you enjoy the content please like, share and subscribe to the channel. Thank you for watching!
How can one live by an ecology of different practices and also be a zen neoplatonist? When I lay my head down at night I need a foundational belief system to unite them all, it seems. Is it up to me to make my own, or is a state of radical acceptance of the unknown the practice to employ?
Why has no person asked about the fact someone or something else could get to your consciousness before it realizes what it is, and force it to understand itself as if it was a body, a mind, and a soul in a body? If the person lives by the laws that are given to them at the start, they will never know who or what they are, only what the laws say they are supposed to be. So if you can exit your body with meditation, your body therefore isn't you, and your thoughts aren't you, so what else isn't you? Every understanding of what you are is likely a lie adhered to by a rule that limits what you are, and you just agree to it. Why is it so difficult for scientists to theorize that "mind" isn't mind, just what a rule or a law says is so, and so everything you experience is an artificial limitation you were forced to agree to during your process of self perception? If we are clearly more than bodies, and our minds aren't our minds, then that means we are living without using a correct self perception that allows us to identify with who or what we really are, doesn't it? We're incorrectly forced to use a ruleset that limits us on everything we do and then assigns us as lesser than we're supposed to be.
@@saerro4673 I think scientistic biases arise due to the power of empirical study and determinstic reasoning, it's a highly linear way of thinking, and this creates consistent narratives, which the compartmentalizing brain loves. The path of least resistance. one point though, experiments have discovered what happens when we have OBE's, the temporo-parietal junction, temporal pole, and motor cortex can be manipulated with direct electrode stimulation to make a person pop out of their body. Crazy studies on this out there now.
Sphinx G'cat SheKUNah DNA Lights369 laDDer of Life speaKing from A+1 4 letter G'cat Alpha Omega bEt In A +1' *3 letter word oi our minds body of Three's... Light369 speed⚡️🎼🌈 in every 3 LETTER WORD it speaks to the BodyIAM of Threes ☯️✡️🕎Vitruvian man made of Threes from head to TOE 1 love=0= signature 3 of order ♂️+01=0=-01♀️ seen through every wavelength ring369 EVERY particle of matterMC² we see universally ..see CERN Discerning mind 369... vibration frequency arclights 9 Observer thought charge* thought me*x3 TRiStmasJIST US three times three Atlantis Babylon Tesla Tower.. O ME Leonardo da Vinci in the flesh... AKA Judas Iscariot I am cursed light bearer CAIN of Abel. Promise to wake up at the end of the child might subconscious beastmind rule of Self in our world age into the Age of Enlightenment wake up Cain and Elon Musk who is able still carries my name Nikola Tesla BeamerGNosis Lady Liberty book in hand torch light held high chain broken off Lucifer's light bearers foot Cosmos I am light Never Dies the death is our illusion through the terrible twos of childhood in Mercy Mercy Me and our promise rest is real o Israel as third eye vision we see Power 3 sets all prisoners captives free from all the chains that bind us. Free energy anti-gravity solutions for all pollutions the best medical tool one could ever imagine we can make rain have food on every table and much much more for the healing of all Nations. TimesFaceInEnergy.com Tic-tac-toe Plato m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=158095073999832&id=100093980206042&mibextid=Nif5oz
Vervaeke may be the most valuable philosopher living today, the real "MVP" [: His lecture series Awakening from the Meaning Crisis made a huge impact on my life, no one else has influenced me more positively, and I hope to have him on my own channel someday!
Agreed. The only person that had more impact on my thinking is Bernardo Kastrup, but I would not have started asking these types of questions if I hadn’t seen Awakening from the Meaning Crisis Will check out your channel
I have watched Awakening From the Meaning Crisis over 10 times through 😅 I am not educated and that has been what it has taken to grok its content, and it continues to unfold for me. It’s been the most important piece of work I have ever consumed.
Ian McGilchrist I believe puts out the idea in his work "The Master And His Emissary" that nature speaks a language initially to the animal kingdom so they need to be conscious first on the evolutionary scale. Animals also have a fundamental intercommunication on fundamentals like food presence, predator danger etc. Humans take the social intercommunication to a higher social level. Plus humans introspect language as thought and conceptualization or we fold language back within our brains via the highly developed frontal lobes.
Absolutely exquisite. Criminally underrated video. No one has been able to keep up and push John like you do. Now if only we had music to go with it. Definitely a daily practice delicacy 🍦🍨🎂
I am 86. I remember perfectly clear the instant when I became conscious of my existence. My mother told me that I was 9 months old. To become conscious is almost identical to waking up, with a difference, that first instant is the completion of a cycle that started with conception and prepared the body and the mind to be able to interact with reality, with the world. Consciousness is an integral part of life. To understand one, we must understand the other. Everything in the universe is interrelated, life is the master mind that coordinates existence. Our consciousness is what permits us to do things, all things spiritual and physical. Consciousness is a tool created by life to permit anything alive to realize its function and purpose in life, automatically and spontaneously, because it is a gift from life.
Consciousness is eternal. You may forget your life when you "die" but you dont disappear. Universe cant exist without observers/consciousness. Consciousness create matter, space and time, not the other way round.
Getting to move John into his love of books that can turn the lights on for most of us, and when I say most, I mean the 60% of people on this planet that care about 100% of the people, if that were to change, then we lose control, great work facilitating, seriously Tevin, thank you both John and Tevin for sharing your time, work, and knowledge with me, peace
Wonderful conversation, @Tevin, you're a new host discovery for me to the conversations I am already listening in on, and @Vervaeke is already anchored in my respect and appreciation. This conversation really tapped into his work and brought together so many dimensions. Can't wait to get into some of the other researchers in the field mentioned in the conversation. Mike Levin''s work already has been a point of fascinating attention for me. What a time to be alive and active!
@@drtevinnaidu I will check them out, and looking forward to the future conversation with John! I"m turning to the more recent Mark Solms conversation, I still have to read some of his material.
I am a physicist and I will explain why scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated solely by the brain; this leads us to conclude that our mental experiences cannot be purely physical/biological. The brain operates in a fragmentary manner, with many separate processes happening simultaneously. I prove that such fragmentary structure implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness; therefore, something else must be involved-something indivisible and non-physical, which we often refer to as the soul. (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds. Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct. Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams) From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Clarifications The brain itself doesn't exist as a completely mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Conclusions My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness. An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties. Marco Biagini
So many great minds within these collaborative encounters... But what will it take for any of the thinking and new iterations of language on age old ideas to make any measurable difference in the living world? What does "cog sci" have to do with healthier ecosystems and functioning societies? Are we truly exercising "relevance realization"?
Super good conversation. And I know Tevon. you’ve had Don Hoffman before if you truly understand what Don is talking about if both of you truly understands what Don is talking about , that space and time are not fundamental, and that’s not just a philosophical statement you can see the plank time and see the details. many of those questions would drop away immediately.
John never comes across as pronouncing judgement. Me on the other hand...the many and the one as displayed by a broken shear pin. A vertical solid shaft with layers of increased diameter pipe allowing the horizontal, with the shear pin connection. The One piece stays (embedded)with the one shaft, and the pipe cuts the pin so that two outer bits are made. More added larger diameter pipe, more bits, but the One is still embedded.
I've had the mystical experiences that he's talking about and he's right about that. When you're within the experiences you have the intelligence of the of the being that you are part of whereas normally you don't have the overall intelligence you just have the intelligence of the singled out unit that is you but when you're having a mystical experience you have the intelligence of the entirety and it gives you understanding Beyond something that's explainable but it's understanding the way you know what you are experiencing is real because you're too intelligent to be fooled at that point your IQ is literally infinite and that's something you can't carry back with you when you come back to the reality of here so you can't explain it to other people of normal intelligence because it doesn't allow itself to be confined in finite language
Please forgive the pedantry, but I do not think it is the case that most people misuse the word "anxiety". The word has been used in English for half a millennium in its popular sense of "apprehensive uneasiness or nervousness"; for example, when John Donne wrote “Temporal prosperity comes always accompanied with so much anxiety” in 1623, he wasn't talking about a medical condition. It wasn't until the end of the nineteenth century that it became shorthand for what Freud called "anxiety neurosis" and is now termed "generalised anxiety disorder". So now we have what Lakoff would call a "folk category" and an "expert category" for anxiety, and it is only an error to use the folk category when you think you are using the expert category (e.g., self-diagnosing). Otherwise, saying that a layperson is incorrect because they aren't using "anxiety" in the sense that a clinical psychologist might use it is like saying that psychologists misuse the word because they don't use it the same way as existentialist philosophers..
About 1 hour in, JV calls Sartre an "overrated" "madonna" because Sartre "misunderstood Heidegger," a Nazi collaborator or at least endorser, no matter what the circumstances. In stark contrast, Sartre developed his own brand of existentialism, diagnosed the disease of the human condition (alienation, nausea, angst, etc), and gave us a THERAPY: ontological freedom (no god, no original sin, etc), personal responsibility, and commitment to social progress. Moreover, Sartre LIVED what he taught, serving in the Resistance during the Nazis' occupation of France. In addition, Sartre REFUSED the Nobel the Swedes wanted to give him, because he didn't want to be coopted. That synergy of theory and action helped millions of wisdom-seekers find our way through the wasteland. How many people did Heidegger and Vervaeke inspire thus? So far, after an hour, all I hear is academic psychology: a house of cards of metaphors and jargon---an irrelevant clique during the MAGA era, whose lunatic leader may return to the WH next year, while global warming is raging, and the runaway greenhouse effect is approaching.
Relevance and meaning are almost the same thing and can probably be tought or inferred to at least some degree. I don't think this will have any impact in an AI having more or less consciousness. It will just become very convincing at emulating conciousness. Given the many positive reviews of the man I'll spend time on viewing content of his such as 'awakening from the meaning crisis'
It's possible to answer the question of what is consciousness with, it's language. The counter argument is a statement about agents who communicate but seem to fall short of consciousness. One answer is that there's a continuum between beings that speak and humans. It's not specific enough so we have to keep adding claims. Here's a claim to add: consciousness is made of language and it emerges out of it, but language is not sufficient for consciousness because it is a media or form that other states are also made out of; iow, other states, not just consciousness, emerge from language. I don't think about what I am writing, I just write like I am channeling a/my voice, and then I go back and edit. Too busy to edit now.
@@Mantramurtim Buddhism says consciousness is on the list of 12 dependent originations, meaning consciousness is emerging from ignorance and meaning experts in meditation accomplish being without consciousness. All thoughts are consciousness, thus all thoughts are language. All of this is to say, that western philosophy and science needs to take the assumption that Buddhist and non-Buddhist meditation practicianers touch zero several times a minute. Zero is a state of being with no thought and no awareness, but some say zero is "awareness." So this is my question, what is awareness without ignorance? If scientific field of research began with this assumption, then a study conciousness can be reverse engineered. Yes, there is awareness prior to consciousness, according to the 12 dependent originations, but as soon as there are thoughts then you are at the stage including consciousness. You can have feelings without thoughts, and you can have awareness without feelings, but the latter isn't conciousness. As you can see, Western philosophy and the entire population needs to start using a new concept of consciousness or lingo that is objectively correct: consciousness and "feelings without thoughts". The latter is not consciousness and this is what is causing all the academic problems.
John is very intelligent but I find the thing that I noticed most about him is the way he uses complicated terms in in place of simple terms and then says that something complicated to describe the complicating Factor is himself and his choice of words more than anything. I mean every word he uses that is complicated he can find a synonym for that isn't
There are a few fairly new concepts he speaks about that actually don’t have ‘simple analogs’ or simpler definitions. Don’t feel as if asking questions is silly or just listen to a few of his talks to get these. Alternatively, looking up some of these definitions is actually not hard either. Yes, he’s fairly technical but he’s not really hard to understand. Onto-normativity, relevance-realization and his cognitive-science grounding form a strong technical basis to his vocabulary & explanatory framing.
@@christopherhamilton3621 I heard him speak many times on you tube and every time most of his statements can be very easily spoken in a far simpler way. That's not saying he's not brilliant within his field or in general. I just think he complicates things more than needed. I don't know why because his terms are probably correct but he still reminds me of one of those guys that always uses big complicated words incorrectly just to sound smart. But in his case he's using them correctly. Maybe I'm just not used to hearing people talk like that and myself I tried to simplify everything as much as possible when I'm explaining things to people. I understand there are some technical terms that have no simpler equivalent or synonym but there are more of them that do. Far more. And if not a direct synonym then they can be said the same way by a combination of other simpler words. Lately I've been trying to explain some of my own concepts to people so I'm experiencing exactly what I am speaking of myself and of course what you were speaking of because some of the terms that I am trying to teach people or introduced to people don't have any synonyms really. I'm very much into things like logic and metaphysics with a big emphasis on the physics aspect of it. I have a theory of everything that I know is not just a theory it's the correct description of reality but it's hard to get anyone to listen. Especially if I was to start talking like him. Maybe they would if I did? Maybe that's the problem?
@@christopherhamilton3621 My vocabulary expanded enormously as a result of watching Escaping the Meaning Crisis! Onto-normativity, finite transcendence, combinatorial explosiveness, self-organising criticality ... lots of fun stuff. But most of the time, it's not a matter of learning new words, just of putting together words (or elements of words) in novel ways, and that's what makes it enjoyable for me. It's like those animals in Avatar like wolfbats and armadillo lions. And sometimes trying to explain things in everyday language actually makes them harder to understand. Wittgenstein said "If a thing can be said at all, it can be said simply," but then you read Philosophical Investigations, which uses beautifully simple language but still makes your brain hurt ;-)
@@RobinTurner yeah and I'm not saying that he's not extremely intelligent or anything like that I just saying that it sounds like a lot of the things he says he could say in simpler form. But I think he's much more articulate than I am myself of course
Warning : Long comment ahead. About ‘information’ - as a phenomenon in its own, as well as the role it fills in mental/mindful phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘knowledgze’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, the ‘self’, ‘consciousness’, & ‘self-consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list). ‘Space’ & ‘time’, ‘matter’ & ‘energy’ - ‘information’. Elementary elements of reality ? An only slightly more exacting examination of reality - of the world around us - of our situation in all of its fullness as whatever it is that we are & as to whatever particular ‘realm’ within which we are located (within which we live, & move,& have our being) - enables any serious student thereof recognise that at this precise moment in time - namely 2024 - although ‘information’ is widely believed to be - along with ‘space’ & ‘time’, ‘matter’ & ‘energy’ - a basic, fundamental, elementary, even central component of reality, nevertheless - & however surprisingly - currently its - ‘informations’s’ - ontological identity remains completely unspecified - & totally unknown & wholly misunderstood. Not only has its correct - & fully verifiable - ontological identity not been established, but neither has a full, good, proper & fully verifiable science of the phenomenon also been first recognised, & then (verifiably) established. Put another way, the answers to the following questions remain completely unanswered. Worse. Even the most respected & widely referenced of investigators suggest answers which are manifestly incorrect. What is ‘information’ ? Is it a distinct & ‘stand alone’ phenomenon ? What is its standing in the existential hierarchy ? Is it an elemental phenomenon or does it emerge somewhere above the first few ladder steps of the scala naturale ? What role does it play &/or fulfill here in the Universe ? What is its causal efficacy - if it has any ? How does it come into being ? Is it conserved regardless of the interactions in which it may be involved ? What role, if any, does it fulfill in any mental, or mindful, or sentient phenomena, such as, say, ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘knowledge’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, the ‘self’, ‘consciousness’, & ‘self-consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list). Is ‘information’ a strictly physical phenomenon ? Is ‘information’ (quintessentially) ‘digital’, & can (& do) digit-using machines, systems & devices ‘think’, &/or be ‘conscious’, & if so can these devices be ‘intelligent’ ? Are such phenomena as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘knowledge’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, the ‘self’, ‘consciousness’, & ‘self-consciousness’, digitally/computationally tractable, or is some other significantly different set of handling procedures &/or mechanical operations required by which any (dedicated) information-using machine, entity, system, gadget, contrivance or device can be, & is at least during operational times critically involved in any or all of these mental/mindful/sentient phenomena ? Although I am a rank & raving, aging antipodean amateur, some time ago my own research not too problematically allowed me to recognise - & verify, & establish - not only what ‘information’ is (its ontological identity) - as a phenomenon in its own right (& not just what any of it ‘says’, or means, or does), &, further, in addition, not only determine a full & fully verifiable science of the phenomenon, but also that of all of its closest cousins to boot, no less than such things as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ which are manifestly (demonstrably) all information-related phenomena. With these particular (& fully verifiable) accomplishments under my belt, it is not difficult to show that one of the principal (& completely inexcusable) reasons we (er, the current intelligentsia, nor yet ‘the common person’) have not so far come to any good & proper - nor fully verifiable - understanding of these otherwise greatly sought-after yet still highly mysterious phenomena is due in great part to the simple fact that the current intelligentsia does not presently also have a good & proper, fully verifiable understanding, or science, of ‘information’ itself - that is, the contemporary cadre of seriously inquisitive person do not presently also have a clear & fully verifiable definition & understanding of ‘information’ itself - which is to say of ‘information’ as a phenomenon in its own right & not just what any of it ‘says’, or means or does. Let alone any of its closest cousins cousins …. Just saying ….. please be so gracious to reply to this comment if you wish to know more ….
Everything has an intelligence it's not a hard problem at all just because someone adds a bunch of big complicated terms to something doesn't mean it's it's that complicated that's what it seems like John does to me he just talks in terms of big big words does it say anything too complicated he just uses complicated words to say it
Consciousness is mind or information acting was in time and space in a linear fashion mind is all the information of reality itself Richard's Universal and doesn't have a singular Focus moving in linear fashion are moving at all since it is all times and all places and then changing and I'm changing that is the nature of the Continuum becoming quantized or differentiating it's how Unity becomes Multiplicity and it shows the direct relationship and how they're two sides of the same coin between objectivity and subjectivity which are equally as important
Speaking the truth is not pretentious and it's obviously a continuum. I mean there's no place where you can say it begins to where it stops so it has to be a continuum what is the continuum quantized that's why we can divide it up in the present moment yet we can't Define when the present moment is cuz it's always moving. That's the nature of time and its nature of Consciousness as well you can't find a place where it begins or a place where it ends cuz it doesn't it just graduates both ways it is us at defined the present moment not time the same thing goes with consciousness it is acid Define the present moment of Consciousness not mind itself I should say it is us that Focus mind on that present moment or inside of that present entity or outside of it cuz where do you need to find that as we're all made out of Stardust what's inside and what's outside of us we're all made out of Stardust and Light and space Oh I believe that's everywhere except outside of the universe
Consciousness is only a problem if you are a reductive materialist.. If you believe consciousness doesn't reside in the brain but is a fundamental element of the universe it's not a problem.
@@ubiktd4064 We’re looking for an explanation & phenomenological basis. Just assuming panpsychism does neither: it just ignores & sidesteps the question & really doesn’t provide a satisfactory answer IMHO.
A grammar is just fine it's just the fact that you need to try to complicate it dude there's very simple words for almost every complicated word you use
@@anthonytroia1 Maybe it’s because I’ve listened to a fair amount of JV, but I think I did. He can be very technical to a total newbie to his ideas etc.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the phrase "meaning crisis", but it's hard to understand a "message" when it is part of a 2:00:40 video. I appreciate the timestamps, but since I'm not a professional in this field, Do you have a 3-5 paragraph summary beyond: go outside, touch grass, talk to people? I am not okay with the cliched concept of: "everybody makes their own meaning." So far, that has primarily been used to perpetuate deceit, manipulation, subjugation, control, torture, and us being farmed. Do you have an helpful, TLDR, TEXT version of this, in case I DON'T have to go on a long drive? Here's an example of short, concise and helpful: Conservatives (like USA Republicans) want SLAVES. That is why they hate same-sex couples who do not create unwanted pregnancies. That is why they hate abortion. That is why they hate contraception. That is why they want to eliminate reproductive education from schools. The *best* way to keep people ignorant and impoverished is with Unwanted Pregnancies. Conservatives want slaves. The absolute WORST thing a couple can do at this time (Trump 2.0) is to generate additional, superfluous human slaves to be manipulated, controlled, subjugated, tortured and farmed by the Global Capitalist Machine. I feel like withholding slaves is the last recourse we have to fight/punish them. Humans breed out of ignorance and selfishness. Hopefully the children will be wiser and more compassionate than their parents were.
John demonstrates the way talking with like-minded people inevitably leads to slip-of-the-tongue irrationality like"intelligent behaviours happen without consciousness?" The lack of self differentiation in such statements is the mind-body problem of having no conscious 'awareness' of over 95 percent of our reality, as all the myriad non-conscious processes of the body that make us human. Please try to become aware of speaking the word 'consciousness' as-if the word consciousness is the experience of consciousness? As you try to notice 'how' you are comprehensively prone to self-deception?
Evidence now brings all on par with esoterica America it's orginal line and why they chose tech to improve the human condition. Usa comes from sources who inspire others. They do not draw from Europe nor Greek its a big part of English law being undermined now. . 1945s Smith_mundt act Just like how these ai models are being trained esoterica America was always teaching serfs and slaves alike subjective objects physical objects idealistic objects = mechanical compute eqaul measure Abolishenist presbyters methodist Baptist teachers would've put this on a board in front of the class 1700s-1800s ✝️ vertical axis z- y mosaic commandments subjective space eternal cosmos endowed by God soul agency = 1inderect lines detectable atoms / individuals ✝️ X horizontal axis classical physics or works. Kids would categorize the world around them point it out on the chart. It was always bottom up rule triality of self liberal individualism + Time . Europe uk. India all fell back under dualism aristocracy wasn't giving anything but personal actors and rulers who loan out democracy. Usa call to arms we granted liberal power to the state and higher ed to hold determined simplicity pushing infinite sums of complexity upon the many 20 yr old cannon fodder necessary evils to transfer wealth . We achieved those goals now It was never any other way in English law since puritans encoded this language specifically knowing it would one day
When usa founder says physicalism is subjective to change without further notice on par with idealism therefore , To maximize benefits of atoms that we all work with we must interpret them radically differently thus , Customer is always right deterministic simplicity individual liberal responsibility pushing infinite sums of complexity upon beaucracy and higher education to be deal with rigor & create land bridges between tribes who form one nation defined by borders. ( NOT personal responsibility to take whatever the state of school force upon them) This is reserved for a call to arms only .. They chose this textualism methodology objectivism = technological development No one likes how gnostic or literal this footwork is playing out but general forsight to predict one day material sciences abilities and the puritan encoded english would play a role in a building a new beast of burden robot slave and utility of serfs just falls out of issac newtons conformation . It's a hell of a burden that no one understands why it's this way or why it's the only way to give our kids a chance to defend themselves while eqaulibrium optimization is eventually achieved
If you have any questions for John, reply to this comment and I'll do my best to ask him as many as possible in our next podcast together. Also, if you enjoy the content please like, share and subscribe to the channel. Thank you for watching!
How can one live by an ecology of different practices and also be a zen neoplatonist? When I lay my head down at night I need a foundational belief system to unite them all, it seems. Is it up to me to make my own, or is a state of radical acceptance of the unknown the practice to employ?
Why has no person asked about the fact someone or something else could get to your consciousness before it realizes what it is, and force it to understand itself as if it was a body, a mind, and a soul in a body? If the person lives by the laws that are given to them at the start, they will never know who or what they are, only what the laws say they are supposed to be. So if you can exit your body with meditation, your body therefore isn't you, and your thoughts aren't you, so what else isn't you? Every understanding of what you are is likely a lie adhered to by a rule that limits what you are, and you just agree to it. Why is it so difficult for scientists to theorize that "mind" isn't mind, just what a rule or a law says is so, and so everything you experience is an artificial limitation you were forced to agree to during your process of self perception? If we are clearly more than bodies, and our minds aren't our minds, then that means we are living without using a correct self perception that allows us to identify with who or what we really are, doesn't it? We're incorrectly forced to use a ruleset that limits us on everything we do and then assigns us as lesser than we're supposed to be.
@@saerro4673 I think scientistic biases arise due to the power of empirical study and determinstic reasoning, it's a highly linear way of thinking, and this creates consistent narratives, which the compartmentalizing brain loves. The path of least resistance.
one point though, experiments have discovered what happens when we have OBE's, the temporo-parietal junction, temporal pole, and motor cortex can be manipulated with direct electrode stimulation to make a person pop out of their body. Crazy studies on this out there now.
Considering:
The ...Body, Mind and Soul.... Enigma.
and
The ...Nature, Function, and Ascendability.... of Consciousness.
Sphinx G'cat SheKUNah DNA Lights369 laDDer of Life speaKing from A+1
4 letter G'cat Alpha Omega bEt
In A +1' *3 letter word oi our minds body of Three's... Light369 speed⚡️🎼🌈 in every 3 LETTER WORD it speaks to the BodyIAM of Threes ☯️✡️🕎Vitruvian man made of Threes from head to TOE
1 love=0= signature 3 of order
♂️+01=0=-01♀️
seen through every wavelength ring369 EVERY
particle of matterMC² we see universally ..see CERN Discerning mind 369... vibration frequency arclights 9 Observer thought charge* thought me*x3
TRiStmasJIST US three times three
Atlantis
Babylon
Tesla Tower..
O ME
Leonardo da Vinci in the flesh... AKA Judas Iscariot I am cursed light bearer CAIN of Abel. Promise to wake up at the end of the child might subconscious beastmind rule of Self in our world age into the Age of Enlightenment wake up Cain and Elon Musk who is able still carries my name Nikola Tesla
BeamerGNosis Lady Liberty book in hand torch light held high chain broken off Lucifer's light bearers foot Cosmos I am light Never Dies the death is our illusion through the terrible twos of childhood in Mercy Mercy Me and our promise rest is real o Israel as third eye vision we see Power 3 sets all prisoners captives free from all the chains that bind us.
Free energy anti-gravity solutions for all pollutions the best medical tool one could ever imagine we can make rain have food on every table and much much more for the healing of all Nations.
TimesFaceInEnergy.com
Tic-tac-toe Plato
m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=158095073999832&id=100093980206042&mibextid=Nif5oz
Vervaeke may be the most valuable philosopher living today, the real "MVP" [: His lecture series Awakening from the Meaning Crisis made a huge impact on my life, no one else has influenced me more positively, and I hope to have him on my own channel someday!
Agreed.
The only person that had more impact on my thinking is Bernardo Kastrup, but I would not have started asking these types of questions if I hadn’t seen Awakening from the Meaning Crisis
Will check out your channel
@@HigoWapsico yes, another incredibly valued mind. I want to get them together in a discussion someday.
I have watched Awakening From the Meaning Crisis over 10 times through 😅 I am not educated and that has been what it has taken to grok its content, and it continues to unfold for me. It’s been the most important piece of work I have ever consumed.
💙🙏🏽
1:15:00 Glad to hear John's openness to Whiteheadian (process-relational) panpsychism/panexperientialism!
Ian McGilchrist I believe puts out the idea in his work "The Master And His Emissary" that nature speaks a language initially to the animal kingdom so they need to be conscious first on the evolutionary scale. Animals also have a fundamental intercommunication on fundamentals like food presence, predator danger etc. Humans take the social intercommunication to a higher social level. Plus humans introspect language as thought and conceptualization or we fold language back within our brains via the highly developed frontal lobes.
It didn’t take 10 minutes for this episode to potentiate as an all time most rewarding listens.
Thanks for sharing!🙏🏽
Absolutely exquisite. Criminally underrated video. No one has been able to keep up and push John like you do. Now if only we had music to go with it. Definitely a daily practice delicacy 🍦🍨🎂
Wow, thank you!
I am 86. I remember perfectly clear the instant when I became conscious of my existence. My mother told me that I was 9 months old. To become conscious is almost identical to waking up, with a difference, that first instant is the completion of a cycle that started with conception and prepared the body and the mind to be able to interact with reality, with the world. Consciousness is an integral part of life. To understand one, we must understand the other. Everything in the universe is interrelated, life is the master mind that coordinates existence. Our consciousness is what permits us to do things, all things spiritual and physical. Consciousness is a tool created by life to permit anything alive to realize its function and purpose in life, automatically and spontaneously, because it is a gift from life.
🙏🏽
Consciousness is eternal. You may forget your life when you "die" but you dont disappear. Universe cant exist without observers/consciousness. Consciousness create matter, space and time, not the other way round.
Getting to move John into his love of books that can turn the lights on for most of us, and when I say most, I mean the 60% of people on this planet that care about 100% of the people, if that were to change, then we lose control, great work facilitating, seriously Tevin, thank you both John and Tevin for sharing your time, work, and knowledge with me, peace
It's always my pleasure. Thank you for watching/listening!🙏🏽
Great interview, man, one of the best Vervaeke's interviews I've seen until now. Thank you and have a nice day.
Thanks man! I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Wonderful conversation, @Tevin, you're a new host discovery for me to the conversations I am already listening in on, and @Vervaeke is already anchored in my respect and appreciation. This conversation really tapped into his work and brought together so many dimensions. Can't wait to get into some of the other researchers in the field mentioned in the conversation. Mike Levin''s work already has been a point of fascinating attention for me. What a time to be alive and active!
Thanks so much!🙏🏽 3 lengthy conversations with Mike on the channel waiting for you, and more with John on the way! ✌🏼
@@drtevinnaidu I will check them out, and looking forward to the future conversation with John! I"m turning to the more recent Mark Solms conversation, I still have to read some of his material.
Happy to have found this channel. Some of the highest quality content I've come accross regarding these questions.
Welcome aboard! Thanks for the kind words. Really appreciate it.🙏🏽
I am in love and I am vibrating at a level of consciousness that is both real and transcendent. Love is real.
Work by Vaughan Pratt points to the possibility of using the Stone Representation theorem as a way to tackle the problem of dualism.
I am a physicist and I will explain why scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated solely by the brain; this leads us to conclude that our mental experiences cannot be purely physical/biological.
The brain operates in a fragmentary manner, with many separate processes happening simultaneously. I prove that such fragmentary structure implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness; therefore, something else must be involved-something indivisible and non-physical, which we often refer to as the soul. (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations).
Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds.
Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct.
Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams)
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Clarifications
The brain itself doesn't exist as a completely mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain.
Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
Conclusions
My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness.
An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.
Marco Biagini
@@marcobiagini1878 Have you published any of this or is this it?
That was a great show, thanks.
Thank you!
So many great minds within these collaborative encounters... But what will it take for any of the thinking and new iterations of language on age old ideas to make any measurable difference in the living world? What does "cog sci" have to do with healthier ecosystems and functioning societies? Are we truly exercising "relevance realization"?
Quickly subscribed! Great interview and channel. Thank you 👊🏼🤠
Thank you!😁🙏🏽
Super good conversation. And I know Tevon. you’ve had Don Hoffman before if you truly understand what Don is talking about if both of you truly understands what Don is talking about , that space and time are not fundamental, and that’s not just a philosophical statement you can see the plank time and see the details. many of those questions would drop away immediately.
John never comes across as pronouncing judgement. Me on the other hand...the many and the one as displayed by a broken shear pin. A vertical solid shaft with layers of increased diameter pipe allowing the horizontal, with the shear pin connection. The One piece stays (embedded)with the one shaft, and the pipe cuts the pin so that two outer bits are made. More added larger diameter pipe, more bits, but the One is still embedded.
What is the book he mentioned on non dualism?
I've had the mystical experiences that he's talking about and he's right about that. When you're within the experiences you have the intelligence of the of the being that you are part of whereas normally you don't have the overall intelligence you just have the intelligence of the singled out unit that is you but when you're having a mystical experience you have the intelligence of the entirety and it gives you understanding Beyond something that's explainable but it's understanding the way you know what you are experiencing is real because you're too intelligent to be fooled at that point your IQ is literally infinite and that's something you can't carry back with you when you come back to the reality of here so you can't explain it to other people of normal intelligence because it doesn't allow itself to be confined in finite language
Please forgive the pedantry, but I do not think it is the case that most people misuse the word "anxiety". The word has been used in English for half a millennium in its popular sense of "apprehensive uneasiness or nervousness"; for example, when John Donne wrote “Temporal prosperity comes always accompanied with so much anxiety” in 1623, he wasn't talking about a medical condition. It wasn't until the end of the nineteenth century that it became shorthand for what Freud called "anxiety neurosis" and is now termed "generalised anxiety disorder". So now we have what Lakoff would call a "folk category" and an "expert category" for anxiety, and it is only an error to use the folk category when you think you are using the expert category (e.g., self-diagnosing). Otherwise, saying that a layperson is incorrect because they aren't using "anxiety" in the sense that a clinical psychologist might use it is like saying that psychologists misuse the word because they don't use it the same way as existentialist philosophers..
About 1 hour in, JV calls Sartre an "overrated" "madonna" because Sartre "misunderstood Heidegger," a Nazi collaborator or at least endorser, no matter what the circumstances. In stark contrast, Sartre developed his own brand of existentialism, diagnosed the disease of the human condition (alienation, nausea, angst, etc), and gave us a THERAPY: ontological freedom (no god, no original sin, etc), personal responsibility, and commitment to social progress. Moreover, Sartre LIVED what he taught, serving in the Resistance during the Nazis' occupation of France. In addition, Sartre REFUSED the Nobel the Swedes wanted to give him, because he didn't want to be coopted. That synergy of theory and action helped millions of wisdom-seekers find our way through the wasteland. How many people did Heidegger and Vervaeke inspire thus? So far, after an hour, all I hear is academic psychology: a house of cards of metaphors and jargon---an irrelevant clique during the MAGA era, whose lunatic leader may return to the WH next year, while global warming is raging, and the runaway greenhouse effect is approaching.
Relevance and meaning are almost the same thing and can probably be tought or inferred to at least some degree.
I don't think this will have any impact in an AI having more or less consciousness. It will just become very convincing at emulating conciousness.
Given the many positive reviews of the man I'll spend time on viewing content of his such as 'awakening from the meaning crisis'
It's possible to answer the question of what is consciousness with, it's language. The counter argument is a statement about agents who communicate but seem to fall short of consciousness. One answer is that there's a continuum between beings that speak and humans. It's not specific enough so we have to keep adding claims. Here's a claim to add: consciousness is made of language and it emerges out of it, but language is not sufficient for consciousness because it is a media or form that other states are also made out of; iow, other states, not just consciousness, emerge from language. I don't think about what I am writing, I just write like I am channeling a/my voice, and then I go back and edit. Too busy to edit now.
I think. I speak. I feel. I am the consciousness, not language, not the thoughts or feelings.
@@Mantramurtim Buddhism says consciousness is on the list of 12 dependent originations, meaning consciousness is emerging from ignorance and meaning experts in meditation accomplish being without consciousness. All thoughts are consciousness, thus all thoughts are language. All of this is to say, that western philosophy and science needs to take the assumption that Buddhist and non-Buddhist meditation practicianers touch zero several times a minute. Zero is a state of being with no thought and no awareness, but some say zero is "awareness." So this is my question, what is awareness without ignorance? If scientific field of research began with this assumption, then a study conciousness can be reverse engineered. Yes, there is awareness prior to consciousness, according to the 12 dependent originations, but as soon as there are thoughts then you are at the stage including consciousness. You can have feelings without thoughts, and you can have awareness without feelings, but the latter isn't conciousness. As you can see, Western philosophy and the entire population needs to start using a new concept of consciousness or lingo that is objectively correct: consciousness and "feelings without thoughts". The latter is not consciousness and this is what is causing all the academic problems.
What about people who have no internal dialogue?
John is very intelligent but I find the thing that I noticed most about him is the way he uses complicated terms in in place of simple terms and then says that something complicated to describe the complicating Factor is himself and his choice of words more than anything. I mean every word he uses that is complicated he can find a synonym for that isn't
There are a few fairly new concepts he speaks about that actually don’t have ‘simple analogs’ or simpler definitions. Don’t feel as if asking questions is silly or just listen to a few of his talks to get these. Alternatively, looking up some of these definitions is actually not hard either. Yes, he’s fairly technical but he’s not really hard to understand. Onto-normativity, relevance-realization and his cognitive-science grounding form a strong technical basis to his vocabulary & explanatory framing.
@@christopherhamilton3621 I heard him speak many times on you tube and every time most of his statements can be very easily spoken in a far simpler way. That's not saying he's not brilliant within his field or in general. I just think he complicates things more than needed. I don't know why because his terms are probably correct but he still reminds me of one of those guys that always uses big complicated words incorrectly just to sound smart. But in his case he's using them correctly. Maybe I'm just not used to hearing people talk like that and myself I tried to simplify everything as much as possible when I'm explaining things to people. I understand there are some technical terms that have no simpler equivalent or synonym but there are more of them that do. Far more. And if not a direct synonym then they can be said the same way by a combination of other simpler words. Lately I've been trying to explain some of my own concepts to people so I'm experiencing exactly what I am speaking of myself and of course what you were speaking of because some of the terms that I am trying to teach people or introduced to people don't have any synonyms really. I'm very much into things like logic and metaphysics with a big emphasis on the physics aspect of it. I have a theory of everything that I know is not just a theory it's the correct description of reality but it's hard to get anyone to listen. Especially if I was to start talking like him. Maybe they would if I did? Maybe that's the problem?
@@christopherhamilton3621 My vocabulary expanded enormously as a result of watching Escaping the Meaning Crisis! Onto-normativity, finite transcendence, combinatorial explosiveness, self-organising criticality ... lots of fun stuff. But most of the time, it's not a matter of learning new words, just of putting together words (or elements of words) in novel ways, and that's what makes it enjoyable for me. It's like those animals in Avatar like wolfbats and armadillo lions. And sometimes trying to explain things in everyday language actually makes them harder to understand. Wittgenstein said "If a thing can be said at all, it can be said simply," but then you read Philosophical Investigations, which uses beautifully simple language but still makes your brain hurt ;-)
@@youtubebane7036I would like to listen to your take on reality, I take the well placed bait and dare ;)
@@RobinTurner yeah and I'm not saying that he's not extremely intelligent or anything like that I just saying that it sounds like a lot of the things he says he could say in simpler form. But I think he's much more articulate than I am myself of course
Warning : Long comment ahead. About ‘information’ - as a phenomenon in its own, as well as the role it fills in mental/mindful phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘knowledgze’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, the ‘self’, ‘consciousness’, & ‘self-consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list).
‘Space’ & ‘time’, ‘matter’ & ‘energy’ - ‘information’. Elementary elements of reality ?
An only slightly more exacting examination of reality - of the world around us - of our situation in all of its fullness as whatever it is that we are & as to whatever particular ‘realm’ within which we are located (within which we live, & move,& have our being) - enables any serious student thereof recognise that at this precise moment in time - namely 2024 - although ‘information’ is widely believed to be - along with ‘space’ & ‘time’, ‘matter’ & ‘energy’ - a basic, fundamental, elementary, even central component of reality, nevertheless - & however surprisingly - currently its - ‘informations’s’ - ontological identity remains completely unspecified - & totally unknown & wholly misunderstood.
Not only has its correct - & fully verifiable - ontological identity not been established, but neither has a full, good, proper & fully verifiable science of the phenomenon also been first recognised, & then (verifiably) established. Put another way, the answers to the following questions remain completely unanswered. Worse. Even the most respected & widely referenced of investigators suggest answers which are manifestly incorrect.
What is ‘information’ ? Is it a distinct & ‘stand alone’ phenomenon ? What is its standing in the existential hierarchy ? Is it an elemental phenomenon or does it emerge somewhere above the first few ladder steps of the scala naturale ? What role does it play &/or fulfill here in the Universe ? What is its causal efficacy - if it has any ? How does it come into being ? Is it conserved regardless of the interactions in which it may be involved ? What role, if any, does it fulfill in any mental, or mindful, or sentient phenomena, such as, say, ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘knowledge’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, the ‘self’, ‘consciousness’, & ‘self-consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list). Is ‘information’ a strictly physical phenomenon ? Is ‘information’ (quintessentially) ‘digital’, & can (& do) digit-using machines, systems & devices ‘think’, &/or be ‘conscious’, & if so can these devices be ‘intelligent’ ? Are such phenomena as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘knowledge’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, the ‘self’, ‘consciousness’, & ‘self-consciousness’, digitally/computationally tractable, or is some other significantly different set of handling procedures &/or mechanical operations required by which any (dedicated) information-using machine, entity, system, gadget, contrivance or device can be, & is at least during operational times critically involved in any or all of these mental/mindful/sentient phenomena ?
Although I am a rank & raving, aging antipodean amateur, some time ago my own research not too problematically allowed me to recognise - & verify, & establish - not only what ‘information’ is (its ontological identity) - as a phenomenon in its own right (& not just what any of it ‘says’, or means, or does), &, further, in addition, not only determine a full & fully verifiable science of the phenomenon, but also that of all of its closest cousins to boot, no less than such things as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ which are manifestly (demonstrably) all information-related phenomena.
With these particular (& fully verifiable) accomplishments under my belt, it is not difficult to show that one of the principal (& completely inexcusable) reasons we (er, the current intelligentsia, nor yet ‘the common person’) have not so far come to any good & proper - nor fully verifiable - understanding of these otherwise greatly sought-after yet still highly mysterious phenomena is due in great part to the simple fact that the current intelligentsia does not presently also have a good & proper, fully verifiable understanding, or science, of ‘information’ itself - that is, the contemporary cadre of seriously inquisitive person do not presently also have a clear & fully verifiable definition & understanding of ‘information’ itself - which is to say of ‘information’ as a phenomenon in its own right & not just what any of it ‘says’, or means or does. Let alone any of its closest cousins cousins ….
Just saying ….. please be so gracious to reply to this comment if you wish to know more ….
Everything has an intelligence it's not a hard problem at all just because someone adds a bunch of big complicated terms to something doesn't mean it's it's that complicated that's what it seems like John does to me he just talks in terms of big big words does it say anything too complicated he just uses complicated words to say it
Of course it is a dualism, but not the mental-physical chasm.
I just defined it in my last comment
Consciousness is mind or information acting was in time and space in a linear fashion mind is all the information of reality itself Richard's Universal and doesn't have a singular Focus moving in linear fashion are moving at all since it is all times and all places and then changing and I'm changing that is the nature of the Continuum becoming quantized or differentiating it's how Unity becomes Multiplicity and it shows the direct relationship and how they're two sides of the same coin between objectivity and subjectivity which are equally as important
The prestige of HOW YOUthink AI DONT HAVE THAT
Speaking the truth is not pretentious and it's obviously a continuum. I mean there's no place where you can say it begins to where it stops so it has to be a continuum what is the continuum quantized that's why we can divide it up in the present moment yet we can't Define when the present moment is cuz it's always moving. That's the nature of time and its nature of Consciousness as well you can't find a place where it begins or a place where it ends cuz it doesn't it just graduates both ways it is us at defined the present moment not time the same thing goes with consciousness it is acid Define the present moment of Consciousness not mind itself I should say it is us that Focus mind on that present moment or inside of that present entity or outside of it cuz where do you need to find that as we're all made out of Stardust what's inside and what's outside of us we're all made out of Stardust and Light and space Oh I believe that's everywhere except outside of the universe
Consciousness is only a problem if you are a reductive materialist.. If you believe consciousness doesn't reside in the brain but is a fundamental element of the universe it's not a problem.
@@ubiktd4064 We’re looking for an explanation & phenomenological basis. Just assuming panpsychism does neither: it just ignores & sidesteps the question & really doesn’t provide a satisfactory answer IMHO.
A grammar is just fine it's just the fact that you need to try to complicate it dude there's very simple words for almost every complicated word you use
John Vervaeke: Can Science Untangle the World-Knot of Dumbness? Relevance Realization & Meaning
Short answer; No.
Long answer?
Who here understood any of this? Either yall are a lot smarter than me or this is just going over all our heads.
@@anthonytroia1 Maybe it’s because I’ve listened to a fair amount of JV, but I think I did. He can be very technical to a total newbie to his ideas etc.
@@christopherhamilton3621 👌
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the phrase "meaning crisis", but it's hard to understand a "message" when it is part of a 2:00:40 video. I appreciate the timestamps, but since I'm not a professional in this field, Do you have a 3-5 paragraph summary beyond: go outside, touch grass, talk to people? I am not okay with the cliched concept of: "everybody makes their own meaning." So far, that has primarily been used to perpetuate deceit, manipulation, subjugation, control, torture, and us being farmed. Do you have an helpful, TLDR, TEXT version of this, in case I DON'T have to go on a long drive? Here's an example of short, concise and helpful:
Conservatives (like USA Republicans) want SLAVES. That is why they hate same-sex couples who do not create unwanted pregnancies. That is why they hate abortion. That is why they hate contraception. That is why they want to eliminate reproductive education from schools. The *best* way to keep people ignorant and impoverished is with Unwanted Pregnancies. Conservatives want slaves.
The absolute WORST thing a couple can do at this time (Trump 2.0) is to generate additional, superfluous human slaves to be manipulated, controlled, subjugated, tortured and farmed by the Global Capitalist Machine. I feel like withholding slaves is the last recourse we have to fight/punish them.
Humans breed out of ignorance and selfishness. Hopefully the children will be wiser and more compassionate than their parents were.
John demonstrates the way talking with like-minded people inevitably leads to slip-of-the-tongue irrationality like"intelligent behaviours happen without consciousness?" The lack of self differentiation in such statements is the mind-body problem of having no conscious 'awareness' of over 95 percent of our reality, as all the myriad non-conscious processes of the body that make us human. Please try to become aware of speaking the word 'consciousness' as-if the word consciousness is the experience of consciousness? As you try to notice 'how' you are comprehensively prone to self-deception?
Evidence now brings all on par with esoterica America it's orginal line and why they chose tech to improve the human condition.
Usa comes from sources who inspire others. They do not draw from Europe nor Greek its a big part of English law being undermined now. .
1945s Smith_mundt act
Just like how these ai models are being trained
esoterica America was always teaching serfs and slaves alike subjective objects physical objects idealistic objects = mechanical compute eqaul measure
Abolishenist presbyters methodist Baptist teachers would've put this on a board in front of the class 1700s-1800s
✝️ vertical axis z- y mosaic commandments subjective space eternal cosmos endowed by God soul agency = 1inderect lines detectable atoms / individuals ✝️ X horizontal axis classical physics or works.
Kids would categorize the world around them point it out on the chart.
It was always bottom up rule triality of self liberal individualism + Time .
Europe uk. India all fell back under dualism aristocracy wasn't giving anything but personal actors and rulers who loan out democracy.
Usa call to arms we granted liberal power to the state and higher ed to hold determined simplicity pushing infinite sums of complexity upon the many 20 yr old cannon fodder necessary evils to transfer wealth . We achieved those goals now
It was never any other way in English law since puritans encoded this language specifically knowing it would one day
banger comment, definitely makes sense
When usa founder says physicalism is subjective to change without further notice on par with idealism therefore ,
To maximize benefits of atoms that we all work with we must interpret them radically differently thus ,
Customer is always right deterministic simplicity individual liberal responsibility pushing infinite sums of complexity upon beaucracy and higher education to be deal with rigor & create land bridges between tribes who form one nation defined by borders.
( NOT personal responsibility to take whatever the state of school force upon them)
This is reserved for a call to arms only ..
They chose this textualism methodology objectivism = technological development
No one likes how gnostic or literal this footwork is playing out but general forsight to predict one day material sciences abilities and the puritan encoded english would play a role in a building a new beast of burden robot slave and utility of serfs just falls out of issac newtons conformation .
It's a hell of a burden that no one understands why it's this way or why it's the only way to give our kids a chance to defend themselves while eqaulibrium optimization is eventually achieved