Subscription fatigue gets everyone eventually. The IAI charging £7.99 a month for access to the full videos is grossly overpriced and unrealistic for most people already struggling with monthly bills. Rather than charge this high price and attract just a few subscribers, the IAI should reduce it's price to an easily affordable amount of just £0.99 per month for full access and that way we can all afford to learn and benefit from such discussions.
If we want to take this idea seriously we should be positing a mechanism for how it functions, maybe here we get the idea that the brain projects into the environment. I would rather imagine that it could be some observer collapse of the wave function we could be aware of. In the reality of the scenario there are light signals being exchanged and this phenomena would likely be resulting from those signals, so somehow our brain would be interpreting the difference between random signals and signals coming from an observer. More specifically it could be coming from an observers eyes considering the phenomenon posits that we must be being seen in order to experience it. So how would this mechanism be differentiated from random signals, what is it about being seen that changes the signals, and how do we interpret the signals? It gets murky quickly, why would it matter whether they looked at your back or your feet? Personally this seems like a long standing belief based on erroneous assumptions that people are quick to buy into. Even if you are unaware there is a person looking at you, your feeling of it being the case could easily be formed based on other input from your environment such as sounds, smells, vibrations, and sociological factors where you are aware there are likely to be people around. In the test cases the best case should be a person behind a one way mirror where they are given no indication of the presence of an observer, and they should not be given a prompt of when to guess rather they should need to inform of their own volition when they are having the feeling. If there were any rate of success even nearing chance you could then expand to different trials to see how they fare when more signals between the observer and test subject are allowed.
5:17 When your right side in the mirror becomes the left side of the figure standing before you. It is not the same body anymore. You are looking at something else (which has changed in position). So where has the lost information gone? Is it somewhere else in spacetime we cannot see? When I see you in the video image, your left side has become right in my vision. But I still know for you it really is your left side of the body. While standing in front of the mirror I know its left side is really my right side. While it never becomes the right side of its body. It simply cannot. So your 'projection' (if that is what it is, while the lens it goes through is not a mirror), is not the same 'real' body as that of mine in the mirror. Because you know your real left side will never become your right. So somehow we are trained by looking in mirrors, the other person could at the same time be you. Because his left shoulder contains the same image information. Looking at yourself.
So the picture on the surface we see does not really exist. Not for a 'non' (outside) abstract observer. Only measuring the impact on the surface itself.
Has anyone ever had that strange experience where you simply cannot find something that is directly in front of you? You ask someone whether they've seen XYZ, and they say, 'it's right there, in front of you' and it suddenly pops into your field division and consciousness.
The blind person and a stick was due to Gregory Bateson. I was hoping for something more empirical than a series of surveys. Finally, the story about mirrors needed more smoke
It's interesting to me the extent to which the lack of any known existing causal mechanism which might explain a phenomena biases against believing the phenomena may be real - this is a good heuristic for bullshit detection. But science shouldn't be based on bullshit detection heuristics that assume we already know all the relevant causal mechanisms. The question is if the phenomena exists, independent of whether it makes any sense based on our current causal assumptions - I don't know, does it? Has the idea been taken seriously enough to actually see if it does exist, or does it set off our bullshit detectors too strongly to actually to science anymore? (There's a general problem here I think, because science can't test every weird idea, we have to focus our resources on ideas that seem promising - but how do we tell before hand what these are? Surely it can't be the assumption that we already know everything worth looking for on the presumption that we already know all the relevant causal mechanisms.)
@@stephensmith7995 Hehe, what does it tell you about me? Sheldrake thinks the sun (and all stars) are conscious, a giantic hot plasma ball, but its internal structure is less complex as my moring milk shake. Yes, that does tell me something about him, and this video fits perfect, though I admit, I stopped watching it at the half. Of course you can believe all that stuff, and that´s fine, but don´t call it science.
@@Thomas-gk42 You probably didn't read his paper "Is the Sun Conscious?". It's clearly a thought experiment. He never claims that the sun is conscious, he asks the question and steel-mans it as a thought experiment which is clear in his conclusion on page 18 of the paper.
Ahm, we don't even know why an electron exists. We can only describe physics, and poorly. Even Dr Michael Levin has yet to explain why various sorting algorithms have affinity for each other. Who are you to know anything? Who am I? Sit back and enjoy the experience. 😊
@@Thomas-gk42 I don't have fantasies. I'm trying to understand reality as it is not projecting my past experiences and prejudices upon potentially new information. How about you?
laziness and inauthenticity of quotation aside, it's almost as if you're claiming that all unsubstantiated ideas will eventually become mainstream, which is profoundly brainless.
@@MADVESSEL your question assumes non-fringe beliefs exist to which fringe beliefs can be compared to while also denying those non-fringe beliefs exist.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Subscription fatigue gets everyone eventually. The IAI charging £7.99 a month for access to the full videos is grossly overpriced and unrealistic for most people already struggling with monthly bills. Rather than charge this high price and attract just a few subscribers, the IAI should reduce it's price to an easily affordable amount of just £0.99 per month for full access and that way we can all afford to learn and benefit from such discussions.
If we want to take this idea seriously we should be positing a mechanism for how it functions, maybe here we get the idea that the brain projects into the environment. I would rather imagine that it could be some observer collapse of the wave function we could be aware of. In the reality of the scenario there are light signals being exchanged and this phenomena would likely be resulting from those signals, so somehow our brain would be interpreting the difference between random signals and signals coming from an observer. More specifically it could be coming from an observers eyes considering the phenomenon posits that we must be being seen in order to experience it. So how would this mechanism be differentiated from random signals, what is it about being seen that changes the signals, and how do we interpret the signals? It gets murky quickly, why would it matter whether they looked at your back or your feet?
Personally this seems like a long standing belief based on erroneous assumptions that people are quick to buy into. Even if you are unaware there is a person looking at you, your feeling of it being the case could easily be formed based on other input from your environment such as sounds, smells, vibrations, and sociological factors where you are aware there are likely to be people around. In the test cases the best case should be a person behind a one way mirror where they are given no indication of the presence of an observer, and they should not be given a prompt of when to guess rather they should need to inform of their own volition when they are having the feeling. If there were any rate of success even nearing chance you could then expand to different trials to see how they fare when more signals between the observer and test subject are allowed.
Right. Assume it’s mainly sound.
5:17 When your right side in the mirror becomes the left side of the figure standing before you. It is not the same body anymore.
You are looking at something else (which has changed in position).
So where has the lost information gone? Is it somewhere else in spacetime we cannot see?
When I see you in the video image, your left side has become right in my vision. But I still know for you it really is your left side of the body.
While standing in front of the mirror I know its left side is really my right side. While it never becomes the right side of its body. It simply cannot.
So your 'projection' (if that is what it is, while the lens it goes through is not a mirror), is not the same 'real' body as that of mine in the mirror.
Because you know your real left side will never become your right.
So somehow we are trained by looking in mirrors, the other person could at the same time be you.
Because his left shoulder contains the same image information. Looking at yourself.
Mirrors are small pocket dimensions that simulate, in reverse, what we see in ours when they reflect the information back to us
So the picture on the surface we see does not really exist. Not for a 'non' (outside) abstract observer. Only measuring the impact on the surface itself.
Has anyone ever had that strange experience where you simply cannot find something that is directly in front of you? You ask someone whether they've seen XYZ, and they say, 'it's right there, in front of you' and it suddenly pops into your field division and consciousness.
Where does the reflection in the mirror come from if viewed by a camera?
The blind person and a stick was due to Gregory Bateson. I was hoping for something more empirical than a series of surveys. Finally, the story about mirrors needed more smoke
Buffing scopaesthesia to navigate the surveiilence state
I'm skeptical about this to say the least. But hey I'm skeptical about most things in life.
It's interesting to me the extent to which the lack of any known existing causal mechanism which might explain a phenomena biases against believing the phenomena may be real - this is a good heuristic for bullshit detection. But science shouldn't be based on bullshit detection heuristics that assume we already know all the relevant causal mechanisms. The question is if the phenomena exists, independent of whether it makes any sense based on our current causal assumptions - I don't know, does it? Has the idea been taken seriously enough to actually see if it does exist, or does it set off our bullshit detectors too strongly to actually to science anymore? (There's a general problem here I think, because science can't test every weird idea, we have to focus our resources on ideas that seem promising - but how do we tell before hand what these are? Surely it can't be the assumption that we already know everything worth looking for on the presumption that we already know all the relevant causal mechanisms.)
Unfortunately this guy is a pseudoscientist
Science that makes you uncomfortable because it challenges your worldview is not pseudoscience. Your comment says more about you than him.
@@stephensmith7995 Hehe, what does it tell you about me? Sheldrake thinks the sun (and all stars) are conscious, a giantic hot plasma ball, but its internal structure is less complex as my moring milk shake. Yes, that does tell me something about him, and this video fits perfect, though I admit, I stopped watching it at the half. Of course you can believe all that stuff, and that´s fine, but don´t call it science.
@@Thomas-gk42define 'conscious'
@@Thomas-gk42 You probably didn't read his paper "Is the Sun Conscious?". It's clearly a thought experiment. He never claims that the sun is conscious, he asks the question and steel-mans it as a thought experiment which is clear in his conclusion on page 18 of the paper.
@stephensmith7995 okay, thanks
ahm, no it doesn't.
Ahm, we don't even know why an electron exists. We can only describe physics, and poorly. Even Dr Michael Levin has yet to explain why various sorting algorithms have affinity for each other.
Who are you to know anything? Who am I? Sit back and enjoy the experience. 😊
This has happened to me, several times.
Thank you for sharing your well articulated opinion
@@ChadKovac Your fantasy can create a lot, but that doesn´t prove science wrong, right?
@@Thomas-gk42 I don't have fantasies. I'm trying to understand reality as it is not projecting my past experiences and prejudices upon potentially new information. How about you?
handwavy
Nha
i always look forward to uploads from The Rebellious and Ground-breaking Institute of Pseudoscience and Fringe Beliefs.
"The heresy of yesterday becomes the orthodoxy of today."
Helen Keller 💙
laziness and inauthenticity of quotation aside, it's almost as if you're claiming that all unsubstantiated ideas will eventually become mainstream, which is profoundly brainless.
Isn't all belief fringe?
@@MADVESSEL your question assumes non-fringe beliefs exist to which fringe beliefs can be compared to while also denying those non-fringe beliefs exist.